Immigration Bill proposed

[Glock Glockler]

Rabbi,

If I could snap my fingers right now and get rid of the welfare state I would do it, but until my magic powers improve we are stuck with dismantling it the hard way.  That being the case, will bringing in millions of people who are at the bottom of the economic totem pole, who are the most likely to be dependant on govt services, help dismantle it?

[CAnnoneer]

Somehow we are again reduced to the need of stating the obvious. There are intermediate solutions to the problem, someplace well between police state and open borders. More often than not, the politicians that want cheap labor for their corporate bosses and to boost their electorate, would like us to limit ourselves to two despicable options, just so that nobody protests against what is tacitly allowed to occur. I see that even this board is not immune to such strategies.

You want a plan? Very well:

1) Border enforcement - wall, surveillance, buy off the desert within 5 miles of the border, prevent people from rendering any unofficial assitance to the violators. Capture, try, and shoot coyotes. Deport illegals to point of origin at the particular country's expense.
2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.
4) Demand social security numbers for enrolment in school, emergency visit to hospitals, or any other social privilege. Input name, basic biometrics (gender, eye color, hair color), SSN, and valid address. The system returns "valid" or "invalid" without disclosing details. "Invalid" is reported to the authorities. Failure to report is obstruction of justice.
5) Revoke and refuse to give a driver's license to illegals. To be allowed to drive here, they should first be allowed to be here.
6) Credit card companies will be prohibited from claiming as expense the damages from giving credit to illegals.
7) Employers hiring illegals will face heavy fines and jail terms, rather than a slap on the wrist after a protracted period of turning a blind eye. To determine identity, employers can use the same system as above #4 as well as driver's licenses. If they were forged, so employers were really fooled, let them produce xerox copies of those licenses.

Opposers of enforcement would have us believe that our options are extremely limited and that any enforcement is tantamount to an unchristian racist police state. Do not be fooled.

[CAnnoneer]

I thought Blackburn was banned...

[De Selby]

1) Border enforcement - wall, surveillance, buy off the desert within 5 miles of the border, prevent people from rendering any unofficial assitance to the violators. Capture, try, and shoot coyotes. Deport illegals to point of origin at the particular country's expense.

Oh yeah, because five miles wide times 2000 miles long, plus fences, plus law enforcement to investigate and try all the would-be helpers, plus changing the death penalty to include coyotes, plus collecting the fees for deportation from another country, are totally realistic.

And on top of being realistic, they're low cost

2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.

What's your plan for revoking the constitution?  This is what would be required...

4) Demand social security numbers for enrolment in school, emergency visit to hospitals, or any other social privilege. Input name, basic biometrics (gender, eye color, hair color), SSN, and valid address. The system returns "valid" or "invalid" without disclosing details. "Invalid" is reported to the authorities. Failure to report is obstruction of justice.

And when you are injured and need emergency services, you'll see the folly of this plan immediately when the nurse denies an unconscious you medical care because she can't find your SSN or ID.

You do need documents for any other privilege besides emergency care, btw.  Look how well that's working...

The whole plan is totally unrealistic.  This is fantasy land immigration prevention, not real life.

[mtnbkr]

I haven't done any sort of survey, but the few legal immigrants I've known have a higher standard of care than the others, so I'll continue to assume the filthy, disrespectful ones are here illegally.  The high turnover rate (of folks living in the area) and total lack of English skills doesn't scream "legal" to me either.  Even when I was a mere visitor to Mexico, I was always carrying my little "english to spanish" book around and trying to comminucate in the local language.

As for the zoning ordinances, yes, we have those, but it doesn't seem to help much.  Cops make regular rounds in this area, but they can't do much if they can't catch the perpetrators in the act or you can't give them a detailed description. 

Anyway Rabbi, try living among it for a while.  Maybe it hasn't gotten to Nashville yet (haven't been there in nearly 20 years). 

Chris

[Oleg Volk]

I'll check into the Blackburn matter. His reappearance is showing the futility of border enforcement :-)

[The Rabbi]

Mtnbiker, I wouldnt want to live next door to that either.  But try going to Chinatown someplace and I think you'll see an amazing lack of English as well.  What you are objecting to is obnoxious behavior.  But that behavior is neither caused by nor the result of illegal immigration.

As for requiring social security numbers, that already is the case.  In the Swift Meat Packing case reported not too long ago, Swift had a system in place to verify legality.  In fact they wanted an even more intrusive system and were told my Justice that it would be a violation of civil rights.  So I guess the Justice Dept cares more about civil rights than many of the "libertarian" posters here.

[Perd Hapley]

2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.

What's your plan for revoking the constitution?  This is what would be required...

Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that.  A Constitutional amendment would do the trick.  You've heard of those, I assume.  I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.

[De Selby]

fistful,

I was using his word.  "Revoke the rule", he says.

But yeah, a constitutional amendment is feasible in what sci-fi scenario? What would the new rule be? The pre-Dredd Scott rule?

[mtnbkr]

Mtnbiker, I wouldnt want to live next door to that either.  But try going to Chinatown someplace and I think you'll see an amazing lack of English as well.  What you are objecting to is obnoxious behavior.  But that behavior is neither caused by nor the result of illegal immigration.

Actually, living in Northern Virginia, I see it everywhere.  Also, this being such a touristy area (DC and all), I don't really pay attention to it except when it's in my own neighborhood.  It's the total lack of care that bothers me though.  I don't see that with the African family across the street.  The worst we had to deal with regarding the Iranian family next door was their seeming inability to mow their backyard (thanks to privacy fences, I only saw it from 2nd and 3rd floor windows).  However, the Hispanic households tend to use their front and backyards for gathering places, drinking parties, etc.  They're the ones using the Mexican flag (or other Central and South American flags) as curtains in their windows.  Then there's all the other stuff I mentioned above.  That's without getting into the potential criminal actions that have been documented by others.  I'll leave that out since I haven't witnessed it myself (other than a hit and run via stolen car). 

It really is something that you have to see firsthand.  I can't describe the cultural element that's moving in clearly enough, but you'll know it when you see it.  Like I said, I don't have a problem with immigrants, just the ones that want to turn my town into the American equivilent to theirs.  I've been to theirs, I don't want that here.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

fistful,

I was using his word.  "Revoke the rule", he says.

But yeah, a constitutional amendment is feasible in what sci-fi scenario? What would the new rule be? The pre-Dredd Scott rule?

He said "revoke the rule."  You twisted that into "revoke the Constitution."  But you had to go further, by presenting an obvious false dichotomy and playing the race card.  You know very well that there is plenty of ground between the anchor babies and Judge Taney.  It would be a simple matter to write an amendment revoking birthright citizenship for any future children of non-citizens.  And, no, it needn't be retro-active.   

[Gewehr98]

You're kidding, right?

Capture, try, and shoot coyotes.

And just how well do you think that would go over, making it a capital offense?  I'd say the chances of the law being changed to support execution of coyotes will happen, oh, about NEVER.  (Thankfully so, it would be a dangerous precedent)

Mtnbkr, wanna find out for sure if your neighbors are illegals?  I have a souvenir INS jacket you can wear and just walk by the place.  Watch the illegals scatter like cockroaches. 

[Manedwolf]

2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.

What's your plan for revoking the constitution?  This is what would be required...

Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that.  A Constitutional amendment would do the trick.  You've heard of those, I assume.  I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.

It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.

Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.

Courts and lawmakers have chosen to extend the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to them in court proceedings. But they do not have second, they do not have the right to vote, etc...

It's our constitution. They are still citizens of another nation, not ours.

And that's why when they swear the oath of citizenship, they also renounce allegiance to any other nation.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm confused by what you say, mtnbkr.  The problems you cite have nothing to do with immigration.  You even state as much when you say that the Iranians and Africans living nearby don't exhibit any of the offensive behavior.  Yet you insist on blaming immigration for the problems...? 

The problems you describe sound like poverty and disinterest.  Making the Mexicans legal would go a long way towards solving both.  Legality would bring them above ground and into the economy, where they might be able to earn a reasonable living and could thereby spare enough money to maintain their properties at American standards. 

Making them legal would also give them a sense of, I'm not sure how to put it, a sense of belonging, of ownership, of permanence.  As things stand now, they aren't here legally and they can't expect to stick around long.  They know it won't be long before they get booted out, either out of their house or out of the country.  Or they might choose to return to Mexico after a few months or years.  What incentive do they have to care about the long-term maintenance of their houses?  Make 'em legal and their temporary houses will become their long-term homes.  You'll find that if they know they can stay, if they know they'll have a future stake in their properties, that they'll start to care about proper upkeep.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.

What's your plan for revoking the constitution?  This is what would be required...

Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that.  A Constitutional amendment would do the trick.  You've heard of those, I assume.  I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.

It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.

Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.

Courts and lawmakers have chosen to extend the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to them in court proceedings. But they do not have second, they do not have the right to vote, etc...

It's our constitution. They are still citizens of another nation, not ours.

Huh??  Anyone born in the States is a citizen.  Surely you know that the only way to change that is to alter (or ignore) the Constitution...   

[Manedwolf]

2) Pass a law that states that an illegal will never under any circumstances be allowed to become a citizen or a permanent resident.
3) Revoke the "baby anchor" rule.

What's your plan for revoking the constitution?  This is what would be required...

Revoking the constitution is not required, but you knew that.  A Constitutional amendment would do the trick.  You've heard of those, I assume.  I'm not saying that would be easy, but "revoking the Constitution" is just over-heated rhetoric.

It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.

Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.

Courts and lawmakers have chosen to extend the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to them in court proceedings. But they do not have second, they do not have the right to vote, etc...

It's our constitution. They are still citizens of another nation, not ours.

Huh??  Surely you know that anyone born in the States is a citizen...  Umm, right?     

Yes, they are. However, that's been used as a tool by illegals, the so-called "baby anchor". So yes, perhaps some Supreme Court clarification is needed, because it's being abused.

As Fistful said, first, 1) No illlegal can ever become a citizen, and 2) baby born to illegals can not be a citizen. Just as if a baby was born to visiting foreigners while they were on vacation in the US, it's still a citizen of the only legal country of its parents.

[The Rabbi]

It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.

Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.

 

And what planet do you live on again?  Non-citizens (which includes green card aliens) have every right that U.S. citizens have, except the ability to vote.  And yeah, that includes the right to buy firearms.

[CAnnoneer]

Oh yeah, because five miles wide times 2000 miles long, plus fences, plus law enforcement to investigate and try all the would-be helpers, plus changing the death penalty to include coyotes, plus collecting the fees for deportation from another country, are totally realistic. And on top of being realistic, they're low cost.

Much of the land is already gov property. How much is a square mile of desert worth anyway? Not buying the land is a nice cover for drug dealers with border ranches shipping dope across the border, though.

Oh, no, it costs! Newsflash: illegals already cost billions in social services they do not pay for. The WoD costs more every year, yet those ranches are tolerated.

What's your plan for revoking the constitution?  This is what would be required...

The usual exaggerated demagogic bullpoop. A simple amendment would be good for the country and will cut off the current blatant abuse once and for all.

And when you are injured and need emergency services, you'll see the folly of this plan immediately when the nurse denies an unconscious you medical care because she can't find your SSN or ID.

Sorry dude, but a simple cold is not an emergency that prevents you from being certified. Most of the expense is incurred when illegals use emergency services as their primary source of medical care when there is no real emergency. Nobody says somebody must bleed to death before certified. More exaggerations and extreme extrapolations from you. Again, nobody is fooled.

You do need documents for any other privilege besides emergency care, btw.  Look how well that's working...

That's a bold-faced lie. In Texas now and soon in California, it is prohibited to ask the incoming students if they are in the country legally. You should know that. A blind eye is turned when parents are suddenly "forgetful" about names and other identification information as well.

The whole plan is totally unrealistic.  This is fantasy land immigration prevention, not real life.

If the blue moon shines and Tancredo wins, you will see.

[Perd Hapley]

Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.

Thank you Rush Limbuagh.  Much as I love "America's Anchorman," you're both wrong on that point. 

As Fistful said, first, 1) No illlegal can ever become a citizen, and 2) baby born to illegals can not be a citizen.

I didn't say that. 

[CAnnoneer]

And just how well do you think that would go over, making it a capital offense?  I'd say the chances of the law being changed to support execution of coyotes will happen, oh, about NEVER.  (Thankfully so, it would be a dangerous precedent)

Please explain your position.

[Perd Hapley]

Let's limit the capital punishment to crimes that suit that punishment, such as murder and treason.  Thank you.

[Manedwolf]

It's simpler than that, Fistful. The Constitution applies to CITIZENS. Not to non-citizens.

Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.

 

And what planet do you live on again?  Non-citizens (which includes green card aliens) have every right that U.S. citizens have, except the ability to vote.  And yeah, that includes the right to buy firearms.

A legislatively granted group of rights, not any given specifically in the Constitution or its amendments. The rights of aliens, including green-card holders, CAN be changed at the will of lawmakers, and the green card program could be stopped if they so wished.

Difference between rights enumerated in the bill of rights for citizens, and those simply given by writ of law.

[Manedwolf]

Non-citizens do not have any constitutional rights in this country. None. Period. Does not apply.

Thank you Rush Limbuagh.  Much as I love "America's Anchorman," you're both wrong on that point. 

As Fistful said, first, 1) No illlegal can ever become a citizen, and 2) baby born to illegals can not be a citizen.

I didn't say that. 

My mistake, you were quoting CAnnoneer there.

[Gewehr98]

Explain myself?  Have you gone mad?

Execution, last I heard in these United States, was reserved almost exclusively for those heinously criminal acts that resulted in the death of another human being.  Even under the UCMJ, they don't execute traitors or deserters found guilty in courts martial anymore - they get life in prison at Club Leavenworth, KS (I got to escort one from the sentencing to Leavenworth once, something I think all GIs should experience in their careers). Human rights violations notwithstanding, we don't kill 'em for spitting on the sidewalk these days.

The death penalty list of capital offenses:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=29&did=192

Note the severity of the crimes that garner such punishment.  You *might* be able to convince a jury that aforementioned coyote was trafficking in large amounts of illegal drugs, thereby justifying the death penalty, but I'd wager it's a pretty damned far stretch to come on board and say "Kill 'em, they're smuggling illegal aliens across the Rio Grande!"  At that point, we're right back to Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, and The Killing Fields.  You wear glasses?  You're dead.  You have a university degree?  You're a threat to my government's game plan, so you get to die.  You brought in a dozen beaners to SoCal?  Line up against the wall, amigo...   

So I stand by my original question - just how seriously do you think a proposal to execute coyotes would be received by legislators and lawmakers?  Judge Roy Bean has been dead and buried how many years? 

[Perd Hapley]

Maned, you've also got a problem with saying that the Constitution only applies to citizens, yet the issue at hand is, who should be a citizen? 

Do you see what I'm saying?