Imigration

[Thorne]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[leo9]

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?

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.

[Thorne]

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.

[leo9]

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.

[DuncanONeil]

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]

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]

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.

[MMI]

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]

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.

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]

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...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.

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)

[DuncanONeil]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jennifer Williams]

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.

[DuncanONeil]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=MMI;871348]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
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.

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]

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.

[Thorne]

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]

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.