Troopers can arrest illegal immigrants

[peejay 327]

I really don't like the idea of the ID card. A) too much chance for incompetence for a government that brought us IMBRA B) ID cards can be faked too, much like SSNs and other documentation, so I don't see it doing much to address the real problem (instead of 'driving while brown' it'll be 'driving while brown and maybe his ID is fake') and C) it strikes me as deeply un-American. If the government wants to know what I'm up to, they can damn well get a warrant, and if they can't manage that, then they can f&ck off, basically.

I'm not sure what to do, except revise the trade laws with Mexico to reduce the incentive to emigrate from there. We don't have milliions of Canadians streaming over the border, and it doesn't have anything to do with fences or papers or vigilantes with six-shooters; there's just not as strong of an economic incentive.

Yes, yes...I see the answer to all of our problems with illegal immigration now so clearly. We should do nothing because it might (*fill in the blank*). Why waste any time, money, or effort on our borders when it is all so unnecessary and apparently "unAmerican". What a fool am I.

[Caladan 19]

Yeah. Right now it seems the best analogy is this: the immigrants are like college kids crossing the street to get to the bars. The bars don't care if they're underage. The cops sweep in, and drive the kids across the street, but leave the bar alone as they check in more underage kids.

Of course, what we do with alcohol enforcement is fine the establishment. Something similar *might* work for employment. The only catch is that right now, most businesses have no way to verify that someone is illegal, as most illegals have some kind of paperwork and all the business has to do is keep a photocopy on file. Without a way to verify that, I suspect that the practical effect of such a law would be widespread discrimination. (If you ran a small business, and you knew that if you were wrong about someone's status, you'd be fined and closed down, would you hire anyone with an accent?) We'd need a way for employers to be able to verify work authorization (without violating people's rights, privacy, or creating another bureaucracy.)

[Jenn! 918]

We'd need a way for employers to be able to verify work authorization (without violating people's rights, privacy, or creating another bureaucracy.)

I don't understand why this is so difficult.

[GaryC 7]

Yeah. Right now it seems the best analogy is this: the immigrants are like college kids crossing the street to get to the bars. The bars don't care if they're underage. The cops sweep in, and drive the kids across the street, but leave the bar alone as they check in more underage kids.

Of course, what we do with alcohol enforcement is fine the establishment. Something similar *might* work for employment. The only catch is that right now, most businesses have no way to verify that someone is illegal, as most illegals have some kind of paperwork and all the business has to do is keep a photocopy on file. Without a way to verify that, I suspect that the practical effect of such a law would be widespread discrimination. (If you ran a small business, and you knew that if you were wrong about someone's status, you'd be fined and closed down, would you hire anyone with an accent?) We'd need a way for employers to be able to verify work authorization (without violating people's rights, privacy, or creating another bureaucracy.)

Sure there are ways of verifying someones right to work. Background checks are easy to do now. Fake SSN cards can be found out with little effort. Requiring a BC would work also.

[Caladan 19]

I really don't like the idea of the ID card. A) too much chance for incompetence for a government that brought us IMBRA B) ID cards can be faked too, much like SSNs and other documentation, so I don't see it doing much to address the real problem (instead of 'driving while brown' it'll be 'driving while brown and maybe his ID is fake') and C) it strikes me as deeply un-American. If the government wants to know what I'm up to, they can damn well get a warrant, and if they can't manage that, then they can f&ck off, basically.

I'm not sure what to do, except revise the trade laws with Mexico to reduce the incentive to emigrate from there. We don't have milliions of Canadians streaming over the border, and it doesn't have anything to do with fences or papers or vigilantes with six-shooters; there's just not as strong of an economic incentive.

Yes, yes...I see the answer to all of our problems with illegal immigration now so clearly. We should do nothing because it might (*fill in the blank*). Why waste any time, money, or effort on our borders when it is all so unnecessary and apparently "unAmerican". What a fool am I.

Your so-called solution would a) only apply to immigrants who have children and use said children to receive benefits and B) would take about a decade to implement and c) doesn't actually get anyone out of the country. Saying "I don't know what to do" isnt' a fix, but then, I didn't claim it was, nor did I claim that we should do nothing.

And you seem to be forgetting that this is a message board, and being able to solve the world's problems in a two sentence post isn't a requirement for posting. Fortunately for your future posting activities, neither is reading comprehension or the ability to construct a coherent argument.

We'd need a way for employers to be able to verify work authorization (without violating people's rights, privacy, or creating another bureaucracy.)

I don't understand why this is so difficult.

I don't think it's hard. Expensive, maybe, as ideally you'd want a system that would be easy to use, quick (no waiting 90 days while a form processes), and reliable. And doable by a small business, since I'd hate to see all the local businesses go under because they couldn't afford the EZ-ID ECHECKER-2006.

But there's nothing on the books now that would allow a business to check that, so that would be where I'd start. It's useless to talk strict sanctions on a business if they've followed the law to the letter.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

ANNOUNCEMENT:

The Constitution does not have to be amended to end birthright citizenship. Do not be mislead. This is an erroneous claim propagated by open borders advocates and anchor baby beneficiaries.

The 14th Amendment says in part:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The amendment was ratified in 1868. At that time, there was no US immigration policy. Yet, the intent of the law was expressed by its author, Representative John A Bingham, as such:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Senator Jacob Howard, a supporter of the amendment, stated:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Senator Lynn Trumbull, a prominent member of the body and author of the 13th Amendment, interpreted the 14th in this manner:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Senator Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's view in the affirmative:

concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

That is the legislative intent of the amendment. The legislative intent is given great weight in how a law is interpreted and applied.

This interpretation was upheld in a series of court cases regarding the citizenship status of American Indians residing within the borders of the United States. In 1873, the US Supreme Court determined that the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), determined that that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires direct and immediate allegiance to the United States, not just physical presence within the borders of the nation.

In fact, the language of the amendment allows for its interpretation by Congress, stating, in part:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

If it was a blanket allowance, there would be no need for Congress to have the power to further legislate its enforcement. Being that there is no absolute created by the amendment, there are exceptions to the rule, most notably the children of diplomats. Federal immigration laws require aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign government and to support the US Constitution in order to gain citizenship. The parents of anchor babies never fulfilled this obligation and were never "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Congress could simply enforce the re-exclusion of the children of illegals, and there is talk of doing so because they can. If this is what you believe is needed, let your Congressional representatives know! If you don't act on what you believe is in the best interest of your country, you are part of the problem.

What would be the difference between an American killed by an American and an American killed by an illegal alien?

If the illegal alien was not here, s/he could not kill anyone here. DUH! Someone who is willing to flaunt our laws to commit one crime (illegal entry) is a good bet to commit other crimes.

Edited December 4, 2006 by szsz

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's useless to talk strict sanctions on a business if they've followed the law to the letter.

You think the concentration of illegals in one business and the lack of such concentration in another is coincidence? I most certainly don't. But the propaganda of the profiteers of illegal labor has worked on you it seems.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

It's useless to talk strict sanctions on a business if they've followed the law to the letter.

You think the concentration of illegals in one business and the lack of such concentration in another is coincidence? I most certainly don't. But the propaganda of the profiteers of illegal labor has worked on you it seems.

i can't wait to see your comments on this thread

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry602287

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's useless to talk strict sanctions on a business if they've followed the law to the letter.

You think the concentration of illegals in one business and the lack of such concentration in another is coincidence? I most certainly don't. But the propaganda of the profiteers of illegal labor has worked on you it seems.

i can't wait to see your comments on this thread

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry602287

Go take a look. You might be surprised but you won't be disappointed.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

It's useless to talk strict sanctions on a business if they've followed the law to the letter.

You think the concentration of illegals in one business and the lack of such concentration in another is coincidence? I most certainly don't. But the propaganda of the profiteers of illegal labor has worked on you it seems.

i can't wait to see your comments on this thread

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry602287

Go take a look. You might be surprised but you won't be disappointed.

saw it. i'm thinking if i am here legally and my house was priced the same as his 7years ago when i bought it 3 years ago, i must be doing something wrong

[moelarrycheese 0]

So what are they gonna do after they detain them? Put them on a plane back home?

Here's an idea. How about the state troopers focus on actually combating crime? This is nonsense - trying to fix the illegal immigration problem by taking state troopers away from doing their job.

Last time I checked, ILLEGAL immigration was a crime. So if the staties go after those ILLEGAL immigrants, then they are... actually combating crime!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't get it.

What would be the difference between an American killed by an American and an American killed by an illegal alien?

There is really no distinction other than each belongs to a different group.

The SOLE purpose of that kind of list is to promote prejudice and hate.

Where is the list of Whites killed by Blacks?

And Straight people killed by Gay people?

Men killed by Women?

Rebublicans killed by Democrats?

May as well post all those links.

It's the framing of them as 'illegal' that connotates them as criminals - careless vermin who have no regard for the rule of law. The argument gets drummed up that "if they break one law (immigration) then what stops them from breaking other laws?"

[Tim and Bethanie 1]

I don't get it.

What would be the difference between an American killed by an American and an American killed by an illegal alien?

There is really no distinction other than each belongs to a different group.

The SOLE purpose of that kind of list is to promote prejudice and hate.

Where is the list of Whites killed by Blacks?

And Straight people killed by Gay people?

Men killed by Women?

Rebublicans killed by Democrats?

May as well post all those links.

It's the framing of them as 'illegal' that connotates them as criminals - careless vermin who have no regard for the rule of law. The argument gets drummed up that "if they break one law (immigration) then what stops them from breaking other laws?"

Breaking the law is breaking the law in my opinion. Not sure why someone breaking an immigration law should be treated any differently as someone stopped for a traffic violation.

[peejay 327]

It's the framing of them as 'illegal' that connotates them as criminals - careless vermin who have no regard for the rule of law. The argument gets drummed up that "if they break one law (immigration) then what stops them from breaking other laws?"

As usual...bleeding heart theories need to be shown reality.

Here are facts that are irrefutable:

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report number GAO-05-337R (’Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails,’ issued May 9, 2005) informed us that “At the federal level, the number of criminal aliens incarcerated increased from about 42,000 at the end of calendar year 2001 to about 49,000 at the end of calendar year 2004–a 15 percent increase. The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years–about 27 percent.” (Translation: If the current estimate of 12 million illegals in the US is accurate, that would represent 4% of the country’s population, and would mean that illegals are 6-1/2 times MORE likely to be in federal prison than the rest of the population.)

A GAO report released that same day, number GAO-05-64R (’Information on Certain Illegal Aliens Arrested in the United States’) studied the criminal records of over 55,000 incarcerated illegal immigrants, and found that “….. they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990. They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. Almost all of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10 offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage. About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence; fraud–including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and obstruction of justice.”

How much criminal activity does it take before you’ll be convinced that there indeed is a culture of criminality and violence in the illegal-immigrant population, and that it permeates a significant percentage of it?

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/02/illega...of-the-problem/

How can we afford not to give our police the tools needed to address this outrage! Isn't it about time to start talk about law enforcement instead of yet another amnesty for illegal aliens?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't get it.

What would be the difference between an American killed by an American and an American killed by an illegal alien?

There is really no distinction other than each belongs to a different group.

The SOLE purpose of that kind of list is to promote prejudice and hate.

Where is the list of Whites killed by Blacks?

And Straight people killed by Gay people?

Men killed by Women?

Rebublicans killed by Democrats?

May as well post all those links.

It's the framing of them as 'illegal' that connotates them as criminals - careless vermin who have no regard for the rule of law. The argument gets drummed up that "if they break one law (immigration) then what stops them from breaking other laws?"

Breaking the law is breaking the law in my opinion. Not sure why someone breaking an immigration law should be treated any differently as someone stopped for a traffic violation.

Because with this issue of illegal immigration - particularly with Mexico, it's not that simple. Being here without proper paperwork is not a criminal act. They are not here to cause lawlessness. Nobody's talking about rounding up undocumented Canadians because we don't consider it as severe a problem as we do with the illegals here from Mexico.

This is part of something I posted earlier, but it really points out what I'm talking about with framing them as illegals.

......

Journalists frequently refer to “illegal immigrants” as if it were a neutral term. But the illegal frame is highly structured. It frames the problem as one about the illegal act of crossing the border without papers. As a consequence, it fundamentally frames the problem as a legal one.

Think for a moment of a criminal. Chances are you thought about a robber, a murderer or a rapist. These are prototypical criminals, people who do harm to a person or their property. And prototypical criminals are assumed to be bad people.

“Illegal,” used as an adjective in “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens,” or simply as a noun in “illegals” defines the immigrants as criminals, as if they were inherently bad people. In conservative doctrine, those who break laws must be punished — or all law and order will break down. Failure to punish is immoral.

“Illegal alien” not only stresses criminality, but stresses otherness. As we are a nation of immigrants, we can at least empathize with immigrants, illegal or not. “Aliens,” in popular culture suggests nonhuman beings invading from outer space — completely foreign, not one of us, intent on taking over our land and our way of life by gradually insinuating themselves among us. Along these lines, the word “invasion” is used by the Minutemen and right-wing bloggers to discuss the wave of people crossing the border. Right-wing language experts intent on keep them out suggest using the world “aliens” whenever possible.

These are NOT neutral terms. Imagine calling businessmen who once cheated on their taxes “illegal businessmen.” Imagine calling people who have driven over the speed limit “illegal drivers.” Is Tom Delay an “illegal Republican?”

By defining them as criminal, it overlooks the immense contributions these immigrants subsequently make by working hard for low wages. This is work that should more than make up for crossing the border. Indeed, we should be expressing our gratitude.

Immigrants who cross outside of legal channels, though, are committing offenses of a much different nature than the prototypical criminal. Their intent is not to cause harm or to steal. More accurately, they are committing victimless technical offenses, which we normally consider “violations.” By invoking the illegal frame, the severity of their offense is inflated.

The illegal frame — particularly “illegal alien” — dehumanizes. It blocks the questions of: why are people coming to the US, often times at great personal risk? What service do they provide when they are here? Why do they feel it necessary to avoid legal channels? It boils the entire debate down to questions of legality.

And it also ignores the illegal acts of employers. The problem is not being called the Illegal Employer Problem, and employers are not called “illegals.”

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research...dge/immigration