NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned this yet, given the rabidity with which some posters here attack anything remotely related to illegal immigration. A federal judge has said, not surprisingly, that Hazleton, PA's anti-immigration law (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19978003/) is unconstitutional.
The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit. It was pushed by the Pennsylvania city's Republican mayor last summer after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting.

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued in federal court to overturn the measures, saying they usurp the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration, deprive residents of their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and violate state and federal housing law.
The Freepers (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872025/posts?q=1&;page=51) as anyone familiar with them might expect, are in their usual lather, complete with eliminationist rhetoric aimed at liberals and immigrants.

So here's the basis of the judge's ruling:
"Whatever frustrations ... the city of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme," Munley wrote in a 206-page opinion.

"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," he added.
In other words, the city didn't have the authority to pass the law.

Which is why our town got permission first from the Federal government to do what they are doing.

Getting authority in writing AND funds from the Federal Government to do things like have local police do checks of immigration status, and arrest people for being illegal immigrants prevents the judges from being able to interfere.

You become PART of the carefully crafted federal plan, rather than something outside of it.

In the meantime...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070726140104.dhsxetdd&show_article=1

US businesses are bracing for a possible major crackdown on illegal foreign workers, as the government seeks to give immigration authorities more power to punish companies hiring undocumented workers.

President George W. Bush's administration has proposed a federal regulation that unions warn could lead to mass firings nationwide by companies seeking to avoid prosecution and fines.

"It's going to put businesses all over the nation in a bind," said Tamar Jacoby, an immigration expert at the conservative Manhattan Institute.

"If the feds (federal authorities) really follow through with this, and I think they're going to, you're going to see lots of industries ... leave the US," Jacoby said.

The rule under consideration in Washington relates directly to the potentially fraudulent use of Social Security numbers, which employees provide at the time of hiring.

Fake Social Security cards are widely available on the black market, allowing many immigrants to work at major US corporations.

Jacoby said the proposed regulation, left pending since June 2006, was boxed up while Congress debated a sweeping immigration reform plan that recently collapsed.

Since the legislation was buried, businesses have braced for the worksite enforcement regulation to be adopted by the Department of Homeland Security, she said.

The largest chicken processor in the United States, Pilgrim's Pride, has fired more than 100 employees who cannot produce valid Social Security numbers, according to news reports and advocates for the workers in rural east Texas.

Experts describe the firings as a pre-emptive move ahead of beefed-up enforcement.

The company has acknowledged firing workers although it would not say what motivated the layoffs or how many were let go. It has hired replacement workers.

"There undoubtedly will be additional terminations," said Gary Rhodes, a spokesman for Pilgrim's, which has 55,000 employees in the United States and Mexico.

The government routinely alerts companies when suspicious numbers are entered into the Social Security Administration's (SSA) electronic database, but experts say current law essentially allows employers to ignore the warning letters.

In a 2006 fact sheet, the White House said the proposed regulation would make it "clear that employers who ignore the discrepancies between SSA databases and the information provided by their employees may be viewed under the law as knowing that the employees are illegal workers, making it easier ... to prosecute violators."

Companies that knowingly hire illegal workers can face criminal prosecution and be hit with fines of up to 10,000 dollars per worker for repeat violations.

According to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the proposed rule remains pending. But business leaders believe authorities may announce its final adoption before the summer is out.

ICE spokeswoman Pat Reilly could not give a timetable for when it might be adopted, but she said it was a "well intentioned regulation and one hopes that it will get full consideration."

Bill Hammond, head of the Texas Association of Business and part of a national business alliance that pushed for immigration reform in Washington, said the migrant job losses at Pilgrim's could be the tip of the iceberg.

There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, with as many as a 10th of them in Texas.

"There are a lot of employees in Texas ... who are undocumented workers," Hammond said. "A lot of them could be out of the workforce over the next six to 12 months."

Immigrant advocacy groups, labor unions and a coalition of national business groups have criticized the proposal.

The AFL-CIO, an umbrella group representing 53 unions and nearly nine million workers, warned the government last year that the proposed rule would "trigger mass firings across the nation" and lead to discrimination against legal workers.

"It's going to put employers in a position pretty quickly of, I think, having to terminate workers," said John Gay, vice-president for government relations at the National Restaurant Association. "We are concerned about it."



Wow. A fine of 10,000 dollars per worker.

Can you say, "get down on the shop floor and fire everyone who can't prove that they're a real US citizen with a real SSN that we can validate using the INS's automated computer system (written just for employers)"

Which is why our town got permission first from the Federal government to do what they are doing.

Getting authority in writing AND funds from the Federal Government to do things like have local police do checks of immigration status, and arrest people for being illegal immigrants prevents the judges from being able to interfere.

You become PART of the carefully crafted federal plan, rather than something outside of it.

In the meantime...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070726140104.dhsxetdd&show_article=1



Wow. A fine of 10,000 dollars per worker.

Can you say, "get down on the shop floor and fire everyone who can't prove that they're a real US citizen with a real SSN that we can validate using the INS's automated computer system (written just for employers)"


A hefty fine for any illegal workers is one of the steps in my ideal solution to the illegal immigration problem. Of course, then the federal government could enact step 2 of my solution and relax immigration laws, which will allow more people to legally immigrate.

May the Appeals court overturn said decision.

What's so great about unconstitutional laws?

May the Appeals court overturn said decision.

Hazleton is a short ride from here, I should go console Barletta..

A hefty fine for any illegal workers is one of the steps in my ideal solution to the illegal immigration problem. Of course, then the federal government could enact step 2 of my solution and relax immigration laws, which will allow more people to legally immigrate.

I agree with you. The question is, how do we then shut up the idiots who will scream "amnesty!" at the top of their lungs. Here's what enforcement--which I support--will mean: higher wages as the labor market tightens extremely quickly, higher food prices as the cost of production goes up because the food industry employs a large percentage of those illegal immigrants, and inflation because of the shock to the system.

May the Appeals court overturn said decision.

Based on?

What's so great about unconstitutional laws?

They stand out?

Based on?

The fact that it is enforcing current federal immigration laws?

A hefty fine for any illegal workers is one of the steps in my ideal solution to the illegal immigration problem. Of course, then the federal government could enact step 2 of my solution and relax immigration laws, which will allow more people to legally immigrate.

I've already posted that if people want to immigrate here:

1. File for citizenship. A simple form.
2. A criminal background check.
3. A loyalty oath (no different from the one today).
4. Proof that you can be employed.

Welcome to America, and congrats on being a citizen.

Oh, and aren't you glad you get paid a real wage, instead of some low, under the table pittance...

The fact that it is enforcing current federal immigration laws?

Perhaps you should reread the part of the judge's decision that I posted.

May the Appeals court overturn said decision.

*sigh* your legal analysis? Again? Isn't my sig alone enough to disuade you of that?

*sigh* your legal analysis? Again? Isn't my sig alone enough to disuade you of that?
Not in that context.

Not in that context.

in what context do you mean?

in what context do you mean?
Assuming enough people would even bother to instantly differentiate between the end results of a civil case and a criminal case, your sig doesn't make it blatantly obvious it was the former for anyone just scanning it.

Assuming enough people would even bother to instantly differentiate between the end results of a civil case and a criminal case, your sig doesn't make it blatantly obvious it was the former for anyone just scanning it.

except for the fact that it says so, right in the bottom. Although that sig is there because I was greatly amused by corny...oh, wait, sorry, LC, decrying anyone's legal knowledge by saying that in a civil case it is the job of the prosecutor to prove the defendant guilty and the job of the defendant to cast doubt.

Except in civil trials there is no prosecutor, there is no verdict of guilty, and reasonable doubt isn't the standard of proof.

Hence, it amuses me.

Assuming enough people would even bother to instantly differentiate between the end results of a civil case and a criminal case, your sig doesn't make it blatantly obvious it was the former for anyone just scanning it.

I think the word "lawsuit" does sufficient work to show the difference, unless there are criminal lawsuits that I've never heard of.

Federal Immigration Laws already stipulate it is illegal to employ illegal immigrants. This type of law enforces current law.

The Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

Seems to do a lot more than that, doesn't it?

Or should I say "didn't it?"

Federal Immigration Laws already stipulate it is illegal to employ illegal immigrants. This type of law enforces current law.

I think the word "lawsuit" does sufficient work to show the difference, unless there are criminal lawsuits that I've never heard of.

the closest you'll get is there are some statutes out there that impose civil liability as well as potential criminal charges for violating them, however even when the accused is charged with violating the statute and committing both a criminal action and a civil action, there are seperate trials for a whole bunch of reasons, not the least of which is constitutional due process rights.

By definition "criminal lawsuit" is an oxymoron.

And in fact anyone who reads that line where it says lawsuit and tries to argue that I didn't differentiate between civil and criminal actions likewise belongs to the "you shouldn't talk about law in public" club.

Federal Immigration Laws already stipulate it is illegal to employ illegal immigrants. This type of law enforces current law.

You don't need to write additional laws then.

In my town, we merely offered to have our police assist in enforcing Federal law.

The Feds were glad to offer specific training on immigration law to every policeman, and to receive every person arrested.

If you're deputized by the Feds to enforce immigration laws, you are part and parcel of the federal system, and there isn't shit that this court decision can do about it.

You don't need to write additional laws then.

In my town, we merely offered to have our police assist in enforcing Federal law.

The Feds were glad to offer specific training on immigration law to every policeman, and to receive every person arrested.

If you're deputized by the Feds to enforce immigration laws, you are part and parcel of the federal system, and there isn't shit that this court decision can do about it.

That is correct. I am not arguing that. I am arguing the fact that there was nothing wrong with this local law. It did not conflict with the Constitution nor any federal law. Heck, it did not even violate any state laws either.

That is correct. I am not arguing that. I am arguing the fact that there was nothing wrong with this local law. It did not conflict with the Constitution nor any federal law. Heck, it did not even violate any state laws either.

oh this is amusing. Pray tell, where did you get your law degree? And did you bother to read the description of the law that The Nazz started with, which makes it clear it goes well beyond the limits of the federal law in limiting immigration?

You know, that thing that ONLY the federal government may do?

That is correct. I am not arguing that. I am arguing the fact that there was nothing wrong with this local law. It did not conflict with the Constitution nor any federal law. Heck, it did not even violate any state laws either.

There's a little thing called jurisdiction. Basically, if the Feds have a law, and have the power to enforce that law, it's not the purview of the states to make a similar law, or try to extend that law.

There's a little thing called jurisdiction. Basically, if the Feds have a law, and have the power to enforce that law, it's not the purview of the states to make a similar law, or try to extend that law.

Which is basically the point. States do not have the authority to make immigration laws without the approval of the federal government.

They just don't. Constitution makes it clear, it says all other powers not so appointed fall to the states, and it clearly appoints immigration to the federal government.

It odesn't matter if the state laws mirrored or were similar to federal law (and in this case, they weren't). States do not have the authority to make immigration law, no matter what that law may be.

Which is basically the point. States do not have the authority to make immigration laws without the approval of the federal government.

They just don't. Constitution makes it clear, it says all other powers not so appointed fall to the states, and it clearly appoints immigration to the federal government.

It odesn't matter if the state laws mirrored or were similar to federal law (and in this case, they weren't). States do not have the authority to make immigration law, no matter what that law may be.

Which is why our town avoided trouble by being deputized by the Feds.

There's a little thing called jurisdiction. Basically, if the Feds have a law, and have the power to enforce that law, it's not the purview of the states to make a similar law, or try to extend that law.

Problem is, they do not enforce the law. Local communities everywhere are fed up and are taking matters into their own hands with their own legislation against illegal immigration. Luckily this ruling only affects Hazelton and no others and Mayor Barletta is going to appeal this and if necessary, take it to the Supreme Court.

Problem is, they do not enforce the law. Local communities everywhere are fed up and are taking matters into their own hands with their own legislation against illegal immigration. Luckily this ruling only affects Hazelton and no others and Mayor Barletta is going to appeal this and if necessary, take it to the Supreme Court.

And hopefully it fails it is clear that they do not have the power to create the law in the first place.

Problem is, they do not enforce the law. Local communities everywhere are fed up and are taking matters into their own hands with their own legislation against illegal immigration. Luckily this ruling only affects Hazelton and no others and Mayor Barletta is going to appeal this and if necessary, take it to the Supreme Court.

If you find they're not enforcing it, you can offer to become part of the Federal enforcement effort, as we did in our town.

That is not enough. We have got to curb the illegal immigration problem and punish those who violate the law. Hazelton's law was perfect for that and now the judge basically ruled that it does not matter if you are here legally or not.

No he said the law was not valid ... he made no comment on how immigration status "matters". Good thing to see that judges can do their jobs correctly regardless of personal feelings on the subject.

If you find they're not enforcing it, you can offer to become part of the Federal enforcement effort, as we did in our town.

That is not enough. We have got to curb the illegal immigration problem and punish those who violate the law. Hazelton's law was perfect for that and now the judge basically ruled that it does not matter if you are here legally or not.

Anyways, it is dinner time and then time with family.

I've actually been to hazelton. I had one of the worst meals of my life there. That town could probably use some illegal immigrant cooking.

Problem is, they do not enforce the law. Local communities everywhere are fed up and are taking matters into their own hands with their own legislation against illegal immigration. Luckily this ruling only affects Hazelton and no others and Mayor Barletta is going to appeal this and if necessary, take it to the Supreme Court.

And he'll lose every step of the way, but hey, if he wants to burn city money in the pursuit of xenophobia, I guess he can. He's the mayor-guy, after all.

Of course, once the bill comes due and he has to tell the taxpayers of the city that he has to cut police patrols or park spending or any other number of city services--or has to raise taxes to cover his crusade--I'm sure they'll still back him one thousand percent. I'm positive of it.

Problem is, they do not enforce the law. Local communities everywhere are fed up and are taking matters into their own hands with their own legislation against illegal immigration. Luckily this ruling only affects Hazelton and no others and Mayor Barletta is going to appeal this and if necessary, take it to the Supreme Court.

Irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. The government only has the powers it says it has (or, in the matter of state governments, only has the powers the federal government does not).

The constitution is very clear on this, states do not have the power to regulate immigration. Period. End of story. They don't. Local communities can get as fed up as they like, but they do not have the power to pass immigration law. Only the federal government may do that. ONLY the federal government may do that.

They can get as fed up as they want to, that won't chang eit. What WILL change it is:

a) lobbying the federal government to be more proactive and electing people to the government sympathic to your situation

or

b) lobbying 3/4 of the state legislatures to amend the constitution granting states the authority to do this.

That's it, that's all, game over, good night. It doesn't matter how fed up they get, or how much they don't like what the federal government is doing.

This is a matter for the federal government and ONLY the federal government.

And by the way, if you knew one tenth of the law you pretend to know, you would know that nobody "takes" anything to the supreme court. The supreme court decides to hear you, or they don't. It is their choice whom they hear, nobody elses, and if SCOTUS tells him to go bugger off, then he gets to go bugger off.

Anyways, it is dinner time and then time with family.
translation: I've been totally pwned yet again and so am doing the inevitable Corny excuse of needing to sign off due to 'real life' in order to somehow save the embarrassment of admitting I'm wrong.

y'know ppl would tend to respect you more if, on occasions like this where it's obvious you've got the worng end of the stick, you'd just say, "Whoops. I screwed up there. Damn! I'm leaving this thread now b4 I make a bigger ass of myself".

When even RO is saying this anti-illegal immigrant legislation is dumb, then you know something's wrong with it.

speaking of which, this could possibly be the first thread where Neo and RO agree on something.
scary.

translation: I've been totally pwned yet again and so am doing the inevitable Corny excuse of needing to sign off due to 'real life' in order to somehow save the embarrassment of admitting I'm wrong.

y'know ppl would tend to respect you more if, on occasions like this where it's obvious you've got the worng end of the stick, you'd just say, "Whoops. I screwed up there. Damn! I'm leaving this thread now b4 I make a bigger ass of myself".

Either that or it was dinner time and I really was spending time with my wonderful family. One man's excuse is another man's truth. I Happened to be speaking truthfully about dinner and family. After all, I do live in the eastern time zone.

When even RO is saying this anti-illegal immigrant legislation is dumb, then you know something's wrong with it.

Or he is speaking of his opinion. I disagree with his opinion. I do not believe this to be dumb at all.

speaking of which, this could possibly be the first thread where Neo and RO agree on something.
scary.

I would not know.

Either that or it was dinner time and I really was spending time with my wonderful family. One man's excuse is another man's truth. I Happened to be speaking truthfully about dinner and family. After all, I do live in the eastern time zone.
I just find incredible how coincidental how often and regular these real life needs occur just after a pwning.
I'm not the only one on this board who has noticed this connection either.

I just find incredible how coincidental how often and regular these real life needs occur just after a pwning.
I'm not the only one on this board who has noticed this connection either.

I could say you have no idea what my life is like but I bet I get the line: "Typical corny response" or something similiar.

Hey, don't the illegal workers do the work locals don't do? I think the USA is addicted to cheap illegal immigrant labour anyway. Black slaves built the whitehouse, so what's new?

Which is why our town got permission first from the Federal government to do what they are doing.

Getting authority in writing AND funds from the Federal Government to do things like have local police do checks of immigration status, and arrest people for being illegal immigrants prevents the judges from being able to interfere.

You become PART of the carefully crafted federal plan, rather than something outside of it.

In the meantime...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070726140104.dhsxetdd&show_article=1



Wow. A fine of 10,000 dollars per worker.

Can you say, "get down on the shop floor and fire everyone who can't prove that they're a real US citizen with a real SSN that we can validate using the INS's automated computer system (written just for employers)"

You got permission for a crack down on illegal immigration from the most pro-illegal immigration president ever? That's hard to believe. This admin LOVES illegal immigrants - just as much as they love Tyson Chicken and all teh other huge corporations that make money from the cheap labor.

I'm not the only one on this board who has noticed this connection either.

what are you talking about? It was obvious he and his girlfriend were having dinner in downtown philidelphia with his family while helping them clean the house.

Or something...

I could say you have no idea what my life is like but I bet I get the line: "Typical corny response" or something similiar.

we may not know much about your life, but we do know the things you pretend to do when you run out of arguments.

what are you talking about? It was obvious he and his girlfriend were having dinner in downtown philidelphia with his family while helping them clean the house.

Or something...

Both of my parents are dead.

we may not know much about your life, but we do know the things you pretend to do when you run out of arguments.

Care to prove that I have pretended to be doing something that I said I was doing?

Both of my parents are dead.

and Remote Observer has a gay son and worked for the state assessor's office and numerous other fake stories that seem to come out once when it seems to be convenient and never spoken of again.

and Remote Observer has a gay son and worked for the state assessor's office and numerous other fake stories that seem to come out once when it seems to be convenient and never spoken of again.

And yet, I am not claiming to be anyone or anything other than me.

And yet, I am not claiming to be anyone or anything other than me.

it's not that you're claiming to be someone else, it's that you're pretending, quite laughably and pathetically, not to be someone that it is obvious to everyone that you are.

it's not that you're claiming to be someone else, it's that you're pretending, quite laughably and pathetically, not to be someone that it is obvious to everyone that you are.

Then prove it. Instead of making accusations prove it. I have never pretended to be anyone else nor pretended to be someone I am not or not to be.

Then prove it. Instead of making accusations prove it.

No, that's ok Corny, you've done a great job of proving for everyone else.

By the way, ready to retract the statement about it being a constitutional law yet?

No?

Didn't think so.

No, that's ok Corny, you've done a great job of proving for everyone else.

That's what I thought. You cannot prove it so you run.

By the way, ready to retract the statement about it being a constitutional law yet?

No where did I make a statement that I was studying law nor took a law class.

That's what I thought. You cannot prove it so you run.

It's been proven, many times, from the fact that your screen name is the name of the a county in philly (where he was from) and similar to his puppet, to the fact that your viewpoints are identical, to the fact that you make the same spelling errors.

Your typing style is identical. Your arguments are identical. Your positions are identical. You're from the same place. The way you try to weasle out of your arguments is identical. Your complete incompetance in law is identical.

Give it up corny, you aren't fooling anyone.

No where did I make a statement that I was studying law nor took a law class.

You should try to take a reading comprehension class. As I said, you argued that this judge was wrong in ruling that this law was unconstitutional, and as such, this law is constitutional.

Are you going to retract that statement now?

It's been proven, many times, from the fact that your screen name is the name of the a county in philly (where he was from) and similar to his puppet, to the fact that your viewpoints are identical, to the fact that you make the same spelling errors.

Check your PA Geography abit more. Lancaster County is 2 hours from Philadelphia.

Your typing style is identical. Your arguments are identical. Your positions are identical. You're from the same place. The way you try to weasle out of your arguments is identical. Your complete incompetance in law is identical.

Give it up corny, you aren't fooling anyone.

Prove that I am this Corny character. You have yet to prove it.

You should try to take a reading comprehension class. As I said, you argued that this judge was wrong in ruling that this law was unconstitutional, and as such, this law is constitutional.

Are you going to retract that statement now?

I feel the law is constitutional. I see you have a disregard for other people's opinions.

Check your PA Geography abit more. Lancaster County is 2 hours from Philadelphia.

Ah so remarkably far away. Shocking it's in the same state, and the exact same format as one of your other puppets.

I feel the law is constitutional. I see you have a disregard for other people's opinions.

I have disregard for other people's blatant errors and abject idiocy.

Again, you're free to believe any damned fool thing you wish, but I don't have to respect your ignorance and incompetance.

Ah so remarkably far away. Shocking it's in the same state, and the exact same format as one of your other puppets.

As I have no puppets...

I have disregard for other people's blatant errors and abject idiocy.

Again, you're free to believe any damned fool thing you wish, but I don't have to respect your ignorance and incompetance.

Fine. We agree to disagree.

Fine. We agree to disagree.

Sure thing. You're wrong. But it's your right to be completely wrong.

A lot of people would take every effort to actually correct their ignorance, not revel in it. But, hey, do what you want to do.

Sure thing. You're wrong. But it's your right to be completely wrong.

A lot of people would take every effort to actually correct their ignorance, not revel in it. But, hey, do what you want to do.

I will wait for the highest court to rule in this matter. If they do not then I will accept the verdict of the highest court that rules on this.

I feel the law is constitutional.
That and a buck-twenty-five will get you a Coke out of the machine.
I see you have a disregard for other people's opinions.

When they're stupid opinions? You betcha.

Finally!! I grew up near Hazleton, and it has been a serious embarrassment to be associated with the area lately. I mean, this is so obviously, blatantly unconstitutional. I'm not even ashamed of the blatant xenophobia--it was the obscene arrogance and legal absurdity of the claim that just screamed, "crazy hicks."

Of course, they'll appeal. But at least my constant reminders to the locals that their much-lauded policies were unconstitutional have been, for the time-being, vindicated.

It feels good. :)

Black slaves built the Whitehouse, so what's new?
Does that mean that had the situations been reversed (Black owners, white slaves) we'd have a Blackhouse now, built by White slaves?
What if they'd been Asian slaves? Would we have a Purplehouse?

Finally!! I grew up near Hazleton,
Where did you live?
It's been proven, many times, from the fact that your screen name is the name of the a county in philly (where he was from) and similar to his puppet, to the fact that your viewpoints are identical, to the fact that you make the same spelling errors.

A county in Philly? What? Philadelphia is in Montgomery County. Lancaster is somewhere else. I never knew Lancaster County was located in the state of Philadelphia.

Still, it is Corny, so, uh, I uh.. *leaves*

and Remote Observer has a gay son and worked for the state assessor's office and numerous other fake stories that seem to come out once when it seems to be convenient and never spoken of again.

I have a gay son, but I work for a government contractor, not a state assessor's office.

If you have a link to me saying I worked for a state assessor's office, please link to it, because I never did.

Does that mean that had the situations been reversed (Black owners, white slaves) we'd have a Blackhouse now, built by White slaves?
What if they'd been Asian slaves? Would we have a Purplehouse?

The Whitehouse in black would look real nice! Err, as for Purple ... yuck.

Where did you live?I grew up in Lehighton.