Imigration [Archive] - BDSM Library

denuseri

04-24-2010, 06:55 AM

Thorne

04-24-2010, 08:39 AM

Is this a fair law?
Probably not. It would be silly to assume that any group of elected legislators could actually write a "fair" law.

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?
Probably. You're not likely to see too many white's getting stopped.

Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?
Absolutely!

Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?
Absolutely NOT!

What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?
What difference does that make? We have to protect our own infrastructure, our own jobs, our own ways of life. Illegal immigration threatens all of them. That being said, though, I would venture to guess that most countries have much stricter immigration policies than the US.

How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?
Again, what difference does that make?

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?
Never heard of it, but after a brief browse through Google I'd have to say it's a silly idea. Unless you can eliminate all racial, religious or regional strife, unless you can get everyone to speak the same language, it's just a pipe-dream. Borders are there for a reason, whether you like them or not.

Stealth694

04-26-2010, 04:41 AM

IS THIS A FAIR LAW?
Its not a " Fair Law" but its a necessary law,,, My Mother lives in AZ and here is her comment...Immigration Law...GREAT...We needed to do something like this for a long time as we are getting over run by Mexicans..and the sad part is, we're the taxpayers are paying for all the medical care, food, and all that.

Does it promote a racial or ethnic profiling scare?
There will probably be accusations of Profiling but the cops are just going to have to be careful about the reasons they pull someone over ect.

Should the United States pursue stricter Law Enforcement against Illegel Aliens

Yes. Arizona has an estimated 460,000 Illegals

Should we grant amnesty to Illegal Aliens
No, There have been several amnesty programs for Illegals most fail.

SadisticNature

04-26-2010, 10:05 AM

I have issues with anyone who could sign a bill saying it's ok to stop someone and demand papers based on visual evidence, but not be able to identify what visual evidence is.

There are people who feel that this bill basically says "If you look like someone who could potentially have come from Mexico, you are legally required to carry I.D. at all times."

If you had a bill that said:

All Residents of Arizona over age 16 (or 18 or 21) are legally required to carry government issued identification and may be asked for this identification by police at any time.

People would be screaming police state, and opposing the bill en masse.

Yet when you put the visual language in it seems to read:

All Hispanic residents of Arizona who look like adults are legally required to carry government issued identification (e.g. papers) and may be asked for this by police at any time.

I think the evidence of this is seen by the press conference after the Governor signed the bill into law. When asked "What does an illegal immigrant look like" she had no good answer. I can't imagine someone would sign into law a bill that allows visual identification without understanding what that visual identification is, and to me that means dodging the question.

SadisticNature

04-26-2010, 10:17 AM

Speaking as someone who lives in a country with two national languages, a country that has many immigrant communities where sizable numbers of people speak neither of them, I can say that Canada as a country works.

We have freedom of religion and almost all of the worlds religions are represented here. We have a robust body of law on what religious freedom means and where the boundaries are.

That being said I don't think much of the idea of countries without borders. I don't think that being a citizen of Iraq should entail easy access to the United States, if you try anything like that you're going to get suicide bombings in the US on a regular basis.

There is a difference however between being unable to spend enough money to keep people out, then giving companies slap on the wrist style penalties for providing people who cross over jobs and breaking all sorts of US labor laws hiring illegals (The typical fine is below 50% of the cost savings, and its almost unheard of for people who forge documents enabling illegal labor to end up in jail, even when its the company doing the hiring).

If you want to do something about the illegal immigration problem there are lots of good options:

(1) Proper border security (fully funded, etc.)

(2) Use one of the Amnesty programs that works (if you're saying most fail that implies some of them work so pick one that does and implement it).

(3) Some combination of the above

(4) Laws that require everyone to require identification and allow police to ask for it rather than laws that require an unclear subset of the population to.

Basically the government doesn't want to pay for 1,2, or 3, and they think 4. is political suicide so they choose to racial profile. And I'll believe its not racial profiling when someone can give a clear concise description of visual identifiers of an illegal immigrant without using ethnicity as a factor.

Thorne

04-26-2010, 11:36 AM

If you want to do something about the illegal immigration problem there are lots of good options:

(1) Proper border security (fully funded, etc.)
Agreed. This should be a priority. If you keep illegals out at the border you don't have so many problems about identifying them within the borders.

(2) Use one of the Amnesty programs that works
Why amnesty? This makes no sense to me. Basically, you are rewarding people who have broken the law.

I agree with you, though. Making the cost of hiring illegals higher than the cost of hiring legal labor would reduce the problems significantly. The problem there is that there have been numerous politicos who have been found to have hired illegals, either knowingly or not. Certainly, anyone who forges documents, for any reason, should be sent to prison, as well as being fined heavily. Simply make the risks so high that it becomes untenable.

SadisticNature

04-27-2010, 10:14 AM

What else can you do? Forced Deportation doesn't work.

Amnesty programs aren't outright forgiveness they usually involve fines, backtaxes, and citizenship requirements. In some cases they involve reporting information about the company that hired you illegally. If the IRS can give a 25+% deduction for self-reporting on errors in backtaxes, I think there is little reason that states can't have a program that enables illegal immigrants to become legal.

I think if you want to punish the illegal immigrants with forced deportation you need to make it unwise to hire them, if they can't get jobs they probably aren't staying in the US. Raise the fines on the companies by 400% if you want to take a punitive route. Jail executives who aid and abet illegal hiring. In that environment I could see a more punitive program for dealing with illegal immigrants. In the case of unreported employment go after people for tax evasion, I hear that worked well on Capone. Of course the problem is most of these executives have made CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

But in the current situation they're practically aided across the border by American companies who will forge documents for them so they can pay them minimum wage (or in many cases less).

I highly doubt this is a problem that gets solved from the bottom up, if you remove the incentives for being here, or secure the border properly you remove most if not all of the problem.

Agreed. This should be a priority. If you keep illegals out at the border you don't have so many problems about identifying them within the borders.

Why amnesty? This makes no sense to me. Basically, you are rewarding people who have broken the law.

I agree with you, though. Making the cost of hiring illegals higher than the cost of hiring legal labor would reduce the problems significantly. The problem there is that there have been numerous politicos who have been found to have hired illegals, either knowingly or not. Certainly, anyone who forges documents, for any reason, should be sent to prison, as well as being fined heavily. Simply make the risks so high that it becomes untenable.

Thorne

04-27-2010, 01:51 PM

What else can you do? Forced Deportation doesn't work.
It would work if you beefed up border control. Otherwise I agree: its a waste of time.

Amnesty programs aren't outright forgiveness they usually involve fines, backtaxes, and citizenship requirements.
Then its not amnesty, which is, according to Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amnesty), "the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals."
Allowing otherwise law-abiding people to "buy" their way in through payments of back taxes or other means would be something different, which I could go along with. But some people either will not, or will not be able to, meet those requirements. They will have to be deported. But none of this breaking up of families crap. The law should be changed to allow only children of legal residents to be considered citizens. If you're not legal, your kids aren't either. The whole family goes back.

I think if you want to punish the illegal immigrants with forced deportation you need to make it unwise to hire them, if they can't get jobs they probably aren't staying in the US. Raise the fines on the companies by 400% if you want to take a punitive route. Jail executives who aid and abet illegal hiring. In that environment I could see a more punitive program for dealing with illegal immigrants.
Absolutely! In fact, that would be the FIRST change I would want to see: make it far more dangerous, and expensive, for those who hire illegals. And executives of companies who hire the illegals should face prison sentences if they knowingly allow illegals to be hired. And tax evasion laws should already be usable to nail these companies, since they can't be withholding income taxes on undocumented workers.

But in the current situation they're practically aided across the border by American companies who will forge documents for them so they can pay them minimum wage (or in many cases less).
And these are the ones who should pay the steepest penalties, with the longest prison terms. Forging legal documents is a felony, if I'm not mistaken. Start charging these people, and put them on trial, and if they are convicted issue the steepest penalties the law allows, which should include forfeiture of properties, similar to what the drug laws allow.

DuncanONeil

05-11-2010, 11:19 AM

Is this a fair law?
[B]
So far! The state has some experience in crating sound laws.

[COLOR="pink"]Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?
[B]
A scare? I think that would be obvious considering the news. Of course the "racial profiling" cry is pretty standard if there is a hint of diversity involved in an issue.

[COLOR="pink"]Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?
[B]
Yes!

[COLOR="pink"]Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?
[B]
No! We tried that already. Didn't work then likely won't be any better this time. Actually kind of a cop out. Like saying I give up, you win.

[COLOR="pink"]What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?
[B]
Tough question. I don't have the information to answer.

[COLOR="pink"]How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?
[B]
Many quite differently. Some good. some. worse.

[COLOR="pink"]What do you think about "Countries without borders"?
[B]
Bad idea.

[COLOR="pink"]These and many questions came to mind, I am sure my fellow forum members will have more to contribute.

DuncanONeil

05-11-2010, 11:28 AM

As citizens we are asked for identification constantly. And often for proof of residence.

But the bill does not allow "to stop someone and demand papers based on visual evidence".
The law does say; "WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES" (State of Arizona Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070) Further the final responsibility for determination lies with the Feds. "THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." (State of Arizona Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070)

I have issues with anyone who could sign a bill saying it's ok to stop someone and demand papers based on visual evidence, but not be able to identify what visual evidence is.

There are people who feel that this bill basically says "If you look like someone who could potentially have come from Mexico, you are legally required to carry I.D. at all times."

If you had a bill that said:

All Residents of Arizona over age 16 (or 18 or 21) are legally required to carry government issued identification and may be asked for this identification by police at any time.

People would be screaming police state, and opposing the bill en masse.

Yet when you put the visual language in it seems to read:

All Hispanic residents of Arizona who look like adults are legally required to carry government issued identification (e.g. papers) and may be asked for this by police at any time.

I think the evidence of this is seen by the press conference after the Governor signed the bill into law. When asked "What does an illegal immigrant look like" she had no good answer. I can't imagine someone would sign into law a bill that allows visual identification without understanding what that visual identification is, and to me that means dodging the question.

DuncanONeil

05-11-2010, 11:30 AM

Some 80% of the law in question does address issues relating to employers. In fact if an employer repeats hiring illegals thay can lose their license to operate, if one is required.

Agreed. This should be a priority. If you keep illegals out at the border you don't have so many problems about identifying them within the borders.

Why amnesty? This makes no sense to me. Basically, you are rewarding people who have broken the law.

I agree with you, though. Making the cost of hiring illegals higher than the cost of hiring legal labor would reduce the problems significantly. The problem there is that there have been numerous politicos who have been found to have hired illegals, either knowingly or not. Certainly, anyone who forges documents, for any reason, should be sent to prison, as well as being fined heavily. Simply make the risks so high that it becomes untenable.

Stealth694

05-13-2010, 03:49 PM

My mother sent me a e-mail about some Hispanic kids atMontebello High School in California that really shows how much hispanics want to become American Citizens
tell me what you think about it.

google Montebello High School, mexican flag

Miamhail

05-13-2010, 07:04 PM

I live in Arizona and I applaud the law. If for no other reason than to light a fire under the Federal government and bring to attention the total failure of the system as it stand right now. The problem has gotten totally out of control. We have ranchers on the southern border who are constant victims, including the recent killing of one. We have police officers being fired on by the traffickers, while trying to stop them. Our crime rate is disproportionately high due to undocumented aliens.

AZ is the second worst in the county in regards to the state budget. We're broke! We can not afford to keep the social and educational programs we have, much less keep increasing the rolls by enrolling undocumented aliens. We can't keep teachers in the classrooms, yet we have to offer additional classes to Limited English Learners. We can no longer afford the high health care costs associated with undocumented aliens.

National and local news keeps hawking the racial profiling aspect. Racial profiling has always been a buzz word, and rightly so. But the law in AZ is very clear in regards to when an officer may ask about citizenship. It may only happen when another crime or offense has been commissioned. In other words, the police may not just randomly stop someone or walk up to someone and ask for identification. As for having to provide identification, let me ask anyone who has ever been pulled over by an officer this. What is the first thing an officer asks? Drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance. Done. No racial profiling. What happens if you can't provide ID or a means of being identified? They take you to the station and ID you. Once again, it happens to us all. No racial profiling. We all have to carry ID. The law in AZ was written to mirror the Federal law. We're not asking for anything in addition to what the Federal Government is already asking for. The only difference is - we plan on enforcing it.

Jennifer Williams

05-15-2010, 10:41 AM

mkemse

05-15-2010, 11:12 AM

If and when the Arizona Law makr it to the Sunited Sates Suprmem Court, it wil be ruled Unconsituional, aside from the possability that that iswhy the law was passed and signedinto tlaw to test the courts and the push the Goerment and Cnogres to do real Immigarino REform, as it makes it throughthe cour systme the Supreme Court wil rule the Law Uncontituional

IAN 2411

05-15-2010, 12:43 PM

Compiled from reports by Free Press news services:Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were overreacting and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill misguided and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see whether it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level -- or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also would require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.The bill is to take effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks.
[1]Is this a fair law?
[2]Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?
[3]Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?
[4]Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?
[5]What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?
[6]How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?
[7]What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

These and many questions came to mind, I am sure my fellow forum members will have more to contribute.
[1] Laws are only fair for the persons making them.
[2] It has in the UK
[3] Yes and so too should the UK
[4] No, in no circumstances should you show weakness
[5] The UK has 1 Million illegal immigrants and that just the ones we think are here.
[6] Our border agencies tried their best but they were messed with by the bungling Labour Government for the last 13 years.
[7] It was because of Countries without borders that we have so many over here. If it were not for the channel they would be living in my back garden waiting for a free hospital bed or a Labour run council, Free Council house.

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?
Never heard of it, but after a brief browse through Google I'd have to say it's a silly idea. Unless you can eliminate all racial, religious or regional strife, unless you can get everyone to speak the same language, it's just a pipe-dream. Borders are there for a reason, whether you like them or not.
There are no borders in Europe and it was for that reason all the immigrants camped at the channel ports trying to get to the UK. I still can’t figure out why, but maybe they like living in countries that are up to their necks in debt.
Regards ian 2411

steelish

05-15-2010, 02:11 PM

The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.

Er um, if you are in the country ILLEGALLY, doesn't that automatically mean you are committing a crime?

Is this a fair law?

Yes. It's actually already a crime to be in the country ILLEGALLY

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?

No. The police have to be in action already (stop someone for speeding, for instance) and also have probable cause to investigate whether or not the person they have already stopped FOR ANOTHER REASON is in the country illegally.

Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?

Yes

Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?

No. There are thousands who come to America legally. They study and work hard at becoming legal citizens. Why negate all their hard work and also open the door for even more illegals? (We grant amnesty and our borders will be bombarded with more illegals hoping for future amnesty)

What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?

They are much harsher than simply asking for proof of legal alien status and deportation.

Italy (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126411019)
Mexico (http://www.newswithviews.com/Slagle/john18.htm)
Law battle in Europe (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1772587520080617)

(Just a few - I can research it further at a later date)

How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?

See above

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

That's like a candy store without doors in a neighborhood of unruly children

DuncanONeil

05-15-2010, 02:19 PM

Maybe instead of spending so much time and energy on keeping "them" (other human beings) out, we should fix the issue that is causing "them" to so desperately want to come to America (though coming from a poor country to America for a better life has been the way it's gone since this country was founded, and don't tell me every person who came here had the right papers).

You have the concept here both correct and incorrect at the same time. Is it wrong for people to "desperately want to come to America "? No! But to do so in an illegal fashion is wrong. As for having the "right" papers! That set of requirements has changed over the years. All in all you seem to be saying that we should have no borders or rules for entry into the country. How do you wish to justify that position.

One big reason Mexico is so poor is because of NAFTA. We sell U.S. corn in Mexico under "Free Trade" for so cheap that the native Mexicans can't sell their own corn. They can't farm their traditional staple crop and live off of it. They're starving. Oh, and it's our fault.

Mexico was poor long before NAFTA! This is supported by the fact that as a nation we granted amnesty to somewhere between 12 - 20 million illegal aliens in 1986 (under a Republican President). If Mexico was not "poor" then why were so many of them here? NAFTA did not come along until 10 years later. I note that you gloss right over the trade advantage for Mexican companies into this country. "Some[who?] argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise (in the form of lower prices, especially food), even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis." (^ U.S.-Mexico Corn Trade During the NAFTA Era: New Twists to an Old Story USDA Economic Research Service)
"According to Issac (2005), overall, NAFTA has not caused trade diversion, aside from a few industries such as textiles and apparel, in which rules of origin negotiated in the agreement were specifically designed to make U.S. firms prefer Mexican manufacturers. The World Bank also showed that the combined percentage growth of NAFTA imports was accompanied by an almost similar increase of non-NAFTA exports."
"Maquiladoras (Mexican factories which take in imported raw materials and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. Hufbauer's (2005) book shows that income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years ... This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa."
"Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated" ( NAFTA, Corn, and Mexico’s Agricultural Trade LiberalizationPDF (152 KB) p. 4)

If you were starving and your family was starving would you wait for papers to save them, or would you risk annoying the people in the rich country just above you? Think about what you would do if you were in "their" shoes.

Then I am to presume that you would advocate that a person that steals food from the supermarket not experience any legal consequences? That they are to be permitted to break the law just because they are experiencing hard times?

When people have nothing to lose, fancy laws, papers, and highly-guarded borders aren't going to do a thing, they will still find a way to a better life.

Just like the rest of us did.

This is an attempt to change the debate from one of reason to one of emotion. The problem there is one of unintended consequences. One of which is that I can no longer order meat from my local chain supermarket because the meat cutter can not understand what I am saying to him!

By spending all of our efforts on trying to keep "them" out and removal once "they" get in, we waste all of our time and money and energy on a futile effort. As long as Mexico is a miserable place to live and the United States is a better to go, people will find ways in. Instead, wouldn't it benefit everyone if we treated the problem at the source? And then if you want to say "what business is it of ours how Mexico wants to run itself", look around you, it makes itself our business when their people come busting down our door. If we repealed NAFTA instead, and let the Mexicans sell their own corn in their own country, then maybe "they" would stay where "they" belong.

Again an emotional based argument! We are not trying to keep "them" out. We are trying to keep the law breakers out. Why is it the "duty" of the US to repair the problems in a foreign nation? Where does the authority come from to do so? Seems to me the only legal way to accomplish what you desire is to make Mexico part of the USA! I do not think there are enough Mexicans that wish for that to occur. "If we repealed NAFTA instead, and let the Mexicans sell their own corn in their own country, then maybe "they" would stay where "they" belong." I have shown earlier how you belief in this as a cause is not supported. And again your words give the impression that it is wrong for us to have borders and rules to enter the country. Why is that?

DuncanONeil

05-15-2010, 02:37 PM

That the SCOTUS "will" rule the law unconstitutional is an assumption. First of all this is an amendment of an existing law, the greatest portion of the law is directed at employers.
More than that other laws crafted by AZ have been challenged in court for very similar reasons. All have been upheld! By the most Liberal court in the land, to boot.
Why such an uproar when all AZ is seeking to do, is enforce Federal law? And AZ does not determine immigration status the Feds are required to make that determination!

If and when the Arizona Law makr it to the Sunited Sates Suprmem Court, it wil be ruled Unconsituional, aside from the possability that that iswhy the law was passed and signedinto tlaw to test the courts and the push the Goerment and Cnogres to do real Immigarino REform, as it makes it throughthe cour systme the Supreme Court wil rule the Law Uncontituional

mkemse

05-15-2010, 02:39 PM

DuncanONeil

05-15-2010, 02:43 PM

I missed this the first time through!
The law, AZ SB 1070, does not make it "make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. What it does is permit the arrest of an individual the Federal Government has reported is in the country illegally.

Compiled from reports by Free Press news services:

Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were overreacting and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill misguided and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see whether it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level -- or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

The bill, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also would require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.

The bill is to take effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks.

Is this a fair law?

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?

Should the United States pursue stricter law enfocment against illegal aliens?

Or should we grant amnesty to existing illegals?

What are the imigration issues of other countires in the world?

How do other countries handle imigration issues in comparison to the USA?

What do you think about "Countries without borders"?

These and many questions came to mind, I am sure my fellow forum members will have more to contribute.

DuncanONeil

05-15-2010, 02:51 PM

We currently accept some 300,000 legal each year! Perhaps a solution would be to increase that number.
It is estimated that some 500,000 illegally cross each year!
So if we increase the "quota" to 800,000 or even 1,000,000 might that not be a way to correct the problem.

Er um, if you are in the country ILLEGALLY, doesn't that automatically mean you are committing a crime?

Yes. It's actually already a crime to be in the country ILLEGALLY

No. The police have to be in action already (stop someone for speeding, for instance) and also have probable cause to investigate whether or not the person they have already stopped FOR ANOTHER REASON is in the country illegally.

Yes

No. There are thousands who come to America legally. They study and work hard at becoming legal citizens. Why negate all their hard work and also open the door for even more illegals? (We grant amnesty and our borders will be bombarded with more illegals hoping for future amnesty)

They are much harsher than simply asking for proof of legal alien status and deportation.

Italy (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126411019)
Mexico (http://www.newswithviews.com/Slagle/john18.htm)
Law battle in Europe (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1772587520080617)

(Just a few - I can research it further at a later date)

See above

That's like a candy store without doors in a neighborhood of unruly children

I like that analogy!!

DuncanONeil

05-15-2010, 02:56 PM

Yes I think the Law was passed for just that reason, to light a HUGE FIRE under the Federal Governement if for no other reason
Plus as Inderstand it LEGALY, State do not have the power or Authority to set their own Immigarions rules and laws

However, Az has not established its own immigration laws. Nor has it usurped the powers of the INS or ICE.
The law requires that the Federal Government make the determination of the persons legal status in the country!
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051.
B. ... "THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

DuncanONeil

05-15-2010, 03:53 PM

People, it has come to my attention that all of this talk about people being unfairly asked for their "papers" is a moot point.

An alien in the country legally is required UNDER 8 UNITED STATES CODE to register, be fingerprinted and to carry on their person "Certificate of Alien Registration or Alien Receipt Card". So the issue of now having to carry proof of legal status because of AZ law is incorrect.

Stealth694

05-16-2010, 06:03 AM

I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card.
We had something like this in Wisconsin several yrs ago, Afro Americans were complaining about being racially profiled by the police, Turned out that they were being pulled over for legal reasons, the case was dismissed.

I think Arizonia should be allowed to enforce this law for a Year and see what the results are. Something does have to be done, our border is a joke, and population density can get nasty.

Jennifer Williams

05-16-2010, 02:29 PM

Duncan, you are quite educated and informed and I feel honored to be bested by you in debate, Sir.

We currently accept some 300,000 legal each year! Perhaps a solution would be to increase that number.
It is estimated that some 500,000 illegally cross each year!

So if we increase the "quota" to 800,000 or even 1,000,000 might that not be a way to correct the problem.

It seems so simple, yet I'm sure it isn't. I am completely ignorant of who sets these quotas and how they are determined, and why the number 300,000 is chosen, for example.

mkemse

05-16-2010, 04:22 PM

However, Az has not established its own immigration laws. Nor has it usurped the powers of the INS or ICE.
The law requires that the Federal Government make the determination of the persons legal status in the country!
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051.
B. ... "THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."

Yes they have, they just passed their own "Imigration Law" that among otherthings alllows THEIR Law Enforment to question ANYONE who ppears suspecious or Illegal, that is what the clamore is all about, and based on what you posted regarding FEderal Law, that is why thier State Law wil be Rules Uncontitutionmal, they as a State can not set their own Immigarion Laws, which is precisley what they just did, their New State Law Violates this Article 8

roxi.slut

05-16-2010, 05:42 PM

Well, i'm not so sure about the Article 8 business. It is a federal law that marajuana is illegal, yet it is legal in some states.

What it amounts to is turning illegal immigrants in to the Feds, who have final say on the matter. Living in a state where there are plenty of illegals, it's not difficult to figure out who is who for the most part.

i am required by law to hand over documentation proving my identity and non-alien status every time i apply for a job, or get pulled over by police. This is nothing new, and i don't believe it is profiling, honestly. A person's status can be easily checked in the system just by rattling off a series of numbers that is found on their state issued ID card or DL. i know this because i listen to a police scanner. They know when your last brush with the law was, what it was for, if you're on parole or probation, and of course, if you have warrants. They also know if the number on your ID card is a fake. Hell, they know if you have warrants in another state, and if that state is willing to extradite for the particular offense that is stated on your warrant! All in about 5 minutes. So i don't think this is such a terrible thing to do.

Profiling? We are all profiled in one way or another. There is plenty about life that isn't fair. What isn't fair is that i am paying for babies to be born in hospitals so that the mothers can stay here (anchor babies). i am paying to feed and clothe and house some of these people who didn't give enough of a crap to go through the steps it takes to be here legally. They aren't paying anything. THAT is damn sure not fair!

i believe that much attention needs to be paid to this issue. There are other countries that are strict on illegals. Mexico is one of the main ports of entry to the US, and since we don't watch our border crossings as closely there as we do in cooperation with the Canadians, we are leaving ourselves open to more than just taxpayer problems. If it is that easy to get multiple families across the border, what else can be brought in?

Not to mention the crime issues that have grown in Mexico over the last year.

i believe that the Arizona Law is good for drawing attention to the problem and showing Washington that we are serious. i also think that if the rest of the states with large illegal immigrant populations would get their balls pumped up and show some solidarity with Arizona, something might actually change on Capitol Hill. Squeeky wheel gets the most grease.

chuck

05-16-2010, 05:59 PM

Is this a fair law?

Does it promote a radical racial and ethinic profiling scare?
Interesting questions. It seems like there should be a level headed evaluation of the law before jumping to conclusions about what it represents.

The law has been condemned by the current federal administration so they must have a good idea about the content of the law, Right? Not according to this article:

Holder is criticized for comments on Ariz. immigration law, which he hasn't read (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404231.html) - By Jerry Markon

FTA:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said that Arizona's tough new immigration law could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities. He has expressed concerns it could lead to racial profiling, and he has made it clear that his Justice Department is considering a lawsuit to block the legislation from taking effect.

But what Holder has not done, as least as of Thursday, is read the law...
... and these are the people we rely on to run our country.

MMI

05-18-2010, 08:35 AM

Thorne

05-18-2010, 08:51 AM

Can't speak for Americans and Mexicans, but over here, it is frequently pointed out to the anti-immigration lobby that for all the "burden" they place on us, we still benefit economically (not to mention socially and culturally) from immigration.
While there will always be a subset of people who are against anyone different, the main problem as Americans see it is illegal immigrants, those entering without passports or visas, who create phony ID's (or steal other people's ID's) in order to get jobs, who benefit from social services designed to help legal immigrants and citizens and who don't pay taxes. Personally, I regard these kinds of immigrants, whether they be black, white, Hispanic, Canadian, British, French or any other group, as criminals who should be arrested and deported.

We frequently hear that, They're taking our jobs, claiming social benefits and having babies for free on the NHS!!! What this really means is that immigrants are doing work we are too "good" for, are sometimes given enough money for food, clothes and sanitary towels, and have been royally screwed by the people already living here before they try to send them back home.
So by keeping the illegals out we are actually protecting them from the unscrupulous parasites who prey upon them! Another reason to obey the laws!

I don't know whether it's true of other cultures, but Anglo-Saxons seem to have such a self-regard that they see it as noble to keep themselves pure and separate from other peoples regardless of how it muddles their thinking and distorts their behaviour.
From my admittedly limited experience, every race and/or culture generates their fair share of bigots. It's a universal condition which can only slowly be overcome by education.

Surely it can't possibly be the same in that huge melting-pot of humanity called the USA
Absolutely NOT! As long as you're a white Christian, anyway.

(Do I detect a hint of the kettle calling the melting pot black? ;))

MMI

05-18-2010, 09:30 AM

While there will always be a subset of people who are against anyone different, the main problem as Americans see it is illegal immigrants, those entering without passports or visas, who create phony ID's (or steal other people's ID's) in order to get jobs, who benefit from social services designed to help legal immigrants and citizens and who don't pay taxes. Personally, I regard these kinds of immigrants, whether they be black, white, Hispanic, Canadian, British, French or any other group, as criminals who should be arrested and deported.

I was including "illegals" as net providers of benefits ... some are undoubtedly criminals - traffikers, thieves, killers, rapists and so on, others are poor, desperate people looking for a safer, better life. And I suspect that, even among the "illegals" they are the greater part.

So by keeping the illegals out we are actually protecting them from the unscrupulous parasites who prey upon them! Another reason to obey the laws!

That is EXACTLY the kind of thinking I deplore

(Do I detect a hint of the kettle calling the melting pot black? ;))

Very astute ... or perhaps, "Hey, you look just like me."

Thorne

05-18-2010, 10:37 AM

I was including "illegals" as net providers of benefits ... some are undoubtedly criminals
Since they are breaking the law simply by crossing the borders, they are all criminals. Admittedly, they are not all violent criminals, but they are criminals just the same. The person who steals your car when you are away from it is no less a criminal than the person who carjacks you at gunpoint. And while I can sympathize with the person who will steal food to feed his family, his acts lose some of their nobility when you see someone else's children starving because their bread was stolen.

That is EXACTLY the kind of thinking I deplore
Obviously my facetious font did not translate into the Queen's English.

denuseri

05-18-2010, 01:04 PM

Surely it can't possibly be the same in that huge melting-pot of humanity called the USA

Well...truth be told...the fruit doesnt fall all that far from the tree ya know.

lol...welcome back MMI I missed you so very much luv!

denuseri

05-18-2010, 03:04 PM

Here is something a friend sent me the other day about it:

I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which
I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.
Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month
ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border
violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border
have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the
daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher
testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch
vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting
down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found
17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch
in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front,
1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the
drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are
violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the
only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the
back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to
carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during
the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they
can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away
with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not
allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around
chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them
back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are
filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement
that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried
about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people
coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the
border states . We have been over run and once they are here we have the
burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been
over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our
State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions
to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are
not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to
stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an
organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our
population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation
of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect
the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not
do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them
because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the
point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a
North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government
will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like
Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or South American
countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed
in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught
in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to
set up a Nazi Germany . Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts
will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was
an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and
employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local
law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to
determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are
here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is
the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a
driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a
Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc..
So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped
walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are
angry because we dare try and do something and that something the
Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the
"Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America . Maybe we are not worthy of
freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can
to protect our Constitutional Republic . Living in America is not a
right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is
a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the
Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a
citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.

Lion

05-18-2010, 03:14 PM

Send all illegal aliens (above 18) to prison for a month. Then send them back to whatever country they came from.

It's harsh, but you have to figure out ways to protect your own country from people who do not respect the system to apply legally. As an immigrant to Canada, I hate hearing about stories of people cheating the system and living here. I feel for those who want to live a better life, but I think a country's first responsibility is it's citizens.

That being said, the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law, and for this reason, I don't suport it. I do hope that this will shine a light on the whole matter and something is done about it. I get the frustration that residents of Arizona and other Southern states have when they hear about budget deficits and then see a bunch of people who run as soon as they hear/see the cops.

DuncanONeil

05-18-2010, 07:58 PM

"I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card."
Not quite! It is about taking action to do what the Feds seem to be incapable, or unwilling to of accomplishing.

I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card.
We had something like this in Wisconsin several yrs ago, Afro Americans were complaining about being racially profiled by the police, Turned out that they were being pulled over for legal reasons, the case was dismissed.

I think Arizonia should be allowed to enforce this law for a Year and see what the results are. Something does have to be done, our border is a joke, and population density can get nasty.

DuncanONeil

05-18-2010, 08:04 PM

The number was set either by Congress or the INS. Who knows why they decide the things they do??

Here is part of the detail; "proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan ..., and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts - all Democrats.[1]

An annual limitation of 300,000 visas was established for immigrants, including 170,000 from Eastern Hemisphere countries, with no more than 20,000 per country. By 1968, the annual limitation from the Western Hemisphere was set at 120,000 immigrants, with visas available on a first-come, first-served basis. However, the number of family reunification visas was unlimited. While as of 2010 there are no quotas for immigrant spouses of US citizens, quotas for other types of relatives of US citizens have since been instituted."

Duncan, you are quite educated and informed and I feel honored to be bested by you in debate, Sir.

It seems so simple, yet I'm sure it isn't. I am completely ignorant of who sets these quotas and how they are determined, and why the number 300,000 is chosen, for example.

DuncanONeil

05-18-2010, 08:14 PM

Apparently you have taken the position of Holder & Napalitono. You have no need to actually read the law.

AZ SB1070 Sec 11 C. "This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."

So it is clear that the state is implementing Federal law in the enactment of this law. Some 70% of which is directed at employers.

Yes they have, they just passed their own "Imigration Law" that among otherthings alllows THEIR Law Enforment to question ANYONE who ppears suspecious or Illegal, that is what the clamore is all about, and based on what you posted regarding FEderal Law, that is why thier State Law wil be Rules Uncontitutionmal, they as a State can not set their own Immigarion Laws, which is precisley what they just did, their New State Law Violates this Article 8

DuncanONeil

05-18-2010, 08:36 PM

Yes they have, they just passed their own "Imigration Law" that among otherthings alllows THEIR Law Enforment to question ANYONE who ppears suspecious or Illegal, that is what the clamore is all about, and based on what you posted regarding FEderal Law, that is why thier State Law wil be Rules Uncontitutionmal, they as a State can not set their own Immigarion Laws, which is precisley what they just did, their New State Law Violates this Article 8

Now I have proof positive you have not read the law as the aforementioned "Article 8" is in fact a quote from AZ SB 1070!

"this" Article 8 is the Arizona statutes covering the "Enforcement of Immigration Laws," so to state that their new state law violates it when it is in fact adding this article to Title 11, Chapter 7 of the Arizona Revised Statutes makes your statement completely meaningless in that you are saying a law is violating itself.

Aside from the fact that you claim Arizona law will be ruled unconstitutional by violating itself, which is technically, if not logically, impossible. The further text quoted from that article under section B stated that the Federal government is the one doing the verification of the person's immigration status, and all references to immigration status and terms, specifically refer to various sections under 8 United States Code to determine their meaning and what is being enforced. So they cannot be violating Federal laws based on the fact that they are referring to those laws for what it is they are to be enforcing.

If you insist that this new immigration law allows their law enforcement agents to question anyone who appears suspicious or illegal, I challenge you to find where in SB1070 it even makes use of the word "question" and define what these "other things" among which their law enforcement officers are allowed to do.

DuncanONeil

05-18-2010, 08:40 PM

Some people here seem to have the same problem as Holder, Napalitano, and the President.
So I will save you some effort. All you have to do is read this, easier than health care, I promise!
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Interesting questions. It seems like there should be a level headed evaluation of the law before jumping to conclusions about what it represents.

The law has been condemned by the current federal administration so they must have a good idea about the content of the law, Right? Not according to this article:

Holder is criticized for comments on Ariz. immigration law, which he hasn't read (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051404231.html) - By Jerry Markon

FTA:
... and these are the people we rely on to run our country.

DuncanONeil

05-18-2010, 08:54 PM

I was including "illegals" as net providers of benefits ... some are undoubtedly criminals - traffikers, thieves, killers, rapists and so on, others are poor, desperate people looking for a safer, better life. And I suspect that, even among the "illegals" they are the greater part.

Some are criminals?? What part of the term illegals eludes you? That in and of itself makes you criminal!

That is EXACTLY the kind of thinking I deplore

You mean the kind of think that protects others from parasites. Like the coyotes that charge exorbitant fees to move them across the border, maybe, and treat them as less than human. After all, what are coyotes? Aren't they SCAVENGERS?

DuncanONeil

05-18-2010, 09:04 PM

"the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law" Please explain how this is so??

Send all illegal aliens (above 18) to prison for a month. Then send them back to whatever country they came from.

It's harsh, but you have to figure out ways to protect your own country from people who do not respect the system to apply legally. As an immigrant to Canada, I hate hearing about stories of people cheating the system and living here. I feel for those who want to live a better life, but I think a country's first responsibility is it's citizens.

That being said, the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law, and for this reason, I don't suport it. I do hope that this will shine a light on the whole matter and something is done about it. I get the frustration that residents of Arizona and other Southern states have when they hear about budget deficits and then see a bunch of people who run as soon as they hear/see the cops.

MMI

05-19-2010, 11:42 AM

leo9

05-19-2010, 03:46 PM

Thorne

05-19-2010, 07:45 PM

I can make a difference between vile thugs who extort, abuse, steal, rape or murder and impoverished individuals who are god-fearing, moral and for the most part, law-abiding. I would send the former back to the pits they crawled out of, but I would welcome the latter with open arms.
And of course you can tell just by looking at them, right? Something in their eyes, perhaps?

They have, after all, done nothing more than intrude upon land that does not belong to them. And they offer more than they will take.
They have illegally crossed an international border. That's against the law anywhere in the world. And they take more than they can repay. Many, perhaps most, send funds out of the country for their families, an admirable thing perhaps, but still an additional drain on the economy. They don't pay taxes, yet they consume resources intended for citizens.

In England and Wales, trespass is not a crime, for very good reasons. Unfortunately for these people, trespassing beyond a national border is.
It's a crime everywhere! Try crossing into Russia, or Iran, or China without a visa or passport. See what it will get you.

So you can pull me up for making a false distiction between "illegal" and "criminal" but, in fact, there is one.
Sorry, but there really isn't. There may be varying degrees of criminal behavior, but it's criminal nonetheless.

As for imprisoning the illegal aliens, we bang them up for months, not just one, and we keep their kids in gaol too. And we're not above separating mother from child, even to the exgtent of deporting one, but not the other. It doesn't work, so forget it.
I see no reason for doing something like that. You just spend more money keeping them in prison, feeding them and their families, providing them medical care. Just send the whole family packing.

I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

Jennifer Williams

05-19-2010, 11:26 PM

I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Do you know how long it can take to wait for a proper visa? What if you were about to die while waiting? What if your children were about to die while waiting, and you knew there was food enough in that house for all, the people inside and also yourselves?

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea. And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.

Thorne

05-20-2010, 07:41 AM

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?
Does that make what they are doing any more legal? I don't see their leaders starving. Why don't they get it from them? Or replace them.

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea.
We do welcome some 300,000+ every year. My own great-grandparents were immigrants, who came here legally and worked their butts off to make a better life for their children.

And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.
What they are "stealing" are the medical and social services which my taxes are helping to pay for. My medical bills go up to cover the costs of treating indigents and illegals. My health insurance costs go up for the same reason. My taxes go up as well. And everything that once made this country great is declining, crumbling, turning to crap, because we are spending so much money on people who don't do their share.

You want to let illegals into the country? Fine. But don't force me to pay for their health care. Don't force me to pay for their children's educations. Don't force me to provide them with free meals. Don't force me to place notices in every language because they aren't interested in learning mine. And if it makes you happy to have illegals swarming across the border, I suggest that YOU go down and live along that border. You can welcome them with open arms. Just make sure you wear your flak jacket.

Jennifer Williams

05-20-2010, 09:48 AM

Does that make what they are doing any more legal? I don't see their leaders starving. Why don't they get it from them? Or replace them.

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

Not for me.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

So to me, when they take those taxes out of my paycheck, it's the same exact thing: I'm helping somebody, somewhere, who needs it more than I do. Could be an elderly American in a nursing home. Could be a hard-working construction worker who's on unemployment; it could be an illegal immigrant who's life could be saved by a bottle of antibiotics.

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it. I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out". They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

And everything that once made this country great is declining, crumbling, turning to crap,

I would have to disagree; I think this country is great, and is constantly improving all the time.

Thorne

05-20-2010, 10:12 AM

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights.
I never said they didn't deserve human rights. Only that they don't deserve the rights of a citizen, until they become one. A citizen who breaks the law will go to jail, regardless of his motives. Why should a non-citizen be treated differently?

Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?
No, they are not! They are illegal aliens, not citizens of the United States! I don't care what color they are. I don't care what their religion is. I don't care which country they come from. They are breaking the law! That's all I care about!

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?
I know that every dollar we spend easing the suffering of non-citizens is one dollar we cannot spend easing the suffering of our own citizens.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.
Agreed. First you treat them. THEN you figure out how they're going to pay for it. For my part, once they are well enough, you send them back home to their own country and send that country the bill. Let them figure out how to collect.

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it.
Maybe they do deserve it. That doesn't mean that I deserve the hardship that comes with paying for it. Forced charity isn't charity. It's blackmail.

I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out".
I never said one word about not paying taxes. My concern is for how that tax money is used. I don't like the idea of using it to benefit criminals. Whether they are illegal aliens or politicians or big business.

They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.
They are criminals! Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are sick. Yes, their country is broken. Maybe the solution is to annex Mexico and integrate it into the US. Then the problem is solved. Or maybe instead of flocking to this country they should take back their own from their corrupt politicians and leave us alone to take back ours from our corrupt politicians!

MMI

05-20-2010, 11:27 AM

LOL - I've missed arguing with you, Thorne

And of course you can tell just by looking at them, right? Something in their eyes, perhaps?

Yes, I can tell. Not from the look in their eyes, but from their actions. The first group commit crimes of a heinous nature, the second group break the law out of necessity - a law which says, they're of less value than the rest of us are.

They have illegally crossed an international border.
That's against the law anywhere in the world.

Agreed ... but a bad law.

And they take more than they can repay. Many, perhaps most, send funds out of the country for their families, an admirable thing perhaps, but still an additional drain on the economy. They don't pay taxes, yet they consume resources intended for citizens.

First point is false. On balance they contribute more than they take (in UK anyway - and we're more generous than you).

I would venture to suggest that the amount of money leaving the UK to go to foreign families is far less than the money that leaves UK to supplement the coffers of the Coca-Cola Company or McDonalds or General Motors, etc. So what's your point here?

We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do. But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops that you and I glady pay for in preference to the pricey but legitimate goods that would be the alternative. You just close your mind to the fact that goods are made illegally.

And they only consume what they can buy from the pittance they get from their Masters (the slavery metaphor is not accidental): they can't get state support - they're illegal, they'd be declaring their presence!

It's a crime everywhere! Try crossing into Russia, or Iran, or China without a visa or passport. See what it will get you.

I concur absolutely. See comment above

Sorry, but there really isn't. There may be varying degrees of criminal behavior, but it's criminal nonetheless.

A crime is a crime, absolutely, but a tort isn't. Trespass, which is what I was comparing illegally entering a nation with, is a tort in England.

I see no reason for doing something like that. You just spend more money keeping them in prison, feeding them and their families, providing them medical care. Just send the whole family packing.

The reason is to make sure that no-one is denied a right to stay if they have one. But the way they are treated borders on inhumane.

I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

I don't understand why you see it as a problem. Illegal aliens do not, as a rule, walk inot people's houses and take over - it would attract far too much attention. They don't take my money unless I give it to them to buy something they have had to make illegally, so that makes me complicit. That's not stealing. As every American can see, it's free enterprise. And as for "stealing" your country ... don't start me off on that ...

Thorne

05-20-2010, 12:41 PM

LOL - I've missed arguing with you, Thorne
I've missed you, too!

Yes, I can tell. Not from the look in their eyes, but from their actions. The first group commit crimes of a heinous nature, the second group break the law out of necessity - a law which says, they're of less value than the rest of us are.
No, the law says they cannot enter the country without due process, which I consider a just law. It says nothing about their value, only about their rights. And ours.

Agreed ... but a bad law.
A matter of opinion.

First point is false. On balance they contribute more than they take (in UK anyway - and we're more generous than you).
I'd love to see you prove that. I'm not just talking about money, or food, either. I'm talking about services, medical care, all the benefits citizens gain by paying taxes, which the illegals gain without paying.

I would venture to suggest that the amount of money leaving the UK to go to foreign families is far less than the money that leaves UK to supplement the coffers of the Coca-Cola Company or McDonalds or General Motors, etc. So what's your point here?
But Coca-Cola, McDonalds and General Motors pay taxes on the money before it is sent! They pay wages to their employees, who also pay taxes.

We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do.
No, that's what some people want us to think. They may not pay what you consider their fair share, but they do pay taxes, or they go to prison. (cf. Bernie Madoff, or Al Capone.)

But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops that you and I glady pay for in preference to the pricey but legitimate goods that would be the alternative. You just close your mind to the fact that goods are made illegally.
No, I don't ignore that. I have stated, repeatedly, that the best way to stop the flow of illegals is to crack down on those who hire them. And I mean crack down with a vengeance! Long prison times and very steep fines. That should be the first step in any attempt to control illegals.

And they only consume what they can buy from the pittance they get from their Masters (the slavery metaphor is not accidental): they can't get state support - they're illegal, they'd be declaring their presence!
I'm not talking about food or goods, here. I'm talking about services. At least in the US the illegals routinely receive medical and social services which are supposed to benefit legal residents. As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit an illegal alien is a dollar unavailable to help a citizen.

A crime is a crime, absolutely, but a tort isn't. Trespass, which is what I was comparing illegally entering a nation with, is a tort in England.
I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that crossing an international border without proper authorization can be equated with simple trespass.

But the way they are treated borders on inhumane.
I agree, there is no justification for that. They should be treated humanely, but that does not mean that their crimes should be ignored.

I don't understand why you see it as a problem. Illegal aliens do not, as a rule, walk inot people's houses and take over - it would attract far too much attention. They don't take my money unless I give it to them to buy something they have had to make illegally, so that makes me complicit. That's not stealing. As every American can see, it's free enterprise.
I would suggest that you also go and live along the US/Mexican border and see just what the illegals are doing. It's my understanding that people there are afraid to go out at night for fear of being attacked by mobs of illegals, and they cannot leave their homes unattended because they will be ransacked and/or burned if they do.

You may also want to take a look at this (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/restarea.asp).

And as for "stealing" your country ... don't start me off on that ...
I said nothing about stealing my country. I said they were stealing from the citizens of our countries.

MMI

05-20-2010, 04:46 PM

No, the law says they cannot enter the country without due process, which I consider a just law. It says nothing about their value, only about their rights. And ours.

A matter of opinion .. oh, you're just about to say that!

A matter of opinion.

yup ... I prefer mine

I'd love to see you prove that. I'm not just talking about money, or food, either. I'm talking about services, medical care, all the benefits citizens gain by paying taxes, which the illegals gain without paying.

I can't - I'm repeating what I have been informed by people who do know. The Independent, for example, tells us that if the illegals were able to pay taxes (and they would if they were allowed to work legally) we would be £1bn better off http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/amnesty-on-illegal-immigrants-is-worth-1636bn-to-uk-472164.html. That's a significant sum, even if it's an American billion.

Furthermore, if we deported them, it would cost us £4.7 bn while leaving them where they are gets the nasty, filthy jobs done cheap and still provides a £6bn boost to the economy (I suppose that includes the £1bn quoted above). A net profit of £1.3bn.

As for the benefits paid for by tax payers, they are not obtainable without proof of elegibility ... at least not here. So illegals can't claim them and the suggestion that they are stealing such benefits from honest tax-payers is just a low lie.

If we choose to give them help, that's an entirely different matter.

But Coca-Cola, McDonalds and General Motors pay taxes on the money before it is sent! They pay wages to their employees, who also pay taxes.

True, but my point is, the amount of money sent home by the illegals - who are barely paid enough to keep their own body and soul together - is a tiny amount by comparison. It simply doesn't matter.

No, that's what some people want us to think. They may not pay what you consider their fair share, but they do pay taxes, or they go to prison. (cf. Bernie Madoff, or Al Capone.)

Madoff didn't go to gaol for tax evasion. And wasn't it he who said his secretary paid more tax than he did?

You're right about the wealthy not paying their fair share, and the country can only tolerate it because the poor pay more.

No, I don't ignore that. I have stated, repeatedly, that the best way to stop the flow of illegals is to crack down on those who hire them. And I mean crack down with a vengeance! Long prison times and very steep fines. That should be the first step in any attempt to control illegals.

If you're determined to deprive your nation of the benefits it could gain, I agree that this would be the way to start. But if you let them work legally, the slave drivers would not be able to exploit them.

I'm not talking about food or goods, here. I'm talking about services. At least in the US the illegals routinely receive medical and social services which are supposed to benefit legal residents. As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit an illegal alien is a dollar unavailable to help a citizen.

They are cured of their ills and given vast amounts of dole before being allowed to melt back into obscurity to continue sucking off the state and conducting their nefarious practices, are they? It must suck to be an honest tax-payer over there.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that crossing an international border without proper authorization can be equated with simple trespass.

LAW.COM (an American site) defines illegal alien as "an alien (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa".

It defines trespass as "entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawf ul authority ..." Can you see the similarity?

"... and causing any damage, no matter how slight." Most illegals don't cause any damage to America, in fact, as argued above, they provide a benefit.

It goes on, "[Trespass] is a civil wrong (tort) ..." Just like English law - not a crime.

I agree, there is no justification for that. They should be treated humanely, but that does not mean that their crimes should be ignored.

What crimes? Those inmates might have a legal right to stay ... they just look like people we don't want in this country.

If it is decided they have no right to stay, they will go.

I would suggest that you also go and live along the US/Mexican border and see just what the illegals are doing. It's my understanding that people there are afraid to go out at night for fear of being attacked by mobs of illegals, and they cannot leave their homes unattended because they will be ransacked and/or burned if they do.

You may also want to take a look at this (http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/restarea.asp).

We have rubbish dumps and illegal tippers too.

I happen to live in Leicester, which is destined to become the first city in the UK where the white population will be a minority by 2012. I am quite relaxed about this, and I can assure you that the streets of Leicester are safer than those of Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham or Glasgow (to name 4 cities at random)

Jennifer Williams

05-20-2010, 06:16 PM

As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit an illegal alien is a dollar unavailable to help a citizen.

The above statement is to me re-phrased:

As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit a [human being] is a dollar unavailable to help [another human being].

I know it's a pity there aren't enough dollars to go around to help everyone who needs it, but why should we make distinctions that say one deserves it more than the other?

Based on who pays taxes? Because I've worked my share of off-the-books jobs in my lifetime, so count me out, then.

Based on where I was born? I didn't choose where I was born; neither did you. Neither did anyone; so it's not justification to say who deserves more than who.

My own great-grandparents were immigrants, who came here legally and worked their butts off to make a better life for their children.
How lucky and blessed your great-grandparents were, that their visas came in time. Does that make you better than their neighbors, whos visas did not come?

Did you family have a plan B in case the visas did not come?

Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are sick. Yes, their country is broken.
Not sure where you live, but on the front door of my country we hung up a sign that says:

"Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" (by Emma Lazarus, part of the poem engraved inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty).

Her poem does not add at the end "If you have the right documents."

Maybe the solution is to annex Mexico and integrate it into the US. Then the problem is solved.

How is that? Only something like 60% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, so annexing Mexico doesn't solve the problem. Unless of course, you're only trying to keep out Mexican illegal immigrants, and illegal immigrants from Cuba or Europe or Asia are alright.

Jennifer Williams

05-20-2010, 06:23 PM

Profiling? We are all profiled in one way or another. There is plenty about life that isn't fair. What isn't fair is that i am paying for babies to be born in hospitals so that the mothers can stay here (anchor babies). i am paying to feed and clothe and house some of these people who didn't give enough of a crap to go through the steps it takes to be here legally. They aren't paying anything. THAT is damn sure not fair!

You know there is another term for those "anchor babies" (babies born in the United States)- it' s called American.

Whether or not you like their parents, those babies are as American as you or I, so yes, you are paying for Americans to be born in American hospitals. So sorry about that. And that baby deserves all the same care that any other American baby deserves; regardless of the reasons behind why they were born, or who their parents are.

Then after they're born and they go to school they're still American, even if they don't speak English. That is what they are. American. Even if their parents are "illegals", any child born here belongs here. So yes, we'll feed and clothe them if their parents won't. We shouldn't have to; their parents should be able to support them, but if we kick their parents out and make them orphans...well, then we have to feed and clothe them. Because they are our own.

And if you're born in America and therefore are American, you deserve to go to school, just like any other American born in America, regardless of your parentage.

Perhaps it would do us better to make it so that people could find a better way to stay here than to create a life they can't support.

leo9

05-21-2010, 06:32 AM

Thorne

05-21-2010, 07:25 AM

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

I suppose most of those who would place themselves in the 'Yes' group would classify me as being in the 'No' group, but it isn't that simple at all. I'm not advocating denying anyone their basic human rights. But my interpretation of those rights may be quite different from yours. I don't claim that my human rights are any better than someone else's human rights, either.

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens. And those rights come with certain responsibilities. Allowing those same rights to non-citizens without insisting on them accepting the responsibilities that come with them cheapens those rights.

Most rational people, I think, would agree that criminals, defined as those who break the law, lose some of those rights by doing so. As a citizen, I have the right to apply for a driver's license, and once receiving one I have the right to drive my vehicle on public roads. If I commit a crime, such as driving to fast or driving while intoxicated, I could have that right revoked. I could have my freedom restricted, at least temporarily. And no one would complain about my being profiled or mistreated because of who I am. After all, I've committed a crime!

So why is it that when someone crosses the border illegally they are considered, by some, to have more rights than I have? How can anyone claim I am profiling if I send someone back for breaking the law? Aren't they subject to the same restrictions and laws as everyone else? Their color, language or homeland are not the issue! Their human rights are not the issue! The issue is that they are breaking the law! Therefore they are subject to the penalties for breaking that law, which can involve incarceration and deportation. That's not profiling.

If an illegal alien were to drive a car without a valid license, and he were to kill an innocent pedestrian, would you consider it wrong for the police to arrest him? Would they be wrong to hold him in jail? Would it be profiling to try him in a court of law for his crime? And if convicted, would we be violating his rights by sending him to prison? I think few would answer 'Yes' to any of these questions. Yet some of you seem to believe it's a violation of his rights to ask for his ID after he's struck and killed that person.

Believe me, nothing would please me more than for the entire world to be united under one flag, one government, one economy, so we could all travel anywhere we wished without worrying about borders. All people would be equal, there would be no hoarding of resources, and peace would reign over the Earth. I think it would be wonderful if we could all live together without laws to restrict our freedoms. But right here, right now, the world doesn't work that way. And allowing criminals to get away with their crimes just because you feel sorry for them isn't going to make the world a better place. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

MMI

05-21-2010, 10:06 AM

Who is Jennifer Williams? I think I've fallen in love with her.

MMI

05-21-2010, 10:48 AM

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

Illegal imigrants do not have the same rights that you have. They can't do a legitimate job, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get an education, they can't get medical aid or food stamps, because, if they apply for them, they get noticed, rounded up, processed through a gaol and deported to their homeland ... where they might starve, or be tortured or killed by their government.

Everything they do, they do illegally. If American air is for the esclusive use of US taxpayers and their dependants, then these immigrants would break the law by breathing. But they have to breathe - they have no choice.

Many of them have little or no choice when they leave their country, so why should it matter to them that they step beyond some badly policed fences marking the US border? What harm do they do? You brand them as "criminals": men, women, children alike just because their presence offends you. How many were criminals in their home nations.

The US constitution might consider aliens to be unworthy, but it wsas itself drafted by people committing a much more serious criminal act ... and you idolise them.

Thorne

05-21-2010, 11:42 AM

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.
You don't have to, my friend. I dispense it for free. If you are paying for it then someone is ripping you off.

Illegal imigrants do not have the same rights that you have. They can't do a legitimate job, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get an education, they can't get medical aid or food stamps, because, if they apply for them, they get noticed, rounded up, processed through a gaol and deported to their homeland ...
Not in the US. While they may not be able to get a driver's license, their children can be sent to schools, and they are eligible for both free breakfasts and lunches. They get medical aid simply by showing up in a clinic or emergency room. I don't know about food stamps, off hand, but there are other social services that they can apply for without having their names turned over to the INS. Unless I have been badly misinformed, there are some places where it is illegal to turn them over to the Feds unless they actually violate a law. (Other than being illegal in the first place, that is.)

Many of them have little or no choice when they leave their country, so why should it matter to them that they step beyond some badly policed fences marking the US border? What harm do they do? You brand them as "criminals": men, women, children alike just because their presence offends you. How many were criminals in their home nations.
Yes, some are branded as criminals in their home countries, and there are laws here to protect such refugees. Cubans, in particular, are generally protected from deportation, provided they can safely reach the US. Other nationalities can also apply for refugee status, which is different than immigration. If there is a recognized threat of persecution for those being sent back, they will not be.

The US constitution might consider aliens to be unworthy, but it wsas itself drafted by people committing a much more serious criminal act ... and you idolise them.
Still trying to get the colonies back, are you? Just remember, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. Obviously. Because they won. Twice.

You know what they say: Those fighting for me are freedom fighters, those fighting against me are terrorists.

Jennifer Williams

05-21-2010, 02:09 PM

Who is Jennifer Williams? I think I've fallen in love with her.

I'm me, that's who I am ;) A better question is who are you? Your profile is all blank...

And I'm so glad to have a debater on my side; I feel a little bad for Thorne, he needs another person on his side to make this fair.

Jennifer Williams

05-21-2010, 02:40 PM

Leo9 hit the nail on the head:

some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other.

I am of the opinion that there is no criteria that makes another group of people "less good", including criminal status. Evan a criminal is a human being, which is why we don't just chop off their heads like was done in the old days.

So call them criminals if that makes you feel better; they are still not an "other", it is still wrong to ignore their miserable circumstances and try to justify why you deserve better than they do.

Not in the US. While they may not be able to get a driver's license, their children can be sent to schools, and they are eligible for both free breakfasts and lunches.

We're feeding hungry children! Oh, the horror! Oh, right, they're someone else's children. Well let them starve, then, carry on.

They get medical aid simply by showing up in a clinic or emergency room. Last time I checked, that was what an emergency room or clinic was for. You'd get help if you showed up in an emergency room...oh, wait, you get to stand on the "I'm more human than you are." line.

Don't force me to place notices in every language because they aren't interested in learning mine.

1) Go to Europe. Almost every sign there is multi-lingual. Society has not fallen apart.

2) The United States does not have an official language. And we shouldn't. Many countries have several prominant languages (like Canada is both English and French and a few others, I believe). They run just fine.

3) My guess is you haven't bothered to personally get to know any of "these people." I get to know a lot of all sorts of people in my job, and when the same person comes back over a span of time and they're here for longer and longer, guess what? They learn English! Most of them are working their butts off to learn our language- it's just that so many of them are new that to the outside observer who doesn't bother to get to know the individual people, and sees them only as a mass group, it would appear that they aren't learning English.

Talk to some of them sometime, if you dare. Become friends with them, learn who they are. See if the ones who have been here for five months can speak English (could you?), who have been here for a year, who have been here for five years.

Maybe you'll even learn some of their language. Unless, of course, you think one language is better than another.

Believe me, nothing would please me more than for the entire world to be united under one flag, one government, one economy, so we could all travel anywhere we wished without worrying about borders. All people would be equal, there would be no hoarding of resources, and peace would reign over the Earth. I think it would be wonderful if we could all live together without laws to restrict our freedoms. But right here, right now, the world doesn't work that way.

Which is why some of us are trying so hard to change that. Saying "things aren't perfect so bend to the current way of things." doesn't cut it. If things are wrong, fix them, change them. Maybe perfect world peace is an unreality, however; constantly striving towards it would be a necessary part of our humanity. To simply give up and say "Well, it's good enough." doesn't fly.

Jennifer Williams

05-21-2010, 02:46 PM

I feel this news article is quite relevant to our current debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2186

Stealth694

05-21-2010, 03:45 PM

Sounds like something that happened alot in the 70's-80's.

A pregnant Mexican woman would stick close to the rio grande and when she went into labor she would dash across the river and either go to a Hospital or get the police to arrest her and take her to the Hospital, when the Child was born it was an american citizen and the Mother was ipso facto an american citizen.

They changed that law in the 90's (?) and this is where we get the family with a legal American child and an illegal Mexican parent.

leo9

05-21-2010, 05:40 PM

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens.

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

Thorne

05-21-2010, 09:18 PM

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.
Again someone misrepresenting what I said. I agree with you! There are certain basic human rights which all persons have. But there are other rights which are granted to American citizens, just as there are certain rights granted to British citizens, or Canadian citizens, or citizens of any country. These are ADDITIONAL rights, over and above those inalienable rights which all people have.

Thorne

05-21-2010, 09:19 PM

I feel a little bad for Thorne, he needs another person on his side to make this fair.
Don't feel bad for me. I rather enjoy the notoriety.

Thorne

05-21-2010, 09:53 PM

I am of the opinion that there is no criteria that makes another group of people "less good", including criminal status. Evan a criminal is a human being, which is why we don't just chop off their heads like was done in the old days.
Once more, for clarification. I don't deny that criminals have rights. Just that they lose SOME rights as a result of their criminal acts, when they have been convicted and sent to prison.

So call them criminals if that makes you feel better; they are still not an "other", it is still wrong to ignore their miserable circumstances and try to justify why you deserve better than they do.
And another misrepresentation. When did I claim I "deserve" better than they do? All I've said was that they have committed criminal acts and, when convicted, should be punished for those commissions. I would expect to receive the same treatment if I committed a criminal act. How is that claiming I'm better?

We're feeding hungry children! Oh, the horror! Oh, right, they're someone else's children. Well let them starve, then, carry on.
I saw a letter the other day (I can't find it now, sorry) in which the Gov. of Arizona talked about these children. According to her they are receiving these meals because their parents have no DECLARED income, yet the children are far from starving (some are even overweight) and large quantities of this "free" food is discarded every day because they don't eat it!

But once more I'm being painted with the wrong brush. My concern is not that we are feeding these children, but that their parents are not putting into the system to help pay for it themselves! When my kids went to school they had to BUY their meals, or bring them from home, because OUR income was on the record. At the same time, my tax money was going towards feeding children whose parents were making at least as much as I was but NOT paying taxes on it.

Last time I checked, that was what an emergency room or clinic was for. You'd get help if you showed up in an emergency room...oh, wait, you get to stand on the "I'm more human than you are." line.
And again! It's not the services themselves that bother me. I fully agree with treating those who need treatment. But when it comes time to pay the piper, they provide false ID's, false addresses, false everything, and walk off. Meanwhile, you and I, who do pay our bills, are hit with inflated charges to cover these illegals. And the hospitals generally are not permitted to track them down.

1) Go to Europe. Almost every sign there is multi-lingual. Society has not fallen apart.
It's not doing too well, either.

2) The United States does not have an official language. And we shouldn't. Many countries have several prominant languages (like Canada is both English and French and a few others, I believe). They run just fine.
No, officially we do not have one language. But if you're a business person, try putting up a sign which says, "Spanish Not Spoken Here" and see what happens. This happened several years ago in Philadelphia, I believe. A man running a family-owned business in a neighborhood which was becoming increasingly Hispanic posted just such a sign, since neither he nor his family, who were his employees, spoke any Spanish. The city FORCED him to remove the sign and, if I remember correctly, post signs in Spanish, even though he could not speak the language. I just wonder what would have happened if he'd placed a sign claiming that ENGLISH was not spoken there. My guess is that it would have been all right.

Talk to some of them sometime, if you dare. Become friends with them, learn who they are. See if the ones who have been here for five months can speak English (could you?), who have been here for a year, who have been here for five years.
You're right, I don't know any Hispanics, legal or otherwise. I also don't know any Muslims, or Hindus, or Japanese, or Koreans, or even too many WASPs. I'm a private person and don't make friends. Or even acquaintances.

Maybe you'll even learn some of their language. Unless, of course, you think one language is better than another.
Between high school and college I studied Latin, French and Spanish, and I was terrible in all of them. I had enough trouble with English. And yes, for me, English is a better language. But only because it's the only one I know.

If things are wrong, fix them, change them. Maybe perfect world peace is an unreality, however; constantly striving towards it would be a necessary part of our humanity. To simply give up and say "Well, it's good enough." doesn't fly.
I never said it was good enough. But this is a nation, a civilization, of laws. And these laws should be obeyed UNTIL they've been changed. Ignoring laws you don't like only leads to anarchy.

Jennifer Williams

05-21-2010, 11:07 PM

My concern is not that we are feeding these children, but that their parents are not putting into the system to help pay for it themselves!

Well if we allowed them to work legally in legal jobs, then they could put into the system. As it stands now, it's not allowed for them to work a legal job- it's illegal for them to put into the system! Don't make a law that says they can't put into the system and then complain that they're not putting into the system. It's a catch-22; fix one side or the other.

But when it comes time to pay the piper, they provide false ID's, false addresses, false everything, and walk off.

Um...let's see...why on earth would the provide false information...what would happen to them if they provided correct information? Might they be living in fear of being deported?

You're causing your own problem here. If they were allowed to stay, they'd have no reason to hide, no reason to lie.

No, officially we do not have one language. But if you're a business person, try putting up a sign which says, "Spanish Not Spoken Here" and see what happens.

If I was a business person, why on earth would I do this? Why would I prevent people with dollars from spending their money in my store? Most businesses have figured out that a dollar is a dollar, regardless of who's spending it, and so if they can market to both English and non-English speakers and get all of the dollars, they come out richer.

This happened several years ago in Philadelphia, I believe. A man running a family-owned business in a neighborhood which was becoming increasingly Hispanic You say that like it's a bad thing, as if there's something wrong with Hispanic people. Or rather that they're fine, so long as they're not in his neighborhood.

posted just such a sign, since neither he nor his family, who were his employees, spoke any Spanish. The city FORCED him to remove the sign

They should have let him keep it up- the loss of business he received would have spoken for itself. Apparently dollars from people who speak Spanish are not good enough for him.

and, if I remember correctly, post signs in Spanish, even though he could not speak the language.

Oh no, the Spanish is going to get me! Help! Something different from me, ack, get it off, get it off!

I just wonder what would have happened if he'd placed a sign claiming that ENGLISH was not spoken there. My guess is that it would have been all right.

I would sincerely hope not. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of who it's directed at; and most business owners are smart enough not to alienate their customers.

You're right, I don't know any Hispanics, legal or otherwise.
Well that was obvious. It might do you better to think of them as "Hispanic people", though, not "Hispanics." Just a suggestion.

I also don't know any Muslims, or Hindus, or Japanese, or Koreans, or even too many WASPs. I'm a private person and don't make friends. Or even acquaintances.

Between high school and college I studied Latin, French and Spanish, and I was terrible in all of them. I had enough trouble with English. And yes, for me, English is a better language. But only because it's the only one I know.

And what if Spanish was the only language you knew? What if learning English was hard for you? And some kind soul thought to put up signs in your language, so you could know where the bathroom was? How is this a bad situation?

I never said it was good enough. But this is a nation, a civilization, of laws. And these laws should be obeyed UNTIL they've been changed. Ignoring laws you don't like only leads to anarchy.

Which is why we're trying to change the laws, for the better, not for worse, like this Arizona thing. That's why we're not standing for it; because it's wrong and can't be left to stand. It's not the solution to the problem. It won't solve anything; it will only create more fear and anger about the situation.

Jennifer Williams

05-21-2010, 11:08 PM

Don't feel bad for me. I rather enjoy the notoriety.

Well you're certainly holding your own, I'd have to say! :)

denuseri

05-22-2010, 12:29 AM

Psst Jen...dont hold your breath...I havent went off yet with what I think...lol

Thorne

05-22-2010, 05:07 AM

It's a catch-22; fix one side or the other.
Silly me! I thought that's what the LAW was for!

Might they be living in fear of being deported?
Only if they are here ILLEGALLY!

You're causing your own problem here. If they were allowed to stay, they'd have no reason to hide, no reason to lie.
If they were LEGAL immigrants, they would be allowed to stay.

If I was a business person, why on earth would I do this? Why would I prevent people with dollars from spending their money in my store?
Why do you assume he was preventing anyone from shopping at his store? The only thing that sign says is that no on there speaks Spanish.

You say that like it's a bad thing, as if there's something wrong with Hispanic people. Or rather that they're fine, so long as they're not in his neighborhood.
Again, you're assuming a bias that is not evident. The neighborhood was becoming increasingly Hispanic, but no one in the store spoke any Spanish. He was simply informing his customers of that problem, not denying them goods or services.

They should have let him keep it up- the loss of business he received would have spoken for itself. Apparently dollars from people who speak Spanish are not good enough for him.
Still assuming his aim was to keep the Spanish speakers out. But even if it were so, if it is a privately owned business, shouldn't that be his choice?

Oh no, the Spanish is going to get me! Help! Something different from me, ack, get it off, get it off!
These reflexive assumptions of fear and hatred are becoming annoying. Stop putting words into my mouth, please. While it is possible that there was some intolerance going on in the man's mind, there's no proof of it. Why you insist on assuming it is beyond me.

The law says that a business cannot refuse service or goods to people because of the race, creed or color. It's a good law, one I support whole-heartedly. Informing people of a largely-Spanish speaking neighborhood that he doesn't speak Spanish does not violate that law. The same would apply if the neighborhood were largely Hungarian, or Swedish, or any other group. Placing signs in your store in the language of the neighborhood is obviously good business. But as far as I know it is not illegal NOT to place such signs. Nor should it be. As you said, if the locals don't feel welcome, it's the business owner who will suffer. That's his problem, not the government's.

Well that was obvious. It might do you better to think of them as "Hispanic people", though, not "Hispanics." Just a suggestion.
I don't care WHAT you want to call them. Hispanics is simply a convenient term I'm using for clarity. It has no discriminatory connotations that I know of.

And what if Spanish was the only language you knew? What if learning English was hard for you? And some kind soul thought to put up signs in your language, so you could know where the bathroom was? How is this a bad situation?
I would be grateful, naturally. But I wouldn't consider it discrimination if he did NOT put up such signs. I would, however, make damned sure I learned enough English to be able find the bathrooms, regardless of how difficult it was.

Which is why we're trying to change the laws, for the better, not for worse, like this Arizona thing. That's why we're not standing for it; because it's wrong and can't be left to stand.
As far as I can determine, this law only gives officials the ability to enforce EXISTING Federal statutes, which the Federal government has NOT been doing. As for whether the laws are bad, I still think that's a matter of opinion.

Oh, and one more thing. Just because I assume the role of Devil's Advocate, don't make the assumption that I'm the Devil himself. I'm not nearly that hot!;)

steelish

05-22-2010, 07:03 AM

I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card.

It's a moot point anyway. ALL traffic violators or law violators, regardless of what the police stop them for are asked a standard question immediately; "May I see your ID?"

Is that profiling?

steelish

05-22-2010, 07:17 AM

And what if Spanish was the only language you knew? What if learning English was hard for you?

Sorry, but if you immigrate from Mexico and CHOOSE to live in the US, my opinion is that you should learn to speak English. My grandfather immigrated from Mexico in 1919 and FORBID family members to speak spanish. He insisted that being an American meant embracing every aspect of America, including the language. I understand being bilingual. No problem there. But simply not learning the language because it's "hard" to learn is ridiculous. Most corporations offer "speakers of another language" courses to empower their workforce. I know the company I used to work for did. As they transitioned over to computer-run machinery and everyone had to be English speaking the courses were continuously offered...and guess what, many chose to quit rather than even try.

It's absolutely ridiculous to choose to live in another country and then not learn the language. I understand it might take a while to learn it, but eventually immigrants should be able to speak English.

If you chose to move to France and lived in a region that spoke only french, would you learn the language? I know I would, or I would (at the least) continue trying to learn it until I was six feet under.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 07:22 AM

So basically because it is hard and/or difficult to accomplish you are then advocating non-enforcement of the law? How do you reconcile that with "The most dangerous laws are the ones that are only enforced when the cops feel like it. It means that you depend on the cops' goodwill, so they can do as they please and nobody dares to argue. That way lies bribery and corruption. " (Leo9)

I can make a difference between vile thugs who extort, abuse, steal, rape or murder and impoverished individuals who are god-fearing, moral and for the most part, law-abiding. I would send the former back to the pits they crawled out of, but I would welcome the latter with open arms. They have, after all, done nothing more than intrude upon land that does not belong to them. And they offer more than they will take.

In England and Wales, trespass is not a crime, for very good reasons. Unfortunately for these people, trespassing beyond a national border is.

So you can pull me up for making a false distiction between "illegal" and "criminal" but, in fact, there is one.

As for imprisoning the illegal aliens, we bang them up for months, not just one, and we keep their kids in gaol too. And we're not above separating mother from child, even to the exgtent of deporting one, but not the other. It doesn't work, so forget it.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 07:28 AM

This business about multi-generation non-natives is a polemic. It is easy to say but as a matter of course here we, technically, have multi-generation illegals. Yes technically since the Constitution grants citizenship under specific circumstances.
But the point is that illegals are illegal. As such that is how they should be treated. We have rules for reasons and a border is one of the rules! I used to work at a place where a person could be fired for picking up a nickle off the floor and putting it in their pocket, no it was not a bank or other commercial sales enterprise.

And that's besides the highly trained (at some poorer country's expense) doctors and other experts who keep the NHS going so we don't have to spend money training them.

And, of course, plenty of what such ranters think of as "immigrants" are actually third generation citizens. Eric Pickles was a hard-right Conservative, but when his party started to talk about "sending the Asians back where they came from" he brought them down to earth by pointing out that in his constituency, you could send most of them back where they came from with a bus ticket.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 07:32 AM

It's a crime everywhere! Try crossing into Russia, or Iran, or China without a visa or passport. See what it will get you.

If you need any further evidence all you need do is consider the plight of the three student hikers vacationing in Iraq that inadvertently crossed that invisible line.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 07:44 AM

I don't think you quite understand! I have no requirement to invite ANYONE into my home. It is my choice and if done it is done under my rules. Regardless of your reasons if you choose on you own to enter you have broken the law. Does your example of hunger absolve them from the law? I think not!

We are currently accepting, as permanent residents, some 1% of our population annually. Perhaps that is not enough! But that change is a Government matter not a repudiation of law. I stated somewhat earlier, somewhere, that as the illegals are some 500,000 annually perhaps the permanent visas need to be 1,000,000. But I suspect that would do little to stem the tide.

As for stealing the "bread" I suspect you are being a bit too literal in that. An illegal taking advantage of any service provided in this country IS in effect stealing from the rest of us, at least those of us that may need said service. Then there are those businesses that are treating illegals better than the citizens of this country. They get better deals on credit, don't have to prove who they are, don't need to prove they will pay it back. This is the "bread" in question!

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Do you know how long it can take to wait for a proper visa? What if you were about to die while waiting? What if your children were about to die while waiting, and you knew there was food enough in that house for all, the people inside and also yourselves?

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea. And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.

Thorne

05-22-2010, 07:45 AM

If you need any further evidence all you need do is consider the plight of the three student hikers vacationing in Iraq that inadvertently crossed that invisible line.

While I appreciate the support, this might be a bad example. Given the current state of affairs in Iraq, and throughout the region, one has to question the motives of anyone "vacationing" there. And if their motives are pure, I would certainly question their intelligence!

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 08:22 AM

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

Much of what you call human rights are in fact codified in out laws. But by what you say you are in fact dismissing all law, not just those specific rules. Do you really believe that human rights trump legal rights? What about the human rights of the country's citizens that can not get help because an illegal got there first and got the last of the aid?

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

Well it might help. But the real problem with taxes are not really the taxes. The problem is the people that are spending the money. What the taxes are and how much, as well as who is paying is hidden in the labyrinth of the Tax Code. The people that spend the money are the ones that make the code! If they could not hide the increases, i.e. an excess profit tax on a business (which said company never pays), things might change. Further there is no indifference to the "suffering" of others. It is just that it is noit the responsibility of the Government to decide for me what I sghould do with my money or assistance!

Not for me.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

Completely off point!

So to me, when they take those taxes out of my paycheck, it's the same exact thing: I'm helping somebody, somewhere, who needs it more than I do. Could be an elderly American in a nursing home. Could be a hard-working construction worker who's on unemployment; it could be an illegal immigrant who's life could be saved by a bottle of antibiotics.

Were you able to keep that money what would stop you from personally provide the assistance you appear to be willing to provide. How do you think you would feel if you did aid someone? I suspect that you would fell considerably different that you do when you look at the taxes taken from your paycheck without your permission. It would be much more rewarding as well! You do realize that about 30% of the price of everything is actually taxes?

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it. I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out". They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

First you have to define what it is that is being deserved. Second not everything is equally deserved by everyone. Following you argument to its logical conclusion would mandate that every person in the country receive the exact same salary. But how do you determine that salary? Even more important what would be the result of everyone having the exact same salary?

I would have to disagree; I think this country is great, and is constantly improving all the time.[/QUOTE]

I must presume, based on your statement, that you are relatively young. How can you believe that spending the country into oblivion is an improvement. How can you believe that moving more and more people off the tax rolls to the detriment of those remaining on those rolls is an improvement? How can you believe that our elected representatives acting as the Lords & Ladies of the land is an improvement?

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
And of course you can tell just by looking at them, right? Something in their eyes, perhaps?
[QUOTE=MMI;871348]Yes, I can tell. Not from the look in their eyes, but from their actions. The first group commit crimes of a heinous nature, the second group break the law out of necessity - a law which says, they're of less value than the rest of us are.

There is, almost, never a necessity to violate a law. Such an action is a choice, every time. Doing so has consequences. However, most that think in this particular case the law should not matter are close to being on the side of anarchy. Since they wish to be able to decide which laws should be able to apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
They have illegally crossed an international border.
That's against the law anywhere in the world.

Agreed ... but a bad law.

Why are rules to manage the borders of a given country a "bad law"? You are essentially saying that a country has no right to its sovereignty!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
And they take more than they can repay. Many, perhaps most, send funds out of the country for their families, an admirable thing perhaps, but still an additional drain on the economy. They don't pay taxes, yet they consume resources intended for citizens.

First point is false. On balance they contribute more than they take (in UK anyway - and we're more generous than you).

I would venture to suggest that the amount of money leaving the UK to go to foreign families is far less than the money that leaves UK to supplement the coffers of the Coca-Cola Company or McDonalds or General Motors, etc. So what's your point here?

We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do. But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops that you and I glady pay for in preference to the pricey but legitimate goods that would be the alternative. You just close your mind to the fact that goods are made illegally.

And they only consume what they can buy from the pittance they get from their Masters (the slavery metaphor is not accidental): they can't get state support - they're illegal, they'd be declaring their presence!

It may be true that those in the UK send out a small sum but such is not the case in the US. Something in excess of $17 billion in a year. On top of that it is estimated that the cost of these illegals cost the country some $100 billion annually (ABC News)

"We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do."
Just how do you make this statement. I am sure you understand the system in the UK but have you researched the US tax system? The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 4% of the income tax. The top 5% of wage earners pay a piddling 53.25% (IRS). So just what leads you to say this?

"But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops" You are making an assumption with this statement, at laeast as far as the "sweat shop". Breaking other laws aside if an employer hires an illegal they should be punished!

"(T)he pittance they get from their Masters". Again another unsupported assumption! They don't get state support!?!?! Then how do you account for illegals getting free health care, food stamps, and various other social services that I would have to be nearly at deaths door to even thing of being allowed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
Sorry, but there really isn't. There may be varying degrees of criminal behavior, but it's criminal nonetheless.

A crime is a crime, absolutely, but a tort isn't. Trespass, which is what I was comparing illegally entering a nation with, is a tort in England.

While torts are civil action in court it is not axiomatic that the underlying reason for the tort is not criminal. The underlying legal requirement of a tort is an injury. Said injury may be to "the person, such as assault, battery, imprisonment; to the property in possession; or they may be committed without force. Torts of this nature are to the absolute or relative rights of persons, or to personal property in possession or reversion, or to real property, corporeal or encorporeal, in possession or reversion: these injuries may be either by nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance." (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
I see no reason for doing something like that. You just spend more money keeping them in prison, feeding them and their families, providing them medical care. Just send the whole family packing.

The reason is to make sure that no-one is denied a right to stay if they have one. But the way they are treated borders on inhumane.

The inhumane treatment at the border does not come from the US but the Coyotes that take the illegals money for a promise of transport to the US. Unless you wish to say that every single arrest ever made is inhumane treatment. Sometimes the only thing that keeps these people alive IS being arrested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

I don't understand why you see it as a problem. Illegal aliens do not, as a rule, walk inot people's houses and take over - it would attract far too much attention. They don't take my money unless I give it to them to buy something they have had to make illegally, so that makes me complicit. That's not stealing. As every American can see, it's free enterprise. And as for "stealing" your country ... don't start me off on that ...

Not only is what they are doing nearly the same as stealing but some are in fact advocating that what they are doing is perfectly legitimate as Hispanics were in the area first!

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:15 AM

No, I don't ignore that. I have stated, repeatedly, that the best way to stop the flow of illegals is to crack down on those who hire them. And I mean crack down with a vengeance! Long prison times and very steep fines. That should be the first step in any attempt to control illegals.

This is interesting. It may be considered a bit in left field but the recent law from AZ that hit the news is about 70% directed at employers.
"13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions
A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC."
Section 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense
F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court:
(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.
(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) ... The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney
(d)
2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business."(State of Arizona
Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070)

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:18 AM

MMI
"I can't - I'm repeating what I have been informed by people who do know. The Independent, for example, tells us that if the illegals were able to pay taxes (and they would if they were allowed to work legally) we would be £1bn better off "
I already posted the numbers for the US that show, even if your source is correct, the data for the US is apparently different!

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:20 AM

You're right about the wealthy not paying their fair share, and the country can only tolerate it because the poor pay more.

What would you consider their "fair share" 100%?

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:21 AM

They are cured of their ills and given vast amounts of dole before being allowed to melt back into obscurity to continue sucking off the state and conducting their nefarious practices, are they? It must suck to be an honest tax-payer over there.
Yes! It does!!

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:24 AM

A matter of opinion .. oh, you're just about to say that!

yup ... I prefer mine
I am tired of this! It is exceedingly hard to debate an issue in a situation where most of the counter argument is couched in emotional or veiled terms.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:31 AM

The distinction is citizenship and legality.
You are not arguing from a position of logic but a position of heart.
Have you seen the rules some countries have in place for immigrants to their country?
Clearly Mr. Calderon believes that Mexico’s immigration laws are far more progressive and fair than our own–so why don’t we adopt Mexico’s legislation on immigration?

This would include the following provisions per J. Michael Waller at the Center for Security Policy (Fox News link)

That immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically;

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records; and

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation

Furthermore, that:

* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

But wait! There’s more!

Naturally we would want to be selective as to who we allow into our nation, so the following provisions would apply (Articles are from Mexico’s Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population):

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico the United States”according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican American laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance head of DHS may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

For the sake of national security, we would have the follwing provisions:

* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

* A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Failure to obey the rules would result in the following sanctions:

* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico the US and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico the US — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

For illegal immigrants:

* “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos dollars will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico the US instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

* Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

And for Americans who provide assistance to illegal immigrants:

* A Mexican US citizen who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico the US will be fined. (Article 132)

The above statement is to me re-phrased:

As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit a [human being] is a dollar unavailable to help [another human being].

I know it's a pity there aren't enough dollars to go around to help everyone who needs it, but why should we make distinctions that say one deserves it more than the other?

Based on who pays taxes? Because I've worked my share of off-the-books jobs in my lifetime, so count me out, then.

Based on where I was born? I didn't choose where I was born; neither did you. Neither did anyone; so it's not justification to say who deserves more than who.

How lucky and blessed your great-grandparents were, that their visas came in time. Does that make you better than their neighbors, whos visas did not come?

Did you family have a plan B in case the visas did not come?

Not sure where you live, but on the front door of my country we hung up a sign that says:

"Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" (by Emma Lazarus, part of the poem engraved inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty).

Her poem does not add at the end "If you have the right documents."

How is that? Only something like 60% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, so annexing Mexico doesn't solve the problem. Unless of course, you're only trying to keep out Mexican illegal immigrants, and illegal immigrants from Cuba or Europe or Asia are alright.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:34 AM

But we are not discussing "human rights" but "legal rights" Two completely different things!

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

If you answer "yes" - yes, all people deserve the same basic rights regardless of who they are or what they may have done - you are on one side of the line. (Hi!) If you answer "no" - no, some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other. It doesn't matter whether you define their wrongness as being black, gay, Muslim, terrorist-suspect, illegal-immigrant or whatever. It's the belief that human rights only apply to the right sort of humans that determines where you are going to stand on every important issue.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:39 AM

You begin from a false premise! "They can't do a legitimate job,"
So I am then to presume that bussing in a restaurant is an illegal job??

By the way you are still couching you argu8ment in emotion.
Also you appear to not be reading Thorne's posts nor mine, at least completely. Illegals receive social services!

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

Illegal imigrants do not have the same rights that you have. They can't do a legitimate job, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get an education, they can't get medical aid or food stamps, because, if they apply for them, they get noticed, rounded up, processed through a gaol and deported to their homeland ... where they might starve, or be tortured or killed by their government.

Everything they do, they do illegally. If American air is for the esclusive use of US taxpayers and their dependants, then these immigrants would break the law by breathing. But they have to breathe - they have no choice.

Many of them have little or no choice when they leave their country, so why should it matter to them that they step beyond some badly policed fences marking the US border? What harm do they do? You brand them as "criminals": men, women, children alike just because their presence offends you. How many were criminals in their home nations.

The US constitution might consider aliens to be unworthy, but it wsas itself drafted by people committing a much more serious criminal act ... and you idolise them.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:42 AM

Number of debaters are not what make it "fair". It is debating from a common set of definitions.
Oh, and thanks for missing me. Or did I just come in late?

I'm me, that's who I am ;) A better question is who are you? Your profile is all blank...

And I'm so glad to have a debater on my side; I feel a little bad for Thorne, he needs another person on his side to make this fair.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:47 AM

I feel this news article is quite relevant to our current debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2186

Actually the article provides nothing to the discussion. In fact I consider it a distraction, especially since the head of ICE has told the world that illegals referred to ICE may be ignored.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:49 AM

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:52 AM

Two different documents.
Again you are confusing varying types of rights. Those referred to in the Declaration are as stated. Constitutional rights are citizen based. To go deeper the Constitution actually is a document that LIMITS rights, but only the rights of Government. Something that has been totally ignored for several decades!

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 09:54 AM

Again a false premise.
The job is not illegal, the worker IS.

Well if we allowed them to work legally in legal jobs, then they could put into the system. As it stands now, it's not allowed for them to work a legal job- it's illegal for them to put into the system! Don't make a law that says they can't put into the system and then complain that they're not putting into the system. It's a catch-22; fix one side or the other.

Um...let's see...why on earth would the provide false information...what would happen to them if they provided correct information? Might they be living in fear of being deported?

You're causing your own problem here. If they were allowed to stay, they'd have no reason to hide, no reason to lie.

If I was a business person, why on earth would I do this? Why would I prevent people with dollars from spending their money in my store? Most businesses have figured out that a dollar is a dollar, regardless of who's spending it, and so if they can market to both English and non-English speakers and get all of the dollars, they come out richer.

You say that like it's a bad thing, as if there's something wrong with Hispanic people. Or rather that they're fine, so long as they're not in his neighborhood.

They should have let him keep it up- the loss of business he received would have spoken for itself. Apparently dollars from people who speak Spanish are not good enough for him.

Oh no, the Spanish is going to get me! Help! Something different from me, ack, get it off, get it off!

I would sincerely hope not. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of who it's directed at; and most business owners are smart enough not to alienate their customers.

Well that was obvious. It might do you better to think of them as "Hispanic people", though, not "Hispanics." Just a suggestion.

And what if Spanish was the only language you knew? What if learning English was hard for you? And some kind soul thought to put up signs in your language, so you could know where the bathroom was? How is this a bad situation?

Which is why we're trying to change the laws, for the better, not for worse, like this Arizona thing. That's why we're not standing for it; because it's wrong and can't be left to stand. It's not the solution to the problem. It won't solve anything; it will only create more fear and anger about the situation.

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 10:02 AM

In response to Jennifer.
So the fact that there was a sign is somehow proof that the person is opposed to Hispanics?
At least people that come into the store will not try to conduct business in Spanish! What does it say that my closest chain supermarket has made it impossible for me to conduct business with the person employed behind the meat counter. I was incapable of ordering a specific cut of meat cut to my specification since the person behind the counter could not understand; "I'd like two pounds of sirloin cut in 1/4" slices." It took nearly three minutes just to get any kind of communication across and although I did get my meat, since I was able to point, I do not believe I was well served. This is just wrong. Add to that I have not one clue before actual contact that there would be any difficulty!
Hey? Does that mean that this meat cutting job was an illegal job?

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 10:13 AM

Federal law requires every alien in the country LEGALLY to carry on their person their "certificate of alien registration". (8 USC Sec 1304(e))

e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.

It's a moot point anyway. ALL traffic violators or law violators, regardless of what the police stop them for are asked a standard question immediately; "May I see your ID?"

Is that profiling?

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 10:16 AM

While I appreciate the support, this might be a bad example. Given the current state of affairs in Iraq, and throughout the region, one has to question the motives of anyone "vacationing" there. And if their motives are pure, I would certainly question their intelligence!

Actually I think it was a very poor decision to vacation in Iraq! I often wonder just how they got the documents to travel to Iraq in the first place?
But I can not avoid the fact that it is a good example of how others consider their borders.

MMI

05-22-2010, 03:38 PM

I don't normally respond to the yellow writing, no matter how much of it there is, but there's nothing wrong in espousing a cause out of emotion.

In fact, show me proposition that is based on pure logic alone.

MMI

05-22-2010, 03:43 PM

I'm me, that's who I am ;) A better question is who are you? Your profile is all blank...

And I'm so glad to have a debater on my side; I feel a little bad for Thorne, he needs another person on his side to make this fair.

Perhaps, by now, you are beginning to realise that it is we who are in the minority, so if you need your hand holding for moral support, let me know.

MMI

05-22-2010, 04:54 PM

Illegal imigrants do not have the same rights that you have. They can't do a legitimate job, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get an education, they can't get medical aid or food stamps, because, if they apply for them, they get noticed, rounded up, processed through a gaol and deported to their homeland ...

Not in the US. While they may not be able to get a driver's license, their children can be sent to schools, and they are eligible for both free breakfasts and lunches. They get medical aid simply by showing up in a clinic or emergency room. I don't know about food stamps, off hand, but there are other social services that they can apply for without having their names turned over to the INS. Unless I have been badly misinformed, there are some places where it is illegal to turn them over to the Feds unless they actually violate a law. (Other than being illegal in the first place, that is.)

Then I withdraw my charges against the USA, which, according to your description, is behaving as a responsible nation should. It seems, therefore, that there is a group of people within the country that is agitating for harsher treatment for their fellow humans, using often emotional and perjorative arguments substantiated by selected misinformation. If they were not so vocal perhaps they would not matter.

Many of them have little or no choice when they leave their country, so why should it matter to them that they step beyond some badly policed fences marking the US border? What harm do they do? You brand them as "criminals": men, women, children alike just because their presence offends you. How many were criminals in their home nations.

Yes, some are branded as criminals in their home countries, and there are laws here to protect such refugees. Cubans, in particular, are generally protected from deportation, provided they can safely reach the US. Other nationalities can also apply for refugee status, which is different than immigration. If there is a recognized threat of persecution for those being sent back, they will not be.

I think you miss my point: I contend that the majority of illegal immigrants - the economic immigrants, if you like - never broke a law while living in their original homes, and would never break a law in the USA if they were allowed to stay. The only law they broke was entering your country without permission.

Did you know "The New Colossus" before Jennifer Williams quoted it? I didn't but I looked it up, and for the benefit of those who have never heard/read it before, I reporduce it below. Such noble words!

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

The US constitution might consider aliens to be unworthy, but it wsas itself drafted by people committing a much more serious criminal act ... and you idolise them.

Still trying to get the colonies back, are you? Just remember, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. Obviously. Because they won. Twice.

You know what they say: Those fighting for me are freedom fighters, those fighting against me are terrorists.

Twice? I think you might find the Canadians would have something to say about that ... for us, both wars were a distraction ... a side show. The real wars were being fought elsewhere.

But I'm interested in what you say about treason (it was treason in the colonies, by the way, not just in England). You say, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. While I cannot accept a land-grab by wealthy settlers interested in trading with the enemy is ever just, it intrrigues me that Americans, by your own words, can break the law when they feel it is justifiable, yet will not accept that a bad American law can be sidestepped

... They are breaking the law! That's all I care about!

DuncanONeil

05-22-2010, 06:55 PM

But for some people the only arguments they have are emotional. I see noting wrong with a person having strong emotions on a subject but it would seem that they would better serve themselves and their position if they included data points that are evidentiary in nature.

I don't normally respond to the yellow writing, no matter how much of it there is, but there's nothing wrong in espousing a cause out of emotion.

In fact, show me proposition that is based on pure logic alone.

Thorne

05-22-2010, 07:34 PM

The only law they broke was entering your country without permission.
At least you admit that they have broken the law. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose.

Twice? I think you might find the Canadians would have something to say about that ... for us, both wars were a distraction ... a side show. The real wars were being fought elsewhere.
Perhaps you're forgetting the war of 1812? The one that ended in 1814? Shortly before the British got their butts handed to them at New Orleans? They even wrote a song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxB42cjHTGg&feature=related)about it!

But I'm interested in what you say about treason (it was treason in the colonies, by the way, not just in England).
Only until the British surrendered.

You say, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. While I cannot accept a land-grab by wealthy settlers interested in trading with the enemy is ever just,
It was just because they won. If they'd lost they would have been hanged as traitors. And that would have been just, too.

it intrrigues me that Americans, by your own words, can break the law when they feel it is justifiable, yet will not accept that a bad American law can be sidestepped
So are you implying that the illegal immigrants should unite and form a rebellion? Wouldn't that be a land-grab by poor criminals? Wouldn't that make them traitors?

Or perhaps you are just saying that any 'bad' law can be ignored, sidestepped if you will. But then, who decides what's a bad law? If I believe that the laws against murder are 'bad' laws, does that mean I can ignore them? I could just head on down to the border and open fire indiscriminately. Because the law against that is a 'bad' law!

No, I don't think that would work. We must have laws, or we'll all suffer. And if we don't like a law we must change it, not ignore it. The law can be changed from within, legally, through due process, or it can be changed illegally, from without, through rebellion. But if you go that route you must be prepared to set up your own government, with your own laws. And I can guarantee that those laws will provide for some kind of defense against cross-border incursions by foreign nationals. After all, you wouldn't want some lazy johnny-come-latelys to take back all that you stole in the first place, would you?

Jennifer Williams

05-23-2010, 01:23 AM

Number of debaters are not what make it "fair". It is debating from a common set of definitions.
Oh, and thanks for missing me. Or did I just come in late?

So sorry, Duncan! You hadn't said anything for awhile, so I thought you were gone. Bad assumption on my part.

You are not arguing from a position of logic but a position of heart. Well of course it's a matter of heart. I have both a heart and a mind 100% of the time; I can't just shut off one or the other. Neither can anyone, so don't pretend your heart doesn't affect how you think.

While logic has it's place, so do emotions, and you need both reasoning and emotions to make good decisions.

Do you really believe that human rights trump legal rights? [quote] Um...of course they do. No law can be written that can remove a person's humanity, nor remove their rights to the basic necessities of life. Though I suppose one could argue over what basic necessities are, they obviously include food, water, safety from death, etc.

But we are not discussing "human rights" but "legal rights" Two completely different things!
Not at all. There isn't a person anywhere who can stop being human for a moment; so therefore, human rights always apply, and in this country we believe that a person's human rights should be protected by their legal rights. And no, that is not granted to only citizens. It is granted to all who stand on our soil (in theory).

What about the human rights of the country's citizens that can not get help because an illegal got there first and got the last of the aid?

Clearly, for you, the US citizen is somehow more important than the illegal immigrant; that the US citizen somehow deserves help more than the illegal immigrant.

There are those of us who believe that both people are equal, no matter how laws might be written or how you wish to label people. So yes, while it is a shame that there is not enough aid for all, it is an equal tragedy for the aid to run out for either person. One person is not better than another, and labels and laws can't change that.

So wouldn't it be better if an illegal immigrant would be able to work on the books and contribute towards society? I do not understand why we would desire to prevent them from contributing their taxes by creating laws that force them to work off the books.

What does it say that my closest chain supermarket has made it impossible for me to conduct business with the person employed behind the meat counter. I was incapable of ordering a specific cut of meat cut to my specification since the person behind the counter could not understand; "I'd like two pounds of sirloin cut in 1/4" slices." It took nearly three minutes just to get any kind of communication across and although I did get my meat, since I was able to point, I do not believe I was well served. This is just wrong. Add to that I have not one clue before actual contact that there would be any difficulty!
Hey? Does that mean that this meat cutting job was an illegal job?

I agree; that was an aggravating experience for you; I also have had similar circumstances happen to me. But the blame is squarely on the shoulders of the supermarket, who obviously put a person in a position they were not qualified for and did not train properly. However it is most likely that this person was legally allowed to work in the US, if something like a grocery store hired them. So this person had every right to do a poor job at serving your meat to you. Of course that is terrible customer service, but that's all it was.

Lion

05-23-2010, 06:53 AM

"the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law" Please explain how this is so??

Asking anyone for papers to prove they are American just seems like a huge step backwards. I doubt that whites will be affected by this at all compared to ethnic minorities. Do I think a cop is going to ask for a John Smith to prove he's American? I doubt it. I think he'll be more inclined to ask a Jose Hernandez though.

Stealth694

05-23-2010, 08:00 AM

Good Point Lion:

But cops are pretty careful, about Profiling Charges, they can be filed by anyone, and then its days in and out of court ect. Most cops just don't want to take the time for a frivolus lawsuit.

But if they can prove they had a reason thats a different story.

Miamhail

05-23-2010, 09:03 AM

Once again - where is the profiling? As it stood before the law, anytime a law enforcement agent had contact with a person during the course of lawful contact, he or she asked for a form of ID. This is to ensure the person they are dealing with is really the person they said they were. If they can't provide identification of some sort, they are asked a series of questions designed to gather enough information to find them in an interstate system. If they can't be found in the system, they are taken to a station to fingerprint. This was in effect before the law. The only difference with the new law is if at that time, there is sufficient reason to think they may be an undocumented alien, they are turned over to ICE. The process does not change with the new law. It's business like usual.

DuncanONeil

05-23-2010, 10:31 AM

So sorry, Duncan! You hadn't said anything for awhile, so I thought you were gone. Bad assumption on my part.

Well there was a short involuntary vacation in there!

Well of course it's a matter of heart. I have both a heart and a mind 100% of the time; I can't just shut off one or the other. Neither can anyone, so don't pretend your heart doesn't affect how you think.

I would never suggest that the "heart" has no place in the thought process. However, the nature of life requires hard decisions. Sometimes those decisions can appear heartless.

While logic has it's place, so do emotions, and you need both reasoning and emotions to make good decisions.

As I said life requires hard decisions. In this issue there are such to be made. Some would argue, as you might, that people in Mexico need help. Should that not be the job of Mexico? Does allowing Mexico to, essentially, send their "problem" people to the US provide them the help they need? Or is Mexico pawning the problem off on someone else? You correct in an aspect of this, that reason and heart are needed. But heart alone is a poor way to make decisions. Heart requires that all be aided. But in a system of limited resources that is not possible. Nearly everyone understands triage. Triage only works under the rules of logic and thereby aids the heart in assisting the most.

Do you really believe that human rights trump legal rights?

[QUOTE=Jennifer Williams;871678]Not at all. There isn't a person anywhere who can stop being human for a moment; so therefore, human rights always apply, and in this country we believe that a person's human rights should be protected by their legal rights. And no, that is not granted to only citizens. It is granted to all who stand on our soil (in theory).

So you do believe that "human rights" trump "legal rights" (human rights always apply). Yes human rights are protected by legal rights. But actually not all legal rights apply equally, some apply only to categories of people.

Clearly, for you, the US citizen is somehow more important than the illegal immigrant; that the US citizen somehow deserves help more than the illegal immigrant.

More important is a hard way to express this. All people are important. But in the issue here, Government services, there is an inherent priority. The Constitution is the governing document of Congress. As law the Constitution is different than all others. It attains to the People of the United States and our Posterity. As such its, and that of Congress, duty is to the people of the United States. Therefore it is not improper to suggest that first priority for service of the US go to citizens.
The US does not stint in providing assistance to those not citizens of the US. In fact the US puts a huge sum into aiding other countries, twice that of the country in second. It is not so high in terms of percent of Gross National Income that "honor" is held by Sweden at 1.12%. Interestingly enough while the percent of income we contribute is 18% of Sweden their dollars is 18% of ours! That really means nothing I just find it interesting.
I guess it really boils down to not that the US citizen deserves help more but that in the US they should have priority.

There are those of us who believe that both people are equal, no matter how laws might be written or how you wish to label people. So yes, while it is a shame that there is not enough aid for all, it is an equal tragedy for the aid to run out for either person. One person is not better than another, and labels and laws can't change that.

Do you contribute to charity? Do you give to every charity that "comes to your door"? Or do you choose among the charities due to limited resources? That is another example of that hard decision matrix. We all do it all the time!
As for labeling people, we are human, it is our nature. Part of the desire for order. We classify everything; the heat, cold, weather, rain, snow (eskimos have as many as 20 words for snow), animals (squirrels are cute, rats ugly) even when they are essentially the same. The same applies to people; short, tall, thin, thick, cute, not, beautiful, hunk, not, yellow, red, white, brown, dark, light, freckled. In spite of all that 98% of us all agree on one thing they are people. Also that we will help them if they need it and if we can. But to suggest that we MUST just because they decide to camp out in our back yard is neither charity nor appropriate.

So wouldn't it be better if an illegal immigrant would be able to work on the books and contribute towards society? I do not understand why we would desire to prevent them from contributing their taxes by creating laws that force them to work off the books.
We do not create laws "that force them to work off the books.". The laws are to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and by extension immigration. These people choose to ignore these rules and laws and put themselves in a position where they must continue to break the laws on a daily basis.

I agree; that was an aggravating experience for you; I also have had similar circumstances happen to me. But the blame is squarely on the shoulders of the supermarket, who obviously put a person in a position they were not qualified for and did not train properly. However it is most likely that this person was legally allowed to work in the US, if something like a grocery store hired them. So this person had every right to do a poor job at serving your meat to you. Of course that is terrible customer service, but that's all it was.
You miss the point! And further you assume based on the business that the person is legal. The customer service issue is the least of my worries, I can fix that, that is on the store. Someone that can not talk to the customer being hired is on the store. The store should not have to train an employee to speak English! Especially in this case! Meat cutter is not one of those "won't do" jobs, usually union as well.

DuncanONeil

05-23-2010, 10:36 AM

I do not believe you understood my question.
How is it a step backwards to ask people for identification. This happens to everyone constantly. To single out a segment of society and exempt them from this process is itself discriminatory.
No one is asking people to prove that they are an American, but that are legally in the country. We assume this of citizens and require it by law for non-citizens.
Why is it bad to ask people to comply with the law?

Completely outside the purview of the original question how is it bad to enforce immigration law?

Asking anyone for papers to prove they are American just seems like a huge step backwards. I doubt that whites will be affected by this at all compared to ethnic minorities. Do I think a cop is going to ask for a John Smith to prove he's American? I doubt it. I think he'll be more inclined to ask a Jose Hernandez though.

DuncanONeil

05-23-2010, 10:38 AM

I don't think his "point" is the laest bit good.
In fact I do not even think it is a point.

Good Point Lion:

But cops are pretty careful, about Profiling Charges, they can be filed by anyone, and then its days in and out of court ect. Most cops just don't want to take the time for a frivolus lawsuit.

But if they can prove they had a reason thats a different story.

DuncanONeil

05-23-2010, 10:41 AM

Pretty close!
But the transfer to ICE is not immediate. There are legal ramifications that exist in the law with regards to the state of AZ.
But yes the ultimate disposition of a person identified by ICE as an illegal would be transfer to the control of ICE.
But we all know how good a job ICE does now!

Once again - where is the profiling? As it stood before the law, anytime a law enforcement agent had contact with a person during the course of lawful contact, he or she asked for a form of ID. This is to ensure the person they are dealing with is really the person they said they were. If they can't provide identification of some sort, they are asked a series of questions designed to gather enough information to find them in an interstate system. If they can't be found in the system, they are taken to a station to fingerprint. This was in effect before the law. The only difference with the new law is if at that time, there is sufficient reason to think they may be an undocumented alien, they are turned over to ICE. The process does not change with the new law. It's business like usual.

Jennifer Williams

05-23-2010, 12:57 PM

As I said life requires hard decisions. In this issue there are such to be made. Some would argue, as you might, that people in Mexico need help. Should that not be the job of Mexico?

Of course it should be the job of Mexico, however, Mexico is not doing it's job. And some might be inclined to say "so what, that's not our business." Except it has made itself our business, the problems there have affected us in so many different ways.

Laws and strategies towards keeping people out (like building a fence along the border) or deporting them once they come in aren't going to help because those types of solutions only treat the symptoms of the problem, not the cause(s). No matter how hard we try to shut our border up, as long as people in Mexico are desperate, they will find ways in.

If our resources are so precious, then why are we spending them on fighting a losing battle like that? Why not direct our resources towards trying to solve the root(s) of the problem? Is it our business? Yes; it has made itself so. We can't possibly achieve anything with the attitude "Mexico is none of our business." They're right next door. Their problems are our problems, their people affect our people, every day, in regular life.

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?

Does allowing Mexico to, essentially, send their "problem" people to the US provide them the help they need? Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people; the people coming here are families; men and women seeking to work in order to make a living. They're here looking for a job. If there had been a job in their home town, do you not think they would prefer that? So if Mexico does not create jobs for it's own people, then what do we do? If there is no job for a man in Mexico, and you send him back there, what do you think will happen? People go where work is. Of course he will come back here, and he will continue to do so until there is a job for him back at home.

Or is Mexico pawning the problem off on someone else? Of course they are. So now you have the "it's not my problem" situation. If it's not their problem (because they don't care) and it's not our problem, then it's no one's problem and no one fixes it.

You correct in an aspect of this, that reason and heart are needed. But heart alone is a poor way to make decisions. Heart requires that all be aided. But in a system of limited resources that is not possible. Nearly everyone understands triage. Triage only works under the rules of logic and thereby aids the heart in assisting the most.

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal (and I am not stating that I think the illegal immigrant will be the poorer person in every case. I am aware that some of them are far better off than some of our own citizens; and in that case again, the poorer person should get the aid first.)

MMI

05-23-2010, 02:10 PM

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?

... the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

OMG, I nearly came!

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble and wriggle and scribble their rebuttals, but that is really the final word concerning the provision of aid for immigrants.

Thorne

05-23-2010, 07:26 PM

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."
But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?
No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people;
You think not? (http://www.letxa.com/guiamigrante.php)
A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine]

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.
Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal
The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

Thorne

05-23-2010, 07:32 PM

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.
Somehow I doubt this. The Mexican government is doing what's best for itself, and the politicians: getting rid of the really poor without having to spend any resources on them.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?
And again I say: does that mean that the US should annex Mexico? I don't think the Mexican government would like that.

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble
Just a minor quibble, that's all.

Miamhail

05-23-2010, 09:58 PM

As for exporting the population - remittance is Mexico's 3rd largest Gross National Product. It's well over 3 bn a quarter and follows only oil export at 5 bn and Assembly for export at 4.5 bn per quarter. So that is exactly what the Mexican government does. That's all money made here in the U.S. but spent in a foreign country. Remittance is heavily relied on by the Mexican Government and strongly dependent on undocumented workers in the U.S.

MMI

05-24-2010, 03:22 PM

But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

You think not? (http://www.letxa.com/guiamigrante.php)

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine

Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.

The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.

TantricSoul

05-24-2010, 06:54 PM

I'de like to thank Thorne and Jennifer for their input on this thread ... its a great treat to witness such a sharp mind and such a deep heart have a discussion on an issue such as this.

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick and more in line with this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has been billed as the "land of opportunity" outside its borders for many decades now ... it is shameful that opportunity is limited to a few hundred thousand, of those that yearn to breathe free, a year.

Thorne

05-24-2010, 07:18 PM

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?
No, the Mexican government is the pyromaniac. The illegals are the burning embers.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?
We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.
I'd like to see you justify that statement, with facts.

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.
Gee, why does that not surprise me? Well then, how about this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States)? (Scroll down to International Controversies.) Or this one (http://www.cis.org/MatriculaConsular-IDCards)!

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.
I guess it would be more accurate to say that the Mexican government is securing a lucrative source of income, apparently the second largest source in the country: the money sent back by the illegals.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest.
I'm not sure I understand this.

Thorne

05-24-2010, 07:21 PM

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick
I have no problem with the idea of changing the law, even to the point of allowing more immigrants, legally, into the country. But until those laws are changed, I think we have to enforce the laws as they exist today. If you believe the laws are bad you fight them in the courts, or in the Congress. You don't simply ignore them.

Jennifer Williams

05-25-2010, 12:14 AM

We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

This, I believe, is the core of where we differ.

We all are "us". There is no "they." Family? The human race. Anyone and everyone. What if my sister tomorrow married a guy from Mexico? Instant family. City? People move in/out of my city, my state, and my country every day, and that does not change their level of importance to me. Yes, of course I love my family. I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would. I feel responsible for my fellow human beings everywhere, because what separates me from them? The pure random chance of where I was born, and nothing else. I could easily have been them; I could still easily become them. At any time I could become sick, or poor, or wronged, or alone. How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?

And yes, we are responsible for each other, because that is the root of civilization. Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak? No. In the animal world, they let the weak die, because they are a burden. Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.

And we are all "one of us."

I have no problem with the idea of changing the law, even to the point of allowing more immigrants, legally, into the country. But until those laws are changed, I think we have to enforce the laws as they exist today. If you believe the laws are bad you fight them in the courts, or in the Congress. You don't simply ignore them.

On this, I would have to agree with, except where following the law would violate a person's human rights. Human rights always apply first, and our country believes that, which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws. Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation (also because it's a pointless waste of resources when the deported person is going to do everything they can to come right back, anyway).

Thorne

05-25-2010, 10:09 AM

I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.
All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would.
As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?
I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak?
Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.
I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

And we are all "one of us."
This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws.
I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation
Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

MMI

05-25-2010, 02:58 PM

All well and good, but if you had to choose between helping your sister and helping a stranger (which means that you cannot help both) which would you help?

I think it is probably a mistake to bring this discussion down to "what-ifs" at this level. We are not talking about individuals giving or withholding specific assistance to/from other particular individuals, we are talking about whether a society should give or withhold aid to/from members of a group of people identifiable only by the fact that they do not "belong".

Being human, in an "either/or" situation, I would choose my sister, of course, but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

As would I! I'm not saying I'm cruel, or intolerant, or even against helping. I'm only saying that there are priorities. If I had the means to feed the world, believe me, I'd jump at the chance. Not because I felt responsible, but because it would be the right thing to do!

I have to say you do sometimes give the impression of all those bad things, but, again, I think this is down to the fact that you are dealing with a "macro" problem on a "micro" level. But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

I don't consider myself better than anyone else. LOL! Far from it!
But I am more important than those others, to my family and to myself. The only ones more important to me than myself would be my wife and my children, probably in that order. But my own well being ranks just below them. The rest of the world ranks in decreasing order below that.

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

Yes, it does. Especially if the weak has abilities or talents which can benefit the group. Human males are generally physically stronger than females, so they protect them for the benefit of the tribe! The man who can make strong spears, even though he only has one good leg, benefits the tribe and must be protected.

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

I've never claimed differently. But there are priorities. Would I run into a burning building to save a 90 year old man? Probably not. To save a child? I sure as hell hope so! (Until the moment happens no one can know, but I don't think I could live with myself if I did nothing.)

What makes a child better than an old man? Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I don't feel the same way. Perhaps its a flaw in my makeup, but I don't think of it as such.

I don't think it's an inate flaw; I believe it to be a conscious choice.

I would agree as to providing treatment and giving them food. But reporting them afterward is not preventing them from doing that.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

Deportation is not inhumane, except in circumstances where the person would face imminent danger or death if returned.

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

MMI

05-25-2010, 04:18 PM

Perhaps you're forgetting the war of 1812? The one that ended in 1814?

That's the war I suggested you speak to a Canadian about, to find out who won.

As between US and Great Britain, if you count territorial gains, the 1812 war was a no-score draw (a soccer term), if you count dead bodies, the US lost. If you count individual battles ... I'll let someone else work that out.

"In the end we ask who won and who lost the War of 1812. The clear loser in this conflict without any doubt is the Native People of North America. In the summer of 1815, the United States signed fifteen treaties with the tribes, guaranteeing their status as of 1811. But it did not return an acre of land. The dream of the Indian state never came true.

If any one could claim victory it was Canada. The United States declared war on Great Britain and set out to make Canada states in the union. Ten American armies crossed into Canada and all were driven out."

http://www.warof1812.ca/summary.html

Shortly before the British got their butts handed to them at New Orleans? They even wrote a song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxB42cjHTGg&feature=related)about it!

OK, you won a battle. Good for you. I know it was so important for America, but, frankly, it was a minor skirmish for us. Did you ever hear of Napoleon ... the French guy? That's who we were really worried about at the time.

I know the song ... I could even sing it while strumming a guitar (Lonnie Donegan's version). I also enjoyed singing "Yankee Doodle".

Only until the British surrendered.

It was always treachery. You have chosen to raise these men to the status of heros, and to eulogise about their exploits, but they were far from noble in reality.

It was just because they won. If they'd lost they would have been hanged as traitors. And that would have been just, too.

Might is always right huh? In that case Stalin was an angel and the Taliban should be running Afghanistan.

So are you implying that the illegal immigrants should unite and form a rebellion? Wouldn't that be a land-grab by poor criminals? Wouldn't that make them traitors?

No, that is a completely incorrect inference to draw. I am saying that it isn't a bad thing to ignore that particular law. If might be a land grab, but I see it more like trespass by tortfeasors.

It certainly doesn't make them traitors: they aren't Americans, are they?

Or perhaps you are just saying that any 'bad' law can be ignored, sidestepped if you will. But then, who decides what's a bad law? If I believe that the laws against murder are 'bad' laws, does that mean I can ignore them? I could just head on down to the border and open fire indiscriminately. Because the law against that is a 'bad' law!

No, I don't think that would work. We must have laws, or we'll all suffer. And if we don't like a law we must change it, not ignore it. The law can be changed from within, legally, through due process, or it can be changed illegally, from without, through rebellion. But if you go that route you must be prepared to set up your own government, with your own laws. And I can guarantee that those laws will provide for some kind of defense against cross-border incursions by foreign nationals. After all, you wouldn't want some lazy johnny-come-latelys to take back all that you stole in the first place, would you?

Any law that denies or suppresses a human right is a bad law. And anyone who regards illegal immigrants as "lazy johnny-come-latelys" should really take a long hard look at himself.

MMI

05-25-2010, 04:34 PM

I'd like to see you justify that statement, with facts.

I refer you to post 53 above

I guess it would be more accurate to say that the Mexican government is securing a lucrative source of income, apparently the second largest source in the country: the money sent back by the illegals.

Would it not be more accurate to say, "... money sent back by emigrants"?

I'm not sure I understand this.

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them. So by your argument, it would do more good to start with the wealthy countries and work down the list, dealing with the countries that have the greatest number of poor people
last - if there's anything left

Thorne

05-25-2010, 08:04 PM

It was always treachery. You have chosen to raise these men to the status of heros, and to eulogise about their exploits, but they were far from noble in reality.
There are very few heroes who are noble in reality.

Might is always right huh?
Only if you are on the winning side. Otherwise it's oppression.

In that case Stalin was an angel and the Taliban should be running Afghanistan.
Up until his death, Stalin was an angel in the minds of the people of the USSR. Because he won! And there are still those in Afghanistan who look back upon the Taliban years as good times. It's all a question of perception.

I am saying that it isn't a bad thing to ignore that particular law. If might be a land grab, but I see it more like trespass by tortfeasors.
And I see it as illegal, regardless of others opinions of the law. Again, a question of perception.

It certainly doesn't make them traitors: they aren't Americans, are they?
You're right, they are invaders.

Any law that denies or suppresses a human right is a bad law.
And just how do laws protecting a country's borders from foreign invaders suppress a human right? No one has a right to ignore another country's laws.

And anyone who regards illegal immigrants as "lazy johnny-come-latelys" should really take a long hard look at himself.
I'm not calling them that, only speculating on how they would be viewed by the hypothetical new government. But if you don't believe any group which such government wouldn't regard them similarly you might want to have your rose-colored glasses checked. Once they've set up their own government and established an economic base, the last thing they'll want is a bunch of poor immigrants coming in and wrecking things.

Thorne

05-25-2010, 08:09 PM

I refer you to post 53 above
Those figures may be valid for the UK, where the illegals do not have access to medical care. The situation in the US is quite different.

Would it not be more accurate to say, "... money sent back by emigrants"?
Yes it would. Both legal and illegal.

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them. So by your argument, it would do more good to start with the wealthy countries and work down the list, dealing with the countries that have the greatest number of poor people
last - if there's anything left
Yes, that is my argument. Use our resources to help our own citizens and legal immigrants first. Why is that wrong?

Thorne

05-25-2010, 08:32 PM

but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.
So you would choose desperate outsiders over desperate insiders? This is totally beyond my comprehension.

But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.
Damn! And I thought I hid it so well! :(

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?
Easily afford? This country is in debt up to our eyeballs, our future mortgaged away to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. The last thing we can afford is to keep throwing money into endless pool of illegals!

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.
I suggest it is both. Cooperation and compassion have been observed in other primates, and other animals as well. Sophisticated social structures had to evolve from less sophisticated ones over time. It is a matter of both biological and cultural evolution.

What makes a child better than an old man?
Aside from the fact that or biological make-up leads us to protect the children, a child has far more potential value to society than an old man who has already lived the bulk of his life.

Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?
I would, and if I were the old man I would encourage any rescuer to do the same. Despite being healthy and agile, the child is much more likely to panic and be unable to escape on his own. Ideally, of course, I would like to save both, but if forced to choose, the child would win out every time.

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?
The analogy breaks down because, with few exceptions, the "child" is relatively safe and demanding a glass of water while the "old man" is in need of medical care and assistance that they "child" can get elsewhere.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?
If they are willing to risk their child's life rather than be sent home, do we really want to bother helping them?

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?
I do feel sympathy. But they are illegal, and should be subject to the law. I would also feel sympathy for a mother who killed her children in a fit of depression. I would still want her locked away in prison, but I'd be sympathetic.

Jennifer Williams

05-26-2010, 12:02 AM

The analogy breaks down because, with few exceptions, the "child" is relatively safe and demanding a glass of water while the "old man" is in need of medical care and assistance that they "child" can get elsewhere.

Elsewhere? Where else can they go? No job in Mexico, no money, no food. Just put yourself in their literal shoes. Your entire village is broke. You're hungry, your children are hungry, and nobody around you has a dime because nobody has a job. You've applied for visas. You've waited, say, two years, and they haven't come.

You've got enough food left for one more day. And no one around you has any, either. Without food, it's simple. You'll die. For certain.

There are jobs close by in the United States, where you can earn money to buy food. Getting there is dangerous but at least it's hopeful, you only might die during the journey, as opposed to for sure dying if you stay where you are.

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him? 1) Stay in your village and starve, or 2) .....?

You fill in the blanks, because so far nobody else has been able to come up with something better than "move to America for a better life."
This man doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a visa, he doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the next election to vote for a better president who might turn the country around in a few years.

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

Thorne

05-26-2010, 05:20 AM

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him?

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

The first thing I'd tell him is to keep that money he was going to use to pay the coyotes to lead him across the border and use it to move his family to where the jobs are. There are jobs in Mexico, you know. He'll have to move from his village, but he was prepared to do that anyway. And if he has enough money to pay the coyotes, he has enough to buy food for his family on the journey south.

Jennifer Williams

05-26-2010, 09:43 AM

The first thing I'd tell him is to keep that money he was going to use to pay the coyotes to lead him across the border and use it to move his family to where the jobs are. There are jobs in Mexico, you know.

Yes, there are. "In 2010 the average of Mexico’s three region-based minimum wages is around U.S. $4.50 per day." - US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm)

That's $4.50 a day (Or $1642.50 for an annual salary, if you worked all 365 days in the year). That's the average. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard-pressed to support myself on $4.50 an hour. Now what if I had to support an entire family on that? Say you have a family of four. At $4.50 per day, each person gets $1.13 to live off of per day, or $410.63 per year. How much money to you need to live on each day? Could you support yourself and your family with such wages?

So the answer is no, there is not sustainable employment for the average Mexican citizen in Mexico.

He'll have to move from his village, but he was prepared to do that anyway. And if he has enough money to pay the coyotes, he has enough to buy food for his family on the journey south.

South of Mexico are Guatemala and Belize. People who live in Guatemala and Belize are running out of those countries, through Mexico, to get to America, so why would a Mexican be better off going that way?

You're hungry, you have no money (whether or not you have a job), and your children need to eat tomorrow.

Miamhail

05-26-2010, 12:30 PM

While the wages are lower in Mexico, so is the cost of living. The $4.50 a day goes a whole lot further.

Immigration to Guatemala and Belize may be tough. They have stricter immigration rules than the U.S. And they enforce theirs.

Mexico also has immigration rules. They round up the "illegal aliens" in their country and deport them. Most are in the country just to pass through on their way to the U.S., but some go to Mexico to live. Especially from even poorer nations south of them.

In Mexico, if you are not a citizen - you are not entitled to attend school, receive any government assistance, vote, or own property or a bank account.

denuseri

05-26-2010, 01:05 PM

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

Thorne

05-26-2010, 01:17 PM

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.
According to Wikipedia, "According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world."

But they are 100% illegal, and all should be treated the same.

MMI

05-26-2010, 03:44 PM

According to Wikipedia, "According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 57% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 24% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 9% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe; and 4% were from the rest of the world."

But they are 100% illegal, and all should be treated the same.

Yes, they should all be treated with equal respect.

They are only "illegal" because you make them so, but there is no advantage to you in doing that. You might not accept the British experience is valid for America. but look at it this way: If a person works, he creates wealth - most for his master, but some for himself. That wealth is then used to buy other goods and services which in turn generates more wealth ... I'm sure you've all covered this basic economic theory at some time or other, so I'll leave it there and come to the point. If, as you suppose (I doubt you know), illegal immigration is costing America more than the additional wealth created by those migrants, it's no-one's fault but those who prevent them from working (legitimately) so they can pay taxes and make worthwhile contributions to the country they want to become part of. Let them work legally and they'll pay as much tax as you do. They'll take out their own medical insurance, and they'll buy their own food. They might even start businesses that will grow into American-controlled multi-national conglomerates. And America will grow richer as a result.

Sure, one or two might try to cheat the system, but are you going to tell me no WASP would ever stoop to that level? You just implement checks and controls to prevent it from happening too much.

The alternative will be to send them back - and although this is the solution you advocate, it is a lose-lose solution. The "illegal" suffers a life-time set-back, and the nation misses a cast iron opportunity for growth, and meanwhile has to pay the cost of policing the borders and the cost of repatriation. You might want to save a few cents in taxes, but such petty meanness will have an adverse and, for some, devastating effect on real lives - at home and abroad.

MMI

05-26-2010, 05:02 PM

So you would choose desperate outsiders over desperate insiders? This is totally beyond my comprehension.

No. I would make no distinction between them. What is beyond my comprehension is that you would, and the distinction would be based on nothing better than where a person happened to be born.

Easily afford? This country is in debt up to our eyeballs, our future mortgaged away to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. The last thing we can afford is to keep throwing money into endless pool of illegals!

Except the mortgages lined the pockets of corrupt bankers.

The very simple fact you are ignoring is, although America currently owes lots of money as a result of the Banking Crisis, it is owed lots and lots more money by other entities, and could, if it chose, repay the whole national debt tomorrow by cancelling or transferring some of the debts due to it.

Yes, America could easily afford to aid those immigrants.

Aside from the fact that or biological make-up leads us to protect the children, a child has far more potential value to society than an old man who has already lived the bulk of his life.

I am struck with the reckless ease you are prepared to dismiss the value of people on the basis of sweeping and flawed assumptions. The fact that the old man has lived the greater part of his life suggests he is of greater value to society than a child who has nothing more to give than "potential", because the old man has actual experience and wisdom to offer.

This, I now see, is how you can deny masses of people the benefits and advantages you have received, more by good fortune than effort, however you might protest at my saying that, simply because they did not have the luck to have had ancestors who did manage to enter the country and stay.

If they are willing to risk their child's life rather than be sent home, do we really want to bother helping them?

So if I am prepared to let a child die, you are too ...

I do feel sympathy. But they are illegal, and should be subject to the law. I would also feel sympathy for a mother who killed her children in a fit of depression. I would still want her locked away in prison, but I'd be sympathetic.

... but only I would go to prison. At least I'd know you felt sorry for me - but not enough to help.

Thorne

05-26-2010, 08:34 PM

I'm tired of going round and round about this. We're getting nowhere, fast. You're not going to convince me that impoverishing the world to try to save the poor is the right thing to do, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not.

Maybe you're right about me. Maybe I am a selfish bastard who doesn't care what happens to the poor. It certainly doesn't concern me all that much. I'm too busy worrying about keeping myself from becoming poor. When it comes to charity I'm more concerned with myself than others.

Maybe it's because, over the years, I've come to the realization that people in general are just plain bad. There are individuals who are good and decent, sure, and I treasure these when I find them. But as a group there's just nothing to like.

So I'm going to bow out of this argument. I've pretty much said all I want to about it anyway.

Stealth694

05-27-2010, 05:53 AM

I have to agree with Thorne:
This has just become a circle, Never Ending and continuous.

MMI

05-27-2010, 03:53 PM

I agree that, in 137 posts we haven't got very far, although I don't think it has become completely circular. But if it has, let's try to break out.

We all agree that illegal immigration is a reality, and it is petty damned obvious that rounding them up and sending them home is futile, even if it is the right thing - and the only right thing to do (I said "if"). Even putting them in gaol for a few months before they go home won't stop the others - and probably won't deter the ones who are actually put in prison ... they'll try again as soon as they can.

So what's the answer? Giving police more powers demand to see olive-skinned people's papers and to incacerate those who can't produce them? Allowing vigilantes to patrol borders instead in the hope that their enthusiasm for the job will make them more effective than existing border guards? Throwing the borders wide open?

I suppose that first, we have to agree what the pupose of border controls is, and take it from there. We also need to take an unbiased look at why immigrants take the risks they do for - let's face it - economic reasons.

denuseri

05-27-2010, 09:07 PM

It is not allways economic reasons that drive imigration, sometimes one is forced to leave a place to escape violence and or survive a war.

I know when I started the thread the focus was on Arizona and its new law, which btw isnt all that stringent even compared to laws allready existing on the books in other states of the USA (as mentioned in a different thread about Florida) and other countries throughout the world; but I certianly didnt expect the focus to soley be upon the USA's imigration issues so much as the world over.

I was perhaps one of the last generation of my mother's people born for a long time in a country where unregulated imigration of a completely differnt group of refugees from a niehboring region became a catalyst among many other catalysts that tore the nation of my birth appart at the seams and basically lead to the ethnic cleansing/expulsion allmost in total of our people making us refugees in our own right.

I am sure one can easily see why this topic is near and dear to me in so many ways, which is why I have been keeping my own views private for the most part.

I like the "idea" of countries without borders myself, the freedom for anyone to travel anywhere apeals to me but considering my personal experiences and a close study of history I can also see the sometimes nessecity of controling one's borders and who is allowed to cross over them and interact with one's society.

Such interaction which in many cases has proven throughout history to not be so mutually benificial for all parties envolved.

Personally I have no issue with Arizona's new law, it is certianly not imho as bad as political pundents of the opposition party to the Governor of that State would like to make it out to be.

I can understand and empathize completely with the people who go to the extremes of leaving their homes and crossing borders to try and make a better life for themselves and their familes.

That being said, I am also a very strong proponent of them doing so legally in keeping with the requirments of the country they wish to enter or become a citizen there of, including making every endeavor to learn and respect the language and other prevelant customs where aplicable.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 08:18 PM

I spent over an hour writing an answer to this message and upon trying to post it was sent off into the ether.

Too bad it was a good one too.

[/color][/B]

Of course it should be the job of Mexico, however, Mexico is not doing it's job. And some might be inclined to say "so what, that's not our business." Except it has made itself our business, the problems there have affected us in so many different ways.

Laws and strategies towards keeping people out (like building a fence along the border) or deporting them once they come in aren't going to help because those types of solutions only treat the symptoms of the problem, not the cause(s). No matter how hard we try to shut our border up, as long as people in Mexico are desperate, they will find ways in.

If our resources are so precious, then why are we spending them on fighting a losing battle like that? Why not direct our resources towards trying to solve the root(s) of the problem? Is it our business? Yes; it has made itself so. We can't possibly achieve anything with the attitude "Mexico is none of our business." They're right next door. Their problems are our problems, their people affect our people, every day, in regular life.

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?

[/B][/color] Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people; the people coming here are families; men and women seeking to work in order to make a living. They're here looking for a job. If there had been a job in their home town, do you not think they would prefer that? So if Mexico does not create jobs for it's own people, then what do we do? If there is no job for a man in Mexico, and you send him back there, what do you think will happen? People go where work is. Of course he will come back here, and he will continue to do so until there is a job for him back at home.

Of course they are. So now you have the "it's not my problem" situation. If it's not their problem (because they don't care) and it's not our problem, then it's no one's problem and no one fixes it.

[/color][/B]

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal (and I am not stating that I think the illegal immigrant will be the poorer person in every case. I am aware that some of them are far better off than some of our own citizens; and in that case again, the poorer person should get the aid first.)

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 08:23 PM

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?

True but they due nearly everything to assist them save actually providing the Coyotes

OMG, I nearly came!

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble and wriggle and scribble their rebuttals, but that is really the final word concerning the provision of aid for immigrants.

The people in question are not immigrants! They are illegals and criminals. Why then must they be granted anything and everything as if they are citizens of the country.
We currently send something in excess of $40 billion a year to Mexico, not counting trade. That at least is voluntary!

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 08:41 PM

One source pegs illegal cost to the US at $10 billion annually (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html) and $10.5 billion to California alone (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm). AZ is at almost $2 billion.
That leave 48 other states! Spending money. Not even counting the money they send out of the country.

Money Sent Back To Mexico Set To Surpass Oil Revenue This Year
By Digger Bookmark and Share

In February I reported on the record $16.6 billion sent back to Mexico from immigrants here in the U.S., a 24% increase from 2003. The latest estimates show that this year those "remittances" as they call them, are expected to top Mexico's oil industry as the number one form of revenue for the country. This is all being fascilitated by bank in the United States that refuse to enforce laws on the books regarding reporting criminal and illegal transactions and instead would sell out our country for a dollar.

Lou Dobbs (transcript March 21, 2005)

The Mexican citizens cross our border illegally. Some of them find work, and many of them send their earnings back to Mexico. Those earnings have added up to nearly $17 billion in the past year. Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade deficit with Mexico for the last year surpassed $45 billion.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are using bank accounts in this country to send those remittances home, and many U.S. banks are now aggressively helping illegal aliens open those accounts. Those banks refer to the practice in the political correct vernacular as banking the unbanked. (http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000911.html)

So now, what is the benefit to the US of illegals.

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 08:44 PM

Yet there has been no change in the "authorized" number of immigrants in decades!

I'de like to thank Thorne and Jennifer for their input on this thread ... its a great treat to witness such a sharp mind and such a deep heart have a discussion on an issue such as this.

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick and more in line with this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has been billed as the "land of opportunity" outside its borders for many decades now ... it is shameful that opportunity is limited to a few hundred thousand, of those that yearn to breathe free, a year.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 09:01 PM

Actually I think Thorne gets right to the core of the issue nearly every time. MMI and Jennifer speak of the right thing to do, from the prospective of limitless resources. We do not have limitless resources. Hell even the world does not have limitless resources.
As a result we have to pick and choose who and when to aid.
That is not cruel nor inhumane, it is a fact of life.
It is the very thing I tell every person that calls for aid to the various and sundry charitable agencies. Send a package through and we will see what we have after the necessities are covered!

I think it is probably a mistake to bring this discussion down to "what-ifs" at this level. We are not talking about individuals giving or withholding specific assistance to/from other particular individuals, we are talking about whether a society should give or withhold aid to/from members of a group of people identifiable only by the fact that they do not "belong".

Being human, in an "either/or" situation, I would choose my sister, of course, but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

I have to say you do sometimes give the impression of all those bad things, but, again, I think this is down to the fact that you are dealing with a "macro" problem on a "micro" level. But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

What makes a child better than an old man? Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

I don't think it's an inate flaw; I believe it to be a conscious choice.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 09:26 PM

It would cost less to raise the poor of the EU, USA Japan and China out of poverty because there are feweer of them.

Are we talking the same China? The one on mainland Asia?

How can you possible suggest that the most populous nation on the planet plus three other countries have fewer poor that, I believe, Mexico.
Just to make it clear China alone has 10% of its population below the poverty line. That is 1.25 billion! Population of Mexico is 106,350,434.

But you are still suggesting that somehow we have a responsibility to raise the standard of living of everyone. Using the World's GDP we get 10,183 per person. If we accept the standard of 24% under 18 it only goes up to $11,314.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 09:31 PM

All assumptions! The facts do not support your claims!
Unemployment in Mexico is 40% of that of the US. 4% vs 9.9%

Elsewhere? Where else can they go? No job in Mexico, no money, no food. Just put yourself in their literal shoes. Your entire village is broke. You're hungry, your children are hungry, and nobody around you has a dime because nobody has a job. You've applied for visas. You've waited, say, two years, and they haven't come.

You've got enough food left for one more day. And no one around you has any, either. Without food, it's simple. You'll die. For certain.

There are jobs close by in the United States, where you can earn money to buy food. Getting there is dangerous but at least it's hopeful, you only might die during the journey, as opposed to for sure dying if you stay where you are.

Say you're talking to this person, face-to-face, on this day. What do you tell him? 1) Stay in your village and starve, or 2) .....?

You fill in the blanks, because so far nobody else has been able to come up with something better than "move to America for a better life."
This man doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a visa, he doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the next election to vote for a better president who might turn the country around in a few years.

He needs to eat tomorrow.

You tell him where he should go.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:02 PM

You make the same mistake most Americans make when hearing about the pay in foreign countries. Also according to Mexperience the minimum wage is in the vicinity of $4.50 per day.
Here is a report by someone living under those terrible conditions in Mexico.
"I live in a small publito (village) somewhere in central Mexico. I am one of three “Gringos” here and we are followed around like ETs. I’m guess that we are considered different, and many of these villagers have not seen one of us up close.

I have a partially furnished two bedroom casa with a satallite dish on the roof. My rent is $100 US dollars per month for this home. I recently saw a four bedroom for $400 dollars per month. Stay out of the expensive areas and you’ll pay what the locals pay.

That’s true with the food too. I buy my food at the local market and from the mobile vendors that traverse up and down my cobblestone street. Fish and shrimp are cheap. If you just walk up and show your blue eyes, you’ll pay the higher “gringo tax” price. Shrimp started out at $7 per lb, but after networking with the locals who had a cousin, a brother, or maybe married to someone who worked on the fishing boats, I started getting the same shrimp for $1 per lb. The food here is pretty much pesticide free. They can’t afford the chemicals that we use in the States, and as a result, the food probably better for you and it is delicious, having more taste than you can imagine.
I spend in the neighborhood of M$120 pesos per week for my morning and midday meals. That’s US$12 per week, and if you add my evening meal, I’ll spend another $15 bucks. Let's see, US$27 to US$30 per week for my meals isn’t bad. If you wanted a maid to clean or cook for you, they can be had for US$4 per day! Bus fare to and from a nearby larger city is US$24 dollars for the entire MONTH and that’s if you went to that particular town and back every day." (http://www.escapeartist.com/efam30/mexico.html)
"Cost of Living in Mexico

The cost of living ranges are set within the costs for a middle to upper class family lifetsyle, which considers a $1300 to $17400 USD monthly income. Included in the costs are: Housing, Food, Education, Transportation, Clothing, Recreation, Health, Furniture and Appliances, and Personal Use. Monthly rents are taken for the average for each city, and may vary according to market situation. Prices are in USD, based on an exchange rate of 11.5 pesos to the dollar."

Yes, there are. "In 2010 the average of Mexico’s three region-based minimum wages is around U.S. $4.50 per day." - US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm)

That's $4.50 a day (Or $1642.50 for an annual salary, if you worked all 365 days in the year). That's the average. I don't know about you, but I'd be hard-pressed to support myself on $4.50 an hour. Now what if I had to support an entire family on that? Say you have a family of four. At $4.50 per day, each person gets $1.13 to live off of per day, or $410.63 per year. How much money to you need to live on each day? Could you support yourself and your family with such wages?

So the answer is no, there is not sustainable employment for the average Mexican citizen in Mexico.

South of Mexico are Guatemala and Belize. People who live in Guatemala and Belize are running out of those countries, through Mexico, to get to America, so why would a Mexican be better off going that way?

You're hungry, you have no money (whether or not you have a job), and your children need to eat tomorrow.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:03 PM

Just some fyi: A large portion of the illegal imigrants are not even from mexico to begin with, they are from guatamala, honduras, and nicaragua.

Data indicates that only 57% are Mexican!

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:05 PM

We did nothing to make them illegal! them took that upon themselves when they chose to sneak across the border. They clearly know what they are doing is wrong and yet they choose to do so!
Hence they voluntarily broke US law!

Yes, they should all be treated with equal respect.

They are only "illegal" because you make them so, but there is no advantage to you in doing that. You might not accept the British experience is valid for America. but look at it this way: If a person works, he creates wealth - most for his master, but some for himself. That wealth is then used to buy other goods and services which in turn generates more wealth ... I'm sure you've all covered this basic economic theory at some time or other, so I'll leave it there and come to the point. If, as you suppose (I doubt you know), illegal immigration is costing America more than the additional wealth created by those migrants, it's no-one's fault but those who prevent them from working (legitimately) so they can pay taxes and make worthwhile contributions to the country they want to become part of. Let them work legally and they'll pay as much tax as you do. They'll take out their own medical insurance, and they'll buy their own food. They might even start businesses that will grow into American-controlled multi-national conglomerates. And America will grow richer as a result.

Sure, one or two might try to cheat the system, but are you going to tell me no WASP would ever stoop to that level? You just implement checks and controls to prevent it from happening too much.

The alternative will be to send them back - and although this is the solution you advocate, it is a lose-lose solution. The "illegal" suffers a life-time set-back, and the nation misses a cast iron opportunity for growth, and meanwhile has to pay the cost of policing the borders and the cost of repatriation. You might want to save a few cents in taxes, but such petty meanness will have an adverse and, for some, devastating effect on real lives - at home and abroad.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:07 PM

And the "Banking Crisis" is the responsibility of Congress! Who, by the way, want another bite at that apple!

No. I would make no distinction between them. What is beyond my comprehension is that you would, and the distinction would be based on nothing better than where a person happened to be born.

Except the mortgages lined the pockets of corrupt bankers.

The very simple fact you are ignoring is, although America currently owes lots of money as a result of the Banking Crisis, it is owed lots and lots more money by other entities, and could, if it chose, repay the whole national debt tomorrow by cancelling or transferring some of the debts due to it.

Yes, America could easily afford to aid those immigrants.

I am struck with the reckless ease you are prepared to dismiss the value of people on the basis of sweeping and flawed assumptions. The fact that the old man has lived the greater part of his life suggests he is of greater value to society than a child who has nothing more to give than "potential", because the old man has actual experience and wisdom to offer.

This, I now see, is how you can deny masses of people the benefits and advantages you have received, more by good fortune than effort, however you might protest at my saying that, simply because they did not have the luck to have had ancestors who did manage to enter the country and stay.

So if I am prepared to let a child die, you are too ...

... but only I would go to prison. At least I'd know you felt sorry for me - but not enough to help.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:09 PM

Because you understand that giving is a personal issue and that the resources for giving are limited, this somehow makes you selfish?
Then there is the issue of how it is possible to be charitable with someone elses' money?

I'm tired of going round and round about this. We're getting nowhere, fast. You're not going to convince me that impoverishing the world to try to save the poor is the right thing to do, and I'm not going to convince you that it's not.

Maybe you're right about me. Maybe I am a selfish bastard who doesn't care what happens to the poor. It certainly doesn't concern me all that much. I'm too busy worrying about keeping myself from becoming poor. When it comes to charity I'm more concerned with myself than others.

Maybe it's because, over the years, I've come to the realization that people in general are just plain bad. There are individuals who are good and decent, sure, and I treasure these when I find them. But as a group there's just nothing to like.

So I'm going to bow out of this argument. I've pretty much said all I want to about it anyway.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:10 PM

Really only because one group is speaking from a base of reason and the other from a base of emotion.

I have to agree with Thorne:
This has just become a circle, Never Ending and continuous.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:15 PM

Would you consider moving somewhere to take a job that pays you 13 times your current wage. If it meant breaking a law? A law for which if you get caught the worst that happens is you get sent back home?

I agree that, in 137 posts we haven't got very far, although I don't think it has become completely circular. But if it has, let's try to break out.

We all agree that illegal immigration is a reality, and it is petty damned obvious that rounding them up and sending them home is futile, even if it is the right thing - and the only right thing to do (I said "if"). Even putting them in gaol for a few months before they go home won't stop the others - and probably won't deter the ones who are actually put in prison ... they'll try again as soon as they can.

So what's the answer? Giving police more powers demand to see olive-skinned people's papers and to incacerate those who can't produce them? Allowing vigilantes to patrol borders instead in the hope that their enthusiasm for the job will make them more effective than existing border guards? Throwing the borders wide open?

I suppose that first, we have to agree what the pupose of border controls is, and take it from there. We also need to take an unbiased look at why immigrants take the risks they do for - let's face it - economic reasons.

DuncanONeil

05-28-2010, 10:19 PM

The real problem with many borders in parts of the world is that they were not drawn by the locals!
As far as the AZ law goes it is not so much an, no change that, is not a new law. It is merely a set of principles for AZ to engage in enforcement of Federal law.

It is not allways economic reasons that drive imigration, sometimes one is forced to leave a place to escape violence and or survive a war.

I know when I started the thread the focus was on Arizona and its new law, which btw isnt all that stringent even compared to laws allready existing on the books in other states of the USA (as mentioned in a different thread about Florida) and other countries throughout the world; but I certianly didnt expect the focus to soley be upon the USA's imigration issues so much as the world over.

I was perhaps one of the last generation of my mother's people born for a long time in a country where unregulated imigration of a completely differnt group of refugees from a niehboring region became a catalyst among many other catalysts that tore the nation of my birth appart at the seams and basically lead to the ethnic cleansing/expulsion allmost in total of our people making us refugees in our own right.

I am sure one can easily see why this topic is near and dear to me in so many ways, which is why I have been keeping my own views private for the most part.

I like the "idea" of countries without borders myself, the freedom for anyone to travel anywhere apeals to me but considering my personal experiences and a close study of history I can also see the sometimes nessecity of controling one's borders and who is allowed to cross over them and interact with one's society.

Such interaction which in many cases has proven throughout history to not be so mutually benificial for all parties envolved.

Personally I have no issue with Arizona's new law, it is certianly not imho as bad as political pundents of the opposition party to the Governor of that State would like to make it out to be.

I can understand and empathize completely with the people who go to the extremes of leaving their homes and crossing borders to try and make a better life for themselves and their familes.

That being said, I am also a very strong proponent of them doing so legally in keeping with the requirments of the country they wish to enter or become a citizen there of, including making every endeavor to learn and respect the language and other prevelant customs where aplicable.