May I see your papers, citizen?

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Last go at this problem from Arizona the Dems split. It was signed by a Dem Gov though she was not happy about it....political reality forced her hand she said.

There is a big difference between going after employers and going after workers. I can accept a law enforcing that people be authorized to work. You didn't see people marching in the streets after this bill.

This bill doesn't just target employers.

This bill targets people on the street. This is why you see such a passionate reaction against it-- and why it passed along strict party lines.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

I'm for legalizing everyone who is here, as well - so it's not a partisan thing.

Cycloptichorn

mysteryman wrote:

But there you run into another problem.

Lets say, for the sake of this duscussion, that today you legalize every illegal immigrant in the country RIGHT NOW.
What are you going to do with those that are here illegally next year?

If you reward someone for breaking the law, how can you tell someone else that they will be punished for breaking the same law?
I have read the AZ law, and while I think its a good idea on paper, I'm still hesitant about how it will be enforced.

If someone is here illegally, they are violating the law and should be arrested and deported, period.
You cannot reward some for criminal acts and punish others for those same criminal acts.

Permit me to point out
a discrepancy qua practical application of deportation, to wit:
it is undisputed that as soon as many of them r dumped back
into Mexico, thay begin to prepare to sneak back in,
LAFFING at our powerlessness; i.e., thay don 't give a rat 's ass,
because deportation is neither a punishment,
nor a disability against their UNDOING the deportation.

In order for us to prevail and successfully carry the day
against the Mexican intruders, we NEED to make them UNHAPPY
while we have possession of them, unhappy to the extent of
dissuading them from violating our borders AGAIN.
Maybe some very unpleasant incarceration before deportation,
to scare them out of sneaking back in here; that or some other
clever punishment to scare them away. I don 't know what.

WHAT can we DO to them to successfully scare them away ??

David

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It hurts because you are telling people that if they can break the law and not get caught immdeiately, they will be rewarded for it.
When I break the law, I dont get rewarded for it, and neither does anyone else.

But you are in favor of giving one group of people rewardds for breaking the law.
By singling out on group for reward like that, couldnt that also be called racist?

So if we use your argument, if I rob a bank and dont get caught imediately, I should get rewarded by being allowed to keep the money when I finally am caught?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

You misunderstand me; I advocate changing the laws to allow for easier immigration, and forcing those who are caught here illegally to pay a fine if they want to stay. If they don't want to pay the fine, they can go to jail like anyone else who doesn't pay a fine, or get deported.

Nobody is being rewarded in this situation at all - except for the US, which will receive a large influx of tax-paying citizens.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

There is a big difference between going after employers and going after workers. I can accept a law enforcing that people be authorized to work. You didn't see people marching in the streets after this bill

When that bill was passed, there were a lot of people on here, including you I believe, that were opposed to that bill because it would force to many people out of work and was unfair to immigrants.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

When I break the law, I dont get rewarded for it, and neither does anyone else.

Rosa Parks was rewarded. So was Alice Paul.

You may try to argue that immigration laws are not like the laws that Rosa Parks was breaking.... but this seems like a disingenuous argument from someone who is trying to equate crossing a border with robbing a bank.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
There is a big difference between going after employers and going after workers. I can accept a law enforcing that people be authorized to work. You didn't see people marching in the streets after this bill

When that bill was passed, there were a lot of people on here, including you I believe, that were opposed to that bill because it would force to many people out of work and was unfair to immigrants.

I recall being in complete support of this bill.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

This bill targets people on the street. This is why you see such a passionate reaction against it-- and why it passed along strict party lines.

this is what the border patrol does every day, so are we supposed to stand down now because you have a problem treating likely illegals as something other than honest law abiding citizens?

If not where is the magic line, one mile across the border.... ten??? How far to they have to go before they become hands off...get way with their crime against us?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

this is what the border patrol does every day, so are we supposed to stand down now because you have a problem treating likely illegals as something other than honest law abiding citizens?

You have it exactly backward, as usual. The problem is that this leads to treatment of law-abiding citizens as illegals.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Rosa Parks lost her job because of her actions.
It was much later before she got the credit and the recognition she deserved.

Losing your job is not a reward.

As for Alice Paul, again she was not rewarded for her actions, unless you consider being arrested and going to jail a reward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Paul

Quote:

In the US presidential election of 1916, Paul and the NWP campaigned against the continuing refusal of President Woodrow Wilson and other incumbent Democrats to support the Suffrage Amendment actively. In January 1917, the NWP staged the first political protest to picket the White House. The picketers, known as "Silent Sentinels," held banners demanding the right to vote. This was an example of a non-violent civil disobedience campaign. In July 1917, picketers were arrested on charges of "obstructing traffic." Many, including Paul, were convicted and incarcerated at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia (later the Lorton Correctional Complex) and the District of Columbia Jail

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

this is what the border patrol does every day, so are we supposed to stand down now because you have a problem treating likely illegals as something other than honest law abiding citizens?

If not where is the magic line, one mile across the boarder ten??? How far to they have to go before they become hands off...get way with their crime against us?

The Border Patrol is a corrupt, politically charged, organization that abuses civil rights daily. I have personal experience with them racial profiling-- where they enter a public space and start interrogating only brown skinned people. They deny this (of course), but there are repeated documented cases where this happens. In fact their whole program is corrupt with officers being given quotas and bonuses for catching people with no penalties for officers who break the rules.

But that is beside the point. Let's pretend there was a Border Patrol that fulfills its mission without political machinations or shady racial practices.

The local police have a conflict of interest. They are supposed to serve and protect communities. They are the first line of defense against community crime, including things like domestic violence. This is in conflict with a mission to find people to deport.

Having local police acting as immigration officers hurts their ability to solve any other type of crime. Everything from robbery to rape will be less likely to be reported. Witnesses won't come forward-- people won't cooperate.

And this problem is not just with undocumented immigrants. This issue effects US citizens and it effects communities. There are family ties and church ties and friendships-- letting this issue create animosity between police and the communities they serve (including the US citizens in those communities) is a very bad thing for the police and citizens alike.

If there were a hypothetical respectable Border Patrol, and we could agree on how they should go about enforcement-- it would still be the best for everyone to separate their duties from those of local policing.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You have it exactly backward, as usual. The problem is that this leads to treatment of law-abiding citizens as illegals

Bullshit, citizens will have to subject themselves to having their citizenship question. This is not a huge burden. We are talking about the very same government that we are allowing to decide for us what foods we are and are not allowed to eat, somehow I think we can with stand the intrusiveness of being asked for ID.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
You have it exactly backward, as usual. The problem is that this leads to treatment of law-abiding citizens as illegals
Bullshit, citizens will have to subject themselves to having their citizenship question. This is not a huge burden.

Yes, it is. I shouldn't have to subject myself to any question if I'm not doing anything that involves anyone else.

Quote:

We are talking about the very same government that we are allowing to decide for us what foods we are and are not allowed to eat, somehow I think we can with stand the intrusiveness of being asked for ID.

You are 100% correct: the government does have the perfect right to regulate business transactions. However, we aren't talking about a business transaction. Not the same thing at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Yes, it is. I shouldn't have to subject myself to any question if I'm not doing anything that involves anyone else.

that is just silly in an age where the government has watch lists, spy's on its citizens, where you have to show ID three times to get on an Airplane and once to get on Amtrak, where huge companies have central in their business model the collecting of information on citizens, in a country where security cameras are already becoming common and soon will be linked to facial recognition programs and where our cell phones, debit cards and toll easy passes are used to track our movements.

You sir are about two decades too late if you are that squeamish about individual rights to remain unidentified. The idea is to shut the barn door BEFORE the beast escapes.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Your opinion notwithstanding, no officer of the law should have the right to demand identification if I am not engaging in actions which materially affect others. This is a long-understood point of civil liberties and your opinions of businesses, airplanes, and cameras have nothing to do with it at all.

Police officers and other law enforcement officials serve a purpose, but must be watched closely at all times, because they frequently overstep their bounds. I cannot support any law which increases their power to harass innocent people.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Your opinion notwithstanding, no officer of the law should have the right to demand identification if I am not engaging in actions which materially affect others. This is a long-understood point of civil liberties and your opinions of businesses, airplanes, and cameras have nothing to do with it at all.

YOu seem like a younger bright guy, so I assume that you know how much data on your behaviour has been captured by private firms, who can do anything they want with that information. When so much information about you is potentially being sold to the highest bidder it is hilarious watching you on your high horse all offended that agents of the collective are asking you one simple question for a very good reason.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Your opinion notwithstanding, no officer of the law should have the right to demand identification if I am not engaging in actions which materially affect others. This is a long-understood point of civil liberties and your opinions of businesses, airplanes, and cameras have nothing to do with it at all.

YOu seem like a younger bright guy, so I assume that you know how much data on your behaviour has been captured by private firms, who can do anything they want with that information. When so much information about you is potentially being sold to the highest bidder it is hilarious watching you on your high horse all offended that agents of the collective are asking you one simple question for a very good reason.

I do not believe that they are asking for a good reason. See, that's a silly presumption on your part - you don't know why they are asking.

The only workable system is to have one where the law enforcement is restrained to the maximum amount. And that means not giving them a pretense to harass people. The default assumption should be that you ARE a citizen, not that you are NOT a citizen.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm in favor of simply letting anyone who wants to come here to just come here. You want to be a citizen, great, you're allowed to apply and we'll take you...even if you're only qualified to be a janitor.

Although, I would only support this if the country of origin reciprocates.

And I think our borders should still be monitored for illegal weapons, drugs, etc....but people should be able to cross w/o concern.

We are as bad at enforcing our borders as we are at the war on drugs. Time to just give up both.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

I'm in favor of simply letting anyone who wants to come here to just come here. You want to be a citizen, great, you're allowed to apply and we'll take you...even if you're only qualified to be a janitor

how would that be good for America? We are not a superpower anymore but we are still for the moment relatively wealthy....you're fine with giving it away to who ever wants it?

The thing that Robert said long ago that those who are born in America have already won the lottery is true. If we take your idea we would piss it away, there would never again be a building of something special here because the moment that we are better off than the average other guy we will be loaded up with new citizens to take care of..

I would agree with your position only for countries that are good enough that Americans would actually want to take their citizenship there. Only a moron would want to become a Mexican citizen right now.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

You sir are about two decades too late if you are that squeamish about individual rights to remain unidentified.

So if you step out of your house to walk the neighborhood without id and the police decide to ask for your papers, you are ok going to jail while the issue is sorted out? This is not really an issue for me since I have my wallet with me, but my wife walks without her purse.

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know