I'm reading
"Father whose son died in custody knew bringing him would ease entry into U.S." in The Washington Post.
Agustin Gomez Perez was 47 and in debt, and that path would only deepen his obligations.... He and his wife chose 8-year-old Felipe Gomez Alonzo for the journey because he was one of three sons, and the couple had only one daughter together....
Federal officials say they must screen migrants before releasing them, and have been overwhelmed by a record surge of adults crossing with children....
Smugglers often charge less than half the price if a child goes along, knowing that migrants can turn themselves in to border agents and will soon be released....
Gomez Perez was in debt from a long-unpaid electric bill and other expenses. Add in the smuggler’s fee, and he owed more than $6,500. He expected that he’d pay it off after working in the United States....
[The sister] said her father told her Felipe suddenly worsened. His “stomach hurt, that he couldn’t breathe.” “My father started to cry,” she said, recalling his words. “It can’t be. Don’t abandon me here. We have a dream to fulfill.”...
She said the family would ask the U.S. government for two things: Return Felipe’s body so that they can bury him in Guatemala, and let his father work in the United States so that “my brother’s death won’t be in vain.”
I've excerpted the parts of the article that might make a reader want to blame the father. Was the boy exploited? Was he regarded as expendable? There's plenty else in the article that might make you want to blame the U.S. government (mainly for not giving quicker medical treatments). I would also think many readers would mostly feel sad that a boy died and bemoan poverty generally. So I was surprised at how harsh the comments were against the father. I didn't expect this at The Washington Post. This is the most liked comment:
This child's siblings in Guatemala are alive and well. The child was dragged to the US using money that could have paid the father's overdue electric bill, which is not a reason to grant asylum.
That is responded to by another well-liked comment:
Thank you. I am liberal myself but I get tired of people who shut off their critical thinking when it comes to brown people. This guy made a spectacularly risky decision, and his child paid the price. It's on his head. This is, of course, on the assumption that the U.S. wasn't negligent in the kid's care - which is certainly possible. Nonetheless it's his father who endangered him.
The second most well liked comment is:
This is human trafficking with children being used as pawns. Our charity is being abused. We're being scammed.
A well-liked response to that is:
The father refused medical treatment. And dragging that kid all those miles is child abuse. I blame the father and the smugglers.
The third most well-liked comment is:
As much as I disagree with Trump on pretty much everything, you can not pin that on the US government. It is the parents who endanger their children bringing them on a hazardous trip. Just as you cannot hold Europe responsible for the drowning of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. That's confusing cause and effect.
Also:
If we are responsible for the child's death it is because past administrations created the expectation that children are the golden ticket at the border.
And:
So there was no asylum claim. The kid was literally a human shield.
Reading these comments, I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016, when Trump was painted as a racist for saying the situation at the border had to change. I think, for all the press resistance to Trump's fight against illegal immigration, minds have changed. It seems that Democrats are no longer using the idea that it's racist and hateful to want to control immigration. I feel there's been much less talk about the suffering of the children, but when a child dies, like this poor boy, it will be reported, and it gives us an opportunity to see how Americans are reacting to a sad story about a child. I'm amazed at the reaction in The Washington Post. It's so Trumpian!
Posts
334 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 334 of 334It already has that power.
The government was moving toward greater trade freedom. Toward allowing Americans to decide what products to buy without the governments thumb on the scale. We're now moving backward to a world where every consumer and business decisions must first be approved by our government betters.
It already has that power.
The government was moving toward greater trade freedom. Toward allowing Americans to decide what products to buy without the governments thumb on the scale. We're now moving backward to a world where every consumer and business decisions must first be approved by our government betters.
"Isn't it drawing attention to that very problem?"
In a way specifically designed to divert the attention of low information voters away from the real solution to the problem.
1. I don't think Trump gives a damn about diverting attention away from E-verify. No skin in that game.
2. There is no logical reason we couldn't do both: physical barriers and employer sanctions.
@John:We're now moving backward to a world where every consumer and business decisions must first be approved by our government betters.
If you had bothered to follow employment law you would know that we already live in that world with respect to employment.
There is no point in engaging on law with someone who does not know or care or follow what the law actually says.
Gabriel,
Let's suppose you need brain surgery.
Would you rather have a neurosurgeon licensed by a state but not board certified? (or anything else beyond the govt license)
Or an unlicensed but board certified neurosurgeon?
Related: which state would you want doing the licensing?
John Henry
Don't keep us all in suspense, John.
I said it quite clearly. Mandatory E-verify with draconian penalties for businesses (and individuals) found to be employing illegals.
Mandatory E-verify with strict enforcement I should add.
"Mandatory E-verify with draconian penalties for businesses"
So it sounds like you're ok with business decisions being approved by our government betters also. Welcome to the club!
Gabriel said...
"The perfect is the enemy of the good. Me, I'm more about Chesterton's Fence. I don't go around putting fences up, nor do I tear them down without trying to understand why they are there. That makes me libertarian to all but the True Scotsmen."
A Chesterton's Fence reference? True Scotsmen? We speak the same language, friend. The Fence should be taught in schools, at least as how it relates to the culture's relentless chant for "change."
Of course, understanding Chesterton's point would negate every "Change the World" commencement speech before the speaker reached the podium.
Begonia said:
I'm more interested in why central american migrants seem to be ignoring the message that Trump is trying to send.
Perhaps Trump does not have the size megaphone that the promoters of the migration have?
Another form of "translation" is the way "news" is read. I listen to WLS a fair amount and the reads can be full of intonations of disapproval, dismay..all but outright saying "There he goes again.."
John said...
Don't keep us all in suspense, John.
I said it quite clearly. Mandatory E-verify with draconian penalties for businesses (and individuals) found to be employing illegals.
I'd vote for that.
If I had a vote (someday I hope I do), I'd vote for a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for children of illegals and maternity tourists.
I'd be happy to vote for members of Congress who enacted better border security, and budgeted for it. I just don't want some monument to Trump's stupid campaign promises, when what Trump said was that Mexico would pay.
How's that coming along? How are we doing, with getting $5 or $10 or $25 billion from Mexico for a wall?
So it sounds like you're ok with business decisions being approved by our government betters also.
If we want to do it we should do what works and not get sucked into the "build a wall" donor class propaganda designed to ensure nothing actually happens to stem illegal immigration.
If you're really against illegal immigration you should realize that wall building is propaganda designed to distract you from actual solutions.
@John Henry: If I need brain surgery, I learned about that from someone who has some kind of document asserting that he has expertise.
I have no way of my own, without myself following brain surgery as a career, to gauge how much that documented expert actually understands my case. I have my own career, and my own expertise, which I spent my life acquiring.
In this circumstance, I have to substitute my judgment for the judgement of others who claim the authority to judge.
Given that, I don't see all that much to choose from in the scenarios you presented. If the surgeon is board-certified, how do I know that the board knows? If I need to go to a state not my own, how could I possibly judge the effectiveness or relevance of their licensing? (In my own state I wouldn't judge, I live here so I'd get a surgeon from here if I could unless I were told that I HAD to go out of state for my case...)
But I can't sit on my hands can I? I have to operate in real time. And so do you. So I substitute the judgment of others for my own, as do you.
If I had a close friend I trusted who had all the equipment and was highly skilled but for some reason had no credentials, and I had someway to know that for myself, I might forgo all the documentation, but how likely is that I would be in that position?
AA: Reading these comments, I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016, when Trump was painted as a racist for saying the situation at the border had to change. I think, for all the press resistance to Trump's fight against illegal immigration, minds have changed. It seems that Democrats are no longer using the idea that it's racist and hateful to want to control immigration.
I disagree with just about all of this. As I mentioned above, what you're seeing in the comments was already a trend well before Trump. I think your perceptions are those of a member of a class that has been very well-insulated from the negative effects of the uncontrolled mass immigration of recent decades. If you're "amazed at the reaction" in the WaPo comments, you simply haven't been paying attention to the issue until now.
I'm not pointing this out to criticize you for your en-bubbled obliviousness - I'd put myself in the same class-category. It's just that I've been paying a lot of attention to this issue for a lot longer, probably as the result of non-standard but highly illuminating life experiences that left me unsatisfied with the received opinions of my peers on the issue. (Twenty or so years ago I was mouthing the same unconcerned platitudes about immigration that I find unbearably idiotic today.)
As far as my peers go, over the years their concern for the negative effects of immigration has varied directly with their ability to continue buying their way out them. The wealthiest among my relatives, friends, and acquaintances haven't budged from those twenty-year old opinions. (Or their love affair with cheap illegal labor.) But over the years the level of wealth needed to afford a life protected from all that wonderful multicultural enrichment, that they had so graciously recommended to the troglodytes lower down on the economic food chain, has been slowly but inexorably increasing.
And as far as the Dems abandoning "racism" as a cudgel...I'm not seeing it. If anything, the "mass immigration now, mass immigration forever (or yer a Nazi)" propaganda has been getting louder and stupider (i.e., mob-oriented) and the hostility expressed toward "bad natives" (those other white people) more virulent.
@John:Mandatory E-verify with draconian penalties for businesses
No you are just contradicting yourself. E-Verify does not make it legal for businesses to refuse to hire illegals. E-Verify makes it legal for employers to hire and employ them. Making it mandatory does not change any of that. E-Verify is expensive theater.
You don't know that because you don't know what the law is or what E-Verify does or how it works.
What you want is a completely different thing from E-Verify. That thing does not exist. That thing would involve changes to Title VII, which you don't know about either.
Dick Durbin Republican Chuck: "I oppose any and all things that sound like, or encourage in any way, "open borders."
Like your beloved fake "journalist" heroes" your lies and false narratives no longer have any persuasive power and fool no one.
But hey, you got loony lefty Inga to rush to your defense.
Again.
As always.
Unexpectedly.
"Harlem Before Honduras!" (Hat tip to Laslo: RNC/Trump2020 Campaign take note!!)
Chuck: You hold some conservative positions.... but your hatred for Trump and those icky "Deplorables" far, far outweighs your conservative positions. You would happily trade mandatory, enforced gay marriage if in exchange you could execute Trump personally and make sure that no one like him ever arises again, to challenge the "elites."
That's the core issue, isn't it? Trump allowed those deplorable reprobates who don't listen to their "betters" to have a voice and to drive policy. Worse, they are all so coarse and unruly! Why won't we Trumpists listen to reason and know that getting along is soooo much more important than winning and defeating Democrats? They are good people, after all, and really, what harm can Nancy and Chucky Schumer actually do? Not like Orange Man Bad, of course; why, Trump --gasp! -- eats two scoops of ice cream, the heathen!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Chuck, your only friends on this blog are Inga and Ritmo, two posters who waffle between "Killing Republicans is always a good thing" and "Maybe we shouldn't encourage openly killing Republicans, wink wink". Aren't you the least bit ashamed that you, an alleged conservative, have as your only defenders and friends here leftists that openly despise and call for the elimination of conservatives from public life? Those are your friends and defenders!
Plus your weird idea that Ann Althouse cares what you think, more than she cares about what any one of us think... what makes you so pompous and self deluded?
The only commentator I think Ann really likes (besides Meade, naturally) is Laslo. The rest of us? She appreciates us but probably wishes we would all grow up. And as for you, it's pretty plain that you are a royal pain in her ass, what with your demands that she cater to your whims and address what you want addressed. Hey, Ann's posts sometimes rile me up, and other posts are useless, but that is my opinion--my tastes are not hers and vice versa, and it's her blog. You don't seem to realize that, and you really, really should.
Stop thinking you are an elite that everyone should worship and listen to. We fought the King of England to get away from the aristocracy, no matter how much you think you and your leftist friends should rule us.
--Vance
On second thought, John, it's possible you know how E-Verify works and what the law is, but are lying. I don't think it's charitable for me to assume that.
You cannot use E-Verify to check on someone before you hire them. In order to use E-Verify at all on someone who might be illegal, you MUST hire that person first. That is the law.
So under what legal system can we impose draconian punishments for following the law?
If you don't know this is how the law currently works, you are in no position to recommend any alternatives.
It is difficult for Trump to get heard here in the US too; hence the histrionics to at least get some kind of attention.
There is the uncertain party trumpet of Fox News and pipsqueak Althouse, but what are they against the full blast of the MSM marching band?
I wonder about the Democratic Party's "turn to the left too." I doubt Democrats across the country have changed much; nor do I think the gerontocrats of Congress have. I think the Party is just leaderless at this time, and those passing for leaders today are just running after the media begging: #Me too! #Me too! Don't forget about me; I am with you toooo!
Gabriel said...
@Hoodlum:How has mandatory E-Verify use not been a key Republican legislative goal?
E-Verify does not prevent the hiring of illegals, by design.
That's fair and a good point: I suppose what I should say is "mandatory E-Verify that would prevent the hiring of an illegal immigrant."
John said...
Question about Trump and Republicans. Have they introduced legislation to strictly enforce e-verify with severe penalties for employers who are found employing illegals? If not then the wall is just distracting propaganda, isn't it?
As Gabriel pointed out E-Verify isn't all it seems to be, but in fact Trump's 2019 budget allocates about $25M to expanding E-Verify.
To your larger point about the wall: almost no one argues that "A Wall" is the most efficient means of controlling illegal immigration. What it is, though, is a concrete (excuse the pun) action that we as citizens can see and confirm is actually happening and will be difficult to reverse. It commits the government to taking an action and taking it in a way that we can confirm. The problem with the many better methods of enforcement are that they depend on the whim of the same government officials who've proven unworthy of trust. The citizens don't trust the government! GWBush said he cared about enforcement and budgeted a bunch of money for enforcement. Did enforcement happen? No; the money was spent elsewhere and the policies were either changed or simply ignored.
It's an old story: remember when Pres. Clinton's crime bill was going to "hire 100,000 cops?" I remember, and I also remember what happened: the Federal gov sent huge amounts of money to various states and departments and those depts spent the money how they saw fit. For many that meant hiring a few people and boosting the salaries of others (who were counted as "retained" and therefore part of the bogus 100k number). Some decided they needed some fancy new equipment, some boosted training budgets (and maybe took the dept to a convention or two), etc. It wasn't all wasted but it definitely did not put 100k new cops on the street. And that's an example where the departments WANTED resources--they were broadly aligned with the stated goal of the federal government (which was to give them a lot of money). When, as here, the case is one where the individual agencies and departments may not agree with the stated federal policy (and where the federal agencies themselves really don't, either) you're even less likely to actually get what the politicians say you're going to get.
The Wall, then, is admittedly inefficient and suboptimal from the perspective of decreasing illegal immigration. It's the only equilibrium outcome, though, because NO ONE TRUSTS THE GOVERNMENT to actually take action in any of the many other more-efficient ways. The Wall can't be easily destroyed when the next administration shows up, can't be intentionally undermined (so to speak) in a way that's not obvious, etc. It is a physical commitment that locks in a policy--the policy of at least minimal enforcement of the laws (to which all parties SAY they agree).
So: you're not wrong that it's inefficient and in a sense wasteful. You are wrong that it's a distraction or propaganda. It's a genuine shame that it's necessary, but given the well-earned distrust we all have for the federal government it is in fact necessary and likely the best option.
Gabriel,
What are you trying to accomplish with your objections?
If it needs to be that Employers must, after hiring and at regular intervals thereafter, confirm via a biometric system that their employees are legally entitled to work in the US then that’s what we should do. Why not offer helpful sugggestions rather that be an aß about it?
The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.
Brandon Judd, president of the NBPC, said that finding directly contradicts a March 22 report by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which looked at data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the Homeland Security Agency that oversees the Border Patrol — and concluded that agents didn’t want more fencing.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/
John said...If you're really against illegal immigration you should realize that wall building is propaganda designed to distract you from actual solutions.
If we can't get to "actual solutions" then how actual are they? If I could trust the Feds to enforce the laws then we wouldn't need a wall. I can't trust the Feds, though; they've shown an unwillingness to enforce the laws we have and give me no reason to think they'd be more willing to enforce additional laws. Therefore any "actual solutions" that require me to trust the Feds aren't something I can agree to.
A wall is either built or not. It's easy to see if it's being manned/monitored properly and if properly built will require little in the way of ongoing maintenance to be effective. I don't have to trust the Feds in that case--I can see that they took action.
@Hoodlum: The Wall can't be easily destroyed when the next administration shows up, can't be intentionally undermined (so to speak) in a way that's not obvious, etc. It is a physical commitment that locks in a policy--the policy of at least minimal enforcement of the laws (to which all parties SAY they agree).
So: you're not wrong that it's inefficient and in a sense wasteful. You are wrong that it's a distraction or propaganda. It's a genuine shame that it's necessary, but given the well-earned distrust we all have for the federal government it is in fact necessary and likely the best option.
Enthusiastically seconded. And that's why the wall gets such vociferous opposition. It's not something you can interpret away, though of course it too can be undermined.
Wall plus actual employment eligibility enforcement would totally take care it. Actual employment eligibility enforcement would do 99% of it as happens in Canada. But it's up to the bureaucrats to do that and no one trusts them to.
@John:What are you trying to accomplish with your objections?
You can't figure out how to get somewhere without knowing where you are now.
You have no idea how the law actually works now. So nothing you suggest makes any sense.
Once you know how things work now--laws that pretend to control employment are built to be unenforceable because the political class is in favor of cheap labor but will get thrown out of office unless they pretend not to be--then you can make constructive suggestions about how to get there. If there is actually where you want to be which I doubt.
John's point about preventing willing employers from hiring willing workers (who happen to not be legally present) is why I'm not a good Libertarian. He's not wrong per se but in ignoring the practical context his moral point is off base.
We have a welfare state. We have birthright citizenship. We live in a world where our American values and ideals are outliers and where we're much wealthier than many hundreds of millions of people. We as a nation don't believe in assimilation as a goal like we used to (thanks Left & Academy) and we're too "compassionate" to not use Government to "solve" people's problems.
All of that, that we don't in fact live under a libertarian regime (and that in fact only a tiny minority of us want to!), means implementing just an open borders policy in the absence of enacting other large scale and meaningful libertarian reforms would be an utter disaster.
So: you're not wrong that it's inefficient and in a sense wasteful. You are wrong that it's a distraction or propaganda. It's a genuine shame that it's necessary, but given the well-earned distrust we all have for the federal government it is in fact necessary and likely the best option.
Hear, hear!
Gabriel said...Wall plus actual employment eligibility enforcement would totally take care it. Actual employment eligibility enforcement would do 99% of it as happens in Canada. But it's up to the bureaucrats to do that and no one trusts them to.
Visa enforcement by itself would probably help even without full employment eligibility enforcement--if you overstay and are at real risk of being deported it wouldn't matter much if you had a job. As it is you can overstay and not worry about being deported just as you can sneak in (with no visa) and not worry.
Anyway you have to stop the bleeding before you can address the problem that's already here. If you can't stop the flow it barely matters if your policies work better for the people already here. More importantly you CANNOT have a bargain/make a deal on what to do with the people here now if you can't prevent MORE people from coming in. It's just not possible. Having an effective wall can make compromise possible.
"Therefore any "actual solutions" that require me to trust the Feds aren't something I can agree to.
A wall is either built or not. It's easy to see if it's being manned/monitored properly and if properly built will require little in the way of ongoing maintenance to be effective. I don't have to trust the Feds in that case--I can see that they took action."
THIS!
Blogger John said..."..... I can't imagine any parent sending their kids to a daycare that doesn't do a background check on the staff."12/28/18, 11:33 AM
This has got to be one of the dumbest comments I've read today. "John" really, parents should or have the capability to check every employee? How about employee turnover - check them out continuously? John, if you have kids, the school your kids went to, you of course had "a background check done on everyone at the school, administration, part-time teachers. I guess you believe that schools have no duty toward this endeavor? What people see in this comment is the John is foolish in his thinking and pushes outright propoganda. Kills your entire argument - fool!
So nothing you suggest makes any sense.
Being an pedantic aß isn’t adding anything to the discussion. Just so you know.
Blogger Gabriel said...
@John Henry: If I need brain surgery, I learned about that from someone who has some kind of document asserting that he has expertise.
I have no way of my own, without myself following brain surgery as a career, to gauge how much that documented expert actually understands my case. I have my own career, and my own expertise, which I spent my life acquiring.
In this circumstance, I have to substitute my judgment for the judgement of others who claim the authority to judge.
Sure, we are in agreement there. I have no ability to judge whether a neurosurgeon is competent. I rely on some sort of certification as well.
And that was my question. Which of the two certifications would you prefer, if the neurosurgeon had only one? State or Board? (I do realize that one most likely has to have the state license in order to get the Board certification. I'm hypothesizing here)
I'd prefer the Board certification myself:
1) Lots of politics in state MD licensing, who gets licensed, what they can do and more. This varies from state to state. Who decides the licensing requirements? Doctors, particularly neurosurgeons in this case? Doctors who actually see patients or doctors who are mainly civil service administrators? Or just plain civil servants, hopefully with input from doctors.
2)The knowledge in the Board certification is likely to be more current than that in the state license.
3) Does the state license look specifically at neurosurgery and qualifications? Some states have only one kind of MD license. The same for someone sitting in an office and passing out cough drops as for the neurosurgeon. (Do you know what your state licenses doctors to do?)
4) The state worries mainly about politics, the Board worries mainly about patient outcome. (Some boards better than others. I'm assuming a good one here)
Certification is helpful. We agree on that.
We seem to disagree on who is better able to do it. You seem to think the state, I think private agencies.
I also think we need more than certification. Don't trust that piece of paper by itself no matter who issued it. See what is behind it. Talk to others in medicine and see who they think the best neurosurgeons are. Look at the reputation and history of the board certifying the doc. Look at what hospitals let them practice and so on. You've always seemed an intelligent guy capable of researching something like this. Even if it is outside of your, and my, expertise.
It's your brain their going to tinker with. If you don't care about it, nobody else outside of your family will.
BTW: I practice all over the country and the only license I have is a state driver's license. I used to have a master Refrigeration and AC state license but that lapsed back in the late 70's. I am a Certified Packaging Professional and a former Fellow of the Royal Society but most of my clients have no idea what either of those mean and care even less. Neither one has anything to do with any particular competencies I have.
Quelle horror!! My clients actually have to decide for themselves whether I am competent before they let me tinker with million dollar machines. How in the world can they do that without the state holding their hands?
John Henry
Actual employment eligibility enforcement would do 99% of it as happens in Canada.
That does nothing about the drugs and human trafficking.
Apparently it’s less “immoral” to let those things continue.
But it's up to the bureaucrats to do that and no one trusts them to.
Hence why the wall is a distraction. IIRC the vast majority of illegals are folks who overstayed their visas. They are not people who snuck in. The wall will do nothing to stop the vast majority of illegal immigration. Can you see that the wall is just donor class propaganda designed to distract you?
We need ongoing emoloyment verificatikn and struck visa enforcement.
Vance you keep doing the same thing, and it never works.
You can't credibly tell people here what I think or what my positions are. But you keep doing it.
And now you are telling the readers here what Althouse and Meade think, and who they care about, and who they don't care about.
You keep doing that, Vance. It is a terrible, useless, pointless habit. It is a mark of your inability to make a point of your own, and your inability to take on opposing positions. Every post of yours, in which you mention me, is filled with what you think my position must be, because of some presumption on your part. I've told your before not to do that. Now you are doing it with respect to Althouse and Meade. That's very much of a "Vance" issue, and not a "Chuck" issue.
I don't think that Althouse particularly likes me or cares about me at all. I could quit this blog's comments pages and she would not care a bit, I expect. She might be relieved, that "clutter" such as any back-and-forth between you and me, or Drago and me, or any number of others and me, ight come to an end.
But let's be clear about this: I haven't started today's "clutter." You did. You took me on personally, after I posted a comment that was directed at Althouse and the specific subject matter of her blog post. You went after me, unilaterally. I never mentioned you. I don't care about you. You provoked this, in the same way that other regular Althouse commenters have tried to with me. Drago; President-mom-jeans; Full Moon; et cetera. There will be a dozen posts aimed at me personally on this comments thread by Drago in no time at all, when apart from this single comment, I have not mentioned him at all.
Althouse says that she dislikes this kind of clutter and that it detracts significantly from the readability of her comments pages. I think she's right about that of course. But it's her site to monitor; I am not making anything off the Atlhouse Amazon portal. She could do much to control the problem by making examples out of a few of you.
Employment is only a part of the picture. It's also welfare for illegals that needs to stop. Paid not to work is enticing.
@Darkisland/John Henry:We seem to disagree on who is better able to do it. You seem to think the state, I think private agencies.
Actually I don't, it depends on what we're talking about. I think Ul is pretty effective and more so than state licensing or inspection would be. And then you have kosher certification where you couldn't have the government weigh in...
Quelle horror!! My clients actually have to decide for themselves whether I am competent before they let me tinker with million dollar machines. How in the world can they do that without the state holding their hands?
Because a million dollars can be paid for. People's lives cannot be restored. It doesn't sound like your packaging machines are going to kill anyone who isn't in their immediate vicinity.
I'm a physicist by education. There's no licensing for physicists because our work typically has so little danger to the public (though a couple exceptions where killing large numbers of people was the purpose do come to mind). Engineers, however, are licensed for that reason. Doesn't mean that no engineering project kills anyone ever, or that no physics project won't. It's a trade off. We trade compliance costs to lower the expected cost in lives and dollars. For physics that almost always makes no sense, and for engineering is almost always does make sense.
Blogger hstad said...
John, if you have kids, the school your kids went to, you of course had "a background check done on everyone at the school, administration, part-time teachers. I guess you believe that schools have no duty toward this endeavor?
I'm a different John but my kids went to a school, K-12, that was unlicensed by the state. As a school. The building was OK'd, health department inspected the cafeteria, working conditions regulated by dept of labor and so on.
The school did not require licenses of the teachers. Did not allow the Dept of Education to approve curriculum or let the state do anything else having to do with student, teachers or education.
On the other hand, it was accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. Very high college acceptance rate. It cost me about $80/month in 1996 when my son graduated. Plus another $1,000 or so a year for books, fees and misc.
The state tried, since the 50's, to bring this and other similar schools under state regulation and failed. (I don't know if this has changed since they graduated in the 90's)
Basically, the schools said "Fuck you. We know how to educate kids and we don't think you do. Now piss off."
And the govt pissed off. And was pissed off about it. But not enough to try to change it.
They are Catholic schools and the govt knows better than to screw with the church.
Hmmm.... state license or private accreditation? Which one should I send my kids to? It was pretty much a no brainer based on the quality of the schools.
Speaking of schools, I am qualified and have substantial experience teaching in post-grad programs. No certification other than CV required. I would need to go through a whole load of horseshit here and in most states in order to get a license to teach in a public high school.
@Darkisland / John Henry:
Places where I think state licensing inappropriate:
Cosmetology
Plumbing
Interior decoration (yes, there is state licensing for this)
Mortuary services
Kosher or halal certification
"Organic" food certification
Driving (I think insurance companies should handle this)
Food safety (whoever is your liability insurer would probably do better than states do)
Rating safety for electrical devices (insurance companies do this currently)
If you must have a source of credibility for these things, I don't see why it need be the state.
I'd reserve the state for situations where non-users of the service are likely to be put in danger, or where there would be a problem in distributing the costs fairly.
parents should or have the capability to check every employee?
Eye roll. The daycare should check every employee (as they already do) with the background checks confirmations available to parents on demand.
Why don't you trust people to do what's right for themselves, their children and their businesses? Why is government always the answer?
@John / Darkisland:Speaking of schools, I am qualified and have substantial experience teaching in post-grad programs. No certification other than CV required. I would need to go through a whole load of horseshit here and in most states in order to get a license to teach in a public high school.
I'm in the same situation. I live in a state with an exceptionally strong teacher's union. My kids go to private school, because I CAN judge for myself how well as school is or is not working. Just wish I could get the school taxes back.
@john:Why is government always the answer?
You cannot quote anyone actually saying this. All you can quote is people saying they can think of cases where it is, and you also agree with that.
Blogger Gabriel said...
Engineers, however, are licensed for that reason.
Engineers are, essentially, certified by a private organization based on testing, recommendations, experience, education. Roughly analogous to the Neurosurgery Board certification. The state license, in most states, is just a recognition and legal acceptance of the certification.
The majority of engineers probably unlicensed.
My daughter is a ChEng. She got her Engineer in Training certification in 99 or so. Has never bothered to to get her PE license. It is just not necessary for most engineers. She is currently a plant manager. She has licensed engineers who work for her if the state needs something stamped. For a building permit, report or the like.
John Henry
"IIRC the vast majority of illegals are folks who overstayed their visas."
I don't think you recall correctly. According to Pew,
As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to visit or reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time.[...]
Another smaller share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission...
The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entered the country illegally.
So a wall, if it were built and it worked, might put a significant dent in that "more than half".
@John: The daycare should check every employee (as they already do)
No they don't. Not if they're operating unlicensed. Very common for poor people to pay someone in the neighborhood on a cash basis. Those people are not doing background checks, they can't afford it.
Do you want the heavy hand of government to stomp on their freedom to trust their children to whom they see fit? Then you're a statist no better than anyone you criticize.
Places where I think state licensing inappropriate:
I've seen this process close up for years.
*The legislator receives campaign $ from industry group hoping to use licensing to reduce competition.
*Legislator proposes licensing bill, touts "consumer protection."
*Bill passes, industry group collects fees to offer the training needed to receive license.
* The legislator receives campaign $ from industry group...
@Darkisland / John Henry:She has licensed engineers who work for her if the state needs something stamped. For a building permit, report or the like.
We're not saying anything different. You can work as an "engineer" without a license, yes, even without an engineering degree (since an engineering degree doesn't make you an engineer either, at best it prepares you to learn to be one) but for some purposes a licensed engineer is required for the reasons I said. Same with actuaries and accountants--for some purposes you need the state stamp. And the reason there is not usually purely rent-seeking.
Not if they're operating unlicensed.
Why do they need to be licensed? Let the parents decide, based on their resources, where best to spend their money. It may be statistically more important for them to buy a safer car vs. the risks associated with a licensed daycare. And I'm sure we all agree you can't trust the government to actual add any value. So why demand a licence?
Trump says he will stop all financial aid to Guatemala and Honduras. :-) When will we do likewise for all the other corrupt countries we support?
The sight of hungry little children on those tv ads for charities couldn't help but move all but the coldest of hearts...
A wise man once said the film crew's probably got a sandwich.
Not so fast. I just heard a news report on the radio. It was all about how the govt. is being heavily critcized for the death of two kids at the border. The narrative lives on.
You guys make my point on religion. You not Christians, you Pagans lusting after the blood of children. - Howard
I'm agnostic and I won't touch a drop of that blood without a healthy dose of pepper.
John: Hence why the wall is a distraction. IIRC the vast majority of illegals are folks who overstayed their visas. They are not people who snuck in. The wall will do nothing to stop the vast majority of illegal immigration. Can you see that the wall is just donor class propaganda designed to distract you?
Translation: "I've had my ass [excuse me, "aß", ed.] handed to me after each deployment of my shopworn anti-anti-open borders talking points, so I'll retreat to bleating about how the reaction to my regurgitation of donor class propaganda actually proves that *you guys* are the ones buying the donor class propaganda.)
@John:Why do they need to be licensed? Let the parents decide, based on their resources, where best to spend their money. It may be statistically more important for them to buy a safer car vs. the risks associated with a licensed daycare. And I'm sure we all agree you can't trust the government to actual add any value. So why demand a licence?
At first you said that no parent would ever put their kids in a day care that didn't do background checks. When it was pointed out to you that some unquestionably do, NOW you shift the argument to how people should spend their money.
But your question "why demand a license" has been answered. Voters have decided that the risk of harm to children, who aren't making the decisions about how to spend the money, outweigh the increased cost of compliance. Some people make choices that increase the probability of harm to their children and too many voters found that unacceptable.
Just like you have to buy a car with seatbelts--too many people made the wrong choice, and people got hurt who never even got to make a choice (such as their kids). So society took the choice away.
You can disagree with the result of calculation but you cannot pretend now that the calculation was not done or that the motive was purely state-worship.
So Angle,
What's more important the wall or shutting down the employability of illegals? Shouldn't we at least attempt to punish those who are using illegal labor to drive down wages and hurt America?
@Jim:A wise man once said the film crew's probably got a sandwich.
The film crew sometimes stand by and watches them die.
@john:What's more important the wall or shutting down the employability of illegals? Shouldn't we at least attempt to punish those who are using illegal labor to drive down wages and hurt America?
Virtually everyone who has made the mistake of engaging you has answered that question. We can't trust the government to make laws with teeth or enforce them if they make them. If the wall is up, it prevents people from coming in merely by existing. Not everyone. Not as effectively as doing some other things that we can't trust our government to do.
You know this perfectly well--I don't think you're arguing in good faith at this point.
If walls don’t work, then let Beverly Hills and all those who believe in open borders take theirs down. They should be willing to walk their talk.
We can't trust the government to make laws with teeth or enforce them if they make them.
Because the donor class's useful idiots are distracted by the wall rather that insisting on strict enforcement. You're being used!
Just admit you're being distracted by the shiny object wall. And being bamboozled, yet again, by donor class propaganda.
John correct. Trump shooting Moon with Wall. He doesn't need to actually win because it's the futile and stupid gesture that matters to his demographic base. The power elite like the current don't ask don't tell a wink is as a nod immigration policy.
What's more important the wall or shutting down the employability of illegals?
Why do I have to choose?
Tandem.
then let Beverly Hills and all those who believe in open borders take theirs down.
Or better yet confiscate the Beverly Hills homes of those employing illegal labor. That would work better than a wall I'm sure you'll agree.
Why do I have to choose?
Political capital is a limited quantity.
It’s Trump he has none so, might as well go for the brass ring.
I really don’t care. I think it’s hypocritical to be for open borders and live behind walls or doormen.
John Henry said:
My daughter is a ChEng. She got her Engineer in Training certification in 99 or so. Has never bothered to to get her PE license. It is just not necessary for most engineers. She is currently a plant manager. She has licensed engineers who work for her if the state needs something stamped. For a building permit, report or the like.
If so, these engineers stand to loose their licenses if someone reports them to the board.
A wise man once said the film crew's probably got a sandwich.
Also, moving vans would be more useful than food in cases where the hungry live in a desert.
@John:ust admit you're being distracted by the shiny object wall.
Um, no. I had to tell you what E-Verify does and how it works because in your entire life you have never bothered to learn about employment law or E-Verify and you have never complied with it.
And being bamboozled, yet again, by donor class propaganda.
Like E-Verify? That I had to tell you how it worked? Available evidence would indicate that you have been bamboozled.
confiscate the Beverly Hills homes of those employing illegal labor. That would work better than a wall I'm sure you'll agree.
Please explain how many laws, and which ones, would have be changed in order to do this. Because is it not illegal to employ illegals, that's the first change you'd have to make. And of course you'd have to set up an enforcement apparatus and somehow staff it with people who actually would enforce it. All that sounds like it would take away longer, be more expensive, and be less effective, than a wall.
Oh right, you don't know because you've made it your business not to know, or to lie about what you know.
However, we all here know what a wall is and how it works and what it costs to build. With all the laws you say you are in favor of changing--even though you don't know what they are or how many or what they say--your proposal is much more hypothetical.
And that is EXACTLY why you are making it. You know the wall will work in spite of what anyone wants, and that it will be hard to get rid of, and it will be much easier to see how it works and if it works.
You all have to admit that Pelosi would have a lot harder (if not impossible) time opposing a strict employment eligibility system. And by focusing on the wall Trump is just (knowingly or unknowingly) pushing donor class propaganda.
And for those worried about enforcement I'd offer a bounty system. If you report someone for employing an illegal and they are found to have in fact employed an illegal then you'll be handsomely rewarded. No need for the government to do the actual enforcement. Let the profit motive do the enforcing.
be less effective, than a wall.
At best the wall would only keep out about half of the illegals. Strict enforcement supplemented by a bounty system would solve almost the entire problem.
Because is it not illegal to employ illegals, that's the first change you'd have to make.
Why hasn't that been done already? As I said Pelosi would have a lot harder time opposing that. So what hasn't Trump proposed it?
And that is EXACTLY why you are making it. You know the wall will work in spite of what anyone wants, and that it will be hard to get rid of, and it will be much easier to see how it works and if it works.
You're just selling more open boarders donor class propaganda. How can I look like I'm doing something without really doing anything? The answer? The wall.
I mean we can't go around confiscating the homes and businesses of those employing illegals? The donor class surely won't stand for that.
Just ask yourself, how likely is it that the wall is just an open boarders donor class diversion?
@John:Strict enforcement supplemented by a bounty system would solve almost the entire problem.
Why not the death penalty? You;re not even trying to be serious. You are trying to propose anything, no matter how ridiculous or unworkable, EXCEPT a wall.
Why hasn't that been done already? As I said Pelosi would have a lot harder time opposing that.
Because, as I have repeated to the point of nausea, the political class makes fake laws that have no consequences. Pelosi helped create the fake laws. They will do it again. They do not want immigration laws enforced. The people do. The lizards in government don't.
A law is much easier to subvert than a wall. That's why you hate a wall and want to propose more laws. If Congress wanted real laws that could be enforced we'd have them. They can't lie about a wall, it's there or it's not. You keep changing your ground of argument for this reason. Anything to not have a wall.
And that is why there will be one.
@John: How can I look like I'm doing something without really doing anything? The answer? The wall.
You just said it would stop half. Are you lying now or were you then?
I mean we can't go around confiscating the homes and businesses of those employing illegals?
Weren't you a libertarian a few minutes ago?
You are so transparent.
What kind of libertarian demands confiscation for legal behavior? The fake kind.
how likely is it that the wall is just an open boarders donor class diversion?
Given your tactics and reaction, zero. Given the media propaganda and the lack of support in Congress, zero.
You know it too, Moby.
Maybe Mexico won't pay for it. Maybe its a fence in spots. You can call it whatever you want to call it. Bullshit. Trump campaigned on erecting a wall. Trump was elected. And elections have consequences. One of them is deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
John said...
You all have to admit that Pelosi would have a lot harder (if not impossible) time opposing a strict employment eligibility system.
Yes, sure. That has been true for years now, though. Decades, really. The fact that the Republicans haven't been pushing it and haven't been able to get it done even when in power is a good reason not to trust THEM, either. Employment eligibility programs are going to be only as good as enforcement. If the people in charge divert enforcement funds to other priorities who would know? If the people in charge decide to exercise prosecutorial discretion and not pursue deportation what're you going to do about it? If that happens under both Dem and Repub administrations...well to whom do you then turn? Oh, right, to someone like Trump! To someone who says the first step should be a physical commitment that's visible and easily verifiable.
There's no reason to assume people cheering for a wall don't understand that ceteris paribus some other option would be BETTER, John. Most of those people understand that. It's just that they also understand that it's not possible to make a deal to get those better options from where we are now.
Besides which there's nothing that says we can't "do" those other options, possibly even as part of a grand bargain, after The Wall. We can't do just employment verification first because that requires trust and there's no reason for us (the citizens) to trust them (the gov officials). Build The Wall first and maybe there can be some trust. See?
It's not just WaPo. Instapundit has been gleefully posting links to statements from "liberal" Democrats in days of yore (like the 1990s) raising Cain on illegal immigration.
Its true, both sides of the aisle benefit from illegal immigration and an open southern border. Trumps got both sides by the short hairs and is not beholden to any donor class. Despite all his shortcomings he understands the dangers of unchecked mass immmigration.
Instapundit has been gleefully posting links to statements from "liberal" Democrats in days of yore (like the 1990s) raising Cain on illegal immigration.
Because the business community is the only group that supports open boarders and they've moved heaven and earth to keep them as open as possible. Before Trump the republican party was the party of open boarders. Jeb ran on increasing economic growth by dramatically increase the level of immigration.
John: What's more important the wall or shutting down the employability of illegals?
Lol. I've known toddlers who were more adroit at attempted deflection than this.
Gabriel to John: You know this perfectly well--I don't think you're arguing in good faith at this point.
Over time (and excessive internet use) I've come to the conclusion that there's a lot more genuine limitation in capacity for objective argumentation and objective analysis out there, than "bad faith". It's a learned skill, and I don't think it's taught much these days. Yeah, I know, I make fun of John, but I've just seen too much of his kind of bizarre, meandering, endlessly self-referential commenting, this inability to engage *at all* with what other people are actually saying and to participate in a dynamic, open-ended exchange, to believe that it's all "bad faith".
I think it's at least possible that he sincerely thinks that nobody's addressed his questions. The problem is that understanding the answers to his question requires that he get outside the pre-formed set of assumptions he brought to the discussion, and he's unable to do that.
Captured
"The Sheriff said that Arriaga crossed into Arizona from Mexico illegally a couple of years ago and it is believed that he had been working on farms in California's Central Valley.
Arriaga is accused of killing Corporal Singh when he conducted a traffic stop on Arriaga's pickup truck in the small town of Newman early Wednesday morning, for suspicion of driving under the influence."
Angle,
How about this. The wall is to Trump what single payer is to Bernie Sanders.
@Angle-Dyne:Yeah, I know, I make fun of John, but I've just seen too much of his kind of bizarre, meandering, endlessly self-referential commenting, this inability to engage *at all* with what other people are actually saying and to participate in a dynamic, open-ended exchange, to believe that it's all "bad faith".
No, he's a Moby. One minute, child molesters should have the legal right to work at daycares because the almighty free market will sort it out, next minute we should make laws that confiscate the homes of people who employ a illegal in their own home.
He started out as a True Scotsman Libertarian and ended up as the True Scotsman Defender of Employment Law. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.
But Poe's Law, eh.
I was absolutely appalled at Trump's decision to separate children from their families at the border.
That's a result of the Flores Consent Decree that minor children of illegal immigrants cannot be kept in detention with their parents for more than 20 days, and that consent degree existed before Trump was elected. So it wasn't Trump's decision to separate children from their families at the border, it is a mandate of a court.
And in cases where it takes longer than that 20 day limit to process a claim for asylum, the adult remains in custody, and the child must be removed from custody. Hence, the child is separated from their family.
It happens to every criminal that has a child - they are separated from their children while they are in jail or prison. And sneaking over the border is a crime. Regardless of if you agree with the law or not, it is the law. The blame rests solely on the shoulders of the adult who attempted to sneak into the country with a minor.
I generally make it a point to not engage with posters who I believe are trollish and/or are not posting in good faith. But I still find them confusing. Why do some posters keep posting when it's clear (at least to me, anyway) that they've lost whatever argument they were trying to make? Why is it they not only remained undeterred but in many cases actually increase the volume of their posts? What is it that they believe they're accomplishing? I can only assume that they're either to stupid to realize that they've lost or are hoping that readers will somehow skip all the posts that deconstruct their arguments and offer valid counter arguments. Or maybe they're just trying to increase the signal noise, as if repeating the same nonsense over and over again will somehow make people more likley to believe it.
Lets just be sure we are speaking of BORDERS. And the biz comm.is definitely NOT the only group pushing for open ones.
"He started out as a True Scotsman Libertarian and ended up as the True Scotsman Defender of Employment Law."
I think what John really wants in his heart of hearts is preserve the right, nay, the duty, of every American to wallow in as much cheap Chinese consumerist crap as they can borrow the money to buy. (All else is secondary.)
Hey Paco! Have you priced a Nikon lately?
Blogger John said..."You all have to admit that Pelosi would have a lot harder (if not impossible) time opposing a strict employment eligibility system."
You're naive.
@Paco Wove:every American to wallow in as much cheap Chinese consumerist crap as they can borrow the money to buy
I buy Chinese crap, and don't need an insecure border or fake laws in order to do so.
@Original Mike: Wikipedia has this to say about the 1986 law:
"Employer opposition to employer sanctions began to subside, partly because of the 'affirmative defense' clause in the law that explicitly released employers from any obligation to check the authenticity of workers' documents."
Yeah, no doubt. Pelosi herself was not actually in Congress until 1987.
Gabriel; Engaging John is a fools errand. He knows less than nothing. Yet he argues his stupidity, with vigor and volume. You have already experienced his circular posts.(cant call it logic). His posts are much like Democrats and Trump. If they had a position before, no matter what, it will be abandoned, rather than support President Trumps position. John position has evolved from,the govt should have no power to tell you who to hire, to, the govt must do background checks on those you do hire. Let's just say intellectual consistency is of no interest to him.
Gabriel: No, he's a Moby. One minute, child molesters should have the legal right to work at daycares because the almighty free market will sort it out, next minute we should make laws that confiscate the homes of people who employ a illegal in their own home.
He started out as a True Scotsman Libertarian and ended up as the True Scotsman Defender of Employment Law. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.
As long as we're speculating, I'd agree that it's probably some percent "I'm pissed at Trump because I benefit from the immigration/trade status quo" (the Moby motivator). That's consistent with the haphazard flinging around of whatever tired CoC talking point is near to hand.
But it's also some percent my original speculation, since there are different classes of Mobies, after all. He's a shit-tier Moby who doesn't know he's shit-tier.
"Instapundit has been gleefully posting links to statements from "liberal" Democrats in days of yore (like the 1990s) raising Cain on illegal immigration."
John: "Because the business community is the only group that supports open boarders and they've moved heaven and earth to keep them as open as possible. Before Trump the republican party was the party of open boarders. Jeb ran on increasing economic growth by dramatically increase the level of immigration."
Not exactly my point, Moby, but thanks for playing.
“My daughter is a ChEng. She got her Engineer in Training certification in 99 or so. Has never bothered to to get her PE license. It is just not necessary for most engineers. She is currently a plant manager. She has licensed engineers who work for her if the state needs something stamped. For a building permit, report or the like.
If so, these engineers stand to loose their licenses if someone reports them to the board.”
The reality is that most engineers these days don’t bother becoming a PE or licensed with some state boards. Your computers, airplanes, cars, rockets, etc are almost entirely not designed by PEs or licensed engineers. I worked for several companies that had thousands of engineering graduates as employees, and only a handful would be PEs. I think that it was Texas where I worked where tens of thousands of people with BS, MS, and PhDs in engineering couldn’t legally be called “engineers” because they lacked state licensing. Fine. The ones I dealt with, the ones with MS and PhDs were called “scientists”. Everyone was happy - the “scientists” because that is more prestigious than “engineer”, and the state board of licensing because their monopoly over the title wasn’t being violated.
I looked into the EIT and PE tests a couple decades ago and realized that they tested knowledge that is essentially useless for most of the engineers I know. Ditto for the licensing exam. I joked with my kid recently about that - with MS/PhD in engineering, they knew no PEs, and had no interest in even looking at the tests. That said, licensing engineers may have some legitimacy, by, for example, protecting consumers against buildings falling down, etc. But they aren’t going to keep cars, or computers from crashing. Those products are orders of magnitude too complex to adequately test by civil servants, who tended to graduate at the bottom of their classes several decades ago.
"A law is much easier to subvert than a wall. That's why you hate a wall and want to propose more laws."
See Sanctuary Cities.
This father has invented the reverse of the “anchor baby”: the anchor dead child. Hardin is right again (dammit).
I think that the genius of Trump is that he has brought skepticism about illegal immigration mainstream. We have had decades of our elite opinion leaders, and their MSM enablers, lying through their teeth about illegal immigration. And they mostly did this by blurring the line between legal and illegal immigrants. Sure, immigrants in general, may be more law abiding than the native born, and may provide a financial benefit to the country. But that is when you include legal and illegal immigrants into the same class. The reality is that illegals are significantly less law abiding, more violent, etc than legal immigrants or the native born. And cost, on average, nearing $100k a year each. Somehow the law that is supposed to keep them off welfare doesn’t work. Surprise. Surprise. Just like e-verify was supposed to keep them from working. Or all of the immigration reform was supposed to end illegal immigration. It’s all smoke and mirrors intended to confuse and appeas e the rubes living out in flyover country, who have to actually have to deal with the problems caused by our elites ignoring our problems with illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. Adding to their (supposedly illegal) welfare costs, illegals also don’t pay their fair share of federal, state, and local taxes meaning that the rest of us help pay to school their kids, for their food healthcare, and the police and prisons to address their increased criminality. And Trump has made those realities much better known to us rubes in flyover country, who can not afford private security protecting gated communities, etc.
And guess where Speaker-to-be Nancy Palsy has been spending Christmas vacation while part of the government is shut down over the Dems refusal to give Trump 1/28th of the money that Medicare can’t track or account for, for his wall? For roughly 1/1,000 of the federal budget. She was apparently seen at an exclusive resort in Hawaii, where rooms run from roughly $900 to $5k a night.
Mockturtle 1:30
Or corrupt states ...
Bruce,
Pelosi is in austerity mode during this crisis, spending mere crumbs:
"This is not Pelosi's first holiday vacation to Hawaii. In 2011, it was reported by the Hawaii Reporter that Pelosi had in previous years stayed in a $10,000-a-night suite at the Four Seasons Resort in Kona for her holiday vacation."
So much here on licensing and qualifications. I e worked as a stationary engineer/boiler operator since leaving Navy active duty in 1994. There are no uniform regulations at all for boiler operations. And a high pressure boiler contains a whole lot of energy. Rochester, Buffalo, and NYC require stationary engineers to be licensed. The rest of the staff doesn't. I currently work for the feds. 100 PSI plant manned by one operator 24/7. Previously I worked for the state. The state requires two operators on duty for any of their boilers being operated above 15 PSI. A lot of non-government boilers have two operators present M-F days, and has their security force make rounds through the boiler room at other times, and keeps an engineer on call. If security hears an alarm, they call him in.
I've looked at a number of case studies of boiler steam explosions in recent history. They all had the following in common. Boiler wasn't manned 24/7. Operators weren't licensed or union. Operators had duties other than operating the boiler, operating was only part time.
So should there be a nationwide system governing boiler operations? Evidence from looking at boiler casualties seem to indicate it would be a good idea. Is it going to happen? No. Boiler operations are invisible to most everyone. Out of sight, out of mind
One of our current employees came from a plant that suffered a gas explosion. Actually less dangerous than a steam explosion. Contractors finished work late on a Friday. 3 phase forced draft blower had 2 wires reversed and was running backwards. It was a M-F plant. No one noticed the various pressures weren't normal; they only noted the boiler lit off. Left it as the primary boiler for the weekend. Just before the two operators came in Monday enough unburned gas has gathered in the boiler casings and flue that when the boiler cycled on instead of ignition there was an explosion that took out all 3 boilers. An operator fully familiar with plant parameters taking readings once an hour would have shut the boiler down and switched to another. But no one was there to notice... He's still on their payroll. They call him in for consulting. Apparently the facilities insurer has given them a deadline to man the plant 24/7. If they don't, they won't be insured.
"A law is much easier to subvert than a wall. That's why you hate a wall and want to propose more laws."
Especially under the rubric of rule of law society, etc.
Am I using *rubric* correctly?
Original Mike said...
"Before he ran for president and adopted the Dem Party immigration position, Bernie Sanders opposed illegal immigration on the grounds that it depressed already low wages for low-skilled labor in the US."
That actually argues that the base drives immigration policy, not the other way around.
Was Sanders trying to appeal to the Dem base with this move, or was he trying to appeal to Dem donors? There's no question that his opposition to low skilled immigration, and vociferous opposition guest worker programs and the like, put him out of touch with the progressive consensus on who is entitled to come to the US and under what moral regime such questions ought be considered. I suppose social elites, their allies in the MSM and academia, comprise a base.
This latest death probably was caused by influenza B. This is the flu season so on the border we need to explain to parents - especially to fathers travelling with small children intended as admission tickets to the US - that you, you personally, have to take care of them. Antibiotics are useless, visiting a doctor really does nothing. Doctors and governments really can do nothing about the flu. It's up to you as a parent to fight a virus on behalf of your child. Fluids, rest, watch them for fever spikes, everyone must behave as a mother would.
"except that this is, in fact, a subject of heated scholarly debate today"
Scholarly debate is what you do when you have all your important problems handled, usually by other people who don't have time for scholarly debate. It's a good gig if you can get it.
I have a friend who is a libertarian. He is against building codes. After a few people die, the market will force out builders applying lower standards. And the dead folks' relatives will have a right of action in tort. He could never understand that there are certain collective action problems it is impossible for anyone but a central authority to solve.
If a citizen brought a sick child to the hospital people would ask him how the kid got sick, and if they said: "well I marched him a thousand miles with no provisions for his care, medical or otherwise." Well then a citizen might be in a little trouble.
Trump is going to win this politically, he doesn't need to lower his demand, he should raise it. In the coming weeks, more children will die at the border, and more citizens and LEOs will suffer from crime perpetrated by illegals. If I were Trump, I'd demand an additional 5B funding for every week that the Dems continue the shutdown.
I doubt there are very many people in this country who are actually in agreement with the Democratic position of open borders. Some may have feelings and emotions about the people, and want them to be helped, but I think few want them to actually get what the Dems want them to get, which is entry, right to work, and all the benefits of citizenship including the right to vote. If it was Obama or Hillary resisting that exactly the way Trump is, the public opinion would probably be over 80% in favor of that.
The conservative writer, Bre Payton, just died suddenly of the flu. This emphasizes my point that flu can be deadly for those wanderers on the border dragging along their young children since the flu killed someone inside the US with all kinds of medical access. And flu is likely since this is the flu season and young children are high-risk. But maybe these parents think visiting a doctor (which ordinarily they could not do) will take care of the illness. Not so. Flu is a virus and it is the parents of these children on the border who must treat it with bedrest and fluids, watching for sudden dangerous escalations. They need to understand this. Maybe a handout.
Bruce Hayden,
The plans and documents listed by John Henry are such as normally require a registered professional engineer's stamp and signature. When that is the case, the person "sealing" the documents must be in practice for himself or employed by another registered professional engineer, who will be ultimately responsible for him.
Thus say an architectural firm that wants to do the structural design for its buildings and other structures "in house" must have a registered engineer as one of the principal partners of the firm
A registered professional engineer may not stamp any documents as an employee of a non-
engineer.
Those are legal requirements.
I agree that otherwise the registration requirements is only as good as the engineer's opinion of himself and how seriously he takes his pledge of professional practice.
"Howard is recycling the old blood libel. I prefer Strumpit though, as a commenter. Strumpit at least shows some imagination."
I kind of miss America's Politico.
Kind of.
Chuck screamed:
Fuck off, Vance. Don't tell these people -- and don't try to tell me -- what I believe, and that I a for "open borders." I'm not. I favor a very broad range of tough immigration enforcement, and border protection measures. You're just a stupid fucking liar when you tell other people what you think my position is.
It's so nice that Chuck, along with his criticism of Trump's tone is here to uplift the tenor of our political debate.
He favors all sorts of measures..except those that could somehow help Truuuuuump!
Surprised how everyday Americans sound Trumpian? I'm not:
No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.
Or put another way, "In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
Angela Merkel lets the mask slip:
“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”, according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.
It is fun to watch all of the globalist tools argue against the wall.
But you will lose.
Trump is going to win this fight and a landslide in 2020.
I wonder how many people saw this on Christmas Day? I thought it very nice to find under my Christmas tree:
MERRY CHRISTMAS! While Democrats Were Sleeping President Trump Ended Catch-and-Release Policies
By Jim Hoft, www.thegatewaypundit.com
December 25th, 2018
While Democrats were sleeping and ruining Christmas for everyone else President Trump announced new changes to United States immigration procedures.
This is a much larger shift in policy than was originally reported by The Gateway Pundit back in November
Without much media fanfare President Trump ended George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s insane catch-and-release policies.
From now on illegal aliens caught entering the United States will be sent to wait in Mexico while their applications are processed. Once their “notice to appear” is available they will allowed in to attend their court hearing. Aliens without valid claims will be deported to their home countries.
Process
Aliens trying to enter the U.S. to claim asylum will no longer be released into our country, where they often disappear before a court can determine their claim’s merits.
Instead, those aliens will be processed by DHS and given a “Notice to Appear” for their immigration court hearing.
While they wait in Mexico, the Mexican government has made its own determination to provide such individuals humanitarian visas, work authorization, and other protections. Aliens will have access to immigration attorneys and to the U.S. for their court hearings.
Aliens whose claims are upheld by U.S. judges will be allowed in. Those without valid claims will be deported to their home countries.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/merry-christmas-while-democrats-were-sleeping-president-trump-ended-catch-and-release-policies/
Ho, Ho, Ho!
While I like the policy and was pleasently surprised to see it, what really surprised me was Mexico's cooperation.
I guess that is the art of the deal, right? Why would Mexico not say "Not just no, but HELL NO!!!"
Seems like real progress is being made here.
I guess that is the art of the deal, right? Why would Mexico not say "Not just no, but HELL NO!!!"
Well, as someone else observed earlier, remittances account for Mexico's second largest income [after oil]. Guatemalans and Hondurans working in the US might interfere with what is a very lucrative industry.
"Reading these comments, I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016..."
Ann, I have commented on here since at least 2016 that there are PLENTY of Democrats who want to fix immigration, I have commented more times than I can remember about it. These people, myself included, have existed with their opinions intact since long before 2016. (And haven't you heard the Republicans quoting all those Democrats getting tough on illegal immigration, and about the need to curtail illegal immigration??? Where have you been?)
This is NOT new. There is nothing radical going on. Maybe these people finally are speaking up, but they have been there all along, just as I have.
(Part of the problem though is that Trump has now curtailed legal immigration. That does not help. But that's another story for another time.)
"Howard is recycling the old blood libel. I prefer Strumpit though, as a commenter. Strumpit at least shows some imagination."
Howard is just a troll. Trumpit is a bona fide nut case, occasionally providing entertaining, even hilarious, posts.
Gospace,
Are you a Marmaduke fan? If not, here's an example at random https://www.powermag.com/classic-marmaduke-marmys-first-lesson/
He inspired my KC Boxbottom character.
I don't think Puerto Rico even has a stationary engineer's license. I know we never had one back in the 70s and 80s when I was supervising 100PSI boilers distributing steam to 5 buildings. I'm an ex-MM and have experience with marine boilers. Not really qualified to be a stationary engineer, though.
Sort of related: In about 1980 Puerto Rico instituted a licensing requirement for water treatment plant operators. There were 2, one for potable and one for waste treatment.
We had a guy who met all the qualifications running our waste treatment plant. We kept asking for an application for him, we kept getting told they were not available yet. This was still going on in 1985 when I left the company. We would ask a couple times a year and keep it on file so we show we were at least trying to comply with the law. Corporate used to be very annoyed that we were technically breaking the law.
We found out that the reason no applications were available was that the govt water plant operators had a strong union and were fearful that if their guys applied, they might not qualify.
So, threats were made of strikes if the law as passed.
And I supervised an illegal waste treatment facility.
John Henry
Blogger Hagar said...
The plans and documents listed by John Henry are such as normally require a registered professional engineer's stamp and signature. When that is the case, the person "sealing" the documents must be in practice for himself or employed by another registered professional engineer, who will be ultimately responsible for him.
That varies from state to state, Hagar.
In PR and some other states professional engineers can be employed by private companies to do professional work within and for those companies.
John Henry
John said...
6-year-olds running lathes, legal or no?
Legal. We should just let the free market work. I'm sure we can all agree that few (if any) consumers would buy a product from a company that uses child labor.
*************
Yeah...free market....fuck the six-year olds losing their eyes, hands and arms from working at spinning machine lathes shooting sparks and metal fragments. Free market....wooot!!!
Snort
Just to be clear, I am not an engineer, I have no engineering education, I have no engineering degree and I do not practice engineering.
I have been accused, in the past of impersonating an engineer and want to be very careful not to do it.
Back when I was employed, the local engineering board "Colegio" complained that by having the title of "Engineering Manager" I was impersonating an engineer.
Alcon's lawyers argued the operative word was "manager" not "engineer". After a couple months of back and forth my boss said screw it and "promoted" me to "Manager, Facility Operations". No change in duties, no "engineering manager" was hired and when I left, my replacement, who was a PE, resumed the Engineering Manager title.
Some of what I do professionally might be considered "Industrial Engineering" but that is such a vague and undefined term, I've never worried about it and it's never been a problem.
John Henry
Jay Elink said...
mockturtle said...
I guess that is the art of the deal, right? Why would Mexico not say "Not just no, but HELL NO!!!"
Well, as someone else observed earlier, remittances account for Mexico's second largest income [after oil]. Guatemalans and Hondurans working in the US might interfere with what is a very lucrative industry.
********************************
Trump could "temporarily" tax those remittances and thereby de facto get Mexico to pay for that wall.
He's got broad powers re tax policies, which Obama's Tres. Sec. Jack Lew pointed to when Obama imposed a tax change hindering foreign corporations from buying American companies.
Not exactly on point here, but evidence that the POTUS is not powerless to alter tax policy in the national interest.
“This is NOT new. There is nothing radical going on. Maybe these people finally are speaking up, but they have been there all along, just as I have.”
Exactly. It’s interesting that Trump is given credit for changing the minds of Democrats, liberals, when their minds haven’t changed at all. Reminds me of Cultists giving their leader credit for the moon showing up every night.
“But you will lose.
Trump is going to win this fight and a landslide in 2020.”
This from the guy who said the Republicans would be up 60 seats in the House after the 2018 midterms.
“Ha, Inga stopped by to complain that there aren't enough rapists and murderers in America and it's racist to not import a few hundred million more.
It's the only way to read her stubborn support of "no borders, nowhere!" Chuck is right on board the "no borders" train... he of the "I oppose open borders But....." and we all know that everything before the "but" is meaningless.
--Vance”
Vance, when you quote someone and use quotation marks, you’re supposed to be actually quoting them, not the voices in your head.
A dead child is a very sad story. However, the government of Guatemala is the problem, a father who want to escape poverty in Guatemala is a problem. About 25% of the world has NO electricity, regardless of ability to pay. Should we let them all in the US?
"I believe the American culture has changed radically since the fall of 2016, when Trump was painted as a racist for saying the situation at the border had to change"
Because you're an evil bitch who wants to undermine America and paint Americans as racists because we believe in America and protecting her against those who would abuse us the way you do. This father DID drag his child thousands of miles to the US border to be used as a political pawn. The father AND ONLY THE FATHER is responsible for his child's death.
Evil, anti-American bitches like YOU want to paint Americans, and Trump, as racist as rationale to blame America and Americans for the father's awful and politically motivated actions. Fuck you and all like you. Evil bitches like you want to erase America's borders, destroying our country because a child dies due to the abusive actions of a non-American father.
I am glad you wrote this blog, though, making it clear you think the problem is Americans and not those who use Americans' goodwill as a means to exploit and demean us.
the government of Guatemala is the problem, a father who want to escape poverty in Guatemala is a problem
Immigration is a normal, even healthy choice. Whereas mass migration, including refugee crises, is evidence of something catastrophic, often anthropogenic, and should be addressed through emigration reform, for the people who leave, and especially for those left behind. Also, immigration reform is evidence of another class of problems, including choices that are self-defeating in the long-term.
John said...
"6-year-olds running lathes, legal or no?"
Depends on the lathe, John.
Post a Comment