Immigration Enforcement Un-American?
 

Help me out here - If they are here illegally, America isn't their country is it?

Very interesting. I wonder where this is headed.

The same place as always. Big arguments and name calling. Anti-illegal immigration will be portrayed as racist simpletons and the open borders crowd will cast as the limp wristed unpatriotic fools.

there really isn't much left to be said.

It should be headed towards a policy where when we kick in the doors, we drag the whole family back to their home country, not just the illegals.

Yea, I was pretty shocked when I heard her say that. Why is it unAmerican to want to enforce our immigration laws? I just don't get it.

I agree it was a stupid thing for Pelosi to say.

But to play devil's advocate....

Under the current law, illegal immigrants have a right to a hearing to determine if there are circumstances (eg potential political persecution if sent back to their home country, mistakes on work or student visas, etc.) in which they may be eligible to stay in the country.

And, immigration violations are considered civil violations, like a speeding ticket or trespassing, but the government can imprison illegal immigrants without many of the rights criminals receive: no court-appointed attorney or even a right to speak with an attorney, no bond hearings, no guarantee of a speedy trial.

Several years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that ICE has about 6 months to deport or release immigrants, yet many who have not committed any other crime, have been held for more than a year.

In addition, raids in which whole families are rounded up often include children born here who have constitutional rights as citizens.

I'm not suggesting that most illegals who are caught should not be deported, but I can understand why some may feel that many illegals do not receive due process in a manner equal to other "criminals" under US law.

On a lighter note, some of your compatriots don't like this subject.

reverse posting link:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=547013#post547013

:D

Now stop it!

May they are afraid they are going to raid her kitchen help? :)

I think you might be mistaking Pelosi for Linda Chavez, Bush's first nominee for Labor Secretary ;)

There was no mistake. I wouldn't put it past her. She is from San Fancisco.

San Francisco :eek:

Pelosi would make a great politician if she wasn't so damn stupid.

My God. There are more illegals in Georgia than Nevada? :eek:

That issue troubles me the most. The children who are born here with family that is here illegally. Its a difficult situation. Very sad.

Build the wall, stop the influx & deal with the remaining as best we can. It will be a lot easier to give them their due process, especially when time limits are imposed, if the system wasn't dealing with such a vast number as they are now. Its the same as the legal system tough to deal with so many cases and the backup keeps getting longer.

When they wrote the 14th ammendment, I don't think they could have forseen the trouble it would cause in the future. I don't think "anchor babies" should be legal citizens. If someone illegally comes into the country to have a baby so they can stay here, that is wrong. the ammendment needs ammending.

You should hear the horror stories from the hospital in Brownsville, TX.

... or any border state hospital. The tens of millions (or more) that are spent could fund care for so many uninsured/underinsured Americans.

No, but last I heard, Americans seem to view themselves as a good force in the world, upholding fairness and adhering to basic human rights. So tearing parents from children and breaking down doors in the middle of the night to do so might be considered un-American in that respect. she said un-American, not anti-American, right?


This is still the image America projects to the world. Agreed it is unsustainable, but you can't blame people for still believing in it. they may be illegal, but they're still human.

And believe me, there's nothing that pisses us legals off more than illegals because they make the process harder and nastier for the rest of us.

But they're still human.

I agree with that, and I don't blame them for wanting a better life. I have always said the people who cause them to come here should be severely punished. No job, and many of them would leave. But, some people who were born here can't get the care they get. It's infuriating. it's the government's fault for being so wishy washy about it.

And they are still criminals. :p

The reason those people can't get the care they get, is not because illegal immigrants have taken the care they should have had. It doesn't have to be either or. My God, the damage that has been done to your economy and to your families by a handful of glorified robber barons and yet billions can be found to patch up the wounds they left. You could let everybody in who wanted to come in and you'd probably do less damage to your economy and ramp up the national debt considerably less than the bankers have.

Illegal immigrants are an easy target for anger. But as individuals what they've done is insignificant.

Hardly insignificant.

No, those are images others put on us.


She is blowing out of proportion a minority of cases where those who did so did it under the direction of the people who are burdened with trying to get employeers to adhere to the law. The mothers have been allowed to stay with the children and the fathers have been sent to detention to await a hearing for, I hope eventual deportation. But again, this is such a small minority of the number of illegal immigrants in this country.

Here is the cost:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServe...suecenters4608

um... No.


You created this situation, you're all immigrants yourselves. It's like when people stop smoking they turn into nicotine nazis.

OK, Godwin's law invoked, thread dies :)

Same horror stories are found in other hospitals where the clients are overwhelmingly poor. The other forgotten fact.

Eliminate silly raids. Offer visas so that 1.8 million need not vie for only 29,000 permits. Fix the problem rather than enforcing defective laws. So many criticize Pelosi and yet still ignore realities posted here long ago.
Amnesty In America

The Silicon Valley is still screaming about problems created only because government has restricted immigration visas. America no longer graduates enough people with technical knowledge. Instead we graduate mostly business majors. So America desperately needs more productive people - both in the Silicon Valley and on the farms. Smarter is to make productive people legal. Intead we waste money on walls - as if that creates economic stimulus.

What happened when immigration laws were strongly enforced? Economic recessions (ie Nebraska) because those hated immigrants are essential to a more productive America.

read post #14

It cannot die! We cannot let it be so!

We are all immigrants like everybody is an immigrant.

Poi Dogs Pondering.

It's not about immigrants, it's about criminals.
A republic is based on the rule of law. Enforce it or change it, ignoring it debases the very fabric of our country.

Illegal immigration is not a criminal act....it is a civil violation.

Treating persons who commit a civil violation as criminals yet denying them the rights given to criminals -the right to counsel, the right to a speedy hearing or trial, the right to post bond or a bond hearing, etc. - debases the rule of law which is the very fabric of our country.

They are criminals.

Only if you consider speeders, jaywalkers and trespassers as criminals.

Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; 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;
has committed a federal crime.

Those are not federal crimes.

Neither is illegal immigration...it is a civil NOT criminal violation of federal law.

Ignorance of the difference between civil and criminal violations is no excuse.

Trial? Counsel? WTF?

LE: Do you have proper legal authorization to be in the US?

Illegal: Nope.

LE: Get the fuck out. Here's a one way ticket to Siberia.

What can counsel do here? It's not like even the smoothest lawyer can convince a judge the illegal in custody wasn't in the US... which happens to be the violation in question.

What trial is necessary? Get the fuck out.

Keep in mind I fully support opening the borders to anyone who can pass an appropriate background check and follows a much improved and streamlined process for gaining legal access. I also fully support crushing into dust anyone who circumvents that system. I also fully support revoking the business license of any company found to knowingly employ illegals.

Immigrants who are held under a civil violation of illegal entry have a right to a "speedy" deportation hearing and a right to legal counsel. That is the law.

Immigrants who commit a criminal act while here illegally may lose such rights to a deportation hearing.

My point is the trial should be pretty damn short. It should have exactly one question to answer. Do you or do you not have legal authorization to be in the US? If the answer is no, get out. I don't care about kids, wives, cousins, or jobs. Those wouldn't have been an issue if you hadn't broken the law in the first place. Get out.

Criminal trials are different in that they should be tried just as anyone else and be found guilty or innocent of the charges the same as anyone else. If they are innocent they still need to get out. If they are guilty they need to serve their sentence and then get out.

Unless they can be proved to have a case for asylum.


[eta] we engage in much the same behaviour over here towards failed asylum seekers. Worse probably. Given how incredibly easy it is to 'fail' an asylum application that means there are likely to be people who've fled from the vilest persecution and violence being dragged from their hostels in the early hours of the morning and shoved on a plane to their (categorised 'safe') country of origin. A recent example was a man who was sent back to Afghanistan wherupon he was brutally killed by the Taleban (the people he'd been fleeing from). I know of several people who've been forcibly returned to Zimbabwe, Republic of Congo, Iraq. Several have 'disappeared' in their country, others are known to have been killed. I know of torture victims, bodies criss crossed with damage whose applications have been refused and their torture disbelieved. A recent investigation into the immigration system characterised it as operating a 'culture of disbelief'. This is how a 16 year old boy becomes recatergorised as 26 (there's a form they fill in where they assign age if no proof of birthdate can be provided. My mum's dealt with several such cases) and then held in an adult detention centre; or how an 8 year old boy alone in the country could be left without assistance or legal counsel and then have his case dismissed for a 'lack of credibility'.

I'm not sure if they actually brought it in yet, but there was talk recently of a change in the law to allow lone children to be deported to their country of origin. A fucking Labour government. Thatcher wouldn't have dared.

It's the other crimes they commit after they enter illegally that really pisses people off. Why should citizens bother with getting drivers licenses and car insurance when illegals don't have to? Why should we pay our health insurance premiums? Why should we have to get SS#s and pay income tax?

What about the gang violence? What about the full prisons and broke hospitals? It goes a little further than the first civil violation or most people wouldn't even notice...

That would be an acception. But given the state of war on the other side of El Paso it might be hard to prove they were not fleeing the conflict. But then again it would be an easy excuse.

They are still criminals. What, you think you are going to get me to say otherwise? They get a night in jail, a judge with a gavel and a cardboard box to float back to where they came from.

Bullshit. Go through the legal process or get out. I don't care why you came illegally, only that you did come illegally. The cop doesn't care too much about my reason for running 80 in a 35 speed zone.

Current immigration law addresses that.

Illegal immigrants who commit a criminal act after then enter illegally are subject to immediate deportation. ..but they are the minority.

A recent Associated Press study and story examines the issue of "immigrants facing detention and having few rights."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ns_few_rights/

Costs associated with illegal immigrants:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html

Legal process isn't always an option for people who are fleeing persecution. Added to that some may have a very understandable fear (terror) of authority, leading them to try slipping under the radar.


[eta] and if you had a pregnant wife in the back going into labour, he may not be a bastard about it.

There is a process by which people can seek protection and legal immigration in those cases. By breaking the law and entering illegally they pretty much negate that process and diminish their chances.

Incidentally, I doubt many illegal immigrants are asylum seekers. I am just suggesting that cases need to be taken on their merits and regardless how black and white your perception of the law they deserve the same human consideration as anybody else.

I appreciate your concern Dana. I also would like to give personal, individual consideration to each person, but that isn't how laws work. I do believe in black and white enforcement even if it is sometimes harsh on some individuals. I can think of nothing more fair in life than applying the exact same rules to every single person.

If he gives me treatment outside of his guidelines then he isn't doing his job however beneficial it may be for me.

Again, I don't care about the why someone broke the law, only that they did.

They would if another car is behind me shooting shotgun shells at my car. But for the sake of the example, the law can't always say that his reason for illegal entry is just, whether we think it is or not.

If our legal system was built on morality, we would of course allow everyone into the country that came from a tougher background but it isn't and for good reason. A moral legal system cannot exist and even if it could it would be the most hypocritical system in existence. No matter what happens in this situation, someone is going to be fucked and there is no way around that. The question is just who will get fucked over and how bad.

For the most part, laws should be made on what is practical and what works best in the interests of the country (yes that it is still completely subjective), even if that means openly screwing a group over. A very large amount of illegal immigrants are not bad people even with the label of criminals but there is nothing that can be done to solve the problem, so it will continue.

If someone came in illegally, it must be enforced. Throwing morality into the matter will only overly complicate the situation to the point of absurdity. If you disagree with the law, work to get it changed.

Most of them are good people who weighed the risk/reward scenario and decided the risk was low enough. good people/bad people isn't the issue, playing by the rules is.(they're a hell of a lot of fun to play soccer with too)

...till then enforce it.

Seems like an awful waste of money to deport perfectly good bio-diesel material.

Tunnels Beneath U.S. Borders Proliferate

Continues:
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/02/tunnels.html

Great. So let's go back to Jim Crow.

"Can't let those dirty Mexican brown babies have citizenship, now can we? That's for White people."

Why do you hate Mexicans?

Then they should get due process.

Or is that only for white people?

The US Constitution applies to US Citizens. Illegals get three hots and a cot, a hearing, and a ride home.

Bullshit. You've never even read the US constitution.

Amendments from the BoR that only apply to citizens are called off thusly (for example, amendment II). Those that apply to anyone in US jurisdiction or custody call off "any person" or "no person" (ie, amendment V and VI).

Under your little fantasy, which has never been the view of SCOTUS, you could just point at any Hispanic and say they were illegals. With no due process, they would be unable to clear their name, even if their family had been citizens for 5 generations.

But they're only brown people, right, Merc? In your eyes they aren't "persons". Right?