Schwarzenegger pushes labor law enforcement

WEll, I voted for Wilson and I can't stand KCET. I've never found Hewitt entirely believable. I just get a sense from him that he's actually doing something else but writing that he isn't and vice versa. Dunno, just a strong intuition, always had it, can't explain it beyond the intuitive.

But then again, a lot of people -- like I was writing earlier -- among Republicans work together and with one another and yet are finely tuned in many disparate directions and have even at times opposing opinions about significant issues.

Like I said, "big tent" party is the RNC. About Hewitt, I will always remember him appearing not too long ago on O'Reilly and O'Reilly seemingly seeing right through some veneer just as I was intuiting about here earlier and Hewitt with a strangely evasive sort of sigh that indicated to me that he got O'Reilly as to the intuitive factor and was denying the unstated with the sighing he was displaying...and thus, was confirming O'Reilly's rather astute intuitive zeroing in on Hewitt's lack o' specificity to a point of non committal.

Like I wrote, makes me uncomfortable. I can handle outspoken people and direct people and complex people and even objectionable people (sometimes, depending) but one thing that's very difficult is a person who is so much like water that they evade all specifics and yet suggest that which they allude to not supporting (and yet your intuitions tell you otherwise, is my point). All I can say is that Hewitt has never been my cup o' tea.

When I read that he endorsed Villairosa, well, that cinched it for me, that and Hewitt's dishonest representation of what Tancredo said/didn't say...after I heard Tancredo directly repeat his original statements in context, it was glaring proof that Hewitt moreorless engaged in a framing of Tancredo, some sort of discredidation of the guy for unexplained reasons. So, I think there's boiling there that isn't straightforward, is my point and I don't care for it.

No, and yes, yes, you are right but no, I think that these few statements by Schwarzenegger are being misunderstood or misrepresented here by some. I can understand what Schwarzenegger was saying IN THIS STORY'S CONTEXT, that Schwarzenegger was appearing for purposes of emphasizing enforcement of labor laws. And not appearing for purposes of immigration reform or enforcement. But, who is to say he isn't otherwise working on the problem, has notified others of immigration violations at that location (and related) afterward or even during? It's just that the theme of this story was as to Schwarzenegger making a point of enforcing labor laws, and at that moment, that appearance, making the statement he made that he wasn't there that day for immigration purpose...thus, also, gaining more information ABOUT immigration status in the process. I'm only saying that he made sense as to the labor laws issue and we can't know with any certainty that he DIDN'T take action about the many illegal immigrants he found on that visit. Certainly he got a great deal of evidence that there are a huge number of illegal immigrants in CA's garment industry and so, who knows...perhaps other things are in the works. I guess it's like, he shows up, says to all the obviously preidentified illegal workers, "don't run, I'm not here to deport you today" sorta thing, gets information, talks and walks and looks around, impresses on people the labor laws concerns, and then goes back to work and follows up on other problems/concerns scoped out while there. I think his statements are being a tad misinterpreted. Another thing, too, is that Schwarzenegger just named an Army general (William H. Wade, II) to lead CA state's National Guard, with an indication of possible preparation for other things to come as to our border...certainly possible. At least, best to be prepared.

Because (continuing previous), enforcing labor laws is among the first and important places to start to address the problem of employment being given to illegal immigrants and fraud that allows that to occur in such huge numbers and scope in CA (and elsewhere, but the point here is CA). The "secondary economy" problem won't be solved by just efficient border security -- more people will resort to even more closed secondary economies, is my point...we have to identify and penalize with effectiveness the people who employ illegal immigrants, who run the mills of fraudulent documents and otherwise traffic in illegal immigrans.

So, that makes a great deal of sense to me. Schwarzenegger, anyone, could announce that everyone was being ticketed and then they were being set loose and expected to return for a hearing later -- what currently takes place, to our all's frustrations -- but instead he's focusing on the "secondary economy" problems from a labor perspective, at least here, this instance.

I think it's commmendable, not to be denigrated, is my point. Like the guy says here (Mr. Rice), unless the employers are penalized, the labor laws enforced, employers such as this are only going to employ even greater numbers of illegal immigrants at even more clouded terms and thus, eliminate employment opportunities for legal immigrants and citizens...because you have to do something about the people who are violating labor laws and it's those violations that make employing illegal immigrants the big problem that it is today, particularly in CA.

Such that, it's yet another arm/branch of the larger problem of illegal immigration..so, in fact, Schwarzenegger IS taking action about that, to my view, from one angle among many necessary.

I think with Schwarzenegger that many Republicans need him to fail. I don't know why yet (I can certainly guess) but he's being attacked not only by Democrats in the state but not supported by Republicans elsewhere. Which is sad to my view because he's doing a near impossible thing in Sacramento, up against a majority of Democrat unions with hugely deep pockets to burn on negative ads and bad press of their making.

I'd like to see Schwarzenegger succeed and think he deserves more support than he's being given from Republicans. However, his marriage/relationship to the Kennedy family is probably what suggests him as unreliable, more than anything, to my best guess (and a large part of upon what my own reservations about him are based).

First issue: California's economic woes and illegal immigration

California's economic problems are exacerbated by illegal immigration. As these illegal immigrants deposit legal progeny in California and these progeny are mainstreamed into local politics "anchor baby" legislators further expand the tax payer supported safety net to a larger class of alien squatters. This process is often identified as partisan (Democrat) but in fact, it's self preservation and this process would continue regardless of the anchor baby's political affiliation.

As an example Cedillo, Nunez, Torres and Villar would still be promoting the expasion of rights to illegal aliens if they were registered Republicans.

Working with the alien squatter class through "compassionate" processes will not solve or even ameliorate the problem. Compassion will simply continue to exacerbate. Identification and deportation of illegal squatters and their progeny, economic penalties for employers who utilize this illegal, imported cheap labor and a limitation of taxpayer responsibilities for the maintenance of alien nationals are reasonable and achievable steps to correct a festering wound.

Second issue: Schwarzenegger's political woes

Schwarzenegger is, by in large, supported by the Republican Party mainstream. He is not supported by conservatives on the far right for good reason. He is not very conservative by traditional definitions. He is, in fact, liberal in many key areas of his political philosophy.

Oft times newcomers to FreeRepublic assume that this forum is associated with the Republican Party. It is not. The founder of the forum did not even register as a Republican until 4 years ago. Lurkers see the wealth of well deserved criticism on this forum for Schwarzenegger's actions and assume that Republicans don't support him. Republican do support Schwarzenegger. Conservative don't.

If you're referring to me (a "newcomer to FR...assuming FR is associated with the Republican Party..."), no, as a relatively, somewhat new commentor/participant here, I don't and haven't ever made such an assumption about FR.

I am a conservative individual as identified by my religious beliefs and life led in accordance with those beliefs and I vote as a Republican at present (always in the past, however, I voted as a Democrat in one Presidential election) and intend to only because the RNC is not as offensive to my religious beliefs in how they reason issues, versus the DNC who I just cannot associate with due to the overwhelming offensive social behaviors by so many liberals.

But those things are personal and as to FR, I've made only one assumption about the place and that is that it's news intensive and sometimes very entertaining from a commentary perspective. I read many liberal comments here -- they're easily recognized -- but predominantly the non-conservative Libertarians, which is another form of liberalism in my view.

Anyway, I hope that edifies any curiosity you might have.

About California, we all have varying perspectives I realize but I wasn't soliciting an instructive piece about Arnold Schwarzenegger (who I've realistically perceived for some time now, long before he was in our Governor's office).

All in all, I don't think that any Republican stands much of a chance in politics or life in general in CA due to a vengeful and retaliatory, damaging group personality by Democrats/liberals in the state. The immense amount of wealth that is controlled here by Democrats is used to diminish conservatives in most public offices and in my voting experience, which is considerable, I've met more rank liberals in office who appear compelled to literally destroy conservatives in the very geographical area for thousands of miles around. No exaggeration; the amount of intentional harm that many liberals in this state inflict upon others is truly terrible, and they use political offices to do just that. Schwarzenegger has to try for a peace with them just to survive his term, in my opinion, even badly.

We'll never have solutions to social problems in the state unless there is a vast increase in voter support and affiliation with reduced government, reduced social programs and eliminating as much as possible illegal immigration and labor laws violations. Which at this point I don't think will ever happen unless there's a very severe depression statewide/nationwide combined with natural disasters so overtaking that people have to literally work together to survive.

Otherwise, liberals maintain a highly socialist structure in the state and socially impune, denigrate and go for ruin if/when any conservative rises up. Reagan only rose to any position of power because he was as liberal as any conservative could ever be, similar to Schwarzenegger, for the better part of his/their political lives. But Pete Wilson, even, look what happened to him.

I dunno, but the state does not seem capable of fostering an actual conservative and then supporting one in any position of leadership. The Repblicans I am a bit familiar with in the state are not people I can, even as someone who voted for them, anticipate any reasonable response or assistance from when/if needed. Something about the place sets people at one another's throats and that's not even taking Democrats into the mix.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.