I check yahoo news almost daily. I came across this article. I know that the article is about fraud but it still gets me heated up when the government can't decide what's legal and what is illegal.
So we are giving illegal aliens licenses now? What part of the word "illegal" doesn't the government understand. Now we are rewarding those who cross the border (all borders, not just mexican border) without permission. Whats next, citizenship without going through the proper procedure where those going the right route have to wait months sometimes years to come here.
I voted no, but I also think at this point it is MUCH more complicated than yes and no.
Through friends that work for Homeland doing the deportation etc, it goes MUCH deeper. Bush was guns blazin, Obama ties their hands.. so really there is no happy place here.
True. My cousin is in ICE and that was the career i was headed in but i decided to say that isn't for me because it is so wishy washy.
I agree that it is bigger than yes or no. I know people that have come over illegally and actually did everything they could to earn a green card, a citizenship and an education and it was tough for them. And then i know people who come over and expect them to be taken care of.
True. My cousin is in ICE and that was the career i was headed in but i decided to say that isn't for me because it is so wishy washy.
I agree that it is bigger than yes or no. I know people that have come over illegally and actually did everything they could to earn a green card, a citizenship and an education and it was tough for them. And then i know people who come over and expect them to be taken care of.
I am going to say this because there is a huge truth to it.
Americans are LAZY and while we get mad that immigrants are here.... majority of the manual labor force is Mexican. And we don't really give a fuck because we feel entitled and don't want to do that work anyway.
Just look at the statistics. True unbiased FACT.
So the country may not want immigration but then they don't want to do what the immigrants are willing to do either.
I am going to say this because there is a huge truth to it.
Americans are LAZY and while we get mad that immigrants are here.... majority of the manual labor force is Mexican. And we don't really give a fuck because we feel entitled and don't want to do that work anyway.
Just look at the statistics. True unbiased FACT.
So the country may not want immigration but then they don't want to do what the immigrants are willing to do either.
As long as we allow them to vote and they are a significant portion of the population, no one is going to touch them. The right thing to do is not the politically expedient thing to do, so I don't expect any positive change soon.
We have fucked up so much of our own society over the years trying to make laws for those who find loop holes and abuse it that for the people who don't play the idiot game they get punished. This isn't the land of boats arriving in NYC and the Immigrants making new business opportunities and expanding our culture. It is now about escape, money, and other shit that makes me upset.
I am going to say this because there is a huge truth to it.
Americans are LAZY and while we get mad that immigrants are here.... majority of the manual labor force is Mexican. And we don't really give a fuck because we feel entitled and don't want to do that work anyway.
Just look at the statistics. True unbiased FACT.
So the country may not want immigration but then they don't want to do what the immigrants are willing to do either.
I don't completely agree. Many illegal immigrants are hired because they can be taken advantage of- paid slave labor wages and threatened with deportation if they complain. There's a lot of "dirty" jobs that are done by citizens. The guys that pick up my garbage look pretty white to me.
I think the problem lies more with the factory farms that hire people with no paperwork and don't want to know about their legal status. If they were forced to hire citizens, there would be citizens willing to do the jobs. We'd all just have to pay another 25 cents per pound of carrots.
I don't completely agree. Many illegal immigrants are hired because they can be taken advantage of- paid slave labor wages and threatened with deportation if they complain. There's a lot of "dirty" jobs that are done by citizens. The guys that pick up my garbage look pretty white to me.
I think the problem lies more with the factory farms that hire people with no paperwork and don't want to know about their legal status. If they were forced to hire citizens, there would be citizens willing to do the jobs. We'd all just have to pay another 25 cents per pound of carrots.
It's a multinational issue, but I believe everyone should follow due process. As Tristan says, it's not a yes/no question. My opinion is that there are some cases where an immigration amnesty might be acceptable and some cases when it's not. That said, even when people are given amnesty, they should still have to go through the immigration process while under a temporary visa.
My girlfriend is from a city on the border between Texas and Mexico, and she knows several people who were brought here as children by their parents, i.e. directly affected by the DREAM Act. It's a lot easier to demonize them or refer to them as "illegals" (which I've always found is an odious way to refer to a person) if you haven't met them or don't realize what they're going through.
As it stands, our immigration system is incredibly byzantine and takes months or years - and lots of money and effort - to come here legally. These are resources that poor immigrants from Mexico can't waste. Read this article to get an idea, keeping in mind that its author is middle-class and from Australia. Now try to imagine a day laborer getting the funds together or even contacting the government to go through the same process.
If you want to solve the issue of illegal immigration, then make it very easy to become a citizen. Mexico is a beautiful country, but it has a lot of problems and is extremely unsafe. People will continue to immigrate without documentation as long as they have reason to want to escape poverty and violent drug cartels to protect their families. I imagine that many of us in their position would do the same.
Should non-citizens be allowed to get driver's licenses? It treats a symptom, but doesn't get to the root of the problem.
Throwing the doors wide open and making it easy to become a citizen is not the answer, in my opinion. I actually like the idea of sovereignty and national identity. Most countries are VERY strict when it comes to visiting, working in, and becoming a citizen of their country. As it stands, America is actually one of the easiest (try living and working illegally in Mexico, see how that works out for you). Cross the border and have a baby- presto! the baby is an American citizen, and you have a sob story reason to stay.
"Illegal alien" is a perfect way to describe some one who has come into a country illegally. Does my heart go out to people who are stuck in crappy countries and want a better life? Sure it does, but that doesn't mean we should let anybody and everybody into the country, no questions asked. Being an American is a privilege, not a right freely extended to the entire world. Is it fair that I was born here and they weren't? No, but such is life. If we could bus the entire population of Darfur here and give them a place to live, a job, and 3 squares a day, I'm sure we would, but it's just not practical.
Part of the reason Mexico remains a pit hole is that the government actually likes the idea of their citizens coming here and shipping the money back to Mexico. Stop that flow and suddenly Mexico would have to get on board with finding faster legal ways of getting workers into America. Right now, they just don't care.
I take exception to your comment that many of us would do something illegal in order to make a better life for our families. Certainly, if my families lives are in danger I'd do whatever it took, but to escape poverty? I'm not going to sneak, steal, or lie just to improve our quality of life. My family is not entitled to a comfortable life, I have to work hard for it- and even then it may not be everything I hope it can be. That's OK.
I don't blame everyone else in the world for wanting to live and work in America. We've got some of the best stuff going anywhere. We worked hard for that, fought and died for that. I don't think asking immigrants to jump through some hoops to get access to all that is asking too much, and I have no sympathy for illegal aliens who try to take advantage of our good natures.
My objection was to using the word "illegal" as a noun, which carries the implication that their very existence, the thing that defines them, is criminal.
I'm not going to sneak, steal, or lie just to improve our quality of life. My family is not entitled to a comfortable life, I have to work hard for it- and even then it may not be everything I hope it can be. That's OK.
We're not talking about busing Sudanese refugees across the Atlantic. We're talking about people who are here now and contributing to our society. We can continue hunting them down like animals, or we can afford them human dignity and turn them into allies.
A couple of centuries ago, the Irish were a horde of shiftless scoundrels sweeping through our country and stealing jobs from honest, hard-working white Protestants. Now, a man named O'Reilly has a cable news show and says the same things about Mexicans.
It's gotten out of hand because we've let it go on too long, and that's a tragedy. However, the answer is not granting them amnesty and citizenship. We tried that already under Reagan. All it did was put an even larger sign on our back door that said "COME ON IN! NO CONSEQUENCES FOR BREAKING AND ENTERING!!" and the problem is even worse today. I don't argue that they aren't good people or that they have nothing to contribute. I think immigration is fantastic. We are a nation of immigrants. What I have a problem with is people deciding that they don't need to follow to the rules and then we reward them with that attitude by handing them exactly what they want. If they stole money we wouldn't give them lots of money so they don't have to steal anymore. We would punish them for stealing and then provide ways of getting the money legitimately (if rehab works the way it's supposed to). Illegal immigrants are trying to steal citizenship. The answer is not to give it to them. Citizenship would mean nothing if it is treated that way.
Red Omen said:
We're not talking about busing Sudanese refugees across the Atlantic. We're talking about people who are here now and contributing to our society. We can continue hunting them down like animals, or we can afford them human dignity and turn them into allies.
A couple of centuries ago, the Irish were a horde of shiftless scoundrels sweeping through our country and stealing jobs from honest, hard-working white Protestants. Now, a man named O'Reilly has a cable news show and says the same things about Mexicans.
Please provide an actual example of us hunting illegals like animals. Official policy is actually to ignore them. Arizona tried to identify and deal with illegal immigrants and was condemned for it.
There is always racism and distrust against whatever group is the latest to come here. That's not good, but again, the answer isn't to reward their illegal behavior.
But as they stand, the rules are so insurmountable that even people with the best of intentions and the legitimate capability to become citizens can't do so.
This is the process to become an American citizen, laid out in chart form.
Every time you see a red hexagon, that means the application is denied. Every time you see a clock, that means it takes processing time to progress to the next step. That time can add up to, in some cases, over twenty years. This isn't about immediately granting amnesty to anything with a pulse; this is about streamlining the process and making it something that can potentially be finished before someone dies. If you want government to be more efficient and eliminate bureaucratic bloat, this is a prime candidate.
Please provide an actual example of us hunting illegals like animals. Official policy is actually to ignore them. Arizona tried to identify and deal with illegal immigrants and was condemned for it.
As far as Arizona is concerned, SB 1070 required police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they believed to be suspicious. Besides its inherent tendency to invoke racial profiling (and the stipulation that citizens could sue the police if they believed they weren't trying hard enough), it is at best a foolhardy waste of officers' time and resources and at worst a grievous encroachment on civil liberties. It's an excellent way to cripple law enforcement agencies' ability to do their jobs properly. Fortunately, most of the bill was struck down in the Arizona Supreme Court because it was so blatantly unconstitutional; the only part that remained was immigration status checks as a component of arrests rather than the sole impetus for harassment by police.
Every time you see a red hexagon, that means the application is denied. Every time you see a clock, that means it takes processing time to progress to the next step. That time can add up to, in some cases, over twenty years. This isn't about immediately granting amnesty to anything with a pulse; this is about streamlining the process and making it something that can potentially be finished before someone dies. If you want government to be more efficient and eliminate bureaucratic bloat, this is a prime candidate.
I'm glad to hear it. Deporting illegal immigrants is not the same as hunting them down like animals. Identifying and deporting illegal immigrants is completely appropriate. They do need to be treated like human beings, though, and I have seen no reason to believe they are being treated like animals.
There's been so much conflicting information about that law that I don't know what to think anymore. My understanding was that if some one was in an interaction with police (such as pulled over for speeding) and they could not produce normal documentation (ie driver's license), the officer would inquire about their legal status. Under the law, they could NOT pull people over or challenge people just for "looking illegal." The law specifically forbade any kind of profiling.
Personally, I think it makes sense to investigate a little deeper if some one is out and about with no documentation and engaging in activities that require police intervention. However, the whole thing became a rallying point for liberals and chunks of the law were removed, probably more due to poor wording than any actual racist intent.
I'm glad to hear it. Deporting illegal immigrants is not the same as hunting them down like animals. Identifying and deporting illegal immigrants is completely appropriate. They do need to be treated like human beings, though, and I have seen no reason to believe they are being treated like animals.
Besides scouring the desert with packs of dogs? It might be unfair and hyperbolic of me - the dogs also find drugs (which is another debate, albeit related to this one) - but I was mostly referring to vigilante groups like David Simcox's Minutemen who vow to shoot on sight, and a pervasive culture of mistrust and contempt for anyone who's not white. Not just immigrants, and not just people here illegally. Prominent pundits dehumanize people for a living.
And again, official policy is quite the opposite of "just ignoring" undocumented immigrants. The idea that the current administration isn't doing anything is directly contradicted by reality.
There's been so much conflicting information about that law that I don't know what to think anymore. My understanding was that if some one was in an interaction with police (such as pulled over for speeding) and they could not produce normal documentation (ie driver's license), the officer would inquire about their legal status. Under the law, they could NOT pull people over or challenge people just for "looking illegal." The law specifically forbade any kind of profiling.
The thing about SB 1070 is that it attempted to turn a civil offense - being on American soil without documentation - into a criminal one. What you're describing is the version of the law that survived the Arizona Supreme Court; before they excised most of the provisions, officers were required to challenge people who looked illegal. This is impossible to enforce without relying on appearance, which is the definition of racial profiling. Read this excerpt from one of the links I posted above.
By requiring that all law enforcement officials question people they stop about their citizenship or immigration status if they have an undefined “reasonable suspicion” the person is in this country illegally, SB 1070 is inviting police to rely on appearance and characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and language. How else would a police officer form a suspicion that someone is in this country unlawfully? We have not heard a single example of a legitimate basis for forming such suspicion from any of the law’s supporters. Relying on a person’s appearance is not “reasonable” and is not constitutional.
This law actually invites racial profiling at two junctures. First, law enforcement might find a reason to stop people on a very minor infraction based on the way they look, and then demand their papers. Or they can stop them for an unbiased reason and then, based on appearance and nothing else, demand their papers. Americans come in every shape and size, from every background and every corner of the earth. When you consider the long history, even before this law was passed, of racial profiling against people suspected of being in this country illegally, it is pretty easy to see how a law requiring police officers to demand papers based solely on their suspicions will be abused.
Finally, using local police officers who are untrained in the complexities and proper enforcement of federal immigration law is a recipe for racial profiling, particularly in Arizona. Just ask Julio and Julian Mora – a lawful permanent resident and his U.S. citizen son – who were stopped by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office as they drove on a public street, arrested and forcibly transported to the site of an immigration raid.
For three years, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has deployed hundreds of deputies and volunteer posses to target Latino neighborhoods, rounding up people on the streets, questioning and detaining people driving through traffic stops and the like, including U.S. citizens and lawful residents, based on presumptions that they may be unlawfully present in the United States. Despite civil rights lawsuits and a United States Justice Department investigation into these practices, Arpaio remains unfazed. Two-thirds of Arizonans already live in Maricopa County, and this law will simply require all police officers in the state to act like Arpaio’s deputies.
However, the whole thing became a rallying point for liberals and chunks of the law were removed, probably more due to poor wording than any actual racist intent.
Civil liberties shouldn't just be a rallying point for liberals. Random traffic stops based on appearance are patently unconstitutional and a characteristic of the police state that small-government conservatives should oppose with every fiber of their being.
And a word about racist intent: A law can be racist in effect even with the best of intentions, or without any overt nods to racist thought. As an example, in the decades following emancipation, southern Democrats passed laws requiring a literacy test or a poll tax before voters were allowed to cast ballots. Sounds reasonable, right? Plenty of non-racist justifications; it takes resources and manpower to process ballots, and surely you should be expected to read who you're voting for. There was nothing in either law that required only blacks to go over these hurdles, but because at the time they were far more likely than the rest of the population to be poor or illiterate, the result was mass disenfranchisement of one segment of the population. Guarding against injustice requires vigilance, because it often cloaks itself in reasonable language and righteousness.
Besides scouring the desert with packs of dogs? It might be unfair and hyperbolic of me - the dogs also find drugs (which is another debate, albeit related to this one) - but I was mostly referring to vigilante groups like David Simcox's Minutemen who vow to shoot on sight, and a pervasive culture of mistrust and contempt for anyone who's not white. Not just immigrants, and not just people here illegally. Prominent pundits dehumanize people for a living.
Using dogs to track and find people or illegal substances is an appropriate measure. The Minutemen were armed and they did say that they would shoot if needed, but in every instance where they did find and detain illegals, no one was ever shot. They aren't the crazy, trigger-happy group the media painted them to be.
And again, official policy is quite the opposite of "just ignoring" undocumented immigrants. The idea that the current administration isn't doing anything is directly contradicted by reality.
The thing about SB 1070 is that it attempted to turn a civil offense - being on American soil without documentation - into a criminal one. What you're describing is the version of the law that survived the Arizona Supreme Court; before they excised most of the provisions, officers were required to challenge people who looked illegal. This is impossible to enforce without relying on appearance, which is the definition of racial profiling. Read this excerpt from one of the links I posted above.
The law states
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Of course "reasonable suspicion" is not defined right there, it's defined in other places in the law. You don't restate that every time you make a new law. Right now, shoplifting is illegal. You can be stopped by a police officer if they have "reasonable suspicion" that you shoplifted. Can they stop you for being black? No, they are not allowed to do that. Does it happen? Sure it does, but that's a problem with that officer, not with the anti-shoplifting law. Police officers get put on suspension/reprimanded/fired for racial profiling. This law was designed to work the same way- it defines how an officer acts when already making "lawful contact" with an individual. They can't just walk up to some one for no other reason than to check their legal status.
Also, the law does not change the offense from civil to criminal. It requires the officer to turn the illegal aliens over to federal authorities for whatever prosecution is appropriate. The Arizona police are not taking it upon themselves to decide if the individual should be deported, they pass them off to the proper federal authorities to decide.
I think the problem is a mindset that somehow trespassing in America is not so bad and we should make all kinds of exceptions to the immigration laws to accommodate the poor huddled masses that swim across a river or sneak across a border. The immigration procedures need to change, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't enforce what we have already, flawed though it may be.
Civil liberties shouldn't just be a rallying point for liberals. Random traffic stops based on appearance are patently unconstitutional and a characteristic of the police state that small-government conservatives should oppose with every fiber of their being.
Obviously. Which is why the Arizona law didn't allow that. To my knowledge, no one allows that anywhere and police who do that should be properly punished under existing law.
And a word about racist intent:
A law can be racist in effect even with the best of intentions, or without any overt nods to racist thought. As an example, in the decades following emancipation, southern Democrats passed laws requiring a literacy test or a poll tax before voters were allowed to cast ballots. Sounds reasonable, right? Plenty of non-racist justifications; it takes resources and manpower to process ballots, and surely you should be expected to read who you're voting for. There was nothing in either law that required only blacks to go over these hurdles, but because at the time they were far more likely than the rest of the population to be poor or illiterate, the result was mass disenfranchisement of one segment of the population. Guarding against injustice requires vigilance, because it often cloaks itself in reasonable language and righteousness.
Your example is the exact opposite of what was going on in AZ. Your example was a law with LOADS of racist intent. The AZ law had no racial intent, but had the potential to be abused. The same potential abuse that exists for every other law that police enforce. When a police officer pulls some one over for speeding and they notice a strange odor (possibly a dead body) coming form the trunk, should they not require it to be opened because they are afraid they will get in trouble if the driver is a minority? No, officers need to be confident that they can enforce laws and conduct searches reasonably. If a police officer acts in a racially motivated way, that officer needs to be taken care of, but the law itself is fine.
Here's an excerpt from a site that will help us better define some terms:
Q: Christie said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true?
A: Yes. “Illegal presence” as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation.
Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that’s not a crime either. Is that true, too?
A: No. “Improper entry by an alien” as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail.
It is considered difficult to prosecute because unless authorities catch someone in the act of crossing the border, it is easier to just deport them than spend the time and money needed to prove how they crossed the border. Even in border states, first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted because the court system would be inundated with millions of cases.
So "just being here" is a civil offense for which deportation is a penalty. "Improper entry," being caught in the actual act of sneaking into the US, is a federal crime punishable by jail time and fines, but usually just handled by deporting them, ie kicking them back across the border to try again later.
So one is civil and one is criminal, but the effective punishment is the same.
