Sailor’s Lounge caters to the hard-bittenest drinkers in the deep south coastal town of Mobile, Alabama. There’s a woman, maybe 80, who wears her dress unbuttoned to reveal her entire cleavage. Her steady eye contact is unnerving.

Actually, y'all can pretty much piss off back to Latin America

Another woman, sitting at the bar, tells the story of how her pretty mother, who worked as a Bunny waitress in a Mississippi club, was found dead under a building from a suspected hot shot. That was decades ago.

And there’s the woman called Mama, who owns the bar. She’s about 70. She came to Mobile five decades ago from Turkey. She worked on a cruise ship where she was also required to double as the ship’s resident belly dancer.

The joint reeks of sex and death, or maybe death sex.

At best, only a handful of drinkers frequent Sailor’s Lounge on any day. It is a curiosity, a relic of the past. But perhaps Alabama’s lawmakers should come and have a look at it.

This bar, a place of memories and decay, could be an unsettling glimpse into what lies ahead for this state if they push ahead with a damaging anti-Hispanic immigration law that threatens to bring Alabama to its knees.

The law, known as HB56, the toughest in a suite of similar anti-immigrant laws introduced by legislators in Utah, Indiana, Georgia and Arizona.

The difference is that in the other states, key aspects of the laws have been knocked down by superior courts or under serious challenge as unconstitutional.

The Alabama law, which passed, in June, has so far mostly survived intact.

It allows police to check the immigration status of people when pulling them over, or to hold suspected illegal immigrants without a bond; makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to do business of any kind with the state; it requires employers to verify employees’ status; and requires schools to check students’ immigration status.

While schools cannot refuse to educate illegal children, the information will provide authorities with leads to their illegal parents. One immediate effect of the law was that many parents pulled their kids out of school and fled the state. Those who stayed behind became too fearful to drive their vehicles.

Anecdotally, legal Hispanic citizens have also left Alabama, simply because they don’t like the legally endorsed culture of fear and harassment.

How many have gone is uncertain, but the law has backfired. Farmers are complaining they can’t bring in their crops; and businesses have hit a chronic shortage of the type of cheap labour Hispanics typically provide.

In a legal challenge in September, an Alabama superior court judge refused to block the law, though she did put two aspects under review for a later ruling.

One is the section that forbids businesses from deducting tax from illegal workers; the other is the part making it illegal to transport an illegal immigrant in a car, or to harbour them. Until that part was put on hold, members of Alabama church groups had been risking arrest by driving illegal immigrants to their places of work, or to the shops.

To some, the law is simply a long overdue correction designed to flush out illegals who should not be in the country anyway. For others, it is proof that Alabama’s brutal civil rights history is not over.

Alabama has struggled hard in recent years to entice US and foreign businesses to set up factories in its state. It was left embarrassed in November when a policeman arrested and jailed a German executive visiting its Mercedes Benz plant in Tuscaloosa, for being a suspected illegal. Two weeks later, a similar thing happened to a visiting Japanese employee of Honda.

While the offence was not so egregious as to force the companies to pull out, the message has gone around the world that Alabama is not such a foreign-friendly place. But more than that, companies looking to set up in the south now know that they will not be able to rely on Hispanics to do the kind of cheap but necessary labour that many US citizens decline to do.

Republican presidential candidates have been dragged into the debate. Lead contender Mitt Romney has said illegals must come out of the shadows and declare themselves. Under the Romney proposal, they would have to return to Mexico (or Guatemala or Costa Rica or the Dominican Republic) and reapply to enter. That could mean waiting decades.

But no one believes that Romney, who was once called out for employing a gardening company that used Hispanic illegals, would enforce such a law if he became president.

Romney’s main opponent, Newt Gingrich, has taken a softer line, proposing that a review board be set up to allow the estimated 11 million illegal workers to apply for a kind of amnesty from within America. But he said that many millions might have to go home.

Governor Rick Perry, from the boom state of Texas, continually deflects the question. He knows such a crackdown on illegals would leave the economy of his state in turmoil. Texas shares the longest border with Mexico and Perry steers the conversation towards maintaining strong borders and fighting incoming drugs, rather than attacking the existing Hispanic workforce.

The truth is that none of them want this argument but the political environment demands they are seen to appease a section of the population that believes Hispanics are robbing the country of what is theirs. 
 
President Barack Obama’s position is ambiguous. He has said hard-working Hispanic families must be not be banished; but he has also pointed his finger at employers for exploiting illegals with low wages.

Meanwhile, under Obama, there have been a record number of deportations of illegals with criminal backgrounds, with an estimated 400,000 illegals sent home in the last fiscal year alone.

Obama will no doubt brandish these figures as the presidential race intensifies, while at the same time trying to appeal to the estimated 50 million legal Hispanics in the US who will play a significant part in the outcome of the 2012 presidential race.

Albert Rossi, 46, runs a Mexican restaurant in Bayou La Batre, a small upriver fishing town south of Mobile. Before the June law came in, Rossi says there was a population of some 200 Hispanics in Bayou La Batre. Now he believes there are about 20 people, including his own (legal) family.

“Myself, being just one restaurant, it hasn’t affected me greatly,” he says. “Before the law came in I got prepared, did what I had to do. I let one guy go. I had no choice but to comply. I had one guy who was questionable. He had no papers. He was almost crying. He left.

“I know someone who has a restaurant, she had to shut down. Everyone was afraid. They were leaving the state, leaving cars behind, leaving homes behind. It did have a big impact.

“It’s sad in different ways. Where I have a problem is they’re messing with the kids. They’re racial profiling, they’re looking at skin colour. That’s what bothers me. I hope they change something, because, you know, it’s just been sad.

“I ran into three people who were packing up to leave. They were from Guatemala. They’ve been here 10 years. They didn’t tell the landlord, they just went. I told them to calm down, wait and see what happens. But they panicked. One went east and two of them went to Texas.

“Everyone’s gone to Mississippi, Texas, Florida.

“Every farmer I talk to who supplies stuff to me, they’re hurting bad (without workers). They went too far with this law and they never looked at the consequences.”

In 1986, Ronald Reagan provided amnesty to Hispanics who had arrived in the country prior to 1982. No one is certain where this debate is headed, but it is impossible to believe there will come a time when millions of Hispanics are shipped en masse back from where they came.

It would be the most wrenching and savage exodus of modern times. It is all talk. Except in Alabama, the state that has shot itself in the foot.

ptoohey63@gmail.com

Most commented

52 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:28am | 25/12/11

      Pauline Hanson’s politics strike again ? Nothing like a bit of hate at Christmas time !

    • Winston says:

      09:22am | 25/12/11

      Your right acotrel, I am sure the United States is following Pauline Hanson VERY closely.

    • mick says:

      04:21pm | 25/12/11

      “Hate” is one of the words trotted out by those who seek to get their way over the majority.  We hear it all the time in our own country.  The other words are “discrimination”, “racism” and “sexism’.  Its a game and you are playing it acotrel.  And lets not try to pin Christmas to the argument as well.

      Hanson was right about Asians not mixing real well.  They generally don’t mix.  What she got wrong is that these folk not politically dangerous and they never tried to force their culture down our throats.  I can think of one religion and its followers who try it on all the time and this is where as a nation we should be concerned looking forward.

      The US is in no way following Hanson.  A ridiculous statement.

      The US has an issue.  Hispanics are needed as they do jobs which nobody else wants to do for rates of pay so low that US citizens would not consider working for that level of remuneration.  Americans will not deport these folk whilst they fill such a need.  There are millions of them in the US.  Having travelled through Colorado I was amazed that some of the commercial sinage was in Mexican as well as English.

    • Shane says:

      06:09pm | 25/12/11

      I’d have been amazed too, Mick, as Mexican isn’t a language. I’m sure you’d also be amazed to know that some of the commercial sinage (sic) in countries all around the world is also in English. What a world, eh ?

      You’re quite right that we should as a nation be concerned looking forward about Christians trying to force their culture down our throats. No matter how many times I’ve asked them not to come preaching on the weekends they still come. How do you deal with them ?

    • Zaf says:

      10:58am | 26/12/11

      Darned Messicans….they even named Colorado, wudja believe it?

    • Adam says:

      12:34am | 27/12/11

      There are legitimate reasons for protecting and identifying just who comes in and goes out of their nation. Not to mention those that are currently existing without papers. Unions cannot protect them, health insurance agencies won’t cover them and the police don’t know they exist.

      Unless you’re willing to completely remove all kinds of records for people coming in and out of the nation and say to hell with the green card, and to hell with passports or business visas then you need to come up with some sort of plan to reduce illegal immigration into the country. It distorts the market and leaves millions living as second class citizens with an awkward situation where they cannot apply to be legal because they already live there.

      What do you think the reaction will be when people find that there a U.S. citizens out of the job while they see illegal immigrants get paid for their work? It’s not good for social cohesion.

      If we live in an age where people don’t want borders, fine, let it be so. But the one who adheres to that philosophy must expect the influences of less desirable cultures and nations to become more prominent. The experience from Mexico hasn’t been the greatest with cartels importing drugs, weapons and violence into the US. You cannot simply sit there in blind ignorance of that fact.

      They don’t need a new law, they just need to enforce the law. If we don’t enforce the rule of law then we might as well not have it.

    • marley says:

      12:32pm | 27/12/11

      @Adam - there are legitimate reasons for wanting to know who is coming into and leaving your country - but unless you’re an island like Australia, it’s virtually impossible to manage that process effectively.

      Think of those US land borders, not just with Mexico but with Canada.  The former is almost 3000 km long, while the main border with Canada is 6400 km long and the Alaskan border another 2500 km.  There is no way that every inch of those borders can be monitored 24/7.  The official border crossings can be hundreds of kilometers apart, with nothing to stop people walking across between the official entry points. 

      And even at the official border crossings, checks are often cursory:  the volume of traffic is such that there simply isn’t the capacity to do much more than a quick once-over, and random checks.  This is especially true of the US’s northern border.  Heck, until a couple of years ago, a passport wasn’t required to travel between Canada and the US.

      It’s just not physically possible to ensure that no one crosses those land borders who shouldn’t, or to know the identify of everyone who does. 

      Then we have air traffic.  Neither Canada nor the US has a universal visa requirement.  So even if the entry of every air arrival is recorded (and I’ve got my doubts about that), the information about them in nothing more than biodata on a passport.  And neither country has exit controls. 

      It’s simply not possibly to know exactly who is in Canada or the US at any particular time. 

      And Europe is even worse, given the Schengen set-up. 

      So yes, the US should have a better handle on who is in the country - but the cost of administering such a system would be phenomenal and the reliability dubious at best.

    • Rastus says:

      12:43pm | 27/12/11

      @Adam   Dey tkk urr jrrrbs !

    • Erick says:

      02:18am | 28/12/11

      @Rastus - A speech impediment isn’t an argument.

      It’s interesting how the pro-illegal-immigration commenters so frequently resort to personal abuse and mockery. It’s almost as if they know they don’t have any rational responses.

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      07:00am | 25/12/11

      Hi Paul,

      Is it a bit like the movie Sweet Home Alabama? Or nothing like It at all? Recently we have all discovered that it is not all rosy & picturesque in the USA’s backyard as we might have imagined all along!! Somehow I feel with the election time coming up in the USA,  it is all about getting more votes from a certain part of the society!  It seems to be very much just like the Asylum Seeker’s Debate which has been dominating the agenda in the Australian Politics!

      When you consider the 11 million so called Illegal Hispanic Workers in the USA, whose problem is it really? The Republicans & the Democrats both equally? Is it an election winner for both parties? It is very sad to think in a country like the USA, which has been home to many migrants since the very beginning & their arrivals at Ellis Island, New York.  I am assuming by boat! 

      Seeing the Statue of Liberty for the first time must have been very exciting experience for all those people needing a new beginning & new home!  How about now, what has actually changed in the very recent years?

      Talking about the millions of illegal workers, I just want to know how the average American feels about this situation!!  For me personally,  looking from a distance it seem as if the Hispanic population just happens to be second class citizens &the; unwanted people!  Why is that?  Is it very different to the arrivals of Irish, English, Polish, Jewish, Italian, Greek & Russian migrants, originally?

      I truly believe it seems to be all about what makes headlines & dominates the political arena & agenda!  Some of these migrant’s children become US citizens automatically!  May be we should begin with changing certain rules & regulations in the USA, before we even start putting the blame on others!  Especially when those are deprived of most basic rights, while others feel that they should be entitled to automatically! Best regards to your editors.

    • Erick says:

      09:10am | 25/12/11

      And your problem is ... ?

      Illegal immigrants are in the country [illegally]. They shouldn’t be there. Why are you sympathising with criminals?

    • Steve Putnam says:

      10:24am | 25/12/11

      Still serving up simplistic nonsense I see. There are about 15,000,000 illegal workers in the US, get rid of them and the system would collapse. Why don’t you go over and see for yourself instead mouthing off about stuff you know nothing about.

    • Shane says:

      01:59pm | 25/12/11

      @Erick

      There’s an article in The Punch today by Paul Toohey. I recommend you read that.

    • Erick says:

      02:06pm | 25/12/11

      There are far morethan 15 million people unemployed in the US. If the illegal workers went home, the economy would improve for the locals.

    • Bruno says:

      05:59pm | 25/12/11

      Not even the anniversary of the birth of our saviour is enough to give this fearless and selfless warrior some cheer. The hypocrisy of your ilk is that if the sh*t hit the fan here you would either be the first to leave if you had the means, or the first to complain that no one is helping us. The rest of us to the first lot we would say good. To the latter we would say its because of people like you. Also just an observation but you are the first true blue dinky di aussie I have heard of called Eric. I’ve met plenty of Daves, Micks, Tonys, Craigs, Scotts, Andrews, Steves, Adams, Aarons, Johns, Jacks and the list goes on, but you’re the first Eric, apart from the French bloke at my work who I think you would agree does not count. No seriously not one, you’re the first. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. You fearless warrior you.

    • holden says:

      11:21pm | 25/12/11

      Erich is a warrior? He’s terrified of his ex-wife and all other women who threaten his position in the world.
      He can’t stand as a man, he can only blame women, (you know, those physically lesser guys, like his Mum and his sister), for his fails. What a weak example of either sex. A wimp. Take your whining, miserable, comments and leave them at the “Men Who Can’t Function Club”.
      We love our women and our women love us. Why? Because we don’t mistreat them. Weak bastard!

    • Erick says:

      01:00am | 26/12/11

      @Bruno - You can’t deny the validity of my points, and so you turn to mindless personal abuse. No surprise there, it’s about par for the course when debating with your ilk.

      But even if you can’t come up with any decent counterpoints, do try at least get my name right.

    • Zaf says:

      11:07am | 26/12/11

      Erick, European settlement in Australia first included people who were arrested in England because they were so poor and hungry that they stole a loaf of bread.  Technically they were criminals - but can you honestly say that you have no sympathy for people who chose to steal a piece of bread to stay alive rather than scrupuously keep to the law and quietly starve to death?  Illegals don’t flock to the US for fun, they go there because they feel that they must.  You may feel (incorrectly, imho) that deporting them would result in an improvement in the standard of living for currently unemployed US citizens, but what’s wrong with also recognising them as fellow human beings?

    • Erick says:

      02:44pm | 26/12/11

      @Zaf - Poor analogy. Those people didn’t come to Australia willingly. They were forced to immugrate.

      Illegal immigrants are human beings. Who ever saud they weren’t? But they are human beings who have committed a crime by entering someone else’s country illegally, so they should be sent back.

    • Paul says:

      04:23pm | 26/12/11

      @Erick

      Incorrect. Any individual illegally present in the U.S. is only guilty of a civil violation of the INA.

    • Paul says:

      04:39pm | 26/12/11

      @ Zaf

      Illegal is an adjective. The word you’re looking for is criminals. Which doesn’t apply in this context because any individual illegally present in the U.S. is only guilty of a civil violation of the INA.

    • Erick says:

      06:13pm | 26/12/11

      @Paul - I stand corrected.

      However, regardless of whether the offence is civil, criminal or felonious, these people are in the country illegally. They have no right to be there.

      Paul Toohey’s characterisation of them as simply “immigrants” is misleading. His description of the Alabama law as “anti-Hispanic” is discredited by his own article, which provides examples of non-Hispanic people being affected by the law.

      Overall, this is another poor, agenda driven piece which once again degrades the work of an occasionally excellent journalist.

    • marley says:

      06:29pm | 26/12/11

      @Paul - your reasoning is becoming rather inconsistent.  You admit they’re illegally in the US, but deny that they’re illegal immigrants.  How does that work?

    • Paul says:

      09:16pm | 26/12/11

      @marley   No, I don’t.

    • marley says:

      07:09am | 27/12/11

      @Paul “any individually illegally present in the United States.”  Your words, not mine.

    • Fred says:

      09:48am | 25/12/11

      It’s easy to cherry pick a few examples to support mass immigration. It’s easy to cry poor too like the farmers are doing. Whether or not that’s true is another story.

      Not everyone needs shiny, tacky, high turnover societies to be happy.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:04pm | 28/12/11

      No, but for the most part those who don’t tend to sponge off the economic success and military umbrella of those nations that do have them.

    • Erick says:

      02:10pm | 25/12/11

      At least those Americans migh have more money to pay for food, once the illegals are no longer available for underpaid work.

    • Swingdog says:

      06:33pm | 25/12/11

      Okay, so you really know nothing about this issue. That’s fine.

      Just stick to whining about women.

    • Paul says:

      07:55am | 26/12/11

      @ Swingdog: Do you justify the use of below minimum wage workers in order to reduce prices?

      It doesn’t matter where the illegal immigrants come from, the fact is there is a minimum wage in the US. Farmers are exploiting people because of their illegal status. And do you really think that the reduced wage bill savings are actually passed on to the consumer?

    • Swingdog says:

      11:12pm | 26/12/11

      @Paul   Well, economists like Patricia Cortes certainly think there is a benefit to the US consumer of low-skilled illegal immigration, especially in local markets:

      http://www.cgdev.org/doc/events/Migration Conference, 5.26.09/Patricia_Cortes_Paper.pdf

      Yes, farmers and other employers are hiring below minimum wage but this is an example of practical hypocrisy. It’s not a simple matter of removing all these people and expecring thpse positions will be filled - native born Americans won’t do these jobs, not even for minimum wage.

      In this instance, the law isn’t working but the economy has jerry-rigged a structure to get around it to the unthinking satisfaction of most Americans.

    • Rastus says:

      01:53pm | 25/12/11

      Dey tkk urr jrrrbs !

    • Randy says:

      09:31am | 26/12/11

      Durka a Derrrrr!

    • stephen says:

      02:05pm | 25/12/11

      There’s a real fear that illegal immigrants on the Texas border are being paid as gophers for South American drug syndicates.
      The decision to be made is whether the disadvantages of such an activity outweighs the obvious benefit and human kindness of letting so many Hispanics into America - people who have paid many times over in the USA their worth and good nature.

    • marley says:

      07:56am | 26/12/11

      While I realize this is a highly complex issue, I find it interesting that the author refers to “anti-immigrant” laws.  These are in fact anti-illegal migrant laws.  Legal immigrants have a full panoply of rights in the US;  illegals don’t, nor should their status equate to that of people who have arrived in the US legally. 

      The issue is of course what to do with the illegal migrants.  Amnesties don’t work, mass deportation is out of the question, and the illegals do provide services.  I suspect the problem is that the federal government has proved unable or unwilling to address the problem of illegals, and therefore the states, especially the southern states which have always had a fractious relationship with federal authority, are attempting to take matters into their own hands.  I doubt they will be more successful than the feds, though.

    • Paul says:

      11:50am | 26/12/11

      @marley  

      Incorrect. It’s a civil violation.

      Also, it would be as ridiculous to describe anti-immigrant laws as anti-illegal migrant laws as it would be to describe them as anti-legal migrant laws. They’re laws. They deal with legality by definition.

    • marley says:

      01:11pm | 26/12/11

      @Paul - I think you missed my point entirely. 

      “Immigrants” under the American Immigration and Nationality Act are persons lawfully in the US, having been issued immigrant visas and having subsequently obtained permanent resident cards.  My point is that the Alabama laws are not directed towards these people:  they are not “anti immigrant” laws.

      Rather, the Alabama laws are directed towards those who are not legal immigrants or visitors in the US.  You can argue semantics, but these persons are in the US in violation of the terms of the US Immigration and Naturalization Act.  And by the way, avoiding proper clearance under that Act by sneaking across the border or providing false information, can net an undocumented migrant 6 months in jail.  That is federal law.  It is these people, and not the legal immigrants or the valid non-immigrant visa holders, who are being targeted by the laws.  That was my point.

      As for your statement that “it would be as ridiculous to describe anti-immigrant laws as anti-illegal migrant laws as it would be to describe them as anti-legal migrant laws. They’re laws. They deal with legality by definition.”  No, actually they don’t.  The states cannot write legislation defining whether someone is or is not a legal migrant:  that is a federal responsibility.  The state cannot render a legal immigrant “illegal” or an illegal immigrant “legal.”  They can only apply sanctions to persons who are not lawful residents, or to their employers.  They have no say in defining whether that person is or is not lawful.

      So, to repeat my point, the author is incorrect in asserting that these are “anti immigrant” laws.  They are laws directed solely at persons residing in the US in violation of the US Immigration and Naturalization Act.  By definition, they do not apply to legal immigrants.

    • Paul says:

      04:32pm | 26/12/11

      @ marley

      “They’re laws. They deal with legality by definition.”
      “No, actually they don’t.”

      Yes, actually they do. That’s why they’re called laws.

    • marley says:

      06:10pm | 26/12/11

      @Paul - the laws the states such as Alabama are introducing do not decide the legal or illegal status of non-citizens.  They decide the legality or otherwise of giving people who do not have legal status in the US, access to jobs,education, medical and social services. 

      Certainly, what the states do is pass laws.  What they don’t do is pass laws about who is or is not an illegal migrant.

    • Gratuitous Adviser says:

      07:59am | 26/12/11

      There is something wrong with a wealthy culture basing its standard of living on using illegal (underpaid) labour so as to provide cheap goods and services to its people.  In my opinion it’s a form of slavery that drives the local working class into poverty for the benefit of the hypocritical do-gooders that are the beneficiaries of this trade (are we still in the 18th Century or have we advanced past this crime??). 

      Good luck to the Americans (even from Alabama-This article is so unashamedly tainted by bias by picking that State.  Where was the fat cop in the picture so as to complete the stereotype???), and the Europeans for trying to bring it under control.  Illegal immigration (repeat illegal for those intellectual deficient’s that constantly use the Pauline Hanson defence, in lieu of a reasoned argument), no matter how the gloss it put on the stain, is one of the world’s time bombs and every western Government knows it.

    • St. Michael says:

      11:07pm | 28/12/11

      “There is something wrong with a wealthy culture basing its standard of living on using illegal (underpaid) labour so as to provide cheap goods and services to its people.”

      If you use anything in your house which has the words “Made in China”, you are personally doing something wrong by this argument.

    • LDLS says:

      10:28am | 26/12/11

      I know an illegal immigrant in the USA.  Turns out to be my best friend.  It never came up in our emails before we started discussing our pasts in depth.

      She is now legally an American citizen with a wonderful husband and family who have offered a lot to the USA including stints to Iraq and Afghanistan.

      She is the one person who changed my mind about this issue but she also never drained the coffers of the welfare system. She worked hard, got an education and now gives back a lot.

      There are two sides to this issue. While I don’t fully accept open borders I now sit on a fence.

      BTW my post wishing Paul a Merry Xmas never appeared.
      Best articles in the Punch

    • Zaf says:

      11:11am | 26/12/11

      There’s a reason food in the US is so much cheaper than food in Australia.  Our minimum wage is both higher and less evadable (because fewer illegals over here).

      When the price of food goes up, who is most affected - the rich, or the unemployed poor?  I suspect the poor will suffer more, and seasonal agricultural employment and very badly paid janitorial jobs without health insurance will not really make up for that.

    • Bj says:

      02:00pm | 26/12/11

      When the farmers pay the mimimum wage they will have labour.

    • marley says:

      02:17pm | 26/12/11

      @Bj - not necessarily.  Both Canada and the US import legal temporary migrant labour because Canadians and Americans don’t want to do labouring work.  Same thing happens here with working holiday-makers.

    • Tad says:

      10:09pm | 27/12/11

      If they’re not citizens then it isn’t a civil rights issue. Nice try Toohey.

    • Zaf says:

      02:50pm | 28/12/11

      Actually it *is* a civil rights issue if it involves people.

      Everybody has civil rights, citizens and legal residents as well as illegal residents. 

      In addition to civil rights, citizens of a country have political rights.

    • James Hunter says:

      02:19pm | 28/12/11

      ha de ha The American way. wow and they all so religious down south !

      How do they reconcile this behaviour with christian principles ?

      I realise most of the big churchs are simply money making machines and tax dodges for dodgey creators but still.

      I guess the Southerners are also crazy enough to be teaching Creationism (cretinism) at high school so realy anything at all is possible.

    • John says:

      03:37am | 29/12/11

      Screw them. Build a huge electric fence and repatriate all illegals.
      Pump up the voltage-problem solved.

    • Paul says:

      12:49pm | 29/12/11

      @John Illegal is an adjective.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @CrawfordFund: @farrm51 u may like 2 help spread word of our #foodsecurity journo award http://t.co/FwbMWwJmLf

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

tory_maguire

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

Daniel Piotrowski

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter