He’s known as “America’s Toughest Sheriff”. But Joe Arpaio continues to show he deserves the moniker of “America’s JOBS Sheriff”. Because every time Sheriff Joe conducts a raid, he frees up jobs for legal American workers.
And at a time when raids by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are almost unheard of – Barack Obama has slashed workplace enforcement by a staggering 70% since 2009 – Sheriff Joe and his department keep on working to crack down on illegal aliens in the workplace.
Today was no exception, as Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies raided Sportex Apparel in Tempe, AZ, a custom-made sports clothing and accessories company – and arrested 27 illegal aliens, most of whom were caught using stolen or false identification.
In a seven-month long investigation, deputies learned that as many as 19 employees were using false or stolen IDs to work at Sportex, said Officer Christopher Hegstrom with MCSO. After Friday’s raid, 23 illegals were arrested for ID theft. Four others were taken into custody for outstanding criminal warrants, totaling 27 arrests.
This was the sheriff’s 61st such sweep. In the previous 60 employer sanctions/identity theft operations, 100% of all suspects found to be committing identity theft to gain employment were illegal aliens. Sheriff Joe’s office has investigated, arrested on the streets and in the jails over 79,000 illegal aliens.
“Illegal aliens are stealing identities of U.S. citizens to gain employment which escalates our unemployment problems. I don’t believe we should tolerate this. Furthermore, I will continue to enforce all federal and state illegal immigration laws in the business sector through human smuggling and crime suppression operations, despite activists and the federal government who may not like it,” said the Sheriff.
There is not yet indication whether some of the illegal aliens were using the social security numbers of dead persons, as has happened many times in the past, including ones of murder victims.
Arpaio said that one of the benefits of these employer sanctions/identity theft operations is that they open up job opportunities for legal citizens.
For critics who insist that illegal aliens only take the jobs that Americans refuse to do, we remind them of the example in the news report below, where legal workers of all ages and backgrounds lined up for jobs at three Phoenix-area restaurants, after a major Arpaio raid removed 200 workers there:
He is the Sheriff and he has to enforce the law of the land so no complaints here. Its refreshing to hear about illegal immigrants being removed from the country after constant talk about an amnesty for them and proposals that would give them more rights than people who migrated to the United States legally.
Illegal immigrants should not be able to find employment in the US and those firms that willfully hire illegal immigrants should be heavily fined for doing so.
Anyone who thinks a sheriff can go around conducting enough raids to stop the incentive for illegal immigrants is delusional. Even if that sheriff is good ol' sheriff Joe, complete with his kick ass PR team and long history of ethics violations.
Anyone who looks into the issue and comes away thinking that any more than tiny percentage of illegal aliens are getting work by fooling employers into thinking they're US citizens is even more deranged. Even if good ol' sheriff Joe releases a PR bit pretending that's the case.
Most illegal immigrants are working because you can pay them very little. They know full well who they're hiring. You want to stop illegal immigration... you punish employers who hire people with no legal right to work there. Stop the demand, and the supply will dry up.
Of course, that'll kill agriculture, because no American is picking oranges for that kind of money. So then you look at temporary working visas, actually formalise and regulate the industry so the only jobs are in industries that local citizens aren't competing for.
But the only thing going for that kind of strategy is that it works, and guys like good ol' sheriff Joe don't really care all that much for stuff that actually works.
Meanwhile glad that Sheriff Joe is keeping on keeping on, I wish we could adopt his prison policies here in Colorado. I think bright pink is a good color for felons and some disney channel, maybe the hub, is just the kind of TV they should be watching on their leisure time if they get any.
sebster wrote: Anyone who thinks a sheriff can go around conducting enough raids to stop the incentive for illegal immigrants is delusional. Even if that sheriff is good ol' sheriff Joe, complete with his kick ass PR team and long history of ethics violations.
Anyone who looks into the issue and comes away thinking that any more than tiny percentage of illegal aliens are getting work by fooling employers into thinking they're US citizens is even more deranged. Even if good ol' sheriff Joe releases a PR bit pretending that's the case.
Most illegal immigrants are working because you can pay them very little. They know full well who they're hiring. You want to stop illegal immigration... you punish employers who hire people with no legal right to work there. Stop the demand, and the supply will dry up.
Of course, that'll kill agriculture, because no American is picking oranges for that kind of money. So then you look at temporary working visas, actually formalise and regulate the industry so the only jobs are in industries that local citizens aren't competing for.
But the only thing going for that kind of strategy is that it works, and guys like good ol' sheriff Joe don't really care all that much for stuff that actually works .
Your last sentence is silly. A county sheriff has no authority to issue temp worker visas nor 'formalize and regulate' any industry, so wether he cares that it would work or not matters little. He can only enforce the laws on the books. I also doubt there are lots of folks who think one sheriff in one county can conduct enough raids to stop the incentive for illegal immigrants. However it is reasonable to think that he can conduct enough raids to lessen the incentive in his county, the only place he has authority in.
What were the consequences for the employer? No mention was made, so I must assume either there were none, or this particular media outlet is shielding them.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I think bright pink is a good color for felons and some disney channel, maybe the hub, is just the kind of TV they should be watching on their leisure time if they get any.
So you wish to punish people according to your idle fancies? Regardless of the effect of that punishment?
Meanwhile glad that Sheriff Joe is keeping on keeping on, I wish we could adopt his prison policies here in Colorado. I think bright pink is a good color for felons and some disney channel, maybe the hub, is just the kind of TV they should be watching on their leisure time if they get any.
Colbert challenged people to pick Strawberrys with him. 2 people showed up. Two people showed up to see Stephen Colbert. That says something.
Meanwhile glad that Sheriff Joe is keeping on keeping on, I wish we could adopt his prison policies here in Colorado. I think bright pink is a good color for felons and some disney channel, maybe the hub, is just the kind of TV they should be watching on their leisure time if they get any.
Colbert challenged people to pick Strawberrys with him. 2 people showed up. Two people showed up to see Stephen Colbert. That says something.
So?
The farmers should pay more to entice potential employees... and yes, that'll drive up the costs of the produces.
So, we need to decide. Do we want cheap labor and thus cheap food? Or, eliminate illegal workers and pay for increased costs?
Cheap food. Why? Because the US are the Food Barons to a lot of the third world. Our food prices go up and people quite literally starve to death in South America. Not to mention increasing the cost of basic necessities screws with the economy.
And no American wants to work in 120 degree weather 10-12 hours a day to get the job done.
LordofHats wrote: Cheap food. Why? Because the US are the Food Barons to a lot of the third world. Our food prices go up and people quite literally starve to death in South America. Not to mention increasing the cost of basic necessities screws with the economy.
And no American wants to work in 120 degree weather 10-12 hours a day to get the job done.
Speak for yourself that was a cool day in Arizona for my working conditions
LordofHats wrote: Cheap food. Why? Because the US are the Food Barons to a lot of the third world. Our food prices go up and people quite literally starve to death in South America. Not to mention increasing the cost of basic necessities screws with the economy.
And no American wants to work in 120 degree weather 10-12 hours a day to get the job done.
There are ways to find cheap labor to harvest fruits and vegetables. There is no cry for a change in the way its done because currently illegals, or hispanics(or friggen whoever, I am just referring to AZ in this case) on work visas(or any number of options as to why they are here), so nothing will change. If all the fruit pickers in the world just *poof* disappeared, we would find a way to accomplish their job. How about instead of chain gangs cleaning up trash, we have them pick fruit and harvest vegetables? Gotta find a place for all the degenerates in our society.
I don't wanna hear about no 120 degrees weather. I'm from Arizona, and even here in Afghanistan when it gets hot its ridiculous comparatively.
And I never did quite the get the Disney thing. Surely you could find better TV programming besides that which will be pre-teen spank bank for the prisoners? Just odd, especially if there any pedos in the prison. Thats most likely what they watch on the outside.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: And I never did quite the get the Disney thing. Surely you could find better TV programming besides that which will be pre-teen spank bank for the prisoners? Just odd, especially if there any pedos in the prison. Thats most likely what they watch on the outside.
Having gone home for the holidays and been around when my younger siblings were watching the disney channel I can say that it's content is more likely to cause any right thinking adult to commit suicide then anything else. I was trying to strangle myself to stop the pain after about five minutes.
Yes but you've never been in prison, where they only thing close to woman you'll see is a pre-pubescent girl on DIsney. There's a reason many prisoners turn gay in prison, and your deluding yourself if you think plenty of them aren't stroking themselves to sleep to Hannah Montana.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Yes but you've never been in prison, where they only thing close to woman you'll see is a pre-pubescent girl on DIsney. There's a reason many prisoners turn gay in prison, and your deluding yourself if you think plenty of them aren't stroking themselves to sleep to Hannah Montana.
They don't turn "gay", they just...take what they can get. Granted, I don't have many friends that have been to prison(or any for that matter), but people who I know have gone to prison didn't come out trying to find a new boyfriend or whatever. I don't really know though.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Yes but you've never been in prison, where they only thing close to woman you'll see is a pre-pubescent girl on DIsney. There's a reason many prisoners turn gay in prison, and your deluding yourself if you think plenty of them aren't stroking themselves to sleep to Hannah Montana.
They don't turn "gay", they just...take what they can get. Granted, I don't have many friends that have been to prison(or any for that matter), but people who I know have gone to prison didn't come out trying to find a new boyfriend or whatever. I don't really know though.
I don't know what you'd call men having sex with men other than gay. Yes they turn back once they're out, but they're still having gay sex. And so says my friend that works in a max security, a lot of them take it without asking, if you catch my drift.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I don't know what you'd call men having sex with men other than gay.
It seems the problem is more that you lack the vocabulary to describe the phenomena, not that they are actually gay; there is more to being gay than simple sexual encounters. The general term, if I recall correctly, is situational sexuality, which encompasses more then just location based same gender encounters.
Where I come from in Ireland, picking strawberries for a pittance is (or was, 15 years ago) a common job for kids looking for some pocket money. It was how I earned the money I spent on models back when I was a kid. It's hard work, the acid gets in your fingers and makes them swell and the skin peels off sometimes, and you're crouched over all day picking in the rain or sun, but at the end of it there was money for you if you kept going. A decent life lesson and probably helped keep me so skinny. Maybe you guys could start pointing kids that way and deal with this obesity thing ye've got going on? Though maybe they'd just eat the strawberries.
Anyhow. How do you square this whole free market ideal with the idea that people working for low wages is bad because it's cheating? Seems like some cognitive dissonance going around again.
Da Boss wrote: Where I come from in Ireland, picking strawberries for a pittance is (or was, 15 years ago) a common job for kids looking for some pocket money. It was how I earned the money I spent on models back when I was a kid. It's hard work, the acid gets in your fingers and makes them swell and the skin peels off sometimes, and you're crouched over all day picking in the rain or sun, but at the end of it there was money for you if you kept going. A decent life lesson and probably helped keep me so skinny. Maybe you guys could start pointing kids that way and deal with this obesity thing ye've got going on? Though maybe they'd just eat the strawberries.
Anyhow. How do you square this whole free market ideal with the idea that people working for low wages is bad because it's cheating? Seems like some cognitive dissonance going around again.
Its' not so much as "cognitive dissonance" as it's just sound business.
Employers will always seek to drive down operation costs... and if there's incentive for them to hire illegal works, they will do so until the alternative isn't worth it.
That's why I'd advocate fining the business heavily if caught.
And, it's more than just produce... I remember recently that there were a meat packing company in Illinois that had ENTIRE illegal families working there. That's bad.
One thing that should be cleared up is that the farm workers arn't getting paid pittence wages. They actually make some pretty nice money. Far more than you'd make working at Burger King or Macys.
The issue is that its hard work and the pay isn't high enough to where your average job seeker would be willing to take it. Its not an issue of pay, or an issue of hard work, its the two combined that means Illegals are the main group that will take the job.
The solution that would work best IMO is to slightly relax the restrictions on migrant workers, increase the penelties on hiring illegals, and stiffen border security.
Grey Templar wrote: One thing that should be cleared up is that the farm workers arn't getting paid pittence wages. They actually make some pretty nice money. Far more than you'd make working at Burger King or Macys.
The issue is that its hard work and the pay isn't high enough to where your average job seeker would be willing to take it. Its not an issue of pay, or an issue of hard work, its the two combined that means Illegals are the main group that will take the job.
The solution that would work best IMO is to slightly relax the restrictions on migrant workers, increase the penelties on hiring illegals, and stiffen border security.
If they're making such good pay why are they living thirty people to a shed? They don't make even close to minimum wage, depending on whats being picked and so forth. High dollar fruits are going to pay more than low dollar, but its never much.
No, that survey is correct and I am correct at the same time.
They make good money per hour of work, but the work only lasts for a short time. When you spread all of what they make over the year, yes they aren't making tons of money.
But if you consider what they make per hour its pretty decent.
And yes, I do know what i am talking about. I'm involved in CA agriculture.
From the link, the average worker pay is between 12,500 to 15,000.
Now minimum wage at 40 hrs a week amounts to 16K. Add in the fact these workers are working far more hours a week than 40 and you'll see they're making far less than you seem to think.
Da Boss wrote: Where I come from in Ireland, picking strawberries for a pittance is (or was, 15 years ago) a common job for kids looking for some pocket money. It was how I earned the money I spent on models back when I was a kid. It's hard work, the acid gets in your fingers and makes them swell and the skin peels off sometimes, and you're crouched over all day picking in the rain or sun, but at the end of it there was money for you if you kept going. A decent life lesson and probably helped keep me so skinny. Maybe you guys could start pointing kids that way and deal with this obesity thing ye've got going on? Though maybe they'd just eat the strawberries.
Anyhow. How do you square this whole free market ideal with the idea that people working for low wages is bad because it's cheating? Seems like some cognitive dissonance going around again.
Its' not so much as "cognitive dissonance" as it's just sound business.
Employers will always seek to drive down operation costs... and if there's incentive for them to hire illegal works, they will do so until the alternative isn't worth it.
That's why I'd advocate fining the business heavily if caught.
And, it's more than just produce... I remember recently that there were a meat packing company in Illinois that had ENTIRE illegal families working there. That's bad.
The entire construction industry in Texas and California are this way.
They arn't working all year round, which is what the poverty level is based on. Making 16k a year is based on $7.69 an hour for a 40 hour workweek with a 52 weeks total.
They only work for a few weeks a year on a particular job. If they made that money all year round it would be a decent pay.
I am going to school at a highly recognized agricultural university for an Ag Business degree. You live accross the country in NY. I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but given the circumstances I'm fairly certain I know more about it than you do.
Grey Templar wrote: No, that survey is correct and I am correct at the same time.
They make good money per hour of work, but the work only lasts for a short time. When you spread all of what they make over the year, yes they aren't making tons of money.
But if you consider what they make per hour its pretty decent.
And yes, I do know what i am talking about. I'm involved in CA agriculture.
They do something else the rest of the year. Hence the term migratory workers.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: From the link, the average worker pay is between 12,500 to 15,000.
Now minimum wage at 40 hrs a week amounts to 16K. Add in the fact these workers are working far more hours a week than 40 and you'll see they're making far less than you seem to think.
Again, you're mixing apples and oranges (pun intended). They get paid per hour, for a short period of time. If you averaged it out you would have to average out that they make the same amount per hour year around for a minimum 40 hours per week.
Regardless, you're both right. Its not CEO wages and its hard as hell.
Exactly. They do other stuff the rest of the year, and when its all added up it adds to a low income amount. But the harvesting does pay very high when it comes around.
Think about like on Deadliest catch, where the crab fishermen make an ungodly amount of money for a short period of time. Its poor if thats all they did, but beaucoup excellent for the amount of time they were out.
No... he's not. In NW Michigan we have a big migrant worker population every fall to harvest apples and cherries. They'd live several families to a small place because it allowed them to save a ton of money, and they would live like kings back in Mexico the rest of the year.
I got this straight from the mouths of their kids who'd be in our school during the fall.
Information gathered on Migrant workers is also going to inherently be unreliable as they are generally not cooperative with the government workers that would be gathering the information.
No... he's not. In NW Michigan we have a big migrant worker population every fall to harvest apples and cherries. They'd live several families to a small place because it allowed them to save a ton of money, and they would live like kings back in Mexico the rest of the year.
I got this straight from the mouths of their kids who'd be in our school during the fall.
And as per the link, 13K a year doesn't really let you live anywhere but a shack with large groups of people, especially if you're trying to send money back. We're both right, in a sense.
And I do find it cute Grey that your college classes and the fact I live in NY mean so much. I mean, I couldn't possibly have grown in farm country with large numbers of migrant workers could I? Cuz only CA has any farms right?
No... he's not. In NW Michigan we have a big migrant worker population every fall to harvest apples and cherries. They'd live several families to a small place because it allowed them to save a ton of money, and they would live like kings back in Mexico the rest of the year.
I got this straight from the mouths of their kids who'd be in our school during the fall.
And as per the link, 13K a year doesn't really let you live anywhere but a shack with large groups of people, especially if you're trying to send money back. We're both right, in a sense.
And I do find it cute Grey that your college classes and the fact I live in NY mean so much. I mean, I couldn't possibly have grown in farm country with large numbers of migrant workers could I? Cuz only CA has any farms right?
Except the people that data is documenting don't live there all year. They live there for 5-6 months at the most. Their migrant farm workers. Seasonal jobs.
DutchKillsRambo, as one antagonistic person to another, you're very antagonistic.
Also, don't say "cuz". Write out "because", but don't start a sentence with either it, "so", or "and". Saying cuz and prolly are worse crimes than getting You're, your, they're, there, and their mixed up.
You're right, I don't know about your situation. But I know you are way less likely to have been exposed to it than I have.
The fact stands, for those few weeks of harvest, they make darn good money. Its not going to feed a family of 6 for an entire year, but its good money for the time spent to make it.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: And I never did quite the get the Disney thing. Surely you could find better TV programming besides that which will be pre-teen spank bank for the prisoners? Just odd, especially if there any pedos in the prison. Thats most likely what they watch on the outside.
Yeah, Have them watch SYFY's weekly lineup.
No, NVM, that might induce a murderous rampage.
kronk wrote: DutchKillsRambo, as one antagonistic person to another, you're very antagonistic.
Also, don't say "cuz". Write out "because", but don't start a sentence with either it, "so", or "and". Saying cuz and prolly are worse crimes than getting You're, your, they're, there, and their mixed up.
THOU SHALT NOT DISPLEASE THE KRONK! THE KRONK HAS SPOKEN!
I've heard he's roguishly handsome and has the ear of the former and future Pope. So remember WWKD (What would Kronk do?)
kronk wrote: DutchKillsRambo, as one antagonistic person to another, you're very antagonistic.
Also, don't say "cuz". Write out "because", but don't start a sentence with either it, "so", or "and". Saying cuz and prolly are worse crimes than getting You're, your, they're, there, and their mixed up.
Damn...
<whembly starts brushing up is writing skillz... ><--- oops!>
Except the people that data is documenting don't live there all year. They live there for 5-6 months at the most. Their migrant farm workers. Seasonal jobs.
Did you even click it? It's a national study.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: DutchKillsRambo, as one antagonistic person to another, you're very antagonistic.
Also, don't say "cuz". Write out "because", but don't start a sentence with either it, "so", or "and". Saying cuz and prolly are worse crimes than getting You're, your, they're, there, and their mixed up.
You're probably right. Though how many other times on this board has "I've taken some college classes on it" really stood up to any scrutiny when discussing a subject?
Its my chosen career path dude. And I am not claiming to be an expert. I am going to school to learn about this stuff however, and that counts for something.
These workers are making well above minimum wage to harvest produce. They only make it for a few weeks a year. That combines to a high paying job, but low yearly income.
Grey Templar wrote: Its my chosen career path dude. And I am not claiming to be an expert. I am going to school to learn about this stuff however, and that counts for something.
These workers are making well above minimum wage to harvest produce. They only make it for a few weeks a year. That combines to a high paying job, but low yearly income.
Right, and the rest of they year their back home, that $13-15K has much greater purchasing power then it does here in the states.
CptJake wrote: Your last sentence is silly. A county sheriff has no authority to issue temp worker visas nor 'formalize and regulate' any industry, so wether he cares that it would work or not matters little. He can only enforce the laws on the books. I also doubt there are lots of folks who think one sheriff in one county can conduct enough raids to stop the incentive for illegal immigrants. However it is reasonable to think that he can conduct enough raids to lessen the incentive in his county, the only place he has authority in.
And a president has no legal authority to declare war, and yet a very quick reading of history will tell you that if a president wants war there's a hell of a lot he can do to get it.
The point being that a sheriff, like any person in authority, can lead public opinion. He can comment on the situation he sees in front of him, and talk about what overall regulation will resolve problems. Or he can carry on making stupid noise about how he's mean to prisoners and rounds up all of them illegals.
Sheriff Joe opts for the latter. And idiots love him for it.
The farmers should pay more to entice potential employees... and yes, that'll drive up the costs of the produces.
So, we need to decide. Do we want cheap labor and thus cheap food? Or, eliminate illegal workers and pay for increased costs?
But you can have both. You can have good wages, by expanding skilled and semi-skilled industries, while at the same time having workers on temporary visas picking fruit for low wages. This is good for the farm, who has a lower cost and can therefore remain competitive with overseas farms, good for the immigrant who'd otherwise be earning even less in his home country, and good for the local worker, who doesn't chew up ten or twenty years of their life picking fruit for a few dollars more than minimum wage.
But even if you don't go that route and decide to keep American jobs for Americans... then you still have a problem with illegal immigration. And that problem only gets fixed when you seriously crackdown on farms for hiring illegal workers.
Because it doesn't fit the Sheriff Joe logic that started this thread - talk about tough on crime a lot, and just figure the basic lizard brain logic of 'be meanto them and they'll stop being criminals' will over-ride the actual real world knowledge we have of what drives crime and illegal immigration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Where I come from in Ireland, picking strawberries for a pittance is (or was, 15 years ago) a common job for kids looking for some pocket money. It was how I earned the money I spent on models back when I was a kid. It's hard work, the acid gets in your fingers and makes them swell and the skin peels off sometimes, and you're crouched over all day picking in the rain or sun, but at the end of it there was money for you if you kept going. A decent life lesson and probably helped keep me so skinny. Maybe you guys could start pointing kids that way and deal with this obesity thing ye've got going on? Though maybe they'd just eat the strawberries.
The issue, I think, is that in a country with access to large amount of education, is that anyone who works hard and applies themselves is quite likely to end up in a skilled, or at least semi-skilled job, that's a lot better than picking strawberries. So a guy like yourself, who does it when he's growing up, he also works hard in his studies or apprenticeship or whatever, and moves into a job that pays a lot more than fruitpicking will.
There was an interesting UK documentary a couple of years back that took people who'd been on welfare a long time, and put them to work in various jobs that immigrants dominate. The people who went out to replace the Poles picking turnips (I think it was turnips) were a complete disaster, basically for the reasons I mentioned above.
Grey I apologize for being combative. I still believe a school thats heavily involved with agriculture might not be the best place for an objective view of migrant workers, but no need to be rude.
And it looks like 'ol Joe is back at it again. This time with possibly the worst actor of all time.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Grey I apologize for being combative. I still believe a school thats heavily involved with agriculture might not be the best place for an objective view of migrant workers, but no need to be rude.
And it looks like 'ol Joe is back at it again. This time with possibly the worst actor of all time.
When he was filming in Alaska for one of his flix, my step-mum helped with the film crew's logistic out there... said Seagal was TALL... but was just as nice as he can be around everyone.
Also, he's been in law enforcement for years in Louisiana (wasn't there a reality show on this?)
I'm sorry if don't want to put children's safety into a bunch of pissed off old men trained by the guy who made Exit Wounds.
If were going to put faith into action stars somehow translating the movies into real life we should at least start with GOOD action stars and get the Muscles from Brussels.
Do you really think these guys are going to shoot the children?
Thats the last thing that they would do. They want to protect them.
The type of people that are going to shoot up a school are the kind that want to kill things that won't shoot back. If multiple armed guards are present it is a major deterrent as there would be shooting back.
Most school shooters commit suicide when confronted by the police. This reaffirms the above assertation.
It won't stop all shootings, but it will stop some completely. And those it doesn't stop will still have reduced casualities.
The farmers should pay more to entice potential employees... and yes, that'll drive up the costs of the produces.
So, we need to decide. Do we want cheap labor and thus cheap food? Or, eliminate illegal workers and pay for increased costs?
But you can have both. You can have good wages, by expanding skilled and semi-skilled industries, while at the same time having workers on temporary visas picking fruit for low wages. This is good for the farm, who has a lower cost and can therefore remain competitive with overseas farms, good for the immigrant who'd otherwise be earning even less in his home country, and good for the local worker, who doesn't chew up ten or twenty years of their life picking fruit for a few dollars more than minimum wage.
But even if you don't go that route and decide to keep American jobs for Americans... then you still have a problem with illegal immigration. And that problem only gets fixed when you seriously crackdown on farms for hiring illegal workers.
Da Boss wrote: Where I come from in Ireland, picking strawberries for a pittance is (or was, 15 years ago) a common job for kids looking for some pocket money. It was how I earned the money I spent on models back when I was a kid. It's hard work, the acid gets in your fingers and makes them swell and the skin peels off sometimes, and you're crouched over all day picking in the rain or sun, but at the end of it there was money for you if you kept going. A decent life lesson and probably helped keep me so skinny. Maybe you guys could start pointing kids that way and deal with this obesity thing ye've got going on? Though maybe they'd just eat the strawberries.
The issue, I think, is that in a country with access to large amount of education, is that anyone who works hard and applies themselves is quite likely to end up in a skilled, or at least semi-skilled job, that's a lot better than picking strawberries. So a guy like yourself, who does it when he's growing up, he also works hard in his studies or apprenticeship or whatever, and moves into a job that pays a lot more than fruitpicking will.
There was an interesting UK documentary a couple of years back that took people who'd been on welfare a long time, and put them to work in various jobs that immigrants dominate. The people who went out to replace the Poles picking turnips (I think it was turnips) were a complete disaster, basically for the reasons I mentioned above.
Here in the glorious farmland that is Southern Ontario we grow rocks. You didn't misread that, we actually grow rocks. Every year the frost and thaw when mixed with the plowing of a field pushes up rocks that vary in size from small pebbles to equipment destroying hunks larger than your head. So every year local farmers hire a number of elementary, high school, and college kids, in addition to some people who simply have time but no money, to pick rocks. If one thinks that picking strawberries is tough, picking rocks is worse. I've done both. And I would much rather pick strawberries, as they just scoot you along on a sled attached to the arm of a tractor so you aren't bent over all day. Yet when you're picking rocks you don't have much else of a choice. There are sleds available where you lie face down about an elbows length from the ground and pick the rocks while going less than a mile an hour, but unfortunately you'll inevitably run into one of the loathed head sized pieces of rock, and you'll have to get off your sled and dig that sucker out with a shovel and your hands. So you do that for between 8 to 10 hours a day during the spring and fall on the weekends. Then in the summer you do it as fast as you can so you can pick before the planters go through the fields and get potentially broken due to hitting one of those larger rocks, or blunted or chipped due to hitting one of the smaller ones. This is done in temperatures varying from 25 to 35 degree weather with a high humidity. All for about 10 dollars an hour. Kids would make a couple thousand dollars over a summer picking rocks. It wasn't fun, and it was incredibly hard work, but if you wanted a new dirt bike or four wheeler then that's what you did.
TL;DR, tell the Californians to get their kids off their asses and use some character building child labour.
Grey Templar wrote: Do you really think these guys are going to shoot the children?
Thats the last thing that they would do. They want to protect them.
The type of people that are going to shoot up a school are the kind that want to kill things that won't shoot back. If multiple armed guards are present it is a major deterrent as there would be shooting back.
Most school shooters commit suicide when confronted by the police. This reaffirms the above assertation.
It won't stop all shootings, but it will stop some completely. And those it doesn't stop will still have reduced casualities.
No I think a bunch of overweight, elderly men trained by a D list actor having guns in schools is a recipe for disaster. Whats going to stop a teenager from knocking over gramps here and shooting others? At least with a security guard you have someone who is nominally in shape and trained.
This is a worse idea than arming teachers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But then again there's a reason Phoenix is probably highest city on my list of places I would never live.
Ratbarf wrote: Plus one can now get guns that only fire when you hold them.
If you're talking about biometric safeties, they work a good 60% of the time at least. When the owner's holding them, I mean. So there's only a 40% chance or so that the gun won't fire when you need it to.
Ratbarf wrote: What security guards have you been looking at? All the school guards I've seen have either been old as heck or fat as the dickens.
Plus one can now get guns that only fire when you hold them.
Thats why I said nominally. And if we can't afford arts programs in many schools, investing in fingerprint technology guns for schools (that the vast majority of police officers don't even have mind) just seems like a terrible expenditure of money.
Ratbarf: My dad has an obsession with rockpicking, I've done that too. And it is not fun times. It is sorta satisfying on a medium sized piece of land though, to start with it full of rocks and end with it all clear and ready to go.
Strawberry picking was better, but it went on for longer. And we didn't have any tractor army thingy, we had to walk along bent over. But that's why it's better work for kids- you're much more flexible at that age and it's all a bit of an adventure rather than mind numbingly boring.
Sebster, I'd say you're fairly spot on, I saw the strawberry picking thing and had to have a little prod, because it immediately reminded me of those summers. When you've picked 5-10 times your bodyweight in fruit to get those terradons, they seem all the more sweet.
Grey Templar wrote: I'd say an armed security guard(s) should have priority over arts and sports.
The investment is worth it to prevent another shooting.
How many school shootings have there been? You would slash things like art and sports for some vague sense of protection?
Art, definitly. Its not a super useful section. It has a place, but it should be tertiary to everything else.
Sports programs are extremely bloated at most schools. While I think they are important enough to keep, they could definitly be dialed back to save money.
With your view, I'll bet you think having insurance is silly too. The chance of a fire burning down your home is remote right?
No the chance of fire burning down your home is huge compared to dieing in a school shooting.
475,000 to 59 according to a quick google.
And the fact you think art programs aren't useful leads me to believe you don't really know a whole lot about how to educate children. It's very useful to producing well rounded children. More so than gun in the hands of a security guard anyways.
Our rock picking season was really heavy in june and july, some fields in august depending on what crop was being done in them, and then again in the fall once the crop had been taken off, and again in the spring as long as it wasn't to muddy. The largest rock we ever pulled out of our fields must have weighed several tonnes. The thing was a large slab like piece, about 8 feet across and 6 feet wide with a depth of a foot and a half to three feet in some places. We broke two sets of chains pulling that thing out and around.
The field across the road from us is over 600 acres. It takes about two to three weeks of 10 hour days to pick that whole thing with one tractor crew.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: No the chance of fire burning down your home is huge compared to dieing in a school shooting.
475,000 to 59 according to a quick google.
And the fact you think art programs aren't useful leads me to believe you don't really know a whole lot about how to educate children. It's very useful to producing well rounded children. More so than gun in the hands of a security guard anyways.
We're talking about kids getting killed here. If that can be prevented its totally worth it.
And if you ahd read my post throughly you would have gathered I don't think art is completely useless. Its usefulness is secondary to learning other things and the protection of the kids. Their lives are more important than learning how to paint or play the drums.
But they're not dieing in statistically significant numbers? How many kids are dieing in car accidents to and from school?
How is an armed guard an automatic protection against children being killed? Art is going to help a lot more kids even scholastically than an armed guard. Its not a secondary thing, there's proven links to music helping math.
59 out of how many million children in the US? Thats what statistically significant means.
If you're so worried about the children why do you not support tighter bans on guns? If people can't buy these guns than the kids won't get shot right?
Or maybe tragedies like Newtown aside its just not that big of a deal? Its part of the price we pay to be American. I'm much more scared of bees than I am of becoming a victim of a mass shooting.
But school shootings are most often carried out by students at the school, not hardened criminals with connections that can procure them illegal firearms. In the same vein, a student going to the same school everyday will quickly learn the patterns of the security guard. All he has to do now is shoot him first, and were back to the same point, albeit after a massive amount of money spent.
Why do we need armed guards now? Why not after Columbine? We didn't pass any ridiculous gun bans after that either, so why are we talking bans and armed guards now? Because it was 6 year olds this time and everyone is knee-jerking hard.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: No I think a bunch of overweight, elderly men trained by a D list actor having guns in schools is a recipe for disaster.
So what does being a "D list" celebrity have to do with his training people to shoot? Is one exclusive to the other?
You're telling me that there isn't anyone else better suited for this task than Steven Seagal? Or maybe its just political grandstanding with a known name meant to pander to the crowds, which is pretty much Sherrif Joe's MO?
Why stop with schools? Should we put them in daycares? Every college lecture hall? Where does it stop?
And furthermore if you're going to go down this ridiculous route, use trained individuals. Not a bunch of pissed off retirees with a hard on for a washed up "celebrity".
And my point still stands about a school shooter looking for easy prey, not one that can shoot back.
You can always find a corner case where the system fails. But having a guard is better than not having one.
How many guards do you really think schools can afford? At most one at every entry. Shoot him and you've got free reign till the next overweight retiree can make it all the way across campus, ie minutes. Its not a long term solution.
So what happens when one of these retirees shoots a kid or gets his gun stolen? Is it better than nothing then? And stats would show you there's a lot more accidental shooting deaths than school shooting deaths.
Seagal is not well known for anything besides being an actor. A terrible one at that. His ridiculous TV show was a joke, not an in depth look at how law enforcement works.
How is knowing to choreograph fights with DMX going to make him a good teacher to a bunch of old men with guns?
You say corner case, I use statistics. There are more accidental shooting deaths in the US every year than school shootings. How is that a corner case? 854 accidental shooting deaths to 59 school shootings this year. Tell me how with numbers like that more kids are going to live. Especially when utilizing a a force made up of retirees trained for a few hours by an actor. Its got disaster written all over it.
My suggestion is leave it alone. You can't have armed guards around everybody all the time, its preposterous.
Unless you could show that having armed guards would be detrimental to school safety it is still a good idea. One prevented shooting would make it worth it.
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you could show that having armed guards would be detrimental to school safety it is still a good idea. One prevented shooting would make it worth it.
I just did. 854 accidental shootings to 59. The odds are more likely of a child getting shot accidentally by one of the guards then by a school shooter. Over an order of magnitude higher chance.
Couple that with the roughly 25,000 accidental shooting injuries. Its less safe for the kids.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So you think a few hours with Steven Seagal is going to make you a "trained individual"?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And no, that statistic is relevant just like it is. Soldiers, cops, everybody is capable of making mistakes, and they do.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: You're telling me that there isn't anyone else better suited for this task than Steven Seagal? Or maybe its just political grandstanding with a known name meant to pander to the crowds, which is pretty much Sherrif Joe's MO?
And furthermore if you're going to go down this ridiculous route, use trained individuals. Not a bunch of pissed off retirees with a hard on for a washed up "celebrity".
You seem to be concentrating on Seagal as an actor, and not whether he can shoot well enough to be an instructor. He is a reserve Deputy Sheriff in Louisiana (where he has a second home) and he graduated from a police academy in California over twenty years ago as well as holding the relevant qualifications in law enforcement for his role. In light of this do you believe that he is not qualified to instruct officers?
A trained individual is less likely to make a mistake. Said individuals should undergo constant training to maintain their level of competancy. Once a month gun safety evaluation for the guards would be enough, and not debilitatingly expensive.
A trained individual is less likely to make a mistake. Said individuals should undergo constant training to maintain their level of competancy. Once a month gun safety evaluation for the guards would be enough, and not debilitatingly expensive.
Except if you bothered to read the link, it is indeed Steven Seagal training Phoenix volunteers ie, retirees to man the schools as armed guards. No amount of training will ever eliminate accidents, and seeing as these aren't trained individuals, accidents have a higher chance of happening.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: So you think a few hours with Steven Seagal is going to make you a "trained individual"?
And a Police officer qualifying with his/her sidearm twice a year is sufficient?
Yes thats the only training police receive. Nothing about understanding and observing threats. Nothing about how to diffuse situations without violence, or things of that matter. Cops really should just be great shots. Thats all police work is, right? Shooting people, accurately and quickly.
And yes I would rate that training higher than Steven Seagal, who's claim to fame in this regard is that he's a deputy in some po dunk part of LA.
Seagal is qualified to train people. I'd rate his training higher than a run of the mill police instructor as it likely includes martial arts techniques as well as gun safety.
He still has nothing to do with the argument over if we should have armed guards or not.
Really? You don't see political gains to be made by being seen "protecting the children"? Thats why you use a relatively famous name like Seagal to garner attention. Using words like "posse" tries to evoke the Wild West and a spirit of vigilantism. A Sheriff is a politician just as much as a Congressman.
Protected from what? I just used statistics to show you they're more likely to be injured by the guns protecting them. Its like talking circles with you. Grandstanding is Arpaio's game. Like changing the answering recording to say "for Spanish hang up and learn English". He loves to be controversial and seen as "taking action".
Training will reduce the possability of an accident, and discourage a school shooting.
Proove that a properly trained individual is more likely to accidentally shoot someone at the school than a shooter at the school is to shoot people and I will believe you.
Your citation only shows totals and doesn't distinguish between trained and untrained people.
By properly trained, I mean people that are undergoing monthly safety inspections and are held accountable.
Well cops wouldn't even fit into your definition of training then. I'm not even sure a lot of military members undergo monthly safety inspections of their shooting abilities unless it's related to their job.
d-usa wrote: What does any if this have to do with illegal immigrants making me my lunch?
It started with another Arpaio antic. This time him along with Steven Seagal are taking volunteers into a "posse" and letting them loose as armed guards for schools.
Sorry I don't follow every gun thread. Thought it was relevant seeing as its the same guy pulling the same "taking action" antics, but since you say it's not related it must not be. Apologies.
Grey Templar wrote: We're talking about kids getting killed here. If that can be prevented its totally worth it..
Dangerous line of thinking there.
All kids under the age of 18 must now be wrapped in bubble wrap at all times. We're talking about kids getting killed here. If that can be prevented its totally worth it.
Grey Templar wrote: We're talking about kids getting killed here. If that can be prevented its totally worth it..
Dangerous line of thinking there.
All kids under the age of 18 must now be wrapped in bubble wrap at all times. We're talking about kids getting killed here. If that can be prevented its totally worth it.
Quick... buy up all shares for the bubble wrap making companies!
Grey Templar wrote: Yes there was. A pretty cool one too. He seems like an all around great guy.
Seagal is kind of notorious as a feth head, actually. He's got multiple sexual assault claims against him. And unlike all the other guys who got famous for pretending to beat up other people, Seagal was notoriously difficult to work with, taking over production and script writing. Say what you like about the douchebaggery and general craziness of guys like Van Damme and Norris, but at least they turned up on time, said what was written on the page and pretended to kick who they were told to kick.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Thats just disgusting. "Its not statistically significant"
Look at the numbers for people who died in housefires, realise that if just 1% of them were kids, that's almost 5,000 dead kids. Think about the regulations and reforms that could be put in place to save those kids.
Then realise those reforms cost money, and that's why they don't exist.
Now consider how much it costs, year in year out, to put a guy with a gun in every single school. Then please kindly stop your moralising bs, and start dealing with real world numbers.
And my point still stands about a school shooter looking for easy prey, not one that can shoot back.
If that were true, then when the schools are protected they'll just go to the next place where no-one is armed. A workplace, or a restaurant. You don't solve the problem, just move it somewhere else. Until, of course, absolutely everywhere has multiple people with guns protecting it.
Your proposed solution, quite frankly, isn't remotely sane and has exactly zero chance of actually happening. It's just bs from the gun lobby, proposing something else, anything else, to deflect from the issue of increasing gun regulations.
And why not Steven Seagal? He's a real Sheriff and expert martial arts instructor. So what if he's also an actor?
Seagal is well known because he's not just an actor. He's the real deal. Lets protect our kids.
There's no shortage of trained, professional law enforcement officers out there. Many have decades of experience in training, and proven track records in running excellent academies.
That you see an obvious publicity stunt like this and think 'yeah, finally our kids will be getting the protection they need' is just staggering.
Oh for feth's sake. You make some moralising nonsense post about how the miniscule number of kids killed in school shootings must be solved no matter the cost because 'kids!'... but then when its pointed out that guns are more likely to accidentally shoot a kid than to stop a shooter, it's a corner case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You seem to be concentrating on Seagal as an actor, and not whether he can shoot well enough to be an instructor. He is a reserve Deputy Sheriff in Louisiana (where he has a second home) and he graduated from a police academy in California over twenty years ago as well as holding the relevant qualifications in law enforcement for his role. In light of this do you believe that he is not qualified to instruct officers?
You seriously gonna sit there and say that when looking for the best individual to train their guards, the best they could come up with was a Deputy Sheriff who graduated 20 years ago, and has worked in law enforcement since on a part time basis at most?
You honestly saying that's why Seagal was picked?
Or maybe because he's a celebrity, of sorts, and they spied a press stunt?
I think I'd be homeschooling my kids before I sent them to a school that resembled an armed camp. Too much chance for accident outweighing a random shooter appearing.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes there was. A pretty cool one too. He seems like an all around great guy.
Seagal is kind of notorious as a feth head, actually. He's got multiple sexual assault claims against him. And unlike all the other guys who got famous for pretending to beat up other people, Seagal was notoriously difficult to work with, taking over production and script writing. Say what you like about the douchebaggery and general craziness of guys like Van Damme and Norris, but at least they turned up on time, said what was written on the page and pretended to kick who they were told to kick.
It is a bit off topic, and to D-usa I apologize, but speaking as someone who used to be really into Aikido years ago, I can't let this line of discussion pass.
Within the Aikido community, Seagal is notorious for marrying his sensei’s daughter, then after he got fast-tracked in rank and eventually inherited the dojo, left her when he felt like returning to America to try to get famous. He then, as we all know, got famous in movies, married our 80s heartthrob Kelly LeBrock, got divorced (and a third divorce along the way) after mistreating her, had his action movie career downslide, and finally became a fat guy on a reality show. Not to be too derogatory toward him, or anything. I’m sure he’s a lovely man and well-qualified to safeguard America’s schools.
Back on topic, Arpaio is a similarly self-aggrandizing tool, so I'm not at all surprised to see the two associated.
Unless this posse constantly trains with the frequency of the military or police, there is a higher likely hood of a cross fire and better chance of getting shot by the very guys trying to protect you. You also have to factor that shooters will have the element of surprise. Much like the attempted assassination attempt on President Regan and he had secret service agents who are highly trained.
thehod wrote: Unless this posse constantly trains with the frequency of the military or police, there is a higher likely hood of a cross fire and better chance of getting shot by the very guys trying to protect you. You also have to factor that shooters will have the element of surprise. Much like the attempted assassination attempt on President Regan and he had secret service agents who are highly trained.
You misunderstand. Most police do not "constantly train." Most police only take an annual qualifier and can't shoot their way out of a barn. Thats changing in many areas. Evidently not NYC though.
thehod wrote: Unless this posse constantly trains with the frequency of the military or police, there is a higher likely hood of a cross fire and better chance of getting shot by the very guys trying to protect you. You also have to factor that shooters will have the element of surprise. Much like the attempted assassination attempt on President Regan and he had secret service agents who are highly trained.
You misunderstand. Most police do not "constantly train." Most police only take an annual qualifier and can't shoot their way out of a barn. Thats changing in many areas. Evidently not NYC though.
Or in California.
I'm not sure what is worse. That they were shooting at everybody in a pickup truck, or that they were barely able to hit anybody that they were shooting at.
