Anybody read the December Bicycling?

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible
riders"---those people who are of low income and use bicycles as their
sole transportation. The writer, Dan Koeppel, spent time with the
undocumented(read : illegal) workers in Los Angeles. The article is well
written, and gave me an insight into a world I do not see. That being
said, he really hacked me off. There's an incident he mentions of meeting
a rider named Octavio who was riding a steel Trek with bar end shifters, a
Blackburn rack, and a Brooks. Koeppel deduces the bike is stolen, then
says, "Maybe he deserves the bike."? Huh? Deserves it more than the person
who actually paid for it? What a moron. Am I supposed to feel sympathy for
someone who not only illegally entered the country, but is riding around
on a stolen bicycle?

It sounds like Koeppel makes two errors.
1. Unless he has direct evidence, it is inappropriate to assume -
particularly in print - that the bike is stolen. That seems likely, but
there are other explanations.
2. "Deserves it"? We are a society of laws, and theft is outside the normal
social contract. That's one of the reasons we have welfare and charities.
[and why, at times when these agencies do not function such as during
hurricane Katrina looting grocery stores to get food and water is an
acceptable action].

I remember a similar article a few years ago (not in Bicycling; I think it
was the LA Times) about undocumented workers in California riding bicycles.
Some of them were working nights and riding to/from work because there were
no buses and had been hit. The author explained that they couldn't afford
lights. And yet most of them smoked.

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible
riders"---those people who are of low income and use bicycles as their
sole transportation. The writer, Dan Koeppel, spent time with the
undocumented(read : illegal) workers in Los Angeles. The article is well
written, and gave me an insight into a world I do not see. That being
said, he really hacked me off. There's an incident he mentions of meeting
a rider named Octavio who was riding a steel Trek with bar end shifters, a
Blackburn rack, and a Brooks. Koeppel deduces the bike is stolen, then
says, "Maybe he deserves the bike."? Huh? Deserves it more than the person
who actually paid for it? What a moron. Am I supposed to feel sympathy for
someone who not only illegally entered the country, but is riding around
on a stolen bicycle?

It seems unlikely that the rider was the thief, and given that nearly all of
the bikes purchased by this demographic will be used, it's equally unlikely
that it would ever even occur to someone to ask questions about the bikes'
origins.

I haven't read the article, but what you've quoted is, I agree, unfortunate
phasing. But the rider, it seems to me, probably bought the bike from one of
the many neighborhood dealers in secondhand bikes who sell exclusively to
this community, and even if the buyer was concerned about it being stolen,
there would be know way for him to find out. He's not likely to go to the
police and ask them to run the serial number, is he?

One sad thing: that nice stolen Trek touring bike probably sold for less
than stolen Huffys worth a tenth as much, just because it had drop bars and
bar-ends.

Another sad thing: the rightful owner of the bike would probably have
happily paid more to get it back than it sold for on the street.

But yeah, introducing the concept of who "deserves" the bike, as if the
owner never existed, seems off the wall.

RichC

"Rich Clark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible
riders"---those people who are of low income and use bicycles as their
sole transportation. The writer, Dan Koeppel, spent time with the
undocumented(read : illegal) workers in Los Angeles. The article is well
written, and gave me an insight into a world I do not see. That being
said, he really hacked me off. There's an incident he mentions of meeting
a rider named Octavio who was riding a steel Trek with bar end shifters,
a Blackburn rack, and a Brooks. Koeppel deduces the bike is stolen, then
says, "Maybe he deserves the bike."? Huh? Deserves it more than the
person who actually paid for it? What a moron. Am I supposed to feel
sympathy for someone who not only illegally entered the country, but is
riding around on a stolen bicycle?

It seems unlikely that the rider was the thief, and given that nearly all
of the bikes purchased by this demographic will be used, it's equally
unlikely that it would ever even occur to someone to ask questions about
the bikes' origins.

I haven't read the article, but what you've quoted is, I agree,
unfortunate phasing. But the rider, it seems to me, probably bought the
bike from one of the many neighborhood dealers in secondhand bikes who
sell exclusively to this community, and even if the buyer was concerned
about it being stolen, there would be know way for him to find out. He's
not likely to go to the police and ask them to run the serial number, is
he?

One sad thing: that nice stolen Trek touring bike probably sold for less
than stolen Huffys worth a tenth as much, just because it had drop bars
and bar-ends.

Another sad thing: the rightful owner of the bike would probably have
happily paid more to get it back than it sold for on the street.

But yeah, introducing the concept of who "deserves" the bike, as if the
owner never existed, seems off the wall.

RichC

Koeppel doesn't say that the rider actually stole the bike, but buying a
stolen bike is the same as stealing a bike, and the rider knew he was
getting a bike of higher quality than a Huffy. The statement that the
illegal worker "deserves the bike" inplies that the original owner didn't.
How does he know? He probably assumed it was owned by some yuppie fitness
cyclist, but it could just as easily been someone for whom the Trek was sole
transportation. Could have been a teenager. The arrogance just got to me.

"Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible
riders"---those people who are of low income and use bicycles as their
sole transportation. The writer, Dan Koeppel, spent time with the
undocumented(read : illegal) workers in Los Angeles. The article is well
written, and gave me an insight into a world I do not see. That being
said, he really hacked me off. There's an incident he mentions of meeting
a rider named Octavio who was riding a steel Trek with bar end shifters,
a Blackburn rack, and a Brooks. Koeppel deduces the bike is stolen, then
says, "Maybe he deserves the bike."? Huh? Deserves it more than the
person who actually paid for it? What a moron. Am I supposed to feel
sympathy for someone who not only illegally entered the country, but is
riding around on a stolen bicycle?

It sounds like Koeppel makes two errors.
1. Unless he has direct evidence, it is inappropriate to assume -
particularly in print - that the bike is stolen. That seems likely, but
there are other explanations.

Well, Koeppel didn't SEE him steal it, but an illegal immigrant on a BoBish
bike is highly suspect. I doubt he saved his meager income to buy the bike.
What do you figure a used Trek 520 with a Brooks goes for? I've seen them on
eBay for $250 for old old models. That's a lot of money for someone who
makes $200/wk before expenses.

Quoted message said:

2. "Deserves it"? We are a society of laws, and theft is outside the
normal social contract. That's one of the reasons we have welfare and
charities. [and why, at times when these agencies do not function such as
during hurricane Katrina looting grocery stores to get food and water is
an acceptable action].

I remember a similar article a few years ago (not in Bicycling; I think it
was the LA Times) about undocumented workers in California riding
bicycles. Some of them were working nights and riding to/from work because
there were no buses and had been hit. The author explained that they
couldn't afford lights. And yet most of them smoked.

I have a problem with the illegal immigrant situation. I do feel sorry for
them, because their home countries are not good places. They are exploited
here by greedy employers who do not wish to pay a living wage. But that
still doesn't give them the right to scoff at our laws. I live in Florida,
in an area which is experiencing a building boom. When I first moved here,
the overwhelming majority of drywallers(just an example) were good ol' boys
and bikers. Now they are all illegal aliens(Mexicans, Salvadorans, etc).
What about the good ol' boys and bikers? It's wrong, and the employers
should be held accountable. I don't really mind the seasonal farm workers,
because Americans don't want to do the job. Construction is another matter.

Gooserider <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible
:> riders"---those people who are of low income and use bicycles as
:> their sole transportation. The writer, Dan Koeppel, spent time with
:> the undocumented(read : illegal) workers in Los Angeles. The article
:> is well written, and gave me an insight into a world I do not see.
:> That being said, he really hacked me off. There's an incident he
:> mentions of meeting a rider named Octavio who was riding a steel
:> Trek with bar end shifters, a Blackburn rack, and a Brooks. Koeppel
:> deduces the bike is stolen, then says, "Maybe he deserves the
:> bike."? Huh? Deserves it more than the person who actually paid for
:> it? What a moron. Am I supposed to feel sympathy for someone who not
:> only illegally entered the country, but is riding around on a stolen
:> bicycle?

Dood...you're reading Bicycling, or is it Buycycling? What do you expect?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have a problem with the illegal immigrant situation. I do feel sorry for

them, because their home countries are not good places.<<

I don't. They are here illegally and once they start breeding it's you
and I that pay for their pups via medicaid and welfare and crowded
schools. I say shoot them at the border.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are exploited

here by greedy employers who do not wish to pay a living wage.<<

$5/hr is a king's ransom compared to what they make as dirt farmers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But that

still doesn't give them the right to scoff at our laws. I live in
Florida,
in an area which is experiencing a building boom. When I first moved
here,
the overwhelming majority of drywallers(just an example) were good ol'
boys
and bikers. Now they are all illegal aliens(Mexicans, Salvadorans,
etc).
What about the good ol' boys and bikers?<<

I noticed that is true everywhere. Day laborers are the contractors'
main workforce. Fortunately most tradesmen are skilled. It was funny
when my house was being built. These day laborers would put the
doorbell at their max height which was equal to chest high on the
taller Americans so the houses that didnt notice got doorbell chimes as
wall decor..

Roger Zoul said:

Gooserider <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible
:> riders"---those people who are of low income and use bicycles as
:> their sole transportation. The writer, Dan Koeppel, spent time with
:> the undocumented(read : illegal) workers in Los Angeles. The article
:> is well written, and gave me an insight into a world I do not see.
:> That being said, he really hacked me off. There's an incident he
:> mentions of meeting a rider named Octavio who was riding a steel
:> Trek with bar end shifters, a Blackburn rack, and a Brooks. Koeppel
:> deduces the bike is stolen, then says, "Maybe he deserves the
:> bike."? Huh? Deserves it more than the person who actually paid for
:> it? What a moron. Am I supposed to feel sympathy for someone who not
:> only illegally entered the country, but is riding around on a stolen
:> bicycle?

Dood...you're reading Bicycling, or is it Buycycling? What do you expect?

Actually, while I agree the "deserving the bike" point was VERY poorly
thought out, I was somewhat pleased by the article.

Occasionally - hmmm, make that "rarely", Buycycling puts in an article
that can make a person think. This one, I think, may have made some
people who post here think about their attitudes - like the one that
there are "real cyclists" and there are "POBs," and the latter don't
count at all.

- Frank Krygowski

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Well, Koeppel didn't SEE him steal it, but an illegal immigrant on a
BoBish bike is highly suspect. I doubt he saved his meager income to buy
the bike. What do you figure a used Trek 520 with a Brooks goes for? I've
seen them on eBay for $250 for old old models. That's a lot of money for
someone who makes $200/wk before expenses.

How did he know "Octavio" was an illegal immigrant? There are a lot of weird
stereotypes in this story. You need to provide a lot more details before we
will believe you.

"Bill Bennett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Well, Koeppel didn't SEE him steal it, but an illegal immigrant on a
BoBish bike is highly suspect. I doubt he saved his meager income to buy
the bike. What do you figure a used Trek 520 with a Brooks goes for? I've
seen them on eBay for $250 for old old models. That's a lot of money for
someone who makes $200/wk before expenses.

How did he know "Octavio" was an illegal immigrant? There are a lot of
weird
stereotypes in this story. You need to provide a lot more details before
we
will believe you.

Are you so daft as to not understand that a Hispanic who works day labor
jobs in Los Angeles is undoubtedly an illegal immigrant? And what do you
mean "believe"? The article is in December 2005 Bicycling. Sorry if I
offended your PC sensibilities.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gooserider said:

"Bill Bennett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Well, Koeppel didn't SEE him steal it, but an illegal immigrant on a
BoBish bike is highly suspect. I doubt he saved his meager income to buy
the bike. What do you figure a used Trek 520 with a Brooks goes for? I've
seen them on eBay for $250 for old old models. That's a lot of money for
someone who makes $200/wk before expenses.

How did he know "Octavio" was an illegal immigrant? There are a lot of
weird
stereotypes in this story. You need to provide a lot more details before
we
will believe you.

Are you so daft as to not understand that a Hispanic who works day labor
jobs in Los Angeles is undoubtedly an illegal immigrant?

Undoubtedly, or just possibly?

I've done a bunch of day labour jobs myself; I'm low-income,
and my bike is my sole transportation. And I'm not an immigrant.
I'm also not a crackhead, mental patient or jailbird. I just
don't need or want a bunch of stupid affluence.

I haven't read the article, but by the descriptions of it here,
it kind of smacks of classism.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Tom Keats" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gooserider said:

"Bill Bennett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
> Well, Koeppel didn't SEE him steal it, but an illegal immigrant on a
> BoBish bike is highly suspect. I doubt he saved his meager income to
> buy
> the bike. What do you figure a used Trek 520 with a Brooks goes for?
> I've
> seen them on eBay for $250 for old old models. That's a lot of money
> for
> someone who makes $200/wk before expenses.

How did he know "Octavio" was an illegal immigrant? There are a lot of
weird
stereotypes in this story. You need to provide a lot more details
before
we
will believe you.

Are you so daft as to not understand that a Hispanic who works day labor
jobs in Los Angeles is undoubtedly an illegal immigrant?

Undoubtedly, or just possibly?

I've done a bunch of day labour jobs myself; I'm low-income,
and my bike is my sole transportation. And I'm not an immigrant.
I'm also not a crackhead, mental patient or jailbird. I just
don't need or want a bunch of stupid affluence.

I haven't read the article, but by the descriptions of it here,
it kind of smacks of classism.

More than just possibly, it's highly unlikely he is anything but an illegal
immigrant.There aren't a whole lot of visas given out so that people can
come here and do day labor. The article isn't classist. If anything, the
illegals are treated with a deference which is wholly undeserved. The writer
constantly mentions how bad he feels about having a titanium Seven tourer,
even.

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It sounds like Koeppel makes two errors.
1. Unless he has direct evidence, it is inappropriate to assume -
particularly in print - that the bike is stolen. That seems likely, but
there are other explanations.

Well, Koeppel didn't SEE him steal it, but an illegal immigrant on a
BoBish bike is highly suspect. I doubt he saved his meager income to buy
the bike. What do you figure a used Trek 520 with a Brooks goes for? I've
seen them on eBay for $250 for old old models. That's a lot of money for
someone who makes $200/wk before expenses.

There's a difference between "highly suspect" and "guilty".
When our bike club asked for donations to help a group of people in need, we
got mostly what you'd expect, but a few bikes that were a LOT nicer than
you'd think people would donate.
So, it's POSSIBLE, albeit unlikely, that in return for some favor somebody
gave him a bike, say one owned by a deceased relative that seemed like too
much work to sell, or that somebody donated it to a thrift shop that didn't
recognize what it had.

Of course, re-reading both of our postings, we aren't in much disagreement.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gooserider said:

More than just possibly, it's highly unlikely he is anything but an illegal
immigrant.There aren't a whole lot of visas given out so that people can
come here and do day labor.

How do you know that whomever is doing whatever day labour job
is an illegal immigrant, and not a citizen?

Quoted message said:

The article isn't classist. If anything, the
illegals are treated with a deference which is wholly undeserved. The writer
constantly mentions how bad he feels about having a titanium Seven tourer,
even.

I'm sorry he feels so badly about being so blessed.
I hope he gets some pleasant interactions with people
from everywhere, to make up for it.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Tom Keats" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gooserider said:

More than just possibly, it's highly unlikely he is anything but an
illegal
immigrant.There aren't a whole lot of visas given out so that people can
come here and do day labor.

How do you know that whomever is doing whatever day labour job
is an illegal immigrant, and not a citizen?

Being Hispanic and not speaking English would be a tipoff. The day labor
business(at least in the US) is FULL of illegal immigrants. Maybe it's
different in Canada.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article isn't classist. If anything, the
illegals are treated with a deference which is wholly undeserved. The
writer
constantly mentions how bad he feels about having a titanium Seven
tourer,
even.

I'm sorry he feels so badly about being so blessed.
I hope he gets some pleasant interactions with people
from everywhere, to make up for it.

But I sincerely doubt he would dip into his pool of disposable income and
buy some day laborers Trek 7300s.

"Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> There is an article in this month's Bicycling about the "invisible ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It sounds like Koeppel makes two errors.
1. Unless he has direct evidence, it is inappropriate to assume -
particularly in print - that the bike is stolen. That seems likely, but
there are other explanations.

Well, Koeppel didn't SEE him steal it, but an illegal immigrant on a
BoBish bike is highly suspect. I doubt he saved his meager income to buy
the bike. What do you figure a used Trek 520 with a Brooks goes for? I've
seen them on eBay for $250 for old old models. That's a lot of money for
someone who makes $200/wk before expenses.

There's a difference between "highly suspect" and "guilty".
When our bike club asked for donations to help a group of people in need,
we got mostly what you'd expect, but a few bikes that were a LOT nicer
than you'd think people would donate.
So, it's POSSIBLE, albeit unlikely, that in return for some favor somebody
gave him a bike, say one owned by a deceased relative that seemed like too
much work to sell, or that somebody donated it to a thrift shop that
didn't recognize what it had.

Of course, re-reading both of our postings, we aren't in much
disagreement.

The article states that first, "Octavio" said he bought the bike. Then, when
Koeppel questioned him again, he said he got it as a gift. That means either
he stole it, or bought it from someone who stole it. Not hard to figure out.

Gooserider said:

I have a problem with the illegal immigrant situation. I do feel sorry for
them, because their home countries are not good places. They are exploited
here by greedy employers who do not wish to pay a living wage. But that
still doesn't give them the right to scoff at our laws.

Perhaps it is different in Florida but here in Chicago, while those
"greedy employers that do not wish to pay a living wage" do exist, most
of the employed illegal aliens that I have encountered over the years
(a number I'm sure is well into the thousands) worked at so-called
menial jobs and received the same wages as the US citizens they worked
alongside. The businesses they work at are often small with ten to
fifteen employees at most and the business owners aren't fat cats by
any means.

Quoted message said:

I live in Florida, in an area which is experiencing a building boom. When I
first moved here, the overwhelming majority of drywallers(just an example)
were good ol' boys and bikers. Now they are all illegal aliens
(Mexicans,Salvadorans, etc). What about the good ol' boys and bikers? It's
wrong, and the employers should be held accountable.

What is it that you want to hold the employers accountable for, hiring
illegal aliens that want to work and paying them a living wage or
hiring them and paying them less than they would pay good ol' boys and
bikers? While I know that sweat shops and unscrupulous employers that
ruthlessly exploit their labor force exist, I know of no evidence that
leads me to believe they are a majority or even a large minority.

Quoted message said:

I don't really mind the seasonal farm workers, because Americans don't want
to do the job. Construction is another matter.

Leaving aside the implicit, "It's okay to exploit illegal immigrants as
farm workers because Americans don't want those jobs" in your
statement, why do you think that all those contractors hiring illegal
immigrants as manual laborers are doing so because they work cheaper?
What I hear most often from the employers I talk with that hire
illegal immigrants' is, "They show up every day and they work. If I
could find U.S. workers that did that, I'd hire them. Do you think I
*want* to have to learn another language or pay fines for hiring
illegals?".
All that said, we do need to overhaul our immigration policy. Let's not
do it based *solely* on "protecting American jobs" though. If we do
that we'll end up "protecting" our permanently unemployed.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Gooserider said:

I have a problem with the illegal immigrant situation. I do feel sorry
for
them, because their home countries are not good places. They are
exploited
here by greedy employers who do not wish to pay a living wage. But that
still doesn't give them the right to scoff at our laws.

Perhaps it is different in Florida but here in Chicago, while those
"greedy employers that do not wish to pay a living wage" do exist, most
of the employed illegal aliens that I have encountered over the years
(a number I'm sure is well into the thousands) worked at so-called
menial jobs and received the same wages as the US citizens they worked
alongside. The businesses they work at are often small with ten to
fifteen employees at most and the business owners aren't fat cats by
any means.

Without benefits, you forget. The ones I've encountered are usually paid
cash under the table, also. The single Mexican and OTM(other than Mexican)
laborers send money back home, which doesn't benefit our economy at all. Add
to that their tendency to live in large numbers in small homes/trailers, and
it's not a good situation at all. The fact that Mexicans and OTMs are
willing to work serves to drive down the wages their American co-workers
get.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I live in Florida, in an area which is experiencing a building boom. When
I
first moved here, the overwhelming majority of drywallers(just an
example)
were good ol' boys and bikers. Now they are all illegal aliens
(Mexicans,Salvadorans, etc). What about the good ol' boys and bikers? It's
wrong, and the employers should be held accountable.

What is it that you want to hold the employers accountable for, hiring
illegal aliens that want to work and paying them a living wage or
hiring them and paying them less than they would pay good ol' boys and
bikers? While I know that sweat shops and unscrupulous employers that
ruthlessly exploit their labor force exist, I know of no evidence that
leads me to believe they are a majority or even a large minority.

I want them to be held accountable for hiring people who are in the country
ILLEGALLY. Period. It is illegal for the workers to be here. They also use
fake IDs and fake Social Security cards, which is a crime. Hiring illegals
drives down wages.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't really mind the seasonal farm workers, because Americans don't
want
to do the job. Construction is another matter.

Leaving aside the implicit, "It's okay to exploit illegal immigrants as
farm workers because Americans don't want those jobs" in your
statement, why do you think that all those contractors hiring illegal
immigrants as manual laborers are doing so because they work cheaper?

If people were paid $10/hour to pick lettuce, Americans would do the jobs.
That is evidently not feasible, so the migrant farm workers are a necessary
evil. The thing about the migrant farm workers is they are supposed to go
back to Mexico when the season is over. I know damn well there are plenty of
young guys who will do construction work. It's easier for the contractors to
hire illegals and pay them cash, and offer them no health insurance(the
emergency room will take care of that, natch).

Quoted message said:

What I hear most often from the employers I talk with that hire
illegal immigrants' is, "They show up every day and they work. If I
could find U.S. workers that did that, I'd hire them. Do you think I
*want* to have to learn another language or pay fines for hiring
illegals?".

Oh, what do you expect the employers to say? "I hire the illegals because I
can pay them less, work them like slaves, and they don't dare complain
because they are here illegally. Plus, I pay them under the table, and don't
have to offer them any benefits."? If an employer has difficulty finding
people to work, perhaps he/she should look inward to determine WHY.

Quoted message said:

All that said, we do need to overhaul our immigration policy. Let's not
do it based *solely* on "protecting American jobs" though. If we do
that we'll end up "protecting" our permanently unemployed.

I think that employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should face
stiff fines and jail time, and that would solve our immigration policy very
quickly.

"Mike Kruger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

2. "Deserves it"? We are a society of laws, and theft is outside the
normal social contract.

This is where YOU have made an error -- presuming that there exists any
longer any such thing as a "social contract". Anything anyone does is OK.

Quoted message said:

That's one of the reasons we have welfare and charities.

Charities are to be eliminated and replaced by taxpayer funding of welfare.

Quoted message said:

... undocumented workers in California riding bicycles. Some of them were
working nights and riding to/from work because there were no buses and
had been hit. The author explained that they couldn't afford lights. And
yet most of them smoked.

The poor can ALWAYS afford cigarettes.

"Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But I sincerely doubt he would dip into his pool of disposable income and
buy some day laborers Trek 7300s.

I think he would. I donated some bikes to poor kids whose fathers had flown
the coop -- not Treks, but Schwinns. It's not that hard to do.