DVD Talk
Five Illegals Arrested During Immigration Bill Protest, Face Deportation [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Five Illegals Arrested During Immigration Bill Protest, Face Deportation


kenbuzz
05-10-11, 03:48 PM
Linky: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/27831083/detail.html
Students Arrested At Statehouse Immigration Protest

INDIANAPOLIS -- Six students, five of them undocumented immigrants, were arrested outside Gov. Mitch Daniels' office Monday while protesting strict immigration bills he's expected to sign soon. The students, wearing their high school graduation gowns, wanted to meet with Daniels to discuss Senate Bill 590 and House Bill 1402, the latter of which would make undocumented students ineligible for in-state tuition at Indiana colleges and universities, no matter how long they have lived in the state.

The otherwise peaceful rally became heated when the students tried to enter Daniels' office without an appointment, police said. The students were arrested, handcuffed and taken away from the Statehouse. Urier Gama, 20; Sayra Perez; Idamarie Collazo, 21; Guadalupe Pimental, 18; Erick Gama, 20; and Ana Ruiz-Toyar, 23, were preliminarily charged with criminal trespass. Collazo, who is not one of the undocumented students, also faces charges of interfering with a police officer and resisting arrest.

"They were given the opportunity three different times over the span of about 15 to 20 minutes to leave the area and not face any arrest," said Indiana State Police 1st Sgt. Dave Bursten. "They're getting exactly what they asked for. They wanted some publicity; they're getting the publicity. They wanted to be arrested; they are being arrested for criminal trespass."

Erick Gama, an undocumented immigrant who was arrested at the rally, was brought to the country when he was 11 years old. He graduated with academic honors from Arsenal Technical High School and currently attends Indiana University. He said fellow students need to take a stand. "As soon as tomorrow, HB 1402 could go into effect and our dreams could be shattered," he said. "We just want to have an education, and we're being blocked."

Sen. Michael Delph, R-Carmel, who sponsored the legislation, said the rule of law should be followed. "They are going to need to return to their country of origin and enter by lawful means," Delph said.

Daniels' spokeswoman, Jane Jankowski, said the governor intends to sign the bills in the next few days.

Linky: http://www.wthr.com/story/14618661/five-indiana-protesters-face-deportation-hearings
Five Indiana protesters face deportation hearings
Updated: May 10, 2011 4:00 PM EDT

INDIANAPOLIS - An attorney for five young Latino illegal immigrants says they face deportation hearings after being arrested on trespassing charges at Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' office while protesting two pending immigration laws. Attorney Marc Lopez says each of the five was jailed Tuesday facing holds for federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to conduct deportation hearings on their residency status.

Lopez and a co-activist of the five say they have begun hunger strikes until Daniels vetoes the bills. A Marion County Jail spokesman says he's unaware of any hunger strikes.

Both anti-illegal immigration bills are due to become law this week unless Daniels vetoes them. One would deny in-state tuition at state-supported universities for illegal immigrants. The other would revoke some tax credits for businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Nineteen-year-old Sayra Perez of Indianapolis also says all five of those jailed for criminal trespassing have begun a hunger strike until they're released. Perez says students arrested in other states after similar protests haven't faced deportation.
So rather than peacefully protest, these chuckleheads attempted to force their way into the Governor's office. Warned multiple times to knock it off, they were finally arrested. When their status as illegals became known, having been arrested, they are now facing deportation - per Indiana law.

From all indications, the average IQ of the state will go up once these dum-dums are deported. I hope there are smarter examples of 18-23 year old Indiana youth. If not, I fear the Midwest may slowly turn into Florida.

kenbuzz
05-10-11, 03:50 PM
oops, should be in Politcs.

Mods, a little help?

General Zod
05-10-11, 03:50 PM
They won't get deported. Obama is more likely to grant them citizenship since nothing apparently shows you deserve citizenship more than breaking our laws.

arminius
05-10-11, 03:52 PM
I think, in solidarity, all illegal immigrants should go on a hunger strike until the Gov vetoes the law. That will learn him.

PopcornTreeCt
05-10-11, 03:56 PM
Yay?

kvrdave
05-10-11, 03:58 PM
Why should illegal immigrants get in-state tuition?

kvrdave
05-10-11, 03:59 PM
Here, let me help this get to the correct forum....ahem

ABORTION!!!!!

GAY MARRIAGE!!!!!

and viola'

Meglos
05-10-11, 04:01 PM
http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/5628/unledunve.png

Navinabob
05-10-11, 04:03 PM
Silly Canadians, now they gotta go back to playing hockey and having healthcare.

kstublen
05-10-11, 04:04 PM
Were these the same students that were protesting and saying "We're illegal immigrants and you can't do anything about it," or am I confusing them with some other students?

Groucho
05-10-11, 04:06 PM
They won't get deported. Obama is more likely to grant them citizenship since nothing apparently shows you deserve citizenship more than breaking our laws.Damn you, Obama! It's all your fault. EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT!!!

superdeluxe
05-10-11, 04:11 PM
Nineteen-year-old Sayra Perez of Indianapolis also says all five of those jailed for criminal trespassing have begun a hunger strike until they're released.


:bow:

kenbuzz
05-10-11, 04:25 PM
What I find most amazing is that their protest was based primary over the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates. Is it really worth getting deported to Latinoland and have your future as an immigration defense attorney stifled just over a difference in tuition, especially when you shouldn't be here to begin with?

General Zod
05-10-11, 06:13 PM
Damn you, Obama! It's all your fault. EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT!!!

This is not his fault. Plenty of presidents before him didn't take illegal immigration seriously and did nothing to stop it. Had Bush's amnesty plan passed while he was in office we'd still be having this discussion with the new batch that have come over. In my opinion you can't start having a realistic discussion about amnesty until the border is secure FIRST.

General Zod
05-10-11, 06:17 PM
Why should illegal immigrants get in-state tuition?

Why should only Americans get in-state tuition? What kinda racist are you?

-end of argument-

SterlingBen
05-10-11, 08:31 PM
They should be forced to reimburse the state for all previous school enrollment.

kstublen
05-10-11, 08:38 PM
Why should only Americans get in-state tuition? What kinda racist are you?

-end of argument-

rotfl

NotThatGuy
05-10-11, 08:59 PM
An illegal is an illegal is an illegal. The author tries to imply that just because one of the people was in the country for years, that it should make a difference in how he is treated. If I killed someone, but I evaded arrest for 20 years....does that mean I should be given a pass on the crime? How about if I stole $50,000 from my town's bank account, should all be forgiven because I think I deserve it? The kid is no less illegal and he is no more entitled to in-state tuition.

BKenn01
05-10-11, 09:16 PM
Damn you, Obama! It's all your fault. EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT!!!

And to think only a few short years ago it was

"Damn you, Bush! It's all your fault. EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT!!!"

Well some people still say that though.....

Hokeyboy
05-10-11, 09:58 PM
And to think only a few short years ago it was

"Damn you, Bush! It's all your fault. EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT!!!"

Well some people still say that though.....
So returning fucking idiocy for an earlier fucking idiocy makes sense? Really?

The "Well he did it FIRST" defense was fucking idiocy in preschool...

Josh-da-man
05-10-11, 10:41 PM
Damn you, Obama! It's all your fault. EVERYTHING IS YOUR FAULT!!!

If only he was a real American and not a Kenyan carpetbagger...

kvrdave
05-10-11, 10:58 PM
An illegal is an illegal is an illegal. The author tries to imply that just because one of the people was in the country for years, that it should make a difference in how he is treated. If I killed someone, but I evaded arrest for 20 years....does that mean I should be given a pass on the crime? How about if I stole $50,000 from my town's bank account, should all be forgiven because I think I deserve it? The kid is no less illegal and he is no more entitled to in-state tuition.

My guess is that people would say that there is a difference between that and being a minor accessory. However, no matter their age, etc., they are still here illegally.

Spottedfeather
05-11-11, 12:52 AM
Of course undocumented people shouldn't get assistance.....of any kind. If you want to be in this country, do it the right way and become a citizen. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the people that come here without going through the proper channels and living here legally. I cannot believe that they think that just because they're here, that they should have all rights and priveleges of those who are here properly. Makes me sick.

Supermallet
05-11-11, 01:07 AM
Waaaah, we're here illegally and now we've been arrested. Waaaaah.

kvrdave
05-11-11, 01:23 AM
Waaaah, we're here illegally and now we've been arrested. Waaaaah.

:lol:

Dr Mabuse
05-11-11, 07:57 AM
"If many thousands of illegal aliens marched in their zeal, many more millions of Americans of all different races and backgrounds watched - and seethed. They were struck by the spectacle of illegal alien residents lecturing citizen hosts on what was permissible in their own country." - Victor Davis Hanson

BearFan
05-11-11, 08:12 AM
"They were given the opportunity three different times over the span of about 15 to 20 minutes to leave the area and not face any arrest," said Indiana State Police 1st Sgt. Dave Bursten. "They're getting exactly what they asked for. They wanted some publicity; they're getting the publicity. They wanted to be arrested; they are being arrested for criminal trespass."

Exactly, now deport them.

clappj
05-11-11, 11:03 AM
Exactly, now deport them.

And make them pay for the gas for the trip back home.

sracer
05-11-11, 11:12 AM
What I find most amazing is that their protest was based primary over the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates. Is it really worth getting deported to Latinoland and have your future as an immigration defense attorney stifled just over a difference in tuition, especially when you shouldn't be here to begin with?
...because for decades both political parties encouraged illegal emigration to this country...because all social services must be equally applied to every person on U.S. soil regardless of how they got here...because existing immigration laws are rarely enforced.

Superboy
05-11-11, 12:31 PM
An illegal is an illegal is an illegal. The author tries to imply that just because one of the people was in the country for years, that it should make a difference in how he is treated. If I killed someone, but I evaded arrest for 20 years....does that mean I should be given a pass on the crime? How about if I stole $50,000 from my town's bank account, should all be forgiven because I think I deserve it? The kid is no less illegal and he is no more entitled to in-state tuition.

Yes, there should be some sort of... statute.. that limits... how long you can be charged for a crime after it happens.

Way too crazy of a concept though.

Bandoman
05-11-11, 12:45 PM
Yes, there should be some sort of... statute.. that limits... how long you can be charged for a crime after it happens.

Way too crazy of a concept though.

Not that I'm in favor of deporting every illegal alien, but if the "crime" is being in the country illegally, then that crime is continuing every day they are here. No statute of limitations will bar prosecution for a crime that continues up to the time of the arrest.

Superboy
05-11-11, 12:48 PM
Not that I'm in favor of deporting every illegal alien, but if the "crime" is being in the country illegally, then that crime is continuing every day they are here. No statute of limitations will bar prosecution for a crime that continues up to the time of the arrest.

It was a stupid, self defeating question, so I answered it.

A better analogy would be if you were a fugitive of the law. Although there's still amnesty for that based on the nature of the crime and the original sentence.

General Zod
05-11-11, 01:12 PM
Not that I'm in favor of deporting every illegal alien, but if the "crime" is being in the country illegally, then that crime is continuing every day they are here.

Exactly. It would be like breaking into someone's home and living in the attic for a year before they found you. You can't just say "Hey! I broke in a year ago! Therefore I should be allowed to stay and I shouldn't get charged with anything. I didn't commit any crimes while I was up here so.. where's my free education and healthcare, pal?".

orangecrush
05-11-11, 01:20 PM
An illegal is an illegal is an illegal. The author tries to imply that just because one of the people was in the country for years, that it should make a difference in how he is treated. If I killed someone, but I evaded arrest for 20 years....does that mean I should be given a pass on the crime? How about if I stole $50,000 from my town's bank account, should all be forgiven because I think I deserve it? The kid is no less illegal and he is no more entitled to in-state tuition.Rape and assualt both have statutes of limitation in may, if not most, states. :shrug:

logrus9
05-11-11, 01:40 PM
Rape and assualt both have statutes of limitation in may, if not most, states. :shrug:

Kidnapping doesn't have a statute of limitations. Like illegal immigration, it's not just an initial action, it's an ongoing crime.

Tracer Bullet
05-11-11, 01:46 PM
I'd like to know more information before I come to any conclusions. For example, the article states that one of the five was brought to the U.S. when he was 11--if your parents moved you to another country at the age of 11, in what sort of position would you likely be to return to your country of origin?

Red Dog
05-11-11, 02:04 PM
I'd like to know more information before I come to any conclusions. For example, the article states that one of the five was brought to the U.S. when he was 11--if your parents moved you to another country at the age of 11, in what sort of position would you likely be to return to your country of origin?

Don't be silly. He should have gotten the fuck out at 11! He was committing a crime! Or at worst, the deadbeat should have gotten on a bus to Guadalajara on his 18th birthday! Then this deadbeat has the gall to want in-state tuition rates in a state he resided in for 7 years! What an ass!

logrus9
05-11-11, 02:25 PM
Don't be silly. He should have gotten the fuck out at 11! He was committing a crime! Or at worst, the deadbeat should have gotten on a bus to Guadalajara on his 18th birthday! Then this deadbeat has the gall to want in-state tuition rates in a state he resided in for 7 years! What an ass!

He should be pissed at his parents. They committed a crime and made him an accomplice.

If they had robbed a bank 7 years ago and he was caught today with the money he wouldn't be able to keep it even though he'd been using it for 7 years.

fishingleatity
05-11-11, 02:30 PM
I can't wait until they deport all the illegals... and then everyone cries about the price of everything going up. Wages go up, prices go up.

Also, many people that are here "illegally" aren't. There's quite a few that don't qualify for citizenship but do reside and work her legally on a rolling "temporary" basis. So, they work, pay taxes, etc just like everyone. Now why, again, shouldn't they receive the benefits of all the other tax payers?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-20/local/29470037_1_sales-taxes-tax-revenue-property-taxes

http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

http://immigration-law.freeadvice.com/immigration-law/work_green_card.htm

kvrdave
05-11-11, 02:37 PM
Here is a logistic I don't understand. Suppose you are an illegal and you become a doctor. Can you become board certified if you have an illegals status? Can you become a teacher or a lawyer? Any professionally licensed occupation?

kvrdave
05-11-11, 02:39 PM
Also, many people that are here "illegally" aren't. There's quite a few that don't qualify for citizenship but do reside and work her legally on a rolling "temporary" basis. So, they work, pay taxes, etc just like everyone. Now why, again, shouldn't they receive the benefits of all the other tax payers?


Then they wouldn't be "illegals," would they? I think we are just talking about those here illegally. Paying taxes does not make you a "legal." If a true illegal is here and paying taxes, the reason they shouldn't get the benefit of all other tax payers is because they are here illegally.

What am I missing?

BearFan
05-11-11, 02:39 PM
I can't wait until they deport all the illegals... and then everyone cries about the price of everything going up. Wages go up, prices go up.

Also, many people that are here "illegally" aren't. There's quite a few that don't qualify for citizenship but do reside and work her legally on a rolling "temporary" basis. So, they work, pay taxes, etc just like everyone. Now why, again, shouldn't they receive the benefits of all the other tax payers?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-20/local/29470037_1_sales-taxes-tax-revenue-property-taxes

http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

http://immigration-law.freeadvice.com/immigration-law/work_green_card.htm

There is a difference between receiving benefits of a tax payer (roads to drive on, "free" education up to 12th grade, etc) and receiving the benefits of a citizen (like right to vote). Discounted tution is available to citizens of a particular state who live there for some period of time. In this case, they cannot be the citizen of Indiana if they are not a citizen of the US. They can still go to college there if they want, they just have to pay full price.

fishingleatity
05-11-11, 03:37 PM
There is a difference between receiving benefits of a tax payer (roads to drive on, "free" education up to 12th grade, etc) and receiving the benefits of a citizen (like right to vote). Discounted tution is available to citizens of a particular state who live there for some period of time. In this case, they cannot be the citizen of Indiana if they are not a citizen of the US. They can still go to college there if they want, they just have to pay full price.

It is actually defined by residency. And the discounted tuition is based on the assumption that you and/or your family has been paying state taxes, that go towards the institution so you have already payed towards the tuition.

fishingleatity
05-11-11, 03:44 PM
Then they wouldn't be "illegals," would they?

Many lump them with the "illegals"...

Superboy
05-11-11, 03:53 PM
Here is a logistic I don't understand. Suppose you are an illegal and you become a doctor. Can you become board certified if you have an illegals status? Can you become a teacher or a lawyer? Any professionally licensed occupation?

No.

logrus9
05-11-11, 04:01 PM
I can't wait until they deport all the illegals... and then everyone cries about the price of everything going up. Wages go up, prices go up.

Also, many people that are here "illegally" aren't. There's quite a few that don't qualify for citizenship but do reside and work her legally on a rolling "temporary" basis. So, they work, pay taxes, etc just like everyone. Now why, again, shouldn't they receive the benefits of all the other tax payers?

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-20/local/29470037_1_sales-taxes-tax-revenue-property-taxes

http://reason.org/news/show/122411.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

http://immigration-law.freeadvice.com/immigration-law/work_green_card.htm

The cost of illegal vs legal wages for many things would mean pennies to the consumer. Companies can only pass on so much before they lose sales, they will have to cut profit or High level salaries because the markets simply won't bear prices above a certain level.

How can someone be illegal and legal at the same time? Legal immigrants aren't the question.

Paying sales tax, or retirement due to stolen/fake SSN isn't virtuous and shouldn't qualify for the benefits that legal payers receive.

If I stole $10 million , bought houses and furniture (paying sales tax), set up a retirement fund, would you argue that I should get keep everything because I paid the necessary taxes on it?

wishbone
05-11-11, 04:01 PM
It is actually defined by residency. And the discounted tuition is based on the assumption that you and/or your family has been paying state taxes, that go towards the institution so you have already payed towards the tuition.The assumption is that one is a legal resident of the state in which they reside. If it's just a matter of paying state taxes then why do we bother with residency status for political office?

General Zod
05-11-11, 04:03 PM
Many lump them with the "illegals"...

The only people who do that are people who are pro-illegals, so that they can call them all "immigrants" and then talk about how this country was started from immigrants, etc.. It is important to differentiate the two as one is invited in and the other snuck in.

However I should take one of these pro-illegal folks and sneak into their house and claim I'm an "unregistered resident" and see what they say. I'm guessing they would boot me out.

fishingleatity
05-11-11, 04:12 PM
The cost of illegal vs legal wages for many things would mean pennies to the consumer. Companies can only pass on so much before they lose sales, they will have to cut profit or High level salaries because the markets simply won't bear prices above a certain level.

How can someone be illegal and legal at the same time? Legal immigrants aren't the question.

Paying sales tax, or retirement due to stolen/fake SSN isn't virtuous and shouldn't qualify for the benefits that legal payers receive.

If I stole $10 million , bought houses and furniture (paying sales tax), set up a retirement fund, would you argue that I should get keep everything because I paid the necessary taxes on it?

You might want to take a look into how the farming industry works..

There is a grey area, allowed by the government where many are not citizens but ARE here legally. You actually do not need a ssn to work and pay taxes.

Your analogy has NOTHING to do with illegal immigrants going to school. They aren't paying taxes with stolen money...

RoyalTea
05-11-11, 04:23 PM
There is a grey area, allowed by the government where many are not citizens but ARE here legally. You actually do not need a ssn to work and pay taxes.If they're legal immigrants, how is that a "gray area?"

fishingleatity
05-11-11, 04:31 PM
If they're legal immigrants, how is that a "gray area?"

Work visa's and such. Not immigrants, but not here illegally.

logrus9
05-11-11, 04:35 PM
You might want to take a look into how the farming industry works..

There is a grey area, allowed by the government where many are not citizens but ARE here legally. You actually do not need a ssn to work and pay taxes.

Your analogy has NOTHING to do with illegal immigrants going to school. They aren't paying taxes with stolen money...

I never mentioned citizenship, you keep throwing that in. I'm not talking about legal immigrants or those on legal work visas.

If you are here illegally you do not have a right to work so in essence you are stealing money from someone that could be earning it legally.

Legal day laborers are working legally, they are not immigrating, they are not citizens, they don't enjoy the same benefits.

You can't pay income tax without a SSN or tax payer ID. SSN's are for legal citizens, tax payer ID's can be used for legal non-citizen workers.

fishingleatity
05-11-11, 04:45 PM
I never mentioned citizenship, you keep throwing that in. I'm not talking about legal immigrants or those on legal work visas.

If you are here illegally you do not have a right to work so in essence you are stealing money from someone that could be earning it legally.

Legal day laborers are working legally, they are not immigrating, they are not citizens, they don't enjoy the same benefits.

You can't pay income tax without a SSN or tax payer ID. SSN's are for legal citizens, tax payer ID's can be used for legal non-citizen workers.

Interesting... at my first job, I never gave them my SSN but taxes still came out of my paycheck...


In the farming industry in particular, and I'm sure other industries too. They offer jobs at min wage, but require being a part of the union. Then the union jacks up the rate for being a part of it, so anyone willing to work the job can't afford to join the union.

Then the business complains to the Govt and is allowed to import workers who are willing to work for $3 an hour.

I'm sure the places that hire illegal workers would do this too if they had to.

RoyalTea
05-11-11, 04:46 PM
Work visa's and such. Not immigrants, but not here illegally.

So, then they're immigrants (aka, legal immigrants) as opposed to illegal immigrants.

BearFan
05-11-11, 04:46 PM
It is actually defined by residency. And the discounted tuition is based on the assumption that you and/or your family has been paying state taxes, that go towards the institution so you have already payed towards the tuition.

Yes, but you need to be a legal resident. If someone is here legally on a work visa, I am not sure how this law affects them, though I would assume they are here working not going to school.

People come to the US on student visa (here legally) and pay out of state (sometimes even higher foreign tuition). I think this is the category a non citizen should be in.

crazyronin
05-11-11, 04:51 PM
Interesting... at my first job, I never gave them my SSN but taxes still came out of my paycheck...


In the farming industry in particular, and I'm sure other industries too. They offer jobs at min wage...

Know how I know that you have never had a farm job?

Hint:Farm jobs (particularly harvesting) are paid at piecework rates and are exempt from minimum wage laws.

logrus9
05-11-11, 04:54 PM
Interesting... at my first job, I never gave them my SSN but taxes still came out of my paycheck...


In the farming industry in particular, and I'm sure other industries too. They offer jobs at min wage, but require being a part of the union. Then the union jacks up the rate for being a part of it, so anyone willing to work the job can't afford to join the union.

Then the business complains to the Govt and is allowed to import workers who are willing to work for $3 an hour.

I'm sure the places that hire illegal workers would do this too if they had to.

If they took out taxes without a SSN or tax payer ID, you got ripped off because they can't report the taxes to the gov't without telling them who they came from.

Your second point may be true, but has nothing to do Illegal immigrants. People on work visas are working legally. As Kvrdave pointed out, this tactic is used by groups to muddy the waters ( I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally), legal immigrants and those on work visas are not the point of this discussion (at least not my point).

fishingleatity
05-11-11, 05:02 PM
Know how I know that you have never had a farm job?

Hint:Farm jobs (particularly harvesting) are paid at piecework rates and are exempt from minimum wage laws.

"Employers may pay employees on a piece‑rate basis, as long as they receive at least the equivalent of the required minimum hourly wage rate "

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm

crazyronin
05-11-11, 05:07 PM
"Employers may pay employees on a piece‑rate basis, as long as they receive at least the equivalent of the required minimum hourly wage rate "

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm

The following are examples of employees exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements:


Farm workers employed on small farms (i.e., those that used less than 500 "man‑days" of farm labor in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year)

There's a reason that large farms farm crops that you harvest with machinery.

But please, continue on. I particularly enjoy your conflation of H-2b visa holders with illegal immigrants.

kvrdave
05-11-11, 05:09 PM
As Kvrdave pointed out, this tactic is used by groups to muddy the waters ( I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally), legal immigrants and those on work visas are not the point of this discussion (at least not my point).

I didn't actually make that point. But if it sounds smart, let's go with giving me the credit.

logrus9
05-11-11, 05:16 PM
I didn't actually make that point. But if it sounds smart, let's go with giving me the credit.

Oops, my mistake, credit goes to General Zod.

kvrdave
05-11-11, 05:54 PM
So you're saying it didn't sound smart. Because I made it clear that if it did, I'd take the credit.

logrus9
05-11-11, 06:01 PM
:lol:

kenbuzz
05-12-11, 12:31 PM
So returning fucking idiocy for an earlier fucking idiocy makes sense? Really?

The "Well he did it FIRST" defense was fucking idiocy in preschool...


Funny you should say that, since in this thread's original post one can read:
Nineteen-year-old Sayra Perez of Indianapolis also says all five of those jailed for criminal trespassing have begun a hunger strike until they're released. Perez says students arrested in other states after similar protests haven't faced deportation.

So there you have it. If "He did it first" is a stupid defense, then there's NO basis for allowing these illegals to avoid deportation hearings. If not, then returning idiocy to 'an earlier fucking' idiocy is ABSOLUTELY in-bounds. Either-Or, both are bad for illegals - which is kinda how it's supposed to be.

kenbuzz
05-12-11, 12:38 PM
In a thoroughly-satisfying twist of irony, Maryland's uber-lib governor just signed into law a bill that grants in-state tuition "rights" to illegals:

Linky: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2011/05/11-19/OMalley-signs-DREAM-Act-measure.html
O'Malley signs 'DREAM Act' measure
Immigrant tuition bill becomes law - for now
By Pamela Wood, Staff Writer. Published 5/11/11

Gov. Martin O'Malley signed hundreds of bills into law Tuesday, but there's one that some hope will never take effect. The Maryland "DREAM Act," which grants college tuition breaks to students who are illegal immigrants, is being challenged by lawmakers and activists who want to send the matter to a public vote.

The tuition bill drew most of the attention during the marathon bill-signing session Tuesday. Dozens crammed into the Governor's Reception Room in the State House to witness the signing.

Five separate groups of supporters posed for photos behind O'Malley, House Speaker Michael E. Busch, D-Annapolis, and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., D-Calvert, including young people wearing T-shirts with the slogan, "I am Maryland's DREAM Act." Several TV videographers, news photographers and amateur photographers jockeyed for position to record the moment.

"This will allow us to have a more highly educated work force in our state," O'Malley said before signing the tuition bill and 230 others.

The bill allows illegal immigrants who graduate from Maryland high schools to pay in-state tuition rates - first at community colleges, then at state universities.
So rather than get arrested and face deportation in Indiana, they could've just moved to Maryland and have been just as illegal there. Chuckleheads.

Dr Mabuse
05-12-11, 01:20 PM
I didn't actually make that point. But if it sounds smart, let's go with giving me the credit.

:lol:

logrus9
05-12-11, 01:20 PM
While it is stated in the article, notice how the title conveniently leaves out illegal.

O'Malley signs 'DREAM Act' measure
Immigrant tuition bill becomes law - for now
By Pamela Wood, Staff Writer. Published 5/11/11

wishbone
05-12-11, 02:58 PM
Nineteen-year-old Sayra Perez of Indianapolis also says all five of those jailed for criminal trespassing have begun a hunger strike until they're released. Perez says students arrested in other states after similar protests haven't faced deportation.Never fear, ICE is here!5 Indiana immigration protesters won't be deported
May 11, 10:04 PM EDT

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Immigration officials say five illegal immigrants arrested during a protest at Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' office won't be deported.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement Wednesday that it had determined it "was not the best use of the agency's resources" to try to deport them. The Indianapolis Star says the five appeared Wednesday in a Marion County court for a hearing on criminal trespass charges. They're all out on bond.

The five were part of group of protesters who sought to talk to Daniels about two immigration bills the Republican governor signed Tuesday.

The protest was similar to others staged recently in other states to draw attention to young adults who grew up in the U.S. after their parents brought them to the country as children.http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ILLEGAL_IMMIGRATION_PROTEST

It was my understanding that those persons arrested were not merely protesting but had attempted to enter the Governor's office several times with the state police telling them to leave before being arrested."They were given the opportunity three different times over the span of about 15 to 20 minutes to leave the area and not face any arrest," said Indiana State Police 1st Sgt. Dave Bursten. "They're getting exactly what they asked for. They wanted some publicity; they're getting the publicity. They wanted to be arrested; they are being arrested for criminal trespass."http://www.theindychannel.com/news/27831083/detail.html“We tried everything,” she said, detailing the group’s efforts to call and email Daniels to try to get a meeting with him. “He didn’t want to meet with us so that’s why we had to do this action.”fitness.indy.com/posts/158089

Superboy
05-12-11, 03:06 PM
We don't need stricter immigration reform, we just need to lessen worker's rights. All the minimum wage does is inflate prices. Well the free market has spoken and it has said "don't hire Americans". All this is going to do is just add more regulations to an already stymied market that's just filled to the brim with regulations. The government can't do anything right. Take for example the $1 billion they spent on a fence that is never going to get built.

End the minimum wage, and end the war on drugs, end all social services and entitlement programs, end public schools, close all public social services, and kablammo, the end of our illegal immigration problems.

kvrdave
05-12-11, 03:26 PM
In a thoroughly-satisfying twist of irony, Maryland's uber-lib governor just signed into law a bill that grants in-state tuition "rights" to illegals:

Linky: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2011/05/11-19/OMalley-signs-DREAM-Act-measure.html

So rather than get arrested and face deportation in Indiana, they could've just moved to Maryland and have been just as illegal there. Chuckleheads.

Weird. I assumed that if a state were to do something like this, they would do it by simply not enforcing something rather than passing a law. I would not think you could make a law for people who are actually breaking the law in order to receive the benefit. I also wouldn't think the feds would want to let that go unchallenged. Even if they agree with the DREAM act, it sets a very poor precident to allow states to make something legal for a group that the feds have said are illegal, doesn't it?

General Zod
05-12-11, 03:48 PM
Never fear, ICE is here!

The message is clear. We are a country of laws - none of which are to be taken very seriously. Unless, of course, you are a legal citizen.

General Zod
05-12-11, 03:53 PM
Take for example the $1 billion they spent on a fence that is never going to get built.

Yeah the idiot electronic fence was Bush's "OK we'll put up this great fence. Now that that's going to make the border secure.. Amnesty for everyone!" Fortunately not very many people fell for it. The fence was PROVEN not to work before they bought into it. A real fence, like the one they have in San Diego, has been proven to work so of course that's out of the question.

I've posted my solution in previous threads. It would work. That's why the government would never even consider it.

fujishig
05-12-11, 04:09 PM
ICE has, for a while now, basically only gone after those with a criminal record (besides the whole illegal immigration thing). There are people basically screaming that they're illegal and gift wrapping themselves, and it's not a good use of resources for them to pursue even as proof that they're actually enforcing laws on the books.

wildcatlh
05-12-11, 04:25 PM
Yeah the idiot electronic fence was Bush's "OK we'll put up this great fence. Now that that's going to make the border secure.. Amnesty for everyone!" Fortunately not very many people fell for it. The fence was PROVEN not to work before they bought into it. A real fence, like the one they have in San Diego, has been proven to work so of course that's out of the question.

[Citation Needed]

We will not solve this country's immigration "problem" without significantly expanding legalized immigration. It's absolutely naive and ignorant to believe otherwise. It's also anti-free market.

focker
05-12-11, 04:28 PM
We don't need stricter immigration reform, we just need to lessen worker's rights. All the minimum wage does is inflate prices. Well the free market has spoken and it has said "don't hire Americans". All this is going to do is just add more regulations to an already stymied market that's just filled to the brim with regulations. The government can't do anything right. Take for example the $1 billion they spent on a fence that is never going to get built.

End the minimum wage, and end the war on drugs, end all social services and entitlement programs, end public schools, close all public social services, and kablammo, the end of our illegal immigration problems.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: wild applause, etc., etc.

General Zod
05-12-11, 05:02 PM
[Citation Needed]

We will not solve this country's immigration "problem" without significantly expanding legalized immigration. It's absolutely naive and ignorant to believe otherwise. It's also anti-free market.

And as I've pointed out in the past I am FOR expanding legalized immigration. However you can't control how many people are coming into your house while they are lining up at the frontdoor but the backdoor is wide open. That's why you need to have the border secure FIRST. To borrow a phrase, it's absolutely naive and ignorant to believe otherwise.

Supermallet
05-12-11, 05:54 PM
So these kids are here illegally, harassed the governor, and they're being assured they won't be deported? Awesome.

kvrdave
05-12-11, 07:16 PM
[Citation Needed]

We will not solve this country's immigration "problem" without significantly expanding legalized immigration. It's absolutely naive and ignorant to believe otherwise. It's also anti-free market.

:lol: you're a retard with that argument.

Superboy
05-12-11, 09:49 PM
can we still say retard on this forum?

General Zod
05-12-11, 09:54 PM
can we still say retard on this forum?

retard

Apparently.

mhg83
05-12-11, 09:54 PM
So these kids are here illegally, harassed the governor, and they're being assured they won't be deported? Awesome.

Kill them all. Problem solved!

Troy Stiffler
05-12-11, 10:05 PM
Kill them all. Problem solved!

Or put up a Great Wall of China style wall. Tax the shit out of me. I support that.

Superboy
05-13-11, 12:19 AM
Or put up a Great Wall of China style wall. Tax the shit out of me. I support that.

Not going to work. A wall will never work.

And the Great Wall of China wasn't built to stop invaders, it was built to stop them from bringing their horses.

Hank Ringworm
05-13-11, 01:27 AM
Not going to work. A wall will never work.

And the Great Wall of China wasn't built to stop invaders, it was built to stop them from bringing their horses.

...which would have stopped the invaders.

Hank Ringworm
05-13-11, 01:40 AM
It's like saying that bomb-sniffing dogs aren't made to stop terrorists -- they're made to stop their bombs.

General Zod
05-13-11, 02:03 AM
Not going to work. A wall will never work.

Yeah yeah.. that's what people say who don't want a wall. Of course, they have no idea what they are talking about. The Israeli went bank barrier wall everyone said wouldn't work either and it works extremely well. The wall in San Diego they said wouldn't work has proven to be extremely successful. Everyone saying it wouldn't work were pro-palestinian in Israel or pro-illegal immigration in San Diego. They knew they were lying when they said it - they just didn't want it.

wishbone
05-13-11, 07:49 AM
Yeah the idiot electronic fence was Bush's "OK we'll put up this great fence. Now that that's going to make the border secure.. Amnesty for everyone!" Fortunately not very many people fell for it. The fence was PROVEN not to work before they bought into it. A real fence, like the one they have in San Diego, has been proven to work so of course that's out of the question.

I've posted my solution in previous threads. It would work. That's why the government would never even consider it.

[Citation Needed]Citation granted.excerpt

After the IIRIRA’s mandate for increased enforcement along the Southwest border in 1996, including construction of the triple-fence, apprehensions dropped rapidly in the San Diego sector in the late 1990s — from 480,000 in FY1996 to 100,000 in FY2002. The reduction in apprehensions was even more marked in the areas where fencing was constructed within San Diego sector. The USBP’s Imperial Beach and Chula Vista stations saw their apprehensions decline from 321,560 in FY1993 to 19,035 in FY2004 — a reduction of 94% over the 12 year period. Although much of this reduction in apprehensions in those stations and in San Diego sector may have been due to the construction of the triple-fence, the sector also saw an increase in other resources that may account for part of the reduction. For example, the number of agents assigned to the San Diego sector increased significantly during this period — from 980 agents in 1993 to 2,274 in 1998.11 Additionally, the number of underground sensors deployed in the San
Diego sector almost tripled from 1993 to 1998, and the fleet of vehicles increased by over 150% over the same period.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RS22026.pdf

Our government lacks the will for comprehensive enforcement -- at the border, in the work place, and with visa overstays.

Superboy
05-13-11, 11:51 AM
It's like saying that bomb-sniffing dogs aren't made to stop terrorists -- they're made to stop their bombs.

No it's like saying bomb sniffing dogs will stop illegal immigrants. The problem with a wall is that it won't stop people from crossing the border. The wall can be circumvented. The reason why border crossings have diminished is the increased security and patrols. Without that, a wall becomes a futile gesture. The government just doesn't have the funds or the manpower to increase border security. Without a people to watch the wall... it won't be effective.

NotThatGuy
05-13-11, 08:45 PM
In the farming industry in particular, and I'm sure other industries too. They offer jobs at min wage, but require being a part of the union. Then the union jacks up the rate for being a part of it, so anyone willing to work the job can't afford to join the union.

Then the business complains to the Govt and is allowed to import workers who are willing to work for $3 an hour.

I'm sure the places that hire illegal workers would do this too if they had to.

Really? I thought they couldn't force you to join a union, except as a condition of a CBA?

I think all unions should be disbanded AND illegals get deported. Let the free market set compensation levels.

*edit*

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm <--pretty much what I thought. I'd doubt a farming gig would require it, though I'm sure that is what the union rep implied. :rolleyes:

NotThatGuy
05-13-11, 08:53 PM
“We tried everything,” she said, detailing the group’s efforts to call and email Daniels to try to get a meeting with him. “He didn’t want to meet with us so that’s why we had to do this action.”

"They caused this. They made me do it." That isn't a valid excuse. They MADE me rob that store because they didn't give me a job. They MADE me punch that guy who was saying mean things about me. They MADE me trespass because they wouldn't listen to me. What a bunch of bullshit.

BearFan
05-13-11, 08:57 PM
"They caused this. They made me do it." That isn't a valid excuse. They MADE me rob that store because they didn't give me a job. They MADE me punch that guy who was saying mean things about me. They MADE me trespass because they wouldn't listen to me. What a bunch of bullshit.

You mean the governor of the state should not meet with every non citizen (or even citizen) protestor at the drop of the hat ... what's next, he will get a calendar and expect people to make an appointment or something ... the bastard.

NotThatGuy
05-13-11, 08:58 PM
Not going to work. A wall will never work.

And the Great Wall of China wasn't built to stop invaders, it was built to stop them from bringing their horses.

Here is a doable solution:

1. Build wall & moat.
2. Get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. Assign our troops (Nat'l Guard if that makes you feel better) to guard the wall.
4. Shoot any idiot stupid enough to try and get over the wall.
5. .....
6. The flow of illegal immigrants stops at the wall.

Troy Stiffler
05-13-11, 09:22 PM
Not going to work. A wall will never work.

Okay, Plan B. Turret-mounted, motion activated machine guns. We keep a cushion of 500' on USA side.

creekdipper
05-13-11, 10:59 PM
What I find most amazing is that their protest was based primary over the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates. Is it really worth getting deported to Latinoland and have your future as an immigration defense attorney stifled just over a difference in tuition, especially when you shouldn't be here to begin with?

Especially since a glance at any map of North America would show that Mexico is indeed out-of-state and its residents most definitely should pay the higher tuition rates.

creekdipper
05-13-11, 11:00 PM
can we still say retard on this forum?

That's racist! Or elitist! Or something! :mad:

creekdipper
05-13-11, 11:05 PM
--if your parents moved you to another country at the age of 11, in what sort of position would you likely be to return to your country of origin?

Prone, handcuffed, tased, kicking & screaming.

First they came to deport the illegals, and I said nothing...finally they came to deport me, and there was no one left to speak for me...except the mimes. :(

creekdipper
05-13-11, 11:08 PM
Interesting... at my first job, I never gave them my SSN but taxes still came out of my paycheck...


...and went straight into the sleazy manager's pocket.

creekdipper
05-13-11, 11:13 PM
Lopez and a co-activist of the five say they have begun hunger strikes until Daniels vetoes the bills.

In response, Daniels has sent each of the five a Criterion edition of "Hunger" for their entertainment.

BearFan
05-13-11, 11:40 PM
Lopez and a co-activist of the five say they have begun hunger strikes until Daniels vetoes the bills.

In response, Daniels has sent each of the five a Criterion edition of "Hunger" for their entertainment.

At least they are saving the prison the $0.45/day it costs to feed them.

JasonF
05-13-11, 11:43 PM
Here is a doable solution:

1. Build wall & moat.
2. Get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. Assign our troops (Nat'l Guard if that makes you feel better) to guard the wall.
4. Shoot any idiot stupid enough to try and get over the wall.
5. .....
6. The flow of illegal immigrants stops at the wall.

Almost half of the illegal immigrants in the country entered legally, so a wall won't do anything about that. Also, Mexico is our third biggest trading partner, so any wall we build is necessarily going to need a lot of gates.

BearFan
05-13-11, 11:47 PM
Almost half of the illegal immigrants in the country entered legally, so a wall won't do anything about that. Also, Mexico is our third biggest trading partner, so any wall we build is necessarily going to need a lot of gates.

We already have the gates (aka border crossings), unless you are suggesting legal commerce goes in and out of Mexico through the desert.

JasonF
05-13-11, 11:51 PM
We already have the gates (aka border crossings), unless you are suggesting legal commerce goes in and out of Mexico through the desert.

No -- I'm suggesting we'll continue to have those gates, and illegal aliens will sneak through at those gates. There's simply too large a volume of trade moving through those check-points to expect we'll catch every truck with a hidden compartment full of illegals.

I don't mean to suggest we can't make it harder to come here illegally from Mexico, thereby reducing the number of people who do so. But I think we need to recognize that a wall (even a wall with sharks and laser beams) is not a cure-all for our immigration problems.

kvrdave
05-13-11, 11:53 PM
Almost half of the illegal immigrants in the country entered legally, so a wall won't do anything about that. Also, Mexico is our third biggest trading partner, so any wall we build is necessarily going to need a lot of gates.

Man, it hardly seems worth doing anything if we only stopped half the problem.

BearFan
05-13-11, 11:58 PM
No -- I'm suggesting we'll continue to have those gates, and illegal aliens will sneak through at those gates. There's simply too large a volume of trade moving through those check-points to expect we'll catch every truck with a hidden compartment full of illegals.

I don't mean to suggest we can't make it harder to come here illegally from Mexico, thereby reducing the number of people who do so. But I think we need to recognize that a wall (even a wall with sharks and laser beams) is not a cure-all for our immigration problems.

I am not sure anyone thinks it is a cure-all, but it would help. We obviously do not have the manpower/will to man the entire boarder, making it difficult in some areas forcing more and more of illegal traffic through the border crossings would reduce the number of people/drugs/etc coming through the border.

People can argue how much it will reduce illegal crossings, but I do not think there is a doubt that it will reduce it. We have the technology to make it a "smart wall" (cameras, sensors, drones, etc), we should take advantage of it. This might be the shovel-ready project we have been looking for.

kvrdave
05-14-11, 12:04 AM
It's the same mentality that says that drilling for oil won't actually help. The same mentality that says that doing anything that increases what you want will actually do nothing. Optimist? Is that the term? May be something else.

NotThatGuy
05-14-11, 12:04 AM
Almost half of the illegal immigrants in the country entered legally, so a wall won't do anything about that. Also, Mexico is our third biggest trading partner, so any wall we build is necessarily going to need a lot of gates.

So you are saying that you know of a way to cut out 50%+ of the illegals that break into our country...SOLD!! The numbers are even higher because of the 'back and forth' that many illegals do.

Much like medicine, you triage the worst first, and then worry about everything else. In this case you secure the borders, then enforce the laws to deport anyone in the country who is illegal, and then it is much harder for the illegals to get back in.

Hank Ringworm
05-14-11, 12:23 AM
No it's like saying bomb sniffing dogs will stop illegal immigrants. The problem with a wall is that it won't stop people from crossing the border. The wall can be circumvented. The reason why border crossings have diminished is the increased security and patrols. Without that, a wall becomes a futile gesture. The government just doesn't have the funds or the manpower to increase border security. Without a people to watch the wall... it won't be effective.

I'm pretty sure patrols along a wall are implied when suggesting a wall. I didn't think that had to be made clear.

"Patrols" in this case are dispatches sent when electronic surveillance finds a breach. Hardly the same as patrols in the usual sense.

Superboy
05-14-11, 02:40 AM
"Patrols" in this case are dispatches sent when electronic surveillance finds a breach. Hardly the same as patrols in the usual sense.

Um. Isn't that what a patrol is?

Superboy
05-14-11, 06:12 AM
Man, it hardly seems worth doing anything if we only stopped half the problem.

It certainly wouldn't be cost effective.

Then again, the government never is.

Superboy
05-14-11, 06:17 AM
Much like medicine, you triage the worst first, and then worry about everything else. In this case you secure the borders, then enforce the laws to deport anyone in the country who is illegal, and then it is much harder for the illegals to get back in.

No it's like painting a picture, first you have to clearly define your borders and boundaries, and then you strategically emphasize them to captivate your audience, then you populate select areas, but when the colors start to run, it's time to start over.

crazyronin
05-14-11, 06:29 AM
No it's like painting a picture, first you have to clearly define your borders and boundaries, and then you strategically emphasize them to captivate your audience, then you populate select areas, but when the colors start to run, it's time to start over.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9287/morrislouis.jpg
Disapproves (http://www.google.com/search?q=morris+louis+veil+paintings&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=DFt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=SmfOTeD5L8n10gGq1fnfDQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=760)

sracer
05-14-11, 09:30 AM
How about actually being serious about comprehensive border security before claiming it will be ineffective. How about that?

It seems like nobody wants to enforce the laws currently on the books, the solution is always with some future, new and improved law. If we don't enforce the laws then it doesn't matter what those laws actually say.

I find it amusing that the same people who claimed that illegal immigration was "not a big problem" years ago are now the ones claiming that there are too many illegal immigrants to deport them. They resisted dealing with the issue then, and throw up their hands in futility now. That's a pretty convenient deal.

Supermallet
05-14-11, 05:27 PM
Of course a wall won't stop 100% of the problem. Nothing will stop 100% of the problem. But a wall, properly maintained and guarded, will stop a lot more of the problem than we currently are. But, you know, if it isn't all it might as well be nothing, right?

Kill them all. Problem solved!

I'm so glad you were able to see through that cloud of me not saying "Kill them all" to get to the heart of my argument, which was, of course, "Kill them all." Thank you for putting the words in my mouth so I didn't have to do the work of putting them there myself.

JasonF
05-14-11, 08:16 PM
Of course a wall won't stop 100% of the problem. Nothing will stop 100% of the problem. But a wall, properly maintained and guarded, will stop a lot more of the problem than we currently are. But, you know, if it isn't all it might as well be nothing, right?

Not at all, but when a poster says things like "here is a doable solution" and "the flow of illegal immigrants stops at the wall," I don't think it's unreasonable of me to point out that he has proposed a half-solution. And it's not like a wall is free. At a time when everybody is screaming about the fact that we need to cut all government spending, is it so out-of-bounds to note that before we spend a whole lot of money on a wall with a moat and armed guards we should be aware that the wall is only a partial solution?

BearFan
05-14-11, 08:22 PM
Not at all, but when a poster says things like "here is a doable solution" and "the flow of illegal immigrants stops at the wall," I don't think it's unreasonable of me to point out that he has proposed a half-solution. And it's not like a wall is free. At a time when everybody is screaming about the fact that we need to cut all government spending, is it so out-of-bounds to note that before we spend a whole lot of money on a wall with a moat and armed guards we should be aware that the wall is only a partial solution?

I think many of the people arguing against spending will also point out defending borders is something worth spending on and an explicit constitutional duty.

I think it is safe to assume no solution to anything is 100% (especially where the government is involved), but biulding a wall will be a additional line of defense along with the border patrol and other assets we use at the border now.

Hank Ringworm
05-14-11, 09:30 PM
Um. Isn't that what a patrol is?

Not at all.

A patrol traditionally looks for things. In this case, it is sent out after something which has already been found by electronics.

Supermallet
05-15-11, 02:18 PM
Not at all, but when a poster says things like "here is a doable solution" and "the flow of illegal immigrants stops at the wall," I don't think it's unreasonable of me to point out that he has proposed a half-solution. And it's not like a wall is free. At a time when everybody is screaming about the fact that we need to cut all government spending, is it so out-of-bounds to note that before we spend a whole lot of money on a wall with a moat and armed guards we should be aware that the wall is only a partial solution?

Well, since it's clear the government isn't actually willing to cut spending, we might as well spend it on something that is partially useful. That would be a great step forward for the United States, I think.

BearFan
05-16-11, 12:38 AM
Just call the wall "an investment in our future", then any kind of spending is fine.

Superboy
05-17-11, 11:11 AM
Well, since it's clear the government isn't actually willing to cut spending, we might as well spend it on something that is partially useful. That would be a great step forward for the United States, I think.

Yes it would, but that kind of attitude is why we haven't cut spending in over 15 years.

Superboy
05-17-11, 11:11 AM
Not at all.

A patrol traditionally looks for things. In this case, it is sent out after something which has already been found by electronics.

Ah. Well either way.

Hey do you have a patent for your freeze-ray?

Superboy
05-17-11, 11:20 AM
It seems like nobody wants to enforce the laws currently on the books, the solution is always with some future, new and improved law. If we don't enforce the laws then it doesn't matter what those laws actually say.

Well... yeah. But that's why the laws aren't being enforced. Society has disagreed with them. It's happening all over the country. That's why drug laws are being relaxed - no one wants them anymore. It's the same reason why illegal immigration enforcement is so lax now: society doesn't seem to mind that they're here. Aside from the high-and-mighty Sheriff of Nottingham attitude of Joe Arpaio and people like him, who are apparently turning their personal mission in life to rain on everyone's parade into public policy, our society has changed.

Now, you can whine about the law all you want, but very little on the books right now is any different from what you, and a lot of other forum members have suggested: background checks have to be performed. Employers are held liable. If you're an illegal immigrant and you're caught you're punished. If you're deported or you leave you can't come back for 10 years. You can't have anchor babies. It's all there.

I find it amusing that the same people who claimed that illegal immigration was "not a big problem" years ago are now the ones claiming that there are too many illegal immigrants to deport them. They resisted dealing with the issue then, and throw up their hands in futility now. That's a pretty convenient deal.

Well now you can really stick it to 'em!

Hank Ringworm
05-18-11, 11:59 PM
Ah. Well either way.

Hey do you have a patent for your freeze-ray?

That's the best you can do?

Did someone freeze the residents of that compound in Pakistan before we went in?

Illegals traveling on foot are not so hard to keep track of, or at least to find their probable positions. Your ignorance of the term "patrol" leads me to believe that you don't know a lot about our military capabilities.

I assure you that a freeze-ray is not necessary. Nor is a tickle-device.

Superboy
05-19-11, 10:57 AM
I hope we don't plan on outfitting border patrols with the same equipment and training as the operatives that killed Osama. Because the last thing you want is massive collateral damage to American citizens.

NotThatGuy
05-19-11, 10:08 PM
Well... yeah. But that's why the laws aren't being enforced. Society has disagreed with them. It's happening all over the country. That's why drug laws are being relaxed - no one wants them anymore. It's the same reason why illegal immigration enforcement is so lax now: society doesn't seem to mind that they're here. Aside from the high-and-mighty Sheriff of Nottingham attitude of Joe Arpaio and people like him, who are apparently turning their personal mission in life to rain on everyone's parade into public policy, our society has changed.

Uhm....

More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona's new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it.

Most Americans have heard about Arizona's tough new immigration law, and they generally support it. The law was passed partly in response to a lack of federal action on the issue. Since the Arizona bill became law, congressional Democrats have considered taking up the issue in the coming weeks, though this initial read on public opinion toward the Arizona law suggests Americans may not necessarily back an attempt to supersede or otherwise undermine it.


Article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/americans-favor-oppose-arizona-immigration-law.aspx

Superboy
05-20-11, 09:58 AM
Ahem...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/opinion/l16immig.html

Indeed, a recent Pew Research Center report found that fully 72 percent of the American public, including a majority of Republicans, support the principles of comprehensive immigration reform as advocated by President Obama in his speech on Tuesday and by President George W. Bush before him. Most Americans, of all political ideologies, ethnicities and religious traditions, realize that neither mass deportation nor amnesty is a good solution to our present predicament and that comprehensive immigration reform is the only reasonable solution.

By amnesty, they don't mean overnight citizenship, but rather the same process that's been advocated by our government for over 20 years: probationary green cards following punitive fees, English language requirements, and a clean criminal record.

http://amvoice.3cdn.net/aed609a4968f2d0380_h6m6bn79o.pdfp

Sixty-Five Percent of Respondents Supported Congressional Action on Comprehensive
Immigration Reform in 2010. According to the December poll, 65% of voters prefer for Congress to
take up the immigration issue this year rather than wait until later. Sixty-six percent of respondents
supported comprehensive immigration reform before even hearing details of the plan. Support for reform
continued to cut across party lines, with 69% of Democrats, 67% of independents, and 62% of
Republicans supporting comprehensive reform. When given details, support for comprehensive reform
climbed. Requiring undocumented immigrants to register with the government and meet certain
conditions, including working, paying taxes and learning English in order to apply for citizenship, was
supported by 87% in December. These findings show continued support for reform following similar
polls in November 2008 and May 2009, even during the country’s harshest economic crisis in decades.

This is outdated but it still contains a pretty convincing statistic that was at the height of our illegal immigration population.

fujishig
05-20-11, 10:56 AM
How many Americans support enforcing of our borders? How many support punishing companies for hiring illegal aliens? I can believe that a majority want comprehensive reform because the fact it would be very expensive and next to impossible to just deport every single illegal alien... the problem has just grown too large. However, comprehensive reform without enforcing borders and enforcing current laws won't change anything.

Superboy
05-23-11, 12:51 PM
How many Americans support enforcing of our borders? How many support punishing companies for hiring illegal aliens? I can believe that a majority want comprehensive reform because the fact it would be very expensive and next to impossible to just deport every single illegal alien... the problem has just grown too large. However, comprehensive reform without enforcing borders and enforcing current laws won't change anything.

Read up on IRCA of 1986, and you'll find out. A surprising number.

Th0r S1mpson
05-23-11, 01:16 PM
I'd like to know more information before I come to any conclusions. For example, the article states that one of the five was brought to the U.S. when he was 11--if your parents moved you to another country at the age of 11, in what sort of position would you likely be to return to your country of origin?

I agree with you almost entirely. I don't think this kid should be punished for his parents' actions, even though I understand that this continues an incentive for parents to bring their kids across.

On the other hand, I'm trying to picture a scenario where my parents brought me to another country illegally and they found out after I turned 18. Would most countries pardon that and let me stay or would I have to go through the standard procedures?

I have to add, in our rather unique circumstance, I favor a solution that does involve amnesty in many situations. I think we must first manage to cut the flow, or any amnesty granted would only further the problem.

Superboy
05-23-11, 01:38 PM
I have to add, in our rather unique circumstance, I favor a solution that does involve amnesty in many situations. I think we must first manage to cut the flow, or any amnesty granted would only further the problem.

Do you have any data that would back up what you're saying, or is that just an assumption? you should really research into what happened after the IRCA passed in 1986.

It's just like people calling marijuana a gateway drug, or gay marriage a path towards degeneracy: it's just an assumption. Do you have proof?

General Zod
05-23-11, 01:42 PM
Polls on this don't paint a clear picture at all especially when it is asked like "Do you support comprehensive immigration reform?". What does that mean?

Sixty-six percent of respondents supported comprehensive immigration reform before even hearing details of the plan

Those that don't want illegal immigration would hope that would put an end to it and those that are pro-illegal immigration want the illegals made legal we just move on. So both see hope in "comprehensive immigration reform" but for completely different reasons and one can not assume that more respondents are on a particular side of the fence (pun intended).

I'm sure we'll get an immigration package sort of like Obamacare.. thrown together, no details, backroom deals, and pitched by the great one as the solution to all our problems. At the end of the day it will just be blanket amnesty. Like Bush's plan would have been.

Th0r S1mpson
05-23-11, 01:50 PM
Do you have any data that would back up what you're saying, or is that just an assumption?

It's an assumption, but it's based on the idea that doing nothing to cut the flow will not help cut the flow. Are you saying there is evidence that amnesty will shut off the flow of new immigrants? If so I'd be interested to see it.

Superboy
05-23-11, 02:51 PM
It's an assumption, but it's based on the idea that doing nothing to cut the flow will not help cut the flow. Are you saying there is evidence that amnesty will shut off the flow of new immigrants? If so I'd be interested to see it.

I was under the impression that you believed that granting amnesty would escalate the problem. I guess I was making an assumption too <__<

If you want, I can provide data, but it'll take a while to collate. It's heavily academic data. In a nutshell, immigration patterns follow patterns of famine, unemployment, disaster, war, etc. As our unemployment rate drops, immigration should increase because a greater supply of workers is needed.

and it's a mistake to think that historically, large immigrant populations permanently settled in the US. Quite the contrary.

Also, did you know that fried chicken originated from Scottish settlers in the South? :D