Citizen Border Patrols and the Law

ebrown_p wrote:

views like yours just lead to stalemate (since more than half of us couldn't stomach your policy).

Sorry Au, but that's the price you pay for living in a democracy.

If you are going to make statements such as that, i think it is incumbent upon you to substantiate your point of view. Upon what basis do you assert that more than half of Americans "couldn't stomach" the policy Au has outlined? Of course, making that specific statement may seem to give you a pass on supporting your contention, because "couldn't stomach" is a sufficiently vague turn of phrase. But it actually puts you in a more difficult rhetorical position.

What evidence do you have that more than half of Americans would be opposed to the policy which Au has suggested?

I don't necessarily say that i agree completely with Au, but i also most certainly do not agree with throwing out tripe such as you have posted as though you speak from authority, without your having provided substantiation for your contention.

0 Replies

[

quote="ebrown_p"]

au1929 wrote:

What we do not need is amnesty under any circumstances. People who enter this nation illegally should not be rewarded. What we do need to identify these people is national ID cards and swift deportation of those found to be in the US illegally. In addition penalties for those who aid and abet illegals by supplying housing and employing them. Anything less will be scratching at the surface and be ineffectual

Fortunately Au, that point of view puts you in the extreme fringe minority.

What we need is a compromise position that Americans can agree on enough to make it through the political system-- views like yours just lead to stalemate (since more than half of us couldn't stomach your policy).

Sorry Au, but that's the price you pay for living in a democracy.[/quote]

Your concept of democracy seems to be selective obedience to the law of the land. If you don't like don't obey it. Sounds like anarchy to me.

0 Replies

OK Setanta. you are (of course) right-- I should back up my point with facts.

1. The failure of the enforcement-only House bill shows that there isn't the broad political support to pass a harsh enforcement only bill.

2. The failure of immigration (from the anti-immigrant side) in the midterm elections. The republicans banked on anti-immigrant hype to win elections. This strategy failed in most places, in some places it failed big (i.e. Graf).

3. Polls show (and I will dig them up when I have a bit more time, but they are readily available) show that over 60% of Americans support a path to citizenship (combined with stricter border enforcement and stricter workplace controls). The idea of "deport them all" is a clear loser as a political idea.

I am arguing for a political solution, and people on my side are ready for compromise. A solution must be a policy that will have the public and poltical support (from a broad section of society) to pass.

The obvious plan is a comprehensive bill that includes border security with a path to citizenship for people here.

I am merely pointing out that, in addition to being cruel in the eyes of many of us Americans, Au's point of view is a clear political loser.

I am hoping that this issue will be resolved-- with a comprehensive solution supported by many segments of society-- in 2007. My belief is that people who hold Au's hardline stance are enough of a minority that they won't be able to stop progress.

0 Replies

Additionally, i would point out that Au's contention that those who employ illegal immigrants should be penalized is in accord with the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. One of the problems with the immigration debate is that the provisions of the 1986 IRCA to penalize those who employ illegal immigrants are not enforced--and it is in the interest of politicians of both parties to turn a blind eye to this, as politicians of both parties receive campaign contributions from people who profit from the employment of illegal immigrants.

0 Replies

Fair enough, E_Brown. I also do not oppose specific amnesty plans (the 1986 amnesty did not result in a flood of illegals across the border, and cannot reasonably be described as a failure), but the devil will be in the details, and the details will necessarily include specific references to documentation. I do support the rigorous application of penalties to those who employ illegal immigrants, and i am convinced that the problem will not go away for as long as illegal immigrants can readily find employment here.

I have suggested in these fora in the past, only partly in jest, that we extend amnesty to illegals who lead us to those who imported them, and those who employed them. As long as it remains profitable to employ illegals, and sufficiently profitable for those who employ them to make significant campaign contributions, the problem will remain.

0 Replies

LittleBitty wrote:

Another article offered for debate; the first few paragraphs quoted below:

Protesters decry illegal immigration

Daily News
CHARLES F. BOSTWICK, Staff Writer
Nov. 25, 2006

---snip---

Quote:
PALMDALE - More than 50 people carrying American flags and signs that read "Stop illegal immigration" demonstrated Saturday at an intersection where a young Palmdale man was fatally injured in a crash blamed on an unlicensed, uninsured undocumented immigrant who tried to walk away after the collision.

The protesters said local government officials should do more to deter illegal immigration, including turning over to federal authorities undocumented immigrants who have been arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and similar crimes rather than releasing them to await trial.

-------

This is the same sort of situation that I described before, and I'm curious to see what solutions are offered to this problem. Amnesty? ID cards? What will prevent this from happening and how can we deal with these incidents?

LittleBitty

First, this incident ought to be considered quite irrelevant to the issue. I'm not sure how many hit and run fatalities there are in the US on any given day, but the portion of them involving an illegal immigrant or unlicenced drivers (of any legal status or ethnicity) would be very small indeed.

I'm unconvinced that immigration from the south represents a problem of significant seriousness at all. Here in New York, these folks are all over the place, re-pointing brick, delivering videos and meals, painting, puttying up drywall, cooking pizza, etc etc. Of course, that was true for the short time I lived in the south as well. In Vancouver, their numbers are far less, at this point. As an ethnic group, I found them very warm and friendly, hard-working, family oriented, and a positive addition to the city's economy and rich ethnic mix.

Whatever expenses they incur as regards social services will be, I imagine, be offset through their contribution to the general economy and through taxes. I could understand if one was concerned that jobs which their children might have access to are now filled, but I'm not at all certain that immigration stands as the fundamental problem here. I'm not an economist which entails that much above is supposition.

It seems very clear, however, that their is a predictable element of racist or chauvenist resentment to folks who look, dress and speak differently. That seems a fact of life in all or most social groups and it is clearly present in America. The "populist" political uses of immigration taps into these sentiments. I think the problem sits here far moreso than in any other concern. Why, after all, were those 50 protestors carrying American flags if not to differentiate us/not us.

Ma Fergusson, governor of the Lone Star State said, on the question of other languages being taught in texas schools...

Quote:

If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.

That was 1924. It's an old story. Given the chauvenism of the statement along with its boggling lack of education/knowledge, one might suppose this rep of the Lone Star State may well have progeny presently posting on this matter.

0 Replies

My solution, a path to citizenship for people who are living, working a raising families now will decrease the number of uninsured, unlicensed drivers.

0 Replies

a simplstic view from across the border :

either more immigrants - legal and illegal - will have to be allowed into the united states with the express purpose of having more workers available to do low low wage jobs or even more jobs will be going "off-shore" .
read any business magazine : business week , forbes etc and you'll get the message .
a recent issue of INC. had an interesting article on that subject .
since more and more americans are going to super-discount-stores to buy goods at the lowest price possible , the manufacturers have little choice . they either must compete at the lowest price possible - which means buying offshore - or go out of business .
the consumers seem to pay little attention as to were the item was produced - they want to buy at "lowest price" .
for many manufacturers it's too late already , they either have gone out of business or have moved their production facilities to a foreign "low wage" country .
a/t the article in INC china will probably be bringing automobiles into the united states within the next two to five years - and the prototypes look much like general motors or other north-american cars .
not that it is of any help , but in europe much of the automobile production has already been shifted to low cost eastern-european countries .
it seems that it is the consumer who is accelerating this trend by shopping for the lowest priced goods .
just as an aside : i have seen frozen vegetables , fancily packaged and advertised as as "europe's choice" : they come from china !
yesterday i saw king-crab-legs on special at CAN $5.99 per pound ; here is what the label said : product of russia , packed in china !
hbg

0 Replies

Bottom line, again, they broke the law as soon as they put their wet feet on US soil., or their bare feet, or scratched feet, whatever, they are illegal & ll the excuses some of you are making for them doesn't change thatact!! Again, what will be the next law that you guys believe is of no matter? How did you feel about the 19 that blew up the WTC? Probaly not much different than you feel about these illegals. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

You seem to be a ... disturbed, madam.

I cup of tea might do some good.

And after that profesional help.

0 Replies

Quote:
"If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas. "

that's why i too decided to learn english ! :wink: (and i hadn't even planned to visit texas when i started learning english Very Happy

).
hbg

0 Replies

Of course, the September 11th terrorists entered the United States legally--some, but by no means all, of them had illegally remained in the United States. And, of course, this is just as silly an argument as the contention which Mr. Mountie quoted about Hey-Zeus speaking English.

Apparently, folks in the Lone Star State don't do well with the subtleties of information.

0 Replies

Cintas warned against firing immigrant force
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 28, 2006

A Mississippi Democrat in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has warned the nation's largest uniform supplier it faces criminal charges if it follows a White House proposal to recheck workers with mismatched Social Security numbers and fire those who cannot resolve the discrepancy in 60 days.
Rep. Bennie Thompson said in a letter to Cintas Corp. it could be charged with "illegal activities in violation of state and federal law" if any of its 32,000 employees are terminated because they gave incorrect Social Security numbers to be hired.
"I am deeply troubled by Cintas' recent policy change regarding the Social Security Administration's 'no match' letters," Mr. Thompson said in the Nov. 2 letter. "It is my understanding that hundreds of Cintas' immigrant workers have received these letters. I am extremely concerned about any potentially discriminatory actions targeting this community."
In June, President Bush proposed new guidelines concerning "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration, saying he wanted to make it easier for employers to verify workers' eligibility and continue to hold them accountable for those they hire.
The Department of Homeland Security followed up on that announcement yesterday, formally releasing new regulations to help businesses comply with hiring requirements intended to reduce the hiring of illegal aliens -- including setting guidelines for businesses when handling "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration.
The proposed regulation is subject to a 60-day public comment period.
"Most businesses want to do the right thing when it comes to employing legal workers," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "These new regulations will give U.S. businesses the necessary tools to increase the likelihood that they are employing workers consistent with our laws.
"They also help us to identify and prosecute employers who are blatantly abusing our immigration system."
But Mr. Thompson called the "no-match" letters a threat to workers who fail to reverify their information and called Cintas' actions a "rash enactment of a proposed DHS regulation." He said that by implementing "this incomplete regulation," Cintas could be in violation of federal immigration law.
The seven-term congressman also said before the proposal becomes law, it must go through a rule-making process, "which could radically change the regulation or kill it all together."
Cintas has issued letters to 400 employees in five states telling them they will be indefinitely suspended if they cannot resolve their mismatched Social Security number within 60 days.
"Cintas, like all employers, has a legal obligation to ensure all employees are legally authorized to work in the U.S.," the firm said in a statement. "Cintas has not terminated any employees due to the Social Security mismatches and plans to continue its policy of placing these employees on indefinite leave until they produce the required documentation."

In his letter, Mr. Thompson said his "apprehension" over the proposed policy was echoed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which said the proposal could result in "circumstances in which employers have incentives to take actions that violate ... non-discriminatory provisions."
As Homeland Security Committee chairman, he would set the panel's agenda. Earlier this month, he also said Democrats planned to "revisit" legislation mandating 698 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border and might seek to scrap the plan.
Under existing rules, when a Social Security number does not match a name on a tax or employment eligibility document, the government sends a "no-match" letter asking that the discrepancy be resolved. Of 250 million wage reports the government receives each year, as many as 10 percent belong to employees whose names do not match their Social Security numbers.
"Identifying businesses that are habitually flagged for submitting mismatched Social Security numbers would bolster our worksite enforcement efforts," Mr. Chertoff said.

What the hell!!!

0 Replies

Cintas warned against firing immigrant force
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 28, 2006

A Mississippi Democrat in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has warned the nation's largest uniform supplier it faces criminal charges if it follows a White House proposal to recheck workers with mismatched Social Security numbers and fire those who cannot resolve the discrepancy in 60 days.
Rep. Bennie Thompson said in a letter to Cintas Corp. it could be charged with "illegal activities in violation of state and federal law" if any of its 32,000 employees are terminated because they gave incorrect Social Security numbers to be hired.
"I am deeply troubled by Cintas' recent policy change regarding the Social Security Administration's 'no match' letters," Mr. Thompson said in the Nov. 2 letter. "It is my understanding that hundreds of Cintas' immigrant workers have received these letters. I am extremely concerned about any potentially discriminatory actions targeting this community."
In June, President Bush proposed new guidelines concerning "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration, saying he wanted to make it easier for employers to verify workers' eligibility and continue to hold them accountable for those they hire.
The Department of Homeland Security followed up on that announcement yesterday, formally releasing new regulations to help businesses comply with hiring requirements intended to reduce the hiring of illegal aliens -- including setting guidelines for businesses when handling "no-match" letters from the Social Security Administration.
The proposed regulation is subject to a 60-day public comment period.
"Most businesses want to do the right thing when it comes to employing legal workers," said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. "These new regulations will give U.S. businesses the necessary tools to increase the likelihood that they are employing workers consistent with our laws.
"They also help us to identify and prosecute employers who are blatantly abusing our immigration system."
But Mr. Thompson called the "no-match" letters a threat to workers who fail to reverify their information and called Cintas' actions a "rash enactment of a proposed DHS regulation." He said that by implementing "this incomplete regulation," Cintas could be in violation of federal immigration law.
The seven-term congressman also said before the proposal becomes law, it must go through a rule-making process, "which could radically change the regulation or kill it all together."
Cintas has issued letters to 400 employees in five states telling them they will be indefinitely suspended if they cannot resolve their mismatched Social Security number within 60 days.
"Cintas, like all employers, has a legal obligation to ensure all employees are legally authorized to work in the U.S.," the firm said in a statement. "Cintas has not terminated any employees due to the Social Security mismatches and plans to continue its policy of placing these employees on indefinite leave until they produce the required documentation."

In his letter, Mr. Thompson said his "apprehension" over the proposed policy was echoed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which said the proposal could result in "circumstances in which employers have incentives to take actions that violate ... non-discriminatory provisions."
As Homeland Security Committee chairman, he would set the panel's agenda. Earlier this month, he also said Democrats planned to "revisit" legislation mandating 698 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border and might seek to scrap the plan.
Under existing rules, when a Social Security number does not match a name on a tax or employment eligibility document, the government sends a "no-match" letter asking that the discrepancy be resolved. Of 250 million wage reports the government receives each year, as many as 10 percent belong to employees whose names do not match their Social Security numbers.
"Identifying businesses that are habitually flagged for submitting mismatched Social Security numbers would bolster our worksite enforcement efforts," Mr. Chertoff said.

What the hell!!!

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You seem to be a ... disturbed, madam.

I cup of tea might do some good.

And after that profesional help.

You're such a s hate filled man, how's your blood pressure holding up?

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

Quote:
"If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas. "

that's why i too decided to learn english ! :wink: (and i hadn't even planned to visit texas when i started learning english ).
hbg

First female gov of Texas said that. She was a Dem, you'll have to take that into consideration.
So, are you still visiting Texas?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

What we do not need is amnesty under any circumstances. People who enter this nation illegally should not be rewarded. What we do need to identify these people is national ID cards and swift deportation of those found to be in the US illegally. In addition penalties for those who aid and abet illegals by supplying housing and employing them. Anything less will be scratching at the surface and be ineffectual

Exactly. If you cut off the jobs and there aren't any benefits to be had by illegally crossing, the problem is solved.

Why is it viewed as inhumane to disagree with the idea of crossing the border illegally? I just don't believe in breaking the law.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

au1929 wrote:
What we do not need is amnesty under any circumstances. People who enter this nation illegally should not be rewarded. What we do need to identify these people is national ID cards and swift deportation of those found to be in the US illegally. In addition penalties for those who aid and abet illegals by supplying housing and employing them. Anything less will be scratching at the surface and be ineffectual

Fortunately Au, that point of view puts you in the extreme fringe minority.

What we need is a compromise position that Americans can agree on enough to make it through the political system-- views like yours just lead to stalemate (since more than half of us couldn't stomach your policy).

Sorry Au, but that's the price you pay for living in a democracy.

So you agree with accommodating lawbreakers and changing the laws to suit them? Do you want to include all terrorists that have first assimilated into the hispanic population and illegally cross in your compromise, or do you have ideas to address that situation?

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Bottom line, again, they broke the law as soon as they put their wet feet on US soil., or their bare feet, or scratched feet, whatever, they are illegal & ll the excuses some of you are making for them doesn't change thatact!! Again, what will be the next law that you guys believe is of no matter? How did you feel about the 19 that blew up the WTC? Probaly not much different than you feel about these illegals.

How do you feel about all those killed by people driving illegally while drunk? What about speeders? Do you call the police when you go 5 mph over the speed limit? How about when you see others doing it? Are you making excuses for them?

Why so selective about which broken law to rally behind?

It isn't really about a law being broken, now is it? That's just one of the talking points on Rush Limbaugh's essential stacks of stuff from his website.

Americans don't seem to care so much when these "illegals" arrive in America wearing Armani suits, buying Tony real estate, and living lavish lifestyles. The ones who might arrive to attend university at Yale or "tour America" and then never leave. Those aren't the people that this debate is about, right?

Why the double standard? Isn't the law just as broken?

When you hire someone to cut your lawn, or clean your gutters, or do some landscaping, do you ask for papers?

How do you plan to pay for locating and returning nearly 12 million people back across the border? What about the children who were brought here by parents and have since assimilated into our society? They're caught in the middle of something through no fault or action of their own. They haven't broken the law, they are here because someone else did. Would you want to be punished for someone else's behavior?

It's very sad to hear the hate. I find that talk disgusting and callous and contrary to what I was taught. I don't like labeling a whole group of people with a negative word like "illegals" as if that is the only thing about them that matters. It dehumanizes them and minimizes the issue. We don't call people who speed illegal drivers. They are drivers who were speeding. The vast majority of these people's lives are not illegal. They committed one illegal act.

There is nothing I hate more than characterizing someone with a label. I think it is dehumanizing and is used in a propagandizing way. Just as calling someone stupid because they committed one stupid act, it is a biased portrayal of a human being and distorts the discussion.

The problems today have a lot more to do with government mismanagement and our citizen's insatiable consumerism than anything bad these paperwork-shirkers did. Immigration is a very complex problem. It is not as simple as picking one or two positive or negative effects of immigration and then saying because of that one thing we ought to do such and such.

It's like the blind man touching the elephant in one place and then being absolutely sure he knows what an elephant is.

Similar to saying that companies ought to be fined for hiring illegal immigrants. That was tried in Nebraska, and was a notable failure. More Americans did not get jobs, meat prices rose, plants closed putting more Americans out of work, resulting in more rising prices, and overall the town suffered serious economic distress, as a result of the fallout. So it was a bad and simplistic solution to a very complicated issue.

Simply trying to enforce the existing laws may have serious negative economic repercussions. So, to me, the solution is economic, not political. Unfortunately the decision makers are concerned about re-election in the immediate future, not economic health in the long run. This sets up a difficult situation.

This decision making is best left to strong economic analysis... looking at the effects of immigrants on hospitals, on the tax system (and there are both negative and positive effects on the tax system, tho most people try to exclude the positive ones), on the price index, on citizen unemployment. Changing any one thing in a precarious pyramid could be disastrous, without understanding how all the pieces fit together.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

LittleBitty wrote:
Another article offered for debate; the first few paragraphs quoted below:

Protesters decry illegal immigration

Daily News
CHARLES F. BOSTWICK, Staff Writer
Nov. 25, 2006

---snip---

Quote:
PALMDALE - More than 50 people carrying American flags and signs that read "Stop illegal immigration" demonstrated Saturday at an intersection where a young Palmdale man was fatally injured in a crash blamed on an unlicensed, uninsured undocumented immigrant who tried to walk away after the collision.

The protesters said local government officials should do more to deter illegal immigration, including turning over to federal authorities undocumented immigrants who have been arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and similar crimes rather than releasing them to await trial.

-------

This is the same sort of situation that I described before, and I'm curious to see what solutions are offered to this problem. Amnesty? ID cards? What will prevent this from happening and how can we deal with these incidents?

LittleBitty

First, this incident ought to be considered quite irrelevant to the issue. I'm not sure how many hit and run fatalities there are in the US on any given day, but the portion of them involving an illegal immigrant or unlicenced drivers (of any legal status or ethnicity) would be very small indeed.

I'm unconvinced that immigration from the south represents a problem of significant seriousness at all. Here in New York, these folks are all over the place, re-pointing brick, delivering videos and meals, painting, puttying up drywall, cooking pizza, etc etc. Of course, that was true for the short time I lived in the south as well. In Vancouver, their numbers are far less, at this point. As an ethnic group, I found them very warm and friendly, hard-working, family oriented, and a positive addition to the city's economy and rich ethnic mix.

Whatever expenses they incur as regards social services will be, I imagine, be offset through their contribution to the general economy and through taxes. I could understand if one was concerned that jobs which their children might have access to are now filled, but I'm not at all certain that immigration stands as the fundamental problem here. I'm not an economist which entails that much above is supposition.

It seems very clear, however, that their is a predictable element of racist or chauvenist resentment to folks who look, dress and speak differently. That seems a fact of life in all or most social groups and it is clearly present in America. The "populist" political uses of immigration taps into these sentiments. I think the problem sits here far moreso than in any other concern. Why, after all, were those 50 protestors carrying American flags if not to differentiate us/not us.

Ma Fergusson, governor of the Lone Star State said, on the question of other languages being taught in texas schools...
Quote:
If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.

That was 1924. It's an old story. Given the chauvenism of the statement along with its boggling lack of education/knowledge, one might suppose this rep of the Lone Star State may well have progeny presently posting on this matter.

Guilty as charged! This article was somewhat irrelevant, but I chose to interject something that would encourage debate in place of the ever so popular "I know you are, but what am I" back and forth I had read. Nevertheless, at this point I feel compelled to respond to your missive.

I have been in several hit and run accidents involving illegal immigrants, the first time ending with my chasing after the person that hit me. On the next occurrence, I had to go to the police station and attempt to identify the offending party. In the third case, I was hit by an illegal immigrant that worked in a body shop. His boss begged me to keep the matter between us and leave the authorities out of the matter.

It would be rather presumptuous of me to assume that I was the only one to have had so many accidents and with such frequency at that. Please note: the legal or illegal status of those involved in these accidents was reported to me by the police in the first two cases and by the above mentioned boss in the third accident.

I disagree with your statement concerning racism. How an individual looks acts and speaks is of no consequence to me, and that may well be true of many others. Unless and until I am told otherwise, I will give these protestors the benefit of the doubt. I see this as more a matter of legal versus illegal.

0 Replies

Citizen Border Patrols and the Law

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know