Lovely article, Dag. Thanks for sharing it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I will have compassion after the safety, save it be if you insist on turn the other cheek at the expense of following the law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Robert didn't break the law - no one who is 3 can do that. Is Robert a threat?
I actually don't have a big problem with the fence, although I question its effectiveness and its place on the priority list. But I do have a big problem with linking border control to documentation of undocumented people within our borders.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I don't have a problem with the physical fence either. Obviously border control is important. But I do think conceptually it rubs wrong way with the general public. It's a bit like saying "We don't want you people here."
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I agree, great article Dag. Though I can't help but issue a pained chuckle as I compare that letter to the kinda-sorta similar letter from the bishop of Colorado springs a few years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But I do have a big problem with linking border control to documentation of undocumented people within our borders.
So if we don't have undocumented people crossing the border that won't help with the documentation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I like that letter, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So if we don't have undocumented people crossing the border that won't help with the documentation?
I've already said I don't oppose a fence. The "where's the fence" people are also against so-called "amnesty." Groups linked to them have harassed hard-working citizens in my area just because they speak Spanish and have to take day work.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Great response and great article, Dagonee.
I don't have a problem with the physical fence either. Obviously border control is important. But I do think conceptually it rubs wrong way with the general public. It's a bit like saying "We don't want you people here."
I think this is exactly where my discomfort lies.
--j_k
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think the fence is a terrible idea that we will regret for years to come, regardless of whether it ever achieves the aim of reducing illegal border crossings.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
If the fence sounded like it was going to be physically effective, then it might be worth considering. But since its value is mostly symbolic, and since the symbolism is exactly what is wrong with it, it's hard for me to justify putting a lot of energy into building it Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Any sort of fence will not work without constant surveillance and defense, otherwise drug smugglers will simply break through. I read an article several years back about [government agency, don't remember which one] that was trying to protect a fragile riparian area near the border that was a favorite path for smugglers. All they wanted was to keep vehicles out of it; they weren't trying to stop them in any other way. Still, any sort of fence they put in would be destroyed within a week. Even when they moved huge boulders to block vehicles, they were dynamited off.
Illegal immigration is a problem, but it doesn't scare me any where near as much as the drug smugglers do.
--Mel
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: If the fence sounded like it was going to be physically effective, then it might be worth considering. But since its value is mostly symbolic, and since the symbolism is exactly what is wrong with it, it's hard for me to justify putting a lot of energy into building it
Agreed 100%.
And (watch! I can make this thread get even more controversial in one easy move!) that is why I oppose this fence but am in favor of the one in Israel. That one has actually saved lives.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I find the initials of this movement amusing and somewhat appropriate. I also think the government has better things to do than wasting taxpayer money on ineffective programs. We're not exactly ideally suited for border control in this country, given the size of the border. Perhaps the money would be better spent on going after companies (and not only workers) who hire illegal immigrants. Why don't we pass bills to let people like Robert go to college, after which we help them return to Mexico and work to improve conditions there so their children won't feel the need to enter the US illegally? Or what if we streamline the process of getting in legally? That way, the labor market won't be undercut by undocumented workers working for less than minimum wage because they have no legal status to demand fair treatment. It also means that they'll be paying taxes.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Penn and Teller in their scatologically named documentary series had a group of illegals build a fence like the one that is proposed. Then they timed how long it took them to break through it. 2-3 minutes.
Why get enthusiastic about policies without bothering to check whether they have any effect?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
It took 2-3 minutes for Penn and Teller to break through? Well, they're probably more skilled than the average person at breaking into things they're not supposed to break into. If we were trying to keep magicians out of the country, we'd never have a chance.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It wasn't Penn & Teller, it was the same Mexicans that built the fence. They divided into three teams of two, one went over the wall, one went under and one went through it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bah, everyone in Congress is for amnesty. They all tacitly agree by not putting forth any measure to remove illegals from the country en masse. They don't put forth any measures because they all know that kicking all these people out would hurt the economy, cost millions of dollars, and in the end probably be pretty ineffective anyway.
And everyone in Congress knows that the fence is a symbolic measure, it was only done as a rather expensive publicity stunt to try and show people they are serious about illegal immigration, allowing them to sidestep the really hard questions at hand.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I will have compassion after the safety, save it be if you insist on turn the other cheek at the expense of following the law.
You, specifically, are threatened how exactly by illegal immigration, Occassional?
------------------
quote:So if we don't have undocumented people crossing the border that won't help with the documentation?
What is this fence going to be made of, exactly? A force-field with laser turrets, minefields, and psychics? It'll be something that costs vast amounts of money and personnel, that's for sure.
------------------
The only measures that would be truly effective in keeping the numbers of people who want to come across the Mexican border out of the United States are methods we should not consider. You're going to need a Cold War style Berlin Wall for that.
I don't want that kind of thing 'protecting' me from people who, to be honest, my nation exploits a hell of a lot more than is harmed by.
Much like somehow lowering fuel prices, effective measures require a lot of really tough decisions that in my opinion Americans in general are simply unwilling to make, or even recognize need to be examined.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:What is this fence going to be made of, exactly? A force-field with laser turrets, minefields, and psychics?
Is that feasible?
quote:You, specifically, are threatened how exactly by illegal immigration, Occassional?
Well don't totally blow it off. Having an unsecured border IS a danger, but I think the Draconian/Soviet style efforts to wall it off are horrible ideas. We DO need a safe, secure border, but I think that should include higher quotas for immigration, so long as we also fix a half dozen other major problems in America so those immigrants remain a boon and not a burden to our economy and society.
Besides, techology can be our friend. An increase in border patrol, mixed with some advancements in monitoring tech can be sufficient in catching the guys we don't want crossing the boarder, so long as policy advancements make sure the majority of them come across legally and face the same checks that other immigrants get.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is that feasible?
For it to be as effective as some people seem to hint at or imply, it would have to be feasible.
quote:Well don't totally blow it off.
I wasn't asking the question to blow off the threat, I was asking the question to pin down the threat.
The truth is, (and this is actually just a guess, but it's one I'm pretty comfortable making) Occassional is harmed and threatened somewhere between zero and just a tiny smidge by illegal immigration crossing the Mexican border. That's even without taking into account the benefits he likely (indirectly) derives from it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I wasn't asking the question to blow off the threat, I was asking the question to pin down the threat.
Fair enough. I think that's a good discussion to have.
quote:For it to be as effective as some people seem to hint at or imply, it would have to be feasible.
I'd like to voice my support now then for the implementation of force fields, laser turrets and psychics, I don't even care where we deploy them to. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Dude, psychics don't exist!
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Shigosei- you only think that because they use their Jedi mind tricks to make you think that!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
/waves hand
These aren't the Laws of Motion you are looking for...
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
If the fence sounded like it was going to be physically effective, then it might be worth considering. But since its value is mostly symbolic, and since the symbolism is exactly what is wrong with it, it's hard for me to justify putting a lot of energy into building it.
I agree that there are better things to spend our border-security money on than a fence that's easy to break through. But I don't see a problem with symbolically saying that we don't want people sneaking across our borders. For that matter, don't all law-enforcement measures symbolically send the message that we don't want people to do certain things?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:What is this fence going to be made of, exactly? A force-field with laser turrets, minefields, and psychics?
Is that feasible?
quote:You, specifically, are threatened how exactly by illegal immigration, Occassional?
Well don't totally blow it off. Having an unsecured border IS a danger, but I think the Draconian/Soviet style efforts to wall it off are horrible ideas. We DO need a safe, secure border, but I think that should include higher quotas for immigration, so long as we also fix a half dozen other major problems in America so those immigrants remain a boon and not a burden to our economy and society.
FYI, it isn't clear that they actually cost more, even now.
I find it ironic that there is so much fuss over illegal Mexican immigrants, who are willing to perform so many jobs that American citizens don't want to do, while our corporations are at the same time working hard to move as many skilled jobs as possible overseas, or bring in legal workers to do jobs which skilled American workers DO want.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Where's the compassion for the people of Mexico? The Mexican Elites don't want the fence or enforcment of the US border because the porous border is THE helpful pressure release for any meaningful economic reforms in Mexico. They also need the US dollars flowing back to relatives in Mexico. Compassion? You want to keep the people of Mexico under the thumb of the Mexican Elites? Keep the borders open. You enjoy people risking their lives crossing the deserts to sneak in? Keep the borders open. You want cheap, undocumented labour working off the books. Keep the borders open. You want a permanent underclass made up of people who've shown a willingness to disregard inconvenient US laws. Keep the borders open.
It's disengenuous to speak about closing the border as not being compassionate. They choose to break the law. They choose to leave their families behind. Mexican illegals can reunite with their relatives in Mexico anytime they want. All they have to do is go home.
If there are jobs in the US that the people legally here won't do, then the solution is to grant more visas to people to legally come into the US to do those jobs. Let them wait in line. Where's the compassion for those people who are waiting in line to get to legally enter the US while others are jumping the border and not waiting their turn to legally enter?
Where's your compassion for taxpayers whose services are burdened by these illegals?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's disengenuous to speak about closing the border as not being compassionate. They choose to break the law. They choose to leave their families behind. Mexican illegals can reunite with their relatives in Mexico anytime they want. All they have to do is go home.
Did you read the article I posted or react only to the title? What about this boy who did nothing illegal (a 3-year old cannot commit a federal crime).
quote:Keep the borders open. You enjoy people risking their lives crossing the deserts to sneak in? Keep the borders open. You want cheap, undocumented labour working off the books. Keep the borders open. You want a permanent underclass made up of people who've shown a willingness to disregard inconvenient US laws. Keep the borders open.
The link between allowing those already in the country and supporting themselves to obtain documentation (so-called "amnesty") and the fence was made by the pro-fence people. I see them as very different issues.
Undocumented people can be exploited because they are undocumented. It's disingenuous to pretend that the border being open is the only cause. They are an underclass in large part because they exist outside society.
There are two ways to handle this: one is to try to round up millions of people - many of whom committed no crime - and send them out of the country. The other is to tighten the border and ALSO find a way to allow people who have already proven their ability to support themselves while sending money home to continue to do so without the lack of status that makes them easily exploitable.
quote:Where's your compassion for taxpayers whose services are burdened by these illegals?
Are you capable of only feeling compassion for one group of people at a time? I'm not.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If there are jobs in the US that the people legally here won't do, then the solution is to grant more visas to people to legally come into the US to do those jobs.
Sounds good to me. Let's get that visa process reformed so it's actually possible for an unskilled laborer to get into the country legally in a reasonable period of time.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
There are two ways to handle this: one is to try to round up millions of people - many of whom committed no crime - and send them out of the country.
No crime other than sneaking into the country illegally, you mean. I agree that we should take an illegal immigrant's behavior into account when punishing him or her, but let's not pretend that the majority of illegal immigrants are "innocent." (If you came here as a three-year-old kid you should probably get to stay if you've behaved well.)
I think it will ultimately turn out to be beneficial to let a number of the illegal immigrants become citizens, but I think we'll need to give each of them a more thorough background check than you can give in 24 hours (which I believe was all the time a background check could take under the defeated bill). Also, just so these illegal immigrants don't get any idea that they're entitled to be here, we should make English the official language, as bilingualism seems to create divisions more often than not. Also, we need to simultaneously reform the legal immigration system so that the people who have been following the procedures don't have to become citizens long after the illegal immigrants do.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:No crime other than sneaking into the country illegally, you mean.
Or being born of parents that did so. Or do the kids stay and just their parents get sent back?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My only real problems with immigration are thus,
1: Why should Mexico get such uninhibited access to the US? What of many people from other countries who also want to migrate here. Mexico is getting alot more then its fair share here.
2: I'm trying to remember the term, HA! "Remittances" are a big problem in terms of being a drain on our economy. Sure they work these jobs that Americans don't want, but much if not most of the money they make is sent back to Mexico where it circulates there. It creates a drain on the economy.
Having said that, I think immigration is very important, and I am more inclined to finding a way to make room rather then trying to beat off the people drowning in the water with our oars so that nobody else can get into our life raft which is far from full.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What about this boy who did nothing illegal (a 3-year old cannot commit a federal crime).
Nobody tell my brother, but as soon as his son is born, I'm going to start teaching the kid how to knock over banks. Assuming he can walk at around 1 year, that's two years of free money!
[ July 02, 2007, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: MightyCow ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What about this boy who did nothing illegal (a 3-year old cannot commit a federal crime).
Nobody tell my brother, but as soon as his son is born, I'm going to start teaching the kid how to knock over banks. Assuming he can walk at around 1 year, that's two years of free money!
A fellow student's 4 year old daughter had a credit card issued to her. My teacher advised him to max it out as they can't be liable to charges incurred by their daughter until she is 16 years of age? Could be as late as 18.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No crime other than sneaking into the country illegally, you mean. I agree that we should take an illegal immigrant's behavior into account when punishing him or her, but let's not pretend that the majority of illegal immigrants are "innocent." (If you came here as a three-year-old kid you should probably get to stay if you've behaved well.)
The three year old committed no crime. No "other" about it. Further, many illegal immigrants overstayed visas and did not "sneak across the border illegally." Overstaying a visa was not, as of about 3 years ago, a crime. I haven't researched it since to determine if it's been made a crime since then.
quote:Nobody tell my brother, but as soon as his son is born, I'm going to start teaching the kid how to knock over banks. Assuming he can walk at around 1 year, that's two years of free money!
Sorry, they thought of that one.
Under federal law (which covers robbery of FDIC insured banks), you would have full culpability for such an act.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A fellow student's 4 year old daughter had a credit card issued to her. My teacher advised him to max it out as they can't be liable to charges incurred by their daughter until she is 16 years of age? Could be as late as 18.
They can be held liable by the merchants for all the charges they make - including criminal liability for using someone else's credit card, unless they are authorized users. And, if they are authorized users, they're probably on the hook some other way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Also, just so these illegal immigrants don't get any idea that they're entitled to be here, we should make English the official language, as bilingualism seems to create divisions more often than not.
While we're at it, we should make white the official race. The black race creates divisions more often than not, as clearly evidenced by their reactions to my saying so.
Aw crap, I ran out smilies.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:A fellow student's 4 year old daughter had a credit card issued to her. My teacher advised him to max it out as they can't be liable to charges incurred by their daughter until she is 16 years of age? Could be as late as 18.
They can be held liable by the merchants for all the charges they make - including criminal liability for using someone else's credit card, unless they are authorized users. And, if they are authorized users, they're probably on the hook some other way.
Oh I had my doubts about the advice, credit card companies are certainly VERY good at getting the money they are due.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay, Dag prepare to shoot evil glances my way.
I read the article and was not all that moved by it. A college degree is out of reach for millions of legal Americans - heck I'm one of them. If a family member hadn't stepped in and agreed to loan me the money for the rest of my tuition so I could finish, I would have had to quit this semester. Even with a partial scholarship, the tuition was out of our reach, and we didn't qualify for financial aid.
There are millions of people who would love to go to college and can't afford it. Why should we instigate programs to make it easier for illegals to get a degree? I'd rather start with making it easier for American citizens who want to go to college.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why should we instigate programs to make it easier for illegals to get a degree? I'd rather start with making it easier for American citizens who want to go to college.
It wouldn't be any easier for the average illegal to get a degree, they'd still have to come up with the money just like a citizen.
A college degree can be earned from the wages at a fast food restaurant, but only if education is your priority. Also, many low-skill jobs provide educational reimbursement as part of their benefit plans. There are a couple telemarketing call centers in my area that offer that.
Of course your selection of schools and majors may be limited, but that's a separate matter.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I read the article and was not all that moved by it. A college degree is out of reach for millions of legal Americans - heck I'm one of them. If a family member hadn't stepped in and agreed to loan me the money for the rest of my tuition so I could finish, I would have had to quit this semester. Even with a partial scholarship, the tuition was out of our reach, and we didn't qualify for financial aid.
There are millions of people who would love to go to college and can't afford it. Why should we instigate programs to make it easier for illegals to get a degree? I'd rather start with making it easier for American citizens who want to go to college.
Student loans. Plenty of people who can't afford college and don't qualify for financial aid take out student loans. Like, more than half of my classmates.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It wouldn't be any easier for the average illegal to get a degree, they'd still have to come up with the money just like a citizen.
Would they be eligible for financial aid? Thus taking away aid that an American citizen could qualify for?
I guess I could see allowing them to attend college but only if they were not allowed any government sponsored aid whatsoever. That should be reserved for legal citizens. Of course, if someone wanted to set up a private scholarship, that would be their right but I wouldn't want to see one cent of government money go to an illegal over a US citizen.
quote:Student loans. Plenty of people who can't afford college and don't qualify for financial aid take out student loans. Like, more than half of my classmates.
Many loan programs have need-based components to them, which I do not qualify for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Omega M.,
quote:But I don't see a problem with symbolically saying that we don't want people sneaking across our borders.
The trouble is, this particular symbol says more than one thing at a time.
quote:No crime other than sneaking into the country illegally, you mean. I agree that we should take an illegal immigrant's behavior into account when punishing him or her, but let's not pretend that the majority of illegal immigrants are "innocent." (If you came here as a three-year-old kid you should probably get to stay if you've behaved well.)
Before you get started on them not being "innocent"...would you break an immigration law to try and help your family out of desperate, grinding, abject poverty, Omega M.? Yes, yes, I know that doesn't matter regarding the question of illegality. But it does matter regarding the question of just what position you're in to condemn it. ------------- Mig,
quote:Where's the compassion for the people of Mexico?
Just to get this out there up front, I doubt very much you're actually concerned at all with being compassionate for the people of Mexico.
quote:It's disengenuous to speak about closing the border as not being compassionate. They choose to break the law. They choose to leave their families behind. Mexican illegals can reunite with their relatives in Mexico anytime they want. All they have to do is go home.
Oh, give me a break.
quote: You want a permanent underclass made up of people who've shown a willingness to disregard inconvenient US laws. Keep the borders open.
Americans have shown a willingness to disregard inconvenient American laws.
quote:The Mexican Elites don't want the fence or enforcment of the US border because the porous border is THE helpful pressure release for any meaningful economic reforms in Mexico.
I'd be shocked if you could spell the name of the primary Mexican political party, much less hold a knowledgeable conversation about Mexican elites. Furthermore, when has a drastic increase in population and crushing poverty ever helped anything? Let's be clear: putting up a meaningless fence wouldn't help the Mexican government deal with Mexican problems. That's just a phantom you're putting out there.
quote:Where's your compassion for taxpayers whose services are burdened by these illegals?
Another phantom. Americans benefit from illegal labor at least as much as they suffer from it. You even hinted at it yourself.
--------------
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess I could see allowing them to attend college but only if they were not allowed any government sponsored aid whatsoever. That should be reserved for legal citizens.
The reason we have government aid is so that people who can't provide something for themselves are able to have it. I can't think of a reason for excluding the boy described in the article I linked from any need-based government aid for which he otherwise qualifies, nor can I think of any reason that whether his parents had papers when he was three should be used to deem him less worthy of such aid than someone with the good fortune to be born here. For all intents and purposes he is American.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Dag,
I read the article and I find it hard to muster any sympathy. His parent's law breaking has already gotten him an education they didn't have to pay for. If he wants to be a doctor, he can study in Mexico on their dime.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
We should make, I dunno, Cherokee the official language, to keep those illegal English immigrants from thinking they own the damned place.
Do you think that any nation should have an official language?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No.
Official languages are stupid. If everybody speaks a language, then legislating it is redundant. If everybody does not, then legislating it is only a way for bigots to communicate their hatred.
Interestingly enough, Mexico does not have an official language.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I read the article and I find it hard to muster any sympathy. His parent's law breaking has already gotten him an education they didn't have to pay for. If he wants to be a doctor, he can study in Mexico on their dime.
Remind me where it is in our American ideals that we punish a child for the crime of his parents.
Oh, and thanks for dropping the compassion BS you were putting out there.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:For all intents and purposes he is American.
No, he's not. Nothing changes the fact that he is not a legal citizen - no matter how long he's been here, no matter whether it wasn't his fault, he is not legal. But, let's take the focus off of him and put it on his parents, who DID do something illegal. I want my children, who are all American citizens, to get college educations. That's going to cost me a whole lot of money. Why should his parents get help paying for their child's education when millions of parents like myself aren't getting any help for our kids?
As Mig said, they've already gotten the benefit of a free K-12 education for their son.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Student loans. Plenty of people who can't afford college and don't qualify for financial aid take out student loans. Like, more than half of my classmates.
Many loan programs have need-based components to them, which I do not qualify for. [/QB]
Unsubsidized Stafford loans are not awarded based on financial need.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, he's not. Nothing changes the fact that he is not a legal citizen - no matter how long he's been here, no matter whether it wasn't his fault, he is not legal. But, let's take the focus off of him and put it on his parents, who DID do something illegal. I want my children, who are all American citizens, to get college educations. That's going to cost me a whole lot of money. Why should his parents get help paying for their child's education when millions of parents like myself aren't getting any help for our kids?
You're still penalizing a child for the actions of his parents. Legally speaking, unfortunately, you're right, he's not an American. Morally, in my heart at least, a child who is born in Mexico but then is brought across the border, just let's say a few minutes after his birth and then lives in the US all his life, that child is an American.
How about supporting offering more help for American parents to send their children to college, rather than focusing on penalizing the children of illegal immigrants? I can certainly suggest which would be more tangibly helpful to you...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As Mig said, they've already gotten the benefit of a free K-12 education for their son.
K-12 is largely paid for by property taxes. If his parents pay their rent, they paid for K-12.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I read the article and I find it hard to muster any sympathy. His parent's law breaking has already gotten him an education they didn't have to pay for. If he wants to be a doctor, he can study in Mexico on their dime.
Did they pay rent? Then they paid (through their landlord) the property taxes that make up the bulk of public school funding. Did they buy groceries? Then they paid sales tax. Did they drive a car? Then they paid gasoline taxes.
Further, most children in public schools are subsidized by other people's taxes.
quote:No, he's not. Nothing changes the fact that he is not a legal citizen - no matter how long he's been here, no matter whether it wasn't his fault, he is not legal.
Then we have very different definitions of "American." For me, the government definition should be a reflection of who is American, not a creator of such status. To the extent it doesn't reflect that status, the government definition should be changed.
quote:But, let's take the focus off of him and put it on his parents, who DID do something illegal. I want my children, who are all American citizens, to get college educations. That's going to cost me a whole lot of money. Why should his parents get help paying for their child's education when millions of parents like myself aren't getting any help for our kids?
Well let's take another step back. Why should I help you (through my taxes) put your children through college? None of the reasons on my list for supporting public support of colleges include "because they were born here" or "because their parents didn't come to America from elsewhere without getting a piece of paper first."
quote:As Mig said, they've already gotten the benefit of a free K-12 education for their son.
It depends on how you define "free." Again, they certainly paid a lot of taxes in those years.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:It wouldn't be any easier for the average illegal to get a degree, they'd still have to come up with the money just like a citizen.
Would they be eligible for financial aid? Thus taking away aid that an American citizen could qualify for?
I guess I could see allowing them to attend college but only if they were not allowed any government sponsored aid whatsoever. That should be reserved for legal citizens. Of course, if someone wanted to set up a private scholarship, that would be their right but I wouldn't want to see one cent of government money go to an illegal over a US citizen.
quote:Student loans. Plenty of people who can't afford college and don't qualify for financial aid take out student loans. Like, more than half of my classmates.
Many loan programs have need-based components to them, which I do not qualify for.
Belle, my wife just went back to grad school (library science), and I make too much money. We were still able to acquire unsubsidized student loans. Not exactly the best deal, but it gets her into school. I realize that she needs to remain "full-time" student status to receive them, but at her school, that's 2 courses a semester. I don't know if yours is different though.
EDIT: dkw beat me to it. Oh, and sheesh Dagonee, you are totally pink(-o) in the middle Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What can I say. This thread inspires me.
Frivel and Schleck: DODECAHEDRON!
My Barbed-Wire Underpants
It's prickly and it's scratchy, It makes my skin look patchy; Though I'm told it's for the best, I never seem to get much rest With my barbed-wire underpants
Other folks have silk or linen; My drawers have razors all up in 'em, As porous as a fence of shivs I look ridiculous in my skivs, In my barbed-wire underpants.
No lace or frills, or elastic waist-- No easy smile upon my face. I wish that I could strip 'em down, Bury them beneath the ground! Send 'em off to Hell or worse: The cesspool of the universe! Let them burn and freeze and spin and tear Cruel and cursed underwear!
Then I would find a gentler pair To pull upon my derriere. And breathe a breath of great relief-- Blessed, comfy, softest briefs.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*grin*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Do you think that any nation should have an official language?
The meaning of the term "official language" depends entirely on the nature of the legislation making it official. For example, here in Canada:
In general, I believe "official language" designations in other countries are similar in that they define one or more languages in which, at a minimum, governments must provide services. This doesn't prevent governments from offering services in other languages, of course, or from recognizing other languages as minority languages to require provision of services in them in certain areas.
However, I don't think any of that would accomplish your goal of "preventing immigrants from feeling like they're entitled to be in the U.S." So when you use the term "official language," you should probably be clearer about what exactly it is you mean.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, and sheesh Dagonee, you are totally pink(-o) in the middle
Bite your tongue.
Seriously, this comes from a very conservative foundation, and is all premised on the existence of these benefits. That is, to the extent such programs exist, eligibility for them should not be conditioned on whether one's parents crossed the border illegally. It's the combination of a lot of aspects of our society that make illegal immigration such an intractable problem.
It also comes from a frustration that the issue of border security has been linked so heavily to what we do with existing people in our country. There's also a lack of nuance in how the word "illegal" is being used that makes much of the analysis seem very shallow to me. The mere fact that a law has been broken should not be the end-all, be-all of the discussion, especially when the law is not one with moral inherency (such as the law against murder or theft). This is a law of civil administration with no inherent moral superiority over dozens of other ways of handling the borders.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:This is a law of civil administration with no inherent moral superiority over dozens of other ways of handling the borders.
Agreed. There are lots of ways to handle it. WHile I believe in following the law, I do not consider the law to be perfect and take my definitions of morality from it instead of the other way around.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There was an interesting letter to the editor in a local paper awhile back that suggested that when no American drives even 5 mph above the posted speed limit, cheats on his or her income tax, or takes a sip of alcohol before age 21 the writer might be willing to listen to the "but they broke the law" argument against undocumented residents.
Especially when, as has been pointed out, many of them entered the country legally and became "illegal" because of mistakes in filing their renewal forms or other clerical errors. And sometimes the error is not even their own.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dagonee, I am sympathetic to your view. I really think that if we want to solve it to a greater extent than the current situation, we need to look at it as an economic issue, not social policy. So long as people want to see this as a social ill, then it will orders of magnitude more difficult to solve.
And from an economic model, I see it as follows... The last majorly tariffed economic "good" in this world is the human resource. Just like tariffs aren't good on other goods (the only macro-economic truism I've read about that every economic "school" agrees on, I think), economically it makes little sense to do the same to people.
-Bok
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, I made a similar argument to a friend of mine back in the day. He was violently opposed to pot smoking (I think just because he was severely asthmatic and so any sort of smoking made him feel like he was breathing through mud), and the cornerstone of his argument was that it was illegal.
Of course, at the time of this discussion we were 19 years old and driving on the interstate. He was speeding, and I was drinking a beer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That being said, I support penalties for illegal entry, and there is some justice to the idea of depriving the illegal enterer of the benefits of the lawbreaking. However, the children are not the illegal enterers and the ongoing status of shadow people excluded from civil society is too harsh a penalty.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Taking out unsubsidized loans would only plunge my family into debt, and I would graduate with a lot of debt and then be unable to help my kids with their college costs, so I don't consider it a viable option for me. For others, sure - not for us.
quote:Why should I help you (through my taxes) put your children through college?
Trust me, you won't be. If we don't qualify for any type of aid now, we certainly won't when I start working, which I should do before my oldest is ready for college.
quote:None of the reasons on my list for supporting public support of colleges include "because they were born here" or "because their parents didn't come to America from elsewhere without getting a piece of paper first."
Perhaps that's not an issue for you, but it is for others. It is for me. I do support public education and I support programs for people who cannot afford college on their own. Yet, I want those programs, if they're funded by taxpayer money, to be available for citizens first. The same way I think state colleges should offer aid to students from their state first.
If you support educational opportunities for illegals, then start a private scholarship fund specifically for people who were brought into this country illegally by their parents. I'm fine with that. I wouldn't do it, I'd rather give money to poor kids who are legally in this country, but I certainly wouldn't stop you from giving money where you wish - it's your money. I just don't want public money being parcelled out to people who are here illegally, even if it's not their fault that they're illegal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why not? I think we established that the illegals are paying taxes just like legals...they're putting their money in the hat.
They are adding to the economy. I haven't done the research, but I'd bet they're adding more resources than they're drawing.
I don't have much of a problem at all with the children of illegal immigrants receiving publicly funded aid. We're clever enough with money in this country-- I bet we can find a way to meet every student's needs.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Taking out unsubsidized loans would only plunge my family into debt, and I would graduate with a lot of debt and then be unable to help my kids with their college costs, so I don't consider it a viable option for me. For others, sure - not for us.
If I recall correctly, you go to a state a school. Which means a significant portion of your education is subsidized by taxpayers.
quote:Trust me, you won't be. If we don't qualify for any type of aid now, we certainly won't when I start working, which I should do before my oldest is ready for college.
If they go to state college they'll be subsidized by taxpayers for a large percentage of the cost of their education (not by me specifically since I'm in a different state). Further, the expected parental contribution to college is lower than the contribution from a spouse, so they very well might qualify for aid.
But that's really besides the point.
quote:Perhaps that's not an issue for you, but it is for others. It is for me. I do support public education and I support programs for people who cannot afford college on their own. Yet, I want those programs, if they're funded by taxpayer money, to be available for citizens first. The same way I think state colleges should offer aid to students from their state first.
There are lots of people who have an issue with helping anyone with education. I don't see you have a better claim on their money than a boy who's lived here for almost his entire life has on yours.
quote:If you support educational opportunities for illegals, then start a private scholarship fund specifically for people who were brought into this country illegally by their parents.
If you support having an extra benefit available to citizens and residents of states, start a private scholarship fund specifically for people whose parents didn't have to flee extreme poverty.
And please stop referring to this boy as an "illegal." He's not an illegal anything.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
1. Breaking immigration laws isn't actually a crime, in most cases - unless you have been removed from the country and re-enter without inspection.
2. Something that was brought up earlier - if we allow Robert to go to college, and then "help" him return to Mexico, why would he want to do this? Leave his home, and go back to a mother country which he barely recognizes, etc? Not that I'm opposing education - but the idea of educating foreigners in the United States and expecting them to return to their home country already produces tens of thousands of overstays every year.
3. Building a fence might be compassionate in some respects. Illegal immigrants are terribly victimized by coyotes and smugglers, often dropped off in the desert hours away from civilization. Robberies, assaults, and especially rapes are all to common in crossing the border.
4. Anyway, none of our politicans on either side really want this problem to stop. It simply makes too much grist for the rhetoric mill. Why find a solution when you can play to the base?
5. So what do we call them, Dag? Individuals of foreign nationality who are not lawful permanent residents? ("IFNWANLPR") Overstays and EWIs? (EWI = "entered without admission") We do need a handy-dandy catchall word for people who violate our immigration laws.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Many people, possibly including Dag, would recommend the phrase "illegal aliens" over the single word "illegals."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"undocumented" works for me
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Again, some people object to the use of an adjective without a noun as a noun for a person, feeling that this reduces a person's entire being to one single aspect of his or her situation.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Illegal aliens still isn't exactly correct, and it is a perjorative as well. Some are undocumented, but many do have documents - overstays do have passports and visas (even if the visas aren't valid), and even the EWIs usually have documentation from their home country.
I don't have a recommendation, though. My only real point is that I can't think of many terms that are a) accurate b) convenient - America thinks in sound bite terms, these days, and c) nonderogatory.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
As far as "Official Language", there is a State Constitutional Amendment being proposed here in the State of Missouri that would make English the only language usable in official state business. It was then that some lawyers mentioned "Latin". Only English means no Haebeus Corpus, no Corpus Delecti, none of those other Latin phrases legal scholars love so much.
I am firmly against creating one language under flag, but I would consider a Constitutional Amendment to ban one language--Legalese.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And that is part of the reason that this "problem" isn't going to be solved by this Congress or Administration...or is likely to be solved in the next decade or two.
We always seem to want quick fixes and not even look at the complexities of the problem. This seems especially true of the side of the debate that says "they're here illegally, 'nuff said."
But it is also true of many of the people who support blanket amnesty and/or open borders.
The fact is that violent criminals CAN and DO exploit our leaky borders. It is also true that if we had an effective way to close the borders to unauthorized persons we would come close to eliminating that threat to our security (though it would not eliminate it completely because we sometimes manage to let violent people in legally too).
Where the problems with this "approach" come in are that they would cause a great deal of suffering for folks who not only don't really deserve to be ill-treated this way (i.e., dumping on economic refugees is not exactly a good thing for this or any country to do as a matter of policy). It is also true that our own economy would suffer in ways that are difficult to assess, but certainly would involve loss of tax revenue, a sudden labor shortage, possible rapid inflation (whether it actually happened or not, the effect on interest rates will mess up our economy anyway), and, let's face it, a ready source of young people to help balance out our increasingly geriatric population.
That last is a good thing to wonder about, actually. If you look at trends among non-migrant populations in the US, we're an aging country, having fewer children, and doing so at a later age on average. The bottom line is that America will gradually slide into senescence without some influx of people who are young and have children at a younger age.
It's those kids we really need.
And we'd be incredibly short-sighted to fail to educate them, given the likelihood that they will stay here.
The specter of large numbers of under-educated people with no allegiance to this country SHOULD frighten people into action, IMHO.
The action though, should not be in futile gestures such as building a fence or trying to kick them all out. It's laughable, really. The action should be to find ways to integrate these folks, and especially the young ones and future generations. Americanize them, if we can, through education and opportunity.
If we fail in that, I tell you right now that what we will have instead is huge populations of people who believe they have nothing to lose by fighting this country from within.
I remember the race riots in this country very vividly.
I don't wish to see their like again.
I believe the quickest path there is to keep on dealing with Central American immigrants the way we do now...or worse, making things even tougher on them.
I see the humanitarian angle and decide that we should be helping.
I see the long-term best interest of this country and think we should be helping.
I see the short-term best interests of this country and think we should be helping.
I don't really see an angle on this issue that leads me to suspect that we should be trying to kick people out, or make their lives tougher.
And the money we're spending on the fence (among other things) could be so much better invested in education that it just makes me wonder if the people running this show are simply blind to the data on immigrants' contributions to this country.
They're the best bargain we've got.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I guess I could see allowing them to attend college but only if they were not allowed any government sponsored aid whatsoever. That should be reserved for legal citizens.
The reason we have government aid is so that people who can't provide something for themselves are able to have it. I can't think of a reason for excluding the boy described in the article I linked from any need-based government aid for which he otherwise qualifies, nor can I think of any reason that whether his parents had papers when he was three should be used to deem him less worthy of such aid than someone with the good fortune to be born here. For all intents and purposes he is American.
But Dag.... he's brown... come on.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Fine, I'll call him "person who is in this country illegally, through no fault of his own". You can change the way you word things if you like, but it doesn't change the circumstances that this person is not a legal US citizen.
I'm tired of talking about it. I knew I would be in a minority when I decided to say something about this topic. And my perspective is undoubtedly colored by the fact that I have struggled so hard to pay for school myself and been told by people that I don't qualify for any help. Also for the fact that my husband and I own and operate a construction company which abides by all US laws and suffers because companies that hire "persons who are here illegally" undercut us because they use workers that they can pay lower wages to and not file taxes on.
The tax thing gets me, because people say that "persons here illegally" pay all the taxes we do. I don't see it. Yes, they pay sales tax. Property taxes, I guess through their rent money or if they own property (though I don't know how you get home financing without proper documentation but I guess anything's possible). But the people I know that hire undocumented workers (is that phrasing okay?) do so precisely because they can pay them under the table and not have to withold taxes on them. Or, they claim they are independent contractors and so that put sthe burden of filing back on the person here illegally. So these people are NOT paying income taxes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If you know that, Belle, report them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:But Dag.... he's brown... come on.
Is that supposed to imply that my stance is racist - that I feel this way only because of the color of the skin of most illegal workers? Because if so, I resent that.
I don't care what country they have illegally emigrated from - whether it's Mexico, Denmark, or Australia - I still feel the same way. Their skin can be lighter than mine, but I still don't want to see them receive educational aid over an American citizen, of whatever color.
And let's be very clear about what I'm saying. I'm not saying the kid doesn't deserve compassion. I'm not even saying he should be sent back to his country of birth. I'm not even saying he should not be allowed to get a college education. I'm saying that government money that aids people in paying for education should be reserved for citizens first.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:If you know that, Belle, report them.
*whispers* Hey Bob, let me let you in on a secret - nobody cares. We got audited once by the state unemployment office, they wanted to make sure we were paying the right rate on our employees. I asked the guy what did he do when people hired illegal workers and didn't withold and he said nothing - because if nobody's witholding they have no records of it so how would they know? He then said that in our industry (construction) everyone just uses the independent contractor dodge anyway. That's what he called it - the "dodge". Pass the buck - you can claim you didn't know the guy was illegal because he gave you a SSN and that's what you used to file a 1099. If he never files and pays his income taxes, it's not your problem!
One contractor laughed that he hired three workers who all gave him SSN's that were sequential. He knew they were fake, but he didn't care because he knew no one would do anything about it. And he's right.
That's where we need to spend our money for the fence. Start cracking down on people who hire illegal workers to get out of witholding taxes and paying unemployment. Make the fines so severe that no one will do it anymore. Until we fix the unethical doings on the employer's end, nothing will change.
My mother, as an HR officer tried to report two people who she found out had given her fake documentation and were in this country illegally and the IRS told her that there was nothing they could do, and that the only possible way to catch them would be if they tried to collect social security using the fake number.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think aid should be based on a combination of scholastic potential and need. Ultimately, I'm not a big fan of "everyone goes to college." For some of people, it's a waste of their time and everyone elses.
So, first and foremost, I want aid to go to those who are going to make the most of it.
Having identified that crowd, then I'd want the money to be give to those who need it the most from a financial perspective.
And I'd build just enough slop into the system to ensure that someone who had a strong desire to attend, despite poor prior academic performance, had some way to get a shot at it.
I think it's a fallacious argument, however, to look at what a poor young person in another state gets and compare it to what a middle-aged mother with relatively higher income gets in another state.
One thing you might consider is that the reason an income level that seems completely inadequate to you puts you outside the range for assistance is that there's so many people who have a lot less than you. They're living in abject poverty in the middle of the richest country on earth. It's not that you don't deserve assistance, but rather that we've somehow accumulated a lot more needy people than we planned for when we decided that education was no longer a top priority in this country -- and in some states in particular.
That decision is coming home to roost in ways that probably could've been foreseen if people had looked closely at the post-Reagan years in California, or any of a number of other places in the US where de-funding education became a way to save taxpayers money back in the 1970's and continuing forward.
I know that doesn't really address the issue of whether someone without legal standing in this country should get aid when aid is so tight. But the real issue is that aid shouldn't be so tight.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot, if you ask me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But Dag.... he's brown... come on.
That's a cheap, unnecessary, childish, shot if you're serious. If you're joking...well, that Joke Attempt failed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Taking out unsubsidized loans would only plunge my family into debt, and I would graduate with a lot of debt and then be unable to help my kids with their college costs, so I don't consider it a viable option for me. For others, sure - not for us.
The difference between a subsidized Stafford and an unsub disappears 6 months after graduation. Given that you're about to graduate, not a big difference. Either way, the interest rate on a Stafford (sub or unsub) is considerably lower than on comparable non-student loans. Of course, I understand not wanting to take out loans. Especially with kids starting college fairly soon -- before you would be able to pay them off, quite likely.
But that doesn't make your earlier assertion about the ability of native citizens to get a college education true.
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Why should I help you (through my taxes) put your children through college?
Trust me, you won't be. If we don't qualify for any type of aid now, we certainly won't when I start working, which I should do before my oldest is ready for college.
Not necessarily. The way the EFC of an independent student (that would be you) is calculated is substantially different than the way it is calculated for the parents of a dependent (that would be your kids). Besides, when you have two or more kids in college, you will be far more eligible for federal (and usually state) aid. Number of kids in college makes a HUGE difference to the EFC calculation.
If you're curious and want to play around with the numbers, FinAid's EFC calculator is a wonderful tool. The new FAFSA4Caster is useful as well, although not as easy to play around with (that's not what it's designed for).
So, Bob, you'd be in favor of having the ACG and SMART pay more than the pittance they currently do?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Belle, don't give up hope that your kids will get enough merit-based aid to cover most of their education. Sure, you won't get that sort of thing at an Ivy League school, but state schools often offer pretty good merit scholarships. There are also plenty of significant private merit-based scholarships.
I'll grant that there's probably a serious lack of merit-based aid for students who aren't fresh out of high school. It's also possible that FAFSA fails to take into account the responsibilities of college students who have children. However, I do think your kids have an excellent shot at getting much of their education covered if they do well in school and aren't set on going to a super-elite school.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: It's also possible that FAFSA fails to take into account the responsibilities of college students who have children.
Not really. Independent students with dependents other than a spouse get a special calculation. Independent students without a spouse and with other dependents even more so.
However, the fact of the matter is that Uncle Sam expects college students (and in the case of dependent students, their parents) to pay the majority of college costs, to the best of their ability to do so. Obviously, the government's interpretation of "ability to do so" and each affected individual's can be quite different. But official government policy is that it is the student's (and his family's) responsibility to pay for college.
Personally, that doesn't make it any easier when I have to tell a student, "I'm sorry, but you don't qualify for federal or state aid." I would be thrilled if the government allotted more money for aid. Instead, they're cutting funding. Again. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
The tax thing gets me, because people say that "persons here illegally" pay all the taxes we do. I don't see it. Yes, they pay sales tax. Property taxes, I guess through their rent money or if they own property (though I don't know how you get home financing without proper documentation but I guess anything's possible). But the people I know that hire undocumented workers (is that phrasing okay?) do so precisely because they can pay them under the table and not have to withold taxes on them. Or, they claim they are independent contractors and so that put sthe burden of filing back on the person here illegally. So these people are NOT paying income taxes.
The money withheld from these people would be returned to them by the irs, practically in full, if they were so poorly paid.
The excuse that the employers can pay them "without hacing to withold taxes" is nonsense. The employers are simply underpaying their employees, and that is indeed a crime. That has nothing to do with the fact that taxes are not being paid- those taxes would be returned to the workers anyway, because the government doesn't burden the poor with excessive taxes.
Illegals pay the same amount of taxes anyone does, unless they are making money in criminal enterprises- in which case the tax thing is the tip of the iceberg.
Bottom line- illegals pay taxes and couldn't be taxed more anyway. The fact that the government cannot keep track of them is a genuine problem, but they would not be paying more if we could.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Orincoro, you owe Belle an apology.
quote:But the people I know that hire undocumented workers (is that phrasing okay?) do so precisely because they can pay them under the table and not have to withold taxes on them.
And the reason this is possible is because we make it impossible for them to get real jobs by insisting they stay outside our society.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:The excuse that the employers can pay them "without having to withold taxes" is nonsense. The employers are simply underpaying their employees, and that is indeed a crime. That has nothing to do with the fact that taxes are not being paid- those taxes would be returned to the workers anyway, because the government doesn't burden the poor with excessive taxes.
I don't know that this is entirely accurate. My understanding is that the federal income tax we see withheld on our paychecks is only part of the tax actually paid on each employee. The employer pays the other part. If we make below a certain amount, we get a refund of all our taxes withheld (which is why undocumented workers DO pay all the taxes we do, because they don't earn enough to owe income tax anyway and they would get a refund of it all ... in fact, they'd also get earned income credit, so they get LESS by not paying taxes than if they paid).
But the business doesn't get a refund of the taxes they paid on each employee (does it)? And they also have to pay health care and other costs that are often associated with having legitimate employees, which they don't have to pay for undocumented ones. So yes, I'd say it's much cheaper for the company to hire undocumented workers than legal ones.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I should point out that many very expensive schools give out generous amounts of need-based and merit-based aid, usually leveraging their large endowments. And some of them are able to spend more time and personal attention on estimating need, and use their own calculations. Don't write off expensive schools completely, they can be surprisingly generous.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
JennaDean: you're thinking of the Social Security and Medicare taxes, and neither the employer nor the employee receives a refund on those.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: Sure, you won't get that sort of thing at an Ivy League school
Why would you say that? I went to Penn and got a boatload of merit based scholarships.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Okay, I was over the line when I said we need to make English the official language "so that immigrants don't feel they're entitled to be here." In fact, after rereading OSC's column about illegal immigration, I could support giving Mexicans an easier path to citizenship as unofficial reparations for us having taken land from Mexico in the past. This might also be a reason to give Spanish speakers more consideration than other non-English speakers.
I didn't support the immigration bill because I thought it didn't mandate strong enough background checks for people here illegally (I don't think we have a moral obligation to let criminals stay) and didn't do anything about the backlog of people who want to immigrate legally. Also, I thought it was a bad idea to tie the increased border security to the measures for illegal immigrants, as they're separate problems.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll bring up an idea I've proposed before that I think (though obviously somewhat simplistic) addresses both concerns. As a caveat, this is not intended as a full solution, but only part of one.
What do people feel about a conditional general amnesty? We get the illegal immigrants to come forward and get them on the books, but with a conditional status. Their (for lack of a better word) "legal" status would be tied to the numbers/percentages of new, post-amnesty illegal immigrants.
Good? Bad? Monstrous?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nebulous.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I've never liked the unfairness of tying one person's reward or punishment to another person's actions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How does that apply in this case, Jenna?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think you'd have a difficult time convincing them that "on the books" doesn't mean "on the way out of the country in the back of a paddy-wagon."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Their (for lack of a better word) "legal" status would be tied to the numbers/percentages of new, post-amnesty illegal immigrants.
How does it not?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
"Paddy wagon" is one of my all-time favorite phrases.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: "Paddy wagon" is one of my all-time favorite phrases.
Because you really hate the Irish?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Rivka, thanks for your information. I'm completely against incurring debt of any kind, so that we have money available to help our kids, which is why any loan is not acceptable to me.
Fortunately, my father and step mom are paying for the rest of my college, with the understanding that I can pay it back, interest free at my own pace once I begin working. They've actually told me paying it back is not necessary, but it is to me.
If my kids don't get any type of merit scholarship, then we'll just have to find a way to pay for it. I don't want them to graduate college with mounds of debt either, so they'll probably have to live at home and attend state schools. Which is not a terrible fate, even if it's not what they really want.
As for the witholding thing, if you withold taxes on an employee there are lots of things that go into that. The administrative costs that go into witholding and reporting to the IRS, for one thing. And it's not just the amounts that you withold, you also have to pay unemployment, and the rates in the construction industry are ridiculously high. Trust me on this - witholding taxes and doing things legally and ethically is much more expensive on the employer. Much. To the point that we eventually had to let everybody go and scale back our business because we couldn't afford it anymore. Our unemployment tripled in the time we paid it, and we never had a claim. Try absorbing any cost that triples without having to pass it along to customers - especially when you're bidding against people who DON'T pay that unemployment on their employees - you can't do it.
But, to me - paying people wages on a 1099 to avoid having to pay all these other taxes and fees is unethical. The IRS has rules about who can be paid on 1099 and who can't, and most construction firms that use it are doing it illegally or at least unethically. And if you're using the 1099 to avoid paying taxes AND because you know the employee is not supposed to be in this country...that's doubly wrong. But again, everybody knows it happens, and nobody does anything about it.
Meanwhile, my husband sees it from another angle, when he as a firefighter/paramedic has to take illegal immigrants who are sick or injured to the hospital. They give fake names and fake social security numbers. So what happens when the city goes to bill them for the ambulance fees? (yes, the city charges you if they take you to the hospital, somebody has to pay for it - if you're insured your insurance does, if not you get a bill at your house about a week later for $250 minimum) They can't find illegal immigrants though, so they can't collect. So, the city raises its rates, to cover all the unpaid bills and now American citizens with valid SSN's - they pay more So do insurance companies. And the companies pass those costs along to everyone with insurance. What they can't collect from citizens using the services they make up in taxes, including employment tax which is paid by people who are working legally and having taxes witheld, again illegal workers being paid under the table are not responsible for these rising taxes.
Do I have individual compassion for people who are in desperate circumstances? yes. But I'm frustrated with the system, because it's not working. Do illegal aliens contribute to the economy? Yes. But they also cause drains on it, in many different ways.
And, I'm sorry, but I get tired of the argument that they only do jobs Americans won't do. Maybe because I know people who've looked for work in the construction industry and been unable to find it, because everybody is employing undocumented workers instead. I know more than one person who is an American citizen and unable to find work in the trades because of this. One kid asked us for a job because his dad used to work for us. We had to turn him down but when hubby contacted another company owner to recommend the kid the owner told him "Why would I hire an American? They expect me to withold taxes and offer benefits."
Bob said not everyong should go to college, and he's right, but what about these kids who grow up and graduate vo-tech schools and then can't find jobs in the trades because employers are hiring illegal workers instead?
So, forgive my exasperation with the whole thing. I see a side of it, and consequences that maybe not everyone does. It doesn't mean that I don't have compassion on the people emigrating here. But I also have compassion for that kid who wants a job, and should be able to get one, but for unscrupulous employers taking advantage of all the loopholes that allow them to exploit illegal labor. I really, really want to see someone crack down on the employer side. It's just not fair - companies that try to do the right thing are punished, because they can be outbid every time - they must charge more to pay the price that comes with being a legitimate, above-board business.
And everybody should be for it - those that support illegal immigrant rights should want companies to have to pay them the same wages and give them the same benefits everyone else does. But the dark truth is if you do start requiring that, the jobs will be seriously cut back. And prices will go up on everything. So people think it's best just to keep quiet and turn a blind eye to those who exploit the system, and keep everything at status quo.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
A very well thought out post Belle.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Belle, here's the thing though, if they contribute at a rate that matches their drain, then the public services side of the argument shouldn't be brought up either. And the data is mixed on that point, so we can't conclude either way, and thus I guess it probably shouldn't be used as a talking point either.
As for the rest of it, it just means we need to make it cost prohibitive to NOT properly withhold taxes. It's a screwy the system we have. By and large, those breaking the law aren't breaking any major moral/ethical tenet, but those that are not being punished, and may not even be breaking the law, technically, are the ones with more moral/ethical culpability in this issue.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Belle, here's the thing though, if they contribute at a rate that matches their drain, then the public services side of the argument shouldn't be brought up either. And the data is mixed on that point, so we can't conclude either way, and thus I guess it probably shouldn't be used as a talking point either.
As for the rest of it, it just means we need to make it cost prohibitive to NOT properly withhold taxes. It's a screwy the system we have. By and large, those breaking the law aren't breaking any major moral/ethical tenet, but those that are not being punished, and may not even be breaking the law, technically, are the ones with more moral/ethical culpability in this issue.
-Bok
Ok well lets dumb it all down and say costs on the economy from immigrants total $1. Now lets ay immigrants also produce $1 from taxes, purchasing good, etc. It's negated. Well by FIXING the loopholes that allow for drain we GAIN another dollar.
Nobody can seriously argue that immigrants do not create a drain on the economy, you CAN justify what they DO do so that deporting them is not warranted. So lets fix the problems that create the drain, as well as regulating who is coming in and how often. What draw backs are there from such a course?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Belle, in your scenario, you DO have access to resources to help you. You do have family members willing to pay for your school. I'm not sure why you're upset that you have to turn to family instead of the government - I think we should turn to family before we turn to the government.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
Belle,
Did you and/or your husband report these other firms?
I ask because, I agree with you whole-heartedly that we should not let employers get away with this stuff. I also agree with you that there is an attitude in this country of looking the other way when employers are suspected of illegal employment practices. With a few notable exceptions, the employers are almost never hit with fines serious enough to make the practice unprofitable for them.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Unless of course, by fixing the problem, that new dollar is never created, since they never get hired, and the employers decide it isn't worth hiring native workers in their place.
I think many people have and due argue that illegal immigration isn't a drain on the economy... That's why people decide to hire them knowingly. The market is already giving it's answer, BB, and it's that things are working, even if unethically (which is not a problem inherently, since the market is an amoral structure). That said, changes could be made to IMPROVE market returns, while being more ethical. IMO.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: BlackBlade,
Your math is a bit off there. Supposing illegal immigrants cost a dollar and contribute a dollar, it's even NOW. Depending on what we do to inhibit the flow of illegal immigrants, their contribution may dry up, but the "costs" of the interdiction (which is already counted against them in your $1 estimate, I assume) may sky rocket.
Sorry, but without specific proposals, I don't think anyone can reasonably be expected to tell you what the drawbacks are to your course of action.
I don't even know if I would "inhibit" their ability to immigrate. Heck build a freeway from LA to Mexico City and put up a toll booth.
The reasons they drain the economy is because they send remitances home, or seek to take advantages of services here that they cannot pay for. Trauma centers in LA being a good example of this. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html
In Hong Kong there is a VERY vigorous prosecution of businesses that hire illegal aliens. They are hired for the same reason we hire them here, its cheaper. Start prosecuting and looking carefully at businesses that turn a blind eye and illegal immigrants will find work is not so easy to come by. They will then take steps to enter the country legally.
Obviously its EASIER for the govt of Hong Kong to address this problem, and China's booming economy is certainly helping curb illegal immigration, but I still think its the correct form of action.
I don't know maybe it would be effectively impossible to monitor every company that might hire an illegal immigrant but I think striking a decisive blow at it would help curtail illegal immigration to a significant degree.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, I agree with stricter enforcement on employers.
-Bok
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The hiring people "off the books" issue is not solely an immigration issue. When we interviewed nannies we had several people who asked whether or not we were reporting the position. And when we said yes, we had one person ask if we'd consider doing it the other way so that she didn't have to pay taxes. (Note to applicant: if prospective employers have just told you that doing things legally is important to them, asking them to make an exception for you is not likely to get you the job. Especially if that job would put you in a position to be a role model to their child.) We also had applicants who were relieved when we said yes, because many families that they had interviewed did not want to pay SS and Medicare and so wanted to pay cash and not report.
The illegal immigration issue makes it safer for companies who want to pay "off the books", since undocumented workers are not likely to report the company, but citizenship status isn't the sole determiner if someone is being paid under the table. There are plenty of born-in-the-USA day laborers in the same situation. And plenty of immigrants with improper or expired documents who are paying taxes.
So basically, I agree with Belle [edit: and BlackBlade] that we need to hold companies accountable to the laws regarding employee wages, taxes, and benefits, regardless of the citizenship or immigration status of the employee.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I know lots of Americans who have at one time in their life been paid under the table. I even know a citizen with a masters degree who got paid under the table. I know some American citizens who work construction who get paid under the table too, so even in the construction field, it isn't the illegal alien part. My citizen friends who question have basically been told by the boss, I am paying $X for this job. You can have X or you can have x minus the costs to do it all aboveboard. Which is why I have trouble believing that immigration reform will change that problem.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I have a friend whose ex-husband almost exclusively takes jobs under the table to stay under the radar and avoid having his wages garnished (he owes an astronomical amount of back child support).
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, in your scenario, you DO have access to resources to help you. You do have family members willing to pay for your school. I'm not sure why you're upset that you have to turn to family instead of the government - I think we should turn to family before we turn to the government.
You're not following what I'm saying in total, then. I do have the option of turning to the government but do not wish to. I DID turn to my family instead. I'm not upset at some benefits that I perceive I am not getting, I'm upset at the idea of giving such benefits to illegal aliens over US citizens. It's not about me, I just used myself as an example because I know my situation better than anyone elses'.
If you like, we can talk about some kids I met in a writing workshop offered at my college. I had to participate in the workshop for my Teaching Creative Writing class. They were fabulous kids - writing some amazing stuff, I was impressed. Several of them were from inner city Birmigham schools and did not have the money for tuition to the workshop (it's over $600, I don't have that lying around either, and I'm in better financial shape than most who live in the inner city). They got scholarships to come, and these kids, I think, got a lot of benefit out of this workshop and most of them talked excitedly about plans to attend college and continue writing and several expressed a wish to teach one day, they were asking me about the teaching program at my university.
I want THOSE kids to go to college. I think they will get a great benefit out of it and we as a society will get a great benefit out of them getting degrees and possibly teaching and inspiring another generation too. So, it's not necessarily about me, it's about those kids. And the kid who we had to turn down and no one would hire because he's American. Those are the people that I'm concerned with when I say I want consideration given to Americans or legal immigrants first. People who did things correctly, and didn't try to subvert the law, and deserve a chance.
The kid in Dag's article sounds like a great kid, and I hope he works toward obtaining legal citizenship and I wish him the best, but until then I would rather see government programs aimed toward the kids in that workshop first.
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
Belle, did you turn in those other companies or not?
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
Official languages are stupid. If everybody speaks a language, then legislating it is redundant. If everybody does not, then legislating it is only a way for bigots to communicate their hatred.
Okay, but surely when the number of languages spoken in country reaches a certain number it becomes impractical for the country's government to provide for all of those languages?
I guess it wouldn't be too hard to have Spanish signs etc. in heavily Spanish areas, Chinese signs in heavily Chinese ones, etc. (since presumably people in those areas could help translate the signs); but I don't know how many languages we can mandate that everything be written in everywhere in the country.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
India has rather a large number of official languages. They have a thriving democracy.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
the doctor, Belle answered that question up-thread already, when someone else asked her.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I thought the doctor was Bob. Am I incorrect in that assumption?
---
As far as I can see, Belle never did answer whether or not she reported them. She just said that no one cares. Although, maybe I missed it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: India has rather a large number of official languages. They have a thriving democracy.
China has many dialects (some of which are more accurately called languages) that thrive in its provinces, but Mandarin is still taught in schools as the official language. Were it not for Emperor Qin Shi unifying the written language back in 240ish BC, China probably would not have become the empire it eventually became.
I think China is right in how it has handled this. Let cultures and dialects/languages thrive, but make sure plenty of emphasis is placed on amalgamation. A unifying sub culture or specifically a language is indispensible in this regard.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I want THOSE kids to go to college. I think they will get a great benefit out of it and we as a society will get a great benefit out of them getting degrees and possibly teaching and inspiring another generation too. So, it's not necessarily about me, it's about those kids. And the kid who we had to turn down and no one would hire because he's American. Those are the people that I'm concerned with when I say I want consideration given to Americans or legal immigrants first. People who did things correctly, and didn't try to subvert the law, and deserve a chance.
They can get loans, just like you could (and did, by the way), and just like your kids can if they don't get scholarships. Just because you'd prefer not to take a government loan isn't reason enough to pretend the option isn't there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
China has not, in its history, been known for letting "cultures and dialects/languages thrive". I would say it is not known for that now, though it is certainly better than even a few decades ago.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What do people feel about a conditional general amnesty? We get the illegal immigrants to come forward and get them on the books, but with a conditional status. Their (for lack of a better word) "legal" status would be tied to the numbers/percentages of new, post-amnesty illegal immigrants.
I'm not following what the condition would be here. What would cause them to lose their status as legal? What would cause them to become non-conditionally legal?
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
ElJay said
quote:the doctor, Belle answered that question up-thread already, when someone else asked her.
oops! Sorry I missed it. I had my hearing tested yesterday and they figure I just have an attention deficit. This sort of fits with that...
Thanks Belle.
It sort of does answer my question though.
It bothers me, a bit, that you would take one person's word for it. If you have positive information that a crime is being committed, I think you should report it. It was in your best interest to do so, and in the best interest of the country, obviously.
If the official response was less than you'd hoped for, you could then escalate it.
Instead, it appears that you did the very thing you are complaining about in general -- nobody DOES anything.
I know this sounds harsh, so I should probably add that I used to do exactly the same thing. I don't any longer because I realized that the #1 factor in whether some basic laws are enforced is public concern and pressure.
That's not true for violent crime, but this "other stuff" like people hiring others under the table, or people letting others drive drunk, or without a license, etc. etc. It either comes down to average citizens making a stink, or we do just have to forget about it.
And if we forget about it, at the very least, I think we've forfeited our right to complain about the results.
[ July 03, 2007, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: the doctor ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm not following what the condition would be here. What would cause them to lose their status as legal? What would cause them to become non-conditionally legal?
Some sort of cap would be put on post-amnesty illegal immigrants. If this cap is surpassed (maybe in an area, I really don't know), their provisional "legally here" status is revoked.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think tying any individual's legal status to the behavior or actions of other people is a terrible idea.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Who is doing that?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You, in the previous post. An immigrant legally here status is dependent on the total numbers not increasing.
Maybe you want to reword it if that's not what you meant?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Who ever made the proposal that Dags was responding to, I'd imagine.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's totally what I meant. I just don't see how that's not about their behavior.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It'd be like deciding whether or not to punish bank robbers based on the total number robberies in the state/area.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: China has not, in its history, been known for letting "cultures and dialects/languages thrive". I would say it is not known for that now, though it is certainly better than even a few decades ago.
Could you elucidate why you believe that is the case?
Also I said cultures in TODAY's context, not historically speaking. It certainly is not close to being as allowing as say the US but its trends indicate a move towards tolerance rather then supression.
How do you think historically speaking, China has surpressed the formation of dialects/languages?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's totally what I meant. I just don't see how that's not about their behavior.
*confused*
Are you seeing all immigrants, or all immigrants of a particular group, as one entity? It sounds like you're saying that if I'm illegal and I get this conditional amnesty, and then fifty million other people cross the border, I lose this conditional amnesty. But I have no control over the actions of those fifty million other people.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Okay, but surely when the number of languages spoken in country reaches a certain number it becomes impractical for the country's government to provide for all of those languages?
I guess it wouldn't be too hard to have Spanish signs etc. in heavily Spanish areas, Chinese signs in heavily Chinese ones, etc. (since presumably people in those areas could help translate the signs); but I don't know how many languages we can mandate that everything be written in everywhere in the country.
First of all, I want to tell you that I was impressed with your prior post. As to your concern here, my feeling is that we've been getting along okay for the last couple hundred years without any special measures. I grew up in Miami. Street signs were not in multiple languages--with very few exceptions comprised of streets with a great deal of significance and renown in another language, such as Calle Ocho (Eighth Street). The only extra printing is generally pamphlets and such put out by the government are printed in any language that has a large number of speakers. But it costs virtually nothing more to print 800,000 pamphlets in English and 200,000 in Spanish than it does to print a million in English. Sure, there's a one-time cost for translating and another for typesetting, but that's about it. In any case, though, I'm not arguing for the government to provide for every language spoken--that was not always done, until court decisions gradually outlined that right. I'm simply arguing against unnecessary legislation whose primary purpose is--at least, in every English Only movement I've ever had experience with--to send a negative message.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: But I have no control over the actions of those fifty million other people.
That's one of the parts I don't grant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It'd be like deciding whether or not to punish bank robbers based on the total number robberies in the state/area.
The number of instances of a particular crime is certainly factored into the severity of punishment and even whether someone is punished at all in some cases. Judges, prosecutors, police, and legislators all crack down on crimes that become too frequent.
If bank robberies went up tenfold, I bet average sentence would increase, whether from prosecutors declining to plea bargain, judges raising sentences given, or legislatures passing new penalties.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's more like sentencing a bank robber and then, when more occur, increasing the first bank robber's sentence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you explain how? That seems to me to have very little correlation to what I am suggesting.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I am helpless to resolve your uncomprehension.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote: But I have no control over the actions of those fifty million other people.
That's one of the parts I don't grant.
I second what Javert said. It sounds like our disagreement is so fundamental, I don't know how to even address it. You don't grant something that seems self-evident to the point of being axiomatic to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There is a generally accepted difference between inability and unwillingness. It is possible that you are, in fact, incapable, but I think you might want to at least make an attempt beforing declaring this.
I would suggest that throwing out an unsupported analogy and refrain from explaining it when asked to is not a responsible way to have a conversation.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I would suggest that throwing out an unsupported analogy and refrain from explaining it when asked to is not a responsible way to have a conversation.
Out of curiosity, to what are you referring?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: There is a generally accepted difference between inability and unwillingness. It is possible that you are, in fact, incapable, but I think you might want to at least make an attempt beforing declaring this.
I don't know how I would even go about trying to affect the migration patterns of people with whom I share no connection except a place of birth.
If I did, Broward County, Florida would shrivel up and blow away. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I did, Broward County, Florida would shrivel up and blow away.
*snort*
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It's more like sentencing a bank robber and then, when more occur, increasing the first bank robber's sentence.
This is closer to what I was trying to say.
quote:posted by Dagonee: If bank robberies went up tenfold, I bet average sentence would increase, whether from prosecutors declining to plea bargain, judges raising sentences given, or legislatures passing new penalties.
Through no fault of your own, you've responded to something I never meant to say, and I apologize. I also agree entirely with the content of your post, so far as it goes.
Let me retry my hand at this whole metaphor business:
Say I rob a bank. I'm caught at the scene, convicted, and put on parole. (To Mr. Squicky)Do you think it would be fair if one of the conditions of my parole conditions is that no further bank robberies occur within a 30-mile radius of me, by anyone?
If not, can you explain why you think it's different?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Say I rob a bank. I'm caught at the scene, convicted, and put on parole. (To Mr. Squicky)Do you think it would be fair if one of the conditions of my parole conditions is that no further bank robberies occur within a 30-mile radius of me, by anyone?
I'm pretty sure Squick isn't equating loss of legal status with punishment, so I think the analogy is a non-starter. We already base immigration decisions about one person on the actions of others because we have quotas.
I think his plan is unlikely to work simply because I doubt people would register for such uncertain status, though. Safer to stay below the radar entirely.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I thought the doctor was Bob. Am I incorrect in that assumption?
No, I'm pretty sure Bob's the lawyer.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I thought the doctor was Bob. Am I incorrect in that assumption?
No, I'm pretty sure Bob's the lawyer.
But...Bob's your uncle, right?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Bob's a pediatrician specializing in children of multiple births.
Every day, Bob sees twins.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*GROAN*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I quite agree.
Noemon, shame on you! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Prince William County is moving to enact what legal specialists say are some of the toughest measures in the nation targeting illegal immigrants, including a provision that would direct police to check the residency status of anyone detained for breaking the law -- whether shoplifting, speeding or riding a bicycle without a helmet.
The measures would also compel county schools and agencies -- including libraries, medical clinics, swimming pools and summer camps -- to verify the immigration status of anyone who wants to use services in Virginia's second-largest county. Courts have upheld the right of undocumented immigrants to a public education, raising the possibility of a legal challenge.
There are serious constitutional issues with this. For one, a police officer has the right to stop someone only on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The stop may only extend long enough to investigate that suspicion to see if it ripens into probable cause. Prolonging the stop to check citizenship/residency without reasonable suspicion of a related crime is unconstitutional. The resolution states that the check won't extend the length of the stop, but it's hard to see how it wouldn't unless PW county is putting in one heck of a database system.
I'm also worried about speaking a language other than English becoming reasonable suspicion. Besides the fact that many people who speak something other than English are citizens or legal residents, not all people who are in the country "illegally" are committing a crime.
A couple other things really bother me:
quote:In drafting the resolution, Stirrup worked with the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute, the law firm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates tougher immigration laws. Stirrup said he did not consult with county Police Chief Charlie T. Deane, who, in an earlier letter to the supervisors about a similar measure, warned of "a potential chilling effect on witness cooperation and victim-witness cooperation."
Procedural issue: They created a major new law enforcement requirement and they didn't consult the police chief? Substantive issue: When all officers are seen as the enemy by a group, it becomes very hard to police a community. Granted, it is hard now. But there is some amount of trust between some police and some elements of the immigrant community. This will destroy that trust unless the police openly refuse to comply (something I'm not comfortable with at all, even though I don't like the resolution). If the supervisors are correct that the presence of illegal immigrants leads to crime, they're not helping matters.
In general, we don't live in a country where people have to prove their right to exist. "Show me your papers" is a stereotype of totalitarian regimes for a reason.
Finally there's what should be called the "busy-body nosy neighbor clause":
quote:But there is one exceptional item in the resolution, Kobach said -- a provision that would give legal residents "writ of mandamus" powers, which would allow them to sue Prince William if they suspect that a county agency has failed to comply with the resolution's aim of denying services and reporting violators. Muzaffar Chishti, director of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute's office at the New York University law school, said that particular measure is "as close to encouraging vigilante action as I have ever seen on paper."
That's all we need: a medical clinic spending its resources on defending itself from the Minutemen (who have an active, highly harassing chapter up here in NoVa).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Similar laws were shot down by the courts in California, IIRC. Hopefully this one will be as well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)