Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[Pangloss]

George Will had an interesting point on that today on "This Week" when he said that we ask law enforcement to make judgment calls all the time. All we have to do is give them appropriate procedures and guidelines to follow. In short, if we end up splitting hairs, fine, just split them very clearly.

 

Is it wrong to ask the Hispanics standing on the street corner looking for work if they're legal citizens because they're Hispanics, or because they're standing on the street corner looking for work?

 

I was just sitting here grading some mid-term exams, and I noticed a similarity in my own thinking. Is it racial profiling for me to think it unsurprising that the black kid sitting in the back row of my classroom failed his test? I wondered about this because he sits right next to an Hispanic kid who got the high score for the class. So was it the back row that made me nod knowingly, or the fact that he's black?

 

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know this: I'll be moving the black kid to the front row next week, and we'll be having a chat about his grades. I'm going to do something, because whether it's my low expectations for him or his own lack of motivation, it clearly isn't working.

 

And maybe that's the point with Arizona as well. All I hear from the left right now is lawsuit-this and demonstration-that. At least Arizona is doing something. How about a little recognition that this is a problem that needs to be solved, instead of a rejection of any actions that don't match their ideology 100%?

 

As George Will also pointed out, as happened with Health Care, Congress can't partially act -- it has to do everything at once. So right now Congress can't solve either the border problem or the illegal presence problem without angering half the country -- it ends up in the ridiculously gridlocking position of having to do both. Whether that's the fault of immigration activists or paranoid border advocates doesn't really matter in the end if they both stop the problem from being solved.

[iNow]

So you say that you support the "living wage" argument.

No. What I said is that it isn't meritless.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well like I said in my second sentence..."The only way I could go along with that game is if someone could give me a clue as to how you come to "suspect" someone is an illegal immigrant, a crime, that doesn't essentially rely on gut suspicions and racial harassment."

 

I'm down with probable cause. I'm challenging visual scrutiny of ethnicity as a constitutional application of probable cause. What is an example of constitutional probable cause to demand identity and detain for questioning?

 

Precisely. This is exactly the point padren made in post #4, which I personally reinforced in post #5, and which has still gone unaddressed by supporters of the law.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

George Will had an interesting point on that today on "This Week" when he said that we ask law enforcement to make judgment calls all the time. All we have to do is give them appropriate procedures and guidelines to follow. In short, if we end up splitting hairs, fine, just split them very clearly.

As shown in the video I shared in post #18.

 

 

Is it wrong to ask the Hispanics standing on the street corner looking for work if they're legal citizens because they're Hispanics, or because they're standing on the street corner looking for work?

It doesn't matter WHY it is wrong. It only matters that it is. If the issue is that they are loitering on the corner, then the existing anti-loitering laws clearly suffice. This new law is (by your own argument) extraneous, irrelevant, and unneeded.

 

 

 

And maybe that's the point with Arizona as well. All I hear from the left right now is lawsuit-this and demonstration-that. At least Arizona is doing something.

But what they're doing is wrong, and worse, unconstitutional as per the 4th amendment protecting against unreasonable search and seizure.

 

 

How about a little recognition that this is a problem that needs to be solved, instead of a rejection of any actions that don't match their ideology 100%?

Really? Is that what you think?

NOBODY here fails to recognize that there is a problem which needs to be solved. Stop pretending there are here or elsewhere espousing such a silly position.

 

The issue, as I thought was plainly obvious, is that the manner which Arizona has chosen fails completely to address the root problems, is unconstitutional, and further is in stark contrast to the ideals for which this country has repeatedly shed the blood of its citizens. If you think peoples challenges are because this law "doesn't match their ideology 100%," then you are quite simply not paying close enough attention.

Edited April 26, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

No. What I said is that it isn't meritless.

 

Okay, how do you justify seeing merit in a living wage and at the same time saying that employers can't be assumed to be able to pay more money for the jobs illegals are taking? Would you just wait until the illegals have secured those jobs, and then demand that they receive a living wage, discarding your own argument?

 

That's what I'm suggesting some liberals will do when I mention hypocrisy on this issue. Conservatives certainly have their own set of hypocrisies on this issue; I'm simply suggesting that liberals are being just as unreasonable and stubborn on the various related subissues.

 

 

It doesn't matter WHY it is wrong. It only matters that it is. If the issue is that they are loitering on the corner, then the existing anti-loitering laws clearly suffice. This new law is (by your own argument) extraneous, irrelevant, and unneeded.

 

Except that Arizona couldn't enforce that law because it was Federal rather than State. Now it can.

 

Whether it's constitutional or not is a great question. And one we're going to find the answer to in relatively short order, I expect.

 

 

How about a little recognition that this is a problem that needs to be solved, instead of a rejection of any actions that don't match their ideology 100%?

Really? Is that what you think?

NOBODY here fails to recognize that there is a problem which needs to be solved. Stop pretending there are here or elsewhere espousing such a silly position.

 

First, don't call people's opinions "silly".

 

Second, I'm not arguing against the opinions of people here at SFN, I'm discussing a common liberal position. And it IS a common liberal position to not acknowledge that there is a problem. Many LIKE the influx of Democrat-leaning voters. Many say that the border cannot be closed, which is an argument against spending money to enforce the border. And you should know this, because you listened to Cynthia McKinney and Paul Krugman, the liberal representatives on the Roundtable, make that very point this morning on This Week.

 

(To which George Will suggested that it would be a rounding error on the GM bailout. I think maybe more like a rounding error on the bank bailout, but he's got the right idea, IMO.)

 

Krugman ALSO made the exact same point I've been making, which is that Democrats are divided on this issue. Or as he put it, divided between "Labor" Democrats who want higher wages and "Business" Democrats who like the idea of cheap workers. There you go, a Nobel Prize-winning Economist and DARLING of the left basically confirming my point that it's a conundrum to support higher wages and illegal immigrants doing low-end labor at the same time.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Pangloss

[Dak]

But seriously, you said "walk around my neighborhood". Would you get in your car and drive to the mall that way? Of course not -- you'd already be in violation of the law. So I'm still not really seeing a huge problem here.

 

How'd he be violating the law? Is it a requirement that you carry a driver's licence with you when driving?

[padren]

Second, I'm not arguing against the opinions of people here at SFN, I'm discussing a common liberal position. And it IS a common liberal position to not acknowledge that there is a problem. Many LIKE the influx of Democrat-leaning voters. Many say that the border cannot be closed, which is an argument against spending money to enforce the border. And you should know this, because you listened to Cynthia McKinney and Paul Krugman, the liberal representatives on the Roundtable, make that very point this morning on This Week.

 

...

 

Krugman ALSO made the exact same point I've been making, which is that Democrats are divided on this issue. Or as he put it, divided between "Labor" Democrats who want higher wages and "Business" Democrats who like the idea of cheap workers. There you go, a Nobel Prize-winning Economist and DARLING of the left basically confirming my point that it's a conundrum to support higher wages and illegal immigrants doing low-end labor at the same time.

 

I'd like to read up on this if you have some links, it sounds interesting. Personally I've been aware of how some liberals may consider illegal immigration a lower priority issue or oppose conservative solutions but I've been unaware of people saying illegal immigration is a positive thing.

[Pangloss]

How'd he be violating the law? Is it a requirement that you carry a driver's licence with you when driving?

 

Isn't it everywhere? Even if it's not, it's obviously something you want to do every time you drive. What if you get hit through no fault of your own? You obviously want to avoid any potential problems with insurance. How do you show that the car hasn't been stolen? Anyway if you're already carrying your driver's license it doesn't seem like a pressing matter.

 

 

I've been unaware of people saying illegal immigration is a positive thing.

 

In fact 31 entire cities think so highly of the benefits of illegal immigrants on their communities that they've become "sanctuaries" for them. Federal law requires local law enforcement to turn over to ICE suspects who are in the country illegally, but these cities have laws that prohibit local law enforcement from doing that. (sources)

 

There's also a substantial "open border" or "free immigration" movement in this country. (sources, typical argument) And within the legal Hispanic community any attempt to tighten border security is seen as racist as well as fascist.

 

Others just say "create an amnesty program", and oppose measures to secure the border on the basis of cost (or perhaps some sort of human kindness or other moral argument). IMO that equates to ignoring the border problem (and actually making it worse, since amnesty without improved security would surely increase the rate further).

 

The conservatives, meanwhile, oppose amnesty while insisting that borders be secured and illegals removed. Which is just as simplified and unrealistic. The common ground here is obvious -- improve border security (it doesn't have to be perfect, just really hard to get in illegally), and then give those already here illegally a path to citizenship. That's what we tried in 2007, and IMO the reason it failed was because people weren't sufficiently motivated to overcome the ideological extremists. Perhaps this time it will be different.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Pangloss

[Dak]

Isn't it everywhere?

 

In the UK it's a requirement that you have a driver's licence, but you don't need it with you when you're driving: the police can issue you with a 'provider', which is a written order to report to a police station with your license and insurance details within 7 days. Other than that, they check the car's reg-plates to make sure it's registered and then check if it's been reported stolen.

 

Even if it's not, it's obviously something you want to do every time you drive. What if you get hit through no fault of your own? You obviously want to avoid any potential problems with insurance. How do you show that the car hasn't been stolen? Anyway if you're already carrying your driver's license it doesn't seem like a pressing matter.

 

afaict, over here we can carry our docs for those reasons and then just refuse to show them to an officer upon demand. Or lie and say we don't have them.

[iNow]

Okay, how do you justify seeing merit in a living wage and at the same time saying that employers can't be assumed to be able to pay more money for the jobs illegals are taking?

Simple. The employers who cannot afford reasonable wages don't stay in business. Again, though... I was never making a living wage argument. I was saying that shipping illegals back home won't magically make employers start offering more money to its workers. You were the one who introduced living wage questions to the discussion... not me.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter WHY it is wrong. It only matters that it is. If the issue is that they are loitering on the corner, then the existing anti-loitering laws clearly suffice. This new law is (by your own argument) extraneous, irrelevant, and unneeded.

Except that Arizona couldn't enforce that law because it was Federal rather than State. Now it can.

I don't understand your point here. Can you clarify? Why exactly can't the state of Arizona enforce their anti-loitering laws?

 

 

 

NOBODY here fails to recognize that there is a problem which needs to be solved. Stop pretending there are here or elsewhere people espousing such a silly position.

First, don't call people's opinions "silly".

Zuh? Pangloss... really... WTF, man? Please, you really need to read more closely.

 

My ENTIRE point with that comment is that nobody is making the argument you claim they are making. I said that the argument you are suggesting they are making is silly, and nobody is here making it. In short... you presented a pretty blatant strawman into the discussion. I was trying to be nice about it and not call it a strawman outright, but I guess I was too subtle.

 

You said: "How about a little recognition that this is a problem that needs to be solved."

 

When was anyone claiming there wasn't a problem to be solved? I must have missed that. Can you use the quote feature to support your suggestion, or maybe retract it and concede it was misrepresentative?

 

My reading of the thread suggests that nobody was making any such point... that is not an argument anyone was putting forth... and since nobody was making the argument... and my whole point of that comment was to point out that nobody was making that argument... nobody was putting forth that position... I was not (by definition) calling anyone's positions "silly."

 

I hope that clears up my point. Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

 

Second, I'm not arguing against the opinions of people here at SFN, I'm discussing a common liberal position. And it IS a common liberal position to not acknowledge that there is a problem.

I guess I just don't see the relevance of your approach, then. Nobody here was putting forth what you describe as the "common liberal position." In fact, I read a lot of various sources, and I don't see the position you suggest being common among liberals at all. In short, you are continually introducing ideological partisanship in an attempt to poison the well, even though there exists a tremendous degree of agreement across ideological positions on this issue. You reminded me a bit of Bill O'Reilly.

 

I don't mean the above to be a slam, but an objective observation. In the interest of transparency, I'll just say it outright... You've really rubbed me wrong in this thread since the start talking about "liberal hypocrisy" this, and "leftie bias" that, and casting the thoughts of large swaths of people into the singular generalized bucket of "common liberal position."

 

Speak to the issues, will you? Stop with the (what amounts to) childish name-calling.

 

 

 

Many LIKE the influx of Democrat-leaning voters.

Many? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. I am sure some do, but that's hardly a fair representation of peoples position on this issue. If nothing else, it doesn't represent mine, or ParanoiAs, or Padrens, or anyone else really who has posted to this thread. Please stop "boogey-manning" the issue and stick the merit.

 

 

Many say that the border cannot be closed, which is an argument against spending money to enforce the border. And you should know this, because you listened to Cynthia McKinney and Paul Krugman, the liberal representatives on the Roundtable, make that very point this morning on This Week.

More than money, it's resources and strategy, which was also discussed at the aforementioned round-table. Krugman mentioned that "for all the big talk about the need to secure our borders, nobody seems to want to step up and put the resources in place to do so... to spend the money to make that happen," and he's right. However, it's more than just that. The systems we've installed are lacking, and never seem to live up to their promises. We need better technology to assist, but even then... if someone wants to come in, they will. We need to do a cost/benefit on this. Yes, more money is needed, but it needs to be spent smartly to achieve the stated goal.

 

 

 

Krugman ALSO made the exact same point I've been making, which is that Democrats are divided on this issue. Or as he put it, divided between "Labor" Democrats who want higher wages and "Business" Democrats who like the idea of cheap workers. There you go, a Nobel Prize-winning Economist and DARLING of the left basically confirming my point that it's a conundrum to support higher wages and illegal immigrants doing low-end labor at the same time.

Please... again with the "left" and "darling to the liberals." Is that really necessary?

 

Of course people are divided on this issue. There are a lot of complexities to it. It doesn't matter in context of this thread, though... Most of what you're putting forth is little more than a red herring to the central topic.

 

The law Arizona passed allowing cops to mandate that any random brown person without cause produce their papers does NOT even begin to touch the root cause, and is itself incredibly problematic for the reasons posters have already described above.

 

Calling everyone lefties and liberal darlings and hypocrites won't change that. We are talking about this specific law in Arizona, and why it should never have passed, and why it should be revoked.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Krugman would like to clarify his points:

 

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/the-curious-politics-of-immigration/

Just a quick note: my take on the politics of immigration is that it divides both parties, but in different ways.

[Pangloss]

Okay' date=' how do you justify seeing merit in a living wage and at the same time saying that employers can't be assumed to be able to pay more money for the jobs illegals are taking? [/quote']

Simple. The employers who cannot afford reasonable wages don't stay in business.

 

That's fine, you're not one of those who claims with one hand that it's a good thing that they're willing to take the low-paying jobs and with the other hand prepares to demand a living wage.

 

But that rift amongst Democrats and liberals exists, as liberal champion Paul Krugman stated in the video clip you so generously provided. Since you saw that show you could simply agree with me that some liberals disagree on this issue, claim that it's not an hypocrisy but rather a difference of opinion (certainly another valid way to interpret the facts), and we could have moved on from this side issue a page and a half ago.

 

Thank you for finally acknowledging that point in your post above.

 

 

Zuh? Pangloss... really... WTF, man? Please, you really need to read more closely.

 

I misunderstood, sorry.

 

I wasn't saying that anyone here was making that argument, I was saying that that argument is made in this country in the political arena.

 

 

Calling everyone lefties and liberal darlings and hypocrites won't change that.

 

I didn't do that.

[VedekPako]

There's not one non-white person I talk to that doesn't think they're going to get their immigration status questioned by AZ police.

 

They know it's racial profiling.

[DrDNA]

I continue to be shocked and awed as the self proclaimed historical champions of "workers rights" and "social justice" advocate and even promote such an evil injustice.

 

What the heck ever happened to?

* Compliance to Legal Hiring and Firing practices

* Disability

* Equal Employment Opportunities

* Compliance to Health Plans & Other Benefits

* Fair Labor Practices

* Leave Benefits (eg, FMLA)

* Unemployment Insurance

* Fair Wages

* Work Hours

* Workers' Compensation

* Workplace Safety & Health (eg, OHSA)

* Compliance to other labors standards and regulations

 

 

What do you think happens to the poor schmuck that falls off a ladder on a construction site?

 

Illegal immigrants were, are and will continue to be treated as a subservient 'subclass' of society and they will NOT be treated with the basic human dignities and rights that you and I (citizens, legal visitors and green card holders) take for granted as long as the current situation is permitted.

 

Not since slavery have we seen social injustices of such magnitude perpetrated against an ethnic group.

 

These people are basically indentured servants.

 

Learn more about workers rights at http://www.dol.gov/

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There's not one non-white person I talk to that doesn't think they're going to get their immigration status questioned by AZ police.

 

They know it's racial profiling.

 

Who is "they"?

Edited April 27, 2010 by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

Ok, so now the conservatives are out waxxing on about those of us who don't like the "show me your papers" part of this law as if we're all objecting to it because of our naive compassion for the plight of an illegal immigrant.

 

Just this morning, I hear Liz Cheney start in with the appeals to law and order too, "We are a nation of laws", and how we need to be able to enforce our laws and blah blah blah.

 

This is so stupid, I can barely coherently bitch about it. Let's review the 4th:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Gee, that appears to speak directly to enforcing laws. Way to go, Captain Obvious, if that ridiculous appeal to law enforcement really carries the day for you Liz, then we should cancel the whole freaking amendment shouldn't we? It's always about enforcing laws. That's an empty, shallow argument with no logical component.

 

Hell, murder is worse than illegal immigration - why don't we abandon the 4th with those same, short sighted emotional appeals to enforcing laws to stop child murderers? I mean come on, aren't we not coming clean and admitting we have a problem with murder? Aren't we just dismissing legitimate concern for the problem of murder when we allow the 4th to hold us back?

 

Rush Limbaugh hung himself on the radio too, and I bring this up because I'm sure a lot of conservatives have made the same mistake. He said something to the effect that, liberals were up in arms about the "show me your papers" verbiage in the Arizona law, yet had no problem with "show me your papers" with respect to the health care bill.

 

Well way to go Rush. Yes, how do you and yours work around the affront to freedom with respect to health care, yet have no problems with the affront to freedom with respect to the right to remain anonymous and free from state coersion and harassment in the absence of probable cause?

 

I keep asking, and all I hear are birds and crickets...(well ok, sirens too, I live in KC ya' know) What is probable cause to suspect a person of illegal immigration? I'm sure it exists. But what is it? And does it ever remotely resemble arbitrarily asking for ID?

 

I also keep hearing "well, they aren't racially profiling, they must have a reason to pull them over or detain them" - well then you don't need this stupid law! It's already in the books, folks. That's in the OP sources, BTW.

 

I like to see states get pissed and do something about it, as we've all seen that Obama is more worried about sending "messages" to other countries than protecting his citizens. But to counter with an equally constitutionally offensive action is about as shallow as it gets.

 

Militarize the border. Punish employers. Deport illegals. Do all that. And respect our constitutional restraints as you do it - just like we do with murder.

[iNow]

As the above demonstrates, this is not a left/right issue. It's a common sense issue, and a respect for the constitution issue.

 

Unfortunately, here's another area where common sense and constitutionality seem painfully absent:

 

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/un-american-activities/

Rep. Duncan Hunter wants to

deport people born in America

— if their parents were illegal immigrants.

 

As everyone who knows anything about the Constitution knows, this would be unconstitutional: if you were born here, you’re a citizen, no matter who your parents were.

 

But it’s not just a matter of the letter of the law: it’s about who we are as a nation. What America means to me is a land in which you are judged for yourself — not by your race, your ethnic origins, or what your parents do. Saying that citizenship depends on whether your parents were here legally crosses a fundamental line; it’s not far from there to making all kinds of rights hereditary rather than inherent in the simple fact that you were born in the USA.

 

It fits in, of course, with the idea that people can be arrested if they aren’t carrying the right papers — or be

implanted involuntarily with microchips

.

 

Anti-immigration fever is deeply un-American — at least as I understand America.

 

 

That first link is worth a read, as the full quote and a video of it are there.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/goper-i-support-deporting-american-citizens-whose-parents-are-illegal-immigrants-video.php?ref=fpblg

[jryan]

No, of course not. I just didn't really appreciate you swinging the "lefties are hypocrites" bat so early in the thread, especially since nobody had espoused an unreasonable position.

 

Sorry, I just caught this statement and had to laugh. Are you kidding? Your first post in this thread was equating this law with Nazi Germany and the Nazi's treatment of the Jews!

[Moontanman]

The conservatives, meanwhile, oppose amnesty while insisting that borders be secured and illegals removed. .

 

What? The conservatives led by the Bush administration are the people who championed amnesty for illegal aliens not the liberals.

[ParanoiA]

But see, that introduces another problem we get from Krugman and the left that conservatives have a legitimate complaint against: conflating illegal immigration with general immigration.

 

That article, and the part you quoted, is a perfect example. Even within that quoted argument, which is absolutely otherwise sound, he commits an egregious offense in that last sentence: It's not anti-immigration fever, it's anti-illegal-immigration fever.

 

Duncan is proposing an extremely offensive, tyrannical, despostic action entirely antithetical to american liberty - the kind of thing you spill blood for. That proposal better not get anywhere. The moment we see images of people hauled off to be deported because their parents comitted the crime, is the moment we truly divide as a country.

 

And even as disgusting as Duncan's suggestion is, it's still not anti-immigration - his, albeit flawed, reasoning still hinges on their parents being illegal, and thus drawing the conclusion that they should be illegal as well.

 

America is everything it is expected to be when it comes to immigration laws. We are a very kind, very welcoming country with little demands and punishments compared to our neighbors. If one wants to discuss the merits of immigration control, that's fine, but they should be honest and shift the discussion openly. Conflating the two, is dishonest and it empowers the opponent since it validates their perceptions and thus validates their conclusions.

 

The conservatives, and especially Duncan, are wrong on this. We don't need to make believe they are bigots - they are plenty wrong without all of that.

[jryan]

What? The conservatives led by the Bush administration are the people who championed amnesty for illegal aliens not the liberals.

 

 

You're confusing "conservative" and "republican", and liberal with who knows what.

 

Here is the actual vote tally for the Bush Immigration Reform bill:

 

110th Congress bill S. 1348 in the Senate

 

"Yea" votes include Feinstein, Kennedy, Reid, Obama, Biden...

 

The total "Yea" votes went 37 Democrat to 8 Republican. That isn't republican OR conservative... let alone conservative Republicans.

 

Now on to the Nay votes: 39 Republicans and 11 Democrats.

 

This is hardly shaping up to be the "Conservative led by Bush" you claim it was... it looks more like, if anything, the LIBERALS led by Bush.

Edited April 29, 2010 by jryan

[Moontanman]

I'll stop equating conservative and republicans as soon as you stop equating liberal and democrats. The bill was proposed by the republican administration.

[jryan]

I'll stop equating conservative and republicans as soon as you stop equating liberal and democrats. The bill was proposed by the republican administration.

 

I don't auto equate the two. Also your assertion was not policy led by Bush, it was CONSERVATIVES led by Bush. Hell, you can't even claim Republicans led by Bush. The Yea Votes are dominated by liberal Democrats. And even funnier is that one of the liberal Republicans that voted for the bill is now a Democrat!

 

So your assertion was completely wrong.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that the first step to solving illegal immigration is to allow legal immigration. As it is, we have numerical quotas (not just quality control). Why not tighten the quality controls and loosen the numerical quotas? As a bonus, that way anyone here illegally is also has other issues, so that they'd have very little support from citizens.

 

Of course, much of the opposition to illegal immigration also opposes legal immigration, even when they frequently say they don't. Finding the truth is as simple as suggesting an expansion of legal immigration.

[jryan]

I think that the first step to solving illegal immigration is to allow legal immigration. As it is, we have numerical quotas (not just quality control). Why not tighten the quality controls and loosen the numerical quotas? As a bonus, that way anyone here illegally is also has other issues, so that they'd have very little support from citizens.

 

Of course, much of the opposition to illegal immigration also opposes legal immigration, even when they frequently say they don't. Finding the truth is as simple as suggesting an expansion of legal immigration.

 

 

Your first paragraph is good, your second paragraph is false.

[jackson33]

Offered as informational....

 

The INS estimated in 1996 that about 60 percent of the then estimated five million illegal immigrants were EWI and 40 percent were overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says:

 

"Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable." [/Quote]

 

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html

 

 

Just as any person judged guilty of any crime legal or illegally in the US, the children of that person and born in the US, would be protected under US Law and Constitutions or the laws of each State. If the parent, or of legal aged children chose to stay/leave their child behind, when being deported that child or minor would be treated as any child, losing his/her parent under any circumstance.

 

Duel Citizenship, opposed to the 14th Amendment is the primary issue since the amendment pertained to person living in the US, from birth. If the US DID NOT, recognize duel citizenship, then any child born of parents not from the US, would be a Citizen of the parent or parents according to their laws.

 

These are my opinions, for some high court rulings on DC or the 14th A;

 

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Terrazas

 

 

In US law today, any person in the US and having a legally authorized "Green Card" for any of the reasons they are issued, must carry that green card at ALL times, whether at the beach or walking their dog in the local park. "Carry your papers", Arizona law or NOT, already exist.

 

The first thing that you need to know about green card immigration is that it is indeed a privilege and not a constitutional right..... As part of the privilege to have green card immigration status it is required that all times you carry your card with you. Under no circumstance should you be without your green card. If you are found without it you are committing a crime and can lose your status. [/Quote]

 

http://www.requirementsforuscitizenship.com/green-card-immigration.php

 

To thread;

 

Skeptic; The problem, as I see it is what to do with the 12-20 million already in the US. To a great extent, I feel it's simply impractical to think any system can deport even one million, noting the above figure maybe 40% are not even from neighboring Mexico. Most Countries, then require permission to export humans, even back their original country, with out permission. I might suggest issuing a few million work permits (legal) would simply add to the perceived problem, in that as many people are here now illegally, having surpassed their time limit to be here.

 

Increase legal permanent status, to how many and for what? We already take in over a million per year, for any number of reason, not counting those on temporary status, that don't return.

 

I'll stop equating conservative and republicans as soon as you stop equating liberal and democrats. The bill was proposed by the republican administration.[/Quote]

 

Moon; Personally I think your both wrong, most of all political persuasion have different solutions in mind. As a dedication CARD carrying Constitutional Conservative, I and many others in the movement feel it's simply impractical under current law to enforce any actions by the Federal. I've suggested up to 3-4 million otherwise law abiding Americans, harbor (don't advise), hire or work illegal's for all kinds of reasons, not always for cheap labor, then probably well underestimated. If you want to change anything change law, but be ready for the consequences and loss of your own liberty.

[Pangloss]

I'll stop equating conservative and republicans as soon as you stop equating liberal and democrats. The bill was proposed by the republican administration.

 

Whatever, I guess it's true that much of the left doesn't want "amnesty", they just want them to be outright legalized, and the border opened, which, you're right, is not exactly the same thing.

 

It's worse.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think that the first step to solving illegal immigration is to allow legal immigration. As it is, we have numerical quotas (not just quality control). Why not tighten the quality controls and loosen the numerical quotas? As a bonus, that way anyone here illegally is also has other issues, so that they'd have very little support from citizens.

 

Of course, much of the opposition to illegal immigration also opposes legal immigration, even when they frequently say they don't. Finding the truth is as simple as suggesting an expansion of legal immigration.

 

We already are extremely "loose".

 

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.[1] Since the liberalization of immigration policy in 1965,[2] the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[3] from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.[4]

 

A record 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading countries of birth of the new citizens were Mexico, India and the Philippines.[5]

Edited April 29, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

That article, and the part you quoted, is a perfect example. Even within that quoted argument, which is absolutely otherwise sound, he commits an egregious offense in that last sentence: It's not anti-immigration fever, it's anti-illegal-immigration fever.

 

 

"This is Alabama — We Speak English [sic]"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/we-speak-english-ad-watch_n_555928.html

 

Seems to me like some aren't making the distinction

[Mr Skeptic]

We already are extremely "loose".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration

The Middle West, some parts of Europe, small areas of South West Asia, and a few spots in the East Indies have the highest percentages of immigrant population recorded by the UN Census 2005.

The reliability of immigrant censuses is, however, lamentably low due to the concealed character of undocumented labor migration. The International Organization for Migration has estimated the number of foreign migrants to be over 200 million worldwide today.[4]

 

Recent surveys by Gallup found roughly 700 million adults would like to migrate to another country permanently if they had the chance.

The United States is the top desired destination country.

 

So, we are not the country with the highest percentage of immigrants by far, despite being the country that is the most desired destination for immigrants. So no, I'm not buying the "we're already loose" argument.

 

All this is especially ironic because we are a country almost entirely made of immigrants. The natives are a very small minority. And yet, now that we have lived here long enough to consider it our home, we limit the amount of immigration.