Immigrants plan new "May Day" rallies

Ebrown:

Quote:

The current immigration laws have punishments that are both cruel and illogical.

These punishments are often severe-- the consequences of being deported far outweigh the crime for people whose only transgression was to overstay a visa or cross a border.

You say the punishment is harsh but illegals know what the penalty is if they are caught but they still commit the crime anyways. What makes them different from someone who robs a bank and doesn't hurt someone?

There is an old saying "if you can't do the time then don't do the crime." Pretty sound advise if you ask me.

Quote:

The current laws include a system of "bars" meaning that people who are convicted of what I consider to be pretty minor offenses, like a student overstaying a visa a few months can be banned from the country.

If they know when the visa is coming due, then they should be applying for an extension or for a new visa. You know when your drivers ID is up and do you just not get it renewed or do you make sure it is renewed so that you can keep driving?

Quote:

Ironically these "bars" make the problem worse. A legal migrant worker who overstays a visa for a couple of months used to say, "OK I am done" and go home even though he is a bit late. Now, with the chance that he might never be able return to work if he returns, he probably isn't going to risk it. The current overly harsh "consequences" for infractions of immigration laws makes more permanent illegal immigrants.

Once again that is the problem of the person who over stays their visa. They are allowed in this country as privledge not as a right. We have laws that are to be followed if they can't do that then why should they be allowed to stay. Its simple follow the law and things won't be an issue.

Quote:

I am not sure I accept your axiom on a philosophical level. I can't think of a law that was overturned without being widely broken first.

Doesn't matter if it was broken first or not, the law is the law.

Quote:

There are many examples where Americans oppose the use of strict law enforecment to deal with problems. In the "War on Drugs" it is clear to that focussing stricter enforcement, instead of compassionately addressing the human issues behind illegal drug use, hasn't worked. We want a relaxation of drug laws. We want compassionate alternatives to jail for people on non-violent drug crimes.

I will agree with you on the relaxation of punishment on non-violent drug cases. I still think that being compassionate with drug offences is the wrong idea. Jail and or prison shouldn't be used rehabilation but for punishment. We have been trying to use jail for rehad and it doesn't work. People still commit the same crimes when released. We need to make jail and or prison a place someone doesn't want to go back to.

Quote:

The main point is that if there are conseuences, they should be reasonable and fair. Immigration enformcement doesn't need to be harsh.

The consuquences of entering the country illegally are fair. If your caught your sent back. You don't want punishment at all, you want a get out of jail free card is what you want. Once again they know what will happen if they are caught but they do it anyways. They deserve what they get.

Quote:

The compromises being discussed in Congress include consequences for breaking immigration law as part of a path to citizenship. This way the laws will have consequences for crossing a border that fall short of the current deportations that are extremely painful for families and communities involved. Of course, figuring out a reasonable consequence will be a big part of the debate.

You don't want families broken up for breaking the law, should we apply this to most crimes? When ever someone is sent to jail, there is a family broken up. Should we stop sending people to jail because of family issues?

Quote:

If you insist there must be punishment for crossing a border or overstaing a visa... let's at least make sure the punishment fits the crime.

The punishment does fit the crime. They are not supposed to be here without permission from the govt. Since they aren't supposed to be here deporting them fits the crime. You just can't get that through your head is all.

0 Replies

Baldimo, does "cut and run" sound familiar? It should, you do it often enough.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Baldimo, does "cut and run" sound familiar? It should, you do it often enough.

please explain?

0 Replies

Baldimo,

I won't argue with your basic points.

I respect your point of view on this because it is logically consistant. You have always taken a traditional conservative position on issues here, and you seem to take a consistant "law and order" position on other issues.

The one quibble I have is that you miss the point I am making about the severity of the punishment. Arguing about how harsh the penalty for breaking a crime should be is different than arguing about whether their should be a penalty at all. For example we may agree that it is illegal for kids to download copyrighted music, and we may agree that they should be punished (i.e. the law is just). We can still argue about whether a 10 year prison sentence (hypothetically) is a fair, or an excessive punishment. I am just saying there are two distinct arguments here. But this seems a minor point.

The main issue I have on this thread is with people who reject "law and order" arguments on other issues, but then embrace them on this one issue.

This isn't really the case with you Baldimo.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Baldimo,

I won't argue with your basic points.

I respect your point of view on this because it is logically consistant. You have always taken a traditional conservative position on issues here, and you seem to take a consistant "law and order" position on other issues.

The one quibble I have is that you miss the point I am making about the severity of the punishment. Arguing about how harsh the penalty for breaking a crime should be is different than arguing about whether their should be a penalty at all. For example we may agree that it is illegal for kids to download copyrighted music, and we may agree that they should be punished (i.e. the law is just). We can still argue about whether a 10 year prison sentence (hypothetically) is a fair, or an excessive punishment. I am just saying there are two distinct arguments here. But this seems a minor point.

The main issue I have on this thread is with people who reject "law and order" arguments on other issues, but then embrace them on this one issue.

This isn't really the case with you Baldimo.

What do you think is a "reasonable punishment" for trespassing on US soil without permission? Fines, slap on the wrist with a promise that they won't do it again or jail time. If you have a better idea that would deter illegals please come up with one. We just can't not punish people and expect the next person not to do the same knowing nothing will happen, you end up with nothing to prevent others.

0 Replies

Quote:

What do you think is a "reasonable punishment" for trespassing on US soil without permission? Fines, slap on the wrist with a promise that they won't do it again or jail time. If you have a better idea that would deter illegals please come up with one. We just can't not punish people and expect the next person not to do the same knowing nothing will happen, you end up with nothing to prevent others.

Exactly.

It is the same as the "reasonable punishment" for possesion of pot, having a homosexual affair or helping a terminally ill patient end their life.

There is a basic philosophical difference between people who make "law and order", with punishments and deterrence, the focus and people who believe that human values; compassion and understanding, are more important.

If you think "law and order" is the most important thing-- that deterrence is crucial and punishment is the the way to accomplish this, then I can't argue with you since your position is well-defined and logically consistant.

It is important to me to see these people as people, with hopes and dreams and lives, who are worthy of compassion and respect in spite of the fact they have broken a law.

I strongly support the laws that protect rights or prevent violent crime. But for me, justice and a decent society are more important than the laws themselves. This is why when my sense of compassion and decency comes into conflict with the law... I will side with compassion and decency most every time.

0 Replies

Browne
In what way do you consider sending people back to where they belong without punishment of any kind being meted out lacking in compassion.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Browne
In what way do you consider sending people back to where they belong without punishment of any kind being meted out lacking in compassion.

don't know how you mean this but it's "ebrown_p" not browne. don't be rude.

0 Replies

dyslexia
Nonsense.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

your response to virtually anyone who doesn't fervently nod their head to every thing you say comes across as something like (to paraphrase) "i can tell from my morally superior heights that you are a heartless, discompassionate, racist bigot."

I don't agree with everything Ebrown says, in fact I'm for ending illegal immigration, but he doesn't refer to me as a 'racist bigot' and never has.

Heartless, maybe, but in an equal-opportunity fashion

Cycloptichorn

and ruthless... i wonder where ruth is ??

it's been put out there by the illegal's rights leaders and has come up here on a2k. sometimes in subtle ways as well; nativist has an inherent conotation of one being a racist and/or bigot, doesn't it ?

Yes, it does.

I think that what we are seeing is the conflation of Emotional arguments with Logical ones, and they should be kept seperate.

Cycloptichorn

exactly what i've been trying to point out. remember earlier when i remarked that "the issue is emotions driven"?

also, cyclo, by the time that you read this, you will notice that today's new buzz phrase from e.b. is "law and order".

if you don't embrace the anarchy that the disolution of a nation's sovreinty entails, all of a sudden you must be jedgar hoover.

wanna go redneck some hippies ? Laughing

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

What do you think is a "reasonable punishment" for trespassing on US soil without permission? Fines, slap on the wrist with a promise that they won't do it again or jail time. If you have a better idea that would deter illegals please come up with one. We just can't not punish people and expect the next person not to do the same knowing nothing will happen, you end up with nothing to prevent others.

Exactly.

It is the same as the "reasonable punishment" for possesion of pot, having a homosexual affair or helping a terminally ill patient end their life.

There is a basic philosophical difference between people who make "law and order", with punishments and deterrence, the focus and people who believe that human values; compassion and understanding, are more important.

If you think "law and order" is the most important thing-- that deterrence is crucial and punishment is the the way to accomplish this, then I can't argue with you since your position is well-defined and logically consistant.

It is important to me to see these people as people, with hopes and dreams and lives, who are worthy of compassion and respect in spite of the fact they have broken a law.

I strongly support the laws that protect rights or prevent violent crime. But for me, justice and a decent society are more important than the laws themselves. This is why when my sense of compassion and decency comes into conflict with the law... I will side with compassion and decency most every time.

So you don't want any punishment. You want open borders with no hope of protecting our nation. Its good to know that you have the saftey of your fellow Americans in mind when you think compassion for those that don't know how to follow rules and laws.

0 Replies

All illegal immigrants should be denied housing, employment, benefits and education. To become legal, they should return to the country of their origin and apply for temporary worker status. Pregnant women should be denied entry until they give birth in their own country. All worker visas should be for jobs deemed by the President to need workers, and employers are unable to attract US citizens by paying at least the minimum wage.

That's just my opinion of course.

0 Replies

Voters in this Dallas suburb became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants.

The ban was approved by a vote of 68 percent to 32 percent in final, unofficial returns.

The balloting marked the first public vote on a local government measure to crack down on illegal immigration.

"It says especially to Congress that we're tired of the out-of-control illegal immigration problem. That if Congress doesn't do something about it, cities will," said Tim O'Hare, a City Council member who was the ordinance's lead proponent.

The ordinance requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions.

Property managers or owners who break the rule face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500.

Council members approved the ordinance in November, then revised it in January to include exemptions for minors, seniors and some families with a mix of legal residents and illegal immigrants.

Farmers Branch has become the site of protests and angry confrontations, and opponents of the regulation gathered enough signatures to force the city to put the measure on the municipal election ballot.

With Saturday's approval of the ban, opponents plan to fight it in court, and will seek a restraining order to stop the city from enforcing it.

The city was already facing four lawsuits brought by civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses who contend the ordinance discriminates and that it places landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers. Their attorneys say the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government's. One lawsuit also alleges the council violated the state open meetings act when deciding on the ordinance.

O'Hare contends the city's economy and quality of life will improve if illegal immigrants are kept out.

Around the country, more than 90 local governments have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ them or training police to enforce immigration laws.

Voters in this Dallas suburb became the first in the nation Saturday to prohibit landlords from renting to most illegal immigrants.

The ban was approved by a vote of 68 percent to 32 percent in final, unofficial returns.

The balloting marked the first public vote on a local government measure to crack down on illegal immigration.

"It says especially to Congress that we're tired of the out-of-control illegal immigration problem. That if Congress doesn't do something about it, cities will," said Tim O'Hare, a City Council member who was the ordinance's lead proponent.

The ordinance requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions.

Property managers or owners who break the rule face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500.

Council members approved the ordinance in November, then revised it in January to include exemptions for minors, seniors and some families with a mix of legal residents and illegal immigrants.

Farmers Branch has become the site of protests and angry confrontations, and opponents of the regulation gathered enough signatures to force the city to put the measure on the municipal election ballot.

With Saturday's approval of the ban, opponents plan to fight it in court, and will seek a restraining order to stop the city from enforcing it.

The city was already facing four lawsuits brought by civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses who contend the ordinance discriminates and that it places landlords in the precarious position of acting as federal immigration officers. Their attorneys say the ordinance attempts to regulate immigration, a duty that is exclusively the federal government's. One lawsuit also alleges the council violated the state open meetings act when deciding on the ordinance.

O'Hare contends the city's economy and quality of life will improve if illegal immigrants are kept out.

Around the country, more than 90 local governments have proposed, passed or rejected laws prohibiting landlords from leasing to illegal immigrants, penalizing businesses that employ them or training police to enforce immigration laws.

Local proposals aimed at regulating illegal immigration often fail to pass constitutional muster, said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute office at New York University School of Law.

"There is significant frustration, so that's what's driving it," Chishti said. "But the simple fact is they cannot do too much other than impress upon the Congress the need for immigration reform."

0 Replies

Here is Roy Beck's celebrated demonstration of the effects of our current immigration policy. The vastly increased numbers of immigrants is in the face of the views of the vast majority of Americans, who want fewer admitted.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=roy+beck&pr=goog-sl

0 Replies

This should show the state of our government that Mexican citizens have more of an impact on our legislators and news media than U.S citizens. The democrats are just as bad about giving Bush what ever he wants as the republicans. I thought i voted for a congress that would try to control Bush and his crooked government. Wrong again!

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

This should show the state of our government that Mexican citizens have more of an impact on our legislators and news media than U.S citizens. The democrats are just as bad about giving Bush what ever he wants as the republicans. I thought i voted for a congress that would try to control Bush and his crooked government. Wrong again!

You all are funny in your hopeful cluelessness.

Politicians support what the voters (that is American citizens) will support. It should not suprise you that many politicians (including most presidential candidates) support a compromise solution that includes a path to citizenship.

Two thirds of Americans consistantly say they accept a solution that includes a path to citizenship.

The fact is that you have an position that is not accepted by the majority of Americans-- even though you like to pretend you represent Americans.

I am in the same boat, my position is to the left of most Americans. The difference is that I am realistic, and that I will accept a compromise (and work to get the best compromise for the country).

But you keep railing as if the vast majority of Americans is behind you-- when in fact you represent a rather vocal, and increasingly annoying minority.

The candidates who made Immigration was a major issue in latest Congressional elections pretty definatively lost, and many politicians (the ones who got elected that is) are very wisely taking a moderate position on immigration.

They understand that you are pushing a political position that is a loser. It is a loser because, despite your protestations, it is far too extreme for the American public.

0 Replies

Just 26% Favor Senate Immigration Plan

Initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday and Tuesday night shows that just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed while 26% are not sure. The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public. The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters.

Advocates of "comprehensive" reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be "Why?" Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States."

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Democrats believe that legalization is Very Important. Just 22% of Republicans and 27% of unaffiliated voters share that view.

Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a "very long path to citizenship" provided that "the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English" and that the compromise "would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country." The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include "strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States."

The willingness of voters to accept compromise and allow a path to citizenship suggests both pragmatism and a strong desire to do what it takes to reduce the ongoing flow of illegal immigration. The challenge for proponents of the legislation is to convince voters that they are serious about enforcement and that the proposal will truly work. Until that can be accomplished, public opposition to immigration reform is likely to remain very high. In an era where voters overwhelmingly believe that members of Congress are more interested in their careers than the public good, that will be a difficult goal to achieve.

These survey results are consistent with other recent polling data showing that most Americans favor an enforcement-only reform bill. Support drops when a "path to citizenship" is added to the mix. President Bush's Job Approval ratings dip every time comprehensive immigration reform tops the news.

In our question measuring support for the Senate bill, Rasmussen Reports did not describe the details of the proposed legislation. We asked survey respondents how closely they have followed news stories about "an immigration reform agreement reached by the Bush Administration and a bi-partisan group of Senators." Seventy-eight percent (78%) said they were following the story Somewhat or Very Closely. We then asked respondents if they favored or opposed "the immigration reform proposal agreed to last week."

0 Replies

Yes... I read this report.

However... Rasmussen puts an interesting partisan spin on its own number.

Don't be mislead by the headline is that only 26% percent of the people support the bill.

A significant number of the remaining 72% are people on my side (i.e. in favor of a path to citizenship). Many of the people who oppose the bill do so because of the guest worker program which means future guest workers will not have a path to citizens. Others oppose it because the $5,000 penalty and touchback are too harsh.

The 65% number is consistant with almost every other poll that asks if Americans want a path to citizenship. Rasmussen spins it as Americans wanting a "long path to citizenship", but presumably people who want an easy automatic path to citizenship, and even people who want open borders would have said yes to this question.

Again, the automatic assumption by you hardliners that the American people think just like you do will be your downfall (not that there is anything wrong with that). But, don't blame the politicians... in spite of what you say, they are following public opinion.

0 Replies

I just heard someone say that he had six children in the hopes that one of them would grow up able to find a way to solve the over-population problem.

0 Replies

Browne
The majority of the American people want the borders protected and the illegals kept out of the US. You have the mistaken belief that Americans want them to be legalized because they are welcomed here. But in truth they understand it would be impossible to do otherwise. What has to be done first and foremost is to stop the flow in it's tracks. By whatever means possible. I would treat it as an invasion and act accordingly.

0 Replies

Immigrants plan new "May Day" rallies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know