Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   9th Circuit to decide if Arizona's law passed by ballot initiative which forbids granting bail to any illegal immigrant arrested in the state on other charges runs afoul of a minor legal technicality called the 8th Amendment   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 139
    More: Obvious, 9th Circuit, legal technicality, amendments, illegal immigrants, Russell Pearce, Arizona Legislature, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

2912 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-19 10:10:00 AM  
The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.
 
2014-03-19 10:15:52 AM  

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-19 10:32:42 AM  

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


The 8th Amendment doesn't mention anything about citizenship. Furthermore, the 14th states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?
 
2014-03-19 10:36:41 AM  
Why don't you try a ballot initiative for secession?

/please?
 
2014-03-19 10:48:45 AM  
Constitution, Shmonstitution.
 
2014-03-19 11:01:02 AM  

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel. The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You people just love the Constitution until you don't.
 
2014-03-19 11:24:54 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why don't you try a ballot initiative for secession?

/please?


I'm only 15 miles from New Mexico, just inside Arizona. It would be a pain in the ass to have to move now. :(
 
2014-03-19 11:32:36 AM  

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.



You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.
 
2014-03-19 12:05:47 PM  

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


Well, now. Aren't you a special one.
 
2014-03-19 01:08:13 PM  

dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"
 
2014-03-19 01:19:55 PM  
9th circuit is the most overturned circuit. Why do we even bother with that stop.
 
2014-03-19 01:22:05 PM  
How about imprisoning those AZ-holes and letting bubba educate them on how to treat newcomers?
 
2014-03-19 01:24:25 PM  
More to the point. It is legal to deny bail to flight risks. Generally bail terms will also include the revocation of passports until trial end. If my recall is correct, illegal immigrants do miss trial dates more often than citizens, and the revocation of passports doesnt work on that class. There are many articles on illegal immigrants going back to their home countries to avoid US trial. Based on this, the enhanced flight risk issue, I don't see how it is an issue.
 
2014-03-19 01:25:03 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Why don't you try a ballot initiative for secession?

/please?


the federal government paid for the war against Mexico to take that territory. Then it paid to "pacify" the Indians. And it has probably been subsidizing one thing or another in that state for some time. I'm all for Arizonans seceding... but they can't take with them the valuable real estate since it represents an investment by the federal government.
 
2014-03-19 01:26:43 PM  

Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.


Well if that's the case, why aren't these people immediately deported?

If it's against any rules to keep them without bail, fine.  Let them go.  Back to their country of origin.

I don't think I will ever completely understand how and why people are willing to bend over backwards to accomidate people that are not in this country legally to begin with.  Is it because of the cheap produce and affordable landscaping?
 
2014-03-19 01:28:49 PM  
The lawyers defending the law say its intent was to improve public safety, not punish people

Uh-huh...I totally believe that
 
2014-03-19 01:29:37 PM  
 
2014-03-19 01:30:29 PM  
Next white person complaining about somebody else being in this country illegally is going to get beat to death with a large peace pipe, covered in a disease ridden blanket, and turned into soylent green.
 
2014-03-19 01:32:32 PM  
How about we just give Maricopa county back to Mexico and call it even.
 
2014-03-19 01:32:48 PM  
Subby, didn't you NRTFA?:

"A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit previously rejected a challenge to the no-bail law, finding that it didn't run afoul of the Constitution. But the challengers succeeded in getting an 11-member panel of the court to consider the case."

The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department). While the US is bound by international treaties to treat illegal aliens with dignity and to honor their human rights, it is not bound to afford full constitutional protections to them. Legally, the ICE can detain an illegal immigrant without bail until his deportation proceedings are complete. It is understandable that even a racist state like Arizona would not want to release an illegal alien on bail after having arrested him on a felony charge.

If the opponents of this law cannot get a favorable ruling by the 9th Circuit, they have no chance of even being heard by the SCOTUS.
 
2014-03-19 01:34:15 PM  
Are judges paying attention to the 8th amendment again? I hadn't noticed...

I mean all those multi-million bonds for unemployed idiots are obviously to secure their appearances, right Justin Carter?
 
2014-03-19 01:35:36 PM  

JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department). While the US is bound by international treaties to treat illegal aliens with dignity and to honor their human rights, it is not bound to afford full constitutional protections to them. Legally, the ICE can detain an illegal immigrant without bail until his deportation proceedings are complete. It is understandable that even a racist state like Arizona would not want to release an illegal alien on bail after having arrested him on a felony charge.


[citation needed]
 
2014-03-19 01:35:58 PM  

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


foodforthethinkers.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-19 01:36:09 PM  

kbronsito: the federal government paid for the war against Mexico to take that territory. Then it paid to "pacify" the Indians. And it has probably been subsidizing one thing or another in that state for some time. I'm all for Arizonans seceding... but they can't take with them the valuable real estate since it represents an investment by the federal government.


I'd be in favor of a tax increase to cover the loss if that's all it would take

/it'd be nice to get Kansas to go with them, too
//seems like it would be a bargain to me
 
2014-03-19 01:36:56 PM  
Until you actually live in an area that is overrun with ILLEGAL immigrants who tax the already tight economy, run afoul of the law, make demands of actual citizens as though they have the same rights, you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.
Or, you could just try to do the same as an ILLEGAL immigrant in Mexico or South America and see where that gets you.
 
2014-03-19 01:37:18 PM  
Damn Yankees said: How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"


Uh...yeah....

INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES


Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]

(a) Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section , shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.


(c) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and be removed in the manner provided in chapter 4 of this title.


(d) Any person who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof, except when and as authorized under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Attorney General, shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $5,000 or be imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
 
2014-03-19 01:37:32 PM  

Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

BULLSHIAT
 
2014-03-19 01:39:15 PM  

AgentPothead: Next white person complaining about somebody else being in this country illegally is going to get beat to death with a large peace pipe, covered in a disease ridden blanket, and turned into soylent green.


Nice troll, but bring it on...
 
2014-03-19 01:41:48 PM  
I can see both sides of this argument.

I also know that our Federal Appeals Courts are becoming as wildly partisan as the rest of the country.

Isn't justice supposed to be blind?

/i am not picking sides, I think there is bias on both sides
 
2014-03-19 01:42:02 PM  

vartian: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel. The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

You people just love the Constitution until you don't.


Woah, hey now... that's my line. For gun threads.
 
2014-03-19 01:42:25 PM  

Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_State s

Except, according to the above, it IS a crime...
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[47]
        enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
        eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
        attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.
 
2014-03-19 01:42:33 PM  

DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"


No, but there should be.
 
2014-03-19 01:43:38 PM  
Courts are ultimately cutting their own throats. The more they piss on the will of the people, the more people will support reducing judicial power using constitutional changes...
 
2014-03-19 01:44:31 PM  

MyRandomName: More to the point. It is legal to deny bail to flight risks. Generally bail terms will also include the revocation of passports until trial end. If my recall is correct, illegal immigrants do miss trial dates more often than citizens, and the revocation of passports doesnt work on that class. There are many articles on illegal immigrants going back to their home countries to avoid US trial. Based on this, the enhanced flight risk issue, I don't see how it is an issue.


Because there needs to be discretion. You can't make a law saying "all people who commit crime X are definitionally flight risks". It's prejudicial and might be unconstitutional.
 
2014-03-19 01:45:24 PM  
Just out of curiosity, how many times has an en banc hearing overruled the 3-judge panel? If it is often then I can see how the defense might benefit. If rarely, then why not just appeal to the Supreme Court? Or is this review required as part of the path to the SC?
 
2014-03-19 01:45:24 PM  

JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department).


This is not true. I don't know where you're getting this from.
 
2014-03-19 01:46:00 PM  
If they're trespassing, can't we shoot them instead?

//lude
 
2014-03-19 01:46:03 PM  

dpzum1: Until you actually live in an area that is overrun with ILLEGAL immigrants who tax the already tight economy, run afoul of the law, make demands of actual citizens as though they have the same rights, you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.
Or, you could just try to do the same as an ILLEGAL immigrant in Mexico or South America and see where that gets you.


Yeah, it's pretty rough up there in Connecticut, ain't it?
thumbs1.ebaystatic.com
 
2014-03-19 01:46:05 PM  

JackieRabbit: Subby, didn't you NRTFA?:

"A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit previously rejected a challenge to the no-bail law, finding that it didn't run afoul of the Constitution. But the challengers succeeded in getting an 11-member panel of the court to consider the case."

The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department). While the US is bound by international treaties to treat illegal aliens with dignity and to honor their human rights, it is not bound to afford full constitutional protections to them. Legally, the ICE can detain an illegal immigrant without bail until his deportation proceedings are complete. It is understandable that even a racist state like Arizona would not want to release an illegal alien on bail after having arrested him on a felony charge.

If the opponents of this law cannot get a favorable ruling by the 9th Circuit, they have no chance of even being heard by the SCOTUS.


imgs.xkcd.com


Casue you are about as wrong as wrong could be, BTW but I'mma gonna let you figure that out as you desperately Google for a source to back up your erroneous assumption.
 
2014-03-19 01:48:25 PM  

durbnpoisn: Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

Well if that's the case, why aren't these people immediately deported?

If it's against any rules to keep them without bail, fine.  Let them go.  Back to their country of origin.

I don't think I will ever completely understand how and why people are willing to bend over backwards to accomidate people that are not in this country legally to begin with.  Is it because of the cheap produce and affordable landscaping?


Because being born on the wrong side of an imaginary line and wanting a better life for your family doesn't make you less of a person?
 
2014-03-19 01:48:35 PM  
Sounds like an EP question rather than a CUP issue.
 
2014-03-19 01:48:57 PM  

mark12A: Courts are ultimately cutting their own throats. The more they piss on the will of the people, the more people will support reducing judicial power using constitutional changes...


The last time an amendment was passed that limited the power of the courts was in 1793.
 
2014-03-19 01:48:57 PM  
Hopefully Mexico will invade to protect its citizens like Putin did Crimea.  We can get rid of TX, AZ, NM, and the bottom half of CA.
 
2014-03-19 01:54:37 PM  

MyRandomName: More to the point. It is legal to deny bail to flight risks.


This.
 
2014-03-19 01:55:04 PM  

Kit Fister: Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_State s

Except, according to the above, it IS a crime...
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[47]
        enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
        eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
        attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.


The ENTRY may be, the PRESENCE is not.  And unless you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the illegal entry (which would include being able to prove the precise time, place, and manner of entry, AND that they had criminal capacity (were old enough to know they were committing a crime) AND Mens Rea.  Absent that, all you know is that they ARE here which, again, is not a crime
 
2014-03-19 01:55:12 PM  

Slappajo: Hopefully Mexico will invade to protect its citizens like Putin did Crimea.  We can get rid of TX, AZ, NM, and the bottom half of CA.


Hold on a second! San Antonio, Austin and Dallas-Ft. Worth are blue, dammit!!!

/Houston is shifty
//can't trust'em
 
2014-03-19 01:55:55 PM  

durbnpoisn: Magorn: Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

durbnpoisn: Well if that's the case, why aren't these people immediately deported?


Because immigration is a federal matter, not a state matter, so the state authorities don't have the authority to deport someone. All they can do is call ICE.

And, since every person must be given due process under law, they have a right to argue their case before deportation, which means a court case. It's worthwhile for someone who has been convicted of a violent crime, but not every person who is arrested is guilty.

durbnpoisn: If it's against any rules to keep them without bail, fine.  Let them go.  Back to their country of origin.

So you may be shocked to hear this, but people generally don't want to be deported. You can't just tell them "okay, you go back to your country now" and expect them buy a plane ticket or hop on next bus out of the US. You have to hold the person in a cell and then compel them to get on the plane.

In other words, you have to hold them without bail. So explain again how holding someone without bail for deportation is an answer when you can't hold someone without bail?

durbnposn: I don't think I will ever completely understand how and why people are willing to bend over backwards toaccommodate people that are not in this country legally to begin with.  Is it because of the cheap produce and affordable landscaping?

I personally wouldn't call following the laws and the Constitution "bending over backwards". I think of it more as "due process". It's all well and good to make these sort of "deport 'em all" arguments in the abstract; but the reality is quite different. These are real people you are talking about, many of them good honest people who desperately wanted to escape poverty and lack of opportunity in their own country. They work hard, pay taxes, don't cause trouble, and have kids who are American. In some cases they are people who were brought here as little children, and don't know any other country than America. Approximately half of undocumented aliens in this country came here legally on some kind of visa. Sometimes they just temporarily undocumented because of bureaucratic snafus. Other times they deliberately overstay a visa but then get married or do something else to legally change status.

So, let me ask you this. Why should I care less about them than I should about some random guy who happened to be born within the US? Why does one deserve every opportunity our country has to offer, while the other doesn't? Why wouldn't we just let people who want to come here and join us do so? Is there a reason America has to be an exclusive club?
 
2014-03-19 01:56:05 PM  

DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"


Isn't that what passports and visas are for?  To legally prove where you're from, and why you're are in another country at all?
There is not a country on this planet that will let you simply walk across the borders without some sort of proof as to who you are and why you're there.

Considering this to be the case, it is not uncommon for people to be here WITH all that paperwork in order, only to be thrown out once that paperwork expires.  And if you refuse to leave, you WILL be arrested and detained.  Possibly jailed for a while.  Then forcibly deported.

I'm not exactly sure where "crime" enters into this situation.  But if you are here with no legality, it's against the law.  So "crime" should be in there somewhere.
 
2014-03-19 01:56:13 PM  

JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department)


(1) The Constituion does not give you rights.  You have those rights by virtue of being alive.  All it does is spell out some rights because 17th and 18th century governments had a nasty habit of ignoring those (and most are specific to problems in the Colonies pre-Revolution.

(2) "foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority " would have confused the ever-living fark out of the writers of the Constiution.  Our idea of rigid, binary alien status didn't develop until the 1800s (and mostly in the late 1800s).  The idea that the writers of a document in 1787 was meant to be applied via a structure that wouldn't even exist for 50 - 100 years later is absurd.

(3) Even if said framework was completely developed and in place in 1787, the Enlightenment says that you have rights by the very nature of being human.  Unless you are saying every person who enters the borders of the US without the State Department's blessing is physically not human, and/or any person who is human physically becomes non-human the second their visa expires*, they have those rights, by the basic beliefs held by the writers of the Constitution (slaves need not apply, of course).

* BTW, if you hold to that level of transubstantiation, event he Opus Dei jack-offs will think you are looney
 
2014-03-19 01:56:21 PM  
Well, considering that bail can be denied to American citizens for certain crimes if there is a risk of flight, then sure, bail can be denied to illegal aliens.  What's good for citizens is good for illegals.
 
2014-03-19 01:58:08 PM  

dpzum1: Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.
BULLSHIAT


Well thank you for that informed and enlightened addition to this discussion.   You wanna try to back that up with a citation to a law or a court case or are you just gonna toddle back to your Teevee and watch Fox News secure in the knowledge that you KNOW you are right and don;t need no goldurn facts to support you?
 
2014-03-19 01:58:38 PM  

durbnpoisn: Isn't that what passports and visas are for?  To legally prove where you're from, and why you're are in another country at all?


Yes, but failure to comply with visa procedures doesn't make your presence 'illegal'. It means you failed to comply with a visa procedure.

Think about it in terms of traffic laws. Let's say I cross the street and walk into a mall. If I cross the street against a red light, and its jaywalking, does that now mean I'm "illegally shopping"?

durbnpoisn: There is not a country on this planet that will let you simply walk across the borders without some sort of proof as to who you are and why you're there.


You need to go to Europe. The Schengen area requires no IDs whatsoever to cross between countries. You just walk across the border.
 
2014-03-19 02:01:09 PM  

Zasteva: durbnpoisn: Magorn: Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

durbnpoisn: Well if that's the case, why aren't these people immediately deported?

Because immigration is a federal matter, not a state matter, so the state authorities don't have the authority to deport someone. All they can do is call ICE.

And, since every person must be given due process under law, they have a right to argue their case before deportation, which means a court case. It's worthwhile for someone who has been convicted of a violent crime, but not every person who is arrested is guilty.

durbnpoisn: If it's against any rules to keep them without bail, fine.  Let them go.  Back to their country of origin.

So you may be shocked to hear this, but people generally don't want to be deported. You can't just tell them "okay, you go back to your country now" and expect them buy a plane ticket or hop on next bus out of the US. You have to hold the person in a cell and then compel them to get on the plane.

In other words, you have to hold them without bail. So explain again how holding someone without bail for deportation is an answer when you can't hold someone without bail?

durbnposn: I don't think I will ever completely understand how and why people are willing to bend over backwards toaccommodate people that are not in this country legally to begin with.  Is it because of the cheap produce and affordable landscaping?

I personally wouldn't call following the laws and the Constitution "bending over backwards". I think of it more as "due process". It's all well and good to make these sort of "deport 'em all" arguments in the abstract; but the ...


I agree with the sentiment that "they are people".  So, fill out the papers and become a citizen.  It can't be that friggin difficult.  And it is, and I'm completely wrong about that, this argument needs to sway in favor of "let's make it easier."  The idea that we need to treat illegals as if they were just like every body who is legal is absurd.

In this particular case, I discount your argument that they are fine upstanding honest people.  If that were the case, what were they arrested for?
 
2014-03-19 02:01:32 PM  

beachdude: Damn Yankees said: How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"


Uh...yeah....

INA: ACT 266 - PENALTIES


Sec. 266. [8 U.S.C. 1306]

(a) Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian in the United States of any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section 265 of this title, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $200 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both. Irrespective of whether an alien is convicted and punished as herein provided, any alien who fails to give written notice to the Attorney General, as required by section , shall be taken into custody and removed in the manner provided by chapter 4 of this title, unless such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not willful.

(c) Any alien or any parent or legal guardian of any alien, who files an application for registration containing statements known by him to be false, or who procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000, or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and any alien so convicted shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custod ...


If you read carefully what you posted, the crime is failure to register when required, not for presence. Roughly 1/2 the unlawful aliens in this country registered when they got their visa.
 
2014-03-19 02:01:38 PM  

DamnYankees: Because there needs to be discretion. You can't make a law saying "all people who commit crime X are definitionally flight risks". It's prejudicial and might be unconstitutional.


The government can, and does.  See Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 545-46 (1952) (holding, in a case involving immigrants detained pending a determination of deportability, "The bail clause was lifted with slight changes from the English Bill of Rights Act. In England that clause has never been thought to accord a right to bail in all cases but merely to provide that bail shall not be excessive in those cases where it is proper to grant bail. When this clause was carried over into our Bill of Rights, nothing was said that indicated any different concept.... Indeed, the very language of the Amendment fails to say all arrests must be bailable.")
 
2014-03-19 02:03:20 PM  

durbnpoisn: I agree with the sentiment that "they are people".  So, fill out the papers and become a citizen.  It can't be that friggin difficult.  And it is, and I'm completely wrong about that, this argument needs to sway in favor of "let's make it easier."  The idea that we need to treat illegals as if they were just like every body who is legal is absurd.


It is that freaking difficult. See this chart:

reason.com

reason.com
 
2014-03-19 02:03:32 PM  

Magorn: Kit Fister: Magorn: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...in fact I KNOW it doesn't.

You need to understand the distinction between civil and criminal law.    IF I am the town of East Bumfarkistan and I put up a stop light at the edge of town  without doing a traffic study to ensure that the Stoplights meet federal DOT requirements for where such traffic control devices can be placed, that is an ILLEGAL stoplight, and subject to removal via court order if someone files suit and complains, but no one is going to jail for having put the stoplight up.

Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_State s

Except, according to the above, it IS a crime...
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[47]
        enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
        eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
        attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.

The ENTRY may be, the PRESENCE is not.  And unless you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the illegal entry (which would include being able to prove the precise time, place, and manner of entry, AND that they had criminal capacity (were old enough to know they were committing a crime) AND Mens Rea.  Absent that, all you know is that they ARE here which, again, is not a crime


See all those "or" words?

Only one of those need be established, and you don't have to present mens rea. All sorts of things are illegal and will get you prosecuted without intent to break the law.
 
2014-03-19 02:04:30 PM  

MasterThief: DamnYankees: Because there needs to be discretion. You can't make a law saying "all people who commit crime X are definitionally flight risks". It's prejudicial and might be unconstitutional.

The government can, and does.  See Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 545-46 (1952) (holding, in a case involving immigrants detained pending a determination of deportability, "The bail clause was lifted with slight changes from the English Bill of Rights Act. In England that clause has never been thought to accord a right to bail in all cases but merely to provide that bail shall not be excessive in those cases where it is proper to grant bail. When this clause was carried over into our Bill of Rights, nothing was said that indicated any different concept.... Indeed, the very language of the Amendment fails to say all arrests must be bailable.")


So you think that the 8th amendment means "bail can't be too high, but it can be infinitely high"?
 
2014-03-19 02:05:56 PM  

dpzum1: Until you actually live in an area that is overrun with ILLEGAL immigrants who tax the already tight economy, run afoul of the law, make demands of actual citizens as though they have the same rights, you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.


Did you just tell yourself to shut up and stay out of it? Or is there a big problem with illegal immigrants in New Haven, Connecticut that hasn't made the news?

Or, you could just try to do the same as an ILLEGAL immigrant in Mexico or South America and see where that gets you.

So because some countries treat their illegal immigrants badly, we should too? Bribery and corruption are commonplace in those countries as well. Should we copy them for those things too?
 
2014-03-19 02:07:39 PM  

Kit Fister: Similarly, it is not a crime, of ANY sort to simply be present in this country without proper authorization,   It is a Civil offense for which the only penalty is removal from the country (ie deportation).  Therefore denying basic constitutional freedoms to someone who has committed only a civil offense ould be exactly the same as denying you a right to vote because you received a parking ticket.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_State s

Except, according to the above, it IS a crime...
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[47]
        enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
        eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
        attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.


No. That's illegal entry, which is different than presence. If you sneak across the border, that's a crime. If you enter legally, then stay without proper authorization, that is not a crime.
 
2014-03-19 02:10:52 PM  

dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel.

The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.


See, this is exactly the idiocy that drives laws like this. Because someone has been arrested on charges of being in this country illegally doesn't mean they're actually guilty of that charge. Your'e trying to declare guilt, and punish someone, for merely being accused of a crime (as is this law.) You know why? Because you're a farking idiot. Those on the left, (and the small and diminishing number of sane and intelligent people on the right,) in that they both a: don't hate Latin Americans and b: don't trust the government to just get to declare whoever they want guilty without trial, oversight or any other checks and balances, recognize this as a bad law for that reason as did, thankfully, the people who put together the Bill of Rights. To protect citizens from idiots like you.
 
2014-03-19 02:11:10 PM  

JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department). While the US is bound by international treaties to treat illegal aliens with dignity and to honor their human rights, it is not bound to afford full constitutional protections to them.


You couldn't be more wrong.

There are numerous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled that most constitutional protections extend to undocumented aliens on our soil, people held by the US off our soil, and even "enemy combatants".

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld
 
2014-03-19 02:12:52 PM  

Slappajo: Hopefully Mexico will invade to protect its citizens like Putin did Crimea.  We can get rid of TX, AZ, NM, and the bottom half of CA.


It would be a fine bit of turnabout, since that's pretty much how the US got Texas from Mexico in the first place.
 
2014-03-19 02:13:24 PM  

DamnYankees: durbnpoisn: I agree with the sentiment that "they are people".  So, fill out the papers and become a citizen.  It can't be that friggin difficult.  And it is, and I'm completely wrong about that, this argument needs to sway in favor of "let's make it easier."  The idea that we need to treat illegals as if they were just like every body who is legal is absurd.

It is that freaking difficult. See this chart:

[reason.com image 850x550]

[reason.com image 850x550]


I'm sorry, but the text was too small for me to read entirely.  Even posted twice :). But I get the gist of what it says.
And to that effect, as I stated before, maybe it needs to be made easier.

But the thing is, people, for the most part, don't even try.  They don't do anything to begin the process.
 
2014-03-19 02:15:59 PM  

durbnpoisn: But the thing is, people, for the most part, don't even try.  They don't do anything to begin the process.


Can you cite this? I mean, a quick googling shows that there are about 40 million legal immigrants in the US, compared to about 12 million illegal. So just counting people who actually succeed in getting here, it's a 4-1 ratio of people doing it legally. If you then count the number of people who are (i) in the process of trying to get here and (ii) have went through the legitimate path but were denied entry, the ratio is even higher.
 
2014-03-19 02:16:45 PM  
Of course, the other issue is a state law that might conflict with federal authority. Immigration is a federal issue. I really don't think a state can pass any laws concerning it and make them stick.
 
2014-03-19 02:17:44 PM  
GOPees were just fine with surveillance and unreasonable searches when they were targeting brown people. Now that it's white people being affected, it's a problem.
 
2014-03-19 02:19:46 PM  

mr intrepid: Of course, the other issue is a state law that might conflict with federal authority. Immigration is a federal issue. I really don't think a state can pass any laws concerning it and make them stick.


Yup that was before the Supreme Court already. Immigration issues are a Federal matter.
 
2014-03-19 02:24:46 PM  

DamnYankees: durbnpoisn: I agree with the sentiment that "they are people".  So, fill out the papers and become a citizen.  It can't be that friggin difficult.  And it is, and I'm completely wrong about that, this argument needs to sway in favor of "let's make it easier."  The idea that we need to treat illegals as if they were just like every body who is legal is absurd.

It is that freaking difficult. See this chart:

[reason.com image 850x550]

[reason.com image 850x550]



Then streamline the procedure so that applicants get their "yes" or "no" a lot faster.
At the same time, make it easier to detain and deport illegal aliens.
 
2014-03-19 02:29:32 PM  
ok, so if we cant hold them without bail because we determine they are here illegally, why are they not immediately deported then?

i mean, thats what people in this thread are saying... so lets get with the deporting already. if determined to not have authorization to be here, get em out!
 
2014-03-19 02:35:31 PM  
durbnpoisn: I agree with the sentiment that "they are people".  So, fill out the papers and become a citizen.  It can't be that friggin difficult.  And it is, and I'm completely wrong about that, this argument needs to sway in favor of "let's make it easier."  The idea that we need to treat illegals as if they were just like every body who is legal is absurd.

I applaud your sentiment, but you clearly have zero experience with immigration. It is extremely difficult, expensive, and often humiliating.

I paid $8,000 to the local public school system and arranged special english instruction so I could bring my 12 year old nephew to study here for a year. I had documentation for all of it. We paid hundreds of dollars in application fees, and had him travel half way across his country by bus to go to the US embassy for his visa. The mother-raping S.O.B who took his application mocked him to his face and denied his visa because his english wasn't good enough.

I have dozens of similar stories that I can personally attest to.

And these weren't even for immigrant visas, just for tourist or student visas. Immigrant visas have caps on total number of immigrants.

Our immigration system is badly broken.

The idea that we need to treat illegals as if they were just like every body who is legal is absurd.

Nobody said "like everybody else". We said they get the same due process protections under law. If you don't like it, fine. Go ahead and give up your due process protections. If you happen to get arrested without ID, we'll hold you without bail or access to the courts and then deport you as quickly as possible. Where did you say you are from?

In this particular case, I discount your argument that they are fine upstanding honest people.  If that were the case, what were they arrested for?

I don't know. I personally have been arrested for riding a motorcycle without the proper motorcycle endorsement. In court showed the judge that I had gotten the proper endorsement and it was dismissed. I think I paid like $40 in court costs. Even the judge was surprised that I was arrested for that. Imagine if the cop who decided to arrest me had the power to hold me with no access to the courts and deport me.
 
2014-03-19 02:35:52 PM  

Magorn: The ENTRY may be, the PRESENCE is not. And unless you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the illegal entry (which would include being able to prove the precise time, place, and manner of entry, AND that they had criminal capacity (were old enough to know they were committing a crime) AND Mens Rea. Absent that, all you know is that they ARE here which, again, is not a crime


[Citation needed]
 
2014-03-19 02:35:56 PM  

give me doughnuts: At the same time, make it easier to detain and deport illegal aliens.


Why? What's the benefit of this?
 
2014-03-19 02:36:28 PM  

Zasteva: No. That's illegal entry, which is different than presence. If you sneak across the border, that's a crime. If you enter legally, then stay without proper authorization, that is not a crime.


Actually, that is a crime, according to that article...
 
2014-03-19 02:39:33 PM  

DamnYankees: durbnpoisn: Isn't that what passports and visas are for?  To legally prove where you're from, and why you're are in another country at all?

Yes, but failure to comply with visa procedures doesn't make your presence 'illegal'. It means you failed to comply with a visa procedure.

Think about it in terms of traffic laws. Let's say I cross the street and walk into a mall. If I cross the street against a red light, and its jaywalking, does that now mean I'm "illegally shopping"?

durbnpoisn: There is not a country on this planet that will let you simply walk across the borders without some sort of proof as to who you are and why you're there.

You need to go to Europe. The Schengen area requires no IDs whatsoever to cross between countries. You just walk across the border.


Or you can go to Mexico where Hispanics from south or THEIR border are required to either come up with a bribe and keep moving north or endure a severe beating and deportation.
A nation that lacks the will to enforce its own laws and borders is on borrowed time.
 
2014-03-19 02:41:38 PM  

Fusilier: Or you can go to Mexico where Hispanics from south or THEIR border are required to either come up with a bribe and keep moving north or endure a severe beating and deportation.


You think this is a good thing?
 
2014-03-19 02:42:32 PM  

Thingster: Except, according to the above, it IS a crime...
Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:[47]
        enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
        eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
        attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.
The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.

The ENTRY may be, the PRESENCE is not.  And unless you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the illegal entry (which would include being able to prove the precise time, place, and manner of entry, AND that they had criminal capacity (were old enough to know they were committing a crime) AND Mens Rea.  Absent that, all you know is that they ARE here which, again, is not a crime


See all those "or" words?

Only one of those need be established, and you don't have to present mens rea. All sorts of things are illegal and will get you prosecuted without intent to break the law.


Which of those words means "presence"?
 
2014-03-19 02:45:02 PM  

Kit Fister: Zasteva: No. That's illegal entry, which is different than presence. If you sneak across the border, that's a crime. If you enter legally, then stay without proper authorization, that is not a crime.

Actually, that is a crime, according to that article...


Please point the specific section that says that, or the part of the US Code. 'cause I'm not seeing it.
 
2014-03-19 02:48:15 PM  

durbnpoisn: I'm sorry, but the text was too small for me to read entirely.  Even posted twice :). But I get the gist of what it says.
And to that effect, as I stated before, maybe it needs to be made easier.


Here it is full size:  http://www.grantstoddard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/legal-immigr at ion1.jpg

But the thing is, people, for the most part, don't even try.  They don't do anything to begin the process.

If you are an unskilled laborer without immediately family who are citizens or permanent residents, there is no process.
 
2014-03-19 02:48:23 PM  

DamnYankees: durbnpoisn: But the thing is, people, for the most part, don't even try.  They don't do anything to begin the process.

Can you cite this? I mean, a quick googling shows that there are about 40 million legal immigrants in the US, compared to about 12 million illegal. So just counting people who actually succeed in getting here, it's a 4-1 ratio of people doing it legally. If you then count the number of people who are (i) in the process of trying to get here and (ii) have went through the legitimate path but were denied entry, the ratio is even higher.


No, I cannot cite this specifically.  But if I didn't have a point, then what the hell is everyone arguing about?  Clearly there are far more people than we can handle that are not trying to get with the system at all.

It really does begin to become a problem for me when I hear how we have to allow them to get driver's licenses or vote.  Really?!  You're not even a citizen and you want the right to vote?!  Find me another country on this planet where that is even an option.
 
2014-03-19 02:50:07 PM  

Zasteva: So, let me ask you this. Why should I care less about them than I should about some random guy who happened to be born within the US? Why does one deserve every opportunity our country has to offer, while the other doesn't? Why wouldn't we just let people who want to come here and join us do so? Is there a reason America has to be an exclusive club?


So, let me ask you this. Why should I care less about them than I should about some random guy who happened to be born in Canada? Why does one deserve every opportunity Canada has to offer, while the other doesn't? Why wouldn't they just let people who want to go there and join them do so? Is there a reason Canada has to be an exclusive club?

So, let me ask you this. Why should I care less about them than I should about some random guy who happened to be born in Russia? Why does one deserve every opportunity Russia has to offer, while the other doesn't? Why wouldn't they just let people who want to go there and join them do so? Is there a reason Russia has to be an exclusive club?

So, let me ask you this. Why should I care less about them than I should about some random guy who happened to be born in Iran? Why does one deserve every opportunity Iran has to offer, while the other doesn't? Why wouldn't they just let people who want to go there and join them do so? Is there a reason Iran has to be an exclusive club?

So, let me ask you this. Why should I care less about them than I should about some random guy who happened to be born in Mexico? Why does one deserve every opportunity Mexico has to offer, while the other doesn't? Why wouldn't they just let people who want to go there and join them do so? Is there a reason Mexico has to be an exclusive club?

...derpderpderp

The reason we are an exclusive club is the same reason every other country is an exclusive club. That reason is that like them, we are a soverign country.
 
2014-03-19 02:51:45 PM  

DamnYankees: Why? What's the benefit of this?


do you know if those illegals are murderers or rapists or drug dealers? Me either. ANd since they didn't come in through proper channels, there's no way I can tell until something bad happens.
 
2014-03-19 02:52:09 PM  

durbnpoisn: It really does begin to become a problem for me when I hear how we have to allow them to get driver's licenses or vote.  Really?!  You're not even a citizen and you want the right to vote?!  Find me another country on this planet where that is even an option.


There's literally an entire wikipedia article about this -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote

People don't object to opinions like yours out of thin air. We do so because each of your objections is made out of apparent ignorance and an unwillingness to do even the most basic research which undermine your claims.
 
2014-03-19 02:52:41 PM  

Zasteva: durbnpoisn: I'm sorry, but the text was too small for me to read entirely.  Even posted twice :). But I get the gist of what it says.
And to that effect, as I stated before, maybe it needs to be made easier.

Here it is full size:  http://www.grantstoddard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/legal-immigr at ion1.jpg

But the thing is, people, for the most part, don't even try.  They don't do anything to begin the process.

If you are an unskilled laborer without immediately family who are citizens or permanent residents, there is no process.


I'm sorry, but that is as it should be.  I'm sorry people are born in different countries.  But it's not up to us to take everyone in who really serves no purpose in society.  We've got enough of them that were born here, and are totally useless.
If you are a person that wants to work, and wants to be a productive member of society, get the paperwork started.  Even if it takes 10 years, you are no longer just some illegal immigrant at that point.
 
2014-03-19 02:52:59 PM  

Kit Fister: DamnYankees: Why? What's the benefit of this?

do you know if those illegals are murderers or rapists or drug dealers? Me either. ANd since they didn't come in through proper channels, there's no way I can tell until something bad happens.


I fail to see how this has anything to do with immigration. I don't know if ANYONE is a rapist or murderer or drug dealer. You might be, for all I know.
 
2014-03-19 02:53:02 PM  

dpzum1: Until you actually live in an area that is overrun with ILLEGAL immigrants who tax the already tight economy, run afoul of the law, make demands of actual citizens as though they have the same rights, you shouldn't be so quick to criticize.
Or, you could just try to do the same as an ILLEGAL immigrant in Mexico or South America and see where that gets you.


^^^^
this
 
2014-03-19 02:53:36 PM  

Kit Fister: DamnYankees: Why? What's the benefit of this?

do you know if those illegals are murderers or rapists or drug dealers? Me either. ANd since they didn't come in through proper channels, there's no way I can tell until something bad happens.


I getcha, so because you have a birth certificate and a social security number, if you end up in jail we'll definitely know whether or not you're a rapist, huh?

You idiot...
 
2014-03-19 02:54:58 PM  

Kit Fister: Magorn: The ENTRY may be, the PRESENCE is not. And unless you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the illegal entry (which would include being able to prove the precise time, place, and manner of entry, AND that they had criminal capacity (were old enough to know they were committing a crime) AND Mens Rea. Absent that, all you know is that they ARE here which, again, is not a crime

[Citation needed]


Here you are:
static.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com

the one from my bookshelf
 
2014-03-19 02:58:33 PM  

Zasteva: durbnpoisn: I'm sorry, but the text was too small for me to read entirely.  Even posted twice :). But I get the gist of what it says.
And to that effect, as I stated before, maybe it needs to be made easier.

Here it is full size:  http://www.grantstoddard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/legal-immigr at ion1.jpg

But the thing is, people, for the most part, don't even try.  They don't do anything to begin the process.

If you are an unskilled laborer without immediately family who are citizens or permanent residents, there is no process.


Jumping a fence, or burrowing is not a "process" I take it? Maybe not a legal one.
I see this as everyone is assuming those detained are here legally with vias's and such and just over stayed the visa time. Not the one's who are jumping the fence in the dead of night and running from the BP and then blending in with the rest of the population. So their entry was illegal, though apparently not if it cannot be proven. But also their presence being here is also not a crime, so........no big deal.
 
2014-03-19 03:08:43 PM  
umad: [...derpderpderp]

The reason we are an exclusive club is the same reason every other country is an exclusive club. That reason is that like them, we are a soverign country.


I think you are confusing the idea of lifting immigration caps with the idea of no restrictions at all. 

The problem isn't that we have requirements for immigrants; the problem is that we have arbitrary limits on the number of people who come in, regardless whether they meet the requirements or not.

A number of countries do not have caps on immigration, while still having requirements for perspective immigrants.
 
2014-03-19 03:11:29 PM  

DamnYankees: durbnpoisn: It really does begin to become a problem for me when I hear how we have to allow them to get driver's licenses or vote.  Really?!  You're not even a citizen and you want the right to vote?!  Find me another country on this planet where that is even an option.

There's literally an entire wikipedia article about this -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote

People don't object to opinions like yours out of thin air. We do so because each of your objections is made out of apparent ignorance and an unwillingness to do even the most basic research which undermine your claims.


Wow.  You really got me there.  No sarcasm implied.
I didn't realize that was even a reality.  Which, incidentally, is why I never thought to look it up.

Now after reading it, I still completely object to the concept.

Evidently, many people smarter than myself think it's a pretty good idea for non-citizens to vote.  I don't.
I seriously don't want people who are not citizens having any say at all in what citizens can do and cannot.  But clearly, that argument has already been lost.  And I'm on the losing side.
 
2014-03-19 03:12:47 PM  

dpzum1: Until you actually live in an area that is overrun with ILLEGAL immigrants who tax the already tight economy


And what if he's from NYC, which is over 35% foreign born, and is a thriving center of commerce and trade?
 
2014-03-19 03:15:02 PM  
DamnYankees: So you think that the 8th amendment means "bail can't be too high, but it can be infinitely high"?

More like "We don't always offer defendants bail.  But when we do, the amount is reasonable."

Think of it like your basic contract.  The state, having no legal obligation to let the defendant go free before trial, nonetheless offers to let the defendant go free in exchange for the defendant's promise that they will show up for trial (an offer).  Sometimes the state considers the defendant's agreement (acceptance) and their promise to appear to be sufficient, and releases them "on their own recognizance." But usually the state will require the defendant to put up some collateral (consideration) to secure their appearance - usually a sum of money or an equivalent bail bond - and/or agree to restrictions on their movement - e.g. surrendering passports, not leaving the locality without permission - they don't appear or don't comply with the terms, they're subject to detention, and the posted collateral is forfeited.  If the state chooses to make the offer, the terms they offer must be reasonable, not excessive.  That's the Eighth Amendment.

But the state isn't required to make the offer at all if they don't think the other party is willing to perform in good faith, or has no leverage to ensure performance.  This is the situation between the state and illegal immigrants.  These immigrants don't have much money or own property to serve as collateral.  They have no passports to forfeit, and they have family and friends abroad.  Almost by definition, they're a flight risk, and outside of jail, the state has no way to ensure they'll keep a promise to appear, and they've been burned enough times by other defendants that they don't think it worth the hassle to offer.  Unfair?  Maybe.  Unreasonable?  Not really.  Unconstitutional? Nope.
 
2014-03-19 03:18:45 PM  
durbnpoisn: Zasteva:  If you are an unskilled laborer without immediately family who are citizens or permanent residents, there is no process.


durbnpoisn: I'm sorry, but that is as it should be.  I'm sorry people are born in different countries.  But it's not up to us to take everyone in who really serves no purpose in society.  We've got enough of them that were born here, and are totally useless.
If you are a person that wants to work, and wants to be a productive member of society, get the paperwork started.  Even if it takes 10 years, you are no longer just some illegal immigrant at that point.


You really think an unskilled laborer who is willing to travel great distances, undergo tremendous hardship and risk arrest to work long hours at a low paying job is "useless" and "serves no purpose in society"?

It sounds like you imagine illegal immigrants as showing up and just lazing around eating the government cheese. That's just not how it is.
 
2014-03-19 03:28:14 PM  

alomar: Zasteva: If you are an unskilled laborer without immediately family who are citizens or permanent residents, there is no process.

alomar: Jumping a fence, or burrowing is not a "process" I take it? Maybe not a legal one.


Yes, we were discussing legal processes.

I see this as everyone is assuming those detained are here legally with vias's and such and just over stayed the visa time.

Nobody is saying that. We are pointing out that about 1/2 of "illegals" are not criminals. And the other half committed the crime of crossing the border (which wasn't a crime until 1992 IIRC). So an assumption that anyone here illegally is automatically a criminal is false.

Not the one's who are jumping the fence in the dead of night and running from the BP and then blending in with the rest of the population. So their entry was illegal, though apparently not if it cannot be proven. But also their presence being here is also not a crime, so........no big deal.

Yeah, their entry was a crime (at least after 1992). So is trespassing in a national park when it's closed by government shutdown. I personally am not terribly concerned about either one. So yeah, no big deal. It seems like we have much bigger things to worry about.
 
2014-03-19 03:29:36 PM  

DamnYankees: give me doughnuts: At the same time, make it easier to detain and deport illegal aliens.

Why? What's the benefit of this?


You have fewer illegal aliens in your country.
 
2014-03-19 03:32:26 PM  

Zasteva: durbnpoisn: Zasteva:  If you are an unskilled laborer without immediately family who are citizens or permanent residents, there is no process.


durbnpoisn: I'm sorry, but that is as it should be.  I'm sorry people are born in different countries.  But it's not up to us to take everyone in who really serves no purpose in society.  We've got enough of them that were born here, and are totally useless.
If you are a person that wants to work, and wants to be a productive member of society, get the paperwork started.  Even if it takes 10 years, you are no longer just some illegal immigrant at that point.

You really think an unskilled laborer who is willing to travel great distances, undergo tremendous hardship and risk arrest to work long hours at a low paying job is "useless" and "serves no purpose in society"?

It sounds like you imagine illegal immigrants as showing up and just lazing around eating the government cheese. That's just not how it is.


I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?
 
2014-03-19 03:32:27 PM  

Zasteva: durbnpoisn: Zasteva:  If you are an unskilled laborer without immediately family who are citizens or permanent residents, there is no process.


durbnpoisn: I'm sorry, but that is as it should be.  I'm sorry people are born in different countries.  But it's not up to us to take everyone in who really serves no purpose in society.  We've got enough of them that were born here, and are totally useless.
If you are a person that wants to work, and wants to be a productive member of society, get the paperwork started.  Even if it takes 10 years, you are no longer just some illegal immigrant at that point.

You really think an unskilled laborer who is willing to travel great distances, undergo tremendous hardship and risk arrest to work long hours at a low paying job is "useless" and "serves no purpose in society"?

It sounds like you imagine illegal immigrants as showing up and just lazing around eating the government cheese. That's just not how it is.


Do illegal immigrants depress wages? It is axiomatic that they are doing jobs that U.S. citizens (and legal immigrants) do not want to do............for the money that is offered. If we accept that the laws of supply and demand actually work, why will an endless supply of cheap labor not serve to keep wages low?
 
2014-03-19 03:35:08 PM  

MasterThief: DamnYankees: So you think that the 8th amendment means "bail can't be too high, but it can be infinitely high"?

More like "We don't always offer defendants bail.  But when we do, the amount is reasonable."

Think of it like your basic contract.  The state, having no legal obligation to let the defendant go free before trial, nonetheless offers to let the defendant go free in exchange for the defendant's promise that they will show up for trial (an offer).  Sometimes the state considers the defendant's agreement (acceptance) and their promise to appear to be sufficient, and releases them "on their own recognizance." But usually the state will require the defendant to put up some collateral (consideration) to secure their appearance - usually a sum of money or an equivalent bail bond - and/or agree to restrictions on their movement - e.g. surrendering passports, not leaving the locality without permission - they don't appear or don't comply with the terms, they're subject to detention, and the posted collateral is forfeited.  If the state chooses to make the offer, the terms they offer must be reasonable, not excessive.  That's the Eighth Amendment.

But the state isn't required to make the offer at all if they don't think the other party is willing to perform in good faith, or has no leverage to ensure performance.  This is the situation between the state and illegal immigrants.  These immigrants don't have much money or own property to serve as collateral.  They have no passports to forfeit, and they have family and friends abroad.  Almost by definition, they're a flight risk, and outside of jail, the state has no way to ensure they'll keep a promise to appear, and they've been burned enough times by other defendants that they don't think it worth the hassle to offer.  Unfair?  Maybe.  Unreasonable?  Not really.  Unconstitutional? Nope.


I think you are correct. But one thing, we are entitled to a speedy trial. If we don't offer bail, then that obligates the state to act more quickly since it increases the "prejudice to the defendant" to have them sitting in jail for a long time awaiting trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo )
 
2014-03-19 03:39:50 PM  

vartian: dkendr: The 9th Circuit is the loony left's favorite judge kennel. The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

You people just love the Constitution until you don't.


They love the 2nd Amendment, and they love the First and Tenth when it suits them. Everything else is 'Just a goddamned piece of paper'.
 
2014-03-19 03:44:04 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?


Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.
 
2014-03-19 03:47:11 PM  

durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?


We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.
 
2014-03-19 03:47:54 PM  

DamnYankees: I fail to see how this has anything to do with immigration. I don't know if ANYONE is a rapist or murderer or drug dealer. You might be, for all I know.


Here's how it applies. If I apply to immigrate, they do a background check, they put me on file, and so on. They know about previous criminal activities, and they know if I have any outstanding criminal wants or warrants, because that shows up on a background check.

If I come here illegally, then none of that was done.

Now, I don't know about you, but if I had a criminal past, I would expect no country would take me. THAT'S why it matters, and why should apply to immigration.
 
2014-03-19 03:49:33 PM  

gerrymander: Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?

Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.



The flight risk determination has to be made on an individual basis.
18 U.S.C.S. § 3142(g) lays out the factors to be considered.
 
2014-03-19 03:51:24 PM  

give me doughnuts: The flight risk determination has to be made on an individual basis.
18 U.S.C.S. § 3142(g) lays out the factors to be considered.


Thank you. I knew that he was wrong, but was struggling to cite a source.
 
2014-03-19 03:51:43 PM  
Zasteva: It sounds like you imagine illegal immigrants as showing up and just lazing around eating the government cheese. That's just not how it is.

durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

As an employer, I don't care where a person was born. I want to know they will work hard and do a good job. I see no reason to favor someone born in Los Angeles over someone born in Mexico City. I might favor someone who lives near me verses someone blowing through town, since that helps my local economy more, and they will be more likely to care about my recommendation to other employers and their reputation around town.

dubnpoisn: I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

I'm not advocating hiring illegals per se. I'm arguing for allowing people who want the legal right to be here and work. So they'd all be here legally; at that point it's a matter of hiring the person who will best do the job. 

Fusilier: Do illegal immigrants depress wages? It is axiomatic that they are doing jobs that U.S. citizens (and legal immigrants) do not want to do............for the money that is offered. If we accept that the laws of supply and demand actually work, why will an endless supply of cheap labor not serve to keep wages low?


Yes, illegal immigrants depress wages. 

If they were given legal status, that would be less of an issue. They would be subject to minimum wage laws; and be paying into the system the same as any other worker. With their higher wages they would also generate more demand for goods and services; stimulating the economy.

I'm also not advocating lifting immigration caps overnight, but rather lifting them steadily over the course of 5 or 10 years.
 
2014-03-19 03:54:49 PM  

gerrymander: Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?

Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.


Which is not all illegal immigrants, since roughly half entered the country legally and overstayed visas. Besides, there are other factors; the severity of the crime and expected punishment, whether the person has a family, a steady job, owns property, etc... Just saying they are undocumented doesn't establish prima facie evidence that they are a flight risk.
 
2014-03-19 03:54:53 PM  

EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.



So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.
 
2014-03-19 03:57:36 PM  

give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.

give me doughnuts: So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.


So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?
 
2014-03-19 04:04:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.


So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.


The laws for our ancestors were to basically show up and be white, and take the land from it's current occupants.. We've since decided those who come after us have somehow less right to better themselves.
 
2014-03-19 04:06:01 PM  

EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.


Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.
 
2014-03-19 04:10:51 PM  

durbnpoisn: EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.

Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.


I love the concept that by luck of birth you think you have more right to be here and provide for your family than somebody else. Our ancestors didn't legally take this land from the native people, they seized it by force, and then started setting up rules for who else was allowed, largely based on skin color.
 
2014-03-19 04:12:40 PM  

Zasteva: So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?


I'm not him, but no, I wouldn't be OK with that.
 
2014-03-19 04:14:10 PM  

gerrymander: Gecko Gingrich: See how it outlines what applies to "citizens" and what applies to "any person", indicating a clear distinction between the two?

Assessing 'flight risk' is a part of due process. Perhaps unsurprisingly, people who display prima facie evidence of ignoring border restrictions can be legally considered as flight risks, and thus detained until trial.


Given the nature of Arizona's laws for determining grounds for arrest, I'd say you're being pretty frivolous with your prima facie label, there. Again, what's effectively being done here is determining guilt prior to a trial and punishing based on that. In fact, since this is flat out law, allowing no discretion on the part of the judge (something bail is supposed to reflect,) it's assessing guilt even before the arrest. It also taints a trial, passing on that assessment of guilt to the trial itself. A person charged with illegal immigration, allowed no bail because they're considered a flight risk due to being, "already considered guilty of being an illegal immigrant," is going to walk into a trial even more condemned. No, it's bad policy, bad law and bad thinking, which is why, thank goodness, we have federal laws against it. 

In short, don't do that.
 
2014-03-19 04:18:42 PM  

Kit Fister: Zasteva: So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?

I'm not him, but no, I wouldn't be OK with that.


Well since you weren't arguing that the only important thing is to follow the current rules, then I'm not sure what good your answer does. 

Unless you want to explain why not and get in a discussion about that point?
 
2014-03-19 04:20:26 PM  

Zasteva: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.

give me doughnuts: So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.

So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?


No, I would work to keep laws like that from getting passed. The likeliest out come of something like that would be a destroyed economy.


The laws for our ancestors were to basically show up and be white, and take the land from it's current occupants.. We've since decided those who come after us have somehow less right to better themselves.


Show up, be white, register with the local government, keep the documents they gave you, and stay out of trouble for ___ years.

Two important steps.
 
2014-03-19 04:21:22 PM  
Sorry, Kit Fister. That didn't quite come out right. I was trying to say that it's his answer that I'm interested in. I appreciate you stating your view and didn't mean to dismiss it or otherwise imply that your view is worthless. When I reread what I wrote I realized it sounded like I was dissing you.
 
2014-03-19 04:23:59 PM  

Zasteva: umad: [...derpderpderp]

The reason we are an exclusive club is the same reason every other country is an exclusive club. That reason is that like them, we are a soverign country.

I think you are confusing the idea of lifting immigration caps with the idea of no restrictions at all.
The problem isn't that we have requirements for immigrants; the problem is that we have arbitrary limits on the number of people who come in, regardless whether they meet the requirements or not.

A number of countries do not have caps on immigration, while still having requirements for perspective immigrants.


Requirements == exclusive club.
 
2014-03-19 04:31:08 PM  

Zasteva: Well since you weren't arguing that the only important thing is to follow the current rules, then I'm not sure what good your answer does.

Unless you want to explain why not and get in a discussion about that point?


Basically, the way I see it, is that there has to be controls on immigration. Whatever happened in the past happened in the past. As of RIGHT NOW, I'd much rather NOT throw open the doors to anyone that could get here by hook or by crook, because I'd be leery of the types of folks who would come here under false pretenses or even to cause trouble.

Not everyone is interested in immigrating because they want a better life. Some people want to immigrate because they see a land of riches and they would rather take that dishonestly rather than work hard for it.
 
2014-03-19 04:33:59 PM  
give me doughnuts: Zasteva: give me doughnuts: EWreckedSean: Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here.

give me doughnuts: So long as they obey the current immigration and naturalization laws, like my ancestors did, then they have the same chance.

Zasteva: So you will be fine with it if we change the laws to naturalize everyone already here and allow anyone who can get here to immigrate?

give me doughnuts: No, I would work to keep laws like that from getting passed. The likeliest outcome of something like that would be a destroyed economy.


Our population is growing at the slowest rate since the 1930s, 0.7% per year. Sure, if we opened the flood gates all at once it would be a bad thing. But I think we can gradually lift the caps. 

More people means more demand for goods and services. Especially if those people can participate fully in the economy.


EWreckedSean: The laws for our ancestors were to basically show up and be white, and take the land from it's current occupants.. We've since decided those who come after us have somehow less right to better themselves.

give me doughnuts: Show up, be white, register with the local government, keep the documents they gave you, and stay out of trouble for ___ years. Two important steps.


I'm fine with requiring people to register on entry, and deporting them if they commit a violent crime or any kind of felony before they get citizenship. What I want to see are an end to the arbitrary caps.


Anyway, it seems your position is not just "follow the laws" but also "not too many, please".
 
2014-03-19 04:36:56 PM  

umad: Zasteva: umad: [...derpderpderp]

The reason we are an exclusive club is the same reason every other country is an exclusive club. That reason is that like them, we are a soverign country.

I think you are confusing the idea of lifting immigration caps with the idea of no restrictions at all.
The problem isn't that we have requirements for immigrants; the problem is that we have arbitrary limits on the number of people who come in, regardless whether they meet the requirements or not.

A number of countries do not have caps on immigration, while still having requirements for perspective immigrants.

Requirements == exclusive club.


Fair enough.
 
2014-03-19 04:38:32 PM  
Wouldn't be a simple matter of considering them an automatic flight risk.  I mean, if they are unlawfully in the US and accused of a crime, the fact that they have no official ties to the US means that they are less inclined to participate in the judicial process if they are released.  Bail is used to compel an individual to participate in the judicial process, and for certain crimes and individuals no bail is granted because no amount is seen as being sufficient to ensure they return to the court if allowed released. Furthermore, the fact that they are within the country illegally means that releasing them back to the public would allow them to continue to violate this aspect of the law (whether civil or criminal offense) therefore the act of granting bail could be aiding and abetting the illegal act.  Once the individual is in custody, both aspects of their custody (criminal offense, and status to remain in the US) should be adjudicated before they are released (assuming they are granted a right to remain).
 
2014-03-19 04:46:02 PM  

EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: EWreckedSean: durbnpoisn: I'm sure you're correct.  And that goes back to the whole, "The world needs ditch diggers" argument.  This is the argument that people use when they talk about illegals taking American jobs.

I'll agree with you to the extent that, "unskilled laborer" is entirely too vague a concept.  Because you're right.  If the person is willing to work, let them work.  There is no reason to deny someone citizenship if they intend to work, no matter what that job is.  I think that the idea behind them having that restriction is that there are already a gazillion people in this country legally that could be doing that job.  So why offer it to someone else?

We are a nation of immigrants. Why does someone today not deserve the chance that was given to your relatives that got you here. Besides which, work isn't a zero sum game. More people create more jobs.

Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.

I love the concept that by luck of birth you think you have more right to be here and provide for your family than somebody else. Our ancestors didn't legally take this land from the native people, they seized it by force, and then started setting up rules for who else was allowed, largely based on skin color.


That is a completely different, and completely outdated argument.
Is it wrong that Europe walked in and took over the land from those that they considered "uncivilized"?  Of course.  But what other friggin way would it have gone?  There is pretty much no way to stop an industrialized society from spreading, and quickly.  Unfortunately, those that are not as industrialized tend to get pushed out.  It sucks.  But that's the way it happens even today.

It's actually kind of a curious point that every society on the other side of both major oceans were busy industrializing themselves for centuries.  But the people that lived here, given the same amount of time, didn't do that.  Or the ones that did, or tried (like the Mayans, for instance), ended up collapsing on themselves.  That's why they got conquered.  And this is NOT the only country where that happened.  In fact, it's happened everywhere.
 
2014-03-19 04:47:45 PM  

Kit Fister: Zasteva: Well since you weren't arguing that the only important thing is to follow the current rules, then I'm not sure what good your answer does.

Unless you want to explain why not and get in a discussion about that point?

Basically, the way I see it, is that there has to be controls on immigration. Whatever happened in the past happened in the past. As of RIGHT NOW, I'd much rather NOT throw open the doors to anyone that could get here by hook or by crook, because I'd be leery of the types of folks who would come here under false pretenses or even to cause trouble.


I agree there should be controls. Especially on people with criminal histories. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. And we should deport people who commit serious crimes during a probationary period of a few years. 

What I want to end is the arbitrary caps that most types of immigrants are subject too.

I want to make it easy enough to immigrate if you are legit that anyone who is trying to sneak across the border is obvious someone we really don't want here.

Not everyone is interested in immigrating because they want a better life. Some people want to immigrate because they see a land of riches and they would rather take that dishonestly rather than work hard for it.

I'm sure that's true. Of course, it's hard to see why they would want to come to a country with a strong legal system, relatively low corruption, and lots of crime-fighting capabilities rather than stay in their own where they can employ those tactics more easily. Unless they've already gotten rich in their country; but we let those guys in already regardless. If you've got a million dollars to invest you currently have no trouble getting a visa.
 
2014-03-19 04:57:57 PM  

durbnpoisn: That's why they got conquered.  And this is NOT the only country where that happened.  In fact, it's happened everywhere.


Oh for the love of...

If you want to make some sort of argument about how conquest is what it is and we can't change it, that's fine. There's an argument there.

But please, PLEASE stop talking about specific things about which you appear to have no knowledge. First of all, it was the Aztecs and Incas, not the Mayans, who got conquered - the Mayans peaked about 500 years before the Spanish ever got there. Secondly, the Aztec's got conquered mostly because they all died of smallpox right before the major battle. It was a historical fluke, a freak interplay of biology which has nothing to do with the failure of the Indians to 'industrialize' themselves - the European industrial revolution didn't even happen until 300 years after the Spanish conquest of the Americas.
 
2014-03-19 05:19:27 PM  

DamnYankees: But please, PLEASE stop talking about specific things about which you appear to have no knowledge



Area man passionate defender of what he imagines history to be?
 
2014-03-19 05:25:57 PM  

give me doughnuts: DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"

No, but there should be.


Hey, everyone, the new legal standard of 'well, it SHOULD be that way!'
 
2014-03-19 05:39:35 PM  
A

PsiChick: give me doughnuts: DamnYankees: dkendr: The law was passed to punish people in this country illegally?  YOU DON'T SAY.

How can someone be in a country illegally? Is there a law saying "if you do not comply with immigration procedures, your presence on American territory is, in and of itself, a crime?"

No, but there should be.

Hey, everyone, the new legal standard of 'well, it SHOULD be that way!'


.......and the Justice Department will only enforce the laws and regulations that it agrees with.
 
2014-03-19 07:02:30 PM  
durbnpoisn:
Yes.  We are.  Legal immigrants.  Or at the very least, a nation of people that emmigrated at a time when this country wasn't an overpopulated mess, and we were happy to have new people coming in.  The process back then was, comparatively, a piece of cake.

Overpopulated mess?  You don't get out much, do you?  There is so much open space in the USA it'll make your head spin.
 
2014-03-19 09:28:57 PM  
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these"


JackieRabbit: The rights afforded us by the constitution are meant only for American citizens and foreign nationals who are admitted into the country by competent authority (The US State Department).


You farking sicken me.
 
2014-03-19 10:04:09 PM  
It's comical how the anti-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting its all about racism.
 
2014-03-19 11:15:20 PM  
so ?? whats your point ? racism or not , they arent subject to the same rights as we are so i say hang em and then let meh-he-co bury them ...
 
2014-03-20 12:48:46 AM  

jwmc1971: so ?? whats your point ? racism or not , they arent subject to the same rights as we are so i say hang em and then let meh-he-co bury them ...


How do you figure?
 
2014-03-20 05:50:11 AM  

jwmc1971: so ?? whats your point ? racism or not , they arent subject to the same rights as we are so i say hang em and then let meh-he-co bury them ...


Except that generally speaking they do have the same rights we do. At least in the areas of due process and equal protection under law. This has been established by the Supreme Court starting as far back as the late 1800s.

Educate yourself:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
 
2014-03-20 09:15:24 AM  
Since when do liberals give a crap about the pesky bill of rights? Sure don't care when it is the 1st, 2nd, or 4th, why care about the 8th?
 
2014-03-20 09:23:08 AM  

Thunderpipes: Since when do liberals give a crap about the pesky bill of rights? Sure don't care when it is the 1st, 2nd, or 4th, why care about the 8th?


I'm confused. Are you saying that conservatives can ignore Rights they don't like because liberals do too? Or are you trying to imply that conservatives are better than liberals because conservatives don't ignore any of the Rights...except when they do? Like in this situation.
 
2014-03-20 09:55:54 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: DamnYankees: But please, PLEASE stop talking about specific things about which you appear to have no knowledge


Area man passionate defender of what he imagines history to be?


Yeah with all his pesky "Facts" and stuff.
 
2014-03-20 12:54:50 PM  

Frederick: It's comical how the anti-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting its all about racism.


It's comical how the pro-illegal-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting it's all about hating poor people. Who really gives a shiat if we flood them with competition, which drives the wages for unskilled and uneducated labor through the floor? I'm not unskilled. I'm not uneducated. Fark them, I've got mine.
 
2014-03-20 08:41:18 PM  

umad: Frederick: It's comical how the anti-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting its all about racism.

It's comical how the pro-illegal-immigration crowd tries to maintain their stance without admitting it's all about hating poor people. Who really gives a shiat if we flood them with competition, which drives the wages for unskilled and uneducated labor through the floor? I'm not unskilled. I'm not uneducated. Fark them, I've got mine.


There are several problems with your post:

1) Who claims to be pro illegal immigration?  Cite names.
2) If competition for labor is your sticking point, then certainly you are far more worried about US corporations off-shoring jobs, to India for example, and support greater taxes on that labor to balance the employment field.  Right?
3) If Americans, who already know our language, geography, educated in our schools, have families and support systems in place to help them cannot compete with immigrants for jobs in the US, then it is not the immigrants to blame.
 
Displayed 139 of 139 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report