Troopers can arrest illegal immigrants

[peejay 327]

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

A rose by any other name is still a rose. They are 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

A rose by any other name is still a rose. They are illegal aliens!

So let's start talking about illegal drivers and illegal businessmen, illegal businesses and illegal politicians...or how about illegal roses...because, like you said a rose by any other name is still a rose. They are still IMMIGRANTS, like all of our ancestors!

[peejay 327]

So let's start talking about illegal drivers and illegal businessmen, illegal businesses and illegal politicians...or how about illegal roses...because, like you said a rose by any other name is still a rose. They are still IMMIGRANTS, like all of our ancestors!

My ancestors did not sneak into the USA illegally nor did they commit fraud, identity theft, or participate in the welfare system. Unlike the current crop of illegal aliens.

My ancestors were immigrants...these lawbreakers are illegal aliens and criminals!

[Tim and Bethanie 1]

Our local traffic docket is full of Juans, that never even bother to appear to court for BREAKING THE LAW because they don't have to! Why? They are here illegally and there isn't a damn thing that can be done about their various traffic violations including DUI's. So why not arrest them for their illegal status ship them home and be done with it? I do not see any reason whatsoever as to why an officer of the law can not arrest them for their status, if they are dealing with them for some other violation. If officers were given that authority it would help to prevent some of the other crimes that are committed and never paid for.

I have a friend whos ex-wife, his childrens mother was struck and killed by an illegal because he chose to drink and drive. He didn't have a valid drivers license, proper registration or insurance at the time of arrest (in all likely hood because he was ILLEGAL). He was arrested and let out on bond, never to be seen again. Had the arresting officer been able to arrest him on his status perhaps he would have been held, faced his criminal charges, made restitution to the family and then shipped the hell back where he belonged.

Some Illegals are slipping by all the time with various criminal acts, because they can easily hop skip and jump to get a new i.d with some other name on it. Maybe the rest of us legal citizens should start doing the same and then we can all speed, run stop signs, kill people and never have to pay back society for breaking the law over and over.

If it is good for the goose, by golly it's good for the gander.

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

So let's start talking about illegal drivers and illegal businessmen, illegal businesses and illegal politicians...or how about illegal roses...because, like you said a rose by any other name is still a rose. They are still IMMIGRANTS, like all of our ancestors!

My ancestors did not sneak into the USA illegally nor did they commit fraud, identity theft, or participate in the welfare system. Unlike the current crop of illegal aliens.

My ancestors were immigrants...these lawbreakers are illegal aliens and criminals!

How far back is it irrelevent because history tells us that this land was occupied long before Europeans came here. So is 'legal' the precedent by which we declare to be here rightfully? How about the colonists who decided to ignore the King of England? Were they not acting illegally? Or how about the slaves who ran away from their slave owners, who were 'legal' property of the slave owners as declared by law? The legality of the issue is conveniently overplayed. History has shown us that not everything deemed legal is righteous and not everything declared 'illegal' is wrong.

[Tim and Bethanie 1]

So let's start talking about illegal drivers and illegal businessmen, illegal businesses and illegal politicians...or how about illegal roses...because, like you said a rose by any other name is still a rose. They are still IMMIGRANTS, like all of our ancestors!

My ancestors did not sneak into the USA illegally nor did they commit fraud, identity theft, or participate in the welfare system. Unlike the current crop of illegal aliens.

My ancestors were immigrants...these lawbreakers are illegal aliens and criminals!

How far back is it irrelevent because history tells us that this land was occupied long before Europeans came here. So is 'legal' the precedent by which we declare to be here rightfully? How about the colonists who decided to ignore the King of England? Were they not acting illegally? Or how about the slaves who ran away from their slave owners, who were 'legal' property of the slave owners as declared by law? The legality of the issue is conveniently overplayed. History has shown us that not everything deemed legal is righteous and not everything declared 'illegal' is wrong.

Ahh I am just going to go into my rendition of Neil Diamonds, "They're coming to America", wave my lil American flag and be happy.

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

Our local traffic docket is full of Juans, that never even bother to appear to court for BREAKING THE LAW because they don't have to! Why? They are here illegally and there isn't a damn thing that can be done about their various traffic violations including DUI's. So why not arrest them for their illegal status ship them home and be done with it? I do not see any reason whatsoever as to why an officer of the law can not arrest them for their status, if they are dealing with them for some other violation. If officers were given that authority it would help to prevent some of the other crimes that are committed and never paid for.

I have a friend whos ex-wife, his childrens mother was struck and killed by an illegal because he chose to drink and drive. He didn't have a valid drivers license, proper registration or insurance at the time of arrest (in all likely hood because he was ILLEGAL). He was arrested and let out on bond, never to be seen again. Had the arresting officer been able to arrest him on his status perhaps he would have been held, faced his criminal charges, made restitution to the family and then shipped the hell back where he belonged.

Some Illegals are slipping by all the time with various criminal acts, because they can easily hop skip and jump to get a new i.d with some other name on it. Maybe the rest of us legal citizens should start doing the same and then we can all speed, run stop signs, kill people and never have to pay back society for breaking the law over and over.

If it is good for the goose, by golly it's good for the gander.

That is tragic and a travesty of justice. Why did the judge set bond if he/she knew there was a high risk of him of skipping out of town? At the moment he was arrested for DUI - they should check his legal status and if he is here illegally, then he should be denied bail.

[peejay 327]

How far back is it irrelevent because history tells us that this land was occupied long before Europeans came here. So is 'legal' the precedent by which we declare to be here rightfully? How about the colonists who decided to ignore the King of England? Were they not acting illegally? Or how about the slaves who ran away from their slave owners, who were 'legal' property of the slave owners as declared by law? The legality of the issue is conveniently overplayed. History has shown us that not everything deemed legal is righteous and not everything declared 'illegal' is wrong.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in Pookipsee?

Yada..yada...yada. We live in a modern industrial nation with a modern welfare state that didn't exist 50 years ago.

Get a dose of reality. This is 2006 and very soon it will be 2007. If you haven't already realized it...we now live in the new millenium.

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

How far back is it irrelevent because history tells us that this land was occupied long before Europeans came here. So is 'legal' the precedent by which we declare to be here rightfully? How about the colonists who decided to ignore the King of England? Were they not acting illegally? Or how about the slaves who ran away from their slave owners, who were 'legal' property of the slave owners as declared by law? The legality of the issue is conveniently overplayed. History has shown us that not everything deemed legal is righteous and not everything declared 'illegal' is wrong.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in Pookipsee?

Yada..yada...yada. We live in a modern industrial nation with a modern welfare state that didn't exist 50 years ago.

Get a dose of reality. This is 2006 and very soon it will be 2007. If you haven't already realized it...we now live in the new millenium.

Peejay, you brought up the past when you said your relatives came here legally, so pick or choose whether the past is relevant. How far back before history is no longer relevant?

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Our local traffic docket is full of Juans, that never even bother to appear to court for BREAKING THE LAW because they don't have to! Why? They are here illegally and there isn't a damn thing that can be done about their various traffic violations including DUI's. So why not arrest them for their illegal status ship them home and be done with it? I do not see any reason whatsoever as to why an officer of the law can not arrest them for their status, if they are dealing with them for some other violation. If officers were given that authority it would help to prevent some of the other crimes that are committed and never paid for.

I have a friend whos ex-wife, his childrens mother was struck and killed by an illegal because he chose to drink and drive. He didn't have a valid drivers license, proper registration or insurance at the time of arrest (in all likely hood because he was ILLEGAL). He was arrested and let out on bond, never to be seen again. Had the arresting officer been able to arrest him on his status perhaps he would have been held, faced his criminal charges, made restitution to the family and then shipped the hell back where he belonged.

Some Illegals are slipping by all the time with various criminal acts, because they can easily hop skip and jump to get a new i.d with some other name on it. Maybe the rest of us legal citizens should start doing the same and then we can all speed, run stop signs, kill people and never have to pay back society for breaking the law over and over.

If it is good for the goose, by golly it's good for the gander.

That is tragic and a travesty of justice. Why did the judge set bond if he/she knew there was a high risk of him of skipping out of town? At the moment he was arrested for DUI - they should check his legal status and if he is here illegally, then he should be denied bail.

ah because setting his bail high would result in an outcry over it, steven, don't you know?

and isn't checking their status going to result in the same?

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

state troopers are not federal agents. immigration is a federal jurisdiction.

ergo, state troopers cannot arrest someone for violating immigration laws.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

state troopers are not federal agents. immigration is a federal jurisdiction.

ergo, state troopers cannot arrest someone for violating immigration laws.

Daniel

:energetic:

right on, let's castrate every law enforcement agency we can to solve the problem

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

state troopers are not federal agents. immigration is a federal jurisdiction.

ergo, state troopers cannot arrest someone for violating immigration laws.

Daniel

:energetic:

right on, let's castrate every law enforcement agency we can to solve the problem

??

are you saying this isn't the case?

Daniel

:energetic:

[peejay 327]

Peejay, you brought up the past when you said your relatives came here legally, so pick or choose whether the past is relevant. How far back before history is no longer relevant?

No...you used that same old lame cliche, "we are a nation of immigrants" to somehow justify and excuse the modern scourge of illegal immigration. It is just one of many lame cliches that are used to excuse illegal immigration. I'm just saying that it isn't the golden age of immigration (1880 - 1920) anymore. That era and that nation doesn't exist anymore. The modern welfare state was nonexistent in the golden age of immigration.

It is rather stupid and suicidal in 2006 to allow massive poverty and crime to be dumped illegally across our border by a Third World nation into a modern welfare state that exists in America today. To compare that abomination to immigration 85 - 100 years ago is absurd.

This is not the land of Oz...this is modern 21st century America.

Edited December 6, 2006 by peejay

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

Peejay, you brought up the past when you said your relatives came here legally, so pick or choose whether the past is relevant. How far back before history is no longer relevant?

No...you used that same old lame cliche, "we are a nation of immigrants" to somehow justify and excuse the modern scourge of illegal immigration. It is just one of many lame cliches that are used to excuse illegal immigration. I'm just saying that it isn't the golden age of immigration (1880 - 1920) anymore. That era and that nation doesn't exist anymore. The modern welfare state was nonexistent in the golden age of immigration.

It is rather stupid and suicidal in 2006 to allow massive poverty and crime to be dumped illegally across our border by a Third World nation into a modern welfare state that exists in America today. To compare that abomination to immigration 85 - 100 years ago is absurd.

This is not the land of Oz...this is modern 21st century America.

It's not a cliche...it's a fact. The legality of whether an immigrant is 'legal' or 'illegal' doesn't change the fact that they immigrants, first and foremost. Many of them have assimilated into our society. I'm not suggesting we do nothing, but I don't buy into the notion that because they don't have the legal documentation to be here that they are criminal or vermin.

Would you support blocks of work visas granted to companies who can demonstrate the need for low wage workers? The problem isn't going away. There has to be some reasonable solutions worth exploring.