Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Nitrogen on April 24, 2010, 09:26:24 PM
-
The liberal circles I run in are going bonkers about this new law signed in Arizona that allows police to arrest for immigration violations.
What's the truth on how this law works? At least, what's your understanding on how it works?
What I'm hearing sounds REALLY bad, but I also know how inflammed people get.
-
If cops stop someone and have reason to suspect they are not citizens (or not here legally) they can ask for proof. Zomg the horror of teh profiling! ;/ I'd imagine your liberal friends are against any attempt to reign in illegal immigration.
-
But is it a "papieren, bitte" sort of situation?
-
But is it a "papieren, bitte" sort of situation?
You mean like when cops stop someone and ask for their driver's license and proof of insurance?
-
So now we all have to carry a passport or birth certificate whenever we leave the house (at least when we're in AZ)?
-
You mean like when cops stop someone and ask for their driver's license and proof of insurance?
OK. So what happens if the swarthy naturalized citizen with the funny accent doesn't have proof of citizenship? Is this strictly aimed at drivers, that have to have ID, anyway?
I'm not arguing against it, I just don't know much about it.
-
Well, when you're driving it's different (according to the courts, as driving is a privelege, not a right)
From what I've read (which I am not sure how much I trust) you can be arrested and jailed for not having proof of citizenship on you. Cops are now REQUIRED to stop people they have a reasonable suspicion of being illegal, and ask. Ifthey don't have their papers on them, they are to be arrested.
This is what i'm trying to find out is the case, or not. If this is being blown out of proportion or not
-
Yeah, I'm interested to learn exactly how this works.
Can you have your drivers license tagged with your citizenship?
And what are the penalties for being busted for non-citizenship? Fine? Jail? Deportation? Can a state deport people, or is that something only the Feds can do?
-
OK here's the details from the gay female liberal Sean Hannity clone:
the bill "requires police officers in Arizona to demand the paperwork of anyone they think looks like he or she might be an illegal immigrant."
"when this bill is enacted, you are presumed to be illegal in the state of Arizona. Anyone, anywhere in the state of Arizona will be eligible for arrest if a police officer thinks you might be an illegal immigrant and you cant, on the spot, prove otherwise."
"If it turns out you're actually a legal immigrant to this country, but you weren't carrying all of your immigration paperwork with you at the time, that's 6 months in jail for you, and a $500 fine."
"this law says you have to show documentation if a police officer says you look illegal"
-
OK here's the details from the gay female liberal Sean Hannity clone:
the bill "requires police officers in Arizona to demand the paperwork of anyone they think looks like he or she might be an illegal immigrant."
"when this bill is enacted, you are presumed to be illegal in the state of Arizona. Anyone, anywhere in the state of Arizona will be eligible for arrest if a police officer thinks you might be an illegal immigrant and you cant, on the spot, prove otherwise."
"If it turns out you're actually a legal immigrant to this country, but you weren't carrying all of your immigration paperwork with you at the time, that's 6 months in jail for you, and a $500 fine."
"this law says you have to show documentation if a police officer says you look illegal"
From what I understand, the bill mostly clones Federal law (which also requires that aliens have documentation with them at all times). All it does is allow AZ state police to enforce it.
-
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/24/correction-the-actual-arizona-immigration-bill/
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/24/correction-the-actual-arizona-immigration-bill/
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
IMHO, You bolded the wrong part.
If you get pulled over, and don't have valid documentation, they will be required to pursue your legal status further.
Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.
-
Yeah, I'm interested to learn exactly how this works.
Can you have your drivers license tagged with your citizenship?
I don't know about Arizona but, in Michigan you can get an "enhanced" driver's license, using your birth certificate or a passport to verify your citizenship when you apply or renew.
-
From what I understand, the bill mostly clones Federal law (which also requires that aliens have documentation with them at all times). All it does is allow AZ state police to enforce it.
What about someone who isn't even an immigrant, but because they come from a heavy immigrant area they look and speak like one, and they don't have anything on them?
-
and what kinda papers are now needed to go for a walk?
-
and what kinda papers are now needed to go for a walk?
But C&SD... we all live in a universe where we all have driver's licenses, right? A total national ID is inevitable anyway, just get with the program.
...actually, I agree with you fully.
-
Liberals are always saying "we want the same health care every other western nation has".
Seems to me that AZ has the same immigration policy every other western nation has.
-
i was born in east LA? [popcorn] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBHYXlIwoGc)
-
Liberals are always saying "we want the same health care every other western nation has". Seems to me that AZ has the same immigration policy every other western nation has.
Not really - I understand Mexico treats illegals along its southern border far more harshly than AZ is proposing.
-
Not really - I understand Mexico treats illegals along its southern border far more harshly than AZ is proposing.
Mexico was a Western country now? I mean, it is physically in the West, but that doesn't qualify.
-
How would Mexico not qualify as Western?
-
How would Mexico not qualify as Western?
Not being a fully-industrialized country?
The corruption?
The horrific crime?
The various civil rights abuses?
-
On the other hand, they speak a European language, observe Christianity, and have many social and political institutions derived from European sources. I guess there's no hard and fast rule. The Wiki article makes some interesting points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world
-
a thread on .us just hit the dumper so i'll ask here. how do they plan on requiring folks to carry id? the supreme court ruling and all. i mean i know they have sheriff joe but can they afford that many lawsuits?
-
The law is only like 16 pages, may as well just read the thing. I didn't see anything in it that was super-egregious. Seems to me like Arizona is just picking up the slack left by the feds refusing to enforce immigration law. With regard to the "Papers Please" hypothetical, I'm trying to remember the last time a police officer spoke to me without requesting some form of ID. Are we already there?
-
With regard to the "Papers Please" hypothetical, I'm trying to remember the last time a police officer spoke to me without requesting some form of ID. Are we already there?
Cops ask all kinds o' stuff. That doesn't mean you are required to carry ID, and can go to jail because of it.
-
Insert Quote
Quote from: fistful on April 25, 2010, 11:06:32 PM
How would Mexico not qualify as Western?
Not being a fully-industrialized country?
The corruption?
The horrific crime?
The various civil rights abuses?
Posted on: April 25, 2010, 11:06:32 PM
Posted by: fistful
Insert Quote
How would Mexico not qualify as Western?
Posted on: April 25, 2010, 09:59:08 PM
Posted by: MicroBalrog
Insert Quote
Quote from: HankB on April 25, 2010, 09:44:57 PM
Not really - I understand Mexico treats illegals along its southern border far more harshly than AZ is proposing.
Mexico was a Western country now? I mean, it is physically in the West, but that doesn't qualify.
I guess I should have said civilized, Mexico rapes/kills/exploits Guatemalan along their southern border, ranchers down there say Guatemalan's are doing the work regular citizens wont do!
-
so is this just a gesture to the feds? or are they really gonna enforce it and make some folks richer some jurisdictions poorer? they've got 90 days before it starts.
-
Local conservative talk circuit is up in arms about it as a bad thing.
They say it will make AZ poorer, and be a kick-off for the Dems to rally against and defuse the Tea-Party angst that would have rocked the voting booth in November.
I kinda agree with that.
Local cops won't put a dent in the ~1 million illegals in AZ (about 20% of our population). The roads, the schools, the hospitals, the civic infrastructure to pay for these non-taxpayers (or ID thieves)... it's atrocious. But, at this point the only thing that will do it properly is:
1 - BURN the employer who uses illegals. First offense, a $25k fine. Second offense, revocation of corporate charter and top corporate officer and HR director each does 10 years PMITA time.
2 - militarize the border. You know, with gunz and stuff.
3 - ICE gets cracking on street-corner loitering. Home Depots, 7-11's, all the usual informal labor hotspots.
Without all three things there, and a deportation rate in the thousands per day (at least half a million a year), we won't get rid of the illegals.
For the sake of civil liberties and quality of life in this country, I can acknowledge that option 3 is problematic. I don't care for it at all because it, just like all other federal laws, will never go away. 1 and 2 are enough to make the rest trickle their way back to Mexico.
This approach is more like option 3, than getting AZ DPS down on the border or the AZ national guard. We already have a lukewarm option 1, but it needs more teeth that directly attack people who derive profit from illegal hiring or are directly accountable for crappy oversight of hiring procedures.
-
I would point out that there's no real point in militarizing the border untill we (america that is) is actually willing to shoot people. Otherwise it's an empty threat.
Ask yourself what would happen if CNN broadcast a film of ICE shooting an 18 YO female mexican civilian holding a baby in the middle of the desert. Never mind right or wrong, or that she's got 5 kilos of mexican brown in her backpack, what do you think the american public's reaction to that would be?
Untill we're ready to shoot these folks, adding more guns to the border, along with crazy ROE just makes us look more impotent.
-
what he said! in spades! this issue can bring out the best in us if we find a solution so far its not been our proudest moment the new law does not seem likely to break the trend
-
its kind of personal to me, I enjoy driving taxi's but after selling my guns and jumping thru all the hoops San Francisco had to offer I still couldn't get a cab driver gig in SF.
SF and the rest of the USA is awash with illegal aliens driving cabs, it hurts me personally and I want them out right now, I'm sick of it.
-
Ask yourself what would happen if CNN broadcast a film of ICE shooting an 18 YO female mexican civilian holding a baby in the middle of the desert.
Seriously? You want BP shooting unarmed people that pose no threat to them just for the "shock value".
Great idea!! [barf]
Never mind right or wrong, or that she's got 5 kilos of mexican brown in her backpack, what do you think the american public's reaction to that would be?
Oh wait all Mexican's are drug mules, forgot about that. And everyone knows drug users / suppliers are unpeople deserving to be killed.
-
ZED has it basically right. Perhaps the biggest effect will be indirect. For entirely too long US immigration policy has been very predictable. We will huff and puff and in the end do nothing. What AZ just did is insert uncertainty into the calculations of those who would crash the border. AZ is no longer in essence a sanctuary state. I'd be willing to predict AZ will see an exodus of border jumpers to other states. Those who planned to cross the AZ border will either plan a quick pass through AZ or move to another state (Tejas, New Mexico, or Cali). In any case what AZ just did will spread to other states fairly quickly.
-
Seriously? You want BP shooting unarmed people that pose no threat to them just for the "shock value".
Great idea!! [barf]
Oh wait all Mexican's are drug mules, forgot about that. And everyone knows drug users / suppliers are unpeople deserving to be killed.
Ummm...... no, you missed my point completely.
I don't want to just shoot folks walking across the border, and I don't think most of America would be OK with that either. And if we're not going to shoot them, I think militarizing the border with lots of guns and prohibitive ROE's (because we're not shooting them, remember) is at best counterproductive, and quite possibly dangerous.
I threw the 18YO scenario in there as an example of how militarizing the border could go very bad, very quickly. Because the majority of the illegals coming across the border are unarmed, and not much of a threat.
I was argueing against it.
-
and a darn good example of how it could go badly wrong. it would be just as bad if some vigilante did the shooting. could real quick end up with soldiers having to shoot citizens.cor us to close our border MIGHT become possible if the mexican gov cooperated by controlling movements on their side of the line but thats not gonna happen
-
Might make me a cold-hearted no good SOB, but I'm okay with that footage on CNN. Or Fox. Or even MSNBC.
Wouldn't take very many of those, before the border traffic completely stopped. 100%.
Average that against the number of 18yo women with babies that get raped by their coyotes on the trip across, or the number of unguided illegals that die from dehydration, or the number of US Citizens that get killed by (uninsured illegal motorists, drugs muled by illegals, opportunistic crime gone wrong involving illegals as the criminals).
So, I'm all for it "Jonathan Swift" style, modest proposal.
I'm also all for it since I consider the southern border an invasion, using poverty as a weapon.
I'm not popular for either perspective, but it is my cold, rational thoughts on it.
-
Wouldn't take very many of those, before the border traffic completely stopped. 100%.
i think you are mistaken its that bad down there that folks come knowing they might die. i think thats a major failing when americans try to understand folks from other countries mindset from their air conditioned flat screen world
-
Wouldn't take very many of those, before the border traffic completely stopped. 100%.
i think you are mistaken its that bad down there that folks come knowing they might die. i think thats a major failing when americans try to understand folks from other countries mindset from their air conditioned flat screen world
IMO you're partly right.
However, even the window-dressing crackdowns under the Bush administration had noticeable impacts in the illegal immigration rates. As has the economic downturn and housing slump.
If all of them were "willing to risk death" to get here, they'd not let these minor things stop them, but they do.
I can only conclude that this is largely economic immigration of convenience. If it were immigration of survival, like in Africa, and other places experiencing war, genocide, refugees etc. they'd keep on coming. And I think in part the "willing to die to get here" is a product of their own self delusion, and coyotes who don't give them the truth until it's too late.
If a few poultry plant raids in the news can make a noticeable dip of 20% or more, getting serious about the things Zed Wanted to Carry a Redhawk lists, namely just #1 and #2, we can make a serious dent in it, more than 50%.
And that's the other thing that gets my goat. The conservatives who are in favor of amnesty etc. because "you can't stop them all" type of logic. I certainly think stopping or reducing illegal immigration by 50% is a laudable and very worthwhile goal.
If we could ever really crack down on illegal immigration I see some long-term HUGE upsides for both America and Mexico.
1. The American welfare underclass needs to be forced (in market terms, not authoritarian) into the labor pool that the illegal immigrants is now filling. (and many of these are not bad paying jobs.) This increases tax revenue, and reduction of welfare costs could be huge, and it could start to reverse the dangerous cancers of inter-generational dependency and joblessness.
2. Illegal immigration into the U.S. is Mexico's safety valve for both social and economic pressures. It's subtle, but Mexico is a very racist country, and very economically divided. The white Spaniards are on top, and the mixed/Indian blooded, below...
And Mexican politicians and important people have stated on record that they believe Mexico needs it's underclass to stay where it is. They practice win-lose capitalism there, vs. the American variety which at least tries to be more win-win in nature.
If that safety valve were to be shut off, Mexico may finally be forced to deal with it's own huge internal political, social, and economic problems and inequities. I think the powers that be in both Mexico and the U.S. know this, and both settle on the situation as-is, because they fear having another Chavez/Venezuela right on our southern border.
-
Local conservative talk circuit is up in arms about it as a bad thing.
They say it will make AZ poorer, and be a kick-off for the Dems to rally against and defuse the Tea-Party angst that would have rocked the voting booth in November.
I kinda agree with that.
Hmmm . . . so deporting thousands of illegals working in contravention of the law won't create a demand for NON-illegals to fill the vacancies?
Poorer? With tens or hundreds of thousands of illegal alien children no longer requiring taxpayer-provided schooling at $8k - $11k per year each, AZ would be poorer? And no more ER burdens at the hospitals due to illegals?
I'm not seeing AZ becoming poorer by massively cutting expenses.
. . . and a deportation rate in the thousands per day (at least half a million a year), we won't get rid of the illegals.
Once you catch the illegals - in short order, that will become a problem - transportation isn't an issue. Say you allocate 1000 busses for transportation; sounds like a lot, but it's how many Ray Nagin let be flooded in NOLA during Katrina - and NOLA isn't a huge city. Put 40 illegals on each bus, that's 40,000 illegals. Each bus makes 3 trips south per week, 120,000 per week. 100 weeks - less than 2 years - that's 12,000,000 illegals.
Now, not all illegals are Mexicans to be sure . . . and of course, CATCHING them is the big challenge. But once you have your hands on them, even in large numbers, transporting them in a humane manner isn't that big a deal.
-
Well, we can have "Venezuela" on our southern border, or we can have "Venezuela" right here in River City. The reality is that "Venezuela" is part of the overall process we have permitted to take root and metastatize over the decades in this country. It is deep and it is pervasive, part of spreading cultural fabric of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" that is the new reiigion of the elites. There is no good way to deal with this that doesn't involve conflict; that is the price of integrity. If we don't have the cojones to defend citizenship, the law, and sovereignty, we might as well fold the tent now and recognize we are a nation in name only.
-
Poorer? With tens or hundreds of thousands of illegal alien children no longer requiring taxpayer-provided schooling at $8k - $11k per year each, AZ would be poorer? And no more ER burdens at the hospitals due to illegals?
I'm not seeing AZ becoming poorer by massively cutting expenses.
Let's say in the next year, PHX and other suburban AZ police depts capture, detain and process 20k illegals.
Then Obama backs a class action lawsuit against the state of AZ.
FedGov wins.
Then the Mexican Consulate pushes a class action lawsuit for each deported illegal. Settlement is $100k per illegal. That's $2 billion.
Our state is $1 billion in the red right now with a total expense sheet of $9.6 billion. That would be 20% added to our state budget.
That's what I meant by "poorer."
-
i think getting usa soldiers to pull the trigger on unarmed folk, particularly unarmed women and children, would be problematic. i certainly hope so. maybe we should recruit from the internet there appears to be a glut of "qualified " folks there
-
Hmmm . . . so deporting thousands of illegals working in contravention of the law won't create a demand for NON-illegals to fill the vacancies?
Probably not as much as you'd think. There tends to be less demand for any given product (in this case labor) when prices are high vs when they're low. Simply removing the illegals that work for dirt-cheap wages doesn't really do anything to ensure that there'll be lots of newly-available higher paying jobs for Americans to fill.
Many of the jobs held today by cheap illegal immigrant laborers were likely created specifically because that cheap labor was available. Take away the cheap labor and the job could well go with it.
-
the job could well go with it.
along with the factory to mexico
-
i think getting usa soldiers to pull the trigger on unarmed folk, particularly unarmed women and children, would be problematic. i certainly hope so. maybe we should recruit from the internet there appears to be a glut of "qualified " folks there
You figure a lot of Mexican women would try to scale a razor wire fence with manned MG nests? My, the illegals you know must be far more motivated than the ones I met in AZ.
-
nope i think you only need one and her picture all over the world before the bodys cold. i think you could get a group of women carrying kids to walk towards a fence. would you pull a trigger? or give the order to? don't bluff unless you can back it up
-
If our soldiers are bluffing you can bet it won't take long for the illegals to figure it out, and to start acting accordingly.
-
i think one would have a tough time getting our guys to fire on unarmed folks much less women and kids. mines or an electric fence make that a non issue but doesn't solve the problem of seeing the carnage on the internet and news
-
its kind of personal to me, I enjoy driving taxi's but after selling my guns and jumping thru all the hoops San Francisco had to offer I still couldn't get a cab driver gig in SF.
SF and the rest of the USA is awash with illegal aliens driving cabs, it hurts me personally and I want them out right now, I'm sick of it.
This reason right here is why Liberals should be ALL OVER the illegal immigration problem. Yet they are not, and it baffles me.
-
This reason right here is why Liberals should be ALL OVER the illegal immigration problem. Yet they are not, and it baffles me.
The hardcore libs I know love 2nd and 3rd world "diversity", so long as they can take it in small manageable chunks, like brief cab rides. Gives 'em something interesting to chat about after they return to their regular homogeneously euro-white social circles.
-
White guilt is the basis of most liberal policies.
i think one would have a tough time getting our guys to fire on unarmed folks much less women and kids. mines or an electric fence make that a non issue but doesn't solve the problem of seeing the carnage on the internet and news
I'm still not seeing a whole lotta people hopping a razor wire fence to walk through a minefield. But yeah, let's have our foreign policy dictated by fear of those nasty ole international newspapers saying mean things about us.
Many of the jobs held today by cheap illegal immigrant laborers were likely created specifically because that cheap labor was available. Take away the cheap labor and the job could well go with it.
The majority of illegals I've known worked as truck drivers, construction workers, animal processing plants, or harvesting fruits/veggies. I doubt any of those (except construction, perhaps) would just magically disappear. If the tax and regulatory burden is too high for citizen workers maybe we should lower those burdens...
-
White guilt? For what exactly? I stopped owning slaves a long time ago, truth be told. The Feds have taken a few trillion dollars from people like me for welfare since the '60s. Guilt?
Guilt is too kind a word for the kind of self-devouring sickness that permeates liberalism. It's a radical form of self-contempt that is based in alternating self-indulgence and an embarrassment at being alive.
No, we should not shoot women and children, but we shouldn't become their de facto slaves either. Will the best and brightest of us come up with a wise Solomonic solution to this dilemma?
-
Will the best and brightest of us come up with a wise Solomonic solution to this dilemma?
Oh, why do I have to do everything? =(
-
Because, well, you are The Anointed One... And to think we thought it was Obama.
This government behaves as if its citizens are the trespassers and squatters, but we have to pay for the privilege of being used.
-
I'm still not seeing a whole lotta people hopping a razor wire fence to walk through a minefield.
You forgot the roaming prides of African lions. >:D
Will the best and brightest of us come up with a wise Solomonic solution to this dilemma?
I don't think I'm as wise as Soloman, but I'll take a shot at it.
For illegal aliens here now.
The Nine Month Plan
0 - 90 days, Thanks for visiting, come again soon.: All illegal aliens are invited to leave, selling any property they desire to leave. Non-movable property such as real estate may be registered with a third party/agent and sold at no penalty to the illegal aliens. Once outside the nation's borders former illegal aliens may apply for resident visas just like any other immigrant.
90 - 180 days, Golly, look the time!: All illegal aliens are directed to depart. All movable property and funds may be taken home at no penalty. All non-movable property may be registered with a third party/agent and sold at a 10% penalty. Once outside the nation's borders former illegal aliens may apply for resident visas just like any other immigrant. All illegal aliens apprehended during this time frame who are not actively packing up to leave forfeit all non-movable property and are barred from re-admittance for a period of five years.
180 - 270 days, Get the frak out!: All illegal aliens are ordered to leave immediately. Take what you can carry. Any non-movable property may be sold at a 33% penalty. Those registering property are barred from visa application for one year. All illegal's apprehended during this time who are not actively packing up to leave are microchipped and ejected with naught but the clothes on their backs and a forbidden entry for a period of 5 years, under pain of banishment to the meanest penal colony available for 15 years.
270+ days, No more Mr. Nic-Guy: Sneak back across the border, it is your ONLY option. All illegal's apprehended during this time are microchipped and ejected with naught but the clothes on their backs and a forbidden entry for life. Those illegal aliens who have been microchipped, ejected and again apprehended in this county get a life time vacation at the above noted penal colony.
Of course, we whould have to HAVE a penal colony. I suppose the Moon would do in a pinch.
For the businesses that hire illegal aliens
Unwitting hire, Be sure, or be spanked: $500 file for each illegal alien/month of employment.
Knowingly hire, Welcome to pauperdom: All financial assets are forfeit and disbursed to any legal employees except executives and officers as compensation for their unemployment. All physical assets are forfeit and crushed to dust. All IP assets are cast into the public domain. All assets of all company executives & officers are seized at a 75% penalty and the proceeds dispersed to the rest of the legal employees. All executives and officers are forever barred from holding such positions again.
On the border
Granted mine fields and African lions might be a bit extreame, as would shooting to kill the unarmed attempting entry illegally. So I suggest a more reasonable approch.
Set up automated sentry guns with overlapping fields of fire, targeting algorythms designed to only ID human shape and movement patterns. Ammo loads on the guns is a mix of a biodegradable nautural dye (Indigo is nice) and capsaicin powder/oil pellets. Staff monitoring posts to check on sentry gun activation or disablment. Those apprehended while seeking entry illegally are treated under points two, three and four above for each successive violation.
-
The hardcore libs I know love 2nd and 3rd world "diversity", so long as they can take it in small manageable chunks, like brief cab rides. Gives 'em something interesting to chat about after they return to their regular homogeneously euro-white social circles.
Hey I love diversity, it meant my relatives could come here when Hitler was being a twerp. They did it legally though, through a bribe :)
-
Well at least Sindawe actually has a plan of action, unlike certain elected groups. As for the fence, I'm partial to the Jurassic Park style with a couple improvements. First, a simple ten foot chain link fence. Big signs in English, Spanish and pictograph denoting what the next fence is. Next fence, 3 foot high and six food wide concrete base, 20 foot high pylons suspending 1" diameter high tension steel cable with 8 inches of spacing. Repeat chain link fence on the other side. And don't forget the seismic sensors to detect tunneling (I'd suggest driving I-beams into the ground but the tunnelers would just cut through them and you wouldn't know about it top side). I'd say 5000 volts @ 200 amps would be a sufficient deterrent, and remember, it's not actually discharging current until something grounds the wires.
Seriously, all the work passes and travel visas in the world aren't going to do squat if you're not willing to address the physical problems in any significant and meaningful manner. The whole electronic surveillance boarder is a crock of $#!^. People will still attempt to cross illegally (be it for work, human trafficking or drug smuggling) until you make the consequences of attempting the illegal act far outweigh the incentives for committing it, and those consequences an assured occurrence rather than just a remote possibility.
-
The majority of illegals I've known worked as truck drivers, construction workers, animal processing plants, or harvesting fruits/veggies. I doubt any of those (except construction, perhaps) would just magically disappear. If the tax and regulatory burden is too high for citizen workers maybe we should lower those burdens...
I think many of these jobs could be phased out in large part by the use of automated equipment. Many more than you might first think.
Most of these jobs simply aren't worth the prices Americans would expect to be paid for the work. If it costs $8/hour plus benefits plus taxes/FICO/unemployment/Medicare to hire an American to pick tomatoes or cut 2x4s, the price of tomatoes and houses would increase to the point that people would stop buying 'em. Or, more likely, the tomato growing operations would find a way to make tomatoes amenable to mechanized farming, and the homebuilders would switch to prefab materials and structures.
Fact is, many of these jobs simply aren't worth higher prices. The market wouldn't pay them. People often assume that employers use illegals simply because they're cheaper than American workers, and that without cheap illegals holding wages down there'd be an equal number of Americans doing the exact same jobs only at higher wages. This simply isn't so.
The economy is not a zero-sum-game. The employment market is a reflection of the available workforce. Change the workforce, and the available jobs will change and adapt to match.
I do agree with eliminating regulatory, tax, and wage restrictions on the workforce. If we quit manipulating the job market it probably won't take long to discover just what any given job is really worth. We might find that the manual labor farming industry isn't worth a dime, but the mechanized farm equipment industry is actually worth a lot more than we otherwise would have known. Is it fair to subsidize unskilled hand farming at the expense of skilled heavy equipment manufacturing?
-
Sindawe's plan is a good start.
Me. I am more mean about it. Before we can address the llegals that are already here. We must secure/close the open borders where the illegals cross. And I mean secure and close. Military or private contractors. I don't care. Mount 50 cals, interlocking fields of fire. Load and fire when ready. This is an invasion. You repel an invasion by force. We have pussyfooted around long enough. Yes my stance is extreme. But so is the illegal problem.
The ones that are here. I wouldn't be as kind as Sindawe. You turn yourself in, you gets to leave with your stuff. You have 180 days. If after that time frame, we catch you. We confiscate you stuff. All your stuff. Then we microchip and deport your ass back to Mexico. And you are banned from entry for life. We catch you inside the US, no prison, you just die.
With this Arizona Law and the rioting going on, if you think a non violent solution
will work. Your kiddng yourself. You are seeing the illegals
finally realizing that their "ride" is about to be curtailed severely or come to
an end. And they ain't happy about it and they will get mean
-
I applaud Arizona and their decision to uphold the federal laws that this .gov will not do.
-
It will remain to be seen how this plays out. The governor is directing that a set of guidelines be set as to what actually constitutes the reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally, and setting up training for officers as to how to apply those guidelines. IN her speech to LEOs after singing the bill she made it very clear people will be watching, and that they would have to be very by the book and probably conservative in the applying of this law.
This bill was talked about a lot at the range the other day. There were current and former sheriff deputies discussing some of the stops thay have done in the past that would likely be considered sufficient PC under the upcoming guidelines:
- A traffic stop of a pickup truck truck and discovering persons hiding under the lumber in the bed.
- A traffic stop of a minivan that is filled above capacity with people who the driver cannot name.
Apparently, around here, those kind of stops are pretty common.
I'm glad for one of the other provisions in the bill that makes it illegal to obstruct traffic when picking up day laborers. More than once, I have had guys run up to my truck trying to signal me that they are available for work. They can be very aggressive, and it makes me antsy.
-
I am another who is dubious about the illegal alien problem being resolved peacefully. Illegal immigrants are just one more element of the entitlement culture. Our value for them is to provide them with jobs, welfare, education, while they send money back home. Are we using each other? Sure, but I don't buy the "studies" that show them giving more than they getting. Where I live they have overwhelmed the education system; no way they are paying up full pop for all the kids they are getting educated on our dime.
There is also a lot of empty palaver about creating a tough border. Fine, but what happens after they get across? And what about the many millions here already? The full impact of illegals, their children, and the family members they will be able to sponsor is more than vast, it is a killshot to traditional American culture and values.
-
As a society we have to give a good honest try at resolving the situation peacefully. If those who are here in contradiction to your immigration laws don't want to play nice, well we DO have a decent record at resolving things in a unpeacefull fashion when the need arises.
And what about the many millions here already?
Make it unprofitable/painfull for them to stay, with the pain increasing over time.
-
Isn't the issue whether American culture is really so perfused with its obsession with "compassion" that it is constitutionally unable--I don't mean legally--to come down hard on anyone (except conservatives)?
-
As a society we have to give a good honest try at resolving the situation peacefully. If those who are here in contradiction to your immigration laws don't want to play nice, well we DO have a decent record at resolving things in a unpeacefull fashion when the need arises.
I was under the impression that the peaceful resolution has been attempted for the past 20-30 years. =|
-
I was under the impression that the peaceful resolution has been attempted for the past 20-30 years
it has. Half ass attempts. But you are seeing the violence. On their part. And that will have to be dealt with by force on our part. Anything less will not change a thing
-
it has. Half ass attempts. But you are seeing the violence. On their part. And that will have to be dealt with by force on our part. Anything less will not change a thing
Which is why I find myself carrying a little more self protection on days that the illegals get out and try to project mob force by marching.
-
And there's something else...
State against state. CA threatening AZ with boycotts? This is serious.
We may mark this as the de facto inception of civil war in America. Not unexpectedly it is about amnesty.
-
I think I would rather current illegals be fined a crap ton to make up for what they've leeched. Say a cop finds one, he goes to jail and they figure up about how much he would be paying into taxes and etc per year were he legally here. Multiply that by three. How long have you been here? Three years? Can you prove that? No? So we're going to assume 15 years.
This would probably give a lot of the ones currently here quite a bit of motivation to gtfo. And deter ones thinking of coming over. "Man if I go over there tomorrow and get caught after 15 minutes I'll be forced to pay $$$."
The only problem I see is if they can't pay they either get deported and off the hook or get jail time which'll likely strain the jail system more than it already is.
But were it I in charge, this wouldn't be the only thing I'd change...there are a few things we can do that can alleviate jail strain and things we can do to remove incentive for people to hire illegals, but most of those are off topic to this thread.
-
And there's something else...
State against state. CA threatening AZ with boycotts? This is serious.
We may mark this as the de facto inception of civil war in America. Not unexpectedly it is about amnesty.
Well, it's only San Fran so far, not all of CA.
It'll be hard getting by without Levis and Rice-a-roni. But, Mabs isn't in AZ so he doesn't have to worry about his supply of ass-less chaps for his GAY parties. ;)
-
:(
-
Well, it's only San Fran so far, not all of CA.
It'll be hard getting by without Levis and Rice-a-roni. But, Mabs isn't in AZ so he doesn't have to worry about his supply of ass-less chaps for his GAY parties. ;)
I think Levi's are actually made in Mexico only the corporate HQ is in Frisco., I also lived there for years, never seen Rice-a-roni. eaten anywhere
-
Wouldn't take very many of those, before the border traffic completely stopped. 100%.
i think you are mistaken its that bad down there that folks come knowing they might die. i think thats a major failing when americans try to understand folks from other countries mindset from their air conditioned flat screen world
Bah, relative to America, Mexico is a shiitehole, yes. But, the average Mexican is richer than 5 billion other people on the planet. Check the numbers in the CIA Factbook. Mexico is in the top quintile of nations, prosperity-wise.
As in earlier crackdowns, the vast majority of illegals leave on their own, once it becomes too difficult to stay in the USA. The ratio was over 10:1 for Operation Wetback, IIRC.
I think many of these jobs could be phased out in large part by the use of automated equipment. Many more than you might first think.
Most of these jobs simply aren't worth the prices Americans would expect to be paid for the work.
To the extent that you are correct, that is a Good ThingTM and nothing but upside. The tomato growers cried like babies during Operation Wetback. Wailing how they will go out of business if they are unable to break federal law by hiring illegals and screw over their neighbors by privatizing the profits and socializing the costs (medical, education, welfare, police, etc.).
What happened was that some enterprising soul developed a mechanized tomato picker that did the work of a whole crew of illegals which required only one American to run it. Yes, some tomato growers went tits up. Well, if your business model requires breaking federal law and burdening your neighbors with the costs, you business ought to go under.
Also, the contribution illegals make to the economy is ridiculously small relative to their numbers. The proportion of the GDP attributable to illegal alien labor is lost in rounding errors. This is because they are for the most part illiterate(0), no or low-skilled labor. I recall a study done to determine the illegal alien labor component of a head of iceberg lettuce. It worked out to be a a few cents at most. Doubling the labor cost to the grower did not result in doubling the price to the consumer, it resulted in something like less than a nickel increase per head of lettuce.
The cost of some goods & services would go up. But not as much as the doomsayers say. In some cases, if American ingenuity managed to replace unskilled labor with capital investment, the end-user price could very well drop.
Lots of good ways to keep illegals out and those already here on the road back home. An Israeli Gaza-style fence is the first step.
I would include a Joe Arpaio-inspired "Penalty Box" to any illegals caught. We all have read about the illegal caught crossing the border who is deported and comes back over the next day. Make it cost them by building a tent city holding facility in the middle of the desert and keeping them there "in process" for 6+ months. Use Arpaio's cost-saving measures and methods to keep the cost down: tents, not structures. Cold meals. Pink underwear fo rthe guys.
If these illegals have no money to pay a fine, take what they do have: time.
(0) In two languages: both Spanish and English!
-
We did it once before.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
The effort began in California and Arizona and coordinated 1075 Border Patrol agents, along with state and local police agencies, to mount an aggressive crackdown, going as far as police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in a region with many Native Americans and native Hispanics.In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born minor dependent children as is standard international practice. This was although the children were by current legal interpretation of the 14th amendment U.S. citizens. [3] Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 immigrants were caught in the two states. Around 488,000 illegal immigrants are claimed to have left voluntarily for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimates that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas on their own. To discourage re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexico before releasing them. Tens of thousands more were deported by two chartered ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio. The ships ferried them from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) to the south. Some were taken as far as 1,000 miles. Deportation by sea was ended after seven deportees jumped overboard from the Mercurio and drowned, provoking a mutiny which led to a public outcry in Mexico.
-
and when they are deported, it's in there pink outfit. :'(
-
I am another who is dubious about the illegal alien problem being resolved peacefully. Illegal immigrants are just one more element of the entitlement culture. Our value for them is to provide them with jobs, welfare, education, while they send money back home. Are we using each other? Sure, but I don't buy the "studies" that show them giving more than they getting. Where I live they have overwhelmed the education system; no way they are paying up full pop for all the kids they are getting educated on our dime.
There is also a lot of empty palaver about creating a tough border. Fine, but what happens after they get across? And what about the many millions here already? The full impact of illegals, their children, and the family members they will be able to sponsor is more than vast, it is a killshot to traditional American culture and values.
I know how you feel, where do you live btw?
-
Longeyes lives in Los Angeles or thereabouts I believe. No wonder he thinks the world's gonna end soon, if I lived there I'd be praying for the Apocalypse myself. ;)
-
Los Angeles.
Actually, life where I live is, overall, pretty idyllic, which is what makes the invisible slouching beast all the scarier. My city, county, and state all live in well-reported fiscal fantasy, and, well, you all know the gun rights climate hereabouts isn't very encouraging.
-
@OP: I don't have any problem with it, as long as the stops aren't abused.
I don't see anything illegal about it, it seems fairly reasonable to me. I'm not really sure what all the hoopla is about, most of the anger seems directed at a bill that doesn't exist.
Good article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126390888
-
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 30, 2010
TUCSON -- Every day, as Sgt. Russ Charlton patrols the south side of Tucson, he encounters a wide range of this city's residents -- legal, illegal, native-born, naturalized, just passing through. To him, their immigration status is largely irrelevant. "People are just people," Charlton said.
This Story
But in a city less than an hour's drive from the Mexican border, Charlton and his fellow officers suddenly are at the center of a roiling immigration debate, and Arizona's new and controversial immigration law is almost certain to transform how they do their job.
"We're way too busy," Charlton said of the law's requirement that police officers question anyone they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. "We don't have enough officers on the street to look for other stuff like that. If they're not doing anything, they're just being normal people. Why would I do that?"
Supporters view the law as a common-sense tactic to drive away some of the state's estimated 450,000 illegal immigrants and deter others from coming. Opponents foresee harassment, racial profiling and fear. The police find themselves in the middle.
"We are in a tenuous position as law enforcement," Tucson Police Chief Roberto A. Villaseñor said, noting that the law allows citizens to sue police agencies that do not enforce it. "No matter which way we go, there are lawsuits in the wings. The ones who are going to get beaten up on this most are the law enforcement agencies."
Although some police groups have endorsed the law, a Tucson patrolman on Thursday sued Arizona to block it. Martin Escobar, acting on his own, argued that enforcing the law would impede criminal investigations and violate the U.S. Constitution.
A Latino religious consortium also filed suit, while national civil liberties organizations prepared a separate challenge and the Justice Department continued to consider one. An array of opponents pushed for an economic boycott of the state and planned nationwide protests on Saturday, even as politicians in several other states called for similar laws.
On Capitol Hill, partly in response to the Arizona law, Senate Democrats introduced a "framework" for an immigration bill designed to strengthen security along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico and create a path to legalization for millions of undocumented immigrants in the country. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said there is "not a chance" that Congress will pass an immigration bill this year.
ad_icon
Click here!
Police consider Tucson, a city of 550,000, a way station for drugs and people headed north. Immigration politics have always been complicated here, pitting those who say undocumented migrants bring crime and tax burdens against those who say welcoming them is a matter of social justice.
The day after the Arizona legislature approved the bill, the police headquarters was flooded with phone calls. A typical complaint, according to Villaseñor, was this: "Hey, there are some Mexicans standing on the corner? You need to check them out."
The police chief considered the requests "ridiculous" because "a lot of people stand on street corners." Villaseñor, a Tucson native who joined the police force in 1980 and became chief last year, said he understands the frustrations but objects to the law on several levels.
"Too many vagaries," he said. He said that he doubts there is a law officer "anywhere in the state of Arizona" who can accurately describe how to enforce the measure and that he fears it will lead to racial profiling, despite the law's prohibition of the practice.
"It says you can't use race and ethnicity. If you're not paying attention to race and ethnicity, what other elements are there?" Villaseñor asked. "If it's 95 percent based on race and ethnicity, what's the other 5 percent? No one knows."
Villaseñor said he is confident in his department's professionalism. While he described the agency as a microcosm of society, inevitably employing a small number of biased officers, he said, "I don't think you have police officers frothing at the bit to go out and do racial profiling."
President Obama, who brokered an effort to curb racial profiling as an Illinois state senator, warned that the law could lead to civil rights violations, and he urged Congress to pass an immigration bill to keep other states from enacting similar measures.
Gov. Jan Brewer (R) said racial profiling will play no part in enforcement, and she promised strong training. "We have to trust law enforcement," she said.
She said Arizona had little choice but to act because the federal government has failed to address immigration concerns. Some advocates say the law will give police a powerful tool in a state deeply affected by the growing ranks of the undocumented.
"It takes a proactive approach to illegal immigration instead of allowing an illegal alien to commit another crime first," said Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which represents 2,500 detectives and patrol officers.
Charlton, the police sergeant, supervises patrol officers in a sprawling, heavily Hispanic working-class section of Tucson. After 30 years on the force, he said his job is "to investigate crimes and help people who need help."
During a recent shift, between responding to a traffic accident and to a report of a man brandishing a gun, he considered the effect of the new law. Although he acknowledges that the law provides a potential law enforcement tool, he worries that people who need assistance or could help solve a crime would hesitate to call police.
Charlton also wonders where undocumented immigrants arrested under the new law would be jailed. Then there are questions about paperwork and prosecution and the coordination among local and federal agencies.
ad_icon
-
they tweaked the wording i'm good with it now i hope it works but i'm not hopeful. they will be the guinea pig for the country
The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” Although drafters of the law said the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”
So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0mbQMqkUD
-
The cops are too busy to bother enforcing the laws? Poor babies, they should go into a less demanding career field. I hear community organizing has a low threshold to entry.
-
Opponents of the bill were being intentionally obtuse about the phrase "lawful contact." That phrase was already essentially defined in Arizona statutes as a police stop.
-
"Racial profiling" scares people?
Why not call it affirmative action and disparate impact and make everyone happy? It's got a long tradition in modern America.
-
Byron York does a little work on the reality of the legal construction of AZ's law. I provide highlighting. If York's set up is accurate, AZ just passed a well crafted law that will be tough to defeat in court.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-Obama-could-lose-Arizona-immigration-battle-92460459.html
How Obama could lose Arizona immigration battle
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
April 30, 2010
(AP)
We know one thing for sure about the fight over Arizona's new immigration law. Civil-rights groups will file a lawsuit trying to kill the law and will ask a federal judge to issue an injunction to keep it from taking effect as scheduled this summer. What we don't know is how those proceedings will be affected by the Obama Justice Department, which is contemplating the highly unusual step of filing its own suit against the state of Arizona. Also unknown is the influence of President Obama himself, who has gone out of his way to raise questions -- some of them strikingly uninformed -- about the law.
The drafters of the law knew the lawsuit was coming; a lawsuit is always coming when a state tries to enforce the nation's immigration laws. What the drafters didn't expect was Obama's aggressive and personal role in trying to undermine the new measure.
"You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona ..." the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, "suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed." On the same day, Attorney General Eric Holder said he was considering a court challenge.
"The practice of the Justice Department in the past with states involving immigration has been to let the courts settle it and not weigh in as a party," says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the Arizona law. Having Justice intervene, Kobach and other experts say, would be extraordinary.
The problem for Obama and Holder is that the people behind the new law have been through this before -- and won. Arizona is three-for-three in defending its immigration measures. In 2008, the state successfully defended its employer-sanctions law, which made it a state crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant. Facing some of the same groups that are now planning to challenge the new law, Arizona prevailed both in federal district court and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's most liberal federal appeals court.
In federal court in 2005, Arizona successfully defended Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship for voting and also restricted benefits to illegals. And in 2006, officials won a state-court challenge to Arizona's human smuggling law.
The arguments that liberal groups make against the new law are similar to those made in the past. Foremost among them is the claim that only the federal government can handle immigration matters, and thus the Arizona measure pre-empts federal law.
Lawmakers thought of that ahead of time. "This law was carefully drafted to avoid any legal challenge on pre-emption in two ways," explains Kobach. "One, it perfectly mirrors federal law. Courts usually ask whether a state law is in conflict with federal law, and this law is in perfect harmony with federal law.
"Two, the new law requires local law enforcement officers not to make their own judgment about a person's immigration status but to rely on the federal government," Kobach continues. Any officer who reasonably suspects a person is illegal is required to check with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "As long as the state or city is relying on the federal government to determine immigration status, that will protect against a pre-emption challenge," says Kobach.
But what if the Obama administration argues that the law is a burden on the federal government? Or refuses to assist Arizona in determining a person's legality? The drafters thought of that, too. There's a federal statute -- 8 USC 1373, passed during the Clinton years -- requiring the feds to verify a person's immigration status any time a state or local official asks for it. The federal government cannot deny assistance to Arizona without breaking the law itself.
Given all that, Obama and Holder will have a hard time stopping this law. Their best hope is that a judge might be swayed by the political storm that has erupted, mostly on the left, by opponents raising the specter of fascism, Nazism, and a police state in Arizona.
That was one thing the drafters didn't expect. As they see it, the old employer verification law was broader in scope and more serious in effect than the new law, and it didn't set off this kind of national controversy. That tells Kris Kobach one thing about the current battle: "It's more about the politics of 2010 than it is about this particular law."
-
This issue is not about legality, it's about competing cultural imperatives.
Twenty million people later we're pretending that this is about the law? The people who want the illegals here don't give a fig about this or any law and will find ways to ignore any legal impediment.
-
“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0mbQMqkUD
That's pretty much what I THOUGHT was involved, and I'm glad they clarified it now. I had a hard time believing AZ was THAT evil, I mean it's not Mississippi from the 60's or anything :)
-
illegals are threatening to leave Arizona :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.helium.com/items/1819327-illegal-immigrants-plan-to-leave-arizona-over-new-immigration-law
-
illegals are threatening to leave Arizona :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.helium.com/items/1819327-illegal-immigrants-plan-to-leave-arizona-over-new-immigration-law
Oh that's rich. Only 49 more states to go.
-
This issue is not about legality, it's about competing cultural imperatives.
Twenty million people later we're pretending that this is about the law? The people who want the illegals here don't give a fig about this or any law and will find ways to ignore any legal impediment.
I'm for letting anyone come to America that wants to. Given that, as an American. it is reasonable to ask you who you are, what do you plan on doing and where? You are, after all, asking me to give you a piece of what I have. You should not have to sneak in the back door if you seek freedom and opoortunity. Look me in the eye and say I will be one of you and I tell you, Welcome!
-
Open borders and welfare states do not mix.
-
Open borders and welfare states do not mix.
Only if laws are set up to integrate new arrivals immediately. (No fights about welfare states, I'm just saying you could set it up so the two are not mutually contradictory if you had something like a 'grace' period.)
-
Open borders and welfare states do not mix.
Eliminate the welfare state and you'll have to keep the border open to let people out.
Not that I see any drawbacks to that plan, mind you.
-
Open borders and welfare states do not mix.
But, but, it's working so well in france!
-
And in California. =D
-
http://www.helium.com/items/1819327-illegal-immigrants-plan-to-leave-arizona-over-new-immigration-law
(already linked by sanglant)
Although illegals may find leaving the state inconvenient, many are threatening to do just that in an effort to evade accountability and possible deportation under the new law. The Associate Press has reported on some families who have uprooted themselves and moved to New Mexico, for example.
Those leaving Arizona may need to act fast because an increasing number of states have taken up legislation similar to the Arizona law. Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, Georgia, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Nebraska, and Missouri have all taken up measures similar to that of Arizona.
Although some people are concerned that, if too many states pass laws to enforce legal presence, illegals will have no place to go except back to Mexico unless they want to risk deportation.
Others have expressed the notion that illegals leaving Arizona would be a good thing: citizens and those in the state legally will have a shot at filling some of the jobs the illegals vacate, reducing the 9.6% unemployment rate.
Threatening to leave? Some people think it might be a good thing? This author seems to lack any sense of irony. =|
-
"Two, the new law requires local law enforcement officers not to make their own judgment about a person's immigration status but to rely on the federal government," Kobach continues. Any officer who reasonably suspects a person is illegal is required to check with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "As long as the state or city is relying on the federal government to determine immigration status, that will protect against a pre-emption challenge," says Kobach.
I wondered about this when I read the law. Does this mean the Feds can pull the rug out from under the AZ law by declining to render any opinion on the legal status of the people the AZ popo bring in?
-
Eliminate the welfare state and you'll have to keep the border open to let people out.
Not that I see any drawbacks to that plan, mind you.
I suspect this strategy is the only real cure for the illegal immigration problem. Securing the border is good, but so long as there remains strong economic incentive to sneaking through, there will be enterprising people who find a way.
It's absolutely true, you cannot have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. (Actually, I might modify that a bit. You can't have open borders, welfare, and a viable economy at the same time. You can have welfare and open borders if you don't mind running your society into the ground.)
-
I wondered about this when I read the law. Does this mean the Feds can pull the rug out from under the AZ law by declining to render any opinion on the legal status of the people the AZ popo bring in?
IIRC, a Clinton-era law required fed.gov to provide such data when queried by a state.
This law is well-written and AZ is 3/3 WRT other immigration laws vs appeals. "Well written" in that it mirrors fed law and has MORE restrictions on LEOs than fed law.
-
You can have welfare and open borders if you don't mind plan on running your [enemy's] society into the ground.
You almost described the left-wing platform perfectly. Tweaked it a bit for ya.
-
jfuser
i agree so long as someone rides herd on law enforcement and they don't screw the pooch there it might be a good litmus test
-
I suspect this strategy is the only real cure for the illegal immigration problem. Securing the border is good, but so long as there remains strong economic incentive to sneaking through, there will be enterprising people who find a way.
It's absolutely true, you cannot have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. (Actually, I might modify that a bit. You can't have open borders, welfare, and a viable economy at the same time. You can have welfare and open borders if you don't mind running your society into the ground.)
I think the only REAL strategy is to fine any employer $1 million dollars per illegal knowingly hired, and revoke their corporate charter. The demand would dry up REALLY fast then.
-
Yes, except you'd have to extend the employment ban to government jobs... And educate a lot of white yuppies about America's core principles.
Exploiting cheap labor is only one part of what's going on here.
-
Hmm... how about offering illegals something (I ain't sure what) if they roll on their employer and provide information on the smuggling routes?
-
IIRC, a Clinton-era law required fed.gov to provide such data when queried by a state.
That's correct. This is one of the beauties of the law. If the feds stop cooperating, they will be in direct violation of federal law.
-
I think the only REAL strategy is to fine any employer $1 million dollars per illegal knowingly hired, and revoke their corporate charter. The demand would dry up REALLY fast then.
I think it's dangerous for the gov to be able to decide who can hire who. Hiring the cheapest available labor isn't inherently wrong.
-
I agree, HTG. Business should be as free of government mandate as we can manage. It's the duty of the federal government to secure our borders. They simply have been unwilling or unable to do so. Not surprising, given the political pressures around the country right now.
TC
-
The immigration law in Arizon is prompting illegal aliens to leave the state.
Sadly, some are going in the WRONG direction, such as this set of two unemployed parents their their brood of 10(!) children. Instead of going back to their own country, they are coming to Colorado. :mad:
On a dusty block in Phoenix, 15 years of the Quintana family's possessions are for sale.
Manuela Quintana said that they decided to leave when the Arizona governor signed the new immigration law.
For years, their family thrived with jobs in restaurants and construction, reports CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella. Their 10 children were born here and are U.S. citizens. Both she and her husband are undocumented, and currently unemployed.
She said that her biggest fear is being put in jail and having her children taken away from her. Just the thought of moving scares their 12-year-old daughter Graciela.
"I think it's going to be my worst day," Graciela said.
Two years ago, this park was filled with families every weekend. Arizona was home to more than half a million illegal immigrants. Since then, at least 100,000 have left.
Kyle Kester is the Quintana's landlord - he's lost seven tenants in the past week.
"I would say on this block alone we have 20 vacancies at least," Kester said. "It's not just illegal immigrants who are affected by this. I was born in the U.S. and it's hurting me now."
Graciela's best friend fled to California with her family Saturday. She didn't get to say good-bye.
Manuela knows she broke the law when she came here 15 years ago. But she doesn’t see herself as a criminal.
"A criminal is someone who kills," she said in Spanish. "I just want to work."
The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she's lost hope in this state. She thinks she'll find it again in another.
Source and video: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/03/eveningnews/main6457212.shtml
Just what this state needs, MORE illegal aliens and their progeny.
-
Hmm... how about offering illegals something (I ain't sure what) if they roll on their employer and provide information on the smuggling routes?
5lbs of pot, 2 "real"m-16s, and a free trip home with there new toys? =D [popcorn]
hey that sounds like the start of the 12 days of American Christmas. :angel:
-
I think it's dangerous for the gov to be able to decide who can hire who. Hiring the cheapest available labor isn't inherently wrong.
and
Business should be as free of government mandate as we can manage.
No problem with either position as long as the starting point is a level playing field. Problem is USofA today is anything but a level playing field. Legal workers (citizens or guests) have a significantly higher breakeven point than do illegal workers. The higher BE point is in large part courtesy of fed.gov's attempts to create a utopia. Higher labor rates are no problem as long as there is no ability to substitute lower cost labor. Enter illegal labor with no compulsion to abide by government enhanced cost structures and the game changes. By refusing to maintain a level playing field the government defaults to favoring illegal labor if employers receive a pass on violating various laws. So as good kinda sorta libertarian advocates is it really a consistent position to demand freedom of choice among employers to choose between two potential employees: 1>one who has a significantly reduced personal BE point AND a reduced cost of employment to the employer, or 2>a fully loaded citizen of government's utopia.
Last large company I worked for had a rule of thumb that a fully loaded hourly worker's labor rate was hit with a 45% multiplier while salaried types were hit with a 38% multiplier. Now compare that to an illegal worker who has no multiplier to his labor rate.
-
and
No problem with either position as long as the starting point is a level playing field. Problem is USofA today is anything but a level playing field. Legal workers (citizens or guests) have a significantly higher breakeven point than do illegal workers. The higher BE point is in large part courtesy of fed.gov's attempts to create a utopia. Higher labor rates are no problem as long as there is no ability to substitute lower cost labor. Enter illegal labor with no compulsion to abide by government enhanced cost structures and the game changes. By refusing to maintain a level playing field the government defaults to favoring illegal labor if employers receive a pass on violating various laws. So as good kinda sorta libertarian advocates is it really a consistent position to demand freedom of choice among employers to choose between two potential employees: 1>one who has a significantly reduced personal BE point AND a reduced cost of employment to the employer, or 2>a fully loaded citizen of government's utopia.
Last large company I worked for had a rule of thumb that a fully loaded hourly worker's labor rate was hit with a 45% multiplier while salaried types were hit with a 38% multiplier. Now compare that to an illegal worker who has no multiplier to his labor rate.
Seems to me your whole second point is:
Business should be as free of government mandate as we can manage.
Just with more specifics about how the government shouldn't be meddling in business.
-
Oh that's rich. Only 49 more states to go.
Didn't I hear about Oklahoma doing this about 2-3 years ago ??
Yep, found it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/02/oklahoma.immigration/index.html
-
I think it's dangerous for the gov to be able to decide who can hire who. Hiring the cheapest available labor isn't inherently wrong.
So, the fact that their employee had to commit a crime to get into a position of employment, and are continuing to commit a crime in order to maintain that position of employment, and the employer's knowledge and acquiescence of such matters not? We've been talking about getting rid of incentives that cause people to want to enter this country illegally. The employer that will hire them without concern for their legal presence is that incentive. If you refuse to get rid of that primary incentive, then what is the point of the rest of this? If hiring a prison escapee was even cheaper than hiring an illegal alien, would that also be alright? Both of them are someplace that they are not allowed to be, by law.
Didn't I hear about Oklahoma doing this about 2-3 years ago ??
Yep, found it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/02/oklahoma.immigration/index.html
It'scalled being facetious. Many more states than AZ and OK have passed such laws, as has been noted elsewhere.
-
So, the fact that their employee had to commit a crime to get into a position of employment, and are continuing to commit a crime in order to maintain that position of employment, and the employer's knowledge and acquiescence of such matters not? We've been talking about getting rid of incentives that cause people to want to enter this country illegally. The employer that will hire them without concern for their legal presence is that incentive. If you refuse to get rid of that primary incentive, then what is the point of the rest of this? If hiring a prison escapee was even cheaper than hiring an illegal alien, would that also be alright? Both of them are someplace that they are not allowed to be, by law.
First off, it isn't the employers job to enforce the law. If Person X can do the job, then any employer should be free to consider hiring him. It should be up to the police to render Person X unable to do the job (i.e. put him in jail or kick him out of the country) if he's illegal.
Second, I think the prime incentive for immigrating illegally is the promise of free goods and services provided on the American taxpayers dime. This can be anything from free medical care to foodstamps to clean streets to 1st world education for the kids. Eliminate that and it becomes a lot less appealing to jumpt he border.
Sure, a few folks might still come to here to work and earn a paycheck. But I don't have any problem with immigrants coming here to earn a paycheck. I'd prefer they do it through legal channels, and to that end we ought to make sure that there are legal channels and that they work. But all on its own, I don't care if any of my self-supporting neighbors are illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, or natives.
It's true that there are more barriers to hiring legal Americans than hiring illegals. That's a real problem. But the root of that problem is that the American government has imposed barriers on American businesses seeking to hire American workers, barriers that don't apply to immigrants willing to work outside the law. Is that the immigrants' fault or ours?
-
Here's a thought though. If my employer is required by law to draw tax on my wages for social security, how can they (the employer) comply with the law if they hire someone without a social security number? The short and sweet answer is the employer is breaking the law as much as the illegal alien employee.
-
Here's a thought though. If my employer is required by law to draw tax on my wages for social security, how can they (the employer) comply with the law if they hire someone without a social security number? The short and sweet answer is the employer is breaking the law as much as the illegal alien employee.
Illegals often present false SS cards when obtaining a new job. The employer still pays into SS, it just winds up going to a complete stranger.
-
Illegals often present false SS cards when obtaining a new job. The employer still pays into SS, it just winds up going to a complete stranger.
Of what of those that don't even have that as an excuse? You stated it's not the employer's job to enforce the law, however it's still their obligation to comply with it.
-
Of what of those that don't even have that as an excuse? You stated it's not the employer's job to enforce the law, however it's still their obligation to comply with it.
Depends on the law. Some laws are worth having and enforcing, some aren't.
The particular law being broken makes a big difference to my giveadamn.
-
And immigration laws are on the HTG "Ok to break" list?
-
Define 'ok'.
I figure there are plenty enough problems worth worrying about. Once we get through the big issues we can spare a care for the little ones.
As long as my neighbors are peaceable and self-supporting, I see little reason to fuss about their immigration status.
-
Define 'ok'.
I figure there are plenty enough problems worth worrying about. Once we get through the big issues we can spare a care for the little ones.
As long as my neighbors are peaceable and self-supporting, I see little reason to fuss about their immigration status.
I agree. Going further, I think that what matters most is the individual's actions when they get here. Sometimes people don't have the money to start the imigration process, or to bribe their native government to give them a visa.
If someone comes here illegally, but is making steps to assimilate, I say we should welcome them.
I am all for deporting those that come here leech off the system, and commit other crimes.
-
So if I stroll into your house and watch some tv, that's cool right? As long as I just stay quiet, maybe snag some stuff out of your fridge... Or do property rights not extend to nations? Call me crazy, I'm a fan of national sovereignty.
-
As some who frequently ended up hiring illegal immigrants, if they present you with a SS card and other ID, even they are done in freakin' crayon, and you don't hire them, expect to be standing in front of judge trying to 'splain why you're not a racist gringo, trying to keep the brown brothers down.
I even called the company lawyers saying we shouldn't hire a new group that showed up in response to one fo our ads.
"Why" they said.
"I've never seen before and I don't think our new green cards say 'Estados Unidos' on them."
"Hire 'em."
"What !?!?!??!?!"
"Hire 'em we'll end up with Luis Gutierrez, Fr Pfleger and Jesse Jackson on our *expletive deleted*ss."
Well, I didn't. I told 'em that we were full up and try again later.
Yep, someone in Little Village was scamming the recent arrivals with really bad SS and Green Cards.
-
I don't really get the analgy. I said that I had a problem with those that come here for welfare, or to commit serious crimes.
I understand that illegal immigration is breaking the law. How serious of a crime is it in the grand scheme of things? I mean technically driving 51 in a 50 mph zone is illegal. I do this everyday, and don't think it makes me immoral.
All laws are not morally based. I don't want to tell someone who wants to be a part of this country, but can't due to corruption in their native country, that we are going to need the thousands it costs to become a citizen upfront. I think that following the law to the letter in that case is immoral.
Now I have idea the percentage of immigrants that want to be productive vs mochers. I am simply saying that I disagree with banning every single person who immigrated here illegally.
In reality it really is the most workable way, deport people who are arrested for crimes. Ignore people who are silently saving and working towards American citizenship.
-
Yeah, it really isn't a valid analogy. Those hypothetical peaceable self-supporting immigrants aren't in my house sitting on my couch, they're in their houses on their couches (paid for with their own earnings). I wouldn't begrudge them their property.
If the concern is that, OMG, they're breaking THE LAW, well then the solution is easy. Change the law. They aren't doing anything particularly evil or bad just by living here peaceably, so it shouldn't be a problem to change the law to reflect it.
Of course, most people won't go for that. Which tells me their gripe isn't that illegals break the law in the process of coming here, their gripe is that they come here at all.
Well, sorry, but I don't have a gripe with them being here. I'd prefer that they come through legal channels, and to that end we need to ensure that there actually are adequate legal channels available. And I'd prefer to have some security on the border for other reasons. But on its own, the mere presence of an illegal here in the US is not a problem that rises very high on my list of concerns.
-
Yeah, it really isn't a valid analogy. Those hypothetical peaceable self-supporting immigrants aren't in my house sitting on my couch, they're in their houses on their couches (paid for with their own earnings). I wouldn't begrudge them their property.
If the concern is that, OMG, they're breaking THE LAW, well then the solution is easy. Change the law. They aren't doing anything particularly evil or bad just by living here peaceably, so it shouldn't be a problem to change the law to reflect it.
Of course, most people won't go for that. Which tells me their gripe isn't that illegals break the law in the process of coming here, their gripe is that they come here at all.
Well, sorry, but I don't have a gripe with them being here. I'd prefer that they come through legal channels, and to that end we need to ensure that there actually are adequate legal channels available. And I'd prefer to have some security on the border for other reasons. But on its own, the mere presence of an illegal here in the US is not a problem that rises very high on my list of concerns.
I have no problem with individuals who want to come to the United States for the opportunity to work and join our society.
I have a problem with individuals who want to come to the United State for the opportunity to work so they can support their family who have no allegiance to our society and who think they are entitled to the benefits of our society but take none of the responsibilities.
You want to become an American? Welcome with open arms.
You want to take a job and keep your allegiance to a foreign country? Get out.
-
having a immigration office in each city might be workable, come in get a real a ssn and background check and you good to go. ??? get caught without doing so, get shipped home. >:D oh and you have to take(not pass) classes on english, and (real) us history. =D
-
First off, it isn't the employers job to enforce the law. If Person X can do the job, then any employer should be free to consider hiring him. It should be up to the police to render Person X unable to do the job (i.e. put him in jail or kick him out of the country) if he's illegal.
Second, I think the prime incentive for immigrating illegally is the promise of free goods and services provided on the American taxpayers dime. This can be anything from free medical care to foodstamps to clean streets to 1st world education for the kids. Eliminate that and it becomes a lot less appealing to jumpt he border.
The employer is obligated to comply with the law. Also, they have an ethical and moral obligation not to privatize profits and socialize costs by dumping illegals on the local medical system and burdening the local school system with the kids of illegals.
I guess I have a higher opinion of illegal aliens than you do, as I think the primary draw is gainful employment. Thing is, in the USA, any low-skilled worker is a net drain on the economy and tax receipts. They just don't produce enough to counteract the taxpayer-funded bennies they get.
Illegals often present false SS cards when obtaining a new job. The employer still pays into SS, it just winds up going to a complete stranger.
If the false SS card has a real citizen's SSN, the employer, after receiving notice from the IRS and/or SSA that there is a discrepancy, is aiding fraud and identity theft.
If the false SS card has an entirely bogus number, this is also flagged after a bit and the employer is notified by IRS or SSA. Employers who do nothing are as guilty as the illegal aliens. Worse, they are moral cripples who burden their neighbors with the costs of health care and schooling.
Which tells me their gripe isn't that illegals break the law in the process of coming here, their gripe is that they come here at all.
There are other reasons pertaining to taxation & economics, fairness, culture, and sovereignty to consider
Any low-skilled immigrant, legal or otherwise, is a net drain. Citizens will have to be taxed more to support them and those tax dollars are dollars that won't be spent as their previous owners saw best. This retards economic growth and also retards innovation, as there is no incentive to replace plentiful low-skilled workers with new processes & machinery.
Mass immigration (legal or otherwise) of low-skilled labor into the USA screws over low-skilled citizens, driving their wages down. Folks gotta remember that the USA is not Lake Woebegone, where all citizens are above average. Some folks are just born with less intelligence, half having less than then median intelligence for the population. Do we tell our fellow citizens, "*expletive deleted*ck off and die? I'll get cheaper labor from overseas?" Do we have any affection for fellow (lower-skilled) citizens for the mere fact that they are fellow citizens, to the point where we'd not actively try to make their lives worse by dumping millions of low-skilled immigrants into the labor force? I'm not a big fan of welfare programs, but I am not such a heel that I'd actively try to place impediments in people's way or kick them while they are down.
The great mass of immigrants (legal & otherwise) coming to the USA come from bass-ackward cultures where corruption and despotism is the norm. It took millenia for Western Civilization to alloy democracy, republicanism, and individual sovereignty into a system that is stable, respects individuals, and is not just another self-serving syndicate. Immigrants from bass-ackward countries carry this cultural baggage with them, as can be seen in the neighborhoods with large numbers of them. Those that do "assimilate," mostly assimilate to the dysfunctional black underclass culture of unwed motherhood, drug use, crime, etc. (1st gen immigrants, to their credit, have lower rates of the former. Their kids & grandkids begin the spiral down.) To put it plainly, a massive influx of an illiterate, 18th-century (skills/outlook) labor force is not something good for our culture & polity.
A rational & sovereign nation crafts immigration policy for its benefit, not the benefit of the immigrants. "Who do we want to let in?" is the pertinent question, not "Who wants to get in?" If it was the latter, we could expect 3-5 billion immigrants, as there are roughly 5 billion people on Earth less well-off than your average Mexican, great numbers of whom make the trek north. To that end, the citizenry's desires are clear: they want no mass immigration of illiterate, "ready for the 18th Century" workers into our 21st Century country.
-
Their presence here is: a severe security risk, supporting the drug cartels and human slavers who use the routes and funds from transporting illegals, draining the economy as the majority of the money paid out in salary does to the old country, a huge source of identity theft, a huge source of voter fraud, denying work to citizens, a massive drain on hospitals, destroying the land on the border, destroying the property of border ranches, imports third world diseases, a massive drain on local schools, a general degradation of the culture etc etc etc.
A sovreign nation has the right to control who enters it's borders. I consider those laws worth of enforcing, and breaking them to be a mala in se act. If you don't, well... I'd respectfully suggest you spend some time in Arizona on the border and let the facts on the ground compete with your theorizing.
-
Yeah, it really isn't a valid analogy. Those hypothetical peaceable self-supporting immigrants aren't in my house sitting on my couch, they're in their houses on their couches (paid for with their own earnings). I wouldn't begrudge them their property.
If the concern is that, OMG, they're breaking THE LAW, well then the solution is easy. Change the law. They aren't doing anything particularly evil or bad just by living here peaceably, so it shouldn't be a problem to change the law to reflect it.
Of course, most people won't go for that. Which tells me their gripe isn't that illegals break the law in the process of coming here, their gripe is that they come here at all.
Well, sorry, but I don't have a gripe with them being here. I'd prefer that they come through legal channels, and to that end we need to ensure that there actually are adequate legal channels available. And I'd prefer to have some security on the border for other reasons. But on its own, the mere presence of an illegal here in the US is not a problem that rises very high on my list of concerns.
My city, county, and state are all going broke because of illegal aliens and their "needs." They drain the welfare coffers, produce population congestion, up the crime rate, and overuse our natural resources and infrastructure. Are they all "bad people?" No, but they are, when we strip away the b.s., trespassers and, more often than not, parasites. Hard words, I realize, but I see the ravages of 25 years of unchecked illegal immigration everywhere around me. We have a hundred thousand gang members in this city, over half of them illegal aliens (source: LAPD). Identity theft is rampant. Let's not romanticize an ugly reality.
-
I don't want to tell someone who wants to be a part of this country, but can't due to corruption in their native country, that we are going to need the thousands it costs to become a citizen upfront. I think that following the law to the letter in that case is immoral.
This, in my opinion, is where your argument breaks down. Few of these folks really want to become American citizens. They have no real desire to take part in this great experiment called "America". Their first loyalty remains to Mexico (or to whatever country they came from).
They come here for the money they can earn, or the benefits they can game from .gov.
If an illegal really wanted to become an American, in true spirit and desire, if they really wanted to become a full contributing member of our society, then I might be inclined to look the other way, give them a pass, even ease the barriers to citizenship for them.
-
If an illegal really wanted to become an American, in true spirit and desire, if they really wanted to become a full contributing member of our society, then I might be inclined to look the other way, give them a pass, even ease the barriers to citizenship for them.
so would the folks who get the tax id numbers from the irs and pay taxes fit that bill?
-
I'm all for easing the path to citizenship. But not ignoring border laws, or allowing the criminals who happen to get here already to go free.
-
Not sure I understand your question, C&SD. What does having a tax ID have to do with anything I wrote?
-
Not sure I understand your question, C&SD. What does having a tax ID have to do with anything I wrote?
would applying for one of the tax numbers (itn?) and paying taxes qualify em to stay?
-
I have no problem with individuals who want to come to the United States for the opportunity to work and join our society.
I have a problem with individuals who want to come to the United State for the opportunity to work so they can support their family who have no allegiance to our society and who think they are entitled to the benefits of our society but take none of the responsibilities.
You want to become an American? Welcome with open arms.
You want to take a job and keep your allegiance to a foreign country? Get out.
Question 1: What's wrong with foreign nationals coming in legally to work, and going back home? I don't get it.
Question 2: Wouldn't your set-up be an incentive for people to gain citizenship (and Heaven forbid, vote) purely for economic reasons, regardless of any felt allegiance to the U.S., or attachment its principles?
-
Question 1: What's wrong with foreign nationals coming in legally to work, and going back home? I don't get it.
Question 2: Wouldn't your set-up be an incentive for people to gain citizenship (and Heaven forbid, vote) purely for economic reasons, regardless of any felt allegiance to the U.S., or attachment its principles?
1) I have no problems with foreign nationals coming here legally. I should have made that point more clear. We have a legal process for that. I'd be fine with people who do that as their declared intent, not people who agitate for special rights in this country who have no allegiance to this country.
2) Yes it would. That's a better situation than what we have now, though (imo). Raise costs = lower demand. Thus, fewer people with no true desire to join our society would come into this country.
-
Foreigners coming here for a path to citizenship need to understand the basic principles of this nation and respect its core values. Otherwise, we don't need them here. As I have said before, we are not a global job service enterprise, this is a NATION. Whatever happened to "assimilation?" More to the point, whatever happened to a basic understanding of national identity? Well, we need to ask that question to the American Left, which has been undermining our most fundamental precepts for decades. Unless we deal with this "identity" issue we might as well pack it in.
-
would applying for one of the tax numbers (itn?) and paying taxes qualify em to stay?
An ITN for a legal or illegal immigrant? Can an illegal legally apply for an ITN?
If you come here legally to work, I have no problem with that. If you come here illegally, for whatever reason, and your primary allegiance remains to your home country? We don't need you, go home.
If you come here illegally, but with a strong desire to become an American citizen, with full allegiance, loyalty and love for this country, I'd be inclined to cut you some slack.
That's about as clear as I can make it, C&SD.
-
illegals can and do get the tax id's and pay taxes a bunch check this out
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18077009/
its not approved by lew rockwell or alex jones but...
RICHMOND, Calif. - Carlos Diaz broke the law when he crossed the border and took a job as an office janitor. But he’s not about to break another by failing to pay his income tax.
“I’ve been talking to other people who’ve done it, and I want to follow the law,” said Diaz, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala who squirmed in his seat at a neighborhood tax preparer’s office.
Tuesday is Tax Day, when millions of illegal immigrants find themselves collaborating with one federal agency — the Internal Revenue Service — while trying to avoid another — Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
They hope a track record of on-time payments will aid their citizenship applications, but critics who favor tougher enforcement of federal immigration rules say it’s absurd for the government to work with people it should be tracking down and deporting. It legitimizes the presence of immigrants who are here illegally, critics say, and sends a mixed message about the country’s interest in enforcing its own rules.
“The word schizophrenic comes to mind,” said Marti Dinerstein, president of Immigration Matters, a research firm that advocates tighter immigration enforcement. “There is something fundamentally wrong about this.”
The IRS created a nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number in 1996 for foreigners who don’t have Social Security numbers but need to file taxes in the U.S. But it is increasingly used by undocumented workers to file taxes, apply for credit, get bank accounts or even buy a home.
The IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs in 2006 — a 30 percent increase from the previous year. All told, the tax liability of ITIN filers between 1996 and 2003 was $50 billion. The agency has no way to track how many were immigrants, but it’s widely believed most people using ITINS are in the United States illegally.
One number hints at the number of illegal immigrants having income taxes deducted from their paychecks.
In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn’t match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job.
Critics like Dinerstein believe the process makes room for law violators, and in some cases, might endanger the country by allowing them to operate more freely.
“That’s why people who are living here illegally rushed to get ITINS like they’re chocolate candy,” said Dinerstein. “It’s a national security issue.”
IRS spokeswoman Nancy Mathis said the ID numbers are issued strictly to track a tax return’s progress through the system, noting the tax code says nothing about whether foreigners filing taxes are here legally or not.
CONTINUED : 'It serves no other purpose'
-
Do they goto the same ACORN branches that help the pimps and hookers launder their assets?
-
nine digit, that's 333. oh crap there in the trial stages. [tinfoil]
lol [popcorn] oh, and Green Jellö sucks!
-
never mind. I wish I could delete posts.
-
I don't really get the analgy. I said that I had a problem with those that come here for welfare, or to commit serious crimes.
I understand that illegal immigration is breaking the law. How serious of a crime is it in the grand scheme of things? I mean technically driving 51 in a 50 mph zone is illegal. I do this everyday, and don't think it makes me immoral.
I guess you don't keep up on the drunk driving stories, huh? Or the kidnapping stories (one a day in Phoenix)? Or the identity theft stories (many millions of dollars involved)? Or the gang stories (over half of Los Angeles gang members are illegal aliens from C. America, per the LAPD)? Or even the spousal abuse stories, often ending in violence (daily in the L.A. Times)? The collateral damage is vast and getting steadily worse. The pro-illegal supporters use funny economics to make their case. Do illegals use infrastructure, do they use limited water resources and expensive electrical power? Do they now make up the majority of students in CA K through 12?
Illegal aliens pay taxes? Every illegal with three kids in school is costing my county about $25K a year. There aren't many illegal aliens paying THAT in taxes, I can assure you.
-
Perhaps you missed the part where we said we don't have much problem with peaceable and self-supporting illegal aliens being here. It was clear that we specifically excluded illegals who commit nasty crimes or present a burden to society.
Even if it wasn't clear before, it is now, so feel free to drop the strawman.
-
YOU are the one with the "straw man." There are no "peaceful illegals" when they are breaking the law and parasitically draining the public coffers. My county spends a billion dollars a year on aid to your peaceful illegal aliens, and that doesn't count health care or education costs. Frankly, it is people like yourself, with your blather about dividing illegal aliens into "good" and "bad" camps, that aid and abet the problem and make it impossible to solve. You put economics above the law, about American values, above the culture of the nation, justifying trespassing by appealing to the economic "need" of aliens and exploitive American business types. Yes, you are truly "headless."
-
Illegal aliens pay taxes? Every illegal with three kids in school is costing my county about $25K a year.
This is why we need a voucher system; so we can get the illegals into private schools that spend less than $8300/student/year.
-
There are lots of peaceable self-supporting illegal immigrants. Several are my neighbors, and I'm proud to call one of them my family.
You might want to quit stereotyping and get a clue about the real world. I suspect you'd rather not let the facts get in the way of your opinions.
Some illegals cause major problems, no doubt about it. Some prove to be better neighbors than most Americans, a fact you're completely blind to. Alas, until you can start to see things honestly, we won't be able to have a meaningful discussion on this issue.
-
At this point I am truly wondering if the Republic is lost. We are now allowing non-citizens dictate policy and legislation. At this point we take seriously demonstrations that are organized by non-citizens and comprised of in significant numbers by non-citizens.
Oh well, I guess we let them vote . . .
Normally I don't feel so alarmist, but I think this has gotten absurd, and we have the D's and the R's to thank coupled with our own apathy.
-
Well, stick with "family," that's what got us here, pal. If you've read my posts before, you know that I have railed often and loudly against tribalism as a prime danger to this nation's future. I haven't changed my mind.
I'm not stereotyping, just looking at the big picture, unvarnished by the usual pro-illegal mass media propaganda. No one said ALL illegal aliens are "bad people," but they broke the law coming here and have a pretty bad record being here when all the facts are truly and fairly and openly presented. I don't know where you live, but in my state, county, and city they are perhaps the major factor behind our budget crisis. That's not a stereotype, it's an ugly fact, and that doesn't change because not all illegal aliens are what you define as criminal. If you are ready to really "talk facts," we will, but this country's immigration woes will not be solved by sentimentality, false "compassion," or outright disinformation. Most Americans are very well aware of the impact of 25 million illegals and their kids. They don't need educating by you about "the real world," they live in it. As do I.
I am, by the way, very aware that some people born in this country aren't very good Americans. If the illegals really wanted to assimilate and become Americans--which I don't believe most do any more--I'd be more sympathetic to them, and so would the majority of Americans. Instead, they are here to take and to send back "home." That is not a formula for a stable, peaceful nation built on unique and enduring principles.
-
Yeah, things are rotten in the body politic.
There can be no "meaningful discussion" so long as the law and public will and common sense are openly flouted and depreciated by everyone from the President on down. What the American people have now understood and what is animating the tea parties is the unpleasant realization that we have increasingly a lawless and rogue government where playing by the rules is a sucker's game.
-
Oh crap. Has HTG always been wrong on the illegal alien issue, or did he just go silly recently?
-
Whatever happened to "assimilation?" More to the point, whatever happened to a basic understanding of national identity? Well, we need to ask that question to the American Left, which has been undermining our most fundamental precepts for decades. Unless we deal with this "identity" issue we might as well pack it in.
Exactly. Trouble is the American Left believes American identity and exceptionalism to be anathema. They believe deeply that there are no differences between cultures. They (cultures) are all morally equivilent, thus we should have no border. The leftist/statist ruling class sees nothing beyond their power and how to achieve and keep it. Illegals are seen by them as a foundation to the American socialist system they wish to promulgate. The fact that illegal immigration/non assimilation and the rest of the downside of same, have caused much of the problems for the socialist nations in the West, are ignored due to the arrogance of the overeducated American Left. Too much schoolhousing and not enough prictical experience makes for a fool. The big money boys, on the other hand, are getting rich gaming the system that the fools create. It's actually amusing if it were not so bad for the rest of us.
-
great gods and lil fishes here i stand with htg agreeing how the heck did that happen
longeyes? maybe you missed this?
By Travis Loller, Associated Press
NASHVILLE — The tax system collects its due, even from a class of workers with little likelihood of claiming a refund and no hope of drawing a Social Security check.
Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.
Paycheck withholding collects much of the federal tax from illegal workers, just as it does for legal workers.
The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State University says there are no firm figures on how many such taxpayers there are.
"The real question is how many of them pay more than they owe. There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people in that situation," Ford said.
But some illegal immigrants choose to file taxes and write a check come April 15, using an alternative to the Social Security number offered by the IRS so it can collect income tax from foreign workers.
"It's a mistake to think that no illegal immigrants pay taxes. They definitely do," said Martha Pantoja, who has been helping Hispanic immigrants this tax season as an IRS-certified volunteer tax preparer for the non-profit Nashville Wealth Building Coalition.
Among those she has assisted is Eric Jimenez, a self-employed handyman who has worked in Nashville for several years. He feels obliged to pay taxes — even though, as Pantoja said, "nothing would happen" to him if he did not.
"I have an idea, a mentality, that to be a good citizen you have to pay taxes," he said. "Also, I'm conscious of the fact that the money we pay in taxes supports the schools and all the public services."
Pantoja said she has helped a number of construction workers who, because they are classified as independent contractors by their employers and have no taxes withheld, owe big tax bills come April. Beyond income tax, they have to pay the full Social Security and Medicare taxes due.
The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
The agency estimates that for 2005, the last year for which figures are available, about $9 billion in taxes was paid on about $75 billion in wages from people who filed W2 forms with incorrect or mismatched data, which would include illegal immigrants who drew paychecks under fake names and Social Security numbers.
Spokesman Mark Hinkle says Social Security does not know how much of the $9 billion can be attributed to illegal immigrants. The number is certainly not 100%, but a significant portion probably comes from taxes paid by illegal immigrants.
Nine billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is only about 1.5% of the total $593 billion paid into Social Security in 2005.
The impact on Social Security is significant, though, because most of that money is never claimed by the people who pay it but instead helps cover retirement checks to legal workers.
Federal law prohibits paying Social Security to illegal immigrants, but the administration factors in both legal and illegal immigration when projecting the trust fund's long-term solvency.
This is especially important as the 78 million-member baby boom generation begins to leave the workforce and draw Social Security checks.
"Overall, any type of immigration is a net positive to Social Security. The more people working and paying into the system, the better," Hinkle said. "It does help the system remain solvent."
The Social Security Administration drew from census and Immigration and Customs Enforcement data in 2007 to project the effects of higher and lower immigration patterns.
If net immigration is high at 1.3 million people a year, the SSA's combined trust fund would be exhausted in 2043. But the fund runs out four years earlier if annual net immigration amounts to about half that — 472,500 legal immigrants and 250,000 illegal immigrants.
The Internal Revenue Service doesn't have an estimate of how many illegal immigrants pay income tax.
But one indicator is the 9 million W-2 forms with mismatched names and Social Security numbers it received in 2004. The IRS said the W-2 forms with invalid Social Security numbers reported about $53 billion in wages and about three-fourths of that, $40 billion in wages, had taxes withheld.
The IRS also has been issuing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or ITINs, for 12 years to foreigners without a Social Security number. It's believed that many workers who seek the ITINs are in the country illegally, and the IRS reported that there were 2.5 million tax returns filed with an ITIN in 2004.
In 2006, then IRS Commission Mark Everson told Congress that "many illegal aliens, utilizing ITINs, have been reporting tax liability to the tune of almost $50 billion from 1996 to 2003."
An IRS spokesman said more recent figures aren't available.
The Social Security and Medicare taxes from mismatched W2s for the same period was $41.4 billion, Hinkle said.
That adds up to roughly $90 billion in federal taxes during they eight-year period.
The IRS defends the ITIN system, despite criticism that some illegal immigrants have used it to open bank accounts, get mortgages and establish a record of residency and taxpaying they hope might someday lead to legal status.
"The ITIN program is bringing taxpayers into the system," Everson told Congress.
Ford, of Middle Tennessee State University, said a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy.
He said the tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales taxes, property taxes and excise taxes (such as the gas tax), are significant.
He calculates that illegal immigrants contributed $428 billion dollars to the nation's $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006. That number assumes illegal immigrants are 30% less productive than other workers.
"If anything we need more immigrants coming into the country, not less, especially with the baby boomers retiring," he said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
and try these too
http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/14/politics/main549153.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/business/19illegals.html
and then there is this summary pay attention to the last 8 or so paragraphs
http://redblueamerica.com/truthornot/2008-04-03/do-illegal-immigrants-receive-more-government-benefits-they-pay-taxes-2300
and this last one is real short and sweet and seems to refute as do all the others longeyes plaint "they don't pay taxes"
-
Exactly. Trouble is the American Left believes American identity and exceptionalism to be anathema. They believe deeply that there are no differences between cultures. They (cultures) are all morally equivilent, thus we should have no border. The leftist/statist ruling class sees nothing beyond their power and how to achieve and keep it. Illegals are seen by them as a foundation to the American socialist system they wish to promulgate. The fact that illegal immigration/non assimilation and the rest of the downside of same, have caused much of the problems for the socialist nations in the West, are ignored due to the arrogance of the overeducated American Left. Too much schoolhousing and not enough prictical experience makes for a fool. The big money boys, on the other hand, are getting rich gaming the system that the fools create. It's actually amusing if it were not so bad for the rest of us.
i find it most remarkable that there has been so lil chanting of "assimilation!" when it come to the amish or those areas in this country where assimilation is less evident. lets say chinatown or those towns in texas where folks still speak german. then again the chinese did catch heck for a while.... and the mormons had a hard row to hoe too
-
Oh crap. Has HTG always been wrong on the illegal alien issue, or did he just go silly recently?
Depends what you mean by being "wrong" on the issue. I've never had a problem with people living here if they take care of themselves and stay out of trouble. Nor have I ever really considered it wrong for two people to make a mutually beneficial trade (say, labor for cash).
Exactly. Trouble is the American Left believes American identity and exceptionalism to be anathema. They believe deeply that there are no differences between cultures. They (cultures) are all morally equivilent, thus we should have no border. ...
What is the "American identity"? Is it working hard, taking care of yourself, helping your neighbors when they need it, staying out of trouble, making a better future for yourself and your family, respecting God? These traits are all but lost among the American underclass, but I see it surprisingly often among foreign illegal immigrants.
I swear, many of these immigrants make better Americans than we do.
-
There is more to "American identity" than that. Those virtues could apply to the most woe-begone oppressed nation. This ignores precisely the things that made us and make us unique in world history.
***
The article about illegals paying taxes is a masterpiece of lunacy. So ANYTHING that keeps the revenues up is good, including using phony SS numbers, stealing identities, whatever? Only government agents and the people who hang on them could possibly concoct arguments this facetious.
-
yea it also says that folks who rant illegals don't pay taxes are at best "confused", at worst? ymmv
-
i'm just trying to figure out how sneaking across the boarder, isn't at least as bad as having an ounce of pot? ???
-
i find it most remarkable that there has been so lil chanting of "assimilation!" when it come to the amish or those areas in this country where assimilation is less evident. lets say chinatown or those towns in texas where folks still speak german. then again the chinese did catch heck for a while.... and the mormons had a hard row to hoe too
The folks you use as an example are part of the American Identity. That is they form the fabric of our society that does not impose itself in a way that they are a drag. They may set themselves apart or hang onto cultural mores, but they don't clog up the health system and pay little or nothing. They don't make use of the school system or the welfare system or LE and the prison system. I don't see Amish gangs terrorizing neighborhoods.
What is the "American identity"? Is it working hard, taking care of yourself, helping your neighbors when they need it, staying out of trouble, making a better future for yourself and your family, respecting God? These traits are all but lost among the American underclass, but I see it surprisingly often among foreign illegal immigrants.
I swear, many of these immigrants make better Americans than we do.
The fact remains they have come here illegally. I'm not opposed to immigration. I am opposed to the situation as we have it now.
-
Under the current system lots of the "good" illegal immigrants create more problems and suffer for it.
By looking the other way on the immigration problem, our government has fostered and encouraged a lucrative black market in the smuggling of people and goods. The "good" illegal immigrants demand for lucrative illegal services has created a whole economy of thugs who use violence in the form of involuntary prostitution, extortion, and kidnapping to line their pockets. Heck, here in Arizona there are thugs making money hijacking illegal shipments of people. The "good" illegal immigrants are caught in the middle of this, but are not blameless.
This general lawlessness, which is created in part by the "good" illegal immigrants, is harmful to national security and sovereignty.
-
Perhaps you missed the part where we said we don't have much problem with peaceable and self-supporting illegal aliens being here. It was clear that we specifically excluded illegals who commit nasty crimes or present a burden to society.
That bit about "self-supporting" disqualifies the vast majority of illegal aliens (who consume much more in taxpayer dollars than they will ever contribute). Can I expect you to help stem the influx, now?
There are lots of peaceable self-supporting illegal immigrants. Several are my neighbors, and I'm proud to call one of them my family.
You might want to quit stereotyping and get a clue about the real world. I suspect you'd rather not let the facts get in the way of your opinions.
Some illegals cause major problems, no doubt about it. Some prove to be better neighbors than most Americans, a fact you're completely blind to. Alas, until you can start to see things honestly, we won't be able to have a meaningful discussion on this issue.
Might want to heal thyself, doc. A worker in the USA has to gross in excess of $40K/year and be fully taxed on all of it (income, SS, medicare, sales, etc.) before they become a net contributor. There are a very, very few illegal aliens who manage that, given the median skill level of illegals and the goodly proportion that work off the books. Just about anybody making less than $40K is in the wagon, the rest are pulling the wagon.
That's the thing about a 21st century economy with a welfare state: no- or low-skilled folks have a rough time of it and require significant subsidy so that the bleeding hearts don't feel bad about themselves.
The Heritage Foundation has done a goodly number of studies analyzing this sort of thing, some of which had an illegal alien focus, some of which were more general in nature.
yea it also says that folks who rant illegals don't pay taxes are at best "confused", at worst? ymmv
Some do, some don't. Depends on the sector of economy & employer. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the proportion of working illegals paying income taxes is smaller than the proportion of working Americans. Also, it is an easy bet that the dollar amount of those per illegal worker that do work on the books & pay taxes is less than the average American worker due to the generally lower skill level of illegals.
i find it most remarkable that there has been so lil chanting of "assimilation!" when it come to the amish or those areas in this country where assimilation is less evident. lets say chinatown or those towns in texas where folks still speak german. then again the chinese did catch heck for a while.... and the mormons had a hard row to hoe too
The groups you mention have much lower crime rates than the average American; utilize public services at lower rates than the average American; have average incomes greater than the average American(0); and have not marched en mass to demand we excuse their law-breaking and make millions of their law-breaking, alien, non-English-speaking non-citizen selves citizens.
IOW, those groups are a net benefit and make America a better place. Most illegals are a net drain and make America a lesser place.
(0) Not sure about the Amish. Low cash income from farming, but sought after for other occupations and get paid a premium for their labor.
-
I'll bet dollars to donuts that the proportion of working illegals paying income taxes is smaller than the proportion of working Americans.
only 53% of "natives" are paying income taxes. are we gonna run the 47% off too?
-
Depends what you mean by being "wrong" on the issue.
I mean cherry-picking the good qualities of some illegals, and using this to deride the importance of having some control over who comes into our nation. Which would be just about as bad as cherry-picking the bad qualities of a some other illegals. Both are what I mean by "wrong."
I also mean pretending that laws are unimportant, so long as some nice people are breaking them. If you want nice people to settle in our country, then lobby to have the laws changed to make that possible. Don't endorse their law-breaking. That would also be wrong.
What is the "American identity"? Is it working hard, taking care of yourself, helping your neighbors when they need it, staying out of trouble, making a better future for yourself and your family, respecting God?
What about a belief in limited government and disdain for public assistance? By that standard, we've got millions of natural-born foreigners here already, making all but open war on our country. We can't sustain any more of that sort.
Thanks,
fistful
-
only 53% of "natives" are paying income taxes. are we gonna run the 47% off too?
"Natives" belong here. Foreigners have their own countries to live in. How do you not know this?
i find it most remarkable that there has been so lil chanting of "assimilation!" when it come to the amish or those areas in this country where assimilation is less evident. lets say chinatown or those towns in texas where folks still speak german. then again the chinese did catch heck for a while.... and the mormons had a hard row to hoe too
Yeah, the Chinese caught heck for a long time. So did the Germans. Check your history.
I presume the early Mormons were mostly native-born. I could be wrong. Regardless, weird religions and funky communal societies are as American as it gets.
But anyway, feel free to falsely characterize anything but an open-border policy as rampant, racist nativism. We all know it makes you happy, so knock yourself out.
-
I'll bet dollars to donuts that the proportion of working illegals paying income taxes is smaller than the proportion of working Americans.
only 53% of "natives" are paying income taxes. are we gonna run the 47% off too?
Read what I wrote there, big guy. I took the time to get it right.
Also, that 47% do happen to be Americans. That used to mean something to fellow Americans. If it means diddly to you...don't let it bother you none, you aren't the first and have puh-lenty of company.
-
i find it most remarkable that there has been so lil chanting of "assimilation!" when it come to the amish or those areas in this country where assimilation is less evident.
We also don't hear much from these folks about how they are owed something for nothing, or how we "stole" their country from them and they want it back.
-
well to steal that line from the movie roadhouse and paraphrase it. did we? and as to the something for nothin what are you referring to? aren't they coming over here and getting hired by business? working for so lil that they drive " native americans" outa work? or am i missing it? you may have a point about medical care and particularly in california. i certainly have read some articles i linked to from wnd that seem to prove that. but skeptic that i am i try to follow the links
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
try this one for example
-
If the problem with illegals is that they cost so much, the easy solution is to choose not to pay for them.
-
Never mind.
-
We also don't hear much from these folks about how they are owed something for nothing, or how we "stole" their country from them and they want it back.
If you are implying that these groups, Amish specifically, are free of entitlement mentality, then you clearly have never lived near the Amish.
People can complain about the cost of illegal immigration to society all they want. It seems rather dumb to blame people for taking advantage of the system.
Our politicians make immigration policy overly cubersome. Then they refuse to enforce the US borders. Then they refuse to punish those that break the law. Then they prop up failing governments in south and central America. Then they decide to give illegal immigrants/undocumented people welfare assistence, ensuring that the individual will have a far better life scavaging from the table scraps of America.
Blaming the individual for taking the obvious path to success wastes time and resources. The real problem is our politicians. Since we elected them, I suggest we start looking in the mirror for the solution to our problem.
Also, if running drugs across the border is the main cause of illegal immigration/border violence, once again I suggest the collective mirror. War on drugs, and public demand for the products in question... The list goes on and has been discussed before.
FTR I personally have met many who came here illegally, legally, and somewhere between. AFAIK none of them had an ounce of malevolence or entitlement.
They came here to have a better life for their families, and appreciated their freedom and America far more than even I. I like to think I am a big enough person to acknowledge and respect that.
I keep hearing that "we are a nation of laws" we certainly are, with over 2000 ways in commit a felony in Texas alone. Before we condemn immigrants for breaking the law, we should probably make sure that we individually have never broken any laws. This is something that becomes increasingly difficult as time progresses.
-
Never mind, too.
:P
-
Lots of blame to go around here. It's not only our policritters, AT. Everyone in the chain is at fault, including the illegals you are so eager to defend.
-
If the problem with illegals is that they cost so much, the easy solution is to choose not to pay for them.
Hard to do that. Do it for long enough and the tax-man brings humorless men with guns to negotiate with .40 cal persuasiveness.
In the mean time, another solution is for the employers of illegal aliens to grow a sense of morality, stop employing them, privatizing the profits, and socializing the costs & screwing their neighbors good & hard by dumping the cost of their health care,education, police, etc. on those tax-paying neighbors.
Illegal aliens, for all their law-breaking and messing of the American nest, I can sympathize with. I sucks where they came from and America is better. Those who employ them, however, get no sympathy from me, as they deliberately screw over their fellow tax-paying neighbors.
-
Given how hard said neighbors screw over said businesspeople...
-
Given how hard said neighbors screw over said businesspeople...
Your statement is ambiguous. FTR, it is business folk with retarded business plans that require illegal alien labor who are screwing over their neighbors. If one's business plan requires both violating federal law and giving it to your neighbors good & hard sans lube, perhaps a businessman with ethics ought to figure out some other way to earn an honest buck.
-
Hard to do that. Do it for long enough and the tax-man brings humorless men with guns to negotiate with .40 cal persuasiveness.
Are you saying we can't change the laws to cease paying handouts to illegals? We'll get shot if we do that?
In the mean time, another solution is for the employers of illegal aliens to grow a sense of morality, stop employing them, privatizing the profits, and socializing the costs & screwing their neighbors good & hard by dumping the cost of their health care,education, police, etc. on those tax-paying neighbors.
Strange sense of morality, that. I don't see anything particularly immoral about two people making a mutually beneficial exchange.
Illegal aliens, for all their law-breaking and messing of the American nest, I can sympathize with. I sucks where they came from and America is better. Those who employ them, however, get no sympathy from me, as they deliberately screw over their fellow tax-paying neighbors.
We beat employers over the head with our onerous employment laws, and then some of them choose not to comply with those laws. Go figure.
I see an awful lot of people here complaining about how messed up our current legal/immigration/employment/welfare situation is. Nobody much wants to look at the real causes of these problems, preferring instead to blame illegal immigrants for problems that are largely the result of our own convoluted and misguided laws. This is the essence of my disagreement with the consensus position here. We need to take a good hard look in the mirror before we assume that our problems are all due to those nasty brown skins breaking our righteous laws.
If we had our own house in order immigration would be a lot less problematic than it is now. The law would be easier to comply with, there would be more incentive to follow the law, less incentive to break the law, and less nastiness resulting from those who persist in breaking the law. Perhaps most importantly, there'd be a true correlation between actions that violate the law and actions that violate the conscience.
-
can i quote that on another forum? nice explanation
-
Remember, we were all illegal immigrants starting in 1492. The natives here didn't see it as a threat and look what happened to them.
We're next.
That's the real threat that nobody's looking at: losing our culture.
America is a melting pot, but in order to join, you need to melt a little, too.
-
Excuse me, but a LOT of people are painfully aware of the cultural "erasure" issue. That, of course, is the real crux of the matter. To latinize the U.S.A., without assimilation, is to destroy the philosophical and cultural underpinnings of this nation. If that sounds "discriminatory," it's meant to be, in the best sense of the word: it is what it is. Of course the cultural issue will be militantly excluded from public discourse by every media and academic type who knows who keeps him in treats.
***
We need to start popping some of the mythic balloons about our Native Americans. Their record's not clean either.
-
Regardless of what we do to "reform" immigration law in order to help the "good" immigrants, there is still that matter of keeping bad guys out.
There are significant numbers of bad guy illegal immigrants in our country that need to be deported and kept out. (I'm talking about gang members and those that are cartel affiliated) At this point, many near the border have had their property rights trampled on thanks to lax enforcement of the immigration issue. This is an extreme failure of the federal government to live up to one of its most important functions. They have had time to address the issue, but have chosen to look away. I'm glad that the states are stepping up to address the issue in a manner that is consistent with what most citizens want.
-
If you value the rule of law and the will of the people, even "the good ones" are bad. They remain trespassers, and they remain interlopers, not to mention takers. However good their table manners, they are party-crashers.
-
George Will pretty much hits the nail on the head:
Jewish World Review April 28, 2010/ 14 Iyar 5770
A law Arizona can live with
By George Will
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.
It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense — being in the country illegally — a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?
Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy — judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes — because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things "beyond the reach of majorities."
But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of "reasonable" will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights — the Fourth Amendment — proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." What "reasonable" means in practice is still being refined by case law — as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued "but upon probable cause." There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of "reasonable suspicion."
Brewer says, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of "evenness" as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers — the vast majority — routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood — some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.
-
If you value the rule of law and the will of the people, even "the good ones" are bad. They remain trespassers, and they remain interlopers, not to mention takers. However good their table manners, they are party-crashers.
My position comes down to this: We currently have people breaking the law. We should either enforce the law as it is or change the law to something we are willing to enforce. The current system of turning a blind eye is unacceptable in the long term.
-
The majority of the American people is sensible and willing to enforce current laws. They do understand the problem. It is government that won't enforce the laws. The cost of changing the law to what's considered "enforceable" by government as it currently exists is unacceptable; it is tantamount to surrendering the country, at least in my view.
Of course, these days, in just about everything, everywhere, appeasement has become the rule.
-
Are you saying we can't change the laws to cease paying handouts to illegals? We'll get shot if we do that?
Now you're being obtuse. Your reading comprehension is not so poor as to not understand my point.
Strange sense of morality, that. I don't see anything particularly immoral about two people making a mutually beneficial exchange.
That was freaking uncalled for-----edited out by the mod
I see an awful lot of people here complaining about how messed up our current legal/immigration/employment/welfare situation is. Nobody much wants to look at the real causes of these problems, preferring instead to blame illegal immigrants for problems that are largely the result of our own convoluted and misguided laws. This is the essence of my disagreement with the consensus position here. We need to take a good hard look in the mirror before we assume that our problems are all due to those nasty brown skins breaking our righteous laws.
If we had our own house in order immigration would be a lot less problematic than it is now. The law would be easier to comply with, there would be more incentive to follow the law, less incentive to break the law, and less nastiness resulting from those who persist in breaking the law. Perhaps most importantly, there'd be a true correlation between actions that violate the law and actions that violate the conscience.
Nice try, but both entitlements and illegal immigration are both problems can be worked in parallel. They are serial only in your mind.
If your conscience is not worried by inflicting your neighbors with the costs of hiring illegals, you need to trade yours in, because it is broke.
-
I guess some folk just think it is OK to stick it to your neighbor, nowadays. Welcome to America, 2010. The idea of doing something like that just never gets past the "do unto others as you would have done unto you" stage in my thinking.
I wouldn't deliberately bring my dog to crap on a neighbors lawn or screw them out of their hard-earned wages through underhanded business practices or any other way. It is just something one doesn't do to people you have any regard for.
And a lot of the costs of illegal aliens are borne very close to home, in the form of property taxes that support education, public hospitals, LEOs, etc. If one employs illegals, one's neighbors take it in the jimmy due to increased property taxes. For instance, Dallas county's public hospital, Parkland, has its own property tax levy. Of the ~16,000 babies born there every year, some ~11,000 are anchor babies. Federal law says we can't deny them access to emergency care and I don't think we would want to. The money to pay for all that doesn't just fall from the sky. My neighbors and I must work hard to pay for it while illegal alien employers reap the benefits.
Or, like on the border, your neighbors will never make enough money to pay for a public hospital to support them and the multitude of illegals who roll in. There are some places on the border that are 4-5 hours by auto from a hospital. Home births aren't just a fad, they are a necessity, as many expectant mothers will never reach a hospital in time. Anything truly dire means you get to go on a helicopter ride and pay one whopper of a bill for it.
I guess I ought not be surprised, given contemporary morality.
-
Now you're being obtuse. Your reading comprehension is not so poor as to not understand my point.
No, I'm illiustrating your absudity by being absurd. Those ill-tempered men with the .40's work for us. If we tell 'em to pay for illegals, they will. If we tell 'em to quit paying for illegals, they will.
Did one of your neighbors touch you in an inappropriate way, years back, because you sure don't mind giving it back to your neighbors in the pants. If you don't understand the immorality of reaping the benefits while leaving your neighbors to clean up the mess you created, I doubt reading any forum will fix your crippled sense of morality.
You wanna accuse me of giving it to my neighbors in the pants? Gimme an effing break. Between my day job and my work on our family business, I provide jobs for my neighbors, I provide valuable goods and services for my neighbors, I provide ample charity for my neighbors, and I get raped by the IRS for my efforts. I'd wager I pay far more in taxes than you do, and you want tell me how I'm an evil bastage for not wanting to pay more, or that I'm somehow not willing to pay my fair share? You're gonna tell me that I need to give up even more of what's mine because your warped sense of morality demands it? And you think that gives the the moral high ground?
Phuque that.
I'd say the share I pay earns me the right to question the sanctity of our current laws without folks like you questioning my decency.
Nice try, but both entitlements and illegal immigration are both problems can be worked in parallel. They are serial only in your mind.
The mistake is yours for thinking illegal immigration and welfare are separate problems with separate solutions.
If your conscience is not worried by inflicting your neighbors with the costs of hiring illegals, you need to trade yours in, because it is broke.
Fine. If my views on immigration make me an immoral bastage in your mind, then so be it. I'd have to wonder about myself if people like you fully approved of me and my actions.
I've never had an occasion to hire illegals, but if I ever do I'll smile and think of you.
Cheers!
-
Might wanna visit the border states and see the damage illegals do to real people before you wear that high horse out.
-
Might wanna visit the border states and see the damage illegals do to real people before you wear that high horse out.
Exactly; I notice all the people supporting illegal immigration are pretty well isolated from the damage in areas like Laredo, where the farmers are having to deal with constant theft and vandalism.
-
It's a very ivory tower view on the subject, in terms of isolation from reality.