Spin Doctor wrote on Jul 31, 2007 1:47 AM:Erik, do you really know the church is unaware that it is harboring illegal aliens? Do yo really think, "render unto Caesar ..... meant selectively render....? Is the church a non-profit organization equivalent to a person? Stop spinning. The church is defying current US Law when they provide "safe harbor". BTW why do they call it "safe" harbor?

Finally, a voice of reason... wrote on Jul 31, 2007 4:40 AM:Thank you for setting the record straight, Eric...however, when the hateful masses read your enlightened piece, they will summarily discount all you have to offer in an effort to justify their hatefulness.

Taxpayer wrote on Jul 31, 2007 5:03 AM:To Mr. Parish, you have ONLY managed a poor justification for the churches that are "knowingly" harboring these illegals. Whether you or anyone will admit it, the facts are that the vast majority of the day labors are illegal. It does not matter how you try to spin it that is the truth and all reasonable people know that truth. If you support the church then just say so and STOP your feeble attempts to justify their actions! It makes you look ignorant and I have seen enough of your writings to know that you know the truth!

Reardon wrote on Jul 31, 2007 5:26 AM:Enrique Morones and the church in question "facilitate" the entry and continued retention of illegal aliens in this country and they do so knowingly and willingly. It is as if someone with a helicopter is watching a high-speed chase of a bank robber sets down 10 gallons of fuel ahead of the fleeing robbers car in the desert, so the robber will not run out of gas, then drops off protestors behind the robbers fleeing car to delay the police pursuit. He then goes on TV and says, "It is not illegal to place 10 gallons of fuel beside the highway, and there is no law against organized, peaceful protest." He is technically correct, but, like finding a minnow in your milk, circumstantial evidence tells you what the purpose of the fuel and the protest is, and we know the results. Mr. Parish is too clever by half in his "explanation."

hal wrote on Jul 31, 2007 6:01 AM:About Eric Parish, if you read most of his letters, he is one of the most hateful persons toward the U.S. Seems that this country, in his eyes, cannot do anything right. His constant banter and degrading every move makes one wonder why, if he knows what is wrong with this country, how come I don't see his name on a ballet for congress, president or any of his qualifications?

dave from oceanside wrote on Jul 31, 2007 6:44 AM:Eric: We live in a country where the majority of the people here illegally are from south or Central America. Wouldn’t common cense tell you that if you want to find an illegal alien the most likely candidate would be someone of Hispanic ancestry that was looking for day labor employment. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck. If you are of unlimited wealth and compassion then by all means hire these people, put a roof over their heads and make sure you pay their hospitalization and auto insurance. But I would bet you don’t provide these benefits, however you are more then willing to force this obligation onto the general public. After all we are living in the greatest nation in the world so we must have an unlimited budget. If you care so much about these people then go to their country and teach them self reliance, political activism, and give them the sense not to start a family when they have no means to provide for themselves. All that church and people like you are doing is perpetuating the problem at the expense of us, and not solving anything. Last month we as a nation stood up to congress and their special interests to stop this insanity, and we intend to continue until illegal immigration is stopped. Stop hiding behind the loop holes of the law and do something constructive, not destructive to this nation.

Excuse me wrote on Jul 31, 2007 7:08 AM:but why don't you try to get some casual labor through these construction day labor businesses, such as ready labor, and others were you work one day and are paid for it with taxes taken out at the end of the day! And yes you need to show them your social security cards too! If the feds want to tax me for casual day labor, then the people who hire them better be paying Uncle Sam his money and you better have workmans comp, because if I am an alien and hurt myself on your job, I am getting an attorney PRONTO! Then your house will belong to me and you can mow my lawn!

If Eric wrote on Jul 31, 2007 7:12 AM:likes the churches that harbor criminals and the illegals might I suggest he move to Mexico?

Alf wrote on Jul 31, 2007 7:27 AM:The group in this county that "takes the cake" in the hate department is the my-nute-men, hands down. Alf, a Libertarian.

I don't think we wrote on Jul 31, 2007 7:37 AM:Americans have to worry, an illegal I was talking to said he worked only one day of the last two weeks as a painter. He said the others are in the same boat. I think you will find more and more moving to Texas were the construction business is booming! To the churches, you might considering moving there too as your former members are going to stop donating to the churches that offer sancutary!

Mongo wrote on Jul 31, 2007 7:43 AM:So much hate! What is a Church supposed to do? Persecute them?

John wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:07 AM:Eric Parish doesn't hate America. He just holds America to a higher standard than the war mongers and racists in our community. Thanks for speaking out Eric!

Reardon wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:28 AM:Alf: We know what you oppose. The question is "What do you support?" Do you support the use of public funds (schooling)(medical)(law enforcement costs) by illegal alien families? Do you support the sanctuary movement in churches and cities? Do you support illegal aliens driving without licenses and insurance? Finally, like both major political parties, where the candidates do not necessarily support the party platform: Do you support the strong anti-illegal alien position of the Libertarian candidate Ron Paul, or the open-borders platform position of the Libertarian Party?

Patriot wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:30 AM:Eric, where in the federal code does it say "they must come right out and tell you this", or something similar? If I understand you correctly, as long as an illegal alien keeps his mouth shut, you can in good conscience hire him, reap the benefits of cheap labor, and pass on the costs of social services of feeding, medicating, and educating his family to the taxpayer. It must be a peaceful feeling to feel no obligation your fellow Americans who are paying the bills to support the family of someone who came here unlawfully and uninvited. Are you or the church going to buy medical insurance for the day laborer's family and pay his premiums? Buy automobile insurance and pay his premiums? Enroll his children in parochial school and pay the tuition? Help with his grocery bills? If you have compassion for the plight of the illegal, then assume this obligation and do not pass it along to the taxpayer.

Bravo to Eric Parish!!! wrote on Jul 31, 2007 8:35 AM:Thank you for the information. Where do I register to hire day labor in Vista? We can really get a registration certificate fo hire day labor? I was almost swept into the rhetoric by the SDMM but I think if our City officials say it is okay to hire day laborers as long I register then how can it possibly against the law? Thank God for the good hearted people like Enrique Morones who care for the less fortunate. Mr. Morones God will bless you for your diligence, care, concern and persecution. You know Jesus himself was persecuted by the religious zealots in his day. The render unto Caesar what is Caesars was actually meant as a trick question for Jesus to answer. The bible even says "Jesus preceived their wickedness." I preceive the wickedness of all those who quote it especially for wicked reasons. Love will prevail!!

Alf wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:09 AM:"Reardon", as I have said several times before, I oppose illegal immigration. I have also said that there are far more effective ways of getting the job done than being foul-mouthed jerks. That term applies to the spewers ON BOTH SIDES. Historically, those that attack churches are the lowest of the low, the scum of the Earth. Leave the churches out of it. We have ICE, we have CHANNELS through which we can work and those that do not work with or within "the system" are causing more harm than good, unless your definition of "good" is spewing hate. Licenses and insurance for illegal aliens? NO flipping way. Amnesty? Ditto. Amend the 14th Amendment to exclude automatic citizenship for babies born from non-citizens? YES. I will support a candidate who will actually DO something about controlling our borders, BUT that will not be the sole criteria. It is the best candidate, not party, that gets my support. Alf, a Libertarian.

Social Services only for Citizens don't be fooled by the lies and liars!!!! wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:12 AM:My God people most if not all of these men leave their families back in Mexico. Stop whining about the non-factual made up exaggerated propaganda of the minutemen and their ilk. FOR THE LAST TIME PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD CAN NOT RECEIVE SOCIAL SERVICES. GEEZ!!!! I AM AN ELIGIBILITY WORKER AND I THOUROUGHLY CHECK OUT ALL SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS SUBMITTED FOR REQUESTS FOR SERVICES. ONLY THE NEEDY CITIZENS ARE GETTING SERVICES.

dave from oceanside wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:23 AM:Well Mongo, the church, along with the congregation, should pay for all their, the ILLEGAL'S, needs if they decide to skirt the law.

To Tell the Truth wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:38 AM:It may not be a crime to hire a person who is here illegally to work at my home, but it sure is illegal for a corporation to knowingly hire someone who is in the country illegally whether they look white, hispanic, asian or black. In many senses the Catholic church has become a corporation hiding beneath the cloak of being a religious organization. If it is running a hiring hall, it should be considered an employment agency. But, we all know about the Catholic Church's illegal activities as a pedophilia safe haven. I don't believe any of the priests ever came right out and told the Church they were pedophiles, the same as the illegals they protect probably aren't telling the church they violated the law to enter the country! Though everyone knows the truth, the church included!

Repeating the Past wrote on Jul 31, 2007 10:35 AM:Someone above alluded to the hiring of illegals as a form of love. No. It's a form of slavery. There's no love in the logic "they do the work that we don't do." So, what are they a substandard class of people who are entitled to that sort of work? A lot of the logic used to support hiring illegal immigrants is similar to the logic people used to justify slavery. We have federal minimum wage laws for a reason, it's because the government decided that the inequities of the employer-employee relationships (employers have the power) require the government to step in and tip the balance in favor of the employee by at least setting minimum standards. These pro-illegal immigrant hirers seem oblivious or just plain apathetic to any federal minimum wage laws, after all, these people do the work we won't so who cares what we pay them. At the end of the day, there is no love in what these people do by hiring illegal immigrants, their logic is racist and they're taking a percarious step in the direction of slave labor. Hmmm, I wonder if this might be evidence, since many liberals are pro-hiring illegal immigrants and enjoy saying they do the work we won't, I wonder if this is evidence that it was 19th century liberals who were pro-slavery and that it was conservatives who were the abolitionists.

Employment Verification Crimes wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:07 AM:It is unlawful to hire any individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements. Requirements include examination of identity documents and completion of Form I-9 for every employee hired. Employers must retain all I-9s, and, with three days' advance notice, the forms must be made available for inspection. Employment includes any service or labor performed for any type of remuneration within the United States, with the exception of sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home. 'Day laborers' or other casual workers engaged in any compensated activity (with the above exception for sporatic domestic service in a private home) are employees for purposes of immigration law. An employer includes an agent or anyone acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer. For purposes of verification of authorization to work, employer also means an independent contractor, or a contractor other than the person using the illegal alien labor. The use of temporary or short-term contracts cannot be used to circumvent the employment authorization verification requirements. If employment is to be for less than the usual three days allowed for completing the I-9 Form requirement, the form must be completed immediately at the time of hire. The definition of 'employment' cited in the article is given in 8 CFR 274a.1(h) and is directed to the requirement that employers complete an I-9 form for employees. An employer does not need to complete an I-9 form for sporadic domestic employees working in a private home. An administration can form rational regulations that excuse exact enforcement of I-9 form requirements. However, that definition of employment is only for that part of the adminstrative law. The immigration statute is clear: a person who hires ten illegal aliens during a 12 month period, with actual knowledge that the individuals are illegal aliens, is committing a felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) The I-9 administrative regulations will not save the felon. Only the lack of enforcement of the law by corrupted US Attorneys stands between the immigration felons and prison!

sdraoul wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:11 AM:What about the words "knowingly" and "intent" don't the uneducated understand? To violate any criminal law, state or federal, one must have criminal intent, or, in the case of employers, "knowingly" hire someone they know to be illegal for a fact. Just look at the statutes that differentiate between first and second degree murder and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. There is no law that requires an employer to validate the identification presented as long as it or they are listed by the government as acceptable. They need not be verified. Also, that only applies to regular employees not to casual day labor, such labor is exempted from even display of Social sEcurity cards or numbers and intelligent people know that. So, what part of stupid do those hysterics share with their fellow ignorant hysterica?

Bad legal Advice wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:16 AM:Are you hiring day workers to clean your bathroom, wash dishes and clothes, and vacuum the floors? Yard work is not 'domestic' work, nor is it 'IN a private home.' Similarly, construction work is not "domestic" work "IN a provide home.' That is why day workers are covered by the I-9 requirement.

Eric is right wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:33 AM:Minutemen spread lies willy-nilly, including the lie that it's always a crime to hire an undocumented worker. In order to be a crime, you'd have to know that the worker is here illegally AND your hiring would have to be in furtherance of his/her illegality. That's one reason ICE isn't arresting those who hire day laborers.

Sometimes I do wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:33 AM:casual day labor for labor ready, how come I get taxed?

Call the Workers Comp wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:39 AM:board and tell them about American Citizens that are at the day labor sites hiring illegals and these people are not providing workmans comp. I work in the construction industry and the fines will put you into bankrupcy! Also if you are in the construction field, ask the board why you have to pay and the people hiring illegals don't?

Follow The Law! wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:39 AM:Day laborers, those hired for less than a three-day period, must be verified before beginning to work. The procedure for verifying the employment authorization of day laborers is the same as for other employees, and the employee and employer must be sure to complete the I-9 form prior to commencement of employment. 8 CFR 1274a.2(b)(iii) and http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf

Look Who's Talking wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:43 AM:Sdraoul you're wrong. There are such things as "strict liability crimes." Strict liability crimes don't require a mens rea. Which makes it ironic that you're calling other people uneducated and ignornant.

California Law Violations! wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:47 AM:A casual laborer employed for one hour may be considered an employee. Employers who fail to pay unemployment insurance on such casual labor may be criminals. http://www.edd.ca.gov/taxrep/de231k.pdf A day laborer may claim to be an independent contractor to avoid complying with the law. Nice try! In Vista, an independent contractor must have a business license. Without business license, a day worker must be an employee. It is virtually impossible to hire a 'day laborer' who is an illegal alien without violating Federal law, State law, or a City ordinance!! Also, note that almost all of the Cities complaining about the lack of Federal enforcement was not will to enforce their own ordinances, such as business license requirements.

Business Licenses to Illegals Are Illegal wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:51 AM:Federal immigration law (8 USC 1621) already in effect declares that an illegal alien is not 'is not eligible for any State or local public benefit.' According to 8 USC 1621(c) local public benefits include a commercial license provided by a local government.

Win, Win situation!! wrote on Jul 31, 2007 12:21 PM:HIRE DAY LABORERS!!!! Good workers for fair pay what is wrong with that. Capitalism at it's best! I heard you can register on the spot now. No more fines imposed on those going there to hire day laborers. Good workers are there waiting on the corner of Escondido Ave and So. Santa Fe. Forget Labor Ready to much red tape at the day labor site all you have to do is drive up and get your workers. It has worked for me for over 15 years and still does.

Reardon wrote on Jul 31, 2007 12:31 PM:IMHO, illegal domestic workers and illegal yard workers are NOT A PROBLEM except in a symbolic sense. Illegal alien gang-bangers are a real problem, as are illegal alien felony criminals of all stripes. Illegal alien families are a huge financial problem, and it they who join gangs and crowd the schools and hospitals – that problem is NOT the illegal alien workers but their families. Many times it is the workers themselves who drive without licenses and insurance, and that is a problem…but we need to triage the problems – not all problems are equal. Raise the price across the board, but when assets are limited (and they are), concentrate on the major problems, first. Illegal alien yard workers who take the bus to do daily work are NOT A PROBLEM! Focus, please.

This Debate Is Over wrote on Jul 31, 2007 12:33 PM:Notice how 'sdraoul' changes the meaning of 'sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home' to mean 'casual day labor'! The meanings are not the same. 'Casual day labor' can include construction work, and painting, landscaping, all of which DO NOT fall within the definition of 'sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home', which is meant to exempt ocasional babysitters, spring cleaning help, etc. His arguments are not based on a sound reading of the law. The debate is over. Amnesty Lost. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/06/23/news/top_stories/22_30_156_22_06.txt

to 9:12AM wrote on Jul 31, 2007 12:36 PM:Is a public education at a cost to the taxpayer of $10,000 per year not a social service? Schools are by law forbidden to ask about immigration status of the child or the parent. Come one, come all! As for other social services, the birth of a child produces an American citizen, eligibility for a social security number, and eligibility for the parent, regardless of immigration status, to collect taxpayer-paid social services on behalf of each citizen child. Don't tell us that illegal aliens are not working the system to collect benefits for themselves and their families. As an eligibility worker, tell us: is any of this a lie?

The Costs Of Open Borders wrote on Jul 31, 2007 12:58 PM:Are open borders good for the American Indian? www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/07/29/news/sandiego/16_08_237_28_07.txt

Stop The Invasion! wrote on Jul 31, 2007 1:07 PM:Federal permission IS NOT NEEDED for states to stop illegal immigraton. Under an express provision of the US Constitution! 'No State shall, without the consent of Congress, . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded . . . .' US Constitution, Article I, Section 10. California (especially San Diego County) have been 'actually invaded'! The Federal Government is violating an express provision of the US Constitution when it stops constitutionally sanctioned actions by California and it local governments against illegal immigration.

White Crosses Of Aztlan wrote on Jul 31, 2007 1:11 PM:There is a person who loves Aztlan and sets out white crosses. The white crosses represent martyrs (really foreign invaders) for the cause of Aztlan. Watch out for the white crosses of Aztlan. Border wolves, coyotes, and devils use the white crosses to mark their incursions into the territory of the United States.

Example wrote on Jul 31, 2007 1:50 PM:This article is another example of why I no longer read Letters to the Editor by Eric Parish. Talk about hate! This guy seems to hate everything American, supports illegal entry into this country, God only knows what other laws he's opposed to, and disparages those who want to restore law and order. I wonder how many illegals he has living in his home and taking care of their every need.

What next wrote on Jul 31, 2007 2:14 PM:This silly illegal immigration debate has gone on for a while now. I wonder what issue will interest you sheep next? The press is sure to present something new soon and you will all panic about that. Then in say 10 years immigration will be brought up again just to keep you interested. Do us a favor, stay mad and angry, but hide in your house. You are not safe outside. Don't worry the TV will tell you what to panic about next. Boo!

white crosses of Aztlan? wrote on Jul 31, 2007 2:19 PM:The post about the white crosses has got to be the strangest thing I have ever read in these comments. Some of you people need professional help.

La Raza Cosmica wrote on Jul 31, 2007 2:25 PM:35 years ago, socialist Chicanos imagined the fable of Aztlan. Read 'The Plan of Aztlan'. It is a fable of hate and racism. It is a fable because California was never part of Aztlan. The California indians never migrated to Mexico City. Never! Further, nearly all Mexicans stayed in California and became Americans after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The are no displaced native Californianos in Mexico. But radical Chicanos created this fable of hate and racism for teaching young native latinos and illegal immigrants in order to get them to believe that California was unjustly stolen from La Raza. The fruits of this indoctrination fable can be viewed by searching for 'raging racist' on the internet. Illegal immigration must be stopped until the Plan of Aztlan, Brown Power, and La Raza hate groups are exposed, marginalized, and immigrants can come without being seduced by fables of hate and racism.

Has anybody noticed wrote on Jul 31, 2007 3:14 PM:that the politicans keep pointing to corruption, the war, anything but illegal immigration. What they don't realize is when the people forget the issue in 2008, it is going to be all over the place, posting pictures of people killed by illegals, replays of their television and radio talks, you are going to have a lot of scared politicans. Bush doesn't care, he is done, but alot of politicans will be kicked out of office by very irate voters! They did this in the last election talk about every thing else but illegal immigration. They won't get away in 2008 so easy!

Ask, ICE, FBI, and all wrote on Jul 31, 2007 3:36 PM:the other orginaztions to investigate LA RAZA and the other hate groups. But don't let the other agencies know that you have contacted them. Call your Sentaors and Congressmen and asked them why the agencies you have contacted are not investigating as they do with the KKK and others. From what I hear and I don't know if it is true but some of the agencies do have their people in these Mexican hate groups.

Reardon wrote on Jul 31, 2007 3:55 PM:Mr. Marones appeared before the San Diego City Council today and made a three minute speech opposing the dedication of a statue on private land, using private funds, to honor former Mayor Pete Wilson. Mr. Marones doesn't like Prop. 187 and Prop. 209, both of which Pete Wilson supported AND THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA passed, overwhelmingly. Mr. Marones is a headline-hunting gadfly. His reach exceeds his grasp.

I hope that for your sake wrote on Jul 31, 2007 4:02 PM:if ICE appears at these day labor sites, you can tell them you will pay $20.00 and hour and no forced manual labor! LOL Illegal workers frequently lack the employment protections afforded those with legal status and are less likely to report workplace safety violations and other concerns. In addition, unscrupulous employers are likely to pay illegal workers substandard wages or force them to endure intolerable working conditions.

Reardon wrote on Jul 31, 2007 4:08 PM:Forgot to mention -- Mr. Morones says if the statue of Pete Wilson will come down like the statue of Saddam Hussein. THAT will give you further insight into the mind(sic) of Mr. Morones, a hero of Eric Parish.

Cool looks wrote on Jul 31, 2007 4:37 PM:like the Republicians are getting the message, close the border and deport! I guess with 80% of Americans against illegal aliens, these guys sorta want to keep their jobs!

Fran, wrote on Jul 31, 2007 5:03 PM:The Church is not supposed to persecute illegal aliens. It is supposed to obey the laws of this Country. If they meddle in Government affairs they should lose their tax exempt status. They are not doing any favors for illegals by teaching them that it's OK to break the law. And they are hurting American Citizens. Deport the illegals and the Church.

well, wrote on Jul 31, 2007 5:18 PM:Then the churches should stay out of it.

well, wrote on Jul 31, 2007 5:21 PM:It is against the law for anyone to hire an illegal aliesn.

Linda W, wrote on Jul 31, 2007 5:38 PM:The illegal aliens and their supporters can spout all their racist, idiotic excuses for illegal alien lawbreakers. In the end justice will prevail. The American People are fed up and we aren't going to take it anymore. Join the protest march in Washington DC on September 15th for a two-pronged protest against illegal aliens and against the Iraq war with a little bit of impeach Bush thrown in.

Ron wrote on Jul 31, 2007 6:05 PM:So.... let me get this straight? Hmmmmm... in Eric's world, as long as I don't ask, and as long as they don't offer the information.. I'm not breaking "any laws" by employing them? You know, we could play these semantic games all day long, but the bottom line for me is: Those who stand on street corners looking for work, I'd say it's a pretty good bet.. their illegal. Especially on the corner of say... Escondido & Santa Fe in vista, where Labor Ready is about a mile away, where they employ legal day workers. And oh yes, they do deduct taxes, and yes they do ask for your ID & social security card. Common sense, my friend, common sense. I'm not a rocket scientist, but it makes sense.

Twisted Reasoning wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:39 PM:Mr. Parish lets bring some logic here; OK lets say, “ Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifically defines "casual employment by individuals who provide domestic service in a private home that is SPORADIC, IRREGULAR, or INTERMITTENT” as exempt from employer responsibilities and sanctions.” As you know that this situation in the North County and I will include Oceanside, Vista, and Escondido is NOT either SPORADIC, IRREGULAR, or INTERMITTENT because BOSSES were picking up their employees for regular work on a DAILY basis! They worked in construction, landscaping and so forth; the bosses were too cheap to pay competitive wages, disability insurance, and other benefits. In the end WE the TAXPAYERS are stuck with the BILL!

Reardon wrote on Aug 1, 2007 4:03 AM:As usual, we are talking past each other. Those with a social worker mentality want to help the poor and downtrodden of the world; those with police mentality want to enforce the law. The "social worker" wants to help even the major lawbreaker with everyone else’s money, believe in reform, and circumvent the law whenever possible...while the law enforcer wants to catch the lawbreaker, and at least send them away or punish them for breaking the law. Both the social worker and the police mentality have a place in society, but they clash at the margins. This is a rubbing margin of clash. Even internally, we are all more (or less) social workers and police, but we each draw our lines differently -- while the written law draws a bright line "good" on one side, "bad" on the other. The written law calls the culprit in this case an "illegal alien" and at least a minor lawbreaker (border entry without permission -- a misdemeanor), to graduating up to a major lawbreaker (felony return after deportation, false documents, committing criminal acts.) The radical social worker mentality excuses all but the most violent acts because the perp is "poor." The radical police mentality wants strict “law and order.” And the fight rages with everyone choosing their own lines in the sand. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, trying to find a practical solution – but without power to do more than shout in the wind. Eventually consensus wins. The debate will continue until consensus. Politicians are awaiting our decision, so they will not take a hit in the election.

Social Worker Mentality? wrote on Aug 1, 2007 8:53 AM:How does hiring illegal immigrants fit in with a "social worker" mentality? Illegal immigrants are paid less than federal minimum wage laws, they're employed for hard labor, and they do all the dirty jobs that we don't want to do---which implicitly suggests they are substandard people who should do all the dirty jobs we won't do. It's all a step in the direction of slave labor. Don't we have minimum labor standards for a reason? Did the social worker mentality also justify child labor in the late 19th and early 20th century...children working in factories for low wages, hard labor, they had no rights....but, hey, they were poor and needed the money---sounds exactly like the circumstances for illegal immigrants and the decision to hire them. So would the "social worker" be okay with child labor as well?

Reardon wrote on Aug 1, 2007 10:10 AM:I was the Mexican connection in North Poway for two decades -- housed them, fed them when they had no work, arranged their work, and collected their just debts. (Charged them ZERO!)Everyone who employed them paid FAR more than minimum wage -- and paid promptly and accurately with the exception of three home employers who refused to pay and threatened to call La Migra . (I collected each debt with one short visit.) My experience is that today all of the yard workers in my current neighborhood are paid $12-25 an hour! I now oppose illegal immigration because of the change from a voluntary exchange of work and money to a system of family subsistence AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE. But slavery? Not even close! (Not even close to close!) BTW, the family subsistence crises was caused by an effort to PARTIALLY close the border, which changed the twice or three times a year return to Mexico for family visits to moving the family North just once. Everyone works in their own best interest, and the trouble at the border with Mexican gangs and transit difficulty made it easier to move a family once than try to return to Mexico first to plant, then to harvest -- yearly. If you are going to close the Border, it must be CLOSED!

Reardon wrote on Aug 1, 2007 10:24 AM:It occurs that I didn't answer your question. Hiring illegals is not ANY philosophy, it is an exchange of labor. PROTECTING illegals in churches and “sanctuary towns”, and facilitating illegals in escaping the legal costs of their illegal activity, is a "social worker" mentality. Consider the previous remarks as setting my credibility on the subject – I have some experience in the subject. Many of us are schizophrenic on the subject…I know I am. A few are for Open Borders, and a few are “Deport them ALL.” Those of us not at either extreme are seeking a just solution. The Comprehensive Bill presented earlier was not “it.”

Franky wrote on Aug 1, 2007 12:19 PM:Allowing someone to sit down and eat at your table for many moons is considered kind, honorable and humane, especially if they have no food of their own. But, if after many moons, one decides to send them away from their table there must be a reason. Perhaps, the food shortages were running low, perhaps other guests are arriving, who knows the real reason why one would share and then one day not. America has always been and always will be a sharing and loving country as she is the mother of all walks of life. Why would some Americans with immigrant histories still available in their family picture scrapbooks be so virulent in making sure America stops sharing? One word comes to mind and only one and it is NOT love.

Reardon wrote on Aug 1, 2007 2:22 PM:To Frankly: I want you to share. I urge you to share. I'll even beg you to share. But, there is no virtue in forcing ME to share for that which you want! Please take in an illegal family, house them, feed them, put them on your medical insurance, pay $10,000 per child per year to offset that which you want OTHERS to share. Because they are forbidden to drive BY LAW, drive them about. But a social need on your part does not constitute a requirement on my part. STEP RIGHT UP!

Reardon wrote on Aug 1, 2007 9:14 PM:Let me add. BLAH,BLAH, BLAH!!!

Reardon wrote on Aug 1, 2007 9:56 PM:Reardon did not post the "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH" Reardon assumes it was directed at Reardon, but certainly not posted by Reardon. There are always newbies who do not comprehend...

Case Law: I-9 Required For Day Laborers wrote on Aug 2, 2007 8:02 AM:On the question of I-9 forms for day laborers, the 9th Circuit ruled against David Jenkins, who hired day laborers without completing an I-9 form. Jenkins v. INS, 108 F.3d 195 (9th Cir. 1997) Case No. 95-70458, Feb. 25, 1997. Further, the 9th Circuit pretty much invalidated the domestic employee exception touted by Eric Parish [8 CFR 274a.1(h)]. According to the 9th Circuit, 8 USC 1324a(a)(1)(B) applies to all employment in the United States, without an exception for domestic employees.

Reardon wrote on Aug 2, 2007 8:06 AM:Just like all my other posts. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Irrelevant skip the post and move on.

Hazel wrote on Aug 2, 2007 7:40 PM:Thank-you Mr. Parish! Of course the churches know what they're doing, and God Bless them for it. (Or, more appropriately, Que Dios los bendigan por hacerlo!) Millions of people have come to the U.S. in need of a job to support their families and a chance to improve their lives. At the same time, our government has held 500 people without trial at Guantanamo, illegally "rendered" at least 30 people from Europe and other parts of the world to be tortured in Egypt or Syria, illegally wiretapped phone conversations and flouted the law. Pardon me for asking, but precisely who, to all Republicans sputtering in this column, are you calling illegal?

to Hazel wrote on Aug 3, 2007 8:12 AM:You're talking apples and oranges here. It is quite possible to oppose the illegal immigration problem and also oppose what Bush is doing in Iraq. Just because Bush is getting away with what he is doing doesn't mean it is OK for 13million plus to get away with illegally entering the US. It's not only Republicans that have a problem with the illegal immigration problem.

Simple solution wrote on Aug 3, 2007 9:21 AM:No benefits to illegals. This includes the "anchor babies". Read the 14th Amendment!!! It specifically states the children of aliens with no business in the US (and the illegal parent has NONE)are NOT citizens. Cut off the head of the snake, NO anchor baby citizenship, so NO social services. Then the "father" cannot afford to work for slave wages just like Americans can't. Employers will be forced to increase pay and deduct taxes on their previously "under the table" slave wages. Win/Win situation. Taxes spent on supporting millions of illegals decreases and wages go up. Nothing hate filled or racist about it, just CUT benefits and illegals from ALL walks of life and all countries will, of necessity, depart to their beloved homelands were they get NO benefits, either.

Nothing Illegal wrote on Aug 3, 2007 9:29 AM:There's nothing about holding detainees in Guantanamo. What law have they broken? As for torture, those who tortured the detainees were tried and convicted, and thus held accountable. Predictably, you'll say that Bush and Co., should be convicted of torture too. Well, fortunately, the totalitiarian governments Liberals like, in the vein of Cuba and Venezula have not won out, so people here are still innocent until proven guilty, though I'm sure you would convict Bush for War Crimes without any evidence and without any understanding of what a War Crime is. And as for millions of people have come here looking for jobs....there are many problems with allowing illegals in this country, as some groups have shown, it's a huge burden on taxpayers, it's unfair that many illegal immigrant children get subsidized education, it's misleading to say they help the economy, over 60% of illegals don't even have a high school education. A lot of families want a chance to improve their lives and bring money in by having their children work...so do you support child labor too? Maybe we should relax our child labor laws like some 3rd world countries do and have our children working in factories, many families would be more than happy to do in order to have a supplemental income and "a chance to improve their lives."

PedroG wrote on Aug 3, 2007 6:03 PM:To Simple Solution: The 14th amendment says what the supreme court interprets it to say and that is babies born in the US are citizens. You may disagree with that but you have no power. My two sons and my beautiful daughter are citizens with all the rights accorded to them by the 14th amendment. For me, citizenship is not so important because I don't need it to work or support my family. For my children it means they have status equal to yours. God bless America.

OneifbyLand wrote on Aug 4, 2007 6:38 AM:Illegal Aliens are useing every single loophole and oversight their Marxist attorneys and Open Borders advocates can find in our legal system to maintain and continue their illegal invasion of the USA.Illegals posting on this site laugh at our laws and dare us to do anything about it! WE ARE ALL MINUTEMEN NOW!!

PedroG wrote on Aug 4, 2007 8:59 AM:I have been in the US for many years now and have never had a Marxist attorney or any other kind. Attorneys really aren't needed as the government favors our being here. I don't laugh at your laws, I embrace them. Your laws allow me to be here, allowed me to get an education, allow my children citizenship. Your laws allow me to drive a car, to work and to live in a prosperous and free nation. To be fair, some of your laws would prevent these things but those laws are not enforced. It's the government that chooses not to enforce those laws and by making that choice, welcomes us here by the millions. It's a wonderful feeling to live in such a great nation as this.

Carson wrote on Aug 4, 2007 9:38 AM:The man who wrote this must be a lawyer. He would have to be to come up with such nonsense.

PedroG wrote on Aug 4, 2007 1:48 PM:Carson: Do you mean me? If so, what have I written that is nonsense and why do you think so? I have only stated the truth. Where am I wrong?

For One wrote on Aug 4, 2007 3:13 PM:It's troubling for one that you embrace the principle that the Constitution means whatever the United States Supreme Court says it means. Embracing such a principle is very undemocratic because the Supreme Court Justices are unelected and life tenured. There's no way to get rid of a Supreme Court Justice, basically, and yet you seem giddy over the fact that the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amd., in your favor. It wouldn't surprise me if your liberal, as such an undemocratic exercise of power fits into the theory I have that liberals are secretly anti-democracy and all about totalitarian governments (liberals affinity for Cuba and Glover with Venezuela). And when you say "we have no power"---wrong. We do have power. After all, it is the American people who created this country through their own blood on a battlefield rising up against the tyranny of what you seem to advocate---dissaciated-unaccountable government officials making decisions for us. The Supreme Court Justices didn't make this country. So, if we don't agree with the Supreme Court Justices interpretation of the 14th Amendment that babies born in the U.S. are natural citizens, well, we could always exercise our 2nd Amd. right and rise up against the government or we could amend the Constitution, or we could pass a law through Congressw to strip the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the issue of naturalization and make the issue nonjusticiable for them. There is much "power" that we have and can exercise. And it's misleading to say that the government is on the side of people who willfully, openly, and apathetically break our laws. For one, though there are innumerable other examples, Escondido city government doesn't seem to be all that much of a friend of illegal immigrants.

PedroG wrote on Aug 4, 2007 6:15 PM:To for One: Regardless of what you think or what I think, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Many people disagreed when the Court mandated school busing and allowed abortions but they are powerless to change. It's true that these justices will someday die and be replaced and new justices may reverse their decisions, but how many new babies will be born before that happens? The solutions you suggest, armed up rising or changing the constitution might be a pleasant dream, but don't count on it happening any time soon. Do you remember proposition 187 that was passed with a 60% majority? Your government threw it our despite the will of the people. That's what I mean by powerless. The deck is stacked against you. Even in Escondido, for all their posturing about rents, parking limitations, etc. the best they can do is traffic stops to find unlicensed drivers. Remember, too, that for every Escondido there is a sanctuary city that welcomes and protects us. Believe me when I say I'm not trying to be malicious by stating these truths, but unless you can point to my error in thinking I will regard them as truths.

Prop 187 Victory? wrote on Aug 5, 2007 12:33 AM:After the defeat of the 'powerless' majority, the US Congress passed 8 USC 1621 declaring that an illegal alien is not 'is not eligible for any State or local public benefit.' Also, the US Congress passed 8 USC 1611 declaring that an illegal alien 'is not is not eligible for any Federal public benefit'. Of course, once these laws were passed, the appeal of Prop 187 was dropped BECAUSE IT WAS MOOT!! The will of the majority was made the law of the land, not just in California, but across the entire United States. What an inspiring victory for Escondido and the proponents of the Rental Ban to know that Congress will likely pass a similar law banning the renting to illegal alien effective across the entire United States!

Federal Judicial Oligarchy wrote on Aug 5, 2007 12:36 AM:America is a Republic, not a judicial oligarchy, and not a monarchy. In a Republic, the supreme power is held by its citizens entitled to elect representatives responsible to them. A lifetime appoint does not give a Federal Judge the authority to ignore the law. An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of justice and our Republic. However, a political Federal judiciary, claiming to be the supreme voice on political matters, destroys the Republic by converting it into an oligarchy of Federal Judges. That oligarchy, not matter how benevolent or just, is still an oligarchy, and is an insult to the democratic ideals upon which this country was founded. Our Constitution is not perfect, and persons of ego and ambition will, from time to time, expose its defects.

PedroG wrote on Aug 5, 2007 11:29 AM:Federal, Judicial and Oligarchy are big words alright but the fact remains that there are 20 million illegals living in the US and more coming every day. Prop 187 would have kept our children from public schools but our children born here are citizens and all of our children attend the public schools. I, myself had the good fortune to get an education in the US courtesy the beneficence of the American taxpayer and I appreciate it more than a lot of college graduates today. You can rail all you want about "the way things should be" but I live in the real world and in the real world illegals are welcomed by those who need cheap labor and those that need cheap labor hold the real power, financial and political.

Judiciary wrote on Aug 5, 2007 2:11 PM:Pedro, you only attacked the most extreme of my three examples for the "power" people have against the Supreme Court. We could, theoretically, use our 2nd Amd. right and arm ourselves against a despotic government like our forefathers did. It's unlikely, but it's still in the realm of possibilities. However, as for the other two, which you did not address, we could amend the Constitution to reverse the S.Ct.'s decision regarding naturalization of babies born here, or Congress could pass a law to strip the judiciary of the ability to preside over any matters related to it, and thus make the issue nonjusticiable. I find your views troubling. You seem to embrace the principle that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. You're wrong. I suggest you read a law review article written by a Harvard law professor on exactly this issue, judicial sovereignty, that is, the S.Ct. taking the Constitution away from the people. He traces the history of this, and proves that it quite simply is wrong, not the intent of Chief Justice Marshall, and goes against the principles this country was founded on. What you are implicitly advocating is troubling, especially in a democratic country like ours. And it's telling that you resort to advocating undemocratic principles as the means to achieve your illegal immigration goal. The means people use are useful for evaluating the propriety of the end they seek to achieve.

PedroG wrote on Aug 5, 2007 4:15 PM:Judiciary: I am not advocating anything. I am only pointing out what is happening in this country. If congress passed a law limiting the power of the supreme court, don't you think the court would rule that law to be unconstitutional, which it would, in fact, be. An amendment could change the constitution but that would be a long and difficult row to hoe. Believe me, I love the United States and the opportunities I've had here. I have no wish to do anything but live here in peace. When I say the constitution is what the supreme court says it is I say it because it is true. You might disagree, but the court is the final word. It's not my position, it's a fact. It might not have been the intent of the founders or anyone else, but it is still a fact. Tell me where a supreme court decision has ever been overturned by anyone except a subsequent court. Anyhow, what it all boils down to is there are 20 million of us here and no one has the political fortitude to get rid of us.

Judiciary wrote on Aug 5, 2007 5:34 PM:There are plenty of instances where Congress has overturned a Supreme Court decision by passing a law. There are plenty of instances where states, state courts, and lower federal courts don't even follow the US S.Ct., 9th Circuit being a perfect example. Congress can, and has, passed laws that stripped the S.Ct. of jurisdiction and made particular decisions nonjusticiable. If I recall correctly, I think Martin v. Hunter's Lessee was the case where Congress stripped the S.Ct. from being able to hear particular writs of habeus corpus petitions; I'm going by memory on that one, but if I looked in one of my books, I could easily find a few instances of jurisdiction stripping. The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is, and that's evidenced by Congress being able to pass laws that have overturned S.Ct. decisions, judicial restraint, our ability to amend the constitution, the political questions doctrine, and the fact that Congress inveterately passes laws that adhere to their understanding of what the Constitution is and says, and that federal courts, particularly the S.Ct., lacks the resources to be able to review each and every law that Congress passes. So, the S.Ct. has an extremely narrow ability to pass judgments on what the Constitution is because of their lack of resources to review all laws, whereas Congress has significantly greater resources to pass a myriad of laws that define what the Constitution is due to their greater amount of resources. I don't believe it's judicial sovereignty that exists, I think it's more judicial supremacy. The former being the S.Ct. says what the Constitution is, and the latter being that the S.Ct. is merely the final word on the Constitution, but their final word is limited due to their lack of resources. In reality all government branches should be co-equal expounders of the constitution, which was what the founders' intent was. So in the end, people do have a lot of power to reverse the S.Ct.'s decision that babies born in this country are citizens, and we can and should do something about it. I think a great way to go about accomplishing this, is to pass a federal law that says babies born in the United States that do not have legal citizen parents are not going to be citizens. And then Congress should try to pass a law to strip the S.Ct.'s jurisdiction from being able to review any cases arising from this law. There are other ways, but I think that would be one good, valid route to take.

Popular Sovereignty wrote on Aug 5, 2007 5:40 PM:Actually, now that I think of it, I don't think it was Martin v. Hunter's Lessee...I think it was Ex Parte McCardle.

Realist wrote on Aug 5, 2007 6:54 PM:If the federal government would simply enforce the laws on the books, we would not have an immigration problem. It's inaction has led to our current situation. So simple - enforce the laws and the illegals will have to wait in line like everyone else. But since politicians, being what they are, have caused our current mess. It's up to us to show them that we want this problem fixed. Use your voting power and vote for those who will do what they promise to do!

PedroG wrote on Aug 5, 2007 9:03 PM:That's quite a mouthful. Do you really, honestly believe any of that will happen? Who in the government do you think will cause the deportation of twenty million people? Who in the government will cause my three children to be stripped of their citizenship? Who in the government will prevent the children of illegals to be thrown out of school? Who in the government will prevent us from using emergency rooms? You talk about what should be and how things should work but let's stay with reality. The reality is we are here and the executive branch wants us here to supply cheap labor, the legislative branch is pandering for Latino votes, and the judicial branch rules consistently in our favor. Tell me, what am I missing?

PedroG wrote on Aug 5, 2007 10:28 PM:To Realist: That's a mighty big if at the start of your post. What you say is true but that if is a huge obstacle. There aren't any politicians who want to enforce the law. Your voting choices come down to one politician who wants us here against another politician who wants us here. Do you think Boxer and Feinstein will be voted out? Which of the presidential candidates will deport us? They all talk about immigration reform which is a code word for amnesty. You are right, if only ..., but Realist, that isn't real.

fred wrote on Dec 25, 2007 10:15 PM:If you hire any person without a real S.S.I. number-how do you then know that you didn't just hire a criminal on the run or a terrorist illegally in the country? Seems to me greedy damn fool employers come in all different anti American forms!