I just read from goodle that arizona is trying to pass legislation to deny anchor babies their rights as U.S.Citizens.
While their hearts may be in the right place in attempting to stop the flow of ILLEGAL immagrents this is NOT the right way to do it.
Our constituion is IMO<--- please note the IMO--> almost a sacred document that needs to be very carefully considered before changing in ANY way.
I am a full supporter of arizona's previous laws that mirrored federal law concerning ILLEGAL immigration but this I will vehimatly oppose.
There has to be another way. My solution is draconic but effective, if the child is born here and the parents are not citizens then they have the option of takeing the child with them and he can re-enter when he is 18 or the parents can leave the child here to be raised in an orphange. As I said it is harsh but effective.
This issue is not worth changeing our constituion over.
My solution is draconic but effective, if the child is born here and the parents are not citizens then they have the option of takeing the child with them and he can re-enter when he is 18 or the parents can leave the child here to be raised in an orphange. As I said it is harsh but effective.
Seconded.
This one I won't be supporting.
My solution is draconic but effective, if the child is born here and the parents are not citizens then they have the option of takeing the child with them and he can re-enter when he is 18 or the parents can leave the child here to be raised in an orphange. As I said it is harsh but effective.Seconded.
This one I won't be supporting.
:confused:
You won't be supporting this Arizona law or Steve's solution or both?
Link? You know, allow to people to read what prompted your post so they can judge for themselves?
My solution is draconic but effective, if the child is born here and the parents are not citizens then they have the option of takeing the child with them and he can re-enter when he is 18 or the parents can leave the child here to be raised in an orphange. As I said it is harsh but effective.Seconded.
This one I won't be supporting.
:confused:
You won't be supporting this Arizona law or Steve's solution or both?
I support the immigration law, but not this new one that's coming up. I like Steve's solution to the whole "anchor babies" situation.
Sorry, that was rather awkwardly worded.
And yes a link would be appreciated.
I hate Arinzona. I heard they were all Irishmen.
I hate Arinzona. I heard they were all Irishmen.
They're after your lucky charms~!
I hate Arinzona. I heard they were all Irishmen.They're after your lucky charms~!
Smurficly delicious!
|
I just read from goodle that arizona is trying to pass legislation to deny anchor babies their rights as U.S.Citizens.
Well, the Fourteenth Amendment starts off with:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
What are the realistic chances of replacing or changing this amendment when two-thirds of both the House and Senate, plus 38 state legislatures are required to be on board?
Is this new law constitutional? Probably not. Will such a bill get knocked down quickly by SCOTUS? Probably yes. Will the current administration spare any tax dollar or resource to knock it down? No, it will be full steam ahead on this one, and it sounds like an easy target.
I am a full supporter of arizona's previous laws that mirrored federal law concerning ILLEGAL immigration but this I will vehimatly oppose.
There has to be another way. My solution is draconic but effective, if the child is born here and the parents are not citizens then they have the option of takeing the child with them and he can re-enter when he is 18 or the parents can leave the child here to be raised in an orphange. As I said it is harsh but effective.
So you would recomend this child be taken away to a foriegn land to be raised (and indoctrinated) into a very different culture from the melting pot we call America and then at age 18 he would have cart blanche to re-enter at will and enjoy full citizenship? And sponsor his relatives entry? All without the benefit of an American education and socialization into our culture (regardless of the merits or issues that may exist in our system)?
EDIT:
Or the parents must give up the child to an orphanage to be adopted to an American family and raised as an American. Could they latter sue and claim they did not understand that they were giving up or being stripped of their parental rights? That they were giving up the right to be sponsored by that child to latter gain legal entry? What if the child, at 18, goes on Dr Phil to find his biological parents? Do they then gain any rights or access?
I am not being adversarial here, just thinking this out.
This issue is not worth changeing our constituion over.
This might be worth changing, to be honest.
|
|
It's doubtful this would require a constitutional amendment. Naturalization requirements are, however, set by Congress, not by individual states. The 14th Amendment is widely interpreted to confer citizenship upon anyone born in the U.S., but this isn't necessarily so due to the "jurisdiction" clause. One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. It would be a hard sell, and, regardless, such legislation is beyond the purview of the individual states.
"...One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S...."
Is it unreasonable to deny citizenship to an infant if the parent(s) were in the US illegally?
I would argue no.
Is it unreasonable to deny citizenship to an infant if the parent(s) came here specifically to create an "anchor baby" and broke the law in the process?
I would argue no.
Is it unreasonable to deny citizenship to an infant if the parents came here illegally to create an "anchor baby" specifically to get a foot hold in our country so they can swell the voting ranks and advance an agenda that may not be in our best interests (almost starts to sound like an an invasion or some sort of hostile act against our soveriegnty, doesn't it?) but benefits their "mother' country?
Again I would argue no. It would be not only reasonable but sensible, prudent and in the best interests of our nation to do so.
Bottom line, the infant would not be born here if the parents had not broken the law to be here in the first place. I would propose that the unlawful action (specifically the illegal entry into the US)of the parents would nullify any legal claim the infant has on this issue. It would not preclude the child from legally immigrating here later in life. It simply would prevent the conferring of instant citizenship based on the location of the birth.
Of course the Supreme Court will most likely disagree with me on constitutional grounds.
It's doubtful this would require a constitutional amendment. Naturalization requirements are, however, set by Congress, not by individual states. The 14th Amendment is widely interpreted to confer citizenship upon anyone born in the U.S., but this isn't necessarily so due to the "jurisdiction" clause. One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. It would be a hard sell, and, regardless, such legislation is beyond the purview of the individual states."...One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S...."
Is it unreasonable to deny citizenship to an infant if the parent(s) were in the US illegally?
I would argue no.
Is it unreasonable to deny citizenship to an infant if the parent(s) came here specifically to create an "anchor baby" and broke the law in the process?
I would argue no.
Is it unreasonable to deny citizenship to an infant if the parents came here illegally to create an "anchor baby" specifically to get a foot hold in our country so they can swell the voting ranks and advance an agenda that may not be in our best interests (almost starts to sound like an an invasion or some sort of hostile act against our soveriegnty, doesn't it?) but benefits their "mother' country?
Again I would argue no. It would be not only reasonable but sensible, prudent and in the best interests of our nation to do so.
Bottom line, the infant would not be born here if the parents had not broken the law to be here in the first place. I would propose that the unlawful action (specifically the illegal entry into the US)of the parents would nullify any legal claim the infant has on this issue. It would not preclude the child from legally immigrating here later in life. It simply would prevent the conferring of instant citizenship based on the location of the birth.
Of course the Supreme Court will most likely disagree with me on...
About this bit:
"...One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S...."
If such an immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S, can actions of a legal nature be taken against those individuals by the federal government?
In other words, how can illegal entry and illegal presence within the U.S. be illegal according to federal U.S. law if the U.S. does not have jurisdiction over such individuals?
I just don't see that reasoning as a way around the granting of citizenship without the nullification of other laws. In that case, the Arizona law would be superceding those federal laws and I don't think it can do that.
Edit: reworded a little
One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Yeah in that case we don't have the jurisdiction to say they can't be here since they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Yeah in that case we don't have the jurisdiction to say they can't be here since they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
That sounds familiar.
One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Yeah in that case we don't have the jurisdiction to say they can't be here since they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
Name a country where you can go and not be subject to their jurisdiction while you're there.
Name a country where you can go and not be subject to their jurisdiction while you're there.One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Yeah in that case we don't have the jurisdiction to say they can't be here since they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
Hey I didn't make the statement I just pointed out how it was inane.
Hey I didn't make the statement I just pointed out how it was inane.Name a country where you can go and not be subject to their jurisdiction while you're there.One could argue that an undocumented immigrant and her child are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Yeah in that case we don't have the jurisdiction to say they can't be here since they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A.
No-no, Abraham -- didn't mean to sound like I was aiming at you. Just chiming in on your point towards the original statement.
I live, literally, on the border in Arizona. It's easy to say "their hearts are in the right place" and not understand just HOW bad it is here.
Our hospital's largest wing is the infant/pregnancy/birthing wing. About 1/3rd of the births in it are "anchor babies" as they're being termed. Most of these said births end up being paid for by the state, the taxpayers, and the hospital as the parents have no intention of sticking around long enough to pay, much less for immigration to find them. They disappear in the town, and sadly not much is done to follow up on them.
And, I hate to point this out, but lets reverse the situation here. Say I, as an American citizen, leave the US without a passport or valid immigration to another country. I won't even use Mexico... lets say I go to England. And while there, without said passport or identification, I have a child. Should I expect my child to automatically have English citizenship?
I don't think there's an easy solution. People's emotions go wacky when children are involved. Children are often the victims of their parent's bad choices. Is it punishment to send them home with the parents, or punishment to separate them from their parents?
|
And, I hate to point this out, but lets reverse the situation here. Say I, as an American citizen, leave the US without a passport or valid immigration to another country. I won't even use Mexico... lets say I go to England. And while there, without said passport or identification, I have a child. Should I expect my child to automatically have English citizenship?
In France, it works this way.
Option A: Crazy, over the top laws that are (dare I say it) UnAmerican to the extreme.Option B: Roll over, play dead, and give the illegals whatever they want.
Why are the only options being put forth inane extremes?
I'm not sure why illegal immigration is so incredibly dire a threat that we must make frustrating the desires of people so engaged into a moral imperative and call it a failure if we give them something they want. But that said:
Illegal immigrants come over the border to get jobs because the pay is better here than in their country of origin. Make it a criminal offense to employ an illegal and send a pile of rich business owners to the klink and that market will dry up pretty fast.
The problem I see with illegal immigration has nothing to do with the border being crossed. Big deal. That's like a speeding ticket. They broke the law, but it's a civil matter. Nothing to get much worked up about. I am infinitely more concerned with the number of illegals who, because they are illegal are denied recourse to the authorities and thus end up slaves, sexual or otherwise, to organized crime rackets and more unscrupulous than usual 'employers'. Call me crazy, but I think slavery is more serious than crossing a meaningless line in the dirt without permission.
Give them safe working conditions, a reasonable path to citizenship, access to law enforcement, and all these scary illegals will turn into the latest wave of Irishmen, Poles, Germans, Italians, and all the rest. Everybody wins. Except the paranoid racist scumbags, but their losing is a fringe benefit. Kind of like getting a free punch to Hitler's face. Who would pass that up?
|
|
I'm not sure why illegal immigration is so incredibly dire a threat that we must make frustrating the desires of people so engaged into a moral imperative and call it a failure if we give them something they want. But that said:
Well, it is a dire threat if you don't know who is coming here and why. As I see it, the Federal Government has an obligation to secure the borders and regulate who enters and when and where that entry/exit occurs. Has to do with that "provide for the common defense" line, among other things.
Sure, maybe you just want to come here and get a job and work hard to support your wife and kids. But how about this: Did you get the same vaccinations we require our citizens to have? Are you a drug addict? Do you really hate our country for some percieved past wrong (real or imagined)? In order to get here, are you smuggling contraband in (drugs, counterfit money) or back out (illegally obtained weapons your country prohibits)? Are you a wanted criminal in your own country?
Are these not legitimate concerns for any given nation regarding immigration (legal or not)?
I would say the Federal government, regardless of who's administration we look at, has failed at this. And miserably. Whether it has been through negligence or by design is not important. They have failed to protect the people they were elected/appointed to serve.
Illegal immigrants come over the border to get jobs because the pay is better here than in their country of origin. Make it a criminal offense to employ an illegal and send a pile of rich business owners to the klink and that market will dry up pretty fast.
Agreed. But the border still needs to be secure. In addition, so long as our nation has an unemployment rate, only those immigrants that can show a neccesary skill set should be allowed in. Let's get our own citizens working. I don't care if they don't like the jobs available. Get Americans to work first.
The problem I see with illegal immigration has nothing to do with the border being crossed. Big deal. That's like a speeding ticket. They broke the law, but it's a civil matter. Nothing to get much worked up about.
Well, if you get caught driving without a license, you get in more trouble than a speeding ticket. If you are drunk driving, eluding police, present false documentation when pulled over, iqnore traffic signs/signal, don't wear a seat belt ect...you are in more trouble. But, you still gotta get a license and register/insure the car you drive.
Let the immigrants get the valid paperwork and wait their turn to enter. I want them to follow the rules to come here and be a resident/citizen.
I am infinitely more concerned with the number of illegals who, because they are illegal are denied recourse to the authorities and thus end up slaves, sexual or otherwise, to organized crime rackets and more unscrupulous than usual 'employers'. Call me crazy, but I think slavery is more serious than crossing a meaningless line in the dirt without permission.
Give them safe working conditions,
These are horrible conditions to exist under. But if ICE was doing it's job, #1 there would be less illegals here to be used in this manner and #2 more of these abusers would be found, shut down, arrested and punished, thus leaving less of a demand for "cheap labor".
a reasonable path to citizenship,
It already exists. They just have to follow the rules and wait their turn. It should not be easy to become a citizen. A person should have to prove they want to come here and be productive and contribute to make things better for themselves and their new community.
access to law enforcement, and all these scary illegals will turn into the latest wave of Irishmen, Poles, Germans, Italians, and all the rest. Everybody wins. Except the paranoid racist scumbags, but their losing is a fringe benefit. Kind of like getting a free punch to Hitler's face. Who would pass that up?
Well, don't forget that when those folks came here, there were quotas as to how many were allowed in. And they had to work hard to become intigrated into our society. Some of these current illegals outright refuse to assimilate into our communities, keeping themselves separate, to the point of demanding soveriegn rights (keeping their own laws/language).
And was bringing up hitler really neccesary?
I am infinitely more concerned with the number of illegals who, because they are illegal are denied recourse to the authorities and thus end up slaves, sexual or otherwise, to organized crime rackets and more unscrupulous than usual 'employers'. Call me crazy, but I think slavery is more serious than crossing a meaningless line in the dirt without permission.
Oddly enough, they wouldn't be in those situations if they weren't, you know... here illegally.
Link? You know, allow to people to read what prompted your post so they can judge for themselves?
Iwould but I don't know how to make links to other web pages. sorry.
I can take a computer apart and replace a faulty part on a motherboard but I am not a very knowledgeable user of the internet.
Copy and paste the link and we'll do the rest.
I live, literally, on the border in Arizona. It's easy to say "their hearts are in the right place" and not understand just HOW bad it is here.
Our hospital's largest wing is the infant/pregnancy/birthing wing. About 1/3rd of the births in it are "anchor babies" as they're being termed. Most of these said births end up being paid for by the state, the taxpayers, and the hospital as the parents have no intention of sticking around long enough to pay, much less for immigration to find them. They disappear in the town, and sadly not much is done to follow up on them.
And, I hate to point this out, but lets reverse the situation here. Say I, as an American citizen, leave the US without a passport or valid immigration to another country. I won't even use Mexico... lets say I go to England. And while there, without said passport or identification, I have a child. Should I expect my child to automatically have English citizenship?
I don't think there's an easy solution. People's emotions go wacky when children are involved. Children are often the victims of their parent's bad choices. Is it punishment to send them home with the parents, or punishment to separate them from their parents?
Thanks for your opinion. I am very glad to hear from someone that actually lives in arizona. Please understand that while I have never lived in arizona my time in colorado and my visits to your wonderful state have opened my eyes.
I'm hopeing against all hope that your govenor decides to run for president in 2012, she has my vote already. I think she would be as wonderful a president as regan himself.I do understand your frustration over the blood sucking illegals and will support MOST measures, but when you want to change the constitution that has me very concerned. Thats the only thing that bothers me, I have a very deep seated respect for what is considered by some to be one of the most perfect forms of government on paper. I do not want to see another prohibition type amendment and then 10yrs later have to repeal it. Thats my major concern.
As to the other ideas about putting the employeers in jail for hireing an illegal sire I'm all for it but when jose has a valid ss # because of identity theft who goes to jail jose or the person that hired him thinking he is legal?
These illegals are very crafty and will stop at nothing to get here and take any thing they can get from free health care to free welfare that they havn't paid into, to free education for their kids. They want it all and don't want to work for any of it.
ok lets see if this link works, I read it originally on yahoo but found the same article on TIME, so heres the link( I hope)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1996064,00.html?xid=rss-tops tories
|
Call me crazy, but I think slavery is more serious than crossing a meaningless line in the dirt without permission.
I agree with you that slavery of illegal aliens is a serious issue. I also agree wolfthulhu that the illegals bear some of the responsibility for their situation by placing themselves into an illegal and thus untenable position. Nevertheless it should be dealt with and I'm all in favor of shooting anyone who makes another a slave in that way.
That being said, your term, "a meaningless line," I think illustrates the reason for the dichotomy on the two positions of this argument. There are those of us who think the line has meaning. The border defines the soveriegnty of a country. It is given meaning by the laws passed by government and the recognized treaties between two countries. Men fight and die for such lines, defending their homes against attack and their country against invaders. The sacrifice of those that came before and the continued commitment of those that love their country today give that "line" value. Nevertheless there are those that think the concept of national soveriegnty to be antiquated and such lines to be meaningless. I appreciate their idealism in wanting no distinctions between men based on nationality, but I wonder if they forsee where a loss of sovereignty leads. If the government has no sovereignty it has no right to defend itself, enforce its laws, collect its taxes or help its citizens. You can't pick and choose which laws you like - sovereignty doesn't work that way. Either a country has a right to exist or it does not. If it does not have the right to enforce its own laws, it has no rights and a man can declare his front yard a sovereign state and others would have no recourse but to agree. But if the government has recourse then it has the right to defend its sovereignty wherever that sovereignty is threatened. We fought a very bloody civil war in this country to prove that point. I think it would be nice if we did not have to have another such war to prove that this right of the government still exists.
A second tangential point...
It has long been said that we are "a nation of laws, not men." This means that no man is above the law: the law must reign equally over rich and poor alike. This is often viewed as an attack against privilege but it is not necessarily so: there is an expectation in the philosophy that even the poor must conform to the laws. Again, while those who want to except poor migrants from the law mean well, they would do better to consider what it means to live in a country of "men not laws." It means the law can be set aside on a whim for anyone. And once you start down that road, negating the laws, though you begin to do so for the underprivileged, the end result will be that men of power take control and twist the new lawlessness to their own end.
As for the 14th amendment, it is what it is. Originally meant to allow citizenship for all southern citizens, including former slaves, it is the amendment that defines citizenship. I support, in general the noble sentiment reflected in the thought that all men born in our country are citizens, but I do think the "jurisdiction line" could be amended to read more clearly, that is to read in such a way as to mean the parents must be here legally. I find the idea of immigrants not yet naturalized, rejoicing in the citizenship of their new child, to be a beautiful thing. But the reality of "anchor babies" is a rather unromantic and ugly con perpetrated by people who appear to be more interested in gaming the system than joining it.
|
Contributor
|
I do understand your frustration over the blood sucking illegals and will support MOST measures...these illegals are very crafty and will stop at nothing to get here and take any thing they can get from free health care to free welfare that they havn't paid into, to free education for their kids. They want it all and don't want to work for any of it.
Really? You know all of them? You interviewed them? Or is being here illegally automatically proof that they are "blood sucking", will "stop at nothing to get here...", "take anything they can get", "and don't want to work for any of it..."
So ALL illegals are callous, dangerous, lazy thieves and generally vile human beings?
That's funny, because people I have known who are here illegally are a mixed bag -- kind of like most people everywhere. Some I'd rather not have met and wish ICE had had the resources to keep out of the country. Others are simply compassionate caring people, keen to contribute to their communities, determined to make a better life for their children -- to the point of taking insane risks few of us could claim the courage to face -- and willing to work very, very hard to get that.
Many illegals I have known would give their eye-teeth for the same chance to become American that my great grandfather had.
|
|
Its one thing to have a baby here in the US and the parents are documented visitors to the US, its quite another when the intent of having a baby in the US is simply "anchor" themselves here. In order to create a solution, we need to understand the problem.
Not all "anchor" babies are born here with ill intent, some are born here because their parents are escaping a bad situation (tyranny, genocide, etc). Is it within the spirit of the Constitution to say no to these people? I think not. Therefore, we need to allow for this.
I'm just spit-balling here but what if we allowed "anchor" babies only in the case of documented visitors/immigrants and those seeking asylum. What is meant by asylum is that the undocumented immigrant turns themselves into the authorities and requests asylum. They are then documented and indoctrinated while their claim for asylum is processed.
The problem I see with this is the increase of bureaucracy this will cause. However, it would reduce the influx of undocumented immigrants which is the real problem here, right?
Of course this means that if a baby is born here to undocumented parents they would not be citizens which still disagrees with the Constitution.
The root problem is undocumented immigrants and if we make it hard for them to work here there won't be an incentive unless they really want to be American in which case I say good for them and let them declare themselves to authorities and be indoctrinated.
ok lets see if this link works, I read it originally on yahoo but found the same article on TIME, so heres the link( I hope)
I do understand your frustration over the blood sucking illegals and will support MOST measures...these illegals are very crafty and will stop at nothing to get here and take any thing they can get from free health care to free welfare that they havn't paid into, to free education for their kids. They want it all and don't want to work for any of it.Really? You know all of them? You interviewed them? Or is being here illegally automatically proof that they are "blood sucking", will "stop at nothing to get here...", "take anything they can get", "and don't want to work for any of it..."
So ALL illegals are callous, dangerous, lazy thieves and generally vile human beings?
That's funny, because people I have known who are here illegally are a mixed bag -- kind of like most people everywhere. Some I'd rather not have met and wish ICE had had the resources to keep out of the country. Others are simply compassionate caring people, keen to contribute to their communities, determined to make a better life for their children -- to the point of taking insane risks few of us could claim the courage to face -- and willing to work very, very hard to get that.
Many illegals I have known would give their eye-teeth for the same chance to become American that my great grandfather had.
Then why don't they start the path to citizenship instead of comeing here, working 5yrs or 20yrs or however long and then retireing back in their"home" counrty.
I didn't make my point very clearly so allow me to clarify, I am frustrated by the attitude of the illegals just as much as by their presence here.The mindset of the few I have had the displeasure of associating with is one of "you took our land" so that misconception gives them the right to be here and claim anything they want. The mexican american war happened over 100yrs ago (I don't feel like looking up the exact date right now) so any claim they had is null and void but they still hold onto that entitlement mindset.
I figure I need to restate some things that people seem to wish pretend do not exist:
1. Illegal immigrants do compete and take away from hard working Americans.
Small farms have difficulty competing with large farms. Farms in the Midwest must compete with farms in the Southwest. Those large and Southwestern farms (and other agricultural businesses such as egg farms) that hire illegal immigrants gain an unfair competitive advantage over those who don't. Further, changing quotas in order to bring in all the extra workers legally is still bringing in competition and forcing out American workers. Those brought in are taking the place of Americans that do the work elsewhere.
That is not needed.
The same can be said for construction and many small contractors, the father son sized businesses, especially in Arizona itself. They work as contractors and are not employed by someone. They have difficulty competing with larger contractors but have their personal involvement as a selling point. But, when the larger contractors begin to hire illegals, they are able to undercut the father son sized contractors by far enough that it eliminates the competition. Their is no apparent "laying off" of workers because they are self-employed. There is no reduction in licenses because they continue to try and eke out a living.
They can and do replace hard working Americns. Pundits will often try to argue that Americans are not "lining up" for these jobs. But, apparently no one gives a damn about such hard working Americans. It is easier to just make up a lie and call them racists for complaining.
2. Illegal entry into the United States is a criminal offense.
Illegal residence in the U.S. such as from an expired passport/visa/whatever is a civil offense. Illegal entry, the overwhelming problem in Arizona, is a criminal offense.
3. Dangerous crimes are not decreasing in Arizona
In the last two years, Phoenix Police received nearly 1,000 kidnapping-for-ransom reports and authorities estimate that twice as many went unreported. Kidnappings are so rampant that the department had to create a special unit to handle the once unheard of crimes.
And, at the time this was occurring:
The Phoenix Police Department largely ignores the crisis because the city’s sanctuary policy forbids officers from asking about a suspect’s immigration status, though the mayor (Phil Gordon) supposedly reversed it a few months ago under pressure from Judicial Watch.
The immigrants had access to the available police resources and it didn't matter.
This is directly related to cartels doing work in Arizona. They use illegals to funnel their goods into Arizona and throughout the U.S. and It IS DIFFICULT to apprehend those that do bring the "goods" across the border because they arrive within a flood of immigrants. Removing most of the imiigrants that enter (especially by encouraging that far fewer enter) will make those who are couriers easier to find.
The 10 Safest Cities1-San Jose, CA
2-El Paso, TX
3-Honolulu, HI
4-Austin, TX
5-New York, NY
6-Louisville, KY
7-San Diego, CA
8-San Antonio, TX
9-San Francisco, CA
10-Fort Worth, TXThe 10 Most Dangerous Cities
1-Detroit, MI
2-Washington, DC
3-Baltimore, MD
4-Memphis, TN
5-Dallas, TX
6-Philadelphia, PA
7-Columbus, OH
8-Nashville, TN
9-Houston, TX
10-Phoenix, AZ
All the things associated with illegal immigration weigh heavily in Phoenix being ranked 10th in the most dangerous cities of the U.S.
Note: El Paso, a border city, is ranked the second safest city in the U.S. That would be a strong argument that immigration in El Paso has not affected the safety in El Paso. But, this is a discussion about why Arizona passed such a law and not about why El Paso made such an ordinance. Two different situations with different results. Also note that this was in 2003, before the kidnapping rise mentioned above. I do not know if El Paso has changed in the same time period.
1. above is why illegal immigration should not be legalized or ignored. 3. is a significant reason why extra steps must be taken to deal with the problem that exists.
End: This is not an argument for or against the specific law mentioned in this thread but an explanation regarding some statements being made.
|
Contributor
|
I figure I need to restate some things that people seem to wish pretend do not exist:
1. Illegal immigrants do compete and take away from hard working Americans.
2. Illegal entry into the United States is a criminal offense.
3. Dangerous crimes are not decreasing in Arizona
...
Pretty much agreed on all 3 statements, but sincere and heavy disagreement on your suggested response.
1. Illegal immigrants do compete and take away from both hard working and lazy Americans. Which is precisely why immigration should be legal in much the way it was at the turn of the century. Businesses are also committing a crime when they hire illegals, and those businesses should be held accountable. Why are such businesses permitted to break the law, illegally gain an unfair advantage against small and mom/pop businesses that helps drive those people out of business, and we blame the immigrant? I am perfectly willing to pay a dollar more for my chicken if that's what it takes to force businesses to do business legally. I'd like to see that happen even if the business in question makes massive campaign contributions to various state and federal lawmakers.
Legal and documented immigrants -- whom businesses were required to hire legally -- would have to compete with both lazy and hardworking Americans on an even playing field. They'd be required to pay taxes, comply with health codes in their living conditions, etc. They'd also not speak the language very well, hampering their competitiveness.
If you're insisting on a totally competition free zone, I can't be on board with that. I'm too much a capitalist.
2. That is an accurate statement.
3. As best I can tell, that is an accurate statement.
1. Illegal immigrants do compete and take away from both hard working and lazy Americans. Which is precisely why immigration should be legal in much the way it was at the turn of the century.
Tell that to my family who have difficulty paying their bills while working their farms.
The economic growth potential of the U.S is not the same now as it was at the turn of the century. Our manufacturing was growing remarkably then and continued to explode for a time. That time is gone.
As these jobs (manufacturing, construction, and farming) are already being worked (and the market is not exploding), there is not an imperative for the government to bring in more people to compete with the current population on a roughly even scale (legalization) as there was at the turn of the century.
If someone wishes to create a business where the workforce does not exist because he likes other things the region has to offer besides the work force, he should have to face the results of his choices rather than have the government aid him to the detriment of his competitors in other locations.
Businesses are also committing a crime when they hire illegals, and those businesses should be held accountable. Why are such businesses permitted to break the law, illegally gain an unfair advantage against small and mom/pop businesses that helps drive those people out of business, and we blame the immigrant?
First, for a period of time under the Bush administration, ICE began to crack down on such businesses but received stiff criticism for doing so. Remember all those raids? How many have happened in the last year and a half? Both administrations (former and current) backed off due to seeking Hispanic votes.
The federal government has stopped doing its job.
Second, both the business and the immigrant are guilty of crimes already. Working without a green card, failure to properly pay taxes (including social security, etc., unless a flase number was given), etc. The violations of such businesses do not remove the violations of the immigrants which are matched and also include illegal residency and illegal entry.
The legislature has developed a means of dealing with this.
How would you legislate a law that would work against these businesses? In other words, merely saying it would be illegal for them to do such a thing will bring about no results unless a means of enforcing it is in place. How would you enforce this law against businesses (construction, day laboroers, and farmering) that pay under the table and do it in a way that would not also put one in direct contact with the other side, the illegal immigrants. And, when you find them (the illegal immigrants), what then?
...
And, I hate to point this out, but lets reverse the situation here. Say I, as an American citizen, leave the US without a passport or valid immigration to another country. I won't even use Mexico... lets say I go to England. And while there, without said passport or identification, I have a child. Should I expect my child to automatically have English citizenship?...
And that is, in fact, how it works. I will refrain from commenting on the political nature of this thread, because it is a tempest in an interwebs teakettle but I was born to an American father and a Dutch mother in London, and I still carry my British (now EU) passport to this day.
For the record, all three countries have made me feel phenomenally welcome and taken care of me in their way. The US has hosted me virtually all my life (Permanent Resident), I was raised and schooled in Holland and when I needed to go back to Europe suddenly to visit my dying grandmother, the UK made damn sure I was on the next plane in spite of some hitches with paperwork.
I have always felt like a citizen of all three countries.
Oh, and by the way, since I'm brown, I probably won't be visiting Arizona anytime soon. It's too bad. I used to look forward to visiting Arizona for the Ren Faire each February/March so much, and to be honest, if a bit too forward, my daughter was conceived there, although born here in NY.
Probably a good thing that she was, because otherwise some might accuse me of having had an "anchor baby". Around here people don't make that distinction as much, but then again here in the state of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, we don't see immigrant as a bad word.
Probably a good thing that she was, because otherwise some might accuse me of having had an "anchor baby". Around here people don't make that distinction as much, but then again here in the state of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, we don't see immigrant as a bad word.
That last bit is a straw man as well as the bit about having brown skin.
No one here (this thread in specific, and America in general but not specifically everyone in America) sees "immigrant" (and the people the word represents) as a bad word. The problem is with illegal immigration.
Please elaborate and point out animosity that applies to legal immigration that leads you to make such a conclusion about immigration in general as opposed to illegal immigration.
Please point out how the law itself will make it uncomfortable for you (in a way that is not your own devising) because you have brown skin.
edit note: changed legal to illegal
|
|
Oh, and by the way, since I'm brown, I probably won't be visiting Arizona anytime soon. It's too bad. I used to look forward to visiting Arizona for the Ren Faire each February/March so much, and to be honest, if a bit too forward, my daughter was conceived there, although born here in NY.
Probably a good thing that she was, because otherwise some might accuse me of having had an "anchor baby". Around here people don't make that distinction as much, but then again here in the state of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, we don't see immigrant as a bad word.
For the record, my mother was born in Mexico. My grandmother was a naturalized mexican immigrant who moved to El Paso after marrying my grandfather. I have relatives who still live in Mexico, in fact when I was about ten I lived there myself for some months while my father worked as an engineer for a silver mine in the mountains and I have other realatives who have moved north over the border in recent years. My oldest daughter is sometimes fairly dark skinned, as is my mother, and if I spend much time in the sun I can get brownish myself.
That being said, I would have no worries about visiting Arizona. Nor do I think that a desire to see immigrants come here legally in any way implies some sort of racial bias or animus against immigration. I expect my own relatives to follow the law and cross the border legally. Why should I expect less of others? I think you paint with too broad a brush. If you were a legal resident of NY, most of us have no problem with your daughter being a citizen of our country and its a bit insulting that you would think otherwise.
I know people of Hispanic descent on both sides. I have friends at Church who swear they'll never drive through Arizona again. I have in-laws on one side, some of which live in Arizona and others own a vacation home there. They don't seem concerned in the least.
Probably a good thing that she was, because otherwise some might accuse me of having had an "anchor baby". Around here people don't make that distinction as much, but then again here in the state of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, we don't see immigrant as a bad word.
That last bit is a straw man as well as the bit about having brown skin.
No one here (this thread in specific, and America in general but not specifically everyone in America) sees "immigrant" (and the people the word represents) as a bad word. The problem is with illegal immigration.
Please elaborate and point out animosity that applies to legal immigration that leads you to make such a conclusion about immigration in general as opposed to illegal immigration.
Please point out how the law itself will make it uncomfortable for you (in a way that is not your own devising) because you have brown skin.
edit note: changed legal to illegal
Didn't this whole hubbub start over people who "looked like they were illegal" having to be searched by the cops or something?
I figure I need to restate some things that people seem to wish pretend do not exist:
1. Illegal immigrants do compete and take away from hard working Americans.
Small farms have difficulty competing with large farms. Farms in the Midwest must compete with farms in the Southwest. Those large and Southwestern farms (and other agricultural businesses such as egg farms) that hire illegal immigrants gain an unfair competitive advantage over those who don't. Further, changing quotas in order to bring in all the extra workers legally is still bringing in competition and forcing out American workers. Those brought in are taking the place of Americans that do the work elsewhere.
That is not needed.
The same can be said for construction and many small contractors, the father son sized businesses, especially in Arizona itself. They work as contractors and are not employed by someone. They have difficulty competing with larger contractors but have their personal involvement as a selling point. But, when the larger contractors begin to hire illegals, they are able to undercut the father son sized contractors by far enough that it eliminates the competition. Their is no apparent "laying off" of workers because they are self-employed. There is no reduction in licenses because they continue to try and eke out a living.
They can and do replace hard working Americns. Pundits will often try to argue that Americans are not "lining up" for these jobs. But, apparently no one gives a damn about such hard working Americans. It is easier to just make up a lie and call them racists for complaining.
Where are they, then? I remember some kind of movement back in the 90's for it, but it petered out and I have heard nothing from these people since. It's not a lie per se if there's noone there to prove otherwise.
For all the people who simply declare, "They need to come here legally!"
One question: if that was at all possible, don't you think they'd do so, rather than (in many cases) pay their life savings, and themselves into slavery, so that some coyote can smuggle them across -- or maybe just kill them and leave the bodies in the desert? Or are all illegals so stupid that if you offer them a choice between "get legal citizenship" or "likely be raped and killed, but maybe sneak across," they'd choose the latter out of pure spite?
For every 10,000 people who want to come across, work hard, and make a life for themselves and their families, there's like 1 opening. Yes, the border needs to be secured against drug gangs, etc. Yes, I'd very much like to make sure the people coming across were vaccinated, paid for their health care, etc. And yes, it would be a lot easier to do these things if there were some legal mechanism by which they might have a snowball's chance in hell of getting in, without a 30-year wait.
|
|
For every 10,000 people who want to come across, work hard, and make a life for themselves and their families, there's like 1 opening.
A counter question - should every person who wants to enter the country and become a citizen be allowed to enter the country and become a citizen? Wikipedia puts the number of legal immigrants per yer into the country at 1 million. That probably puts the lie to your statistic of 10K to 1 as there aren't that many people in the world last I checked. Still, what should the number allowed in each year be? 1 billion, 100 million, 10 million? What is a reasonable influx?
The amount of immigration that should be allowed is a legitimate policy question open for debate. But once the matter is settled law, is it legitimate to break the law simply because your family is special and/or not bad people?
Edit: In regards to that 1 million number, consider this fact too; as of 2006 the United States naturalizes more legal immigrants every year then every other country on the planet combined. I don't think we can be said to be draconic in refusing entrance.
Sorry if I offended anyone. I admit that the last part was glib and snarky. I have a tendency not to know when to hold my tongue when it comes to issues I care a lot about. Wish I could take it back, but I said it, and honestly, logic aside, its how I feel.
I realize that I am not going to change anybody's perception here that illegal immigrants are dangerous and job stealing "blood suckers", but I encourage you to remember that the same thing was said about Irish, German, Italian and other immigrants, some of whom came here illegally and might even have been your own ancestors.
Most people don't assume I'm one ethnicity or the other. It just seems that it happens more often and with more inconvenient consequences in the south and west than it does in the northeast.
|
|
Its one thing to have a baby here in the US and the parents are documented visitors to the US, its quite another when the intent of having a baby in the US is simply "anchor" themselves here. In order to create a solution, we need to understand the problem.
Not all "anchor" babies are born here with ill intent, some are born here because their parents are escaping a bad situation (tyranny, genocide, etc). Is it within the spirit of the Constitution to say no to these people? I think not. Therefore, we need to allow for this.
No, no we don't. We have no legal or moral reason to let criminals (which is what they are, nice people or not)get a free ride in this country. They want to escape a dictatorship, fine, but there's no reason why they can't go through the proper channels.
|
|
...
And, I hate to point this out, but lets reverse the situation here. Say I, as an American citizen, leave the US without a passport or valid immigration to another country. I won't even use Mexico... lets say I go to England. And while there, without said passport or identification, I have a child. Should I expect my child to automatically have English citizenship?...
And that is, in fact, how it works. I will refrain from commenting on the political nature of this thread, because it is a tempest in an interwebs teakettle but I was born to an American father and a Dutch mother in London, and I still carry my British (now EU) passport to this day.
For the record, all three countries have made me feel phenomenally welcome and taken care of me in their way. The US has hosted me virtually all my life (Permanent Resident), I was raised and schooled in Holland and when I needed to go back to Europe suddenly to visit my dying grandmother, the UK made damn sure I was on the next plane in spite of some hitches with paperwork.
I have always felt like a citizen of all three countries.
Oh, and by the way, since I'm brown, I probably won't be visiting Arizona anytime soon. It's too bad. I used to look forward to visiting Arizona for the Ren Faire each February/March so much, and to be honest, if a bit too forward, my daughter was conceived there, although born here in NY.
Probably a good thing that she was, because otherwise some might accuse me of having had an "anchor baby". Around here people don't make that distinction as much, but then again here in the state of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, we don't see immigrant as a bad word.
That's because you don't live near Mexico. You don't know how it affects the community or the states. Europe is alot different from the US in many different ways.
And yeah, uh, people whose sole purpose in coming here is to have a baby and mooch off the system? Bloodsuckers. People whose sole purpose to come here is to work to better themselves and their families with an American job, and American education, and American healthcare, and in order to do so hae a child in the US? Bloodsuckers.
Everything being said here has been said before; you merely have to replace "Mexican" with "Irish."
Incidentally, the average time it takes to "cross the borders and be a citizen properly" is I believe 8-10 years. And that's 100% due to US bureaucracy.
So yeah, not really an option.