3
   

State arrests Illegal Immigrant for Trespassing

 
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:41 pm
This is a quote from Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico that makes lots of sense and is practical if enforced with all the components in place:

Quote:
We have an immigration system that's broken. We have 10 million illegal immigrants in America, 25 percent in the last two years. So if you have an earned legalization program that has benchmarks of law-abidingness,that has benchmarks of working hard, and you combine it with tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen-lost passports--what is needed is a comprehensive immigration reform, not piecemeal, punitive measures....What I would do and what I think makes sense is there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel so these immigrants come out of the shadows. And that means a clear path toward some kind of legal status."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:37 pm
dyslexia wrote:
...the comment I made above re those who complain about the durrent enforcement of immigration laws being mostly the same as voted for Bush, I believe it's self-evident that those doing the most complaining about the "illegals" are also the one's that most likely did vote for Bush and it appears to me that Bush does not include an agenda of enforcing immigration laws.

I agree completely. I absolutely condemn his lack of enforcement of the immigration laws.

dyslexia wrote:
My personal view is that the current status of immigration laws, enforced or not, are inane. I have, elsewhere on this forum, posted that I would prefer totally open borders for the entire north american continent in much the same way as the EU has done in europe.

No, it's strongly in our interest to control and know who enters our country.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:49 pm
At the risk of being portrayed as a dog worrying a bone....

Quote:
The federal agents in charge of enforcing the immigration laws do not. So the real choice is for the police to follow the letter of the law and allow lawbreakers to walk free by the million, or to attempt to handle federal infractions at the local level. Their course of action may be improper, but it is also not proper for the feds to refuse to enforce the law. Most people don't like watching the laws of their country flaunted with impunity


The laws of every country are flouted with impunity - it's what makes a society liveable. If every law was enforced it would be mayhem. The immigration authorities in the US obviously don't have sufficient resources. If the federal govt was serious about immigration enforcement it would increase those resources so that the immigration laws could be more effectively enforced. That's a political decision.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:58 pm
It's a political decision based upon the power of money--those who benefit from the labor of illegal immigrants are generous contributors to the political parties. Any other rationales are just that--rationales. What this all boils down to is the almighty dollar, and nothing will change.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 11:53 pm
goodfielder wrote:
At the risk of being portrayed as a dog worrying a bone....

Quote:
The federal agents in charge of enforcing the immigration laws do not. So the real choice is for the police to follow the letter of the law and allow lawbreakers to walk free by the million, or to attempt to handle federal infractions at the local level. Their course of action may be improper, but it is also not proper for the feds to refuse to enforce the law. Most people don't like watching the laws of their country flaunted with impunity


The laws of every country are flouted with impunity - it's what makes a society liveable.

So no law should be enforced, regardless of whether it is protecting something? Remind me to hold up a bank the next time I'm short of cash. Nice argument.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 12:32 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

So no law should be enforced, regardless of whether it is protecting something? Remind me to hold up a bank the next time I'm short of cash. Nice argument.


Very undergrad of you Brandon. I didn't say that. I said that "the laws of every country are flouted with impunity..." I didn't say they should be.

It's impossible to enforce all laws all of the time and it's simply not desirable to do so. It's all about priorities. You might walk against a red light and I might choose to do nothing about it because I may have more important things to do but rob a bank and I'll be around to say hello without first knocking on your door.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 01:11 am
goodfielder wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

So no law should be enforced, regardless of whether it is protecting something? Remind me to hold up a bank the next time I'm short of cash. Nice argument.


Very undergrad of you Brandon. I didn't say that. I said that "the laws of every country are flouted with impunity..." I didn't say they should be.


Oh, then what is this?

goodfielder wrote:
The laws of every country are flouted with impunity - it's what makes a society liveable.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 02:19 am
"are" - as in "this is what's really happening"

"should" - as in "that is what should be happening".

"are" - a statement of actuality, of observation

"should" - a normative statement - this is what ought to be happening

In plain English. People are breaking the law all the time. Should they break the law? Well no but try getting through the day without doing it.

We all break the law every day of our lives, if we were held to account for every breach of the law our societies would fail to function. Deciding which of those infractions to take action on is the job of any policing/law enforcement authority.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 02:28 am
anyone interested in this subject has got to check out whats going on at the california border to mexico.Search...minutmen,california,protest.Also check out.......ohio,mexican.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 06:39 am
Setanta wrote:
It's a political decision based upon the power of money--those who benefit from the labor of illegal immigrants are generous contributors to the political parties. Any other rationales are just that--rationales. What this all boils down to is the almighty dollar, and nothing will change.


Absolutely correct. Witness the citrus industry in Florida.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:44 am
goodfielder wrote

Quote:
If the police have no legal authority to enforce immigration laws (whcih I believe they don't) then they have to obey the spirit and intent of the law which is - that immigration matters remain the province of the federal government.



Is it your opinion that local law enforcement must obey the spirit of the law. But the federal government does not.

If you see someone breaking into someone's house would you ignore it since it is not your responsibility or do something about it.

The federal government is abrogating it's responsibility and by doing so creating problems for the states. Why should localities allow themselves to be **** on because of the federal governments attitude of I don't give a damn?

Note: Someone stated that those who want the immigration laws enforced would vote for Bush. That is a lot of crap.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 09:32 am
Setanta wrote:
It's a political decision based upon the power of money--those who benefit from the labor of illegal immigrants are generous contributors to the political parties. Any other rationales are just that--rationales. What this all boils down to is the almighty dollar, and nothing will change.


I must disagree most rigorously.

What is my rationale for supporting the a plan that would give undocumented immigrants the ability to a path to legalize their status with dignity? I don't make generous contributions to the political parties.

And who is funding the anti-immigrant side-- e.g. the well funded Tom Tancredo (who may be a presidential candidate?

Oh! It must be good patriotic Americans who are defending their country. (Or is that the Iraq war...).

There are plenty of rationales for supporting the rights of undocumented workers. There is compassion, an appreciation for hard work, a knowledge of our heritage, a recognition of the real needs of business and a recognition that even immigrants who have commited the serious crime of crossing a border, are human beings doing what most of us would do.

Surprisingly there is a good plan that would address both the needs of business and provide a path to legal status for those hard working immigrants who are here now. This plan would provide security, get more cooperation from Mexico and provide a fair way to tighten the rules in the business world with their support.

Now, who is funding the effort to keep the status quo? (Hint: it is not the business community).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 09:38 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Setanta wrote:
It's a political decision based upon the power of money--those who benefit from the labor of illegal immigrants are generous contributors to the political parties. Any other rationales are just that--rationales. What this all boils down to is the almighty dollar, and nothing will change.


I must disagree most rigorously.

What is my rationale for supporting the a plan that would give undocumented immigrants the ability to a path to legalize their status with dignity? I don't make generous contributions to the political parties.

And who is funding the anti-immigrant side-- e.g. the well funded Tom Tancredo (who may be a presidential candidate?

Oh! It must be good patriotic Americans who are defending their country. (Or is that the Iraq war...).

There are plenty of rationales for supporting the rights of undocumented workers. . . (etc.)


Your wear your moral rectitude like a badge. Please try to keep up, here, E_Brown . . .

Goodfielder wrote:
If the federal govt was serious about immigration enforcement it would increase those resources so that the immigration laws could be more effectively enforced. That's a political decision.


It is to that statement by Goodfielder to which i had responded. It was only to that statement to which my response refers. I am so very proud of your for your righteous attitude, but it is irrelevant to my statement, which only refers to the pragmatic question of why the Federal government does or does not enforce immigration law.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 05:01 pm
au1929 wrote:
goodfielder wrote

Quote:
If the police have no legal authority to enforce immigration laws (whcih I believe they don't) then they have to obey the spirit and intent of the law which is - that immigration matters remain the province of the federal government.



Is it your opinion that local law enforcement must obey the spirit of the law. But the federal government does not.

If you see someone breaking into someone's house would you ignore it since it is not your responsibility or do something about it.

The federal government is abrogating it's responsibility and by doing so creating problems for the states. Why should localities allow themselves to be **** on because of the federal governments attitude of I don't give a damn?

Note: Someone stated that those who want the immigration laws enforced would vote for Bush. That is a lot of crap.


Both local law enforcement and the federal government are bound by the rule of law and they should be bound by the rule of law.

The federal govt is probably abrogating its responsibilities but not to local law enforcement because the legislation doesn't allow for that. So the federal govt is abrogating its responsibilities to its citizens in toto.

Local government bodies should take it up as a political issue, it's not a law enforcement issue.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/15/2021 at 01:56:31