At the same time that the Obama administration contemplates a lawsuit against Arizona to stop them from enforcing immigration law, they’re working on a program that supports the people breaking that law, with our tax dollars, no less. All while unemployment continues at a high rate. :idunno:

So what you are saying is that employers that break the law by employing illegals should also be allowed to break the law by paying illegal wages. I look at this from a different viewpoint. One of the reasons employers hire illegals is that they can get cheap labor. If they have to pay illegals the same as legal residents it decreases the incentive to hire illegals. Decreased hiring of illegals means fewer illegals. If the consequence of reporting an employer for paying illegal wages is to be deported, very few employers will ever be reported. Keeping the reporting of employers separate from immigration enforcement makes perfect sense to me and in my opinion will result in fewer illegals. Score another one for the logical and pragmatic Obama administration.

Many of the people who were laid off cannot survive on a minimum wage job. You are simply continuing the republican fear mongering (noted in the video I posted) that "them there forners are takin' our jobs." That is not the case. Have you not noticed that more businesses have been prosecuted under Obama for hiring undocumented workers, than they were under Bush. This simple fact is, if you do business in this country you pay the minimum wage. If you don't want to pay that to undocumented workers, don't hire them.

So what you are saying is that employers that break the law by employing illegals should also be allowed to break the law by paying illegal wages. I look at this from a different viewpoint. One of the reasons employers hire illegals is that they can get cheap labor. If they have to pay illegals the same as legal residents it decreases the incentive to hire illegals. Decreased hiring of illegals means fewer illegals. If the consequence of reporting an employer for paying illegal wages is to be deported, very few employers will ever be reported. Keeping the reporting of employers separate from immigration enforcement makes perfect sense to me and in my opinion will result in fewer illegals. Score another one for the logical and pragmatic Obama administration.

:ohbrother:

So what you are saying is that employers that break the law by employing illegals should also be allowed to break the law by paying illegal wages. I look at this from a different viewpoint. One of the reasons employers hire illegals is that they can get cheap labor. If they have to pay illegals the same as legal residents it decreases the incentive to hire illegals. Decreased hiring of illegals means fewer illegals. If the consequence of reporting an employer for paying illegal wages is to be deported, very few employers will ever be reported. Keeping the reporting of employers separate from immigration enforcement makes perfect sense to me and in my opinion will result in fewer illegals. Score another one for the logical and pragmatic Obama administration.

When did they score their first one?

When did they score their first one?

 

Healthcare, Stimulus, Equal Pay for Equal Work (Ledbetter?? Bill) - this would be 4 and that is right off the top of my head.

Healthcare, Stimulus, Equal Pay for Equal Work (Ledbetter?? Bill) - this would be 4 and that is right off the top of my head.

 

Funny, it seems to me you just named quite a few points against the Obama administration...:idunno:

Healthcare, Stimulus, Equal Pay for Equal Work (Ledbetter?? Bill) - this would be 4 and that is right off the top of my head.

 

Strike 1, strike 2, and a foul tip.

Strike 1, strike 2, and a foul tip.

 

If you are keeping score and you think that Obama and the progressives wanted these things, then they have had hit after hit after hit. DADT will be repealed this or early next year, an energy bill will be passed this year, and immigration reform will be passed before the end of his FIRST term. The hits will just keep rolling. Whether you like them or not they are hits, not homeruns, necessarily but hits none-the-less.

 

You could call it a strike if he wanted them and didn't get them. Looks like the agenda is moving along swimmingly and I will again say that November will not be nearly as bad for democrats as some predict. Especially when they play the videos of Bachman, Barton, Palin and the like siding with BP and in the same screen showing all the damage that the spill has done. And when all of the 99ers lose their unemployment because the Republicans don't see it as an emergency and they want an offset. And then when the troops start coming home from Afghanistan in June 2011 - WOW 2 terms will be easy for this president.

If they find out companies are paying illegal wages, the company should be fined and the illegal worker should be deported. It's a win-win.

If you are keeping score and you think that Obama and the progressives wanted these things, then they have had hit after hit after hit. DADT will be repealed this or early next year, an energy bill will be passed this year, and immigration reform will be passed before the end of his FIRST term. The hits will just keep rolling. Whether you like them or not they are hits, not homeruns, necessarily but hits none-the-less.

 

You could call it a strike if he wanted them and didn't get them. Looks like the agenda is moving along swimmingly and I will again say that November will not be nearly as bad for democrats as some predict. Especially when they play the videos of Bachman, Barton, Palin and the like siding with BP and in the same screen showing all the damage that the spill has done. And when all of the 99ers lose their unemployment because the Republicans don't see it as an emergency and they want an offset. And then when the troops start coming home from Afghanistan in June 2011 - WOW 2 terms will be easy for this president.

 

I think you and the rest of us are talking about separate things (I think we've been wording it wrong). While you're right these things may be seen as "hits" for the Obama admin and their agenda, they are decidedly "strikes" to the country as a whole, IMO.

I think you and the rest of us are talking about separate things (I think we've been wording it wrong). While you're right these things may be seen as "hits" for the Obama admin and their agenda, they are decidedly "strikes" to the country as a whole, IMO.

 

However you word it, the people that elected him wanted these things and they are getting them. That to me would seem to be hits. He was elected with a majority both in the EC and the popular votes wasn't he? So the country must think they are hits and only the minority, albeit a loud one, thinks they are not.

When did they score their first one?

 

 

Witty and informative.

However you word it, the people that elected him wanted these things and they are getting them. That to me would seem to be hits. He was elected with a majority both in the EC and the popular votes wasn't he? So the country must think they are hits and only the minority, albeit a loud one, thinks they are not.

 

:lol: You don't honestly believe that every person that votes for someone agrees with them on all, heck even a majority of the issues, do you? If so, I've got some ocean-property in Arizona for ya...:lol:

 

Heck, some that voted for Obama, as well as some that voted for other candidates, didn't even know what their position on issues were.

I know of at least one person that voted for him that now regrets it terribly. Wonder how many of those there are? Maybe enough that the majority that he won with is gone?