I
- Status
S
seekerz
Guest
There was a news segment yesterday on the millions of dollars paid into the Social Security system by illegal workers who can never hope to receive benefits. It’s placed in a special account or something because the numbers are usually fake. According to the reporter the amount is now sizeable. Just thought I’d throw that out there…
I
Ituyu
Guest
Crossing our borders “illegally” is not a criminal act it is a “violation” of US Civil Codes. There was a failed attempt to criminalize “illegal” immigration earlier last year. However, “illegal” residence was a requirement of the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 (Notice it is not called AMNESTY). The use of false identification was forgiven as long as the applicant disclosed all such documents or alias’s as it was a function of their “illegal” residency.
Assimilation is not something one does to another. Assimilation is a process or change that occurs as one becomes rooted in a new environment and yes sometimes change works both ways. Remember that Spanish was the first European language spoken on this continent. I think we can safely assume that our interaction has caused them to change more but it is an ongoing process.
In summary, your arguments regarding “invitations” is concocted and does not reflect the reality of our immigration policies. Our existing laws DO NOT follow the principle of the “Rule of Law” so that legal arguments using existing laws are weak if not altogether hypocritical. The economic argument against immigrants, both legal and “illegal”, fails, as it does not reflect the resounding support of economists. They point to economic growth, NET GAINS and the maintenance of low unemployment rates and our continued need for still more immigrants to meet our labor needs. Costs? The costs have been more than offset by the gains reflected in federal coffers. It’s the federal government that needs to pay the costs from its gains. So really, aside from the resistance to change there appears to be little to argue about.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
You keep saying I make accusations, yet you accuse me of poor questions and bad facts. You have proven neither.
Crossing a state line for a legal citizen/resident is much different than crossing a nations borders uninvited. I take it you are then opposed to amnesty and legalization and feel the people who marched in these past two May 1 illegal immigration marches were wrong and should have been stopped. Are you just opposed to following the law? If they are not required to have an ID like the rest of us, how do they prove to the cop that stops them for speeding who they are and where they live to send the fine? The question was not poor, but your response was.
Another simple question unanswered. You seem to be a fan of sovereignty for everywhwere except America’s. The answer is no, US law is not subjected to the Mexican in Mexico; unless they violate US law by smuggeling drugs or people into the US for example. Any idea how many outstanding murder warrants there are for illegal non-US citizens that have fled to Mexico?
Americans are affected by Mexican law which allows and encourages their poor to emmigrate illegally into the US.
I stated facts not made accusations. I asked what you didn’t like; you said the word invitation bothered you. We beat that dead horse. I suggest your instinct is wrong with respect to your stance on immigration as well as my statements.
Y
yessisan
Guest
I don’t want to contradict you every time but I also know that these same tax paying illegals have their own heatlh insurance from HMOs and PPOs. Their children are citizens of the US and do not use any social services because they do not believe in using up government help that can go to the real needy.
But you are right in a way, but not all illegals do that, not all of them are criminals (except for the illegal status part), they are very nice and hard working people.
Anyway… our Church is asking us to be supportive of them, so I am.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Fair enough. My point was it is difficult enough to prevent such crimes from happening to legal residents and citizens. For the undocumented and illegal it is especially difficult.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
How about this:
1.) All undocumented, non US citizens of any age in the US now, have 90 days to register with the US government and get a ID card that identifies them, where they live, and their home country. The ID card is valid for 3 years from date of issue.
2.) After 90 days, and from then on at the border for new immigrants, any individual without that card gets deported back to their home nation where ever that might be. If they are honest and only want to work this should not be a burden, but for drug smugglers, human traffickers who want to remain in the shadows- we can stop that with teh help of honest law abiding people.
3.) After that 90 day period, any US employer who hires someone without that ID is fined or imprisoned. Any employee that cannot get the card due to criminal or other reasons is not wanted in the US, is fired if they have a job, and deported.
4.) By nature of having that card they are subject to all US law, taxes, wage rates…all the protections and requirements the rest of us are obligated too and are under.
This would do two things to satisfy me and many others. First it would identify all the honest individuals that are said to be out there. Second it is a way I can protect those honest but poor people from others who take advantage of them, and get rid of the undesirable criminals. It is true we have enough legal citizen criminals of our own, we do not need to import more. Those that cannot get the card might decide to leave on their own deporting themselves.
During the 3-year period they can apply for citizenship like everyone else or make arrangements to go back home if they do not want to be a US citizen. If they want to continue working where they are, the employer must show good cause why a foreign worker is needed. If it is justified, it is granted, if not, it is not. This would go for any new worker after the initial 90-day sign up period.
How do we find them that remain illegal and dishonest that try to stay? No more raids like we’ve seen lately. They are horrible. We ask politiely. First the employers, and then the workers to verify. We do that to Americans now. Those honest people that can follow this simple rule would not hesitate to show their valid ID, just as the legal citizen does when asked and required by law. If a cop stops a driver and he doesn’t have the ID- the boot to the border. Any gang member that does not have the ID- boot to the border. Normal attrition will weed out the criminals soon; IF the others are as honest as the claim. If they are not- do we want that many more dishonest people here?
No longer apply the 14th Amendment to foreign nationals having children here just to be a US Citizen. As an example: A child born of non-US citizen Mexican parents is a Mexican national, not a US citizen. No other country does that, and it was not intended for that and is being abused.
At the end of the 3-year period they must return to their homeland if they have not received a legal Green Card or become a US citizen. They can then re-apply to return. Business/farms/unions could identify a need for foreign workers and the list is maintained at the borders, allowing those specified needed number of workers into the country with that 3-year ID card.
This puts the burden where it belongs; on the immigrant and employers. If both are honest and fair I see no problem. If either are not- that is the problem I want to solve.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
All of what you say here may be true in some respect. But these people (I hate that term) of which you speak are a drop in the ocean when compared to the masses that have crossed our borders illegally. Some may not use special services, but thousands more do. They come here illegally to have their children so the children can be citizens. I think we should change that.
I am pondering the facts you have presented, but I don’t think you have given thought to the thousands and thousands we are talking about here.
I
Ituyu
Guest
“IRCA, as the immigration act is known, did little to deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants or to discourage them from working. But for Social Security’s finances, it was a great piece of legislation.
Starting in the late 1980’s, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the “earnings suspense file” in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.
The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990’s, two and a half times the amount of the 1980’s.
In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.
In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2’s with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.
Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.”
nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?ei=5090&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ex=1270353600&partner=kmarx&pagewanted=all&position
Their constributions have been a well known fact for a long time.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Personal attacks simply confirmation the real need is to avoid addressing the accusations. We read an opinion that taking someone at gun point from Iraq to Cuba could be considered an “Invitation” I have no problem with stating this is a poor opinion which should be dismissed.
BTW there is no law which requires a US citizen to have id, or give it to a police officer. The actual law is to drive you must comply with driving laws. These driving laws require drivers to carry and display a license, big difference. Those driving laws contain procedures for what is to be done when violations occur.
I do not support any government or individuals violating the US Constitution which allows peaceful protest on government action or inactions. This includes the freedom of speech in addition the right of assembly.
Again this is all fodder to prevent the facts which will probably show a positive affect from immigration.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
The rights and freedoms to assemble and protest the government of the US are limited to legal citizens of the USA. Millions of non-citizens here without consent can demand nothing from the government because they violate the Constitution as a foreign influence.
If you are not a citizen of this nation you do not have the right to assemble or have free speech in opposition to her laws. I say you to mean any non-US citizen whether you are or not. Your illegal right does not trump my legal one. A denied legal right is not a denied civil right.
umass.edu/complit/aclanet/USMigrat.html
I
Ituyu
Guest
VERISIMILITUDE:
I. **D. Disregard of the Constitutional Rights of Resident Non-Citizens **
The Supreme Court has affirmatively held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of due process and access to a jury trial in criminal matters apply to all “persons” and those accused in criminal cases, respectively, not just to citizens. 62] In the case of lawfully resident and temporary aliens, the Supreme Court has affirmed that where such permanent alien residents remain “physically present” in the United States, they are deemed “persons” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, and, as such, are entitled to due process protections of life, liberty, and property. 63] Therefore, “[a] lawful resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to due process.” 64]
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that even the millions of undocumented aliens living inside U.S. borders are entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights. 65] This entitlement flows not only from the broad reach of the Fifth Amendment, but also from principles of equal protection of the law to which all those obeying such laws are entitled. 66]
These constitutional protections also apply to the exclusion of aliens within U.S. borders. 69] The Supreme Court has clarified the extent of constitutional protection by stating that, "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CAofUSAPA.html#ID
I. **D. Disregard of the Constitutional Rights of Resident Non-Citizens **
The Supreme Court has affirmatively held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of due process and access to a jury trial in criminal matters apply to all “persons” and those accused in criminal cases, respectively, not just to citizens. 62] In the case of lawfully resident and temporary aliens, the Supreme Court has affirmed that where such permanent alien residents remain “physically present” in the United States, they are deemed “persons” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, and, as such, are entitled to due process protections of life, liberty, and property. 63] Therefore, “[a] lawful resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to due process.” 64]
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that even the millions of undocumented aliens living inside U.S. borders are entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights. 65] This entitlement flows not only from the broad reach of the Fifth Amendment, but also from principles of equal protection of the law to which all those obeying such laws are entitled. 66]
These constitutional protections also apply to the exclusion of aliens within U.S. borders. 69] The Supreme Court has clarified the extent of constitutional protection by stating that, "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful,
ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CAofUSAPA.html#ID
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Just more spin to separate your self from the facts. You are still running from baseless allegations. The people in those rallies are within there legal rights, it has nothing to do with my opinion. The constitution applies all the time. There is no law that requires them to prove whether they are citizens or not. Just as the above post must hinge on another false premise which is the participations are all illegal immigrants. All these style posts are built on false accusation, which is why the ridicules attempt to explain people held at gun point are simply accepting invitations.
I am not asking you to like anybody, I am asking you to look at the facts. And I am asking you stop making claims which are contrary to the facts.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
No spin, slick and not baseless. Are you a US Citizen?
It is only your opinion which means nothing. No, if they are not legally in the country they have no legal right to protest the government. What are you smoking? Ituyu seems a bit brighter than you, but despite the fact that our laws have at times extended to all persons with respect to due process it has not waived all requirements. Due process is with respect to having broken the law.
What authority do you use to say that it applies to non-citizens?
There are no false accusations, only your false view to abridge a law you don’t like. If you read the US Constitution to say it is legal that millions of non-US Citizens can wealk in and demand the US change her laws to suit non-Citizens you need to take a reading comprehension course.
I have made no claim contrary to fact or law, like you have.
I
Ituyu
Guest
The First Amendment Rights of Free Speech and Association
Much of the legislation enacted pursuant to the government’s prosecution of the “War on Terrorism” has had a deleterious effect on the sacrosanct protection of the First Amendment** right to free speech. The First Amendment precludes Congress from creating laws that will abridge “the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”** 73]
The First Amendment encompasses the right to advocate ideas, to speak freely, to associate with whomever one chooses, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. 74] Such activities are protected against blanket prohibitions and from restrictions based upon government opposition to the content of the idea expressed, or the identity of the speaker. 75] The First Amendment functions to protect the “unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” 76]**** The application of the Amendment is not intended to be limited. Resident aliens and undocumented aliens with substantial ties to the United States belong to the national community and, as such, enjoy the rights afforded by the First Amendment. 77]
The Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” 78] The right to free speech serves not only to protect the rights of the speaker but also to uphold the general public’s interest in having access to information within a free flowing marketplace of ideas. 79] The Court has stressed the importance of this fact, noting the power of discussion to expose falsehoods, and stating that “those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning and communication of ideas to discover and spread political and economic truth.” 80]
ratical.org/ratville/CAH/CAofUSAPA.html#ID
Verisimilitude, I’m afraid Texas Roofer is correct.
Y
yessisan
Guest
I actually have, but I always think of those who don’t abuse the system. Remember when God was to destroy Sodom, he was asked if he’d spare the people if there was at least one good person among them, what did he say?
Anywho, many (most actually) do abuse the system, but I’ve seen many African Americans do it too, I’ve seen many white Americans do that too. They work a few months just enough so they can collect unemployment for 6, then work 2-3 more to keep on using the unemployment.
I actually volunteered at a place about 5 years ago and some of the volunteers were people that had to do hours of service because they were on food stamps. One man (very American) said he never has to work or pay rent because the goverment takes care of him, he fed his kids through food stamps and he said this laughing like a maniac, he said our government was very blind and they give it to anyone…
A few months back here in California, we had some African Americans protesting and picketing, complaining that they didn’t get enough money from welfare, that they needed to feed their 5+ children. None of these people had any kind of disability. They were interviewed on tv and most said they didn’t work because they wanted to stay home and use up the welfare…
Those are the type of people we should worry about. The ones who are here legally and abuse the system. Many of the illegals who use it, do have a reason, many don’t, but my point here is that it’s not just the illegals.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
No, if that were the case there would be nothing from preventing foreign governments, say Iran, from flooding America with non-Citizens demanding Sharia law, and from that perspective Americans have to abide by that. Insane.
The Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights, Amendments… are with respect to US citizens. This is not difficult to understand. The Revolutionary war was not fought to free Canadians from British rule. The US Civil war was not fought for Mexican rights.
The 14th Amendment was directed at freed slaves who were in the nations borders.
If it is all as you and Texas say, what is the purpose of being a US citizen if a non-citizen can demand all the same rights and protections without the responsibility to abide by the same laws.
Tell me the difference to being a US citizen and a Mexican citizen. How is that different from an Iranian or Pakistani citizen? Why does the US have treaties with other nations if borders and citizenship mean so little? If Mexicans can come to America and demand civil rights as prescribed by US law, why can’t Americans go to Mexico and demand the same? Why can’t Mexicans do the same in their country?
I’m sorry every person in the world cannot come to America and be Americans. Texas think we are such bad people anyway with Iraq & GITMO anyway, why be a part of that?
If they don’t want to be Americans, but only want to work, I have a right to know who is in my country, and the laws that are on the books now are being discarded and broken in the name of legal rights they do not have. They want the benefits without the cost.
Read your own links and follow the law. It is not as you think or claim.
I
Ituyu
Guest
[
](Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw)
Perhaps Verisimilitude, a review of the Bill of Rights would be helpful. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that these protections were afforded to ALL PERSONS within our borders, with some exceptions, and it has ruled that “illegal” immigrants ARE PERSONS and thus have Constitutional protections.
Due Process laws do not only apply to “law breakers” because under our Constitution, one is considered INNOCENT until proven guilty.
Some anti-immigrant groups make a great deal of noise about “illegal” aliens not being rounded up at demonstrations and the reason is because they are exercising their First Amendment Rights that are protected under our Constitution.
The “illegal” do not have ALL the protections and EQUAL Rights under our Constitution which is why, for example, a foreign born naturalized alien cannot run for President and why non-citizens do not have the Right to vote.
](Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=202
Perhaps Verisimilitude, a review of the Bill of Rights would be helpful. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that these protections were afforded to ALL PERSONS within our borders, with some exceptions, and it has ruled that “illegal” immigrants ARE PERSONS and thus have Constitutional protections.
Due Process laws do not only apply to “law breakers” because under our Constitution, one is considered INNOCENT until proven guilty.
Some anti-immigrant groups make a great deal of noise about “illegal” aliens not being rounded up at demonstrations and the reason is because they are exercising their First Amendment Rights that are protected under our Constitution.
The “illegal” do not have ALL the protections and EQUAL Rights under our Constitution which is why, for example, a foreign born naturalized alien cannot run for President and why non-citizens do not have the Right to vote.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Does the US Bill of Rights apply to Canadians in Canada?
Does the US Constitution apply to Russians in Iran?
No, but you say yes as long as they (the Canadian & Russian) are in the USA whether legal or illegal. I admit some laws have been extended to non-citizens like when they are arrested. Just because America has extended certain elements of law like “innocent until proven guilty” to all persons, there is still a distinct quality to being a citizen.
I think it incredibly disingenious for non-citizens to claim the right to freedom of expression when that expression is against the US government. An American citizen has that right, not a foreign national. We (Americans) tolerate such breeches of trust by these foreign nationals because we don’t want limits on our own freedoms, but they are OUR freedoms, not the foreign nationals.
I disagree with that 1982 law and will see if it has been challenged more recently. Reagans amnesty in 1986 might have changed it so I would not rely on it so much. Though read further:
So far these laws you have quoted are about an illegal druggie who had his house raided in Mexico by US/Mexican authorities, and since the druggie was being tried in the US, the actions taken upon him in Mexico must be within the guidelines of US law. Fine. We forget the druggie was breaking US law to begin with. Do you think he now has the right to march in the street and demand citizenship, a job, free education for his children?
The other law is about children, and how illegal, unscrupulous parents pull on compassionate heart strings to give them an education. Fine, but does that now extend to the parents to demand to now be legal themselves?
It is a really sad argument.
Does the US Constitution apply to Russians in Iran?
No, but you say yes as long as they (the Canadian & Russian) are in the USA whether legal or illegal. I admit some laws have been extended to non-citizens like when they are arrested. Just because America has extended certain elements of law like “innocent until proven guilty” to all persons, there is still a distinct quality to being a citizen.
I think it incredibly disingenious for non-citizens to claim the right to freedom of expression when that expression is against the US government. An American citizen has that right, not a foreign national. We (Americans) tolerate such breeches of trust by these foreign nationals because we don’t want limits on our own freedoms, but they are OUR freedoms, not the foreign nationals.
I disagree with that 1982 law and will see if it has been challenged more recently. Reagans amnesty in 1986 might have changed it so I would not rely on it so much. Though read further:
Those illegals demanding the equality they abuse.
Using children like that is abuse and anyone that use it as an argument to justify that equality now extends to those who use children in such a way should be ashamed.
So far these laws you have quoted are about an illegal druggie who had his house raided in Mexico by US/Mexican authorities, and since the druggie was being tried in the US, the actions taken upon him in Mexico must be within the guidelines of US law. Fine. We forget the druggie was breaking US law to begin with. Do you think he now has the right to march in the street and demand citizenship, a job, free education for his children?
The other law is about children, and how illegal, unscrupulous parents pull on compassionate heart strings to give them an education. Fine, but does that now extend to the parents to demand to now be legal themselves?
It is a really sad argument.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Again, I agree.
- Status