« The New York Times - It Is A-Changin' | Main | I Totally Robbed Jay »

Un tigre en el tanque

Words fail me.


Comments (10)

Note that the USCG are the ... (Below threshold)

Note that the USCG are the heroes here, not Immigration.

i know that most libs will ... (Below threshold)
Cox:

i know that most libs will quickly raise the argument that all the illegal immigrants who have been busted lately were south and central american, and they are just looking to have a job and make a living and not "terrorists." but shouldn't we at all be worried about the two south american dictators who have openly signalled their enmity to the US, and would like nothing better than to cause a disaster to happen to another country's petroleum supply? hugo could kill two birds with one stone if he disrupted our oil capabilities: citgo makes more cash(hugo owns citgo), and the "evil US" get hit at it's most vulnerable(politically) spot...

INS is incompetent, and hav... (Below threshold)

INS is incompetent, and have been for decades. It's their job to ensure that the people here are supposed to be here, and I'm not pleased at all that Congress has been a willing participant in pushing off INS's responsibility onto Americans and American employers.

Because INS can't do its job, the HR department at Wal-Mart [or, here, Exxon] has to? How do you figure? Enforcing the law is the government's job, not "corporate America's". The government has to follow constitutional rules; Wal-Mart doesn't. We penalize Wal-Mart for improperly enforcing immigration law, and being fooled by illegals with the SocSec cards and the drivers licenses they got from yet other government agencies ... who were similarly fooled ... has anyone thought of punishing INS for being incompetent in the first place? or punishing the Social Security Administration for giving out the SocSec card the illegal used? or the DMV for giving out the license?

We're penalizing the wrong people here.

rwilymz: in other words, i... (Below threshold)

rwilymz: in other words, it's not Walmart's job, or Exxon's, to operate within the law?

I get the same argument at my job when a server gives a minor alcohol. "The doorman is supposed to check IDs!" I tell them the doorman isn't serving liquor.

Interesting bit from the ar... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Interesting bit from the article linked by Jay.

The illegal aliens, all from Ecuador, were hired to clean up hazardous materials near ExxonMobil storage tanks that hold gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene and other volatile materials.

in other words, it's not... (Below threshold)

in other words, it's not Walmart's job, or Exxon's, to operate within the law?

What is the purpose of the law in question? To keep illegal immigrants out of the country/ or to pass off the responsibility for that onto those who are convenient?

We can have any laws we want to have, within the confines of the republican democracy we have. But some methods of governance are cheap and sleazy and administrative incompetence, not to mention responsibility-dodging, and others are not.

Making Wal-Mart, et al, responsible for policing this nation for illegal immigrants is the government dodging its own responsibility to do that which it has failed to do. It is proximate crime. "We can't do the job, so we'll make you do it, and if you can't, we'll puinish you instead."

Like I said, we can have these laws, but it's capitulation of governmental responsibility.

...and it's interesting that you bring up serving alcohol to minors, because that is another case of proximate crime. The cops can't stop kids from drinking, so let's get the retailers to do it for us, and if they don't do it the way we want, let's punish them instead.

Want another? The "war on meth" is being waged by drug stores.

Cheap, sleazy, responsibility-dodging.

http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/2006/05/crime-fighting-by-proxy.html

Every employer is required ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Every employer is required to complete a form when hiring a new employee. It is an Immmigration form I-9. It requires the employer to check the employee's driver's license and social security card, or birth certificate, or US Passport, and to submit that form.

The form is not submitted to the Immigration Service, but is kept on file and must be produced for inspection by the Immmigrations Service for a period of (I think) three years. The onus is on the employer to not hire illegals, although the employer cannot be held responsible if they've followed the procedures in checking the employee's documents. See link below for more.

Link to US Immigration Service FAQ re: Form I-9.

You can drive a truck through the security holes in the Immigration Department's procedures. The Immigration Service should be following up on every I-9, verifying that the person hired is not an illegal. They don't. My conclusion is that the government is intentionally allowing any illegal smart enough to buy a fake social security card and birth certificate a free ride into our country.

Why? To benefit those employers who rely on illegals to clean up toxic waste and perform other undesireable jobs. They'd have to pay me $100 an hour and give me expensive HazMat suits to get me to do that job -- what do you think Exxon was paying these illegals?

Republicans + Oil Companies = illegals. Looks pretty straighforward to me.

To clear up my contradictio... (Below threshold)
Lee:

To clear up my contradictions in paragraphs one and two above - the form is held by the employer and not submitted unless requested by the government.

Republicans + Oil Companies... (Below threshold)
U.P. Man:

Republicans + Oil Companies = illegals. Looks pretty straighforward to me.

Lee+Republicans are evil/moronic/incompentant=STUPID ARGUMENT LEE

Good God.In the Wa... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

Good God.

In the Wal-Mart and Exxon cases, the violations are by contractors, not the companies. They may have operated with a wink and a nod from the companines, but it's not them. In the Exxon case, the violator is Fleet.

If I were Exxon, I would be looking for a new contractor, and be looking for an escape clause for breach of contract. I'm sure there is a stipulation to follow all applicable laws in the contract.

From Cong. Solomon Ortiz, D-TX, Al Queda is actively operating and recruiting in Central America. He's not the only one that has warned of this, either.

BTW, U.P. Man, don't feed the troll. He's an idiot.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy