|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 13, 2006 14:40:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 13, 2006 15:36:40 GMT -5
The Borough Council is expected to vote 7 p.m. tonight at Borough Hall, 51 West Main Street, on the terms of the agreement with the day laborers groups.
Such an important decision, I wonder why borough council did not announce it? (pay no heed to that such may have been before the election)
Let's see:
- Pay for this dumb voluntary settlement.
- Pay for ESL pre-k
- Contribute to the activist McGuire's medical care facility.
Well, residents, November is off to an expensive start. What difference does it make, it is not like it is real money. This all comes from someone else's money, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Freehold Resident on Nov 13, 2006 15:37:26 GMT -5
I'm curious..
Would it be feasable for someone to buy out the muster zone property and turn it into private property?
It says that it's public property, and therefore day laborers are allowed to congregate there.
So what if we found a loophole, in which someone bought that piece and turned it into private property?
What a ridiculous verdict in this lawsuit!
F R
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 13, 2006 15:38:21 GMT -5
I am surprised that no one has commented on this breaking story. Since this story was posted here, many have read it in a very short period of time. I for one, am glad to see a settlement. It is long over due and now we can move on.
I know that most Americans will not agree with the outcome, for various reasons, but we do have to keep in mind that Freehold was dealing with these related issues before they became highlighted in the news, as they are now. Mistakes were made, but we learn.
At the end of the day, this is still a good town. It is unfortunate that this town has received so much negative press in recent years. That bad press is not deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 13, 2006 15:39:40 GMT -5
I stand corrected, two people did post before I got this up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 13, 2006 15:51:38 GMT -5
I am surprised that no one has commented on this breaking story. I think everyone was dumbfounded. Mistakes were made, but we learn. Brian, you are very forgiving. At the end of the day, it seems that a little big of legal research would have gone a long way. I am sure that there are cases out there on whether you stop people from congregating on public land - I mean everyone knows of that bum in North Jersey that kept going to the library (a public place) and he was stopped from going there by the town. He sued. Didn't he get a similar verdict to this one? Another question, is how did all of these other issues (code enforcement, etc.) get involved in whether or not people could muster on public property? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 13, 2006 16:10:56 GMT -5
I am surprised that no one has commented on this breaking story. I think everyone was dumbfounded. Mistakes were made, but we learn. Brian, you are very forgiving. At the end of the day, it seems that a little big of legal research would have gone a long way. I am sure that there are cases out there on whether you stop people from congregating on public land - I mean everyone knows of that bum in North Jersey that kept going to the library (a public place) and he was stopped from going there by the town. He sued. Didn't he get a similar verdict to this one? Another question, is how did all of these other issues (code enforcement, etc.) get involved in whether or not people could muster on public property? I do not know how anyone could be dumbfounded. Any person who looks at this or any number of other issues knows that courts are often off their rocker. I would bet that any judge involved with this case is a supporter of the ACLU. Often activist, progressive judges, usually are put in office by the Democrats. Rich Kelsey warned us in another thread that the judge was not one who could be considered friendly to the town ( citizens). As far as the other issues, you would have to ask a lawyer. My guess is that the people who brought the suite loaded it with as many bombs as possible. At least one would hit target and get desired results. Forgiving? What else can be done? This town stands alone. Hostile courts and negligent feds have not exactly been helpful in addressing the very real safety and concerns of the legal citizenry. |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 13, 2006 16:47:00 GMT -5
Sorry, compe, but I can't find the humor in this.
Question: what did we gain by this settlement? Sounds like, the illegals got everything that they asked for. Which leads to the question, is there anything that they didn't get? I mean, it also looks like they got things that were never part of the original lawsuit.
Brian, your posts here sound like you've been beaten down.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 13, 2006 17:13:47 GMT -5
Sorry, compe, but I can't find the humor in this. Question: what did we gain by this settlement? Sounds like, the illegals got everything that they asked for. Which leads to the question, is there anything that they didn't get? I mean, it also looks like they got things that were never part of the original lawsuit. Brian, your posts here sound like you've been beaten down. Libyan Sybil, the entire issue of illegal immigration is absurd. I can see by your posts that you are enraged. I do not blame you. I am just looking forward. There is more to life than our illegal friends. Maybe my lack of passion on these threads is due to the fact that I know who is backing these lawsuits against the towns. The ACLU. You know them don't you? They are the ones who like to beat up boy scouts and support NAMBLA, They are the group who fights against our government in a time of war and support the enemy. All for your rights! And guess what? We just put the party who supports them in Washington! Bet you did not figure that out, the ACLU is supporting the illegals to protect your rights. It is all absurd and obscene. Outrage? Been there done that. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 13, 2006 17:32:38 GMT -5
"both sides reached an agreement that could cost the town $278,000."
Spending almost $300,000 in a frivolous lawsuit that had no chance of success from the very beginning was probably not a very smart move; maybe this money could have been better used in some of the other town's needs? Can you think of anything else or anyone else that could have benefited from this money? Hint…school expansion…children...
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Nov 13, 2006 17:46:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Nov 13, 2006 17:53:50 GMT -5
"both sides reached an agreement that could cost the town $278,000." Spending almost $300,000 in a frivolous lawsuit that had no chance of success from the very beginning was probably not a very smart move; maybe this money could have been better used in some of the other town's needs? Can you think of anything else or anyone else that could have benefited from this money? Hint…school expansion…children... Your post seems to imply that the Town was the Plaintiff and had control over the suit. It was not and did not. The suit was brougth against the town, and the Town was forced to defend. There was no "choice" for the Borough to use that money in some other fashion. I assume -- though I could be wrong -- that the payment will be made from an insurance policy. (Thus, this is not an expenditure from general funds. i.e. -- no 300K taken from one category to pay for another) Of coruse, depending on the policy, it is possible that this is not covered. A question worth asking. |
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 13, 2006 18:42:05 GMT -5
|
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Nov 13, 2006 20:40:29 GMT -5
I think my a$$ is sore after reading this?  |
|
bergsteiger
Full Member
War is simple, direct, and ruthless
Posts: 1,189
|
Post by bergsteiger on Nov 13, 2006 20:52:55 GMT -5
Maybe we should just pay up and be thankful for all the cultural enrichment we're exposed too.  |
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 15, 2006 7:17:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 15, 2006 7:18:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 15, 2006 7:20:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 15, 2006 7:23:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 15, 2006 15:19:08 GMT -5
Calliope:
You mean you uncovered a "loophole" in our Bill of Rights? No!!! How can this be?
The functional definition of "gray areas," within the law, is that which allows disingenuous people to defy the real intent of our laws and to profit ahead of others, through various forms of exploitation.
There is not an Italian alive, today, who still lives by the dictates of Caesar's Rome. America needs to place some restrictions on its own aging, founding documents to protect them, and us, from modern abuses never considered by the authors of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Illegal immigrants should be protected by human rights, but not by American rights. Their basic needs should be met and they should not come to any harm, as they are dealt with by law enforcement. Granting anything more insults all law abiding citizens.
Now, how do we go about convincing Congress that "loopholes" come about only when less than respectable people seek to "go outside of the lines" to benefit themselves or to harm others. Can we allow anyone to laugh at our Bill of Rights, because they are able to hide behind it, while circumventing our nation's laws? And, why are some so willing to allow this to happen?
Are there no more Thomas Jeffersons or Samuel Adams, who are as capable in our own times? The Bill of Rights is a sacred document, but even the church has let up on some of its own dogma to adjust to modern times. Times change and nations must adjust to them. Often a tweak will do, but such actions may be necessary to preserve a nation's integrity and well being.
America is not a religion. We must be protected from "loopholes" by applying modern needs to historical intent. There are times when some freedoms must be conditional on merit.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 15, 2006 16:34:49 GMT -5
Howdy, Marc! You are preaching to the choir here! I understand and agree. I was just so curious! I kept reading and hearing about the "rights" of illegals and was just so flummoxed, I looked it up. Calliope, You are not wrong for doing the research. It is important for average Americans to see for themselves. we often ask ourselves, what rights do illegals have here? It is a fair question and your curiosity does provide concrete answers. Good post! |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 15, 2006 17:14:17 GMT -5
Yes...I'm glad you posted it. Just a little of the frustration we all have over our government's seeming ability to "trip over its own feet," while impotently trying to apply 18th century thinking to 21st century challenges.
I am the first one to agree that we need to protect the integrity of the Bill of Rights. But, this doesn't mean that our hands should be tied in applying its dictates to new situations that threaten our national interest.
Forgive me for not being able to go into more detail, but some of the things I have recently heard from within professional legal circles has been a little upsetting to me regarding their interpretations of these same issues - the rights of illegal immigrants.
You have to wonder whose side many of these people are on and how far they are willing to go to protect American interests from harm. And, you also have to wonder if they have the courage to make the tough and critical choices to defend their country, rather than let their own flawed decisions work against us all.
I think you know what I am talking about.
Enough said on that subject.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by A little left on Nov 15, 2006 17:57:43 GMT -5
Mr. Levine, You think it is upsetting to you now? I would bet you that within five years all of the undocumented workers and their families will be voting. Do the math.
Bush + Democrat house and Senate = Guest worker program
Democrat President 2008+ Democrat Congress= quick path to vote.
Good bye republican party and borders all in one shot!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 15, 2006 19:13:49 GMT -5
Calliope, Take a look at this link and you will see one of the groups who advocates for the illegal aliens. This is just one of many. Other include La Raza ( The race) and the ACLU. The illegal aliens have a very good support network in their favor. This is why towns all across the country are losing. www.prldef.org/Index.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 15, 2006 20:57:51 GMT -5
Brian:
Towns are losing, not because of these silly advocacy groups. Towns are losing because of the government's clandestine marching orders to its court system. I am convinced of this.
The message, here, is similar to the one that our Generals in Iraq should have been getting all along - CRUSH THE INSURGENCY.
Instead, this message is being sent to our court system relative to the issue of illegal immigration. CRUSH THE INSURGENCY. On this particular issue - they are referring directly to the towns, like Freehold Borough, that are trying to help themselves by attempting to stop the bleeding.
Our government wants total control of this issue and they feel the need to protect the cheap labor supply for business and the Latino vote the political parties are both chasing. There is the sense that they are overruling us for our own good. "Fools, don't you know what you are doing? We need those people more than you need your lousy little insignificant towns."
Ohh...they know better...and little towns throughout America will be sacrificed to protect the wealthier ones and the businessmen who live there. Where else do you stick cheap labor?
We must all fight on for our own survival and for what is right. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams never approve of what is going on here...neither would Davey Crockett or Jim Bowie for that matter.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 15, 2006 21:18:31 GMT -5
A Little Left:
First of all, may I join you in bidding farewell to President Bush and his cronies, who made it very easy for me to return to my Democrat roots.
Democrats will protect our borders. Mr. Bin Laden will keep the focus on that effort. Thank you.
Next, I have never quarreled with the idea of offering illegal immigrants legal status, though I do oppose blanket amnesty, which encourages more illegal immigration.
Legal status and immigration reform. For me, the sooner the better. That's been the whole issue for me, all along. Doesn't that effectively get rid of the "off the books" day labor jobs and does it not level the playing field? This, YOU need to fear.
As yourself? Will people want to still come here for $10 per hour BEFORE taxes? Can they afford to pay $1500 per month for an apartment that they can not overcrowd? Welcome to the real world we all have to struggle with - NO EXCEPTIONS!!
Want to talk about the "market forces that drove them here. Well, consider my points, well taken. Unless, of course, you condone additional lawbreaking after legalization. I think that warrants some real jail time.
As for Voting? That's fine, if Congress grants that right. You see, along with the right to vote comes the responsibility to pay taxes and to be held accountable to the law. I expect nothing less of anyone who has legal status in this country and if you do...then you, sir, are seditious and should be sent adrift.
Responsibility to one's country is no threat to anyone, except to those who shun it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 15, 2006 22:01:03 GMT -5
bAs yourself? Will people want to still come here for $10 per hour BEFORE taxes?
Marc, by taxes you mean 'income taxes' I presume, because ALL other taxes they (the so called illegal immigrants) do pay them. They buy goods and services (taxes built into them) they pay rent on properties that DO pay their property taxes. Some of them even pay taxes where they work, and never file income tax returns do to the fear of being found and deported.
Marc, if we are going to go after the people who don't pay income tax why stop with day laborers?
1. Why not go after HS and college students who work under the table and have done so for as long as you and I can remember,
2. Why not go after waitresses and waiters who get cash tips and they constitutes a great part of their salaries?
3. Why not go after cash-only business like restaurants, repair shops, catering places.
4. Why not go after home-run businesses (day cares, antiques, and many others) that declare only a small portion if not none of their sales.
5. Why not go after corporations that get huge tax exemptions for 5 – 10 –15 year on the premise that they will provide community jobs? When in reality the wages of CEOs continue to disproportionately go up when compared with the average Joe like you and me.
|
|
|
|
Post by WYANE on Nov 16, 2006 1:48:50 GMT -5
PLEASE READ THIS, NOT MY WORDS, I'M NOT THAT CLEVER,  The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question. The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.FROM..... www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Nov 16, 2006 9:34:03 GMT -5
Now you are talking to an old HR guy with 30 years at the trade and a clear understanding of "the pay stub." There are many deductions taken that are important to the system. Especially important in our discussion is FICA, which OFF the books workers DO NOT pay. If they get hurt - the workers comp payments come out of a fund that you and I cover.
As for the other taxes illegal immigrants pay (e.g. sales tax, etc.). That has never been a good claim, because you and I pay those, too - on top of the other payroll taxes we contribute to. And, no, low wage earners don't get everything they paid out, back at the end of the year as some will say. They do not get FICA back - and the system needs that money to cover its costs.
And, by the way, I make no distinctions about who needs to get caught and pay back the system. This goes for illegal employers, crooked landlords and everyday citizens who fail to pay taxes. However, unless they purchased false IDs or use a W-7, a huge block of tax cheaters can be easily categorized as ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. And, that group is not all Mexican or Latino. It's just that our local issues are tied almost exclusively to this particular illegal population.
There are several standard or base deductions that everyone who claims an income must pay. These are as follows:
Federal Income Tax – This is the tax that is charged to you based on your gross income minus any "pre-tax deductions," such as retirement plan contributions, e.g. 401(k), 403(b), or certain health care and childcare contributions, e.g. those that are part of a Flexible Spending Account (see below). Pre-tax deductions are those which lower your taxable income. So, for example, if an individual earns $50,000 in a year, but contributes $10,000 to a 401(k), then the individual is only taxed based on an income of $40,000.
Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) – FICA contributions fund Social Security (the national program to provide unemployment compensation, old age pension, welfare, etc.) and Medicare (the national health insurance program for individuals aged 65 years and older). The Social Security portion is 6.20% and the Medicare portion is 1.45%, totaling a combined tax rate of 7.65%. Currently, there is a Social Security cap on earnings of $87,900, which means that the amount of tax goes down based on gross salary.
State Taxes – These vary according to the state in which you work and live; some states do not have personal income tax.
State Unemployment and Disability – Certain states require employees to contribute to this program. This is a complex system that varies widely from state to state.
City, Local, and/or County Taxes – These vary depending on the area that you live and work. There can be a credit issued if you work in the city and live in the suburbs.
In addition, anyone working ON the books and doing bad things at home (failing to pay child support or alimony) or in society (owing debts) can have their wages garnished by the courts. OFF the books workers are unfairly immune from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Nov 16, 2006 14:00:38 GMT -5
(Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I don't want to start another thread for this..... WNYC has devoted some on-air time in the past to the situation here in Freehold; this was their coverage of the settlement.) (No audio, the story is at www.wnyc.org/news/articles/69033) |
|
