I had a conversation this weekend with Shai Goldstein, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network (NJIPN), a liberal immigration-policy organization in New Jersey, regarding illegal immigration. Shai and I are friends despite the fact that he's a lib and I'm, well... I'm not. I love him like a brother, and his family and mine are really close (as in 3 houses apart from each other). Our kids play together and Shai and I, and my wife and his, are really great friends. DESPITE the fact that I think he's wrong on a lot of issues.

Shai made a comment this weekend that I couldn't refute because I didn't have the details in front of me. He stated that illegal immigration is not, in and of itself, a crime. He stated that current immigration law makes illegal immigration a CIVIL violation, not a criminal one. My understanding is that the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 made illegal immigration a criminal offense, but he said that it does not. That, he claims, is the reson that illegal immigrants are "detained" rather than "incarcerated". Detention is a civil action, while incarceration is a criminal law action. Again, I disagree with that statement, but I don't have the facts to back it up.

Anyone have any opinions on his statement? Does the INA of 1965 make illegal immigration a civil or a criminal offense? Or is there some other legislation that makes illegal immigration a criminal offense.

Elliot

I had a conversation this weekend with Shai Goldstein, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network (NJIPN), a liberal immigration-policy organization in New Jersey, regarding illegal immigration. Shai and I are friends despite the fact that he's a lib and I'm, well... I'm not. I love him like a brother, and his family and mine are really close (as in 3 houses apart from each other). Our kids play together and Shai and I, and my wife and his, are really great friends. DESPITE the fact that I think he's wrong on a lot of issues.

Shai made a comment this weekend that I couldn't refute because I didn't have the details in front of me. He stated that illegal immigration is not, in and of itself, a crime. He stated that current immigration law makes illegal immigration a CIVIL violation, not a criminal one. My understanding is that the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 made illegal immigration a criminal offense, but he said that it does not. That, he claims, is the reson that illegal immigrants are "detained" rather than "incarcerated". Detention is a civil action, while incarceration is a criminal law action. Again, I disagree with that statement, but I don't have the facts to back it up.

Anyone have any opinions on his statement? Does the INA of 1965 make illegal immigration a civil or a criminal offense? Or is there some other legislation that makes illegal immigration a criminal offense.

Elliot

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325)

Elliot

He may be on to something if you listen to the courts. Recently a Ks. Appeals court made a ruling that although it is illegal to enter the country without the proper documents and permissions, it is not necessarily illegal to be in the country. They based it on their interpretation of US law.

96613 -- State v. Martinez -- McAnany -- Kansas Court of Appeals (http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/ctapp/2007/20070817/96613.htm)

The opinion says :


"While Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported,"

They also cite a 1958 decision ;US v Cores FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=356&invol=405)


laws regarding illegal entry into the country "are not continuing ones, as 'entry' is limited to a particular locality and hardly suggests continuity."

The sophistry of the criminal code continues. Your friend finds such nuance in the language of the law because the same people who write the laws intends the ambiguity to exist. That way they can stump and say "see ..... we got tough on immigration ! " . Yes it is illegal to cross the border without proper documentation but according to the ruling;and I assume it was based on an interpretation of existing law , once in the country being here without proper papers is a civil violation .

Edit :


Here is a news article link to the ruling

www.kansascity.com | 08/23/2007 | Appeals panel overturns illegal immigrant’s sentence (http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/245070.html)

ET,
Is that safe to post the conversation between Goldstein and you here on AMHD?
I have something to say about this post, but I am a little bit intimidated...

NSG,

Well, I don't mind it at all, and since Shai makes public statements on immigration policy all the time as part of his job, and is well known in NJ political circles, I doubt that he would mind. So go for it.

Elliot

DC,

According to the link you posted:

1) attempting to bring an illegal alien to the USA,
2) movement an illegal alien within the USA,
3) harboring of an illegal alien within the USA,
4) inducing an illegal alien to come to the USA in violation of law,
5) aiding or abetting or conspiracy to ommitt any of the above acts,

Are all criminal acts punishable by fine and/or up to 10 years of jail time. I would assume that if the alien in question is part of the planning process and commissions of these acts, he too would be subject to these criminal penalties.

Elliot

Okay, my concern is about "ID Theft".
Millions of undocumented workers are someone else's documents. To get a job, illegal immigrants need a Social Security number, and they often "borrow" one.
Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans are right now sharing their identities with immigrants and don't know it.
Original ID holder can be denied unemployment because records showed he or she had a job. That is not a victmless crime. It is a crime!

NSG,

You make a good point, and I'm sure that at least some illegals are using stolen identities.

However, for the most part, they are using forged documents that have fake Tax ID/SS numbers that don't belong to anyone. At the end of the year, the government will send the employers of these illegal aliens a notice saying that the SS# of the illegal alien doesn't correspond to any numbers in their files, and could they please make the appropriate check and change. The employer will simply ignore this notice, ontinue to "pay taxes" for the illegal alien, and business goes on as usual. Unless the employer is VERY unlucky, he can go for years paying taxes for employees he knows are illegal and that have SSNs that he knows are fake without having to take any sort of action at all. In the few cases where he does have to take action, he tells the government that he got rid of that employee "months ago" when he "found out" that the employee was illegal. Meanwhile, the employee is still on the books, but under another fake SSN, and the process of notification and lack of action begins again.

So what's happening isn't so much a case of ID theft, though that is undoubtedly an issue. In more cases the illegals are simply using fake SSN #s, with the tacit approval of the employers, and with the government not taking any action until much too late. The government is simply unable to take timely action for anything, and the illegals and their employers use that to their advantage.

Elliot

DC,

According to the link you posted:

1) attempting to bring an illegal alien to the USA,
2) movement an illegal alien within the USA,
3) harboring of an illegal alien within the USA,
4) inducing an illegal alien to come to the USA in violation of law,
5) aiding or abetting or conspiracy to ommitt any of the above acts,

are all criminal acts punishable by fine and/or up to 10 years of jail time. I would assume that if the alien in question is part of the planning process and comissions of these acts, he too would be subject to these criminal penalties.

Elliot
Whatever the case, there is something inherently wrong with the concept of regulating immigration by not regulating it completely. That sounds a lot like a contradiction in purpose to me.

The most interesting part about the policy is the answer to the question, “Why”. It is obvious that our government is purposefully and flagrantly not regulating immigration; it is unquestionably a violation of the oath of office for every member of congress who does not speak against this crime- a crime against the people of the Untied States.

Whatever the case, there is something inherently wrong with the concept of regulating immigration by not regulating it completely. That sounds a lot like a contradiction in purpose to me.

The most interesting part about the policy is the answer to the question, “Why”. It is obvious that our government is purposefully and flagrantly not regulating immigration; it is unquestionably a violation of the oath of office for every member of congress who does not speak against this crime- a crime against the people of the Untied States.

I agree with you on this point 100%. Whether you are for or against immigration enforcement, the government's half-and-half approach doesn't work, sends mixed signals, and actually makes the problem worse from both points of view. Any government official (elected or appointed) who does not enfoce the laws of the United States that are under his/her responsibility to enforce is breaking faith with the people of the United States.

Elliot

a violation of the oath of office for every member of congress who does not speak against this crime- a crime against the people of the Untied States.Hello again, DC:

Hold on, Podner. Let's not get your britches in an uproar. It's a crime... But, not against anybody I know - certainly not ME. Most of 'em just want to blow your leaves. I'm not too threatened by leaf blowers.

excon

Hello again, DC:

Hold on, Podner. Let's not get your britches in an uproar. It's a crime....... But, not against anybody I know - certainly not ME. Most of 'em just wanna blow your leaves. I'm not too threatened by leaf blowers.

excon
Always good to hear another point of view, but ignorance and leafblowers are not relavant, Exon.

Just as ignorance of a Law provides no protection, so it is that ignorance of a crime provides no protection.

By introducing ignorance, and leaf blowing you are introducing the fallacy of denying the correlative i.e. where an attempt is made to introduce another option into a true correlative.

That is, that America has an immigration policy: a truth.

America is not requiring compliance to its immigration policy by everyone: a truth.

Therefore some government officials are not fulfilling their oath of office; hence, betrayal a the least, a crime at worst
:D

P.S. Shai Goldstein, by the way, has committed the same fallacy by introducing the fact, if it is, that entering the US by other than through immigration policy is not a crime.

I am also intimidated by everyone's pics here.
You guys are either criminal in jail ,muscular alien,or wild animals...

Trust me, NSG, you don't really want to see my picture. That's why I use a comic book character as my avatar. (And Wolverine is not an alien, he's a mutant.)

You, on the other hand, are very photogenic.

Elliot

Hello again, DC:

Well, if you're talking about the CRIME that congress perpetrates on US, then I agree wholeheartedly with you.

However, I can think of much BIGGER crimes they're committing than just letting a few leaf blowers sneak in.

excon

Okay, my concern is about "ID Theft".
Millions of undocumented workers are someone else's documents. To get a job, illegal immigrants need a Social Security number, and they often "borrow" one.
Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans are right now sharing their identities with immigrants and don't know it.
Original ID holder can be denied unemployment because records showed he or she had a job. That is not a victmless crime. It is a crime!

Identity theft can have an effect on more than just the individual. Employers can be sited and forced to explain why they employ individuals misconstrued as illegals: If a person that has stolen another's identity commits a crime, and that "identity" shows that the real person works at that company, valuable time and resources can be tied up defending a ruse. More qualified and trained immigration examiners are desperately needed.

Another thing is that illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. 1/3 of the US prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, over 1/3 of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.

Another thing is that illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. 1/3 of the US prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, over 1/3 of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.
Very astute observation.

Even though temporary, the choice of illegal and/or criminal activity provides quick, tax-free cash without the need to apply or qualify.

Being incarcerated here must be better than life on the outside there...

Hello nice girl:

There's the numbers, and then there's the spin on what the numbers mean. You're spinning.

There's 300 million of us. 50 million of us are illegal. That's 20%. If that's the number of illegal's in jail (and it is), that means they commit NO MORE crime than citizens do. Same thing with welfare.

The problem is the right wing spin machine. It's been going on forever. Look around. If you see a problem, it's the Mexicans fault, it's the blacks fault, it's the Jews fault.

They do a good job too, cause you people buy into it. Me?? Nahhh. I'm no bigot. These people are no different than you and me.

excon

PS> (edited) Before I'm misunderstood, let me be clear. I don't support illegal immigration. The problem, however, is with YOUR GOVERNMENT – NOT the leaf blowers.

The problem, however, is with YOUR GOVERNMENT – NOT the leaf blowers.
Alleging bigotry isn't a solution either.

I don't consider myself a bigot, but prison (incarceration) demographics are what they are. There is definitely a cross-section of peoples. But numbers of national origin doesn't address the causation of incarceration: why are they behind bars?

And you last statement seems unclear. The gov't isn't inviting anyone to immigrate illegally. Granted, not enough is being done about one issue to then complain about the resulting implications. I do feel the government is half-stepping when it comes to not only immigration reform but also border "security".

And you seem to have your own jaundice view on immigrants: referring to them as dishwashers and lawn help, when they may well be highly educated and desired, or uneducated and unemployable. I'm sure you'll pounce on this...

Hi ETW-

I think the laws that are broken are addendum's of the immigration issue, for example: ID theft. When an individual does not follow the immigration process they forfeit the possibility of any future privilege. Those that are here illegally are detained are usually sent back from where they came. Of course if Homeland Security has any suspensions that need to come to light then I suspect that illegal activities are involved. But I can see why Shai could very well be correct. If we look at the formation of the US govt, everyone originally being aliens with exception to the Native Americans, at what point did "illegal" become relevant?


Bobby

Alleging bigotry isn't a solution either....And you seem to have your own jaundice view on immigrants: refering to them as dishwashers and lawn help, when they may well be highly educated and desired, or uneducated and unemployable. I'm sure you'll pounce on this...Hello again, Captain:

I don't know about pounce, but I'll certainly discuss it with you.

I agree, alleging bigotry isn't a solution, unless one is pointing out bigotry. In my view, anytime you point to a people and start calling them "they" and start saying they do this, and they do that... It's bigotry.

THEY don't do anything other than what YOU would do. They're like us. They're seeking a better life. I doubt their highly educated. The educated are the moneyed class and they can PAY their way here legally. So yes, they're leaf blowers.

Let me ask you this, Captain. Here's a real life question. Let's say you live in Montana. Montana has no jobs. People in Montana are hungry. Idaho, on the other hand, has a lots of jobs. But they don't want Montanans taking them, so they make it illegal to cross their border.

So, there you are - a willing hard worker in Montana, and your family is hungry. You walk up to the border. You look over there and see a help wanted sign. You're going to walk over there and get that job, aren't you?

No, the problem is your congress. Look, I smoke pot. You know I do. I'm not the problem. The law that would make what I do illegal IS the problem. You know that to be true.

Same thing with illegal's.

excon

Hi ETW-

I think the laws that are broken are addendum's of the immigration issue, for example: ID theft. I can see why Shai could very well be correct. If we look at the formation of the US govt, everyone being aliens with exception to the Native Americans, at what point did "illegal" become relevant?!


Bobby
Very good point, Bobby!

The original native occupants (they weren't American's until labeled as such) didn't recognize any need for a universal body of representatives, to protect their various nations from unseen threats and invasion.

What if someone, with sufficient backing, came into your home, declared that they had "discovered" it? You'd be moved to a far corner of a distant neighbors backyard. And the best you could hope for is a casino with your (unfortunately) diminishing tribe's name.

Very good point, Bobby!

The original native occupants (they weren't American's until labeled as such) didn't recognize any need for a universal body of representatives, to protect their various nations from unseen threats and invasion.

What if someone, with sufficient backing, came into your home, declared that they had "discovered" it? You'd be moved to a far corner of a distant neighbors backyard. And the best you could hope for is a casino with your (unfortunately) diminishing tribe's name.

Yes. In reference to when I mentioned "Native Americans" that has more to do with the continent considering there were/are so many tribes. Historically the conquering territories are sometimes disguised in our text books as annexed land. I remember when our govt and society would vilify the former the USSR when in effect, we did the same. I suppose we could say that national organization of former immigrants occurred more so following the civil war onward. Of course, then came big brother.


Bobby

Hello nice girl:

There’s the numbers, and then there’s the spin on what the numbers mean. You’re spinning.

There’s 300 million of us. 50 million of us are illegal. That’s 20%. If that’s the number of illegal’s in jail (and it is), that means they commit NO MORE crime than citizens do. Same thing with welfare.

The problem is the right wing spin machine. It’s been going on forever. Look around. If you see a problem, it’s the Mexicans fault, it’s the blacks fault, it’s the Jews fault.

They do a good job too, cause you people buy into it. Me??? Nahhh. I’m no bigot. These people are no different than you and me.

excon

PS> (edited) Before I’m misunderstood, let me be clear. I don’t support illegal immigration. The problem, however, is with YOUR GOVERNMENT – NOT the leaf blowers.

There are 21,075,434 illegal immigrates in the US today, and there is 33% of the prison population made up of illegal immigrates. That means they have a higher crime rates than legal citizens.

national organization of former immigrants

Bobby
NOFI isn't new. The concept has been in use virtually since the beginning of time. It probably began with the Neanderthal. Before any concept of "borders" was even contrived. Someone see's something, wants it and so takes it. If not enough resistance is offered... or submission is easier, no additional conflict will arise. Family or clan, gregarious groups or individuals, have all been engaged in this type behavior. But that line of thought should have it's own thread.

Let's not get off the topic. Since man has civilized, at least a little, many sovereign borders have been agreed upon, rescinded, fought over, redrawn and/or completely forgotten. But of the all the borders agreed upon, our nations borders are what we want recognized. And having had them recognized by most of the nations of the world, Mexico included, is really the sum of our concern. For very good reasons.

What if 21 + million American's, as individuals of our own volition, chose to disregard our nations agreement with another country, and we descended upon them, we'd be arrested in that country and charged, possibly worse. And we'd be put in their pretty jails. And held accountable by their standards. Maybe we'd get one phone call. Maybe we'd be protected by their constitution. Maybe we'd have a court appointed lawyer. We still would have no right to be there.

CaptainRich agrees: My pic is one of my favorite views of life...
Are you a pirate? :D

http://www.weatherby.info/shazam/generalrubbish/PirateDog.jpg

There are 21,075,434 illegal immigrates in the US today, and there is 33% of the prison population made up of illegal immigrates. That means they have a higher crime rates than legal citizens.


Thanks for sharing the stats. BTW because of your astute observation on board members avatars displayed earlier, I decided to post a picture on the forum. The picture was taken in February 2007 of my wife and I on the Mt. Charleston resort about 45 minutes outside of Las Vegas. I'll post some different photos in the future. :)



Bobby

There are 21,075,434 illegal immigrates in the US today,Hello again, spring girl:

I don't know. That's an awfully specific number. Because it's so specific, I tend to doubt its authenticity. Citizens are hard enough to get an accurate count on. I can't imagine we would know exactly how many illegal's are here.

Since one of the numbers you use is suspect, the other is similarly questionable. Unless, of course, you can site a reliable source.

excon

Are you a pirate??:D

http://www.weatherby.info/shazam/generalrubbish/PirateDog.jpg
No, I'm not a bonafide pirate. But that's my dog, Tripod! :p :p

Hello again, spring girl:

I dunno. That's an awfully specific number. Because it's so specific, I tend to doubt its authenticity. Citizens are hard enough to get an accurate count on. I can't imagine we would know exactly how many illegal's are here.

Since one of the numbers you use is suspect, the other is similarly questionable. Unless, of course, you can site a reliable source.

excon

Yea, I know... but the point is that illegal immigrants have a higher criminal rate. I mean, buddy, you are in jail, you know most of your homies there don't speak english.;)
I read the 1/3 of prison population thing ang googled the other specific no.
Here I found something but it's a bit old."Citing an Urban Institute study, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camorata noted in 2004: "Roughly 17 percent of the prison population at the federal level are illegal aliens. That's a huge number since illegal aliens only account for about 3 percent of the total population."

NOFI isn't new. The concept has been in use virtually since the beginning of time. It probably began with the Neanderthal. Before any concept of "borders" was even contrived. Someone see's something, wants it and so takes it. If not enough resistance is offered...or submission is easier, no additional conflict will arise. Family or clan, gregarious groups or individuals, have all been engaged in this type behavior. But that line of thought should have it's own thread.


Rich- I agree. Notice I didn't capitalize the word "organization." It was not suggesting a group by using an Acronym. It was in reference to becoming organized as a government, more so after the Civil War as how we've reached this current govt..




Let's not get off the topic. Since man has civilized, at least a little, many sovereign borders have been agreed upon, rescinded, fought over, redrawn and/or completely forgotten. But of the all the borders agreed upon, our nations borders are what we want recognized. And having had them recognized by most of the nations of the world, Mexico included, is really the sum of our concern. For very good reasons.

I agree. But remember those borders in the Southwest part of the current US were a part of Mexico's northern territory.



What if 21 + million American's, as individuals of our own volition, chose to disregard our nations agreement with another country, and we descended upon them, we'd be arrested in that country and charged, possibly worse. And we'd be put in their pretty jails. And held accountable by their standards. Maybe we'd get one phone call. Maybe we'd be protected by their constitution. Maybe we'd have a court appointed lawyer. We still would have no right to be there.


I have no doubt. However, usually the case is that it's much easier to become a resident in other countries. In fact many US citizens upon retirement have chosen to move elsewhere.



Bobby

Bobby
I know you didn't suggest the acronym to be a real org.
But our borders, particularly our southern border, having been established and acknowledged globally, even like I said by the Mex gov't, those borders have been blurred by complacency. That was then, this is now. Maybe the people there disagree with history.

We gave up our political rights to the Panama Canal. Personally, I didn't like the decision, but I can't control my gov't, or any other, by ignoring laws and agreements we inadvertently approved of.

And, yes, many have chosen to take their retirements elsewhere, making the dollar go further by moving to a place that has a poorer economy. That's a personal decision. And to what end? I think it shows lack of honest support for the U.S. Agree or disagree, I'll categorize them with big business outsourcing and moving to third world countries. It's the same mentality. I can't blame them but I don't have to approve.

Hi Rich-

If that means living elsewhere I can't blame the retirees either. I'd do the same. In fact I have a second home in SE Asia. I wouldn't mind having a third pad in Mexico except that I'm not a citizen and can't own the land. I also have a birthright to live in Israel. My ideal spot would be to retire to the backwoods of Texas and do some fishing. Maybe I can afford this if my brother or other family members decide to split costs. Anyway, the large corporations of our nation have outsourced and our dollar is not as strong as it once was. Is this international/global economics? We import daily and the average American will buy a product made from other countries many times over during a lifetime. For example: many of the cars, as Americans, we enjoy driving are owned by foreign companies. The only profit we capitalize upon is taxation (tariffs), the maintenance labor, and that some of the parts are produced from American factories.


Bobby

In my view, anytime you point to a people and start calling them "they" and start saying they do this, and they do that........ It's bigotry.

*ahem* *coughcough*


THEY don't do anything other than what YOU would do. They're like us. They're seeking a better life. I doubt their highly educated. The educated are the moneyed class and they can PAY their way here legally. So yes, they're leaf blowers.

*coughcough*

Bigot :)


What if 21 + million American's, as individuals of our own volition, chose to disregard our nations agreement with another country, and we descended upon them, we'd be arrested in that country and charged, possibly worse. And we'd be put in their pretty jails. And held accountable by their standards. Maybe we'd get one phone call. Maybe we'd be protected by their constitution. Maybe we'd have a court appointed lawyer. We still would have no right to be there.

So perhaps we should treat this as an invasion?

So perhaps we should treat this as an invasion?
We? Invaded?
Yes, in a way... One by one, ten by ten, sometimes larger groups. "They've" declared it as such in California. Several month ago, they called it a migration and they would slowly out number us because the federal gov't doesn't have the 'nads to step up. And so far, that's been a fairly accurate assessment.
Haven't you noticed?

We? Invaded?
Yes, in a way... One by one, ten by ten, sometimes larger groups. "They've" declared it as such in California. Several month ago, they called it a migration and they would slowly out number us because the federal gov't doesn't have the 'nads to step up. And so far, that's been a fairly accurate assessment.
Haven't you noticed?

I know my post sounds snarky, but yes, in a way it could be viewed as an invasion of sorts. My husband and I discussed this a while ago, and he said something similar to what you said in your previous post. We joked and asked why the immigration hasn't been seen as a hostile takeover! :)

I'm honestly sort of on the fence (get it?) about the issue. On the one hand I respect the fact that these people are trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, and that they are trying to get out of horrible living conditions in Mexico. But on the other hand, I don't see why our border should have a big neon OPEN sign on it... There are plenty of people who come here legally, after all. I have several close friends who came to the US from Africa who are TICKED OFF about the special treatment illegal immigrants get, and that's from some of the most liberal people I've ever met. I'd say I'm sure our federal gubment will come up with a suitable plan that makes sense, but well... then I'd just be wrong. So I'll say this; I'm sure our gubment will come up with a plan that makes no one happy, more people angry and costs us a whole bunch o' money.

But on the other hand, I don't see why our border should have a big neon OPEN sign on it... Hello again, jillian:

You make a key point. However, I think it defeats your argument.

I maintain that IF the door was open to legal immigration (like all you people keep saying it is), then there would be NO NEON sign. The jobs WOULD be filled by LEGALS.

But, they're not. That tells me the spigot isn't open wide enough. Indeed. When legal immigration takes YEARS and costs $1,000's, the spigot is way backed up. When the spigot backs up, the neon sign comes ON.

Clearly, anybody who DID wait all those years and PAID all that money isn't going to be happy about people who didn't. I'M not happy about people who didn't! But, I certainly understand why they come. And, I certainly know who to blame.

excon

It hasn't been seen as a hostile takeover because it's more like water torture... a steady trickle. "Oh, it's only a few more..."

Plenty could and probably should be done. Or more correctly, should have been done.

But the problem today is something that could have controlled the leak hasn't been given the air time in the past that the issue deserved. Now, something that cost fifty bucks when it would have helped will cost several million bucks now, and won't likely be enough.

Hello again, jillian:

You make a key point. However, I think it defeats your argument.

I maintain that IF the door was open to legal immigration (like all you people keep saying it is), then there would be NO NEON sign. The jobs WOULD be filled by LEGALS.

But, they're not. That tells me the spigot isn't open wide enough. Indeed. When legal immigration takes YEARS and costs $1,000's, the spigot is way backed up. When the spigot backs up, the neon sign comes ON.

Clearly, anybody who DID wait all those years and PAID all that money isn't going to be happy about people who didn't. I'M not happy about people who didn't! But, I certainly understand why they come. And, I certainly know who to blame.

excon

Actually, excon, I agree with you; there would be no glowing OPEN sign if legal immigration policies were changed. And I don't know why you insist on considering me one of "those people" (is that you being a bigot again?? :)) I've told you time and time again, I'm not elephant, nor am I a donkey. But whatever.

The current system is broken - I think that's one thing we all agree on. The question is what to do about it? Some people think we should close our borders and not let another brown person into the country ever again. Some people think we should make Mexico a state. Both those ideas are horrible. My opinion is, we should work on policies which allow for legal immigration in reasonable time frames and for reasonable prices so the people who want to come here can get here and receive fair wages, pay taxes, be contributing members of our society, even vote someday. The nagging second question is what to do with the illegals who are here presently, which is where tensions usually arise. The blame lies with the gubment, you're certainly right about that. And not just the US gubment, but the Mexican gubment, the Guatemalan gubment, the Venezuelan gubment...

I maintain that IF the door was open to legal immigration (like all you people keep saying it is), then there would be NO NEON sign. The jobs WOULD be filled by LEGALS.
The door is available. Your forth paragraph speaks directly to that availability.

Would you have a problem with turning the NEON lights onto welfare recipeints? Screen them instead continuing to allow the trickling in of illeagals. Put them into a WORK-FARE program instead generations on the dole... fill that urgent need for workers?


Clearly, anybody who DID wait all those years and PAID all that money isn't going to be happy about people who didn't. I'M not happy about people who didn't! But, I certainly understand why they come. And, I certainly know who to blame.

Excon
I know I'd be POed! But I believe we've many of us, somewhere along the way, have been the victim of policy change, right before our eyes. Kickin' and screamin' won't change the day.

And, you, that's too bad. I hate playing by the rules and seeing people take advantage of the system - DAILY. But I'm the fool. I'll get it by myself or I just won't have it.

I hate playing by the rules and seeing people take advantage of the system - DAILY. But I'm the fool. I'll get it by myself or I just won't have it.Hello again, Captain:

I don't disagree.

But, when the gubment opens the cash window to farmers, for example, I don't get pissed off at the farmers who line up. Hell, if I was a farmer, I'd line up too. But, I can't and you can't either.

So, I get pissed off at the gubment. It's NOT the farmers who are the bad guys, and it's not the illegal's either.

excon

PS> I have no problem putting welfare recipients to work. What? You think I'm one of THEM like jillian does?

Some people think we should make Mexico a state.

Maybe a territory rather than an outright state. Pueto Rico and Guam are territories. If we purveyed the same duties and rights to "them" that PR and Guam have, all forms of economy and goodness could flow freely from North Dakota to Chiapas. Oh, my! We could hire "them" to clean it up along the way.



My opinion is, we should work on policies which allow for legal immigration in reasonable time frames and for reasonable prices so the people who want to come here can get here and receive fair wages, pay taxes, be contributing members of our society, even vote someday. The nagging second question is what to do with the illegals who are here presently, which is where tensions usually arise. The blame lies with the gubment, you're certainly right about that. And not just the US gubment, but the Mexican gubment, the Guatemalan gubment, the Venezuelan gubment...
We already have enoough immigration policies and laws that aren't being abided by. I really don't see how if we passed dozens more it would make a difference. If one wishes to come here illegally, what compells one to begin behaving after?
If "they" had to be absorbed into the system and play above board, perhaps being here wouldn't look so rosy.
Like so many others, I'm growing bored wondering if there is a way to fix this issue...

opens the cash window to farmers
Uh-huh. Like paying farmers to not grow wheat or peas this year. That's just plain dumb. I don't support that either.

That's another thread from immig.

Hello again, spring girl:

I dunno. That's an awfully specific number. Because it's so specific, I tend to doubt its authenticity. Citizens are hard enough to get an accurate count on. I can't imagine we would know exactly how many illegal's are here.

Since one of the numbers you use is suspect, the other is similarly questionable. Unless, of course, you can site a reliable source.

excon


Illegal Immigration Counters - Home Page (http://www.immigrationcounters.com/)


The Mexico/USA Border; The Gathering Storm (http://www.emergency.com/mexusa97.htm)
"Specifically in regard to drugs, according to counter-drug officials, an estimated 75% of all cocaine and 40% of all heroin that reaches the streets of America was smuggled through Mexico. DEA agents say that Mexican drug lords have become as powerful or more powerful than those leading the Colombian cartels. "



In my neck of the woods [ SE ] the meth coming from Mexico is reputedly stronger and cheaper - a better value - so much so that the homegrown labs are being outcompeted.


I agree that the amount of "illegals" would be less if we had more legal immigration, but come on, why should taxpaying citizens have to foot the bill and the consequences of crime that results from illegal immigration?



Grace and Peace

BABRAM agrees: From experience, not opinionated guessing, I can tell you that the U.S. legal immigration system is so backed up that "time frames" would make it worse. Alien petition for the married takes over one year now. Petitions for siblings over 18 forget it

Add more man power to the processing of legal requests, and waits get shortened. That's what I meant by time frames.


What? You think I'm one of THEM like jillian does?

You mean a pot-smoking liberal with no health insurance? :D


Maybe a territory rather than an outright state. Pueto Rico and Guam are territories. If we purveyed the same duties and rights to "them" that PR and Guam have, all forms of economy and goodness could flow freely from North Dakota to Chiapas. Oh, my! We could hire "them" to clean it up along the way.

I'm not under the impression Mexico WANTS to become a state or territory. Not to mention there are oodles of immigrants from other countries south of the border, surely we shouldn't make them all territories.


We already have enoough immigration policies and laws that aren't being abided by. I really don't see how if we passed dozens more it would make a difference. If one wishes to come here illegally, what compells one to begin behaving after?
If "they" had to be absorbed into the system and play above board, perhaps being here wouldn't look so rosy.
Like so many others, I'm growing bored wondering if there is a way to fix this issue...

You're right, there are a bunch of immigration policies not being abided by, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it and hope it fixes itself. I think redesigning the system and finding people willing to enforce the policies is the trick. Perhaps that's looking at things like an optimist, but hey, anything is possible. I think taking away some of the "benefits" of being here illegally would serve as a deterrent to some, and encourage legal immigration. I've mentioned this before, but my county is currently pursuing policies which will make public services prohibited to illegal immigrants. They proposed forbidding schools and EMS, but that's not allowed by the constitution, so instead they are working on other public services like the health clinic. Not sure how far it's going to get and it's being met with a lot of opposition (and a lot of support), but if it passes, it's likely to drive people out of the community. The Latino community is currently on a business strike, actually.

And I just want to say it makes me giggle to see other people use "gubment"! :) I can't take credit though, my high school Gubment teacher invented it.

Add more man power to the processing of legal requests, and waits get shortened. That's what I meant by time frames.





Jill-

It's the ridiculous jumping through hoops of paperwork that later passes onto several desks that will burn you out waiting. If the forms were shortened and the govt staff worried less about the next coffee break, we might just see some productivity. But instead they did expand it with more employees and added more paperwork. It's called, "Homeland Security." Now the one thing they will do is rush to answer any fee questions or tax concerns.



Bobby

Add more man power to the processing of legal requests, and waits get shortened. That's what I meant by time frames.
Streamlining our red tape to accommodate more? I'd still rather do more about stemming the flow first. And then perhaps addressing other aspects of the issue.

You mean a pot-smoking liberal with no health insurance?
I'd endorse decriminalization of pot, and just call him a liberal.

I'm not under the impression Mexico WANTS to become a state or territory. Not to mention there are oodles of immigrants from other countries south of the border, surely we shouldn't make them all territories.
I doubt they WANT to become anything they're not already. We can site stats about the number of ill-imm's here... but how many of them WANT to stay there. And what is their own gub doing to insure it's citizens remain?

You're right, there are a bunch of immigration policies not being abided by, but that doesn't mean we can ignore it and hope it fixes itself. I think redesigning the system and finding people willing to enforce the policies is the trick. Perhaps that's looking at things like an optimist, but hey, anything is possible. I think taking away some of the "benefits" of being here illegally would serve as a deterrent to some, and encourage legal immigration. I've mentioned this before, but my county is currently pursuing policies which will make public services prohibited to illegal immigrants. They proposed forbidding schools and EMS, but that's not allowed by the constitution, so instead they are working on other public services like the health clinic. Not sure how far it's going to get and it's being met with a lot of opposition (and a lot of support), but if it passes, it's likely to drive people out of the community. The Latino community is currently on a business strike, actually.
We're not a nation that would deny emergency services to anyone in need. As far as other services the ill-imm's are relying upon, those services weren't put in place and supported for their use to begin with. Again, it comes down to screening before they arrive at the clinic doors.

Finding the funding to find the people to work the dangerous task of guarding our borders is more of a problem. We have Customs, INS, US Coast Guard, state and local police, ICE, vigilantes, cameras and sensors... Everyone and everything is working 24/7. And yet there still isn't enough funding, and apparently insufficient public support. That has to change first.

Jill-

It's the ridiculous jumping through hoops of paperwork that later passes onto several desks that will burn you out waiting. If the forms were shortened and the govt staff worried less about the next coffee break, we might just see some productivity. But instead they did expand it with more employees and added more paperwork. It's called, "Homeland Security." Now the one thing they do is rush to answer any fee questions or tax concerns.



Bobby
Remember years ago Ross Perot suggested the US gub be run like a business rather than not? Make each department accountable for their own productivity, justify their own budget by proving their worth. It's much easier to drag your feet and say, "No," rather than be responsible for finding a way to say, "Yes."
With the volumes of policy and regulations, I'd be willing to bet you couldn't stick a legislator behind a desk at DMV or the patent office and have them remain productive with their own laws, one seeming to contradict the next!
Most people scoffed at Perot's suggestion. I actually thought that was a refreshing view!

Remember years ago Ross Perot suggested the US gub be run like a business rather than not? Make each department accountable for their own productivity, justify their own budget by proving their worth. It's much easier to drag your feet and say, "No," rather than be responsible for finding a way to say, "Yes."
With the volumes of policy and regulations, I'd be willing to bet you couldn't stick a legislator behind a desk at DMV or the patent office and have them remain productive with their own laws, one seeming to contradict the next!
Most people scoffed at Perot's suggestion. I actually thought that was a refreshing view!


Yes. I was also disappointed when Perot backed out of the election. Perot had the financial resources, as an Independent, to legitimately challenge for the office. I'll take it one step further than Perot: the US govt is a business. In fact so much so that they also want in be in everybody else's business and are being paid to do a job.




Bobby

Streamlining our red tape to accommodate more? I'd still rather do more about stemming the flow first. And then perhaps addressing other aspects of the issue.

Of course flow needs to be addressed, but with that comes redesign and streamlining of processes. I think (optimism again) if wait times and paperwork were streamlined and affordable less immigrants would sneak acrosss the border because coming here legally gets them more opportunities (and more services if those items are reformed as well). I don't see how it's possible to implement change in one area without change in other areas; that's counterproductive. Say we build a giant fence with a moat and put crocodiles in the moat to keep the illegals out, but we don't do anything to address the illegals here, or address the process for application for legal entry. You're just going to end up with holes in your fence and dead crocodiles. It's a HUGE issue, with a lot of problems that need to be addressed in line with one another in order to actually work. Or at least kind of work. It IS the gubment, after all.


I'd endorse decriminalization of pot, and just call him a liberal.

Decriminalization of pot is a whole new thread! :)


I doubt they WANT to become anything they're not already. We can site stats about the number of ill-imm's here... but how many of them WANT to stay there. And what is their own gub doing to insure it's citizens remain?

I'm sure most of the illegals want to stay here. Even the crappy conditions here are better than the crappy conditions there. We have jobs, clean drinking water, sewer systems, etc. I see the reason to want to come here, but making Mexico (or any other country) a state or territory causes that country to lose a bit of it's nationalism. Not only that, but our gumbent isn't equipped to take on the conditions in Mexico. Mexico has an HDI of .821, they are ranked 53rd out of 177 countries. They suffer from huge income inequalities and have an HPI-1 value of 7.2. Why would the US gubment want to take on a nation with such economic problems? The Mexican gubment needs to reform itself instead of relying on the US to take on and fix its problems. So really, they aren't doing anything to ensure citizens remain. I've even heard rumors about the Mexican gubment passing out flyers about illegal immigration to the US as a method of promoting the behavior.


We're not a nation that would deny emergency services to anyone in need. As far as other services the ill-imm's are relying upon, those services weren't put in place and supported for their use to begin with. Again, it comes down to screening before they arrive at the clinic doors.

No, we can't deny emergency services to people in need. I mean, your house is on fire, what's the fire dept going to do, ask you to prove your legal status before putting it out? It's silly, and that's why those measures were dismissed. I'll be interested to see what they DO get passed...


Finding the funding to find the people to work the dangerous task of guarding our borders is more of a problem. We have Customs, INS, US Coast Guard, state and local police, ICE, vigilantes, cameras and sensors... Everyone and everything is working 24/7. And yet there still isn't enough funding, and apparently insufficient public support. That has to change first.

Funding is a problem. Gubment agencies and contractors have a way of just running through money like it's water and never getting anything accomplished. You're right, public support has to change, funds need to be properly appropriated, and measures which actually WORK need to be in place before we will see an impact made.

Yes. I was also disappointed when Perot backed out of the election. Perot had the financial resources, as an Independent, to legitimately challenge for the office. I'll take it one step further than Perot: the US govt is a business. In fact so much so that they also want in be in everybody else's business and are being paid to do a job.




Bobby
That's true, Bobby

But they can't get their own checks to clear their own bank! Remember that fiasco?

If you or I did that, the results would be different!

That's true, Bobby

But they can't get their own checks to clear their own bank!! Remeber that fiasco?

If you or I did that, the results would be different!

My wife was says I'm getting a case of OA (old age). That's one of many fiasco's... just vaguely. Remind me. I do know recently there was news that the United Nations was paying in counterfeit money.


Bobby

The banking fiasco? That's old (early '90's?) but I remember "Rubber-gate"

The UN gives a whole new meaning to: "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"

Of course flow needs to be addressed, but with that comes redesign and streamlining of processes. I think (optimism again) if wait times and paperwork were streamlined and affordable less immigrants would sneak acrosss the border because coming here legally gets them more opportunities (and more services if those items are reformed as well). I don't see how it's possible to implement change in one area without change in other areas; that's counterproductive. Say we build a giant fence with a moat and put crocodiles in the moat to keep the illegals out, but we don't do anything to address the illegals here, or address the process for application for legal entry. You're just going to end up with holes in your fence and dead crocodiles. It's a HUGE issue, with a lot of problems that need to be addressed in line with one another in order to actually work. Or at least kinda work. It IS the gubment, afterall.



Decriminalization of pot is a whole new thread! :)



I'm sure most of the illegals want to stay here. Even the crappy conditions here are better than the crappy conditions there. We have jobs, clean drinking water, sewer systems, etc. I see the reason to want to come here, but making Mexico (or any other country) a state or territory causes that country to lose a bit of it's nationalism. Not only that, but our gumbent isn't equipped to take on the conditions in Mexico. Mexico has an HDI of .821, they are ranked 53rd out of 177 countries. They suffer from huge income inequalities and have an HPI-1 value of 7.2. Why would the US gubment want to take on a nation with such economic problems? The Mexican gubment needs to reform itself instead of relying on the US to take on and fix its problems. So really, they aren't doing anything to ensure citizens remain. I've even heard rumors about the Mexican gubment passing out flyers about illegal immigration to the US as a method of promoting the behavior.



No, we can't deny emergency services to people in need. I mean, your house is on fire, what's the fire dept going to do, ask you to prove your legal status before putting it out? It's silly, and that's why those measures were dismissed. I'll be interested to see what they DO get passed...



Funding is a problem. Gubment agencies and contractors have a way of just running through money like it's water and never getting anything accomplished. You're right, public support has to change, funds need to be properly appropriated, and measures which actually WORK need to be in place before we will see an impact made.
Any thought to how many Ill-Imm's are fleeing justice? Just because they haven't been busted here, doesn't mean they're not wanted there. So even if the process was streamlined, doesn't dictate their compliance. I'm not saying they're all wanted at home, or even desired there. But that's a statistic we'll probably never honestly know.

The banking fiasco? That's old (early '90's?) but I remember "Rubber-gate"

The UN gives a whole new meaning to: "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"

Yes. From this year, reported March 16, 2007, the incident from 10 years ago reared it's ugly head once again.

"It has been well known for years, and was spelled out last fall by the U.S. Treasury, that North Korea’s regime has been sponsoring the counterfeiting of U.S. banknotes and laundering into world markets these so-called Supernotes, which first surfaced in the Philippines in 1989. What has not made it into the news, however, is that some of these banknotes appear to have ended up in the possession of the UNDP office in Pyongyang—which, until it got hit with scandal this past January for funneling genuine cash to Kim, apparently did nothing to report counterfeit bills allegedly coming at them.

The UNDP spokesman’s office has confirmed to me some details of the suspect cash, which, according to the UNDP, is now in the process of being removed from the agency’s Pyongyang premises and turned over to U.S. authorities. This was alluded to in a press briefing Tuesday at the U.N.’s New York headquarters by UNDP spokesman David Morrison, who, as part of a longer statement, touched in vague terms on “an incident dating back more than 10 years” in which “a consultant who worked for UNDP” had “some difficulty” with U.S. banknotes."

__________________________________________________ ____________________




Bobby

Any thought to how many Ill-Imm's are fleeing justice? Just because they haven't been busted here, doesn't mean they're not wanted there. So even if the process was streamlined, doesn't dictate their compliance. I'm not saying they're all wanted at home, or even desired there. But that's a statistic we'll probably never honestly know.

I don't know, would be interesting to know, though. Streamlining the process wouldn't eliminate illegal immigration - that's what the fence and the crocodiles are for. :) I'm making the assumption the majority of illegals aren't felons in Mexico (or wherever they are from).