Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2006 Immigration Raids in SW Detroit Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Fozzy3
Member
Username: Fozzy3

Post Number: 2
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 68.42.79.80
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 4:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does anyone have info on the raids that resulted in the arrest of 17 people on Friday? There is an update on the protest against the raids, but I couldn't find info on the actual raid.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060515/NEW S11/60515008
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 142
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 68.62.6.147
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:02 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

All you need to know is that it was a good thing and needs to continue.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 694
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:28 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An ICE agent called into Frank Beckmann's show on WJR this morning and stated that they were simply carrying out the law.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 356
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.43.81.191
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:30 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060513/NEW S01/605130398/1003

One of the illegal immigrants had a previous conviction for auto theft. I guess stealing cars is a job that Americans don't want to do anymore.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 55
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 68.40.195.233
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

criminals, sure... get them the hell out... but otherwise leave them here. we need people in detroit... and they deserve to be americans as much or more than the rest of us. .andy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2355
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 68.230.22.99
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Warriorfan, LOL!
Top of pageBottom of page

Ltorivia485
Member
Username: Ltorivia485

Post Number: 2651
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 199.74.87.98
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:41 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Andy, we don't need ILLEGALS here. Just like we don't need terorrists in this country.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3724
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.162.172.142
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I love how the word "illegal" is thrown around as if it's a real classification of a human being. lol It's even more comical to hear Black Americans in the opposition.
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 1130
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

people are people... if they are fixing up houses and filling churches... wtf is anyones problem with that???

I say find a way they can stay so they can start paying taxes... but kicking them out is kinda like a hurting business saying "we just got a bunch of free chicken in our beef store, lets throw it out"...

btw... they are only ILLEGAL because the government says they are... they can just as easily make them legal and then what? The whole story changes? Which is easier... packing them up on trucks and shipping them back to mexico so they can just hop the border again, costing us fuel and trucks, and man power, and re emptying out neighborhoods? or signing a piece of paper..

Its kind of like weed...

Its only bad for you because its illegal... other than that, i have never seen it harm anybody. The only way it can ruin your life ... (seriously) is because it can send u to jail and the government can fine u tens of thousands of dollars.

but the signature of a paper, could change the whole ballgame..

its ironic if u think about it...

Maybe they would come here legally... if the line wasnt 20 YEARS LONG!!! If your even lucky enough to get INTO the line... most cant even get THAT far.. Blame the government for that one, not for them comming here anyway.
Top of pageBottom of page

321brian
Member
Username: 321brian

Post Number: 145
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 68.62.6.147
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Alexei289....they are only ILLEGAL because the government says they are.

Uh, ya and a crime is only a crime because the government says it is.

The fact is that if you snuck in to.....let's say Iraq and asked for what they are asking for you would be in for an experience.

Illegal immigrants harm you by overburdening the system. They and their families recieve government services that they are not contributing to.

Sure they work but they pay very little if any income taxes.

Maybe I should start claiming 8 on my next check and see how it works out for me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 504
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.222.54.70
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:16 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"criminals, sure... get them the hell out... but otherwise leave them here. we need people in detroit... and they deserve to be americans as much or more than the rest of us. .andy. "
______________________________ ___________________


What the hell does that mean?

Andy, when Sinefeld is back on the air, you need to get a job as a writer!
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3727
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.162.172.142
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:31 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Criminals as in criminals not simply by default of having immigrated here without being in the naturalization process first.

I know this may be totally radical and scary to some, but people should obey laws that are just, and disobey laws that aren't and seek to change them.

I guess it was right for leaders of the Civil Rights Movement to be arrested. After all, they were breaking the law, in many cases by protesting. I guess it was also right and just to arrest Rosa Parks, as well. I guess everyone should also be arrested and criminalized for jay walking, as well.

Come on, the opposition can come up with a better argument than simple "they are illegal, so they are criminals." Come on, let the true reasons and feelings be made known.
Top of pageBottom of page

Alexei289
Member
Username: Alexei289

Post Number: 1132
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.61.183.223
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:07 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

if the illegal immigrants were made legal... they would have to pay income taxes for those services...

not to mention that the total governmental cost of illegal immigrants suspected services that they draw is something like .0125% of the total revenue of federal, state, and local governments... much more miniscule than say the war on potheads... which has cost us about 150 billion$ and still running .... NOT including costs to local governments in terms of police arrests, jailtime, courts ect.
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 506
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.222.54.70
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:17 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

LMichigan,

They are illegal and they are criminals...and there is a reason that we make laws to control who we let into our country...just a few of these reasons include (and its late so forgive me for not being thorough):

1) In the State of Michigan, we have enough undereducated people that are unable to find a job...the additional population of the same hurts our legal citizens
2) We are not talking about fine upstanding US citizens that face bigotry because of their race (like during the civil rights movement) nor fine upstanding aliens that bothered to come into the country legally. We are talking about anyone who feels like walking in. I believe that most YMCA's even check ID and charge for admission!
3) You, me, the unemployed autoworker and the overworked teacher are all paying higher taxes to cover the "free" medical coverage that everyone of these poor misunderstood folk are using for themselves and extended friends and family. Nice guys perhaps. But if most of us were asked whether we want to be the ones to cover their regular trips to the emergency room, their overcrowding of our public schools or the increased insurance from drivers that never took drivers ed and end up smashing cars, my guess is that we might focus our personal investments on other areas.... of course we aren't given that choice today.
4) Nobody was checked at the border for their criminal record nor their intent upon entering the country.

and of course the most obvious reason:
5) Why do they deserve to come into our country? Does everyone in the world deserve to just walk in and be a US citizen without a background check or a control on whether US citizens will lose their jobs because of the tidal wave of new bodies?

Controlled imigration is a great and necessary discipline. Who can we allow in as new citzens that will add value to our country? Its a simple question.

"Everyone" is the answer of idiots... and is not acceptable.
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 507
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.222.54.70
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:22 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I know this may be totally radical and scary to some, but people should obey laws that are just, and disobey laws that aren't and seek to change them."


lmichigan,

I just spoke to a guy who agreed with your view of the laws...of course, he beieved that murder was "just" for his particular reasons.

Are you sure that your name isn't lmafia?

ah what the heck... to each his own.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 3304
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.252.69.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:16 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While reading this thread, I'm listening to a PBS program regarding this issue. One comment that struck me was the one regarding the cost of a typical new home in California would be $100,000 more if it weren't for the illegal immigrant labour. Another thing mentioned was that illegal immigrants account for a several billion dollars per year affecting this country's economy.

As a legal immigrant, I'm very torn by this issue. My home is less than 5 miles from the place of my birth, yet I must deal with various isssues as a foreigner. Now that the Immigration Bureau has come under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security (I guess "Fatherland" and "Motherland" were trademarked already) there are even more hoops to jump through.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2356
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 68.230.22.99
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:36 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jams, I'm not sure the CA argument is valid. Because of illegal immigration, demand for housing is much higher in CA - everyone needs a place to live, and millions flow illegally into CA (and stay there) every year. Illegals may purchase real estate in CA just like everyone else. So the argument is a "vicious circle"

There are many experts who are adamant that there is a net cost for illegal immigration, not a gain.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jams
Member
Username: Jams

Post Number: 3306
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 68.252.69.188
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:56 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Karl,
Not purchasers, the labour costs involved in building homes was what I pointed to.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3728
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 67.162.172.142
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 3:01 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mafia (what an ironic name in so many situations, here), I'm talking in the context or social justice, of course. If you can't see it within that frame, then I don't believe I can help you any further.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2359
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 68.230.22.99
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 3:06 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jams, demand is what drives housing costs up in CA. Part of the cost is labor, but when homes are $1M for a small bungalow in certain areas, it isn't labor costs - those are a minor part. My point is, without all the illegals, demand would be lower, and so would prices, despite slightly higher labor costs using gringos.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mountainman
Member
Username: Mountainman

Post Number: 55
Registered: 02-2006
Posted From: 153.90.110.121
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:12 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jams, like you I'm a legal immigrant to this country. While I don't necessarily like the idea of the Department of Homeland Security, it is simply a fact of living in this country I have to deal with. I'm not torn over the issue of illegal immigrants. That is because I played by all the rules to enter this nation. As a show of my respect for my adoptive country, and a show of my willingness to accept the rules and culture of the people I came over legally. Illegals are criminals in that they are not following the laws. Hence the term "illegal". I laid all my cards out on the table. I don't like the idea of my phone being tapped, or men in black following me about. I don't think any American would. America and Detroit in particular, really could use immigrants. That said, they should be legal, and utilize the same rules and regulations that individuals such as Jams and I followed. If we can't take care of our own, why should take care of those who sneak in and "squat" in this nation. Arguments about ecomony will always come into this. Those that hire illegal immigrants are also criminals. If they want to hire people from other nations so badly, them perhaps they should join them on their deportation flights. If there was no economic gain to make here, perhaps there would be no more need to discuss illegal imigrants. All that being stated, any imigrant that could benefit the American society should not be turned away. Imigration is important to the fabric of the United States. But not illegal. If these "trespassers" are willing to break laws as fundamental as immigration laws, what other ones are they also willing to transgress?
Top of pageBottom of page

Pacypacy_
Member
Username: Pacypacy_

Post Number: 25
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 136.181.195.84
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:18 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Alexi289 QUOTE: (people are people... if they are fixing up houses and filling churches... wtf is anyones problem with that???)

How would you feel if you were waiting patiently in line somewhere and I stepped in front of you demanding to be serviced first? That's exactly what these illegals, and they are illegals, are doing to the law abiding immigrants LEGALLY wanting to enter this country...that's what the problem is. As far as that tired arguement "they do jobs American's don't like to do...I've got news for you, millions of Americans go to jobs everyday that they aren't exactly enamored with either.....
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 1988
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.2.148.140
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 10:34 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Illegals are "illegal" because the government makes it too difficult for people to come here, and because conditions are too difficult for them to wait around for paperwork.
Congrats to those who played by the rules, which have been changed constantly over the years to suit those in power.
Some of my folks came over from Canada in the 1920's, when there were high quotas for fair skinned northern europeans.Those quotas were in place until JFK changed them. and those quotas tried to keep out so-called undesireables like Italians.
Another ancestor came on the Mayflower, without papers or passport.
Another ancestor was Chippewaw, and her people were shoved aside by so-called "legal" immigration.
The demand for presence here is high, so a solution would simply be to admit more people, and charge them a fee to be here.
Again, I use the 55 mph speed limit on interstate highways as a comparison. When the speed limit was 55, many of us were "criminals". The government changed the law to 70mph, which is more sensible, and less of us break the law.
As for the argument that "those people should stay in their country and make things better", well, those of you whose families left Detroit should have stayed here and made things better, and those of you whose families left the south 40 or more years ago should have stayed in the south and made things better there...
There was little demand for housing in Southwest Detroit 20 years ago when I moved here. There was even less demand for commercial spaces for small business. There was one supermarket in my neighborhood. (Now there are four and counting...) Houses that were worth five thousand dollars back then are now selling for 100k. Commercial buildings have been fixed up and are occupied by small businesses. This situation is partly due to the efforts of community groups, but mostly due to a massive influx of immigrants, some legal, some not.
If illegals are the brazen criminals that montainman makes them out to be, how come I can't tell which of my hardworking neighbors are "legal" and which are "illegal"?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine

Post Number: 1058
Registered: 05-2005
Posted From: 198.208.159.18
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:00 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

does canada have a problem with illegal immigration? they have even more stringent immigration standards iirc.
Top of pageBottom of page

Pacypacy_
Member
Username: Pacypacy_

Post Number: 26
Registered: 05-2006
Posted From: 136.181.195.84
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:36 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Barnesfoto Quote:Illegals are "illegal" because the government makes it too difficult for people to come here, and because conditions are too difficult for them to wait around for paperwork.
Congrats to those who played by the rules, which have been changed constantly over the years to suit those in power.

No, illegals are illegal because they are breaking our laws, if they don't want to respect our laws to get into this country then, adios amigo. My grandfather came to this country from Mexico the legal way. 55 mph. analogy is comparing apples and oranges. A speeding ticket is usually a civil infraction it does not make you a criminal, it's a misdemeanor at best. Commiting a felony makes you a criminal. Your arguement comparing southern migration to the north is also flawed. In that instance, people (citizens) are crossing state lines not sovreign federal boundries.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2364
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.25.177.194
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 11:47 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Pacypacy, you'll learn quickly here.

Barnes believes it is OK to violate laws liberals don't like. He much prefers folks coming here illegally, then self-limiting their growth by legally killing their offspring via abortion. It is a strange way of thinking that you will get used to on these threads. Change in thinking occurs only when folks like Barnes are personally, profoundly and adversely affected.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1518
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.35.202
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Karl, I don't think anyone likes our immigration laws. They need to be cleared up, and, in the end, liberalized further. Liberal immigration achieves both a humane and economically beneficial end. Humane--because it will take away the market for human smuggling and end the need for spending tons of money on raiding families who want to be here and putting troops on the border. Economically beneficial---according to the supermajority of economists. Many economists would say the best system in like what the EU has, where borders really don't matter anymore...others would prefer regulation just for the sake of keeping order, but they would endorse the president's guest worker and amnesty idea. Very few economists would endorse spending money on more border patrols, though, especially if those patrols are charged with the job of stopping immigrants rather than stopping terrorists.

This anti-immigrant movement is fueled by nativist conservatives who are jumping ship from traditional republican ideas on economics, joining with a broad array of Americans who are looking for a scapegoat for our "bad" economy and the outsourcing of jobs--and there are plenty of everyday liberals in this group, who don't have a clue about economics either.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2365
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.25.177.194
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:10 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mackinaw, don't you agree that if we simply enforced the laws already on the books (which allow for ample immigration, guest workers, etc) but stop entry into this country without the knowlege of either its citizens or its govt, such would go a long way toward stopping the problem? TX,AZ & CA have huge problems from illegals, and those bleed into the rest of the country.

Public opinion overwhelmingly supports (misquoting you here): "spending money on more border patrols, though, especially if those patrols are charged with the job of stopping immigrants..."

I'm all for allowing as many legal immigrants to cross our border as we need and can absorb. But entering illegally? No. Terrorist or cherry picker - same answer.
Top of pageBottom of page

Goat
Member
Username: Goat

Post Number: 8461
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 70.53.96.156
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:11 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gravitymachine. Canada did have a problem in the late '90s with boatloads (literally) of chinese people coming ashore. But that has tapered off due to the gov't sending them back.
In all honesty, because Canada does not border a 3rd world (or close to it)nation, we do not have the problem that the USA has.
If we did I too would say send them back and apply like everyone else!
Top of pageBottom of page

Gildas
Member
Username: Gildas

Post Number: 643
Registered: 12-2004
Posted From: 147.240.236.9
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:13 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Gravity,

Canada does have problems as well. Here is a link to questions that must be answered as part of the immigration process:

I found it interesting that they must not have a criminal record (Or be in the process of correcting past wrongs), should have a job lined up and must speak English or French.

Many things similar to what Bush recently said and he is getting flak for being a racist, anti-immigrant etc.

http://www.lawyers-bc.com/immi grat/immfaq.htm


Canada has more of a problem with Asian immigrants, easy enough to Google, however not nearly the numbers that the US is facing.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1347
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 69.220.230.150
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The US can not support its current population.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ravine
Member
Username: Ravine

Post Number: 65
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 70.233.3.26
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And, thanks to various reasons which feed into the rate of unemployment (too long of a list, and I'm no economist,) the current population is having trouble supporting the U.S. And Oh Boy!! Us Baby-Boomers are only BEGINNING to cause the burden which we will eventually cause! Signed, The Committee To Suspend The Rules And Re-elect Bill Clinton Anyway.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 357
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.43.81.191
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:37 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The United States is the third most populous nation in the world. An influx of tens of millions of uneducated, unskilled laborers is not what we "need" right now. Tell me that Detroit would benefit from more unskilled laborers flooding the market, not paying City of Detroit taxes but are using City of Detroit services, and competing with Detroiters for jobs at a time when nearly 1 in 5 Detroiters are unemployed and 1 in 3 are living below the poverty line.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ravine
Member
Username: Ravine

Post Number: 67
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 70.233.3.26
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 12:41 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Warriorfan, if anyone here is able to produce a legitimate comeback to your comment, I will be damned surprised.
Top of pageBottom of page

Morena
Member
Username: Morena

Post Number: 418
Registered: 08-2004
Posted From: 216.45.2.138
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060515/P OLITICS/605150381/1022

Excerpt:

In Michigan, deporting undocumented immigrants would create a labor shortage, even with 349,000 residents already unemployed in the state and a jobless rate among the nation's highest, said Kurt Metzger, a demographer and director of research for the United Way of Southeastern Michigan."My sense," he said, "is that many of them hold jobs that most workers would not rush to fill."

Gosh. There's so many places for me to start.

If we're going to round up all the illegals, why don't we round up all the felons that are walking around the streets of Detroit illegally too? If we're going to enforce laws, let's enforce all of them consistently.

I say that a convicted felon that has violated probationary conditions should be returned to prison just as quickly as an illegal immigrant is deported.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 1989
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.2.148.166
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:33 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An easy rebuttal to Warriorfan.
The folks who rented my lower flat in 1995 came here as illegals, stayed and bought a house. They work, they pay taxes, they pay city of detroit property taxes, and college tuition for ther youngest kid.
I wonder if our anti-illegal zealots have changed their food consumption habits since the last round of debate on this subject? As I've pointed out before, both agriculture and meat processing are job fields in which there is massive amounts of "illegal" labor used. Changes in the meatpacking industry are a result of Reagan-era deregulation. Those old enough to remember those years may remember how we were told that regulation was strangling American enterprise. And Reagan was voted into office twice by the American People, some of whom now seem to be clamoring for more regulation.
It's lunchtime. As you shove forkfuls of food into your pie-hole,
think about who picked the veggies and sliced the meat.
Unless you are eating from your own farm or garden, or eating products from some Amish farm, you are part of the problem.
If you don't like illegal immigration, don't buy products handled by illegal immigrants!
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 1990
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.2.148.166
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 1:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

another thought: Pacy doesn't like my comparison of violation of speeding laws to violation of immigration laws, and brings up the fairness issue again (my ancestor came here legally, it's not fair that others come illegally!)
A valid point, but when were immigration laws ever "fair"?
When my ancestor came on the mayflower?
When my other ancestors came from Canada?
When my grandmother's tribe was pushed onto a reservation?
Here's another comparison: In the 1920's, the government made it illegal to possess or consume alcohol. There were valid reasons for this, yet many Americans repeatedly violated the law.
Were they bad people?
Or was the law flawed?
A few people will violate any law, and should be treated as the criminals that they are.
But when massive numbers of people violate a law, some risking their lives in the process, perhaps it is the law that needs adjustment.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2366
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.25.177.194
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:08 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Barnes' nonsensical viewpoint is one reason the Dems may never get back into power in this country. Here are the solutions he offers:

1. Don't eat

2. Get used to folks breaking your laws

I can state Barnes' (and the left/lib's) only final solution and, most likely, how he lives his life by accurately restating his last sentence:

"If you like illegal immigration, buy products handled by illegal immigrants!"

Or, you can demand that current laws be enforced, and that all who enter this country abide by the same laws that most everyone's forefathers obeyed as they came here. If you enjoyed the riots you saw in Paris recently, we should continue down Barnes' path.
Top of pageBottom of page

Kimmiann
Member
Username: Kimmiann

Post Number: 28
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 155.139.50.15
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:22 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

i can't seem to understand why this is such a hot-button issue all of a sudden. I have been reading and listening to an avalanche of information on the subject and still am not quite certain where I stand. The compassionate, liberal side of me says leave them alone, they aren't hurting anything and deserve the chance to live a safe, happy life. The rational, conservative side of me is saying that if one chooses to live in any sovereign state, one should expect to obey the laws of that state. I think there's an awful lot of gray area here and am wondering what W expects to gain by this campaign against a group of people who have no say in whatever laws are created to affect their very existance.

That being said, why aren't the existing laws being enforced? Do we really need new ones?

Also, an enormous amount of bigotry has accompanied the rhetoric surrounding this issue, both in the press and here on this site. This does nothing but cloud the issues. I don't believe that illegal immigrants make their first stop the welfare office. It just doesn't make sense for someone with no identification to present themselves to an authority figure when they're trying to fly "under-the-radar", so to speak. Nor do I think that the jobs these so-called "illegals" are taking can't be filled by US citizens. There's an awful lot of people out of work, and judging by the three I know personally, they'd take anything that came their way at this point.

So what's the truth of the matter? I don't know. What's the solution? I don't know that either. I do know I'm tired of the hatred dividing the country on this and other issues.

To go back to my original question, can someone please explain to me why it is suddenly so vital to pass immigration legislation reform?
Top of pageBottom of page

Sknutson
Member
Username: Sknutson

Post Number: 574
Registered: 03-2004
Posted From: 67.114.23.202
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If only we had put strict immigration laws into effect early enough, we could have kept those pesky Irishman out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2369
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.25.177.194
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Kimmiann, I suggest that you come down to the border in San Ysidro, CA , with 24 lanes of northbound traffic out of Mexico - the busiest border crossing point in the world. This is where folks try to cross legally, and most make it thru. But a short distance to the sides, thousands come illegally. Talk to the folks and find out the facts.

The best info I've seen on TV, including folks actually going there, has been on Hannity & Colmes. Even Colmes has come around after all he's seen. 99.9% of Americans have absolutely no clue as to the magnitude of the problem - it is huge, and unsustainable.

Talk radio/Fox News have singlehandedly brought to the general public's eye. Those not directly affected and liberal say "live & let live" but in the Southwest many libs now sing an entirely different tune.

Come down and see - or do some extensive reading, try the Wall Street Journal if you trust it. Then you'll understand completely.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 136
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 70.212.70.40
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 2:49 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Pacy,

I don't think the "act" of illegally entering the country is a felony. I believe that this is what the recent debate is about; they wished to "criminalize" illegal entry. This would result in them being imprisoned for a period of time prior to their removal. (Yeah, then we would really need more prisons. What does the private prison industry contribute annually to politicians?)

The term "illegal" immigrant v. "legal" immigrant instead refers to the "process" by which they entered, not the legal repurcussions of committing the act.

I am still unsure of my position on immigration at this time, but I don't think it necessary to criminalize the act, which then makes us incur expense housing the offenders in prison prior to their removal.

I also did not hear the Prez's speech, but from what I understand, he wants to grant an amnesty for those who have been here for x years. Is this correct? If so, that doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 1991
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 66.2.148.166
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 3:03 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've been, I've seen. I've lived in Mexico, I've lived in SWD, I've lived in LA. The border is a two way operation. There are also thousands of Americans flocking to TJ
(Tijuana) for a cheap night out, a day's shopping, affordable perscription drugs, affordable health care, affordable dentistry (Barnesfoto reccomends Dental Del Parque for dentistry)...
Like Kim says, lots of grey. Even our idiot of a president, being from Texas, realizes this. He even mentioned my favorite little secret last night: Undocumented people serving in the Iraq disaster to get their papers!
Others clamour from their mother's basements, for the GOVERNMENT to take care of everything. Here's a reminder:
The government was not willing to take care of everything in 1986, and it's not willing to take care of everything in 2006.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 137
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 70.212.70.40
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 3:09 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One more point:

There are two types of crimes:

(1) malum in se: those crimes that are illegal because they are bad (i.e. murder)

(2) malum prohibitum: those crimes that are illegal because we say they are illegal (driving down the road in a truck weighing 30 tons)

Just an interesting tidbit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 701
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

What role do attorneys play in the classification of laws. Oh, for those days when lawmakers weren't career attorneys. Just another tidbit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn

Post Number: 56
Registered: 04-2006
Posted From: 68.40.195.233
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:07 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ron, good point. (although it could be nitpicked, because 30 ton trucks take an extra expensive toll on our roads) But, aside from this, you are totally correct. I understand if one doesn't find illegal immigration favorable for our country, but please have a well though reason... here are some well known things that were once on the books:

-Alcohol ban
-Slavery
-Segregation
-Sweatshop conditions in America
-Racial covenants

I doubt even the staunchest conservative would spout mantra such as "if it's the law it's right" with items such as these staring them in the face...

.andy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Paulc
Member
Username: Paulc

Post Number: 65
Registered: 03-2005
Posted From: 159.53.78.143
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It seems, to Kimmiann's point that there is indeed much grey area here - met with a lot of "extremism" from both political ends of the spectrum with far too much devisiveness - and election year shennanigans by the politicians and media. We can argue all day long about fairness of immigration policy - current - or historic - and not come to a concensus on what is "fair." But isn't it "fair" to say that all or most nations wish to 1.) provide some level of border protection for national security purposes (with or without our perceived "war on terrorism") - 2.) enforce some form of rule of law for citizenship requirements be it short or long term or permanently? Is there any middle ground between completely closed or open borders? "Red state, blue state, he said, she said" - geez. I really think that Kimmiann said it best thus far.
Top of pageBottom of page

Warriorfan
Member
Username: Warriorfan

Post Number: 358
Registered: 08-2005
Posted From: 68.43.81.191
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:17 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Then I guess the whole world is crazy then, because every nation on earth reserves the right to regulate it's borders and who enters their nation and every other nation on earth does just that. But once again, it's only America that is evil and racist for doing what every other nation on earth does.
Top of pageBottom of page

Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia

Post Number: 508
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 69.222.54.70
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:19 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"If only we had put strict immigration laws into effect early enough, we could have kept those pesky Irishman out."

I think there is a line in Blazing Saddles about that SKnutson!
Top of pageBottom of page

Kimmiann
Member
Username: Kimmiann

Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 155.139.50.15
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 4:52 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Karl - Thanks for the advice, although you didn't answer my question. I doubt I'll be visiting San Ysidro, CA anytime soon; I'm rather partial to the Great Lakes. I will certainly make the effort to comb through serious news stories from reputable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, but the mere fact that Fox News dredged this story up in the first place makes me doubly suspicious of W's motives. Can anyone say mouthpiece?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1519
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.35.202
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 5:01 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Karl, I'm all for the rule of law as well. Problem is, we need some new laws. After we create some new laws that make immigration easier and remove quotas, then we can worry about catching what few border jumpers remain.

This is a nation of immigrants, simply put. I won't let anyone forget that. This fact is something which makes the nativists reel, as they try to resurrect the rhetoric of the 1870s or 1910s.

Anyone who says that we are overpopulated needs to put things in perspective. Even most of our cities aren't that crowded, clearly. Sure we are consuming lands quickly thanks to our sprawl, but we are no means densely populated in America by a world context. People who lament our 'awful economy' also need to put things in perspective, and consider the large world population that lives on a dollar a day.

We are need to stop generalizing immigrants as low-skilled or no-skilled. Mexico isn't our only feeder nation, and honestly, if we're gonna say that most Mexicans are low-skilled, then you need to put yourself in the position of an American employer: should we hire low-skilled Americans whose union says we need to pay them a certain amount, or hire Mexicans with comparable skills who are willing to work harder for less, because the amount we pay them is still exponentially higher than they recieved at home?

Finally, for those of you that say that all these immigrants drain our social welfare programs and should be deported, then I say we ought to deport all white and black Americans who are on welfare/medicaid already and end the safety net altogether. Boy that would simplify things. Who is "us" when we are talking about the safety net? We are all stuck with paying taxes and watching the government spend our cash, but we can't choose what type of person (based on ethnicity) should recieve these handouts.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1348
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 69.220.230.150
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 5:53 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One problem, you want to change the laws. Others just want to waive the laws, yet others just want people to obey the laws.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3730
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.189.232
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:29 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ron, you brought up a very good point, above, and I'd just like you to know that.

Kimmiann, I'm not sure why you're baffled at why this has become an issue. It's an election year, and the conservatives (as usual) need to drag out issues to divide the American people, and push them to the extremes of each side of the spectrum to see what they come up with in terms of support. They are masterful in finding issues that pit one group of people against another in the most negative way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Wabashrr1
Member
Username: Wabashrr1

Post Number: 125
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 205.188.116.137
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:34 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

^^^^ the dumbest most one sided thing I've seen posted in this thread yet. Both sides, Liberal and Conservative are masters at this. Don't think you can push it off as a conservative consperacy to divide people.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1520
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.35.202
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:35 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As a conservative, let me tell you that while I think this is an evitable debate, and I'm glad we're having it so that, hopefully, an outcome which benefits the nation arises, this is BAD news for the Republicans trying to get re-elected this year because it splits conservatives. I'll be damned if someone like Karl Rove drew it up this way.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1521
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.35.202
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:36 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wabashrr1 beat me to it, but yes.

There is also a liberal working class sentiment driving this -- "get those damn illegals outta here they're taking OUR jobs!!!"
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 705
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:46 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Many (most?) conservatives and libertarians wanted someone other than Bush for president. But they REALLY wanted someone other than Gore or Kerry.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1523
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.35.202
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:48 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I won't disagree with you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Karl
Member
Username: Karl

Post Number: 2374
Registered: 09-2005
Posted From: 72.25.177.194
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 6:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Even Reagan didn't grasp the enormity of this, referring to the whole illegal immigration issue as "pesky" -

Folks, just so you understand where I'm coming from: if it turns out we need every single illegal here, fine. BUT THEY NEED TO GET LEGAL.

In the meantime, PLUG THE LEAKY BORDER. Use the laws on the books now. This is our govt, working for us. We have the laws and they are usable right now. Contrary to what Reagan said (and many on these threads seem to agree with Reagan) this is not a PESKY issue.

Someone above called Fox News a "mouthpiece" - as I've said before, I've seen more outspoken libs, Dems, and other assorted (IMO) wackos on Fox News than on any other venue. They are allowed to make their point, and it is countered with opposing views. It is the only place where I consistently get to hear both sides. I laugh when I see folks here wiggle and condemn when they run out of "spin" - but it gets a bit more serious on Fox when you're being watched by the world. It is this type of exposure, allowing millions of folks to listen in on the arguements, that has caused a shift in the country. "We report, you decide" makes great sense when you get to hear several viewpoints. Also my reason to spend time over at Air America, NPR, and other lib venues - but part time only.

Anyone can report the news - and Fox, along with the others, do that several times each hour. What is different there is the news analysis and that is where it gets fun.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 706
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 7:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mexico threatens lawsuits over Guard

Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Posted: 5:02 p.m. EDT

CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico warned Tuesday it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border and some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.

Bush announced Monday that he will send 6,000 National Guard troops to the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) U.S.-Mexico border, but said the troops will provide intelligence and surveillance support to U.S. Border Patrol agents and will not catch and detain illegal immigrants.

"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in an interview with a Mexico City radio station.

Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to immigrant deaths. Since the U.S. toughened security at crossing spots in Texas and California in 1994, immigrants have flooded Arizona's hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have increased.

Immigrant groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. The Border Patrol reported 473 deaths as of September 30.

In Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, the local representative of Mexico's National Immigration Institute, said Tuesday she will ask the Mexican government to send a protection force, Grupo Beta, to remote sections of the border.

Sending the National Guard "will not stop the flow of migrants. To the contrary, it will probably go up," as people try to get into the U.S. with hopes of applying for a possible amnesty program, Nunez said.

Waiting to cross in Ciudad Juarez was Juan Canche, 36, who traveled 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles) to the border from the southern Mexican town of Izamal, where he had left his wife, five children and mother.

"Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle," said Canche, referring to the drought-stricken Rio Grande, dividing Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas. "My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it."

Mexican newspapers Tuesday characterized the National Guard plan as a hardening of the U.S. position, and some criticized President Vicente Fox for not taking a stronger stand, though Fox called Bush on Sunday to express his concerns.

Fox's spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday that Mexico accepted Bush's statement that the Guard troops didn't imply a militarization of the area, and that Mexico remained "optimistic" that the U.S. Senate would approve an immigration reform "in the interests of both countries."

He noted Bush expressed support for the legalization of some immigrants and the implementation of a guest worker program.

"This is definitely not a militarization," said Aguilar, who also dismissed as "absolutely false" rumors that Mexico would send its own troops to the border in response.

Critics have accused Bush of using the plan to win support for immigration reform from U.S. conservatives, who are more interested in tightening border security.

Bush said it was a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources to more effectively secure the border.

Presidential hopeful Felipe Calderon of Fox's National Action Party issued a statement that the military presence would endanger migrants without stopping them.

"These measures have been proven mistaken. They increase the social and human costs for migrants and only benefit criminal groups that make money on the hopes and suffering of those looking for an opportunity," Calderon said.

Salvadoran President Tony Saca said he was worried that there could be an increase in abuses against immigrants because National Guard troops are trained to handle natural disasters and wars.

Along the border in Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Honduran Antonio Auriel said he was determined to make it into the United States.

"Soldiers on the border? That won't stop me," he said. "I'll swim the river and jump the wall. I'm going to arrive in the United States."
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3732
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.189.232
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:32 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Karl, I agree. They do need to get legal. But, how is that possible now, and especially if the Senate agrees with the House on criminalizing (making felons of) every undocumented resident in this country?

The problem I see is that too many refuse to get real...on both sides. One side is calling for not only plugging the borders (which is fine by me if the majority of America thinks it should be that way), but rooting out every single undocumented resident in the country. That is not realistic, and thus is not a real solution. Then you have those that don't believe that a sovereign nation should have the right to regulate its border. My last few posts have been answering extremes with more extremism, which obvious doesn't work in a debate. So let's get real.

Despite my egalitarian rhetoric, I really do believe there is a middle ground. Let me lay out as clearly as I possibly can, my bullet points:

1. The deportation of 12 million undocumented residents IS NOT realistic, and even President Bush, as incompentent as he is, realizes this. That is definitely a non-solution, and need not even be considered by main-stream America, and it's good to know that this is one side of the looney fringe.

2. Where Bush and many Republicans and Democrats go wrong is that they support this wishy-washy idea of a temporary work card, which is just another form of economic slavery, which is also practiced in countries such as UAE and Saudi Arabia. What this does is create a defined labor/slave class. This is also a non-solution, as it only serves Big Business by providing a near infinite amount of slave labour.

3. We're dealing with very real issues, here. One includes what to do with our borders, and the other being how we treat undocumented resident workers. The idea that we should only concentrate on one or the other is plain ludicris, which is why I can't help but seeing those only concentrating on the border doing it for mostly xenophobic reasons vieled in the arguement of "well, they are illegal, so there."

4. Our naturalization system broken is borken as it is biased, racist, and xenophobic, and has been that way for most of our country's existence despite our incredibly high ideals we were founded upon. The system is inherently flawed, and should make it as easy as possible (like it used to be during rare times in our history, but the times when the country was socially at its best) to immigrate here, not as hard as possible. The system needs to be caught up to the demand. You CAN NOT fix this problem without also attacking this end of the problem, which, again, is why I'm incredibly wary and suspicious of those (and of them there are MANY) of those that not only just focus on borders, but also focus and demand the uprooting and deportion of millions of undocumneted residents. That extreme needs to simply be squashed in this discussion, and the same goes for the other extreme of a sovereign nation not having the right to define and regulate its border. I will not take anyone seriously that ascribes to either belief as it is a lunatic fringe.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw

Post Number: 1524
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 69.221.35.202
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 8:51 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Most of your points are very key.

With regard to number 2, though, I'm pretty sure there are still avenues to full citizenship in most of the plans for guest workers which have been floated.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lmichigan
Member
Username: Lmichigan

Post Number: 3733
Registered: 10-2003
Posted From: 24.11.189.232
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But, logic and reason has been given way to emotions, and this particular sub issue has been largely ignored and even maligned. There are quite a few even in the Senate that want complete deportation, though, they know that the rest of the Congress (and the majority of the American people), would never go along with such a thing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 708
Registered: 10-2004
Posted From: 69.242.223.42
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 9:57 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Read the report yesterday from the Heritage Foundation about the Seante bill. Its 20-year projection was the legalization of 80 million legals from Mexico in addition to what number of illegals come across--around 103 million. When all of the extra provisions are considered, a total around 200 million could stream across the southern (what?) border within 20 years.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1349
Registered: 12-2003
Posted From: 69.220.230.150
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:34 am: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Very little of them are going to get amnesty, becuase it is going to require that they pay taxes, including some back taxes. Which stops them from taking their paycheck back to Mexico.

lmichigan, latest poll is at 80% for deportation.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ron
Member
Username: Ron

Post Number: 141
Registered: 03-2006
Posted From: 70.212.45.70
Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 1:21 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Livernois,

Attorneys learn the "classification" of different types of crime as part of our education in the law. The above-referenced "classification" is applicable only to the criminal law. A crime that is malum in se is not more illegal than a crime that is malum prohibitum. They are both crimes; the classification is merely a methodology by which we learn, in this case, about the criminal law.

Our elected officials "classify" different types of criminal laws every day by requiring different types of punishments for different types of crimes. By doing so, they insert personal views into the criminal law in the process. (See the historical difference in penalties between crack cocaine and powder cocaine)

What, in your opinion, would be better, politicians who are career attorneys (as you state in your post), or attorneys who are career politicians? I am an attorney, who went to law school to represent individuals such as yourself who may end up in a dispute with someone much more powerful than yourself one day. If that ever occurs, feel free to give me a call.

I am not attempting to be a career politician; I am an attorney who is running for office. And, while I don't know you, it appears as though you would support any person who is a career anything, who wished to run for office for one or two terms, and then return to their professions. Wasn't that one of the major planks of Gingrich's Contract with America (term limits?).

Just remember, everyone hates attorneys until they need one; and everyone hates politicians, but the alternative is anarchy (a lawless society).

Believe it or not, some people go into either profession for pure motives to actually do something to make things better, rather than sit back and just bitch about it. (And let me state for the record, I am not saying that the only way to make things better is to run for office; that is just the avenue I am taking at this point.)

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.