What should be done about illegal immigration?

Hey cj - did your mom have any kids that lived?

Senate votes to hike fines for employers




Well, this seems ok to me, does it to anyone else?

I have no problem with making it illegal and applying penalties when employers intentionally or knowingly hire illegals. I have a HUGE problem with penalizing employers who hire somebody on good faith that they are legal and it later turns out they are not. I think it is entirely unreasonable to expect most small businesses to do a thorough background check on anybody they hire and unreasonable for many businesses to have to wait on the results of a background check before they can put somebody to work when they need that worker right now.

The ID cards for temporary legal workers is a smart move but only partially solves the problem unless everybody, citizen and temp workers, get them, and many many Americans resist the idea of a national ID card.

Those who are here illegally, however, are still going to have the phony documentation that they use now to get employed.

It should ultimately be the government's responsibility and not the employer's to determine who is and who is not legally in this country.

How is the US law re receiving of stolen goods?

Here, even when it is done "in good faith", you not only have to return it but mostly get fined as well. (A very common saying in German says: 'Ignorance is no excuse'.)
And since this is an old legal tradition in (Roman) law, it works analogue in other fields of law than criminal law taken for granted as well.

Here generally the stolen goods can be confiscated, but there is no other penalty applied to the person who received them in good faith and had no reason to believe they were stolen. The same applies to receiving counterfeit money.

The (ancient) Roman legal adage "ignorantia iuris nocet" - ignorance of the law is harmful - in essence means that in legal proceedings no-one can successfully appeal to ignorance of regulations.


Generally, a state governed by the rule of law proceeds from the assumption that all subjects are familiar with all regulations and are obliged to act in accordance with them ... at least here, where there's Roman law (although no rule without exemption here as well).

I'd thought that similar rules were in Common Law, too. Thanks for clarifying.

This is sooooooo wrong.

http://nerdnirvana.org/g4m3s/borderpatrol.htm

What was your score?

reality bites!

My description of the policy in no way negates the fact that people are not supposed to know the law. There is no excuse for not knowing the law. But here if there is no way that a person had any reasonable way to know that the law was being broken, s/he is generally not subject to prosecution or penalty. That is my whole problem with penalizing an employer who inadvertently hires an illegal employee when such employee claims to be legal.

I fully understood that.

We follow a different law system.

PLEASE, everybody who thinks the Senate immigration bill is the solution to all our problems, read the following:

An Amnesty by Any Other Name ... SOURCE (NY Times)

And if you like Vicente Fox's approach better, try this one:

May 24, 2006
Since Borders Don't Matter, Let's Take Over Canada
By Tony Blankley

Term-limited Mexican President Vicente Fox was visiting Utah yesterday, purportedly on a "trade mission." I have my doubts. Is it merely a coincidence that Vicente Fox has rumoredly programmed on his iPod songs like: "Don't Fence Me In," "This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land," "Home on the Range" and "America the Beautiful"?

I suppose if he was asked, he would say that someone has to sing those songs, and obviously Americans refuse to sing them anymore. There was a time when young Americans would climb up on their horses and sing "Don't Fence Me In." But now they just slouch into their overstuffed chairs and watch "American Idol."

Consider, when American politicians are thinking of running for president, they go up to New Hampshire to test the waters, but purportedly to talk to the three or four college students or maple sap collectors up there. Now Vicente is up in Utah on a "trade mission." I think Vicente may be thinking of trading in the presidency of Mexico for the presidency of the United States.

And it's not a bad idea. After all, he has proven to be very effective at sealing his southern border from unwanted illegal immigrants. But more importantly, he has proven to be a genius at moving his population northward. I think it is a time for him to provide the same leadership for us.

Americans have always needed new frontiers to explore and develop. Ever since we made it to the Pacific there has been a sense of completion to our story. As Frederick Jackson Turner argued: "The existence of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward explain American development."

But why only westward? Why not Northward? Perhaps it is time to unleash our restless frontier spirit. Where better than to Canada? And who better to lead us than Vicente Fox?

After all, Canada is virtually empty. There are less than 30 million Canadians in over 3.9 million square miles. It's bigger than the United States and largely undeveloped. Plus, bin Laden doesn't seem to care about Canada. We will no longer be in the bull's eye. Let the Mexican/New Americans deal with him.

We Americans could build the malls, golf courses and high-tech corridors that Canadians refuse to build. No civilized people care about technical borders anymore. It's so possessive and stingy. Only fussy Canadian nativists and xenophobes will complain that Canada is theirs. Yeah? You and what National Guard? There are 300 million of us and only 30 million of you. Get used to it. Plus, we already speak your language. Or, technically, we both already speak England's language.

It's true there are some pesky French up there. But Americans know how to deal with bothersome local tribes who don't know their place. We'll put the French on reservations and let them run gambling casinos. After all, didn't the French invent the croupier? Think of policeman Louis Renault in "Casablanca" only pretending to be shocked at the fact of gambling going on at Rick's Place.

We should think of these great migrations as a hemispheric tummy tuck and breast lift. The new World has been sagging toward its southern pouch. By moving Mexicans to the United States and Americans to Canada, the hemisphere will have a more athletic-looking distribution of pulchritude.

Anyway, we have largely finished our work in the lower 48 states. Consider Detroit, Cleveland and Trenton, N.J. -- what more can we do down here?

Now, some may argue that it's awfully cold in Canada. But that is where global warming comes in. Al Gore could run as vice president with Vicente Fox. Gore knows how to be vice president -- and he knows all about global warming.

He can help us lay out the new United States of Canada. With global warming hitting hard in about eight years, according to Al Gore, Nova Scotia and New Foundland will be our new Florida -- thousands of miles of semi-tropical coastland.

Admittedly we will have to change the second stanza of Newfoundland's "national" anthem:


"When spreads thy cloak of shimm'ring white, At winter's stern command, Thro' shortened day and starlit night, We love thee frozen land, We love thee, we love thee, We love thee frozen land."

But if the Mexican/New Americans can change our anthem to "Jose can you see," we Amer/New Canadians can change a few verses in our new land, too.

Meanwhile, with global warming, Hudson's Bay will become our new Chesapeake Bay -- except immensely larger. We will set up 500 miles of oyster beds and corner the world crab market. The Canadians have just really done nothing with the world's largest bay. (You know, it's almost as big as the Gulf of Mexico.)

We could build our naval academy up in Coral Harbour (we will have to drop the "U" in harbour), which leads conveniently out to the Labrador Sea, and thence to the Atlantic.

For surfing we will have British Columbia, which will become our New California once global warming has done its providential work. Simon Fraser University will be like UCLA in the 1950s. Apple-cheeked, athletic, young students will be able to drive 20 minutes to the beach to take in some good surfing before finishing up their engineering studies.

The Neocons will be happy, too. Perhaps it's America's destiny to move every couple hundred years and spread liberty-loving, highly creative capitalist civilization around the world. We can't do empires as long as the State Department and the Pentagon are running things -- they are too bureaucratic to spread the spirit of Americanism.

But after a 21st Century American Canada, we will continue on across the Bering Strait into another largely empty, globally warmed land of opportunity -- Siberia. After that, the 23rd Century could find us bringing civilization past Nordic and into Finland, Sweden and the semi-tropic Nordic States, which are also stuck in a pre-Enlightenment dullness.

If only mankind had got rid of borders centuries ago, the world would long ago have been a better, safer place. You think?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/a_modest_proposal.html

Foxfyre,

You still don't get it.

The 1986 amnesty was not the problem. In fact the 1986 amnesty was an unquestionable success.

The purpose of the amnesty (and the present senate bill) was to provide a fair and humane way to integrate the workers who had been here and were an important part of the economy into the society.

The amnesty was a huge success. The vast number of people who received the amnesty assimilated just fine. They learned English, they worked and contributed to the economy. Their kids grew up as Americans.

Because of the 1986 amnesty there are many happy, productive American citizens who have educated themselves, worked hard and contributed. These fine Americans include doctors, lawyers and military heroes.

Families were united. Kids were lifted out of poverty. Mothers were given the resources to have healthy babies. These are all signs of success for a just and humane policy.

Furthermore, during the years the followed, incidently the hysterical fears of vast unemployment and economic disaster did not materialize.

Now as you note, the number of people entering the country illegally continued to rise after the economy, business continued to feel the need to hire new illegal immgrants.

It was the harsh parts of the 1986 bill that failed. The fact was Business did not accept the harsh limits that were placed on them, and many Americans still chafe at the harsh features of this bill that break up families.

But the immigrants who received the amnesty held up their part of the bargain-- they became productive, educated and patriotic Americans.

Don't blame the failures of the vindictive part of the bill that you supported on them.

Listen carefully. The purpose of the Path to Citizenship for people who are here is decency and compassion for human beings. This is all I am asking for. It is up to you to figure out how to close the border, but harsh vindictive policy toward families and workers is not the anser.

ebrown writes


Maybe not, but Ed Meese, who was very heavily involved in the design of the 1986 initiative thinks I get it very well. He was there and helped put it together. He now sees the problems with it. Maybe those who can't see that the 1986 immigration reform didn't work so well aren't getting it?

It's still a truth that those who do the same thing over and over while expecting a different result aren't too bright or maybe even sane.

US immigration bill clears hurdle
The United States Senate has voted to limit debate on a sweeping overhaul of immigration law, clearing the way for the bill to be passed this week.

Senators voted 73-25 to advance the measure, which covers border security and plans to give illegal immigrations the chance to gain US citizenship.

The move heralds tough negotiations with the House of Representatives which has passed stricter measures.

About 11.5 million illegal immigrants live in the United States.

"We're now down the home stretch," said Sen John McCain who backs the compromise bill in the Senate, which is now likely to be passed on Thursday.

"We fought off a number of very clearly crafted amendments that would basically have destroyed the bill," he said.

President George W Bush, who backs an approach similar to the Senate bill, has repeatedly called on Congress to approve immigration reform.

But there is widespread resistance, with the issue dividing both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Fierce debate

Foxfyre,

Given that over 60% of Americans polled say they will support a bill to give earned citizenship to those here illegally, and given that this issue threatens to seriously damage the Republican party... are you still unwilling to bend?

It looks like hardline conservatives and the House republicans are going to have to make the difficult choice between ruining the chance for any immigration reform (and taking the political heat as well as ill-will from ethnic groups), and accepting a path to citizenship for people here. The fact that Republicans are clearly in control of government and will take the blame if they fail to get reform makes it all the more difficult.

This is going to be an interesting couple of months.

I don't base my convictions and beliefs on polls. Do you?
I am pretty darn sure though, that these people polled were given very limited options as to how to proceed on that issue. No poll I've seen has suggested that the majority wants these people to have an easier path to citizenship than those who have been patiently waiting for legal admission.

I suggest that voluntary withdrawal from the country to re-enter legally is the best way to go, and I just bet if that option was presented to the majority, easily 75% of Americans would say that would be the way to go.

If that is decided, with huge majority support, will you support it?

I anxiously await JustGiggles to post that 117% of all registered voters oppose guest worker/amnesty for illegal mexicans.

Of course not, but my side paid dearly for our support of gay marriage (which did not poll well for us). If it weren't for a favorable ruling by the Massaschusetts court, we would probably have a Democrat in the White House and more Dems in congress to boot.

You stick to your talking points very well, but the polls don't support you at all. The Senate bill is making headway with the term "earned legalization" and the polls say the public agrees with this. The movement conservatives are fighting a losing battle on this.

It is nice to see an issue that is hurting the Conservatives as much as gay marriage hurt the liberals. The question is how much will this issue hurt the Republican party. I must admit to indulging in a bit of schaudenfreud on this one.



Treating human beings with compassion and decency is a moral issue for me. Any solution that I support must not break up families, refuse health care to people in our communities, or pull kids out of school. If you can find a humane solution, I will listen, but I am still waiting...

Source: The Weekly Standard