I view our PRO Immigration Reform viewpoint as very similar to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The Civil Rights marchers protested the wrongful Jim Crow laws. They advocated education, equal pay, the vote and Human Rights. The Civil Rights protesters, at that time, were viewed by some as agitators and ANTI American, ANTI White. They were wrongfully put in prison. Today, most Americans realize the Civil Rights marchers were heroes and the laws needed to be changed, just as today, our Immigration laws should be reformed.
In the 1960s, marches were an effective means to create change. In the new millenium, the most effective method is the Internet. Via the internet, we create blogs, we participate on discussion boards, we comment in newspapers, journals and magazines. The message is immediate. The message reaches the world.
I think it is very important for PRO Immigration Reformers to be active and visible on the web. The ANTI Immigration Reformers and Republicans as a whole already have had a solid presence here since the nineties. Yes, the PROs have a late start, but it is important that we have an equal voice. We need to stand toe to toe with the ANTIs, stand straight and proud, speak civilly, intelligently and Patriotically in support of our Mission.
In order to gain a broader audience, I purposely am provacative on my blog. I purposely go head to head in these discussions with the ANTI side. I am glad I have strong debaters like Liquid, Ultima, Arizonian and others here to discuss these topics. I go at them hard. Head to head. They come back at me, just as hard. Head to head. It is often like a duel, swords blazing. That is when it gets interesting. The ANTIs have a right to speak their opinion. The PROs also have an EQUAL RIGHT to their Opinion. Today, the ANTIs outnumber the PROs. I believe it is important to have just as many PROs on the web, speaking their opinions. That is why I am encouraging all of the PRO viewers to start a Blog and voice your opinion. If you do not want to start a blog, then participate on a blog, like mine or those I link to on my Blog Roll.
My viewers like the debates although most of my PRO audience is hesitant to get involved in the debates because my tough ANTI debaters are very tough and for the new debater, sometimes feelings can get hurt. Recently, one of my newest and energetic PRO commenters was beat up and chastised by one of my long time ANTI commenters. I have never said it is easy getting the bashings I get. Over time you develop very tough skin.
I´ve had my own blog for a year and a half. I joined an Immigration discussion board in 2006, just after the marches. I wanted to see what all the anger was about. I actively engage in Immigration and Political discussions in Blogs and news forums across the internet. The audience for my blog continues to grow each month. My eblogger reports say I have over 10,000 viewers a month. 95% are from the US, with the next highest views from Canada, England and Germany, although dozens of countries view my blog each month. In the US, I have viewers in every state, with the top 2 states being 1. California and 2. Texas. If you go into Google and type in Immigration Talk with a Mexican American, you see I have had over 432,000 searches on that name alone. This type of viewership will not happen overnight. It does take time, work and connecting with other PRO Bloggers.
I encourage all my viewers to start their own blogs, become involved in the discussion. We are the new Civil Rights marchers. We are the new advocators of CHANGE. This time it is Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
Time to Blog? Yes, it does take time and dedication. However, I do this for my children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Most of all, I do this for my Father. He was my hero. He taught all of his children the importance of hard work, Family, Christian Values, and love for America. He said all of us, even us migrant workers could achieve the American Dream. I believed him and am now a successful business woman, small business owner and my blog has been published in a well known text book. Who would have thought a little Mexican American Cherry Picker would grow up and achieve the American Dream? For one, my Dad!
When I joined my first discussion board I realized my involvement would take a great deal of my time. However I asked myself the question, if not me, then who will carry the message and challenge the ANTIs? Who will put a stop to Racial Profiling, the heinous Detention Centers, the ICE-Suppression Raids and advocate Comprehensive Immigration Reform? The ANTI argument is they are the only Patriots in this debate. Over time, all of my viewers know and understand PROs are just as Patriotic, Military supporting True Blue Americans! We love our country and, similar to the Civil Rights Movement, we are advocating positive change and taking charge during these times of transformation.
God Bless America!
Posts
166 comments:
Yes. As a child, I worked in the Cherry fields of Michigan as a migrant worker. My Dad, Mom and all my siblings followed a convoy of cars. Many started their drives from Texas. We all drove up to the fields near Traverse City to work in the orchards each summer. We worked from dawn to dusk each day. We swam each evening in Lake Leelanau in a section the locals reserved for the migrants.
My Dad found a job in an auto factory. He loved America. He said with a good education, anyone could achieve the American Dream. He believed in us. We believed in him!
Dee, your story is inspiring. And I'm glad you've had success with the blog. You have a lot more patience than I do to engage ANTIs and I can see it has paid off with traffic and an active commentariat.
As far as civil rights, you might be interested in the Fast for our Future going on in L.A. Activists are fasting for immigration reform, with the goal of getting 1 million signatures on this petition. I'm joining them today--though only for 24 hours (I could use a snack about now).
Also my new blog at change.org launched last week (shameless plug). Stop by if you get a chance.
Yave/Dave,
Thank you.
I am interested in the Fast for our Future site. (I will fast for a day as well).
I also like your site.
I will put both sites on my blogroll.
You cannot compare illegal immigration to the civil rights movement of the 60's. African Americans were brought here as slaves against their will with no choice to be here. On the other hand, Mexicans and other illegals are here by their own choice. African AMERICANS and the key word here is AMERICANS marched for rights they should have had all along. ILLEGAL immigrants have a choice to be here. They are not AMERICAN citizens. Please do not insult your fellow American citizens.
Anon (Pat),
Of course I can. The civil rights movement protested against discrimination and wrongful laws. Equal Pay. The Vote. Civil Rights. They supported Education just as the PRO Immigration Reform supporters are supporting the same. We are for Humanitarian Treatment.
Are you missing the mission? The similarities are SO OBVIOUS!!!!
Anonymous said...
You cannot compare illegal immigration to the civil rights movement of the 60's. African Americans were brought here as slaves against their will with no choice to be here.
Pat Buchanan says Powell is not GRATEFUL for the blessings bestowed on him by White America!
What is up with that!!
Why do you keep calling me Pat? My name isn't Pat. Discrimination against who? Who isn't getting equal pay? Who isn't getting their human rights? Education is a concern to all, not just your group.
There are no similarities because you are talking about citizen vs illegal immigrants.
Anon,
I will give you a break.
Be brave.
Rename yourself from the anonymous groups.
You dont have to give us a real name but give yourself a name, John, Joan or ET. Tell us a little about yourself. Are you a retiree? Student? midlifer? What has made you so angry that you fight on blogs about immigration? Tell us a bit about your background. Dont be afraid. You dont have to tell us your backstory.
Of course there are similarities between Civil Rights and Immigration Reform. I have cited them. Any rational person can see the linkage. Why on earth do YOU disagree.
Anonymous said...
Why do you keep calling me Pat? My name isn't Pat. Discrimination against who? Who isn't getting equal pay? Who isn't getting their human rights? Education is a concern to all, not just your group.
There are no similarities because you are talking about citizen vs illegal immigrants.
Amen, Dee.
Here's one glaring similarity: "ILLEGAL" is the new "N WORD"
It dehumanizes a group of people, criminalizes all of them, makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion about their basic human rights, fails to recognize how some of the root causes of their migration into our country stem from our unfair trade policies with their home countries, paints a picture of a group of people as thieves intent only on getting as much as they can from Americans, without acknowledging the sacrifices and contributions that many of them make to our country in their pursuit of a better life.
Anonymous said: ...On the other hand, Mexicans and other illegals are...
I am not fighting anyone on any blogs and who said I was angry? What are you talking about? Is expressing my opinion on illegal immigration akin to fighting? Guess so according to you.
I never share my personal information on the internet and I prefer to remain anonymous.
You are wrong! If I were Black I would be upset that you are riding on the coattails of the Civil Rights Movement to protect and coddle illegal immigrants. They aren't even in the same ballpark. You are the irrational one.
Illegal is the same as using the N word? Hilarious! Try telling that to our government who coined that term. Do we have a racist government now?
Illegal is the same as using the N word? Hilarious!
You are showing your ignorance by saying that this is hilarious. It is not surprising that you'd think there were no similarities between the civil rights movement and the current movement for immigration reform and immigrant rights.
Again, the term illegal is very much like the n word. There is already so much hate behind the use of that word. It is a way for people to view undocumented immigrants as less than human, as "the others", and excuses their poor and sometimes inhumane treatment towards immigrants and people perceived to be "illegals".
Dee said...
Sorry Anon.
No one asked you to divulge personal info. You certainly do spout off. Too bad you lack the courage to give us any identifier to allow us to differentiate you vs all the other anonymous commenters.
Regarding this topic, you just do not get the similarities.
As you said, you are NOT Black.
Anonymous said...
I never share my personal information on the internet and I prefer to remain anonymous.
You are wrong! If I were Black I would be upset that you are riding on the coattails of the Civil Rights Movement to protect and coddle illegal immigrants.
You are wrong! If I were Black I would be upset that you are riding on the coattails of the Civil Rights Movement to protect and coddle illegal immigrants.
Some people are capable of empathy towards other human beings that are viewed differently by imagining what it'd be like to "walk in the shoes" of someone from an oppressed group. Some people need to actually experience existence as an oppressed group to know what that feels like, in order for them to epathize with that group. Some people may be already of an oppressed group and fail to empathize with another oppressed group. And some people are just the oppressors. Where do you fit in most, anonymous?
One of the tactics used by advocates of illegal immigration is the insistence on protecting the Civil Rights of illegal aliens. Let us examine this more closely.
Civil Rights are defined as "the protections and privileges of personal power given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from 'human rights' or 'natural rights', also called 'our God-given rights'. " - (Merriam Webster English Dictionary)
Among the Civil Rights granted to American citizens are:
* The Right to assemble
* The Right of free speech
* The Right to bear arms
* The Right to use our legal system for redress of wrongs
* The Right to work
* The Right to equal opportunity
Although not Constitutional rights, our citizens are also afforded access to various social systems and benefits such as free education, Social Security, Welfare, Food Assistance Programs, Medicare, Medicaid, emergency healthcare, and more.
These rights and benefits are established for Citizens of our country.
Illegal aliens have entered our country illegally, breaking American laws to do so. Should that criminal act qualify them for all rights and privileges afforded to American citizens?
According to proponents of illegal immigration, the very act of illegal entry to our country does qualify a person for every right and privilege normally reserved for our citizens.
"Neither foreign nationals who have not yet reached our shores, nor illegal aliens who have done so unlawfully and without the Attorney General's permission, are entitled to the full panoply of rights available to citizens or even resident aliens. To the contrary, that status by definition places such individuals outside the traditional protections of the Constitution."
Now if you want to fully understand the Democratic role of Civil Rights, might I suggest the reading of this Bill and please note its sponsors. Remember to read it very carefully.
S.2554
Title: A bill to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and remedies under civil rights statutes.
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] (introduced 1/24/2008) Cosponsors (19)
Oh, hell, here is the highlights.
"Civil Rights Act of 2008", brainchild of Senator Ted Kennedy (S.2554, link). Among no doubt many other things, it seeks to close a defense that employers can use when an illegal alien is fired and sues for back pay.
In so doing, the bill admits that employers being able to hire illegal aliens "undermine[s] the living standards and working conditions of all Americans", a somewhat shocking admission considering that almost every leader of the Democratic Party constantly bends over backwards to support and enable illegal immigration. The bill also admits that being able to hire illegal aliens gives those employers an unfair advantage. However, as yet another example of the Dems' inabilities to understand the impacts of their policies, there's nothing in there about enforcing our immigration laws as a way of avoiding problems in the first place. Could their plan be used as a form of attrition? Yes, it might actually reduce illegal immigration by reducing the incentive and thus causing some to go home and others to decide not to come here. However, not so in practice, since with the other hand the Dems would be waving people across our borders.
Nevertheless, a question based on this plan might be a good thing to ask one of the candidates. Since they support something that - absent amnesty - would have an attrition-like effect, why not support attrition through enforcement? And, of course, since they admit the downsides of illegal immigration, Obama and Clinton should be asked exactly how many instances of enforcement of our immigration laws they've supported.
Co-sponsors include:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama (press release here)
Dick Durbin
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumber
Bob Menendez
...and several more.
After a bit of a warm-up and a to-be-expected concern about racial profiling, here's the relevant bits:
...(5) ...In the wake of the Hoffman decision [Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)], defendant employers will now argue that backpay awards to unlawfully discharged undocumented workers are barred under Federal employment statutes and even under State employment statutes.
(6) Because the Hoffman decision prevents the imposition of sanctions on employers who discriminate against undocumented immigrant workers, employers are encouraged to employ such workers for low-paying and dangerous jobs because they have no legal redress for violations of the law. This creates an economic incentive for employers to hire and exploit undocumented workers, which in turn tends to undermine the living standards and working conditions of all Americans, citizens and noncitizens alike.
(7) The Hoffman decision disadvantages many employers as well. Employers who are forced to compete with firms that hire and exploit undocumented immigrant workers are saddled with an economic disadvantage in the labor marketplace. The unintended creation of an economic inducement for employers to exploit undocumented immigrant workers gives those employers an unfair competitive advantage over employers that treat workers lawfully and fairly.
Here is what you are clearly missing.
With Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the majority of the 12M would be here legally.
The Immigration processes would be streamlined and the backlog would end.
There would be no need for the costly Detention Centers or the Immigration or Suppression sweeps.
Therefore Racial Profiling would END! People would be treated humanitarianly.
We would unite as a nation and move forward civilly.
Do you get it now Liquid?
Your whole argument rests on the fact that CIR is required for the "Illegal Aliens" to have anything. The problem is most of America is against it, most of America is for the Rule of Law. But we have already been through all of this before, haven't we.
"People would be treated humanitarianly."
According to or agreement with the United Nations and the UN Charter, the "Illegal Aliens" are being treated with their Human Rights and there is no conflict in our handling of them, according to the UN.
Liquid,
Why are you quoting the extreme right wing, ANTI blog 24head.com? What a ridiculous site. They blah blah blah about McCains kitchen sink strategies against Obama.
Is this your blog?
It is very boring and ludicrous.
Whoever the blog owner is, they have an extremely right wing perspective and a very boring writing style! No wonder so few comments. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Refute the points, prove they are wrong, instead you attack the messenger. Typical.
Why are you quoting the extreme right wing, ANTI blog 24head.com? What a ridiculous site. They blah blah blah about McCains kitchen sink strategies against Obama.
Is this your blog?
It is very boring and ludicrous.
Thank Gawd someone exposed where that tripe was coming from. Geez...
A new ABC News/Washington Post survey showed 60 percent of Americans support allowing illegal immigrants who already live in the U.S. to obtain legal status and eventual citizenship.
__________
adolfo
Internet Marketing
24head.com only pointed out the shortcomings of the Kennedy Bill, for which neither of the 2 of you have refuted. The other 2 posts, you have yet to refute as well.
I do like the dismissive attitude's though, it shows some great intellect on your parts. I have already shown, in the other topic how "Illegal Aliens" have NO RIGHTS if charged with Administrative (Political) Violations, thusly they have NO Civil Rights and are entitled to none.
Post a link Adolfo, the link you posted for internet marketing is nothing but SPAM.
It's nice you point out a pole Adolfo, the problem is pols can be manipulated simply by wording the question, and then further hampered by more than one answer. Your same pole also suggests that the public overwhelmingly says the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
Meanwhile, just 21 percent say the United States is doing enough to keep illegals out, while 75 percent say it's not doing enough. That view again crosses regions: two-thirds in the South and West say the government is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration, as do three-quarters in the Midwest and East. And it's one of those rare issues that cross party and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, and most liberals, moderates and conservatives alike, in agreement that the government isn't doing enough to keep illegals out.
The intensity of this view, moreover, runs high -- a majority of Americans, 56 percent, feel "strongly" that the U.S. isn't doing enough to prevent illegals from gaining entry to this country.
Now as for those already here, I have stated before in the past to give all those here who qualify an H-2A visa good for 10 months, this will get their 'house in order' and mandate that they leave when their time is up, they should be able to in that time create a working relationship with their employer and possibly came back for another 10 months the following time.
Now as for the majority of citizens wanting them given legal status or citizenship, that number is misleading in your poll, as I have stated, it combines two answers, one of which states that the "Illegal Alien" should return to his homeland and apply, while the other answer says that they should not have to return home to apply.
Now lets look at the states themselves. There have been over 1200 bills in 45 states recently that have come up, 39 of those states have enacted laws against "Illegal Aliens".
Why You Should Care About Immigration
(taken from civilrights.org)
Frequently Asked Question: Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Q: What are the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights' (LCCR) priorities for comprehensive immigration reform?
LCCR supports the following key principles:
A Path to Permanent Residency: Hard-working immigrants who are contributing to this country should be encouraged to come out of the shadows and regularize their status. Forcing millions of undocumented workers to hide in an underground economy, as H.R. 4437 does, hurts the health, safety and welfare of all Americans. Proposals that would create a legal but permanent underclass would be equally unfair and discriminatory. Our goal should be to integrate immigrants into the United States, once they meet reasonable requirements like background checks and payment of back taxes. This can only be done by providing them with meaningful opportunities to become lawful permanent residents and eventually United States citizens.
Firm and Fair Enforcement: Our nation's immigration policies must be consistent with humanitarian values and with the need to treat all individuals with respect and dignity. Any proposal that would criminalize undocumented immigrants, encourage state or local police to enforce immigration laws, or penalize individuals for providing humanitarian assistance to their fellow human beings must be strongly opposed. Criminalizing undocumented immigrants or the people around them with new punitive measures will not deter illegal immigration; it will only drive it further underground. Enforcement policies should focus on the critical task of establishing a safe, orderly system of entry into the United States that meets the needs of families and businesses alike, with a priority on identifying and preventing the entry of terrorists and dangerous criminals.
Restoration of due process: In 1996, Congress enacted immigration laws that drastically affected the rights of immigrants. The laws imposed an extremely harsh new system of mandatory detention and deportation for immigrants with prior criminal offenses, even legal permanent residents with very old or minor infractions. The term "aggravated felony" is now applied in immigration law to go far beyond what most members of Congress contemplated, to even include misdemeanors, and to curtail many forms of judicial review. Any immigration reform proposal that fails to address - or even worsens - the well-publicized, unfair impact of the 1996 laws would raise serious concerns. Immigrants facing deportation for any reason must have access to fair, humane and common-sense procedures.
Family Reunification: Our family-based immigration system needs to be significantly reformed. It can often take years, even more than a decade, for close relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents to obtain immigrant visas, which simply encourages people to overstay temporary visas or find some other way to illegally enter the country. In order to reduce backlogs, any proposal should stop subtracting the visas given to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from visas available to all family immigrants, thereby artificially depressing the number of visas available to other close relatives of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. We must also stop preventing U.S. citizens and permanent residents who can support their families at or above the poverty level guideline from reuniting with their families.
A Meaningful Way to Address the Future Flow of Workers into the U.S.: Some LCCR members believe that future labor needs can be met through guest-worker programs that include meaningful labor protections and provide immigrant workers with a clear path to permanent residency and citizenship. Others disagree that future flows should be addressed through a guest-worker program, and believe that future workers should be admitted as full partners into our society and our workplaces through the current "green card" employment based visa system, rather than through guest-worker programs - which they believe to be inherently exploitative. Under either framework, any program designed to meet the proven needs of employers for new labor must fully protect the rights of both immigrant workers as well as those already here. A proposal that simply forces established workers to leave the U.S. after a short period of time will only encourage them to remain here illegally.
More in-depth information on immigration reform:
American Immigration Lawyers Association: http://www.aila.org
National Council of La Raza http://www.nclr.org
National Immigration Forum http://www.immigrationforum.org
National Immigration Law Center http://www.nilc.org
New American Opportunity Campaign http://www.cirnow.org
Liquidmicro,
As an aside to your comment about the poll where 75% of Americans feel that the government isn't doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming in, could one not argue that among those 75% there are some that don't just think of the answer in terms of enforcement, but rather a change or reform in more reasonable and humanitarian trade policies with other countries, which would therby decrease poverty in latin american countries, which is the major reason why people from those countries migrate here in the first place? Just a thought.
One could ad anything they wish to the findings of the poll, its all in how you interpret the given information. The problem, as I said with polls, is the way they word the question and give possibilities of many answers, such as:
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Not Too
Effective
Not at All
Effective
Unsure
From the answers is where the interpretation comes into play. They start combining information for a desired outcome.
"Do you think the United States is or is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into this country?" Conducted 5/12-14/06; N=508; MoE ± 4.5
Enough Not Enough Unsure
5/12-14/06
20 77 4
4/6-9/06
21 75 4
12/15-18/05
20 79 2
8/25-28/05
19 80 1
1/12-16/05
20 77 4
This is the question and answers to my 75% post. Some polls are more broad, and some are more fine detailed. To be able to "could one not argue that among those 75% there are some that don't just think of the answer in terms of enforcement, but rather a change or reform in more reasonable and humanitarian trade policies with other countries," from this question and the answers one could probably assume what ever they want, it's a very broad range of possibilities.
Well, without polls then, or with polls being subject to broad interpretation, how can you say this, Liquidmicro:
"The problem is most of America is against it, most of America is for the Rule of Law."
Why do you presume that you speak for the majority of Americans, liquidmicro? Why do you assume that someone who is for "rule of law" is not also for CIR?
""The problem is most of America is against it, most of America is for the Rule of Law."
Why do you presume that you speak for the majority of Americans, liquidmicro? Why do you assume that someone who is for "rule of law" is not also for CIR?"
There have been over 1200 bills in 45 states recently that have come up, 39 of those states have enacted laws against "Illegal Aliens". Seems to be a majority to me. 39 of 50 = 78% of the states.
CIR could also have many definitions and answers. It all depends on what 'your' version of CIR is. It depends on what the question posed is on CIR as well, along with the answers.
Illegals should return to their own country and start the process to immigrate to the US. If they enter legally there would be no problem. I would never think of sneaking into, lets say Mexico. I am sure they have laws that do not allow people to enter their country without the proper paperwork and I am sure they punish the ones who overstay visas etc. Why must the US bend their laws to satisfy millions of illegals and their supporters? I am not prejudice against anyone but I do have a problem with people in my country illegally.
Liquid,
Now this is funny!
First you refute Adolfo´s poll, saying they can be manipulated. Then what do you do? You come back with more poll percentages!
HA HA HA!! Funny!
Liquidmicro said...
It's nice you point out a pole Adolfo, the problem is pols can be manipulated simply by wording the question, and then further hampered by more than one answer. Your same pole also suggests that the public overwhelmingly says the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
Meanwhile, just 21 percent say the United States is doing enough to keep illegals out, while 75 percent say it's not doing enough.
As usual Dee, you didn't comprehend what I did. All I did was continue Adolfo's statement in the article based on his quoting of a poll. Then I went on to say why I don't put much credit into polls.
You must have missed this part in the first paragraph, which then leads into my next couple paragraphs.
"Your same pole also suggests that the public overwhelmingly says the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
Meanwhile, just 21 percent say the United States is doing enough to keep illegals out, while 75 percent say it's not doing enough. That view again crosses regions: two-thirds in the South and West say the government is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration, as do three-quarters in the Midwest and East. And it's one of those rare issues that cross party and ideological lines, with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, and most liberals, moderates and conservatives alike, in agreement that the government isn't doing enough to keep illegals out.
The intensity of this view, moreover, runs high -- a majority of Americans, 56 percent, feel "strongly" that the U.S. isn't doing enough to prevent illegals from gaining entry to this country."
Remember, you must understand the words that are said in order to comprehend what the discussion is about. Your attempt to belittle me has failed, however you have shown your great intellect once again.
Lisa,
You must be new to this discussion or have only talked to like minded people.
Here. Read this.
It might help you become informed about this issue.
Lisa said...
Illegals should return to their own country and start the process to immigrate to the US. If they enter legally there would be no problem. I would never think of sneaking into, lets say Mexico. I am sure they have laws that do not allow people to enter their country without the proper paperwork and I am sure they punish the ones who overstay visas etc. Why must the US bend their laws to satisfy millions of illegals and their supporters? I am not prejudice against anyone but I do have a problem with people in my country illegally.
October 20, 2008 4:03 PM
Liquid,
I do not put too much stock in polls. They can be slanted very easily by the author of the poll.
In one of my previous assignments, my group oversaw the taking of polls-surveys. Even at best, they are just an indicator, neither truth nor fact. Just an indicator.
Liquidmicro said...
You must have missed this part in the first paragraph, which then leads into my next couple paragraphs.
Dee said...
Liquid,
I do not put too much stock in polls. They can be slanted very easily by the author of the poll.
In one of my previous assignments, my group oversaw the taking of polls-surveys. Even at best, they are just an indicator, neither truth nor fact. Just an indicator.
Then we agree on polls.
Let me give you an example. Remember I shared with you that my group put together the Performance Management Model for our Corp.
Related to that was the Appraisal Process. Part of this is the Goal Setting Process. Setting Goals for the year, then listing the measures (from reports) and indicators which provided additional documentation for performance. One of the indicators were the results of surveys. Now the surveys attempted, at best, to ask unbiased questions of the target employee group with the standard 1 - 5 rating system (5 high, 1 low). The surveys were taken quarterly to measure employee perception of corporate, regional, division-district, workgroup performance.
We were far more neutral, objective and inclusive than most surveys you see. Why? Because we knew the target audience and included all of them. They were almost a captive audience. Plus the questions were unbiased. Even so, the results were just an indicator and not an actual measure of goal attainment.
What no welcome to my blog? Or do you only welcome people with your view point? I do not have to look at any link. I heard about you in my sociology class. I thought I would take a look. I believe in my country and that people must follow the laws about entering and staying in this country. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't the USA be able to enforce the immigration laws tht we have in place? Would Mexico change their laws because we want them to?
Liquid said: There have been over 1200 bills in 45 states recently that have come up, 39 of those states have enacted laws against "Illegal Aliens". Seems to be a majority to me. 39 of 50 = 78% of the states.
Your facts are not quite true, Liquid.
While it's true that in the absence of a CIR bill, many states have decided to enact some very anti "illegal aliens" laws of their own, you have confused reports of just how many states have actually passed laws against undocumented immigrants.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but according to the NCSL (The National Conference of State Leglislatures, www.ncsl.org), as of 6/30/08, 1267 bills have been considered in 45 state legislatures and at least 175laws and resolutions "concerning immigrants and immigration" have been enacted in 39 states.
So, while it's true that there are 39 states that have enacted laws concerning "illegal aliens", it's false to say that they are "against illegal aliens" specifically. Rather, they concern immigrant populations and immigration. Some of them are rather PRO, I think.
Here's an example of the many laws that were enacted that "concern immigration and immigrant populations", one that was enacted in my state:
Washington HB 3168 (Signed 3/26/2008)
This law establishes a Head Start Program to assist the educational needs of low-income populations
in the early childhood education arena. Providers operating migrant and seasonal Head Start
programs will be consulted in order to address the needs of children of migrant and seasonal farm
worker families.
That certainly doesn't sound very Anti "illegal aliens", does it?
Oh, and BTW, Welcome Lisa! (Although it's not my blog to welcome you to, I'm sure it's nothing personal and she would've said it soon enough once you start commenting!)
Lisa,
Hmmm....
How do you know I welcome others to my blog? Are you a long time reader? Or are you truly new?
Very curious (Pat).
Why are you so obstinant about looking at a link I provided?
Wouldnt a truly NEW viewer at least be objective and look?
Lisa said...
What no welcome to my blog? Or do you only welcome people with your view point? I do not have to look at any link. I heard about you in my sociology class. I thought I would take a look. I believe in my country and that people must follow the laws about entering and staying in this country. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't the USA be able to enforce the immigration laws tht we have in place? Would Mexico change their laws because we want them to?
October 20, 2008 5:36 PM
"Rather, they concern immigrant populations and immigration. Some of them are rather PRO, I think."
Some are rather Pro- helping "Legal Immigrants", however that still does not make them for "Illegal Aliens". Non on my side are against Immigrants, what we are against is "Illegal Aliens".
"States continue to employ a range of enforcement and integration approaches. For example, one state created a pilot guest worker program to expedite the approval of foreign workers under the federal H-2A visa program and another state revisited employment-related legislation passed last year. One state makes legal immigrant children and pregnant women eligible for SCHIP. Another aims to address the needs of the Asian Pacific American community through English language instruction, health access and economic development. One state expanded its definition of smuggling of human beings to include the use of so-called “drop houses.” Several states commissioned studies to investigate the economic and fiscal impacts of immigration, including state remedies to recover money owed to the state by the federal government. Three states passed omnibus legislation addressing issues such as employment, law enforcement, public benefits, legal services and identification/licensing."
From another article talking about the same report.
"The 12 state legislatures that enacted 18 employment-related immigration bills during the first half of 2008 are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia. Many of these laws provide for employer sanctions related to the hiring of undocumented workers and violating certain employment eligibility verification requirements. In particular, those bills address the use of the federal government's employment eligibility verification systems (i.e., E-Verify). E-Verify is a voluntary, Web-based system operated by US Citizenship and Immigration Services in partnership with the Social Security Administration that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees."
"We're witnessing a trend of states willing to take the lead in responding to immigration challenges when Congress will not," said William T. Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). "States are looking at creative solutions to law enforcement and work-site enforcement as well as considering the needs and contributions of legal immigrants to the United States."
From the NCSL news.
liquidmicro: Some are rather Pro- helping "Legal Immigrants", however that still does not make them for "Illegal Aliens". Non on my side are against Immigrants, what we are against is "Illegal Aliens".
Go to www.ncsl.org and open the pdf file for the full report. Do you mean to argue that if a state passed a law or laws that for example was intended to help "immigrant populations" documented or otherwise, get better access to healthcare and education, the laws and therefore that state is counted as being "against illegal aliens"?
What kind of faulty logic is that, liquidmicro?
Go ahead and take the time to read that report and count all the 175 laws passed in 39 states. Where are those states and what are the specific laws. I haven't done that, but what I will say is that you can't conclude that all 39 are specifically against "illegal aliens".
liquidmicro said: "We're witnessing a trend of states willing to take the lead in responding to immigration challenges when Congress will not," said William T. Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). "States are looking at creative solutions to law enforcement and work-site enforcement as well as considering the needs and contributions of legal immigrants to the United States."
And as I pointed out earlier: While it's true that in the absence of a CIR bill, many states have decided to enact some very anti "illegal aliens" laws of their own, you have confused reports of just how many states have actually passed laws against undocumented immigrants.
Again look at the full report. You will see that there are a lot of laws and resolutions that help immigrants, documented or otherwise. I'm not denying that there are laws in TN, or VA, or OK, but to say that all 39 states that have passed laws or resolutions that concern immigration is somehow in line with the ANTIs is not truthful.
I will probably be called a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" after this - like McCain's smears of Obama as a "Socialist," "Liberal," etc. - but I'll bear that label proudly. Constitutional rights DO apply to noncitizens as well as citizens. Read on:
"The fundamental civil liberties protections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to all "persons," not just citizens. For example, every person in the United States has the right to due process and equal protection; to criminal proceedings that afford a right to counsel, a jury trial and freedom from double jeopardy; to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and to freedom of speech, religion and association. These basic principles generally apply regardless of an immigrant's legal status."
The ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project (Bless them!)
"Do you mean to argue that if a state passed a law or laws that for example was intended to help "immigrant populations" documented or otherwise, get better access to healthcare and education, the laws and therefore that state is counted as being "against illegal aliens"?"
What kind of faulty logic is it to compare "Legal Immigrants" with "Illegal Immigrants"?? Legal immigrants must show documentation of their residency status in order to obtain benefits.
"I haven't done that, but what I will say is that you can't conclude that all 39 are specifically against "illegal aliens"."
As for the report, I have already read it. Nothing in it will help "Illegal Immigrants". I think it was fair of you to say: "they concern immigrant populations and immigration. Some of them are rather PRO, I think."
And in so doing I will change my: "against illegal aliens" to say: "nothing that helps 'Illegal Aliens'".
To call and group "Illegal Aliens" with 'Law abiding Legal Immigrants' is intellectually dishonest and demeans those who have came here legally, insinuating LPR/GS and Citizenship is worth nothing more than stealing into a country.
Analisa says:
""The fundamental civil liberties protections of the Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to all "persons," not just citizens. For example, every person in the United States has the right to due process and equal protection; to criminal proceedings that afford a right to counsel, a jury trial and freedom from double jeopardy; to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment; to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and to freedom of speech, religion and association. These basic principles generally apply regardless of an immigrant's legal status.""
If the "Illegal Alien" is charged with a crime then they are granted all rights to counsel and to defend there case, given to them by the Charter of the United Nations. If the "Illegal Alien" is arrested or has an outstanding warrant for a deportation, they HAVE NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.
Please learn the difference between what is an Administrative Law Violation vs. what is being charged with a crime. Learn where the Rights are given to those who are charged with a crime.
Here for your benefit again, since last time I gave you the link.
The problem is that "Illegal Aliens" are not being held as 'criminals' and therefor do not fall under much of any of the doctrines. Some confuse misdemeanor and felony criminal acts with that of civil and criminal acts. To put it in an even more simplistic context; if I am the one going against you in court, it is civil, if the government is taking you to court, it is criminal.
In civil law, a private party (a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.
Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law. They often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding.
Illegally entering the US is a crime. Unlawful presence is not a federal crime. However, it is a removable offense under the Immigration Act. As illegal immigrants are not citizens of the U.S., they do not have the same rights as a U.S. citizen. Their deportation hearing takes place before an immigration judge. Since the penalty is deportation and/or a fine and/or jail time, many people think of the Immigration Court as a civil court. In fact, the Immigration Court is a criminal court, as it is the government prosecuting the offense.
But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
When illegal entry is treated as a matter of criminal law, instead of being expelled through an administrative proceeding, those accused have the right to a jury trial and all the rules of evidence apply. The government is burdened with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Imagine the cost and the caseload, that's why they are encouraged to sign a document admitting their status and quickly removed vs. waiting here for a hearing which could take up to 2 years all the time they are in jail awaiting. Most sign so they don't have to sit in jail and can be deported expediently.
All those in detention centers are not being held on criminal law charges, they are being held on Administrative Law charges, awaiting enough persons to one country to make the trip, full aircraft.
WONG WING V. UNITED STATES, 163 U. S. 228 (1896)
We think it clear that detention or temporary confinement, as part of the means necessary to give effect to the provisions for the exclusion or expulsion of aliens, would be valid. Proceedings to exclude or expel would be vain if those accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true character, and while arrangements were being made for their deportation. Detention is a usual feature in every case of arrest on a criminal charge, even when an innocent person a wrongfully accused, but it is not imprisonment in a legal sense.
So too, we think it would be plainly competent for Congress to declare the act of an alien in remaining unlawfully within the United States to be an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment if such offense were to be established by a judicial trial.
Thus, in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 730, MR. JUSTICE GRAY used the following significant language:
"The proceeding before a United States judge, as provided for in section 6 of the act of 1892, is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a 'banishment,' in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process or law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application."
The United States can forbid aliens from coming within their borders, and expel them from their territory, and can devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting such persons upon executive or subordinate officials, but when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused.
Therefor, in conclusion:
The Government has the choice to prosecute for a criminal charge, i.e. document fraud/forgery, for which the Government must now provide burden of proof. Or to plea deal it down to, sign this paper and be barred for 3 - 10 years and if caught you will be charged with a 'felony' as an 'Administrative Violation'.
The Administrative Violation relieves the Government of having to provide any 'rights' to the 'Illegal Alien', thus detention center or immediate deportation, depending on country of origin.
The Criminal Charge would require the "Illegal Immigrant" to remain in the custody of our criminal system until his/her court date, which could be as long as 2 years in jail. Most "Illegals" opt for the sign and leave.
liguid said: What kind of faulty logic is it to compare "Legal Immigrants" with "Illegal Immigrants"?? Legal immigrants must show documentation of their residency status in order to obtain benefits.
Wrong again. Let's not confuse the arguement, shall we?
Some of the 175 laws enacted, such as the ones in my state, do not require documentation for residency/immigration status, but nevertheless are listed under laws that are "related to immigrants and immigration", which is the name of the report:
(State Laws Related to Immigrants and Immigration
January 1 – June 30, 2008),
which is where you based your claim that 39 states passed "anti illegal alien" laws.
Look at the title again:
Laws RELATED TO IMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRATION
Some of the laws listed in there are hardcore anti, like in TN, VA, OK, etc. Some are just remotely related to immigrants, and then others, such as those enacted in my state(WA), CLEARLY BENEFIT IMMIGRANTS, WHICH INCLUDE THOSE THAT ARE UNDOCUMENTED. NO SHOWING OF PAPERS NEEDED!
Again, read the report. To argue that my state, and several others have passed anti-illegal immigrant laws is JUST PLAIN UNTRUE. They've passed laws "related to immigrants and immigration" some of which beneift the lives of undocumented immigrants.
My goodness, you couldn't find any case law more on point than Wong Wing v. United States, decided in 1896! Whatever you do, don't go into law, sweetie. My father is an immigration lawyer, and I can tell you that there are lawyers and judges in this country who don't understand all the ins and outs of it. It's one of the most complicated areas of law. But you lift your facts from some extreme right-wing sites, and you know it all - right? I was responding to your false claim that unauthorized immigrants don't enjoy some Constitutional privileges. Under the 14th Amendment, they clearly do. And this has been upheld been by the Supreme Court in more recent cases than Wong Wing v. United States (following the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act - the first in a series of very racist laws, btw).
Robles, you are absolutely right:
"illegal" IS the new 'N' word. Apparently, if you're "illegal," you are less than human. According to the ANTIs, you don't deserve civil rights, Constitutional rights, or even basic human decency. This is the guy who excused the murderer who kicked a young Mexican father with three children in the head, snuffing out his life. Really, arguing with haters is an exercise in futility in my view...
liquidmicro said:
"Neither foreign nationals who have not yet reached our shores, nor illegal aliens who have done so unlawfully and without the Attorney General's permission, are entitled to the full panoply of rights available to citizens or even resident aliens. To the contrary, that status by definition places such individuals outside the traditional protections of the Constitution."
Pro Person,
You made some interesting points! Looks like you are learning from you Dad as I did from mine!
I also agree that Liquid comes on strong, and he does quote some extremist sites at times, but he does have a right to his opinion and it does get interesting when we hash out both sides.
I have this dream that someday, we will all come to an agreement on some of these issues and develop an effective and workable Comprehensive Immigration Plan.
Keep coming back. It is good to have more voiced in this debate!
To call and group "Illegal Aliens" with 'Law abiding Legal Immigrants' is intellectually dishonest and demeans those who have came here legally, insinuating LPR/GS and Citizenship is worth nothing more than stealing into a country.
!!?
Why is it that some people are quick to point out how insulting it is for documented immigrants to compare the plight of undocumented immigrants with legal immigration, as if there is a huge distinct line that separates the two? What is demeaning and dehumanizing is failure to realize that the two are often connected, that often people who are legal were once undocumented, and that households with legal immigrants often have members that are "illegal". Oh, and of course using the term "illegals" is itself what is dehumanizing and criminalizing.
Sure I'm not going to deny that some legal immigrants have resentment towards the undocumented, but for the most part, their plights are very similar in this country, and what is good for immigrants is also good for "those illegals"
Oh, Sweetie, you are in for a treat:
The Immigration Statute and the Plenary Power Doctrine is the first place you should look. Then I would suggest the following cases.
Under Art. I, � 8, cl. 4 of the Constitution(19) and the plenary power doctrine,(20) the executive and legislative branches have coordinate authority to establish and enforce policies for admission to and exclusion from this country, while the judiciary accords those branches almost total deference. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976) ("[T]he responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government"); United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950) (authority over immigration matters stems not just from legislative power "but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation."); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 711 (1893) (it is the "right to exclude or to expel all aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, being an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent nation, essential to its safety, its independence, and its welfare . . . ."). Under this doctrine, the Attorney General is charged with the administration and enforcement of all laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, and she does so with virtually no interference from the courts.(21) The Supreme Court has "long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control." Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210 (1953); see also Diaz, 426 U.S. at 82 (noting "narrow standard of review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization").
The Supreme Court has made clear that an attempt to enter this country is considered a request for a privilege rather than an assertion of right, because "the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative." See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). According to the Supreme Court, such a privilege can only be exercised according to the procedures established by Congress and implemented by the appropriate executive officials. See Knauff, 338 U.S. at 542-44.
Under the former version of the immigration act the government had two mechanisms for returning non-citizens to their country of origin: "exclusion" was the procedure used to refuse an alien entry at the border of this country; "deportation" was the procedure used to remove an alien who has already entered the country but is here illegally. See Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 25-26. Although exclusion proceedings usually occurred at the port of entry, the Supreme Court developed what has become known as the "entry fiction" to govern the rights of those aliens who are deemed excludable but who have nonetheless been allowed to enter physically the United States for humanitarian, administrative, or other reasons, under 8 U.S.C. � 1182(d)(5)(A). Under the entry fiction, an alien deemed to have entered this country illegally is treated as if detained or "excluded" at the border despite his physical presence in the United States. See Gisbert, 988 F.2d at 1440 (explaining distinction between excludable and deportable aliens). Excludable aliens have no rights with regard to their entry or exclusion from this country and they are treated differently from those who have "passed through our gates." Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212; but see Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 32-34 (resident alien detained at border upon return to country is validly subject to exclusion proceeding but may invoke procedural due process protections during proceedings); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 597-600 (1953) (resident alien returning to U.S. after five-month absence is subject to exclusion hearing but is entitled to procedural due process protections). According to the Supreme Court, they are due only the procedures authorized by Congress for their removal proceedings and nothing more. See Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212 (citing Knauff, 338 U.S. at 544); compare Zadvydas, 185 F.3d at 295-97 (extending entry fiction to deportable aliens who have received final order of deportation and stripping them of due process right to be free from indefinite detention) and Ho, 204 F.3d at 1059-60 (same) with Ma, 208 F.3d at 825-26 n. 23 (rejecting INS's argument that aliens ordered deportable are on same constitutional footing as excludable aliens seeking entry).
Should an excludable alien be accused of committing a crime, he would be entitled to the constitutional protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) ("[I]t must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by [the fifth and sixth] amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."). Thus, in Wong Wing v. United States, the Court struck down a federal statute imposing a maximum of one year of hard labor on a Chinese alien upon a determination of his deportability, finding it a violation of the alien's due process right to be free from punishment without trial. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, another early immigration case, the Supreme Court announced that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections extend to aliens as well.
The Due Process Clause clearly does not grant a person an absolute right to be free from detention, even when convicted of no crime. See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 748; see also Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 281 (1984) (permitting pretrial detention of juvenile delinquents considered dangerous); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535-40 (1979) (allowing pretrial detention of arrestee if court finds there is risk of flight); Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 537-42 (1952) (allowing detention of Communist aliens pending deportation because they posed threat to nation's public interest).
My goodness, you couldn't find any case law more on point than Wong Wing v. United States, decided in 1896! Whatever you do, don't go into law, sweetie.
Unfortunately I think he already is in the field of law, I think. He also loves to post this same reference. I've seen it twice already, and I've only been here a short time.
He's in the field of hate. I think your arguments make greater sense, Robles. You're tremendously thoughtful and intelligent. Just personally, I think you would make a great lawyer, if you decided to pursue it. More importantly, you're a decent and compassionate person. We need more people like that in this country. :~)
oops, hit the wrong button. that came from me: pro person
""illegal" IS the new 'N' word. Apparently, if you're "illegal," you are less than human. According to the ANTIs, you don't deserve civil rights, Constitutional rights, or even basic human decency. This is the guy who excused the murderer who kicked a young Mexican father with three children in the head, snuffing out his life. Really, arguing with haters is an exercise in futility in my view..."
My information comes directly from case law, not right-wing sites. Obviously you missed the part in Dee's blog where I am a 22 year long registered Democrat.
Gov't terminology calls them "Illegal Aliens", again it is intellectually dishonest to classify them as Immigrants, as they are not entitled to any of the Rights or Liberties afforded Citizens and Residents.
"He's in the field of hate."
I guess you haven't begun to look up all the cases I cited for your lack of education. Better yet ask your daddy about them, I'm sure he will agree with me.
Love the wording. Sorry my opinion differs from yours, and for you to label my opinion as hate does nothing but show your ignorance. I stand by the Rule of Law and the fact that we are a Sovereign Nation. If you wish to be Socialistic and grant everybody the Right to be here, what gives you the Right to impose your view on those of us that don't want it? If you like charity, go to a country of your choice and help the people there. I go to Honduras every year for a month and help the poor, what do you do??
Analisa says:
"illegal" IS the new 'N' word. Apparently, if you're "illegal," you are less than human. According to the ANTIs, you don't deserve civil rights, Constitutional rights, or even basic human decency.
Excludable aliens have no rights with regard to their entry or exclusion from this country and they are treated differently from those who have "passed through our gates." Mezei, 345 U.S. at 212.
Here's a couple questions to you Analisa. Lets see where your compassion lies.
Why do you think we have immigration laws? and why do we have guest worker visas?
Wow! Thanks for the compliment. You are too generous! That makes my day!
You yourself deserve just as much. It's nice to see another Pro commenter here. We (all the Pros) are much needed in this country.
Dee is right. We should come together and support each other and be Patriotic Americans. America does not stand for hatred and bigotry, but for Understanding, Tolerance, and Acceptance!
Get out and VOTE!
God Bless America!
Pro Person said: You're tremendously thoughtful and intelligent. Just personally, I think you would make a great lawyer, if you decided to pursue it. More importantly, you're a decent and compassionate person. We need more people like that in this country. :~)
Robles,
Im not taking Liquids side of the issue, but he is a long time and frequent commenter on my blog.
He is intelligent, civil enough (no blatant name calling or hysteria) and keeps our debates exciting, though he does tend to post very long cut and pastes at times. Plus you have to watch what he posts and challenge him because he does have a tendency to include some off the wall statements in his long posts just to see if you are checking his facts.
I do think its important we have the ANTI side here and not name call. We PROs have to get off the term racist and other name calling (I know you dont do it Robles) and stick to the LOGICAL DEBATE. I think this is the only way we will win this debate long term.
As an fyi, Liquid has previously shared that he is a small business owner (arborist), recently married to a woman who is a legal immigrant from Portugal, is a former Democrat, now Independent who will not vote in November because he disapproves of both sides, and he likes to debate on my blog and has oftened thanked me for having my blog since he does not have the time to create and oversee his own.
Your giving me away, Dee. Your taking the fun out of it. I am not an Independent, I am still a registered Democrat.
robles,
Too bad that the Pro's think that oppostion to illegal immigration and encouragement of enforcement of our laws is related to bigotry, hatred, intolerance and unacceptance (that IS name calling by the way). It isn't and you and the rest of the Pro's know it. Debate with honesty please.
Dee,
I think I've conveyed this before, but that is exactly why I like your blog. Unlike going to an anti site, this is a place that encourages dialogue between the two respective sides (assuming there are just two sides, there are probably in between views). And I imagine that is not an easy thing to moderate sometimes. I've commented a few times at anti sites, not much, only to get bombarded with hate messages. So, kudos to you, and keep it up.
Dee said: I do think its important we have the ANTI side here and not name call. We PROs have to get off the term racist and other name calling (I know you dont do it Robles) and stick to the LOGICAL DEBATE. I think this is the only way we will win this debate long term.
Liquidmicro said...
"Neither foreign nationals who have not yet reached our shores, nor illegal aliens who have done so unlawfully and without the Attorney General's permission, are entitled to the full panoply of rights available to citizens or even resident aliens. To the contrary, that status by definition places such individuals outside the traditional protections of the Constitution."
Here's the case:
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 770-71 (1950)
Is nobody doing their homework on these laws? What gives?
anonymous said: Too bad that the Pro's think that oppostion to illegal immigration and encouragement of enforcement of our laws is related to bigotry, hatred, intolerance and unacceptance (that IS name calling by the way). It isn't and you and the rest of the Pro's know it. Debate with honesty please.
So, was I being dishonest? I'm going to call it as I see it. I stated: "America does not stand for hatred and bigotry." Was anyone from here singled out specifically?
The dishonesty lies in looking at things in terms of black and white. In other words, if you say that you are ANTI illegal immigration, logically you'd think that I'm FOR or PRO illegal immigration, which isn't true for me at all. I don't think anyone here that identifies as PRO is for illegal immigration. Rather, I am PRO IMMIGRATION REFORM that is comprehensive and humane. Do you see the difference? I could then also say that I'm for encouragement and enforcement of laws. (Just not some laws that are currently on the books today and are being enforced that unfairly focus on undocumented immigrants as the problem and criminalizes them to an extent that justifies hatred and bigotry against anyone who may be or perceived to be an "illegal".)
I feel that I've debated with honesty, and haven't insulted anyone here.
For what it's worth, I think when you go to a blog or website that is opposed to what you believe in, it can feel very oppressive. This blog IMHO does a pretty good job of listening to the ANTIs and allowing them to comment without getting shut down considering the stance of the blog creator. Try comparing it to other sides and you'll see.
Anon (Pat),
I knew you couldnt keep away!
BTW, Robles does not name call and is a very good debater. He debates with intelligence and grace.
This is good for both sides!
Anonymous said...
robles,
Too bad that the Pro's think that oppostion to illegal immigration and encouragement of enforcement of our laws is related to bigotry, hatred, intolerance and unacceptance (that IS name calling by the way). It isn't and you and the rest of the Pro's know it. Debate with honesty please.
Why do you keep calling me Pat? My name isn't Pat!
As for your statements robles, since you bring up bigotry, intolerance,betc. when the subject is illegal immigraton, it is plain that is the way you feel about those who do not feel we need an immigration reform. Whether you like our immigration policies/laws or not, you as American must abide by them until or if they are changed. Not all of us think they need changing but that doesn't make us bigots for that. It is only natural that people in this country illegally are not going to be looked upon with favor by our law abiding citizens. You keep calling it bigotry and hatred or saying that we view them all as felonious criminals and that is not being truthful. Certain people in here use exaggerated adjectives to demonize and to stretch the truth.
I have seen plenty of insults in this blog. Most of them by those with a Pro viewpoint. The blog owner only warns those whose viewpoint she doesn't agree with and that is a fact. I call that being "shut down" and being biased.
You keep calling it bigotry and hatred or saying that we view them all as felonious criminals and that is not being truthful
Whether you say you personally view them as felonious criminals or not, is somewhat beside the point if, for example, you live in a state like Mississippi, which recently passed a law which makes working as an undocumented immigrant in that state, a FELONY. So, if you support that change in Miss., then I'm sorry, but you do view them "all as felonious criminals."
anonymous,
The last comment I made is only one example of the Antis in one state, but this is happening in many different states. They are slowly changing the laws that do, in fact, criminalize a large group of people. And the effect is that they are just moving to other states, and that includes families and supporters who are residents and citizens, and people that just look the part. (I know I wouldn't want to live there, because I "look the part", but anyway...)
The effect is often economic hardship on those counties and states that have enacted and enforced these kinds of laws. When these lawmakers thought up these laws, they didn't think of the economic realities of losing a population of working individuals and families.
robles,
If a law is passed in a state making illegals felons by working in this country illegally then that is what they are according to THAT state's law! If it isn't considered to be a felony in another state, then they aren't felons in THAT state.
IMO, entering our country illegally should be felony in every state but that doesn't make me a bigot for it. It should be a serious offense and not taken lightly.
I think any state or business that suffers short term economic downturn to losing part of its workforce suddenly due to them employing illegals, deserves what they get. They will rebound anyway. Never should illegality be looked on as a way to make money. We are a nation of laws, morals and scruples. At least we used to be anyway.
Dee,
Does the name Michael ring a bell from the past? I am not this Pat person you keep calling me.
DEE
"I have this dream that someday, we will all come to an agreement on some of these issues and develop an effective and workable Comprehensive Immigration Plan."
This "dream" you and those like you have Dee is not a dream. Your "dream" consists only of getting YOUR way, legalizing millions of illegals who have no right to be here. Your dream is only to manipulate, control, and villify Americans into giving in. Americans have made it clear where we stand on the issue of illegals in our country. We want them out, and we have a right to that "dream."
If you are Michael, then call yourself Michael. You have already announced yourself. Pat posts comments similar to your method-mindset that is why I called you by his name.
If you want to post here, you have to stay civil and stop making false accusations against Robles.
I will allow you to stay as long as you remain civil and abide by the rules of the blog.
1. No abusive, profane language. No name calling.
2. Stick to topic of the discussion.
Tamara,
That is ok. You are entitled to your Opinion.
Many people didnt agree with Martin Luther Kings dream either.
Tamara said...
DEE
"I have this dream that someday, we will all come to an agreement on some of these issues and develop an effective and workable Comprehensive Immigration Plan."
This "dream" you and those like you have Dee is not a dream. Your "dream" consists only of getting YOUR way, legalizing millions of illegals who have no right to be here. Your dream is only to manipulate, control, and villify Americans into giving in. Americans have made it clear where we stand on the issue of illegals in our country. We want them out, and we have a right to that "dream."
October 21, 2008 6:00 PM
"They are slowly changing the laws that do, in fact, criminalize a large group of people."
Look at it this way, by criminalizing them, charging them with an infamous crime, its giving them the 'Civil Rights' that you are advocating for.
"The effect is often economic hardship on those counties and states that have enacted and enforced these kinds of laws. When these lawmakers thought up these laws, they didn't think of the economic realities of losing a population of working individuals and families."
Actually if you look at AZ and OK, they are not doing that bad, so can you actually show economic realities, by lawmakers, as having an effect on the states? As for towns being effected, Postville is one, can you name a second?
"They are slowly changing the laws that do, in fact, criminalize a large group of people."
According to the Federal Government, they are already criminals.
'"exclusion" was the procedure used to refuse an alien entry at the border of this country; "deportation" was the procedure used to remove an alien who has already entered the country but is here 'illegally'. See Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 25-26.'
I see it as the states coming into compliance with Federal Law.
Michael,
Just to recap: I said: "America does not stand for hatred and bigotry, but for Understanding, Tolerance, and Acceptance!"
To which you replied that since I bring up bigotry, intolerance, etc. when the subject is illegal immigraton, it is plain that is the way I feel about those who do not feel we need an immigration reform. You also brought up that you felt all people that enter our country illegally should be considered felons, but that doesn't make you a bigot.
I would rather not resort to name calling here, simply out of respect to the rules, and also because to start out just calling people names would quickly shut down all possible dialogue between opposing views, which is what this blog is all about. But since we are talking about name calling, maybe it's important to explain when I think that term is approp. not that I would freely use the term here, even if it were to apply.
No, that is not how I feel about ALL people who don't want immigration reform. I wouldn't call ALL people who reject immigration reform as bigots or hateful.
Some people just base their decisions on ignorance. (And "Prejudice is the child of Ignorance")
They do not know enough about undocumented immigrants, but they are not necessarily bigoted or hateful people.
Others refuse to see undocumented immigrants as a group made up of very diverse people, and would rather treat them as one group: illegal alien criminals.
For these people this illegal alien criminal group have snuck into our country to take our jobs, our healthcare, our education, our land, etc, and basically wreak havoc on us noble citizens. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about them, in their opinion. The illegals are just a bunch of bad people, and we are better off without them.
One can be ignorant and just believe that is what this group is about, but bigots are specifically refusing to see the reality of what undocumented immigrants are, and instead hold on to their prejudiced views even when exposed to the truth about the group that they would rather criminalize.
Those are the people who choose to criminalize a group of people by voting on, enacting, and supporting laws that for example make it a felony to be here without papers.
If you are one of those people, then I'm sorry but that is someone I would call a bigot. You refuse to see undocumented immigrants as the individuals that they are and would rather lump them into a singular group of criminals equal to those who commit murder, rape, aggr. assault, kidnapping, grand theft, robbery, etc.
If you do not like the term bigot, then I would challenge you to examine the things you think might make others think of you as one.
Dee,
All Pro illegals sound alike to, so what?
Just what accusations of robles did I make? I reiterated his own words. Go back and read them.
Well not to push your little buttons about civility in here Dee but I distinctly remember reading the post of one called Analisa just recently and she certainly wasn't civil nor warned.
I know you haven't changed any Dee so not to worry, I won't be hanging around here much because of that anyway.
liquid said: According to the Federal Government, they are already criminals.
Civil offense, not criminal offense.
Act of entry possibly criminal, but living and working here, civil offense. Certain states want to change/are currently changing this(example MS).
But
They are not/should not be considered criminals IMO in the sense that they did not commit aggr. assault, murder, other serious crimes.
"Civil offense, not criminal offense.
Act of entry possibly criminal, but living and working here, civil offense."
If I am the one going against you in court, it is civil, if the government is taking you to court, it is criminal.
In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.
Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law. They often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding.
Illegally entering the US is a crime. Unlawful presence is not a federal crime. However, it is a removable offense under the Immigration Act. As illegal immigrants are not citizens of the U.S., they do not have the same rights as a U.S. citizen. Their deportation hearing takes place before an immigration judge. Since the penalty is deportation and/or a fine and/or jail time, many people think of the Immigration Court as a civil court. In fact, the Immigration Court is a criminal court, as it is the government prosecuting the offense.
liquidmicro,
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an Apr. 6, 2006 report entitled "Immigration Enforcement Within the United States," offered the following:
"The INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] includes both criminal and civil components, providing both for criminal charges (e.g., alien smuggling, which is prosecuted in the federal courts) and for civil violations (e.g., lack of legal status, which may lead to removal through a separate administrative system in the Department of Justice). Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative processes are civil proceedings. For instance, a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant alien may become deportable if his visitor's visa expires or if his student status changes. Criminal violations of the INA, on the other hand, include felonies and misdemeanors and are prosecuted in federal district courts. These types of violations include the bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens, the illegal entry of aliens, and the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported."
robles,
I am not going to get into a big debate with you about this because for one thing there are very few Americans who view illegal aliens as felons as felony is described by our laws right now, except for identity theft which is a felony. It isn't as horrible as rape, murder but it is still a felony according to our laws. A crime can be made a felony by new legislation. I think entering our border illegally is a serious offense and should be made a felony with new legislation. That is my opinion. It has nothing to do with bigotry. Being of "nice" character otherwise should have nothing to do with it either.
Those illegally in our country do take American jobs and do get benefits that should be only for citizens whether that is their intention by coming here or not. It is just a fact. Facts are not bigotry.
I don't want the kind of reform that you, Dee and the rest of the pro-reform group do. Our immigration laws are not broken, they just weren't enforced. That is the view of many Americans and that doesn't make them prejudiced nor bigoted. It is just the way that the pro-reform group think of them and without good reason.
You are aware the CRS is a "Think Tank" and that what they 'offered' is an interpretation (the footnote calls it - adapted).
Your "criminal charges and civil violations' paragraph of your report footnotes to another report from CRS. The footnote states:
32 The following paragraph is adapted from CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration
Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, Steven R. Vina,
and Karma Ester.
You can google the footnoted report and read it. The section you are using "Being illegally present in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal" refers to 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq. If you read through 1101, you will note there are no 'civil' offenses as they suggest, however there are 'criminal offenses' and 'serious criminal offense'.
And from the INA: ACT 237 - GENERAL CLASSES OF DEPORTABLE ALIENS
(B) Present in violation of law.-Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 221(i) , is deportable.
Present in violation of law, makes it a 'criminal offense' and not a 'serious criminal offense'.
"The effect is often economic hardship on those counties and states that have enacted and enforced these kinds of laws. When these lawmakers thought up these laws, they didn't think of the economic realities of losing a population of working individuals and families."
Monthly job losses cut across 41 states
Nine states posted job gains. Missouri, the state reporting the largest monthly increase in employment, added 3,800 jobs. It was followed by Nebraska, Wyoming, West Virginia and Virginia.
From Dees own topic here: Who is Who in the Immigration Debate! Who has Hidden Agendas?
"Although immigration has long been a federal issue, more than 175 bills were introduced in states this year concerning the employment of immigrants, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. State lawmakers said they had acted against businesses, often in response to fervent demands from voters, to curb job incentives that were attracting shadow populations of illegal immigrants. “Illegal immigration is a threat to the safety of Missouri families and the security of their jobs,” Gov. Matt Blunt (up for re election, panderer of the panderers), a Republican, said after the Missouri Legislature passed a crackdown law in May. “I am pleased that lawmakers heeded my call to continue the fight where Washington has failed to act.”
Anonymous,
I agree, I do not want to get into a debate with you about what is, and isn’t, a bigot. And again, I have never called anyone here a bigot.
What I do want to say is that sometimes people base their decisions to support changing laws or creating laws solely on their bigotry.
Bigotry is holding onto prejudices about a group of people. An example of this is the way undocumented immigrants are viewed only as “illegal alien criminals.” By using those words specifically to describe undocumented immigrants, they simplify their identity to a whole set of common misconceptions about undocumented immigrants, such as that they create poor neighborhoods, have higher rates of DUIs, commit more crimes than average citizens, are a drain on our economy, take jobs away from citizens, etc. The list goes on and on. While it is true that there are some individuals who are undocumented that do commit crimes, those are individuals and need to be treated as such. It is bigoted to look at this diverse population solely as “illegal” and “alien” and “criminal”, and justifies the very laws that we see being enacted that classify their “crime” of simply living and working here as an undocumented immigrant as a felony.
You contradict yourself also by first saying that most Americans don't think of illegals as felons and then saying that you and most Americans feel that entering our border illegally is a serious offense and should be made a felony with new legislation. A felony is a felony, punishable as a felony, so what is it going to be? If you think that undocumented immigrants have committed a felony by being here, you equate that with the same seriousness of other crimes listed as felonies, and you believe ALL undocumented immigrants should be punished as having committed a felony.
anonm said: Those illegally in our country do take American jobs and do get benefits that should be only for citizens whether that is their intention by coming here or not. It is just a fact. Facts are not bigotry.
But...it is important to know where "facts" come from and whether they are truthful or not. If you get your "facts" from numbersUSA, CIS, or FAIR, those groups are hellbent on presenting undocumented immigrants as illegal alien criminals, and they present "facts", not truth.
Robles,
You are right!
robles said...
Anonymous,
I agree, I do not want to get into a debate with you about what is, and isn’t, a bigot. And again, I have never called anyone here a bigot.
What I do want to say is that sometimes people base their decisions to support changing laws or creating laws solely on their bigotry.
robles,
The fact is that MOST American's objection to illegal immigration and your kind of CIR is not based on bigotry. The same goes for your claim that those same Americans view all or even most illegal aliens as felons (commiting rape, murder, etc.) It simply isn't true so why do you even bring it up? If these were the views of MOST Americans then I could understand it but it isn't. IMO you and the rest of the pro reformers do that to demonize the other side by stretching the truth.
Just because those same Americans do think that coming here illegally should be a felony doesn't make them bigots either nor does it make them view them as felons for that act now because it ISN'T a felony right now! Our national security is at stake and would be terrorists are another good reason to make it a felony.
By the way, hello Michael and my old friends from Matt.
"It is bigoted to look at this diverse population solely as “illegal” and “alien” and “criminal”"
So in essence you are saying that our Government is a Bigoted institution.
"the very laws that we see being enacted that classify their “crime” of simply living and working here as an undocumented immigrant as a felony."
The very laws we see being enacted that classify their 'crime' of living and working here as "Illegal Aliens" is mostly simple deportation, which is labeled as class 4 Misdemeanor. It can however become a felony if they are charged with an infamous crime, such as document/identity fraud/theft/forgery. There are also 6 different classes of felony, most infamous crimes charged to "Illegal Aliens" is a class 5 felony, Identity theft/document fraud. Either way they are all crimes against our laws.
sandra said: The fact is that MOST American's objection to illegal immigration and your kind of CIR is not based on bigotry.
What is it based on then, ignorance?
FYI, I am not FOR illegal immigration, and you do not know what my kind of CIR is.
Besides, who are you to assume what most Americans want or don't want?
It simply isn't true so why do you even bring it up?
Um...because that was what we were discussing?
Just because those same Americans do think that coming here illegally should be a felony doesn't make them bigots either nor does it make them view them as felons for that act now because it ISN'T a felony right now!
Read my comments again. And yes, in Mississippi, it IS a felony right now, and more states want to follow their lead!
Mississippi makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to use false documents to get a job.
"to use false documents to get a job", isn't this a Federal Crime and all the state is doing is becoming compliant with Federal Law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1028.html
Before you go on to the 'knowingly', you need to read section (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document;
So lets follow the numbers and letters shall we.
(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that—
(1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document;
(2) the offense is an offense under subsection (a)(4) of this section; or
(3) either—
(A) the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce, including the transfer of a document by electronic means; or
(B) the means of identification, identification document, false identification document, or document-making implement is transported in the mail in the course of the production, transfer, possession, or use prohibited by this section.
(a)(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;
So in essence you are saying that our Government is a Bigoted institution.
Um, no. Our Government does not require that undocumented immigrants be called "illegal alien criminals." Do some people in government officials call undocumented immigrants illegal alien criminals? Yes. Some do not. Are there in fact illegal alien criminals? Yes.
Government is made up of people, just like you and me. Some use that term appropriately, others do not.
"Our Government does not require that undocumented immigrants be called "illegal alien criminals." Do some people in government officials call undocumented immigrants illegal alien criminals? Yes. Some do not. Are there in fact illegal alien criminals? Yes.
Government is made up of people, just like you and me. Some use that term appropriately, others do not."
Since the Government is the ones who create the laws and the laws are as follows:
"deportation" was the procedure used to remove an alien who has already entered the country but is here illegally. See Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 25-26
I see the words Alien and Illegal just in this one case. 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq. If you read through 1101, you will note 'criminal offenses' and 'serious criminal offense'.
So our laws then are Bigoted, since they are created by our Government does that not make our Government Bigoted, too?
"Our Government does not require that undocumented immigrants be called "illegal alien criminals."
Nobody is 'required' to call them anything. However, they are being called what they are as to our 'laws', "Illegal Aliens". You may choose to call them whatever you wish, however, when you combine them with the "Legal Immigrants" you are using a false label and interjecting dishonesty into the conversation as they are a distinguishable group from the "Legal Immigrants".
liquidmicro said: Nobody is 'required' to call them anything. However, they are being called what they are as to our 'laws', "Illegal Aliens". You may choose to call them whatever you wish, however, when you combine them with the "Legal Immigrants" you are using a false label and interjecting dishonesty into the conversation as they are a distinguishable group from the "Legal Immigrants".
The laws as they are written use words like alien and criminal for practical reasons, but there are clearly situations that do not fit the words. For example, the immigrants in postville iowa are accused of aggravated identity theft, yet they were unaware of what a SSN was. They were clearly being taken advantage by the owners of the plant, who supplied the numbers for them. They are accused of aggravted identity theft, similar to someone that steals a wallet, assumes an identity to gain access to someones assets. So, the government has laws on papaer but people use terms to describe things that aren't accurate.
So our laws then are Bigoted, since they are created by our Government does that not make our Government Bigoted, too?
I'm not sure what you are getting at by asking if I think government is bigoted. I think that laws reflect bigotry and some reflect fairness. I think that people are bigoted. I wouldn't say collectively that our government is bigoted.
I believe that people have come into this country, wrongly, and we as a country have let it go. I don't see the treatment of these people as fair, and it's based on bigotry of others seeing them as criminals. That would include people who have come here as infants as undocumented immigrants, nevertheless. People who work hard jobs that US citizens would never do, even if they are unemployed. Because this has been a problem for years and years, the people that are here who do not commit crimes, should still be penalized, but the law doesn't allow for any way to pardon them and people just want them all to be deported. That isn't practical, and it isn't humane.
You may choose to call them whatever you wish, however, when you combine them with the "Legal Immigrants" you are using a false label and interjecting dishonesty into the conversation as they are a distinguishable group from the "Legal Immigrants".
I differ on this because I believe the term undocumented more accurately describes their situation, it doesn't combine them with legal immigrants, just as it doesn't combine them with the term "illegal" , which denotes a criminality that IMO isn't always deserved.
"For example, the immigrants in postville iowa are accused of aggravated identity theft, yet they were unaware of what a SSN was. They were clearly being taken advantage by the owners of the plant, who supplied the numbers for them. They are accused of aggravted identity theft, similar to someone that steals a wallet, assumes an identity to gain access to someones assets. So, the government has laws on papaer but people use terms to describe things that aren't accurate."
You are under the assumption that Agriprocessors supplied all with false documents, while some where, others where not, they found <100 potential cards, some with names and pictures. Whether or not they know what a ss# is, matters not, they do know that they need documentation in order to work, and as such, by purchasing the documentation, and then using it to obtain a job, they have committed document fraud, Identity theft. I gave you the Federal Law on ID Theft above.
"I differ on this because I believe the term undocumented more accurately describes their situation, it doesn't combine them with legal immigrants, just as it doesn't combine them with the term "illegal" , which denotes a criminality that IMO isn't always deserved."
I was using your earlier post where you called all Immigrants. If you choose to use undocumented, I have no problem with that, your opinion is fine, and we can agree to disagree on their "criminality" by being here 'illegally', which is my opinion.
You are under the assumption that Agriprocessors supplied all with false documents, while some where, others where not, they found <100 potential cards, some with names and pictures. Whether or not they know what a ss# is, matters not, they do know that they need documentation in order to work, and as such, by purchasing the documentation, and then using it to obtain a job, they have committed document fraud, Identity theft. I gave you the Federal Law on ID Theft above.
Still, you have to admit that committing ID theft so you can slave away at a meat packing plant for 15 hours everyday is very different than someone that hacked into my computer and obtained my SSN, address, and credit card number and charged 200,000 on it.
"and it isn't humane."
What, in your view, would be humane? What isn't humane about how they are handled now? How would you make it fair to all those who are coming the right way, by waiting their turn? How would you then go about getting rid of those who are "criminals" in your eyes? How are you going to create enough jobs for all those wanting to come and for all those already here? How are you going to straighten out the stolen ID's of some of the American Citizens who's numbers have been used? etc.
"Still, you have to admit that committing ID theft so you can slave away at a meat packing plant for 15 hours everyday is very different than someone that hacked into my computer and obtained my SSN, address, and credit card number and charged 200,000 on it."
All they need is a number, it can be made up out of thin air, there is a chance that it is someones. That SS# tie to your credit, in essence they create a new ID based off your number and obtain CC's, House loans, Car loans, credit. They default for whatever reason, it goes against your number, you are charged with their default on your credit score, it effects you in some way. Are you willing to give up your number so they can slave away to better their lives at your expense, even if it is for $8 per hour at a meat plant?
The charge of ID theft is still ID theft, however to the extent they used can be determined by a judge and court, the penalty is based on the extent of theft, minimum to maximum penalty.
Sandra,
You are missing it. Re Read and try to understand what he is saying.
Robles said: "America does not stand for hatred and bigotry." .. PRO is for PRO IMMIGRATION REFORM that is comprehensive and humane. Do you see the difference?"
I suggest you study the history of Immigration over the last 100 years and learn and understand why we are where we are today. If you go over to Ruben Navarette´s site he has a very good article on the History of Immigration. I think it may help you.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20081022-9999-lz1e22navarre.html
Immigrants stealing U.S. Social Security numbers for jobs, not profits
Though most people think of identity theft as a financial crime, one of the most common forms in the United States involves illegal immigrants using fraudulent Social Security numbers to conduct their daily lives.
With tacit acceptance from some employers and poor coordination among government agencies, this practice provides the backbone of some low- wage businesses and a boon to the Social Security trust fund.
During the 1990s, such mismatches accounted for about $20 billion in Social Security taxes paid.
"It's clear that it is a different intent or purpose than trying to get someone's MasterCard and charge it up, knowing they're going to get the bill," said Richard Hamp, an assistant attorney general in Utah. "But it has some similarities. It goes on the other person's credit record. Illegals are filing for bankruptcy, using someone else's number.
"I had one 78-year-old with three defaults on houses she never owned."
The Federal Trade Commission, which estimates that 10 million Americans have their identities stolen each year, does not distinguish between people who steal Social Security numbers so they can work and those who are out to steal money.
Illegal immigrants make up nearly one of every 20 workers in the United States, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center, and most are working under fraudulent Social Security numbers, which can be bought in any immigrant community or in Mexico.
.....
"Falsely using a Social Security number is a felony. Our own federal agencies are working against those laws. The IRS says privacy laws prevent them from sharing information. So we know who the guilty employers are," Dinerstein said. "The IRS knows who the guilty employees are. And nothing's being done about it."
In 2000, using data from the Social Security Administration, the Utah attorney general's office found that the Social Security numbers of 132,000 people in the state were being used by other people, far more than the state could prosecute.
This use caused problems even when the person using the number led a financially responsible life, said Hamp, the assistant attorney general. "I've had families denied public assistance for their children or disability payments because records show somebody is working in their Social Security number," he said.
Scott Smith, of Ogden, Utah, discovered that someone was using the Social Security number of his daughter,Bailey, when he applied for public health insurance for her.
Liquid,
Where in your reference does it say JOB?
Hint: It is NOT THERE!!
The reference you provided said: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1028Prev | Next § 1028. Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information
You are treading lightly here.
There is a difference between making up a number and purposely stealing an identity. I believe there is a legal dispute on this entire issue.
Liquidmicro said...
Mississippi makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to use false documents to get a JOB.
"to use false documents to get a job", isn't this a Federal Crime and all the state is doing is becoming compliant with Federal Law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1028.html
The legal dispute is on whether they knew they were using someone elses number.
Justices Take Case on Illegal Workers and Penalties for Identity Theft
The question in the case, one that has divided the federal appeals courts, is whether workers who use false Social Security and alien registration numbers must know that they belong to a real person to be subject to a two-year sentence extension for “aggravated identity theft.” Put another way: Is it identity theft to pick nine random numbers out of the air and submit them as a Social Security number if that number turns out to belong to a real person?
JOB , does not matter, once they give to an employer (produce) forged/fake/stolen/made-up SS card, they have committed a felony if they are caught. The above case results will determine the outcome.
Aaah Liquid,
I score Robles 1
Liquid 0
Thank you for admitting the truth!!
Liquidmicro said...
"Our Government does not require that undocumented immigrants be called "illegal alien criminals." Do some people in government officials call undocumented immigrants illegal alien criminals? Yes. Some do not. Are there in fact illegal alien criminals? Yes.
Government is made up of people, just like you and me. Some use that term appropriately, others do not."
As usual De, you come into a debate not knowing what is going on, Please correct her quote Robles, tell her whose they are that she is saying I said. Mark that +1 Liquid - Dee -2.
I love it when you don't pay attention, Dee.
robles said...
Um, no. Our Government does not require that undocumented immigrants be called "illegal alien criminals." Do some people in government officials call undocumented immigrants illegal alien criminals? Yes. Some do not. Are there in fact illegal alien criminals? Yes.
Government is made up of people, just like you and me. Some use that term appropriately, others do not.
October 22, 2008 5:27 PM
JOB , does not matter, once they give to an employer (produce) forged/fake/stolen/made-up SS card, they have committed a felony if they are caught. The above case results will determine the outcome. Or if they use this document to obtain credit for the purchase of a car, house, to open an account, anything at all with the use of this document constitutes ID Theft, with the exception of having one in possession if detained by ICE or 287G certified officers.
It got cut off from above.
liquidmicro,
Read about the account from the interpreter at the Agriprocessors case. Does it sound fair to you?
During fast-paced hearings in May, 262 of the illegal immigrants pleaded guilty in one week and were sentenced to prison — most for five months — for knowingly using false Social Security cards or legal residence documents to gain jobs at the Agriprocessors kosher meat plant in nearby Postville. It was the largest criminal enforcement operation ever carried out by immigration authorities at a workplace.
In a 14-page essay he circulated among two dozen other interpreters who worked here, Professor Camayd-Freixas wrote that the immigrant defendants whose words he translated, most of them villagers from Guatemala, did not fully understand the criminal charges they were facing or the rights most of them had waived.
In the essay and an interview, Professor Camayd-Freixas said he was taken aback by the rapid pace of the proceedings and the pressure prosecutors brought to bear on the defendants and their lawyers by pressing criminal charges instead of deporting the workers immediately for immigration violations.
He said defense lawyers had little time or privacy to meet with their court-assigned clients in the first hectic days after the raid. Most of the Guatemalans could not read or write, he said. Most did not understand that they were in criminal court.
“The questions they asked showed they did not understand what was going on,” Professor Camayd-Freixas said in the interview. “The great majority were under the impression they were there because of being illegal in the country, not because of Social Security fraud.”
The essay has provoked new questions about the Agriprocessors proceedings, which had been criticized by criminal defense and immigration lawyers as failing to uphold the immigrants’ right to due process. Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee, said she would hold a hearing on the prosecutions and call Professor Camayd-Freixas as a witness.
“The essay raises questions about whether the charges brought were supported by the facts,” Ms. Lofgren said.
Bob Teig, a spokesman for Matt M. Dummermuth, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, said the immigrants’ constitutional rights were not compromised.
“All defendants were provided with experienced criminal attorneys and interpreters before they made any decisions in their criminal cases,” Mr. Teig said. “Once they made their choices, two independent judicial officers determined the defendants were making their choices freely and voluntarily, were satisfied with their attorney, and were, in fact, guilty.”
Mr. Teig said the judges in the cases were satisfied with the guilty pleas.
“The judges had the right and duty to reject any guilty plea where a defendant was not guilty,” Mr. Teig said. “No plea was rejected.”
The essay by Professor Camayd-Freixas, who is the director of a program to train language interpreters at the university, has also caused a stir among legal interpreters. In telephone calls and debates through e-mail, they have discussed whether it was appropriate for a translator to speak publicly about conversations with criminal defendants who were covered by legal confidentiality.
“It is quite unusual that a legal interpreter would go to this length of writing up an essay and taking a strong stance,” said Nataly Kelly, an analyst with Common Sense Advisory, a marketing research company focused on language services. Ms. Kelly is a certified legal interpreter who is the author of a manual about interpreting.
The Agriprocessors hearings were held in temporary courtrooms in mobile trailers and a ballroom at the National Cattle Congress, a fairgrounds here in Waterloo. Professor Camayd-Freixas worked with one defense lawyer, Sara L. Smith, translating her discussions with nine clients she represented. He also worked in courtrooms during plea and sentencing hearings.
Ms. Smith praised Professor Camayd-Freixas’s essay, saying it captured the immigrants’ distress during “the surreal two weeks” of the proceedings. She said he had not revealed information that was detrimental to her cases.
But she cautioned that interpreters should not commonly speak publicly about conversations between lawyers and clients. “It is not a practice that I would generally advocate as I could envision circumstances under which such revelations could be damaging to a client’s case,” Ms. Smith said.
Professor Camayd-Freixas said he had considered withdrawing from the assignment, but decided instead that he could play a valuable role by witnessing the proceedings and making them known.
He suggested many of the immigrants could not have knowingly committed the crimes in their pleas. “Most of the clients we interviewed did not even know what a Social Security card was or what purpose it served,” he wrote.
He said many immigrants could not distinguish between a Social Security card and a residence visa, known as a green card. They said they had purchased fake documents from smugglers in Postville, or obtained them directly from supervisors at the Agriprocessors plant. Most did not know that the original cards could belong to Americans and legal immigrants, Mr. Camayd-Freixas said.
Ms. Smith went repeatedly over the charges and the options available to her clients, Professor Camayd-Freixas said. He cited the reaction of one Guatemalan, IsaÃas Pérez MartÃnez: “No matter how many times his attorney explained it, he kept saying, ‘I’m illegal, I have no rights. I’m nobody in this country. Just do whatever you want with me.’ ”
Professor Camayd-Freixas said Mr. Pérez MartÃnez wept during much of his meeting with Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith, like more than a dozen other court-appointed defense lawyers, concluded that none of the immigrants’ legal options were good. Prosecutors had evidence showing they had presented fraudulent documents when they were hired at Agriprocessors.
In plea agreements offered by Mr. Dummermuth, the immigrants could plead guilty to a document fraud charge and serve five months in prison. Otherwise, prosecutors would try them on more serious identity theft charges carrying a mandatory sentence of two years. In any scenario, even if they were acquitted, the immigrants would eventually be deported.
Worried about families they had been supporting with their wages, the immigrants readily chose to plead guilty because they did understand that was the fastest way to return home, Professor Camayd-Freixas said.
“They were hoping and they were begging everybody to deport them,” he said.
Ms. Smith said she was convinced after examining the prosecutors’ evidence that it was not in her clients’ interests to go to trial.
“I think they understood what their options were,” she said. “I tried to make it very clear.”
Legal interpreters familiar with the profession said that Professor Camayd-Freixas’ essay, while a notable departure from the norm, did not violate professional standards.
Isabel Framer, a certified legal interpreter from Ohio who is chairwoman of the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, said Professor Camayd-Freixas did not go public while the cases were still in court or reveal information that could not be discerned from the record. Ms. Framer said she was speaking for herself because her organization had not taken an official position on the essay.
“Interpreters, just like judges and attorneys, have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the process,” she said. “But they don’t check their ethical standards at the door.”
Included in the 14 page essay of the interpreter is the account of the raid itself, and how the mostly guatamalan villagers were shackled and lined up like cattle.
IMO, even the way ICE Raids are conducted are unfair and not humane. Similar to the way they treated Mrs. Savage, the 68 yo, from the previous posting here.
Pro reformers,
We all know that this country doesn't stand for hate and bigory. So as I asked before why are those two things even being brought in the discussion of illegal immigration? Those two things don't represent the feelings of MOST Americans on illegal immigration.
I know all about the history of immigration into this country both legal and illegal. Why would anyone assume otherwise without even knowing me? What is relevant is what immigration laws are on our books today. Our lack of border security throughout the years does not justify illegal immigration into our country yesterday or today nor should Americans be forced to accept the continued presence of these people in our country.
There is nothing inhumane about deporting these people back to their own homelands as our laws demand. It is however inhumane to expect Americans to accept this fiasco of the the total disregard of our immigration laws by all parties involved with rewards rather than punishment.
The essay is old news this has all been discussed before. What ws inhumane about the case? That they were shackled together? Look in all our courts, prisoners are usually always shackled together, about 6 at a time, nothing new.
"He said many immigrants could not distinguish between a Social Security card and a residence visa, known as a green card. They said they had purchased fake documents from smugglers in Postville, or obtained them directly from supervisors at the Agriprocessors plant. Most did not know that the original cards could belong to Americans and legal immigrants, Mr. Camayd-Freixas said."
They may not have been able to distinguish a SS card from a GC, however they knew they had to have documents in order to work, they purchased them or in some instances they were obtained from Agriprocessors.
"Ms. Smith, like more than a dozen other court-appointed defense lawyers, concluded that none of the immigrants’ legal options were good. Prosecutors had evidence showing they had presented fraudulent documents when they were hired at Agriprocessors.
....
Worried about families they had been supporting with their wages, the immigrants readily chose to plead guilty because they did understand that was the fastest way to return home, Professor Camayd-Freixas said."
As for the 68 year old woman, she had an outstanding warrant for deportation, according to ICE. And as we already know, an "Illegal Alien" has NO RIGHTS. It was discovered afterwards when she provided documentation to the contrary that she was legally here and that ICE's paperwork was incorrect. If she chooses, she can sue ICE, otherwise its said and done.
Might I suggest reading through our Immigration Laws. In there you will find that what the courts did was not in violation of any laws. The 7 days that the report discusses is all they were entitled to. Professor Camayd-Freixas only had a problem with the fact that these people were jailed for a short period of time and that they were worried about their children. What parent wouldn't be, but then what about our own citizens who go to jail, where's the empathy for them and their children?
Liquid,
With all of your cut and pastes, quotes and fake articles, etc. it is difficult who is saying what in your comments.
I said the statement was correct. So that means Robles +2 since you reposted his quote and it was accurate and you, my dear, remain behind!
Sandra,
Your use of the words "these people" is VERY TELLING of your agenda!
Your words are dripping with your true perspective.
Sandra said...
We all know that this country doesn't stand for hate and bigory.
...nor should Americans be forced to accept the continued presence of THESE PEOPLE in our country.
...There is nothing inhumane about deporting THESE PEOPLE
Liquid,
She is someone´s mother and grandmother. How old are your mother and grandmother? How would you feel if she were kept in shackles?
Liquidmicro said...
As for the 68 year old woman, she had an outstanding warrant for deportation, according to ICE. And as we already know, an "Illegal Alien" has NO RIGHTS. IT WAS DISCOVERED AFTERWARDS when she provided documentation to the contrary that she was LEGALLY HERE and that ICE's paperwork was INCORRECT. If she chooses, she can sue ICE, otherwise its said and done.
Not telling at all since it appears to be objectionable to some in here to call "these people" illegal aliens. There is nothing offensive about calling a group "these people". People is just another word for humans.
"fake articles"
None of my articles have been fake. I posted one from a blog, based on one bill and its outcome, you have yet to refute anything I have shown. I gave you one article 2 years ago from The Onion when we were discussing the terrorists who attacked us because you were using the tactic of he knew somebody who was related to someone who thinks that they saw one of them in Canada.
Refute the points/facts if you dare, otherwise I win and you lose!!
The problem with the PRO side is they perceive themselves that when they here "Illegal Alien" for it to be about Hispanics. Illegal Alien covers the entire gambit of elasticities. Before you go saying anything about why is it that we never bring up Asian or Russian or any other ethnicity, why don't you blog it. There are vast other than Hispanics being detained and deported. You just choose to make it about the Hispanics/Latinos.
Here's one for you to try and figure out.
From the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap-congress-pelosioct17,1,4644337.story
Pelosi says Congress unlikely to approve tax rebate before President Bush leaves office
Pelosi also said Congress would have to tackle the politically sticky job of overhauling immigration laws in the new Congress, after a bipartisan measure collapsed last year.
The estimated 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally "are part of the U.S. economy. We cannot send them all home, and we cannot send them all to jail, so we have to address it," Pelosi said.
Any solution would have to be bipartisan, she said, so it may require sacrificing some of Democrats' past priorities, such as giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
"Maybe there never is a path to citizenship if you came here illegally," Pelosi said. "I would hope that there could be, but maybe there isn't."
I wouldn't hold my breath for granting "Illegal Aliens" Citizenship in the future.
Liquid,
I am so glad Robles (a wonderful, intelligent lawyer) arrived.
He is doing a GREAT JOB refuting EVERYTHING you Say!
I will let the two of you go at it.
I am happy to serve as Blog host and watch the fun!
So far, by my scoring it is:
Robles:32
Liquid:03
Go Robles!!
PS: Liquid, I do feel a little sorry for you. I will give you my little fingers violin music!
Liquidmicro said...
"fake articles"
None of my articles have been fake. I posted one from a blog, based on one bill and its outcome, you have yet to refute anything I have shown.
Liquid,
Sorry, you are wrong.
I always include other ethnicities into the PRO mix. Example. I know many Asian PRO groups in the Pro Blogosphere that have my same argument.
You probably will say ALL minorities stick together.
Well.. there may be a grain of truth to that. We believe the Declaration of Independence. We are ALL Equal!
Remember what Chris Rock said. He said he will not go on the ANTI side because he knows that if he does, "we are next!"
Liquidmicro said...
The problem with the PRO side is they perceive themselves that when they here "Illegal Alien" for it to be about Hispanics. Illegal Alien covers the entire gambit of elasticities. Before you go saying anything about why is it that we never bring up Asian or Russian or any other ethnicity, why don't you blog it. There are vast other than Hispanics being detained and deported. You just choose to make it about the Hispanics/Latinos.
"He is doing a GREAT JOB refuting EVERYTHING you Say!"
He hasn't refuted anything I have said, he has given his opinion of how and why he thinks the way he does, but refuted my information, hardly.
Liquid,
But never will there be a Mass Deportation.
If you think there is a chance of being one, I simply ask you to "hold your breath."
Liquidmicro said...
Any solution would have to be bipartisan, she said, so it may require sacrificing some of Democrats' past priorities, such as giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
"Maybe there never is a path to citizenship if you came here illegally," Pelosi said. "I would hope that there could be, but maybe there isn't."
I wouldn't hold my breath for granting "Illegal Aliens" Citizenship in the future.
I said to Ulty in another comment, most of the 12M here have been here +5 to 20 years. Most of their children are citizens.
There is a drastic reduction in new illegal immigrants.
Dont look for any change in those here. No Mass Deportations.
The problem with you and the reading of the Declaration of Independence is that you stop at the point where it no longer serves your purpose. So Lets continue the paragraph shall we.
Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I have never said anything about mass deportation you are making ASSumptions of your self. You need to re-read my posts in this topic. Deportations and self repatriation are just fine by me, and when and if Congress decides to implement CIR we will see what comes out.
Liquid,
So what will you do WHEN YOUR opinion is NO LONGER the majority Opinion?
Liquidmicro said...
The problem with you and the reading of the Declaration of Independence is that you stop at the point where it no longer serves your purpose. So Lets continue the paragraph shall we.
Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
" Dee said...
Liquid,
So what will you do WHEN YOUR opinion is NO LONGER the majority Opinion?"
When will that be? No matter who is elected, it will not change the opinions of the majority. Obama does not garauntee CIR, neither does Congress, and from Pelosi's statement, Citizenship might well be off the table. We wil have to wait and see what is in this new CIR that may or may not come about.
Wow. I didn't intend to come here to argue or obtain points. I'm not a lawyer either! Dee, while I appreciate the vote of confidence, I am not here to win arguments or gain points. I simply want to state my views and opinions. and try to understand the other side. Are you and liquid married? I sense lots of past, as I've been warned, but I almost decided not to ever comment again. I still respect the intent of this blog, but I feel like you guys are not being productive. Then again, don't know if I've been productive either. (Sorry, I don't think you guys are married, but there IS something here, perhaps just lots of unresolved arguments?)
I don't dispute that I've not refuted all or any points you've made, Liquid; you are right, I mainly came here to state my views and opinions, as did you. I will say though that I'm not convinced you've proven yourself right, either, through your linkage and cut and paste jobs, that undocumented immigrants in detention centers are not being abused or denied humane treatment. I don't think that just because there is something from the 1890's that states they don't have the same legal rights, or that we don't have the same legal obligations to treat them as we do citizens, doesn't excuse the treatment I read about and have commented on. And these stories are not new, I know, but they do illustrate what is wrong with our current immigration/enforcment/detention/deportation system. It is wrong to accuse the guatamalan villagers (who lack education and who some don't even quite speak spanish, but are given spanish interpreters!) and shackle them like cattle, and just because they've always shackled people in the past doesn't excuse that. To punish them in prison and not deport them right away is cruel and unfair to their families and it is more costly for us to pay for their room and board, if they are to be deported anyway. What purpose does that serve if just to punish them and their partners and children. It is wrong for ICE to have made an error in Mrs. Savage's records, for example, which led to them treating her like a escaped convict. And she should take them to court. The example of Juana Villegas in TN, in a hospital being cuffed and shackled to the bed until right before giving birth to her son, only to then deal with being unable to nurse and care for her newborn, which caused health problems for mother and child, is, in short, grossly inexcusable, and like the other examples, the treatment doesn't match the crime. That you think this is acceptable by linking to a website that proves in your eyes that undocumented immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens, and so therefore that makes what we are seeing and hearing about somehow acceptable, is just plain BS.
About the words bigotry and hatred, I believe that those are the words I would use to describe what is at play here. Anonym and Sandra feel there is no bigotry and hatred in an America that justifies the treatment of fellow human beings like the examples here, how can that not be? In order to justify treatment like this, you have to hold on to stereotypes of how bad these people are. That is hatred and bigotry. Yes, this has been a problem. There should be no undocumented immigrants in a perfect world. That isn't ever going to be the case. But to deny that there are some good hardworking people being treated like hard criminals, animals even, and that we are not bigots for viewing all undocumented immigrants as criminals is be prejudiced and to stereotype all undocumented immigrants.
I'm dissapointed by Pelosi's comments today. I'm not convinced that puts CIR as an impossible goal, and she too says that. But I do see it as a let down.
sandra said: We all know that this country doesn't stand for hate and bigory. So as I asked before why are those two things even being brought in the discussion of illegal immigration? Those two things don't represent the feelings of MOST Americans on illegal immigration.
Of course not. Who will admit to being a hater and a bigot?
robles,
I notice that you like to repeat the same thing over and over even though Sandra and myself have both told you that the MAJORITY of Americans are not bigots. We also have stated that the MAJORITY of Americans do not view them all as felonious criminals, yet you persist with the same inaccuracies over and over.
You ask who would admit to being a hater and a bigot? Well, that's because the MAJORITY of Americans are not.
"That you think this is acceptable by linking to a website that proves in your eyes that undocumented immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens, and so therefore that makes what we are seeing and hearing about somehow acceptable, is just plain BS."
Linking to a web site that proves in my eyes?? I gave you court cases all the way up to year 2000 (look @ October 20, 2008 9:08 PM above). You want them treated like citizens, yet you call it unfair based on the crime. Do you have as much empathy for the citizen mother who gives birth while in jail for writing hot checks to buy food for her other 2 starving children, who is treated the same? This can go on and on. Laws are rules we all must follow, there is no letting some off the hook because they are foreigners from countries that can't educate their own. There is no perfect system, this will never be a perfect system. To label others opinions as BS because we believe in the fairness of our laws is nothing but shortsightedness on your behalf.
To 'advocate' for changes to the system is one thing but to label BS and demean others in so doing is subversive.
"undocumented immigrants don't have the same rights as citizens"
Case law has proven this, I gave you the cases, have you bothered to look them up? In my eyes the Rule of Law stands. Violations of our laws, by those who become in violation of such, deserve the punishment that our laws dictate. They were aware of the consequences if caught. If you are going to advocate for the 'rights' of "Illegal Aliens" to be treated humanely then you had better be advocating for the rights of our citizens in the same position, after all, fair is fair, right?
As for Dee, yea, we go back a couple of years in this discussion. With her its about winning, its a competition to her. Its turned into banter back and forth more than anything. Occasionally she is able to put forth an opinion worthy of argument, but for the most part she is a little out in left field, escalating the actual situation and interjecting gossip and treating it as fact. You get use to it after awhile.
anonymous,
But to excuse bad treatment on all undocumented immigrants in the name of just enforcing the laws, is to say, yes, they are all criminals who get what they deserve.
I'm sure my comments sound repetitious; so do yours and sandras. If anything, that illustrates the dead end of us not feeling like the other person understands.
I sort of understand what you are saying. Americans just want to have enforceable laws, they are not bigots or haters. But I believe that laws are made by individuals and groups of people, and not all laws are just. The parallel that Dee presents here is that the laws against Blacks were based on bigotry and hate, and people worked to change those laws. Now we currently view the undocumented immigrants as the problem in this immigration issue, and we treat them unjustly based on the stereotypes that people have about them.
Again, it sounds to you like I'm repeating myself, but that is how you sound, too.
Violations of our laws, by those who become in violation of such, deserve the punishment that our laws dictate. They were aware of the consequences if caught. If you are going to advocate for the 'rights' of "Illegal Aliens" to be treated humanely then you had better be advocating for the rights of our citizens in the same position, after all, fair is fair, right?
Yes, I would advocate for unjust treatment for citizens,too. I'm not asking for special rights. I don't believe people in detnetion centers are treated fairly. I don't believe ICE raids are benefitting anyone, just a high profile show for people to think that our government is handling our immigration issue.
Authority over immigration matters stems not just from legislative power "but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation."
"but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.", what do you think that means?
Our Government has the responsibility of making sure our own citizens have the "Rights" guaranteed to them by the United States Constitution, for which foreigners have no coverage unless given the privilege from our Government. Our Government has the "right to exclude or to expel all aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, being an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent nation, essential to its safety, its independence, and its welfare . . . ."
Now what gives foreigners the 'right' to cross our nations sovereignty, and take for their own, economic prosperity, without consequences?
"Yes, I would advocate for unjust treatment for citizens,too. I'm not asking for special rights."
Where have you advocated for the citizen?? You have in deed asked for special rights, "I don't see the treatment of these people as fair, and it's based on bigotry of others seeing them as criminals." If it were a citizen in this situation you probably never would have made much ado about it, but because it is an uneducated foreigner, now you say the laws are to harsh.
Now what gives foreigners the 'right' to cross our nations sovereignty, and take for their own, economic prosperity, without consequences?
Right now we have let it come up to 12 million people. It was a problem that we ignoredfor years, if not decades. I don't believe people have the right to cross our border, that is what a border is for. But we have clearly ignored this problem and it isn't feasible to deport all citizens or enforce our problem away. I think that there has to be some way to grant them legal status, and that includes approp fines. I don't think we can just hope for attrition and deportation to solve the issue. People think that PROs like the system the way it is, but that is not true. I want to see changes that reflect the need for security, the economic needs of having workers to do the jobs that undocumented workers do; by improving the jobs and their status, it eliminates the pull of these jobs, and eliminates the meployer taking advantage of these people, including citizens by depressing wages. There are lots of things to correct, but I believe in doing reforming as opposed to just enforcing by raids detention and deportation.
"I don't believe ICE raids are benefitting anyone"
Here's a story.
I own a business servicing peoples trees, keeping them healthy and increasing there property values in so doing. I have 6 employees, all American Citizens. I am State Licensed and carry all the proper Insurances. I go out and bid a job, I have a going rate of which I need to make per hour in order to maintain my company and keep 6 American Citizens in the work force. Another company comes and bids the same job, his employees are day laborers who he can pay cash and no taxes up to $500 each employee. He has no Insurances. He gets the job simply by being cheaper than me due to his gaming of the tax system and not carrying the proper Insurances. If he bids on enough of my jobs, eventually that forces me to lay off some of my employees simply because I can not compete with someone who cheats.
As you can see, day laborers, due have an impact on American Citizens.
I in turn call ICE and they raid this competitor, now I no longer compete against someone who is cheating and I am able to bring back my laid off employees. By the way, his company is out of business now along with a few more I found along the way.
Raids do help the competitors to play on a level playing field vs having to fight for staying in business. The keep American Citizens employed and both they and the employer now prosper.
"Right now we have let it come up to 12 million people. It was a problem that we ignoredfor years, if not decades."
Do you know how many Amnesties we have had since 1986??
7
1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens
The problem was not ignored as you can see.
So what are you suggesting to solve our immigration "problem"? No more amnesty, attrition through enforcement?
Look to the above post @ October 20, 2008 1:41 PM
Now as for those already here, I have stated before in the past to give all those here who qualify an H-2A visa good for 10 months, this will get their 'house in order' and mandate that they leave when their time is up, they should be able to in that time create a working relationship with their employer and possibly came back for another 10 months the following time.
"robles said...
So what are you suggesting to solve our immigration "problem"? No more amnesty, attrition through enforcement?"
Whats wrong with enforcing our laws up to the point, and then after, a possible CIR? Attrition is working to a point and having a degree of success, caused by the economy and the targeting of 'criminals'.
Dee says:
"I am so glad Robles (a wonderful, intelligent lawyer) arrived."
This goes to show that Dee does not pay attention to conversation.
As to you, Robles, you have my respect for open debate, you gave your honest views, something that's been missing in here for a while. You didn't try to exacerbate the topic with trigger words to turn it into something that it is not.
"People think that PROs like the system the way it is, but that is not true. I want to see changes that reflect the need for security"
AMEN brutha
That is what Dee has been saying for a year and a half since her blog started.
Robles,
No. But Liquid and Ultima and a few of the anonymous people have been with me since I started my blog. A few of them think if they bash me enough they will make me close down my blog. A few others, like Liquid, enjoy the debates-fights and keep coming back for more. Dont be fooled by his compliments. That is an old debating trick to get you on his side of the argument.
My view is as I have stated in my blog. I do view our fight similar to the Civil Rights Movement.
I think it is important that PROs stand up as equals in debating the ANTIs. We can go head to head, toe to toe, staying civil, providing our arguments.
Regardless of the insults, we have to take the heat and participate in this. Others learn by our example and have the courage to start their own blogs and to voice their own opinions, maintaining civility.
That is the only way we will win this argument, with vast numbers of us stating our points of view, toe to toe on a level playing field with the other side.
robles said...
Are you and liquid married? I sense lots of past
LMJ,
You are right. Of course I have been saying this for some time.
1. Secure ALL borders, ports and terminals
2. Employer Sanctions and prison time especially for exploiting employers.
3. Bringing the 12M out of the shadows and those felonious free allowed to get in line to become citizens.
4. Close the crony owned private Detention Centers
5. End Racial Profiling, ICE Raids and Suppression Sweeps.
LMJ said...
"People think that PROs like the system the way it is, but that is not true. I want to see changes that reflect the need for security"
AMEN brutha
That is what Dee has been saying for a year and a half since her blog started.
October 24, 2008 9:02 AM
Liquid,
So are you recommending putting a date on when the ICE raids stop then CIR?
Ok.
I will go for that.
What´s the date?
Liquidmicro said...
Whats wrong with enforcing our laws up to the point, and then after, a possible CIR? Attrition is working to a point and having a degree of success, caused by the economy and the targeting of 'criminals'.
October 24, 2008 12:10 AM
Robles,
Please send me an email on dee_perezscott@yahoo.com
I want to ask you a question.
Dee
Dee says:
"Dont be fooled by his compliments. That is an old debating trick to get you on his side of the argument."
As usual Dee, you have no clue. It's not about getting Robles on my side. It's a matter of him understanding where my side is coming from, that it is not about hatred and bigotry, it is about us believing in the fairness of our laws. It is about taking care of our own first. Robles gave you his reason here "I simply want to state my views and opinions. and try to understand the other side." Then he says "I sort of understand what you are saying. Americans just want to have enforceable laws, they are not bigots or haters.", you see, Robles understands and now can respect others opinions and can agree to disagree on what he advocates.
If you were more like Robles, Dee, you would have much more comment from both sides going on.
Dee said...
Liquid,
So are you recommending putting a date on when the ICE raids stop then CIR?
The raids stop? Why, the raids should continue, the laws should be enforced. If CIR comes about, the laws should continue to be enforced, they should not stop being enforced just because of CIR. The only difference will be what laws change due to CIR.
Liquid,
I know perfectly well what your perspective is and where you are coming from. You do not care about the history of immigration and how we got here. You do not want the ICE raids to stop. You do not care if they are being treated inhumanely in the detention centers. You dont care if Latinos are being racially profiled during the suppression sweeps. You think its fine that outside agitators go into Shenanadoah and instigate the locals into an angry frenzy so they start patrolling the streets in their so called Crime Watchs, even though their own local citizens write in their newspaper they dont want them there.
Your view has nothing to do with fairness.
Your view is to bully Latinos, racially profile them, and to make it so miserable we will be on your side and deport the 12M, at least most of them until you feel the number is low enough. And then, when you start feeling the pinch from worker shortages, you might just bless a few of them with a few vouchers to become Guest Workers.
I have your number and I think I summarized it very well.
Liquidmicro said...
It's a matter of him understanding where my side is coming from, that it is not about hatred and bigotry, it is about us believing in the fairness of our laws.
Typical Dee, no discussion just accusations. You make too many ASSumptions.
Liquid,
You are just lucky I like you, regardless of your OPINIONS on this issue!
You are right Dee. Liquid says that all the time.
I talked to my parents about the civil rights movement. They think we should stand up for immigrant rights just like they did back in the day.
eliza said...
I talked to my parents about the civil rights movement. They think we should stand up for immigrant rights just like they did back in the day.
"Immigrants" already have 'Rights' in this country, "Illegal Aliens" do not unless they are charged with an infamous crime (felony). What you and your PRO buddies are doing Eliza, is 'advocating' giving our "Rights" to people who steal into our country for their own economic gain while defrauding our people and our Government. You can 'advocate' for a change to our laws, but remember, to 'advocate' for the "Rights" of "Illegal Aliens" would require changing the Constitution, which is highly unlikely.
Welcome Eliza,
I hope you come back often!
Both sides discuss Immigration and Politics here civilly.
I am glad you listen to your parents as they discuss their memories. I did the same with mine. They have the best information. Better than history books!
Be aware the ANTI side will probably disagree with your comments and hit you back hard. Please dont be offended. As long as they are civil and do not use profanity then they are able to disagree. It does make for good discussion. Be Strong!
Post a Comment