posted on January 5, 2006 11:50:48 AM new
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - U.S. Border Patrol agents have come under fire twice along the Rio Grande in Texas in recent days amid rising tension on the frontier with Mexico, although no one was reported wounded, U.S. authorities said on Thursday.
A Border Patrol spokesman said unknown gunmen fired on agents on patrol in Brownsville, Texas, late on Wednesday. It was not immediately clear if the shots came from Mexico or from within the United States.
"Shots were fired, no one was injured and the FBI have taken the case over," Jose Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Border Patrol in McAllen, Texas, said by telephone.
Rodriguez said the shooting was the second along the same stretch of the Rio Grande in the past week, after agents patrolling the area in a launch on Friday came under a volley of gunfire from Mexico.
"On that occasion the shooters were hiding in brush on the Mexican side of the river ... The launch was struck by five bullets, although there were no injuries," he said.
That incident came on the same day a Border Patrol agent fatally shot a teenage Mexican immigrant as he crossed the border near San Diego on December 30, triggering widespread anger in Mexico and calls for a full investigation.
Speaking to Mexican diplomats late on Wednesday, President Vicente Fox reiterated calls by the Mexican government for clarification of the killing, and pledged to "ensure that total justice is done in the case."
JUSTICE???? How about telling them if they continue to invade our country...we'll continue shooting[/b].
The 2,000-mile (3,200-km)
U.S.-Mexico border has always been dangerous, although violent attacks on Border Patrol agents have risen in recent months, especially in Arizona, where around half the 1.2 million undocumented immigrants nabbed crossing from Mexico were detained last year.
The Tucson sector Border Patrol said attacks on agents havroe almost doubled in recent months, and included cases in which officers have been shot at, rammed with cars and pelted with rocks by immigrants and smugglers.
posted on January 5, 2006 03:36:48 PM new
If the kid was on our side of the border, ignore Fox, if he was on their side apologize that he wasn't on our side.
Mexico is a joke
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
My liberalism stops when it comes to illegal aliens. If they are going to shoot at our border patrol, then the border patrol needs to shoot back. We need to show them that we mean business. I'm tired of hearing that we have to allow the illegals to stay because they're doing jobs Americans don't want. Hogwash. What the illegals are doing is making it possible for corporations to pay less than a decent wage (with no benefits) thus improving their bottom line. WalMart is a prime example.
Maybe Mexico should look at their own economy and do more to create jobs there and stop relying on us to take care of their citizens.
I'm sorry that a teenager was shot and killed, though.
BTW, this is one area where my BF and I agree 100%. He's a democrat, but is in the middle so we don't agree on a lot of things.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
And then there was a report in yesterday's Judicial Watch, where a city in CA, Costa Mesa, whose's TRYING to abide by the laws concerning illegals in that town....is being met with opposition. ::this is just NUTS:: Now some think we should just IGNORE our immigration laws altogether. I'm not one of them.
----
January 04, 2006
California City Under Fire For Enforcing Immigration Laws
Violence between Mexican activists and anti-illegal immigration advocates broke out in the small Southern California city of Costa Mesa over a new law that makes it the nation's first city to authorize its police department to enforce federal immigration laws.
Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor said he proposed the law, which passed by a vote of 3-2, because many of the residents in the city of 108,000 requested it.
Police officers will work with federal immigration officials and sheriff's deputies to determine the immigration status of suspects arrested for other crimes.
Among those arrested for violently protesting the new law, was illegal-immigration advocate Coyotl Tezcalipoca, the head of the radical group Tonantzin Collective.
Another Mexican rights group present at last night's City Council meeting was the Atlachinolli Front. One local political blog, Orange Juice, wrote that the protest will only make Latinos look worse and that Latinos don't help themselves when they operate like Euro left-wing terror cells.
------
Pretty soon the Mexican government is going to be the new owner of CA....at least So. CA.
posted on January 5, 2006 05:03:42 PM new
I never liked California, anyway. Just kidding. Great place, but I wouldn't want to live there. Even for this liberal, California is just too far out there.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 5, 2006 05:05:36 PM new
By the way, my LOL was directed towards Ron's statement.
I know, cheryl, you and I do agree on this one issue. I just don't know why neither of our parties will do much about stopping it. Policing it here in our country.
posted on January 5, 2006 07:17:42 PM new I just don't know why neither of our parties will do much about stopping it.
Gosh, you don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that they're all worried about who'll wash their clothes, clean their houses, cook their meals and cut their expansive lawns if they take a stand, do you? You don't suppose they're all worried that they'll be exposed as aiding and abetting a system that encourages the hiring of illegals, do you?
Naw, why that's just silly.
____________________________________________
Habla siempre que debas y calla siempre que puedas....
posted on January 5, 2006 08:00:38 PM new
Don't suppose it so all those 'poor' illegals can get into the voting booths and increase the dems support either.
Imo, if we would seriously stop this illegal situation....all those that the dems complain don't have jobs could be given THOSE jobs. If they don't want to do them/work...fine cut their benefits off.
posted on January 5, 2006 09:14:22 PM new
Then Linda, why don't you support the Guest Worker program? there was a really interesting conversation with a california grower a couple weeks ago where he was talking about the program and why they are trying to get it passed.
A guest worker program would allow "illegals" to be legal during growing season and then be able to go back to their home country knowing that they would be able to return for the next season without hassle. As it is now, the workers are staying in the US after growing season ends because they don't know that they will be able to get back across and while here have to find other work. The problem is that they are finding work in fields that pay more (construction, food service, etc) and when the next season comes around, they are sticking with the higher paying job. Growers have to find whole new groups of workers. It takes longer, their costs go up, and so food prices increase.
A guest worker program is not going to solve every problem, but it would solve many.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 5, 2006 10:07:01 PM new
What - that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a fence then top it off with higher food prices, housing costs, etc etc etc?
Do you HONESTLY believe that you are going to have welfare moms out in the field picking strawberries for $2.50 an hour, sleeping in a trailer on the growers land?
It's easy to say that you are against all forms of illegal immmigration but how many of the people that say that, really take a look at the ramifications of it?
Can you imagine how much a new home would cost if there were no illegals working on it? How much a contractor would have to charge if they had to deal with the increased wage requirements, workers comp insurance, etc? Now that you figure a minimum 20% increase in the cost of the new home, how well do you think they will sell and what happens to the economy when a major indicator like New Home Starts begins to plummet and takes the the lumber and much of the manufacturing industry with it sonce you are not going to be selling all of the materials that goes into electrical, plumbing, appliances, carpeting, etc with it.
How much are you willing to pay for produce?
This society has come to depend on the costs savings associated with illegal immigration. Idealism is one thing, but are you ready to deal with the realistic economic impact of eliminating low wage workers?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 5, 2006 10:16:41 PM new
fenix - I understand that you and others think that would just be the 'cats meow'. I do not agree.
Illegals break our laws when they come here. They should be deported immediately...as they are found. And yes, I'd be willing to do almost anything to stop this invasion of Mexican's into our country. We can't afford them.
If that means building walls to keep them out, putting our National Guard on the boarders to protect them...whatever...yes, I'd support it.
We don't need them nor their cheap labor. We have so many taxpayer funded programs taking care of totally abled bodied people who could do that work - or lose their benefits. A big savings, imo. Not paying benefits to them, not them collecting from social programs that American's have paid into themselves...not getting SS or health benefits. NADA!!!
I don't support your argument, nor this President's view on it one bit.
And this isn't ONLY for Mexican illegals....there are other races that are here illegally too. So this ISN'T a race issue...but rather how much quick growth our economy can handle.
You know as well as I do that the money they make here...most isnt' being spent here...it goes to Mexico. Where it's more than 1/3 of their National income.
posted on January 5, 2006 10:35:17 PM new
The one thing I notice when this discussion comes up Linda is that you have a habit of ignoring the economic impact.
Like I said - do you HONESTLY believe that you are going to have welfare moms living in fields picking strawberries? Do you think the guy on disability is going to make a good roofer? Are you willing to pay the increased end costs that come with legal workers or deal with the ecnomic impact on the nation when others are not able to adjust their incomes to them?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Jan 5, 2006 10:36 PM ]
The one thing I notice when this discussion comes up Linda is that you have a habit of ignoring the economic impact.
Just another thing we don't agree on, I'm afraid. I HAVE posted my support of my position when we have discussed this before. No, I don't re-post it...didn't save it....but I have support my postion with $$ saved. Last time I did just that was on the thread something along the lines of: 'How much would it cost us to deport all the illegals in America. That's the last time I remember supporting my position with actual facts.
Like I said - do you HONESTLY believe that you are going to have welfare moms living in fields picking strawberries?
Why do you 'cling' to one group like the welfare moms? I'm talking about those 7-8 million unemployed workers that live off gov. aid. But yes, even welfare moms. Do you think they're above doing that work to help decrease the amount of money taxpayers have to put out for their/their childrens care? I don't. If they don't like this 'hard' work...then maybe they'll try and improve their situation.
Do you think the guy on disability is going to make a good roofer?
fenix....I referred to ABLE-BODIED people....not our disabled. LOL
Are you willing to pay the increased end costs that come with legal workers or deal with the ecnomic impact on the nation when others are not able to adjust their incomes to them?
Answer is yes. But I have to share how I see this coming from a leftie, any lefties who have always supported unions.
First they want better wages for the truckers....unionize them. So...we pay higher food costs. But when a discussion like this comes up...what's one of the first things we hear? If we aren't allowing illegals to build those houses,etc, they're going to cost SO much more. LOL
Just a little irony I see in that statement from one on the left.
What I am saying fenix, is that when that thread was discussed....to me it STILL looked like taxpayers would come out ahead...cost vs benefits of having what? 11-15-20 million illegals.
Yep...that only reinforced my belief....get them out...keep them out.
posted on January 5, 2006 11:06:23 PM new
::But yes, even welfare moms. Do you think they're above doing that work to help decrease the amount of money taxpayers have to put out for their/their childrens care? I don't. If they don't like this 'hard' work...then maybe they'll try and improve their situation.::
I think that a currently unemployed single parent is not going to go into a field and do manual labor for less than minum wage. Even if they were able to make minimum wage they are not going to be able to cover rent and childcare costs so they are better off remaining unemployed since even if they were not formerly on welfare, they would be then.
Plus, when you drastically increase the cost to a grower with the ensuing increased wages and mandatory workers comp costs, social security payin and the like you have now either made their products cost prohibitive which results in decreased sales decreased income for the grower which results in decreased employment numbers for them making a product that is even then harder to get to market which in turn results in rising costs making it even more cost prohibitive.
As for the how a truckers union reflects on the cost of houses built by 100% US workers paid skilled lavbor wages - you are going to have to expand on that one because I am not getting the corellation.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Jan 5, 2006 11:09 PM ]
posted on January 5, 2006 11:21:18 PM new
fenix - Again....you're sticking to this welfare mom only.
How many of the 7-8 MILLION unemployed in the US are single moms? Get my drift? Look how many posters here have no children.
And I know in the liberal way of 'thinking' ...you say they basically wouldn't want to do it..unless it was at least min. wage....and I'm saying they'd either do it or lose their benefits. That's called giving them incentive. THEN they'll get a job...figure someway to make it work. Live with other people...there are a million things they could do...if they didn't have that guaranteed check coming in each month.
Plus I don't think you understood me, no surprise there...no one here does...so you're not alone. IF these welfare moms HAD to do those jobs....they COULD still get the difference between what they'd earn work and what they get now. THUS reducing our costs in part.
On the cost issue....yes, it might cost more. But we're getting our produce and much of our food from other countries now. More could be grown down in Mexico and shipped here. Then all those illegals could stay in their own country and work.
On the truckers issue..
I'm saying that in one case you have a liberal position that unions are the best thing in the world. Pay those workers more money.
But when it comes to illegals...doing any kind of work....then you use the arguement of their cheap labor. And I question BUT What about all those unionized house builders? You also wanted top wages for them didn't you? But now you don't...you want to argue in favor of cheap labor rather than UNION labor...to keep costs down/low.
Well...then imo we should just get rid of all union wages ...pay them what their job is worth...like the do at Wal Mart.
posted on January 6, 2006 02:13:11 AM new
::fenix - Again....you're sticking to this welfare mom only.::
No Linda - I'm not - I said Single Employed Parent. I only brought up welfare because a single parent making minmum wage is going to need welfare to be able to cover housing and childcare. JUst because they don't sstart out on does not need they will not need to fdall back on it.
::you say they basically wouldn't want to do it..unless it was at least min. wage.::
No - I am saying that they COULD NOT AFFORD to do it. A minimum wage worker in California is bringing home about $200 a week after taxes. Do you know where they can find housing, and 50 hours of childcare for thatand still pay for things like gas (there are no bus lines to farm country), food and insurance?
::I'm saying that in one case you have a liberal position that unions are the best thing in the world. ::
I'm calling you on that one Linda. I've been here for about three years. I challenge you to find a single post in which I have supported unions.
::And I question BUT What about all those unionized house builders?::
What unionized home builders? I worked on construction sites when I was 13 years old. My step was a construction superintendant for 20 years and has worked with every major builder and more than a few custom builders as a consultant and inspector.. I have never met of heard of a unionized home builder. Residential construction is done by bid with independent contractors. There is no such animal. Commercial construction has to deal with unions, not residential.
::You also wanted top wages for them didn't you?::
Nope - cause they don't exist and I don't support them even if they do. I may be a democrat but I think that at least 40% of the labor issues in the US that other dems cite as problematic (such as exportation of labor and manufacturing) can be laid directly at the feet of unions.
We could have an interesting debate on this but it does not work if you assign opinions to me that I have never voiced.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 6, 2006 06:29:17 AM new
fenix, you are working from pure suppositions and sayings from the Farm people, construction people. It has no basis for fact and it will never have unless it is attempted first.
I don't believe the costs would rise any significant amount.
What you seem to be missing is that Linda has repeatedly said, if they refuse the work they receive NO benefits, so the idea they would draw unemployment and welfare would not exist under Linda's idea.
Until such time as Fox and the rest of those crooks in Mexico City start doing something about the illegals coming over here, I am against the guest worker program, until they get control of their side of the border which they don't want to do.
The guest worker program will only work if they are truly guests and not someone that snuck across in the dead of night.
and Yes I am willing to pay higher prices for produce picked by people who belong here and not criminals. Why can't you see that these people are criminals
The guest worker program also fails in the fact it does nothing to enforce those who are already here to go home and apply. It could be a good program but not the way it is now.
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
posted on January 6, 2006 10:02:25 AM newNo Linda - I'm not - I said Single Employed Parent.
Well. Twice you used the term 'welfare moms'.
I only brought up welfare because a single parent making minmum wage is going to need welfare to be able to cover housing and childcare. JUst because they don't sstart out on does not need they will not need to fdall back on it.
AGAIN, fenix, no it won't. IF a mother was receiving $1500. a month welfare...and she went to work in these jobs....and SAY only made $1000. a month...they we taxpayers would only have to continue paying her $500. a month RATHER than the full $1500. Quite a savings imo.
::you say they basically wouldn't want to do it..unless it was at least min. wage.::
No - I am saying that they COULD NOT AFFORD to do it. A minimum wage worker in California is bringing home about $200 a week after taxes. Do you know where they can find housing, and 50 hours of childcare for thatand still pay for things like gas (there are no bus lines to farm country), food and insurance[/i]?
Sure they could as I described above.
::I'm saying that in one case you have a liberal position that unions are the best thing in the world. ::
I'm calling you on that one Linda. I've been here for about three years. I challenge you to find a single post in which I have supported unions.
Okay, so I thought incorrectly about YOU....but really I wasn't personalizing it...more how the liberals think and state they support the UNIONS. I was referring to the 'collective' you.
::And I question BUT What about all those unionized house builders?::
What unionized home builders? I worked on construction sites when I was 13 years old. My step was a construction superintendant for 20 years and has worked with every major builder and more than a few custom builders as a consultant and inspector.. I have never met of heard of a unionized home builder.
Residential construction is done by bid with independent contractors. There is no such animal. Commercial construction has to deal with unions, not residential.
Another job you've done....career you've been involved in.
Yes, fenix....there ARE Unionized home builders.
Many unions of all types that are involved in building homes. painters, electricians, plumbers, drywall, etc....the list goes on. MANY of those workers are unionized and get excellent wages.
::You also wanted top wages for them didn't you?::
Nope - cause they don't exist and I don't support them even if they do. I may be a democrat but I think that at least 40% of the labor issues in the US that other dems cite as problematic (such as exportation of labor and manufacturing) can be laid directly at the feet of unions.
I TOLD you, from your posts, I always felt you were more moderate than most here. Only changed my mind when you stated you were a liberal. BUT I do understand, they too, don't agree on everything.
We could have an interesting debate on this but it does not work if you assign opinions to me that I have never voiced.
posted on January 6, 2006 10:48:49 AM new
The consumer is not going to realize any savings from contractors hiring Mexican immigrants, illegal or not. I know of several paint and roofing contractors that almost exclusively employ Mexican immigrants, their operating cost have decreased but not the price you pay.
posted on January 6, 2006 02:23:26 PM new
Not only do I object to the illegality of them coming across the border, I also object to the fact that companies and individuals are making tons of money by not paying these people a decent living wage. I understand their need for work, but I resent the Mexican government tossing its employment problem in our lap. If it weren't for these people coming here illegally, individuals who hire housekeepers, cooks, etc., farmers and corporations would be forced to pay a decent wage for a day's work by having to hire a US citizen to do it. I don't know anyone who would be too proud to pick strawberries or clean someone's house for a decent wage, especially if they were out of work with a family to support. As long as individuals, farmers and corporations are allowed to get away with hiring illegals, the problem will not go away. Find and punish these people and corporations and watch the influx slow down.
I live in an area where jobs are few and far between. You can travel up most streets and find homes that are being put on the auction block. Perhaps some rich family living in Shaker Heights can do without their illegal housekeeper and hire an out of work American.
I wouldn't bring welfare into this discussion at all because I see it as being what it is: Aid to Dependents - Children. I can hardly see what is right or just about punishing a child for being born into poverty and I don't see replacing illegals with welfare mothers as a solution to the problem of illegals in this country. I think that is another discussion all its own on which Linda and I will not agree.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 6, 2006 02:41:52 PM new
lol...cheryl. That's why I said I understood we agree on ONE issue anyway.
I don't know anyone who would be too proud to pick strawberries or clean someone's house for a decent wage, especially if they were out of work with a family to support.
I don't either, BUT obviously there are many who believe there above working to support themselves and their families. They want the easy way out. Let our gov. [let the taxpayers pay for them]. If they didn't have that social support I'd bet you more than 1/2 or more would be working within a month. That is my #*!@ with these social programs meant to give a helping hand...not a lifetime handout.
As long as individuals, farmers and corporations are allowed to get away with hiring illegals, the problem will not go away. Find and punish these people and corporations and watch the influx slow down.
posted on January 6, 2006 03:04:25 PM new
Linda - not up for much typing right now (had to cut a 10' cactus down to fit in a 5' 5" trailer aand it decided to make me pay for it) but i did not address the questions to Cheryl because I have not heard voice objections to a guest worker program.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 6, 2006 03:08:35 PM newI couldn't agree more [oh oh...TWO things now ]
Oh, oh. I'd better go outside to make sure the world is still turning. . . I do know that the east side of town had an earthquake last night. Could explain things.
Cheryl
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
posted on January 7, 2006 06:33:02 AM newChertoff promises border crackdown
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 7, 2006
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says he will crack down on alien smugglers at two border crossings near San Diego by sending more prosecutors to the area and providing increased jail space for those arrested.
Mr. Chertoff's comments came during speaking engagements at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, Calif., ports of entry, in the same area where a Mexican national -- identified by law-enforcement authorities as a suspected alien smuggler -- was fatally shot Dec. 30 by a U.S. Border Patrol agent who the Mexican purportedly targeted in a rock-throwing attack.
"It's about detaining them as opposed to releasing them...it's about the prosecution of people involved in human smuggling, about taking their assets, about sending them to jail," Mr. Chertoff said.
Mr. Chertoff gave no cost estimates for the program and provided few details on how it would work, but he said it would begin in the San Diego area and later shift to other regions.
It was unclear how many prosecutors would be added or how an increase in the number of cases they would handle would be financed with existing resources.
He said the plan would include an increased law-enforcement presence on the border, renewed efforts at intelligence sharing with other law-enforcement agencies, increased technology and the use of dogs to locate people hidden in vehicles.
Mr. Chertoff also announced the creation of a new border-enforcement task force to target cross-border criminal activity to gain control of the U.S.-Mexico border, working with federal, state and local law-enforcement authorities. He said the Border Enforcement and Security Task Forces will take a "comprehensive approach to dismantling criminal organizations that exploit our border."
The next task force operation will begin in Arizona, he said, after Homeland Security conducts a threat assessment of the area.
Many Border Patrol agents have been shifted during the past few years to Arizona as a result of a federal law enforcement initiative in California known as "Operation Gatekeeper" that reduced the number of illegal aliens crossing into the United States. Arizona has since become the nation's busiest alien corridor, accounting for more than half of the 1.15 million apprehensions last year.
Mr. Chertoff did not comment directly on the fatal shooting of Guillermo Martinez-Rodriguez, 21, who lived in Tijuana, Mexico, saying only that Border Patrol agents were under increasing attack from aggressive alien smugglers.
So, NOT a teen - AND a repeat offender
Border Patrol spokesman Raul Martinez in San Diego told reporters this week that Mr. Martinez was a known alien smuggler with a lengthy record of apprehensions by agents along the California-Mexico border. Border Patrol officials in Washington would not confirm the comments, saying only they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation.
Mr. Martinez fled back to Mexico after the 7:25 p.m. shooting and died five hours later at a Tijuana hospital. The Mexican government has denounced the shooting and asked the United States for an investigation.
Records show Mr. Martinez was apprehended by Border Patrol agents 11 times in the past two years trying to sneak into the United States. His brother, Augustine Jamie Martinez-Rodriguez, 33, whose arrest record includes assaulting a U.S. police officer, has been detained by agents on eight occasions and was with his brother at the time of the shooting.
The shooting occurred in one of the most violent areas on the border. A total of 78 agents have been assaulted in the region since Oct. 1, the start of fiscal 2006.
posted on January 7, 2006 07:39:16 AM new
Linda - you have stated a few times that you object to the guest worker program, in fact it's one of the few things I have ever seen you say you disagree with Bush on so it has stuck in my head.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
posted on January 7, 2006 08:16:23 AM new
:: Did you verify that there are many home builders unions that represent many if not all of the 'trades'?::
No Linda because there are not. I can tell you that the one laugh I had with the step yesterday was about the concept that residential builders use union workers. Like I said, there are unions for many of the skills you mentioned, but they work in commercial construction (Why do you think all of those buildings run over time and over budget? ) He has worked with DR Horton, Lenar, US Homes, and a number of other major builders. No such luck on unions on any of them.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
Never ask what sort if computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If he's not, why embarrass him? - Tom Clancy
[ edited by fenix03 on Jan 7, 2006 08:18 AM ]
Just kidding. Great place, but I wouldn't want to live there. Even for this liberal, California is just too far out there.
I like my suggestion much better.