If you have an accent

[clueless_in_usa 8]

Sureendering our rights will not prevent illegal immigration. No such surrender of rights could even remotely be considered for "the greater good. Please, be serious.

We have plenty of labor laws that are being violated by US employers that can be enforced with punitive taxes and put a stop to the illegal immigration post haste. Anything else is smoke and mirrors. The raccoons will keep coming until we slam the lid shut on the garbage can. The fence around the yard won't stop them.

we do nto need to build a fence, check anyone's ID (except random inspections of employers). Really, I mean you catch a bunch of illegals plucking chickens at Tyson's...you fine Tyson's $300,000,000, run them into bankruptcy, sell their factory to pay the tax...and NO ONE will hire an illegal. From now on, chicken pluckers will get a paid a fair wage, get benefits and have better and safer working conditions..or else. Chicken will cost more. You bust a landscaper mowing lawns in Brentwood and confiscate a few mansions to pay the tax and NO ONE will hire an illegal. From now on, people mowing lawns will get paid better and have safer woring conditions...or else. Getting your grass cut will cost more. When the word gets out...NO jobs, NO medical care, NO welfare, NO education, NO wire transfer of funds...where do you think they will go? They will walk right back. Adios Amigos. Glad to be your neighbor! And we can be proud that we saved them from being exploited and abused and taken advantage of by the evil and greedy Yanquis!!!!!!!!

You indeed have a beef against Mexicans. And it is you calling racist anybody who dares challenge your bright ideas.

Great example of the "Pot Calling the Kettle Black."

Until now I had my doubts, but now it is clear. Anyway, what else could I have expected from ... Gary.

In case you were not informed, there are thousands, if not millions, of illegals from Asia, Europe (Poland and Ireland are the worst offenders), Africa, and even Americans who do not speak Spanish (Canadians and Haitians, for example).

You like to talk wonders about our lovely neighbors to the North, but the Urban Institute estimates "between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live in the United States." DHS estimates THIS NUMBER higher. And you affirm that there is no reason for Canadians to become illegals in the USA. You just don't like Mexicans. That is your motivation.

[ScratchIt 12]

Legally, the cop better be stopping the guy for some other reason than just a random ID check. Because if all the cop has on him is his refusal to show ID, he legally can do nothing. It is not a crime to refuse to identify yourself. If there is no crime being committed, then the cop needs to gtfo.

Wanna bet?

2009 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI

CRIMES Chapter 856

DRUNKENNESS; OPEN HOUSE PARTIES; LOITERING; PROWLING; DESERTION View Entire Chapter 856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.--

(1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

(2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.

(3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.--s. 1, ch. 72-133; s. 1384, ch. 97-102.

[ScratchIt 12]

You are an American? You think criminals are not due constitutional rights?

Sure the criminals are due their constitutional rights. As long as you understand that they are criminals. 3 hots and a cot and maybe even a TV in their cell. The fact is they are criminals. I do not have a problem comprehending this concept. I also understand your case against employers and others who are encouraging, complicit and conspiring to break our immigration laws. You just seem to forget that before an employer can break the law by hiring an illegal, the illegal must first break the law by crossing our border illegally. Constitutional rights? No problem. It's not like I am suggesting deportation by catapult!

[Brad and Vika 129]

I am not a lawyer, but it sounds like you need to be acting in a way that fits this bill...prowling, public drunkenness, etc. It does not sound like this law applies if you are just minding your own business.

Then again, it's Florida, so who knows.

I think the legislature probably didn't intend for that statute to apply to immigration issues, but it wouldn't be much of a stretch. As it reads, all police need to do is engage in normal police behavior. You are standing in a parking lot, and a cop drives up and says "hey you, c'mere - what are you doing standing here?" Especially in cases where the answer involves any statement relating to your rights, or the constitution, the cop (after he stifles a laughing fit) says that he wasn't planning to arrest you, and by the way what is your name, and show me some ID. If you refuse, you can be cited or detained, and it really would depend on the facts and circumstances at that point.

And you never did answer my question earlier about why the US can't detain or deport people who aren't here legally. It is a basic principle of economics that when a government subsidizes and activity, you get more of it. So requiring that emergency rooms treat illegals, schools educate them, and amnesty be potentially granted is simply poring public funds into a huge subsidy, encouraging illegal immigration. Enforcement in the form of identity checks, deportation, and sometimes arrest and detention seem to me a balance to the subsidy. If police cannot ask for ID, how do ever find out who is legal or not.

I saw a story on CNN this morning about a college student stopped for a traffic violation, where the police found she was without a drivers license. When she was detained to determine her identity, it was discovered that she has been here illegally for eleven years. Should she and her mother both be given amnesty and green cards to save them the hardship of returning to Pueblo Mexico?

[visaveteran 0]

The Arizona law is based on settled law. A police officer can require ID if there is probable cause. There are many laws regarding both misdemeanors and felonies to allow cops to require ID...right down to jaywalking. If a cop just grabs someone and asks for ID, he has a lot of reasons to do so. But if it truly is for no reason, then it won't stand. I will give most cops credit for being smart enough to handle this ID issue cleanly.

The real genius of the law is it's passive qualities. I'm sure some illegals are already making for the border to avoid jail time.

As for the catapult idea...well, it does make for swift justice.

Edited May 1, 2010 by visaveteran

[Brad and Vika 129]

The Arizona law is based on settled law. A police officer can require ID if there is probable cause. There are many laws regarding both misdemeanors and felonies to allow cops to require ID...right down to jaywalking. If a cop just grabs someone and asks for ID, he has a lot of reasons to do so. But if it truly is for no reason, then it won't stand. I will give most cops credit for being smart enough to handle this ID issue cleanly.

The real genius of the law is it's passive qualities. I'm sure some illegals are already making for the border to avoid jail time.

As for the catapult idea...well, it does make for swift justice.

The legal problem in my mind is when the stop is found to be without sufficient cause, but they caught an illegal in the process. No citation or crime (i.e. jaywalking), but another problem was uncovered. In my opinion it works the same as a Tarry stop. You get pulled over for a failing to yield, the cop smells weed when he gets near your window. He gets you out of the car and finds guess what on the seat? In removing the bag, he finds an unregistered pistol. Now you have three problems, not just one. But if you beat the original charge on cause, you can have the rest thrown out too. Tough problem if you you aren't legally here. Even if they can't charge you - they have to deport you. So the identity and documentation issue has to be legally separated somehow from the other stuff by law - like Arizona is trying to do.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

You indeed have a beef against Mexicans. And it is you calling racist anybody who dares challenge your bright ideas.

Great example of the "Pot Calling the Kettle Black."

Until now I had my doubts, but now it is clear. Anyway, what else could I have expected from ... Gary.

In case you were not informed, there are thousands, if not millions, of illegals from Asia, Europe (Poland and Ireland are the worst offenders), Africa, and even Americans who do not speak Spanish (Canadians and Haitians, for example).

You like to talk wonders about our lovely neighbors to the North, but the Urban Institute estimates "between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live in the United States." DHS estimates THIS NUMBER higher. And you affirm that there is no reason for Canadians to become illegals in the USA. You just don't like Mexicans. That is your motivation.

My suggestion applies to all illegals. In what context have I suggested it applies to Mexicans only?

I want Mexicans living in the USA to have the same rights and privileges you and I do. I do not want greedy American employers to take advantage of any of them.

Why would you be against that? Why can't you answer that question?

Regarding Canadians. Canadians do not need any "documentation" to live in the USA. They are exempt from the need for a visa. Many of my neighbors are Canadian citizens who are here perfectly legally, "undocumented" but do not WORK in the USA. They commute to their jobs in Quebec (6 miles away). They can remain in the US for up to 6 months at a time and travel back and forth every day. There are whole communities of "snowbird" Quebecois in Florida and I think Florida is doing a brisker business selling condos in Montreal than in Florida. If

Canadians want to work here, they are subject to the same regulations as anyone else, they are subject to the same K-1 rules etc. But as for just "living" here, there is no documentation required. The report you quote is either ill informed or purposely misleading, I will let you decide which. The number of illegal Meixcains in the US would equal fully half the entire population of Canada.

My suggestions would apply equally to anyone from Canada. Again, Clueless, you make no sense at all and seem to be just disagreeing with Gary to disagree with Gary. Makes you look foolish.

If it makes you feel better, I will re-write the example and use Quebecois instead of Mexicans working at Tyson and say "Au Revoir Mes Amis" OK? Hows that?

But just clarification for those who vote for Democrats, snore and/or dribble soup on their chins....ANY employer employing ANY illegal alien from ANY country should be TAXED $500,000 per day per illegal alien. ANY person seeking medical treatment should show they are legally present in the USA. ANY person seeking to enroll themselves or a child in ANY educational institution should show they are legally in the country. ANY person seeking to rent property in the USA should show they are legally present in the country. ANY person seeking to use the services of a money transfer service to send currency out of the USA should show they are legally present in the USA. ANY person cashing a check at any institution other than a bank where they hold an account should have to show they are legally in the country. ANY person opening a bank account should show they are legally in the country.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

The Arizona law is based on settled law. A police officer can require ID if there is probable cause. There are many laws regarding both misdemeanors and felonies to allow cops to require ID...right down to jaywalking. If a cop just grabs someone and asks for ID, he has a lot of reasons to do so. But if it truly is for no reason, then it won't stand. I will give most cops credit for being smart enough to handle this ID issue cleanly.

The real genius of the law is it's passive qualities. I'm sure some illegals are already making for the border to avoid jail time.

As for the catapult idea...well, it does make for swift justice.

There is no genius to this law. I doubt any illegals are amking for the border, except possibly the border of California or Nevada. It is a stupid law requiring the illegals to be "illegal" (meaning HERE) before it can be used or enforced. It is like saying that "If you break into my house, there is a REAL GOOD chance you will be caught" I prefer to say "Why come to my house? It is empty, there is nothing there for you" Look in the windows and you will see...nothing for you."

Why are we arguing amounst each other over whether the law is constitutional or racist? Why pass a law that does nothing but make controversy? How could taxing an employer for hiring illegals be unconstitutional? How could protecting illegal aliens from exploitation, abuse, overwork, underpay, unsafe conditions be racist? How, exactly would "LaRaza" disagree with preventing work injuries from unsafe considitons? Would they say "We WANT our members to work in unsafe considitons"? How would Nancy Pelosi or Barrack Obama respond to enforcing minimum wage for ALL workers> Would they say "We don't want minimum wage for THOSE people!" ?????

How is it genius to put forth a law that just gives ammunition to your opponents instead of using THEIR issues to your advantage? "We want minimum wage for ALL workers in the USA, don't YOU Ms. Pelosi?" "Mr President, we want ALL workers to participate in Social Security and have workman's comp. insurance, don't YOU Mr. President?"

"We want ALL women safe on the job from sexual harrassment. and able to file complaints if they are abused...don't YOU Senator Ried?"

"We don't want greedy, profit driven American business to take advantage of poor people...do YOU Mr. President?"

"We don't want people that took advantage of illegal aliens and exploited them in order to put more money in their pockets to hold public office...do YOU Mr. Vice President?"

How can anyone argue aginst what I propose (even Clueless has no argument, just a series of statements no politician would dare to make publically) There is no genius in a contentious and useless law. It is just another case of politicians doing nothing but appearing to be doing something to anyone that doesn't really consider the facts.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Sure the criminals are due their constitutional rights. As long as you understand that they are criminals. 3 hots and a cot and maybe even a TV in their cell. The fact is they are criminals. I do not have a problem comprehending this concept. I also understand your case against employers and others who are encouraging, complicit and conspiring to break our immigration laws. You just seem to forget that before an employer can break the law by hiring an illegal, the illegal must first break the law by crossing our border illegally. Constitutional rights? No problem. It's not like I am suggesting deportation by catapult!

Chicken or egg? do away with the possibility of the jobs and there will be no illegals to hire. Who would hire one if they knew they could lose their business as a result? Would YOU take that risk? the problem is that employers save so much money exploiting illegals that even if they get caught they are WAY money ahead. Bad situation. They have to know that it is the end of the road if they get caught.

The problem with treating any people in this issue as "criminals" even though they are, is that you have to prosecute them and that is expensive and I do not care to pay for it. better to TAX them out of business and prevent the illegals ever coming or being arrested. PUT THE LID ON THE GARBAGE CAN instead of planning what you will do when the raccoons raid. STOP the raid before it starts. For the good of the raccoons, it is dangerous to eat from garbage cans. Why would an illegal break the law and cross the border when the word gets out that no one will hire them, no one will give them any welfare, no one will educate their children, no one will give them free medical care and their children will not even be citizens. #######!!!! Why on earth would they come?

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Gary,

you are right in theory, and I,ve proposing the very same thing forever, but you know that will never work. First, asking people to show legal presence whenever they want to do what you outlined feeds right into the argument of a police state. Secondly, I won't hire someone to mow my lawn. It's not an employment situation. And if I hire Jose, who's here legally, and sends George, a helper who's not, what then?

You're in jail, your house is confiscated, you are fighting a long uphill battle to justice. Jose all of a sudden has never heard of George as he does not want to lose his livelyhood, and so it goes.

If I have a small business, I don't hire anymore. I subcontract via 1099. This way I'm not responsible. See where I'm going with this?

You can't really kill a gigantic snake with 300 heads.

[visaveteran 0]

Gary,

you are right in theory, and I,ve proposing the very same thing forever, but you know that will never work. First, asking people to show legal presence whenever they want to do what you outlined feeds right into the argument of a police state. Secondly, I won't hire someone to mow my lawn. It's not an employment situation. And if I hire Jose, who's here legally, and sends George, a helper who's not, what then?

You're in jail, your house is confiscated, you are fighting a long uphill battle to justice. Jose all of a sudden has never heard of George as he does not want to lose his livelyhood, and so it goes.

If I have a small business, I don't hire anymore. I subcontract via 1099. This way I'm not responsible. See where I'm going with this?

You can't really kill a gigantic snake with 300 heads.

Yes, good points. If it's illegal to demand an ID from someone out on the street without probable cause, how can the cops charge into a business with out warrants and shakedown the employees and owners?

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Gary,

you are right in theory, and I,ve proposing the very same thing forever, but you know that will never work. First, asking people to show legal presence whenever they want to do what you outlined feeds right into the argument of a police state. Secondly, I won't hire someone to mow my lawn. It's not an employment situation. And if I hire Jose, who's here legally, and sends George, a helper who's not, what then?

You're in jail, your house is confiscated, you are fighting a long uphill battle to justice. Jose all of a sudden has never heard of George as he does not want to lose his livelyhood, and so it goes.

If I have a small business, I don't hire anymore. I subcontract via 1099. This way I'm not responsible. See where I'm going with this?

You can't really kill a gigantic snake with 300 heads.

There will always be excuses, Bob. The problem will continue forever. Everyone wants illegal immigration to continue for their own selfish reasons with no regard to any of our laws. What I propose will never work because it will never happen because no one wants it to happen. It is all smoke and mirrors and blah, blah, blah.

But to answer your points...

If you hire Jose (legal) and he sends George, YOU do not allow George to work until YOU have verified he is legal, if you do not, you lose your house. Tough sh*t for you. check it out or pay the price. People and that means ALL people need to take responsibility for what they do. The problem is that the current system has no accountability or expense for the people who power the engine of illegal alien exploitation. As long as that situation is present, NOTHING will stop the "problem". It can't. It is not possible to stop a problem caused by economics, without fundamentaly changing the economics. When people STOP hiring illegal immigrants because the penalty for hiring one is scary strict, illegal immigration will END. Until then it is just whiny excuses to continue the practice.

Being asked for ID to receive benefits paid for by taxpayers is not a police state. NO ONE asks you for ID until YOU ask for a benefit paid for by taxpayers. Including, now, medical care, education and welfare benefits. Plus the privilege of drivng your private car on our public roads. Being asked to show you are legally present in this country to USE those benefits is not in any way a "police state".

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Yes, good points. If it's illegal to demand an ID from someone out on the street without probable cause, how can the cops charge into a business with out warrants and shakedown the employees and owners?

Has anyone read what I wrote? I have NEVER, EVER suggested asking for someone's ID "out on the street", I would abhor such a practice and tell the cop to pound sand up his @ss if he asked. Are you daft?

On the other hand, being asked to show legal presence when applying for welfare benefits, government paid health care, enrollment in public schools and to be issued a drivers license is in no way illegal or a "police state"

But it is interesting how even the people that claim to be "against" illegal immigration can think of every excuse NOT to implement effective laws against it. I never suggested the police raid businesses without probable cause. Such would be done by ICE, not local police. ICE eforces immigration laws, which is what "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" means. They would and could do so WITH probable cause, EXACTLY AS THEY DO NOW (and you cheer when they bust a Tyson factory and arrest 300 illegal aliens) BUT the difference would be...then the business would be OUT OF BUSINESS and the property would be siezed and auctioned to pay the tax levied for employment if illegal aliens. My guess is we are going to need a lot LESS ICE agents to conduct raids. How stupid would you have to be to hire an illegal alien?

You VV, suggested in another post that illegal immigrants were "heading for the border" because they might be asked for ID, but you do not think that severely punishing the employers that break our laws would work?

Please read before passing judgement and you will look much less foolish. If you wish to disagree with my ideas, then there is no need to lie or invent things that don't exist so you can disagree. There is no need to insert phrases and practices never suggested and then disagree with them. If you cannot disagree with something proposed, then concede the point and move on. If you have to invent things to disagree with you look stupid. But this issue, as I have said, generates the most appalling stupidity and double standards of any there is.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Gary,

you are right in theory, and I,ve proposing the very same thing forever, but you know that will never work. First, asking people to show legal presence whenever they want to do what you outlined feeds right into the argument of a police state. Secondly, I won't hire someone to mow my lawn. It's not an employment situation. And if I hire Jose, who's here legally, and sends George, a helper who's not, what then?

You're in jail, your house is confiscated, you are fighting a long uphill battle to justice. Jose all of a sudden has never heard of George as he does not want to lose his livelyhood, and so it goes.

If I have a small business, I don't hire anymore. I subcontract via 1099. This way I'm not responsible. See where I'm going with this?

You can't really kill a gigantic snake with 300 heads.

No Bob, I do not. Subcontracting IS hiring and it WOULD (and is) be punishable and you WOULD be responsible to verify the employment status of the sub-contractor and any employees he has. I am a construction consultant and deal with sub-contracts all day, every day for more than 30 years, more than 35 years in four countries and 48 states of the USA. These things are required to be verified NOW, not only that but various states add their own rules and regulations, depending on the project and who the client is. For example, any sub-contractor working on a state project in Vermont MUST employ ONLY legal residents and citizens and MUST pay at least the "prevailing wage", which is much higher than minimum wage (it is, in essence, the union labor wage for that job whether the sub-contractor is union or not) My clients hire ME to make sure all the rules are followed, labor law, workman's comp verifications, insurance verifications, bonds as well as safety rules, environmental rules, tax rules, wage and hour laws, etc. I am hired by property owners and by General Contractors to oversee projetcs and be sure that the sub-contractors follow all the rules and regulations and plans and specifications and that the sub-contractor's employees do the same. The property pwner and/or the general contractor is most assuredly in the chain of responsibility RIGHT NOW. I have, on each contract I oversee the absolute authority to immediately remove ANY employee or contractor from the property that is not meeting his obligations under the law. If I see an employee of a sub-contractor on a platform without a safety rail or safety harness in OSHA compliance, that employee is immediately gone off the property and WILL NOT return. The sub-contractor can use him somewhere else, I do not care. The sub-contractor receives a $500 sanction in his final payment for every OSHA violation I catch and write up. He agrees to this in his contract. Even a $500 penalty gets them to comply 99% of the time.

I have a copy of the I-9 form for every employee of every sub-contractor on every project. New employees of sub-contractors to the project must first report to my office and present information including a copy of their I-9 or they do not work. Period. Thank you...GOOD BYE. I accept fax copies.

My clients do not pay me thousands of dollars because they like me and want to make me rich, they pay me this money to COVER THEIR @SS and keep them from being fined for violations. They need to know these things and follow these rules now, please do not act as though it some unbearable burden. It is required NOW, I am not suggesting ANY new rules...NONE. Contractors and employers that hire illegal aliens do so to save money and put more money in their pocket. Immigration laws are only ONE of many they are violating, many are for the good of the worker.

Lest you think I am of this opinion to generate business for myself, I am already semi-retired and will not be accepting any more work than I already do. I will retire completely in 6 years, maybe less if someone pisses me off. I make plenty of money working 20-25 hours per week, sleeping until 9-10am and finishing for the day by 3pm and have no desire to do more, I have plenty to do with a family and home to work on. And my fishing and skeet shooting duties. However, because of my job. I understand the fragile concept of economic feasibility. I have seen projects scrapped, many times, for simple tax code hang ups. Of course this cost people (including me) jobs because of a tax code a project is not done and 300 people lose work. I ASSURE you, if the penalties were increased for employing illegals, the practice will stop. Cold, dead, STOP. There will be NO illegals hired or contracted anywhere for any reason...except maybe by a really stupid person.

Let me repeat that....NO NEW RULES ARE NEEDED OR WANTED OR SUGGESTED. I simply suggest increasing the penalties exponentially for violating rules they should already be following.

[LvivLovers 39]

So, let us say that we have a pair of "legal" refugees. They are not USCs yet, and maybe it will take them years to qualify for citizenship. They have a child. According to your logic, the child has no citizenship, unless the parents return to a country where they escaped from and in which they may be murdered, or at least jailed for life.

Is that your suggestion? Interesting!

I like the ideas of this group of people more and more every day. Слава Богу!

Obviously, there are corner cases that need to be individually considered. That's the problem with the original amendment. They tried to make it simple and straightforward, but that just doesn't cut it.