50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:40 pm
U.S. high court rules for immigrant deported for drug offenses
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Mexican national deported from the United States after a drug conviction could be allowed to return, following a Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that clarified when certain crimes can trigger an immigrant's removal.

The justices concluded, 8-1, that Jose Antonio Lopez's felony conviction under state law should not automatically subject him to deportation, since the crime would normally be treated as a misdemeanor in federal courts.

"We hold that a state offense constitutes a 'felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act' only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under federal law," wrote Justice David Souter. He said to do otherwise "would be so much trickery."

The ruling could have broader implications. About 7,000 people were deported last year for drug-related offenses, according to Justice Department figures. Many of those offenses involved simple possession of small amounts of narcotics, and various federal appeals courts had split over how to treat differing interpretations in state and federal drug laws. --From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears (Posted 12:27 p.m.)


IDIOT!!!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:45 pm
au, Precisely my point about "our" government enforcing laws they create on illegal immigration. It's my understanding that our borders are still not secured; all else is academic.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:47 pm
Au, There were 8 Supreme court justices who agreed with this decision. There was one justice who voted against it.

I am assuming that you don't like the decision of the supreme court which means that you should be cursing the supreme court justices responsible for this decision in plural.

The way you said "IDIOT!" (as a singular) makes it sound like you are cursing the lone dissenting opinion. I don't think this is the case.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:48 pm
Also Au, the immigrant in question was a legal immigrant.

I know that sometime you people don't know the difference between legal and illegal.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:49 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Also Au, the immigrant in question was a legal immigrant.

I know that sometime you people don't know the difference between legal and illegal.


Do you assume that you are on one side, and that everyone else here is on the other; at least for this issue?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:51 pm
No cyclo, I made that aside because it struck me as ironically funny.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:53 pm
eb, You're the only one laughing.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:57 pm
ebrown_p
The supreme courts decision was idiotic. It would seem that only laws that favor immigrants are enforcable.

Note: When did I say he was an illegal alien?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:08 pm
This is a thread about illegal immigration. This court case has nothing to do with illegal immigration, but let's discuss it for a bit anyway.

This decision says that legal immigrants should be treated the same as American citizens for minor drug crimes. These immigrants don't get any less of a punishment than Americans, but they also don't get any more of a punishment.

This decision doesn't favor legal immigrants over anyone. It says they should get the same punishment as anyone else for crimes that don't raise above a certain level of severity. Of course, this decision doesn't change the fact that legal immigrants can be deported for serious crimes (even though Americans can't).

Doesn't the fact that this was an 8-1 decision of a conservative supreme court mean anything?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:09 pm
Brown
The article said he was a Mexican national. From which I would assume he was not an American citizen. Why should we allow people such as that who can not obey the law to remain in this nation. We have enough home grown lawbreakers.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:14 pm
The article says that he was a legal permanent resident.

The Supreme Court was upholding the law which says that legal permanent residents have some rights and can't be deported for minor crimes. Of course this man almost certainly had the same consequences that the Americans who break the same law have. This court case was only about deportation.

But the law is clear that you can't deport legal immigrants for commiting misdemeanors. The Supreme court simply clarified what constitutes a misdimeanor when Federal and State statutes have different definitions.

I don't understand this apparently knee-jerk reaction against legal immigrants in a thread about illegal immigration.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:15 pm
From au's post, above: A Mexican national deported from the United States after a drug conviction could be allowed to return, following a Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that clarified when certain crimes can trigger an immigrant's removal.

Doesn't clarify whether he's legally here or not.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:19 pm
It took me less than 30 seconds to Google the answer to this question...

Quote:

The case before the court involved Jose Antonio Lopez, a Mexican native who became a legal resident in 1990. He was arrested in South Dakota in 1997 and pleaded guilty to cocaine possession. He served 15 months of a five-year prison sentence.


Reuters Article found with a simple Google search
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 05:25 pm
I don't get it. His crime was bad enough to earn him a five year sentence but not to based on the SC to have him deported. I guess you would need to kill or rape someone for that.

Note to Brown: just being sarcastic.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 05:29 pm
I wonder when his citizenship swearing in is scheduled? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 05:33 pm
A legal resident who is not a citizen is certainly entitled to all unalienable rights that any person should have. But he or she is still a guest in this country and I see no reason s/he should be allowed to stay if s/he is not obeying the law.

Once an immigrant is naturalized, however, s/he is no longer a "Mexican National" or "Frenchman" or "Englishman" etc. who is here by permission. S/he is an American with all the rights to which any American is entitled.

We might have to put up with more than we'd like to from family, but guests who refuse to conduct themselves appropriately in your home, your business, or your country should be removed from the premises.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 03:27 pm
Ran across this today which adds nothing to the debate other than being a reminder of how Mexican folks factor into the whole equation:

Tue Dec 5, 8:25 PM ET
1 in 7 Mexican workers employed in the U.S.: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One in seven Mexican workers have left their country and are working in the United States, an immigration study said on Tuesday.

There were more than 7 million workers from Mexico in the U.S. labor force this year, 2 million more than six years ago, said the report's author, Jeanne Batalova of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank.

Batalova said the increase in numbers had to do with economic reasons, with more immigrants looking for a better life in the United States, but also with the increased enforcement at the U.S.-Mexican border.

"It became more dangerous to cross the border, and that caused a 'lock in' effect," Batalova told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Up to 9.4 percent of the all persons born in Mexico were living in the United States in 2005, according to the report. In the same year, 14 percent of Mexican workers had jobs on U.S. soil, compared to 2.5 percent of Canadians.

Based on data from the Census Bureau 2006 Current Population Survey, Batalova found that Mexicans accounted for nearly one-third of the 22.6 million foreign-born workers in the United States, or almost 5 percent of the total civilian labor force.

More than 11 million illegal immigrants, most of them from Mexico, live in the United States, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, another think tank in Washington that follows immigration trends.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061206/us_nm/immigration_us_mexico_dc_1
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 09:42 am
http://i11.tinypic.com/4cvevtk.jpg
Quote:
SIDEBAR: AFRICAN-AMERICANS

New hires, most black, find a grim daily grind


By Dahleen Glanton
Tribune national correspondent
Published December 11, 2006


WRIGHTSVILLE, Ga. -- Eighteen-year-old Tamara Gregory is earning more money than ever. Her $8-an-hour job at the Crider Poultry plant pays for her tidy one-bedroom trailer and keeps her in nice outfits to wear to the dance club on Friday nights. But after Christmas--if they hold out that long--she and her friends plan to quit.

It is not the 45-minute ride to and from the plant in Stillmore on a $10-a-day shuttle that has turned them against the jobs they landed after federal agents raided the plant and drove away the illegal Mexican workers. It's not even that they never see daylight, leaving for work at 4:30 a.m. and getting home after 6 p.m. What they hate is the job.

"My knuckles are sore from pulling the guts and hearts out of chickens," said Kalisha Oliver, 19. "It's not a good sight, and I'm not going to spend the rest of my life doing this."

Crider officials are scrambling to find workers. Over the last decade, the company gradually replaced African-American employees with Hispanics. Now the company has again turned to blacks and anyone else it can find, including about 40 felons from a detention center and 30 homeless men from a mission, to keep running.

An investigation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement found about 600 of Crider's 1,000 employees had illegal documents. Crider officials said they had been unaware of the problem and before the raid began firing those who could not produce legal documents.

To rebuild its workforce, the company increased starting wages by 40 cents an hour. Most employees earn $7 to $8 an hour plus bonuses and overtime. Still, officials have recruited only about 450 employees.

As Gregory and Oliver see it, Crider is a brief stop on their journey out of Wrightsville, a rural town about 40 miles from Stillmore. Gregory would like to be a teacher or a pediatrician someday. Oliver wants to be a director of nursing. But neither has a diploma, having failed the high school graduation test.

The problem with Crider, they said, is supervisors don't treat them with respect.

"They say the Mexicans can fill up a truck in 20 minutes and it takes us 45 minutes to an hour," said Oliver, who gave up a job as a nursing home aide to work at Crider. "They want us to be like the Mexicans, working for little or nothing and not complaining. But we won't take it."

The women are aware of the company's dilemma and take advantage of it, sometimes going to work late, or not at all.

"The rumor is that they are going to pay for the Mexicans to come back and help them get a green card so they can let all of us go," Gregory said.

"One day all of us are going to be hanging on the line instead of the chickens," said Oliver.

When James Stanford, 29, heard Crider was hiring, he left his home in Douglas and moved 100 miles to Stillmore. After three months, he quit.

"I was hanging out on the porch when a guy came by and told me about the job," said Stanford, a welder who had been out of work a year. "He said they had rooms for us and I was thinking at least a Holiday Inn. But when I got here, it was a different story."

The man who hired him was a private contractor, and the free room turned out to be in barracks owned by Crider. Inside the filthy two-bedroom units, men and women sleep on mattresses on the floor and toilets overflow. Crider officials said they plan to shut the barracks.

The barracks used to be filled with illegal immigrants. Now the tenants are all African-Americans. "When we pulled in here, I felt like I would be used and discriminated against," Stanford said. "I felt degraded. I've never lived like this and I can't wait to get out."
Source (photo from page A8 of the print edition)
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 09:50 am
As an aside: you earn 12.84 € minimum in German poultry plants (that's $16.96) - therefore it's a job mostly done by East-Europeans .... from outsite the EU.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Dec, 2006 10:00 am
That's what will happen here too Walter when they finally get a handle on this and make sure that everybody in the USA is here legally. Wages should also be tied to what is necessary to get the work done. If people won't gut chickens for $8 and hour, you simply have to pay them enough that they feel it's worth it and can afford some kind of quality of life when they do it.

If that means the rest of us have to pay $5 instead of $4 for a fryer at the grocery store, so be it. We'll easily save the other $1 in taxes that go to pay for all the illegals now.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/07/2025 at 08:53:23