HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » pampango » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Xenia, OH
Member since: Tue Sep 19, 2006, 03:46 PM
Number of posts: 24,691

Journal Archives

Be happy to. There is plenty more where these came from just don't tell the GOP.

They have a meme to stick to.

Cracking down harder on illegal immigrants (auditing "illegal employers"


Nobody has been fired from ROC Commercial Cleaning in Oakdale -- at least not yet. Since they got word that federal immigration officials are poring over the company's employment records, some janitors have simply quit.

His company is one of at least nine businesses across the Twin Cities undergoing a so-called immigration audit, part of the Obama administration's national crackdown on employers using undocumented workers. At least 2,000 people in the Twin Cities have lost their jobs in the last 18 months as a result of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) finding that they couldn't prove their eligibility to work in the United States.

The results of ICE's audits offer a warning to businesses, especially those using low-skill workers:

•The number of audits jumped more than 50 percent last year to about 2,200 from 1,444 in 2009.

Criminal arrests of employers have jumped 45 percent since 2008. Of the 196 employers arrested last year, 42 have been sent to prison so far, with sentences ranging from time served to 3 1/2 years. Many cases are pending.

A local union is calling the firings an attack on the immigrant community. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 26 in St. Paul, which represents about 5,000 local janitors and maintenance staff, is holding a vigil Sunday at Incarnation Church in south Minneapolis.


Obama holds record for cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers

Under Bush, workplace raids on factories and meatpacking plants received much attention. But after Obama took office, the Department of Homeland Security unveiled a new strategy and ditched the workplace raids, which also tended to punish employees, in favor of "paper raids" -- I-9 paperwork audits of employers to determine if they complied with employment eligibility verification laws.

The change was dramatic: the number of I-9 audits soared from 503 in 2008 to more than 8,000 in 2009.

Under Obama, ICE announced sanctions against major employers. That included a $1 million fine against Abercrombie and Fitch that grew out of an I-9 inspection and the termination of hundreds of workers at Chipotle restaurants.

In 2007, ICE arrested 92 employers, while in 2012 it arrested 240, according to ICE. Final orders -- rulings at the end of the case which show employers violated hiring rules -- also increased under Obama. In 2007, there were two final orders, while in 2012 there were 495.

Obama shifted away from Bush’s strategy of workplace raids and turned the focus on employers. Between 2008 and 2009, immigration audits soared from 503 to more than 8,000.


Last but not least here is the White House's own page on "Cracking Down on Employers Hiring Undocumented Workers"


U.S. deportations of immigrants reach record high in 2013


You can disparage polling organizations all you want. Are there ANY polls showing that Democratic

voters are not "slightly in favor of TPP"? Or that Democrats are not more supportive of TPP than republicans?


Initial TPP Ballot (of Democrats only)
Q7. From what you have heard, do you… President Obama's proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

Strongly support 20%
Somewhat support 31%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 8%
Don't know 30%




Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.


Krugman: "the right is arguing that Obama’s better recovery wasn’t really his doing." They lose.

There was almost no discussion of the economy in last night’s debate, which is actually weird if you consider the Republican self-image. These guys portray themselves as high priests of growth, the people who know how to bring prosperity. And remember all the crowing about how Obama was presiding over the worst recovery ever?

But now, not so much. The chart shows private-sector job gains after two recessions — the 2001 recession, and the 2007-2009 Great Recession — ended, in thousands. You can argue that the economy should have bounced back more strongly from the deeper slump; on the other hand, 2008 was a huge financial crisis, which tends to leave a bad hangover. Anyway, once the right is arguing that Obama’s better recovery wasn’t really his doing, it has already lost the argument.

Now, am I claiming that Obama caused all that job creation? No — policy was pretty much hamstrung from 2010 on. But the right confidently predicted that Obama’s policies, especially his “job-killing” health reform, would, well, kill jobs; as Matt O’Brien notes, The Donald confidently predicted that unemployment would go above 9 percent. None of that happened — nor did any of the other predicted Obama disasters.

Recovery should have been much faster, and I believe that there is still more slack than the unemployment rate suggests. But if President Romney were presiding over this economy, Republicans would be hailing it as the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Instead, they’re trying to talk about something else.


Dr. K calling republicans out again.

What would Trump do? UK Guardian: Build walls, tax imports, "kick" China and Mexico.

The one-time Apprentice host might find that things will begin to get a bit more difficult, however, now that he has to articulate his actual policies. So far we’ve heard that he’ll bring back jobs. That he’ll put up walls. That he’ll take down China and make America great and do a super cool spinning karate kick.

Well, one thing is that he would tax other countries. All of them. But especially Mexico and China, for whom he reserves particular venom. As MSNBC has reported, Trump has promised to get rid of corporate taxes and replace them with a 20% tax on imports and a 15% tax on companies which outsource. There’s only one problem: that would be illegal.

What else? China. Trump likes to talk about China. It’s his thing. In July he told a crowd in New Hampshire that the country would be in for it under a Trump presidency. “Oh, would China be in trouble. The poor Chinese.”

Specifically, the business mogul has said he will “bring back our jobs” from China. (And Mexico and Japan, but mainly China.) He has said the country has stolen US jobs through currency manipulation – a common claim, if an unproven one; the Chinese yuan has actually strengthened against the dollar in the last decade. He has not specified exactly how to bring the jobs back ...


Aside from getting rid of corporate taxes, all of his policy ideas seem to involve going after other countries in order to solve our problems. A touch of xenophobia never hurt anyone with the republican base. All of his ideas seem a lot like those of the republicans of the 1920's - less immigration, higher tariffs, lower taxes on corporations and the rich, etc.

And the fact that his policies would illegal probably matters little to him and their base, since they would only be 'illegal' according to international law and agreements - which mean little to them.

Krugman: Wall Street Now Hates Democrats (including you-know-who)

Over at Vox, Jonathan Allen notes that Hillary Clinton, sometimes derided on the left as doing Wall Street’s bidding, is actually getting a lot less Wall Street money than people think. Allen notes that during her husband’s administration Clinton was known for her relative antipathy toward financial types, which may be part of the story. But you should also put this in the context of finance’s hard turn against Democrats in general. In 2004, facing an election whose outcome was uncertain, finance and insurance split its donations almost equally between the parties; in 2012 it gave well over twice as much to Republicans as to Democrats.

The reason is, of course, financial reform. Anyone who tells you that reform was meaningless and that there’s no difference between the parties should follow the money, which thinks that there is a big difference indeed.

Go to Page: 1