Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   At what point does someone have a right to reside in a country? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=846581)

Velocity 01-10-2018 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20715346)
Let's clarify one point. There's no such thing as an illegal resident. We have a law against entering the country without proper authorization. But the crime occurs at the time and place where the person crossed the border. Nobody is committing a crime simply by living in the United States.

IANAL but I find this argument questionable. This is akin to saying that if a squatter breaks into someone's house and secretly stays in their basement, that he is not committing a crime by staying in their house; the crime was committed when he picked the door locks and entered the house. Or maybe that is in fact legally true, but it seems like a strange argument.

adaher 01-10-2018 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 20715291)
I asked this question because there are mostly two schools of thought on illegal immigration:

1) The first, if perhaps heartless, approach is simple and clear-cut: "If you are an illegal immigrant, you have no right to be here and should be deported." Sure, there are many hypocrites, such as people who will decry this in public but hire illegal housekeepers or gardening workers in secret, but at least the argument is simple and consistent.

2) The second group is sort of hemming and hawing - "Well, it's technically illegal, but we shouldn't treat it as illegal, and these people technically don't have a right to be here, but since they've resided here a while and also are trying to make a better life and future for themselves, they also sort of do have a right to be here." A yes but not yes, no but not no logic.

I think there's less actual disagreement among Americans than it would appear on the surface. Polls show that most of us agree that those with roots in the country should be allowed to stay. Where we disagree is whether they are entitled to it, have somehow "earned" it, that it is a right. I say it's not a right. It's a gift, and whether or not to grant it is 100% up to the citizenry of this country and no one else. And of course we get to put whatever conditions we want for eligibility.

The other problem, as I've mentioned, is dishonesty from pro-immigration forces in the political world. Their plan has always been to pass a bill that gives amnesty but then not deliver on enforcement and probably not even deliver on the conditions to get amnesty. That has created bad faith, which is why it's not as easy to pass amnesty in 2018 as it was in 1986. We were lied to and we're not going to get double crossed again. This time if we do amnesty we solve the illegal immigration problem for good.

adaher 01-10-2018 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 20715399)
IANAL but I find this argument questionable. This is akin to saying that if a squatter breaks into someone's house and secretly stays in their basement, that he is not committing a crime by staying in their house; the crime was committed when he picked the door locks and entered the house. Or maybe that is in fact legally true, but it seems like a strange argument.

There's also the problem of how many laws you have to break to live here. Driving without a license and using fake documentation to get employment are something most illegals do, except in cases where states issue DLs to illegals. Then there's reentry after being deported, which actually is a crime.

running coach 01-10-2018 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20715414)
I think there's less actual disagreement among Americans than it would appear on the surface. Polls show that most of us agree that those with roots in the country should be allowed to stay. Where we disagree is whether they are entitled to it, have somehow "earned" it, that it is a right. I say it's not a right. It's a gift, and whether or not to grant it is 100% up to the citizenry of this country and no one else. And of course we get to put whatever conditions we want for eligibility.

The other problem, as I've mentioned, is dishonesty from pro-immigration forces in the political world. Their plan has always been to pass a bill that gives amnesty but then not deliver on enforcement and probably not even deliver on the conditions to get amnesty. That has created bad faith, which is why it's not as easy to pass amnesty in 2018 as it was in 1986. We were lied to and we're not going to get double crossed again. This time if we do amnesty we solve the illegal immigration problem for good.

And then yank the rug out from under them like Trump has done. Because that fucker doesn't undersand honoring a deal.
Fortunately, the courts have stepped in.
Quote:

A federal judge on Tuesday night temporarily blocked the Trump administration's decision to end a program protecting young immigrants from deportation.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted a request by California and other plaintiffs to prevent President Donald Trump from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while their lawsuits play out in court.

Alsup said lawyers in favor of DACA clearly demonstrated that the young immigrants "were likely to suffer serious, irreparable harm" without court action. The judge also said the lawyers have a strong chance of succeeding at trial.
And frankly, anyone who was brought here as a child or infant has a right to stay in the only country and culture they know.

There is a way to eliminate illegal immigration. Eliminate what draws them here.

Velocity 01-10-2018 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20715446)
There is a way to eliminate illegal immigration. Eliminate what draws them here.

For many people, that won't do. What they want is to 1) have a prosperous USA, 2) impoverished neighbors, and 3) these neighbors want to come in to the USA but can't.

adaher 01-10-2018 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20715446)
And then yank the rug out from under them like Trump has done. Because that fucker doesn't undersand honoring a deal.
Fortunately, the courts have stepped in.

That judge's decision isn't going to make a lick of difference. It's activism at its worst. His reasoning is that it was "capricious and arbitrary", which doesn't even come close to passing the smell test since this is actually part of a very deliberate crackdown on illegal immigration that he actually ran on. Furthermore, this is an executive program, and any program an executive can start another can end. There are ways to delay that end if Trump fails to follow proper procedures, but the end of DACA is inevitable. There is no court in the country that will actually proclaim a right to be here applying to non-citizens in contravention of duly passed laws by the Congress.


Quote:

And frankly, anyone who was brought here as a child or infant has a right to stay in the only country and culture they know.
That's true only if you accept it as a general principle that children should never be punished by the law for the crimes of their parents. But in fact, we seperate families all the time. That's what our legal system DOES. It takes dads away from children when they do wrong. And this gets to another issue that a lot of people have with the whole immigration debate: immigrants get special considerations that citizens do not from the pro-amnesty side.

So if you're going to say that children of illegal immigrants shouldn't have to suffer leaving their homes and going to a place they don't know, how about throwing citizens a bone and not evicting people for failiure to pay property tax? Should children be forced from the homes they grew up in because of a mere civil violation?



Quote:

There is a way to eliminate illegal immigration. Eliminate what draws them here.
That talking point is so outdated. Democrats used to say it all the time, until E-verify came out and it actually became possible to end what draws them here. Democrats don't want to end illegal immigration and a lot of Republicans don't want to either. The political class is completely at odds with the public on this issue.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 20713920)
You meant to say "you are still residing illegally"? A person can not be illegal.

I think illegal is shorthand for illegal alien. Its pretty silly to argue over this particular semantic, they are illegals.

adaher 01-10-2018 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 20715526)
I think illegal is shorthand for illegal alien. Its pretty silly to argue over this particular semantic, they are illegals.

When it first started, I thought it was a valuable point to make, if only because we have a tendency to dehumanize these people. I just think it's time to stop belaboring the point, we get it. And there really isn't any other good term to use. "Undocumented" is just Orwellian bullshit, they've got plenty of documentation. It's just fake.

running coach 01-10-2018 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20715524)
That judge's decision isn't going to make a lick of difference. It's activism at its worst. His reasoning is that it was "capricious and arbitrary", which doesn't even come close to passing the smell test since this is actually part of a very deliberate crackdown on illegal immigration that he actually ran on. Furthermore, this is an executive program, and any program an executive can start another can end. There are ways to delay that end if Trump fails to follow proper procedures, but the end of DACA is inevitable. There is no court in the country that will actually proclaim a right to be here applying to non-citizens in contravention of duly passed laws by the Congress.




That's true only if you accept it as a general principle that children should never be punished by the law for the crimes of their parents. But in fact, we seperate families all the time. That's what our legal system DOES. It takes dads away from children when they do wrong. And this gets to another issue that a lot of people have with the whole immigration debate: immigrants get special considerations that citizens do not from the pro-amnesty side.

So if you're going to say that children of illegal immigrants shouldn't have to suffer leaving their homes and going to a place they don't know, how about throwing citizens a bone and not evicting people for failiure to pay property tax? Should children be forced from the homes they grew up in because of a mere civil violation?





That talking point is so outdated. Democrats used to say it all the time, until E-verify came out and it actually became possible to end what draws them here. Democrats don't want to end illegal immigration and a lot of Republicans don't want to either. The political class is completely at odds with the public on this issue.

More "activism" bullshit. What's wrong with "So-called" judge?
Is the court system supposed to bow to the White House Master?
How is it outdated? They come for the jobs. Make those who provide the jobs responsible.

Not paying property tax is not the same as sending kids out of the country they grew up in. Same for the foster care system.

WillFarnaby 01-10-2018 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorslap (Post 20714591)
Almost all land on Earth that is owned by anybody, be it a private person, corporation, or government, was acquired through violence and/or theft if you go back far enough.

I strongly disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marshmallow (Post 20714678)
That's a milquetoast liberal position in a world where right-libertarians argue that open borders are an assault on private property. A hardcore position is that immigrants, feminists, socialists, and other collectivists must be purged to establish and protect a right-libertarian society. Reading the more vicious tendencies in the movement is interesting because they seemed to have, quite by accident, re-invented and argue old leftist topics such as the vanguard party, dekulakization, dictatorship of the proletariat, and socialism/libertarianism in one country.



Yeah, private property relations requires state violence to maintain. When the European explorers set out they didn't find the world dotted with ancap tribes.

The state is a systematic aggressor against private property. Far from being necessary to maintain private property, state violence against person and property is the dominant form of violence in every society.

Hardcore does not mean right wing. Hardcore libertarianism is on a plumb line.

Yes I agree that cultural conservatism has leaked into some libertarianism, but the hardcore position does not strafe toward Hoppe’s evictionism, it continues on the plumb line toward the policy I advocate, I.e. increased illegal immigration. The milquetoast liberal position is not in favor of advocating civil disobedience. Liberals hate activity that is not sanctioned by the state.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 20715195)
What about the Louisiana purchase or when the US bought Alaksa. Wouldn't that be legitimate in your eyes, given they involved a voluntary exchange and no violence?

How did they get the funds for the purchase?

adaher 01-10-2018 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20715566)
More "activism" bullshit. What's wrong with "So-called" judge?

As long as proper procedures are followed, any executive can overturn an executive act, at will. The judge's reasoning was that ending the program was "capricious and arbitrary", which is a novel argument which will never stand up. Since this is only an injunction, the standards are a little lower. Much as prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a head of lettuce, a judge can issue an injunction with flimsy reasoning, but it only works for a short time.

Quote:

Is the court system supposed to bow to the White House Master?
If it's legal to create an executive program, it is legal to end an executive program. This would be like telling Congress that they can pass laws, but can't repeal laws.

Quote:

How is it outdated? They come for the jobs. Make those who provide the jobs responsible.
And you do that through E-verify and workplace raids. Democrats oppose E-verify and workplace raids.

Quote:

Not paying property tax is not the same as sending kids out of the country they grew up in. Same for the foster care system.
Your first argument is somewhat valid, although due to the size and diversity of the country I could argue that forcing a kid who grew up in Kentucky to move to Los Angeles because that's where relatives can house his family after their eviction is pretty comparable. Being raised in America but with Mexican family and being forced to move to Mexico is not nearly as much of a culture shock as being raised with a Kentucky family and having to move to LA.

As for the foster care system, a deported kid who has his family is in MUCH better shape than a kid in our foster system.

mikecurtis 01-10-2018 12:36 PM

Does the legal concept of Adverse Possession (when squatters move into a vacant property without permission and live there openly and continuously) ever apply?

In IL, for example, if you live on a property for at least 20 years, taking care of the property as if it were your own, and pay property taxes for at least 7 of those years; your are entitled to make a legal claim to the deed.

I don't see why this shouldn't apply to someone who moved here "illegally." If a person resides in this country (or any country with the concept of squatter's rights) for a significant period of time, treating that residency as if it were legitimate (ie: participating in the community - going to school, working, not being a criminal), and paying all the appropriate taxes, why shouldn't they be afforded the opportunity to make a claim of legitimate residency.

I personally think 20 years is a bit long. . .if you can be declared dead after 7 years of "inactivity" as yourself, then that seems like an appropriate amount of time for the reverse; to establish yourself as a legitimate resident.

mc

Little Nemo 01-10-2018 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 20715399)
IANAL but I find this argument questionable. This is akin to saying that if a squatter breaks into someone's house and secretly stays in their basement, that he is not committing a crime by staying in their house; the crime was committed when he picked the door locks and entered the house. Or maybe that is in fact legally true, but it seems like a strange argument.

That's my point. There is a crime in illegally inhabiting a house without the owner's permission; it's trespassing. It doesn't matter how you entered the house; you're committing an ongoing crime just by being there.

There is no equivalent law about living in America. You can break a law by the way you enter the country but you're not breaking any law by being in the country.

Little Nemo 01-10-2018 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 20715526)
I think illegal is shorthand for illegal alien. Its pretty silly to argue over this particular semantic, they are illegals.

The people who use the term have an agenda. This is the point I've been arguing. If you call a person an illegal, it reduces their status to just a crime they committed. There's no similar term for people that committed other crimes. Nobody calls you an illegal because you robbed a bank or sold drugs or drove over the speeding limit. Yes, you're a person who committed a crime but you're still seen as a person. But somehow people who committed the crime of entering the country illegally are reduced to being the ongoing embodiment of that crime. You're not simply a person who committed a crime; you are the crime.

CBEscapee 01-10-2018 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20715718)



Your first argument is somewhat valid, although due to the size and diversity of the country I could argue that forcing a kid who grew up in Kentucky to move to Los Angeles because that's where relatives can house his family after their eviction is pretty comparable. Being raised in America but with Mexican family and being forced to move to Mexico is not nearly as much of a culture shock as being raised with a Kentucky family and having to move to LA.

Have you ever spent any time in Mexico? Or at least enough to really be able to make such a claim?

adaher 01-10-2018 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20715898)
That's my point. There is a crime in illegally inhabiting a house without the owner's permission; it's trespassing. It doesn't matter how you entered the house; you're committing an ongoing crime just by being there.

There is no equivalent law about living in America. You can break a law by the way you enter the country but you're not breaking any law by being in the country.

But you do have to commit felonies to stay and make a living.

adaher 01-10-2018 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBEscapee (Post 20715922)
Have you ever spent any time in Mexico? Or at least enough to really be able to make such a claim?

I love how the only context in which you can infer that a country is a really shitty place is when you're threatening to send people back to it.

Anyway, the reality is that Mexico is a middle income country with low unemployment. It is not a hellhole, although as with our own country there are certainly places you wouldn't want to live within Mexico.

adaher 01-10-2018 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikecurtis (Post 20715794)
Does the legal concept of Adverse Possession (when squatters move into a vacant property without permission and live there openly and continuously) ever apply?



mc

Well, regardless of their legal status what they own is what they own. We don't confiscate all their assets for being here illegally. And I still reject the idea that deportation is even a punishment provided it's not a wartorn or failed state, or an oppressive state. It's merely a correction of a civil violation. You're here, you're not supposed to be here, go back home.

Obviously for kids born here it's a different situation, they are citizens. And they can choose to stay with other relatives or go to their parent's country and come back at will when they are adults. This is not life destroying stuff and in fact every article I've read about people who have been deported, they are quite happy now.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20715532)
When it first started, I thought it was a valuable point to make, if only because we have a tendency to dehumanize these people. I just think it's time to stop belaboring the point, we get it. And there really isn't any other good term to use. "Undocumented" is just Orwellian bullshit, they've got plenty of documentation. It's just fake.

Even back then, I didn't think it was a particularly important point.

The "dehumanization" of calling them illegals was a bullshit argument IMHO. It was an attempt to get people to remember they were people first and illegal aliens second.

I can empathize with DACA but frankly the world is full of deserving people who are suffering who would have a much better life here in America. We can't take in a billion people and right now we are taking in people who are breaking the law. Unless Latin America applies become an American state or territory, I don't see why they get a break over people from China and India except for the fact that it is easier for them to sneak into the country. Once again I think DACA is different but only if they really could not readily adapt to life in their country of origin. I would judge this on a case by case basis.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20715921)
The people who use the term have an agenda. This is the point I've been arguing. If you call a person an illegal, it reduces their status to just a crime they committed. There's no similar term for people that committed other crimes. Nobody calls you an illegal because you robbed a bank or sold drugs or drove over the speeding limit. Yes, you're a person who committed a crime but you're still seen as a person. But somehow people who committed the crime of entering the country illegally are reduced to being the ongoing embodiment of that crime. You're not simply a person who committed a crime; you are the crime.

Illegals is short for illegal alien. I didn't think anyone needed that explained to them.

The term has been around longer than the objection to the term. The people who object to the term also have an agenda.

People call rapists rapist, murderers are called murderers, muggers are called muggers, Drug dealers are called dealers, and illegal aliens are called illegals. I suppose we could call them illegal aliens but then we are still reducing them to their crime.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20715718)
And you do that through E-verify and workplace raids. Democrats oppose E-verify and workplace raids.

cite?

I mean they could pass laws about this and they never did.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikecurtis (Post 20715794)
Does the legal concept of Adverse Possession (when squatters move into a vacant property without permission and live there openly and continuously) ever apply?

In IL, for example, if you live on a property for at least 20 years, taking care of the property as if it were your own, and pay property taxes for at least 7 of those years; your are entitled to make a legal claim to the deed.

I don't see why this shouldn't apply to someone who moved here "illegally." If a person resides in this country (or any country with the concept of squatter's rights) for a significant period of time, treating that residency as if it were legitimate (ie: participating in the community - going to school, working, not being a criminal), and paying all the appropriate taxes, why shouldn't they be afforded the opportunity to make a claim of legitimate residency.

I personally think 20 years is a bit long. . .if you can be declared dead after 7 years of "inactivity" as yourself, then that seems like an appropriate amount of time for the reverse; to establish yourself as a legitimate resident.

mc

So you want to expand a property right concept to the residency rights but you also think that expansion would be too harsh and you want to limit the adverse possession period to 7 years instead of 20?

Adverse possession requires open notorious possession. You can't live on a property in secrecy and then claim adverse possession. Illegals are staying here in secret. And once the owners take action to dispossess you, your adverse possession period lapses. If they were open about it, the government would take action that would lapse the period.

Prescription is another concept that is sorta like adverse possession but for easements and might be a better analogy. But once again, you need to be open. You can't use someone else's back yard to get to the beach while only when no one is watching. You have to do it even if they are having a barbecue as if you owned the right to do so.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20715898)
That's my point. There is a crime in illegally inhabiting a house without the owner's permission; it's trespassing. It doesn't matter how you entered the house; you're committing an ongoing crime just by being there.

There is no equivalent law about living in America. You can break a law by the way you enter the country but you're not breaking any law by being in the country.

Really? I can enter America legally on a travel visa but when it expirees I am illegally living in the country.

doreen 01-10-2018 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20715718)
And you do that through E-verify and workplace raids. Democrats oppose E-verify and workplace raids.

Define "workplace raids" . Seriously. Because if you are talking about rounding up illegal immigrants at their workplaces, that's not making those who provide the jobs responsible. They will just hire a new bunch and consider any fines the cost of doing business. This http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/i..._gets_pri.html is making those who provide the jobs responsible. But it rarely happens, certainly not often enough to serve as a deterrent.

mikecurtis 01-10-2018 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 20716068)
Adverse possession requires open notorious possession. You can't live on a property in secrecy and then claim adverse possession. Illegals are staying here in secret. And once the owners take action to dispossess you, your adverse possession period lapses. If they were open about it, the government would take action that would lapse the period.

How are they living in secret? They're not in caves communicating by code. . .
I personally know may who are living just as open as you are; they have valid driver's licenses, their children attend public schools, they work jobs that pay by check and withhold taxes, they own homes or rent apts that they keep up, they frequent local businesses. Some of them even crossed the border "legally," they just never applied for resident alien status, or did and continued to stay after the visa expired.

However you came to be somewhere, if you've been there long enough and have functioned as a resident, then you are a resident.

mc

asahi 01-10-2018 03:16 PM

My problem with debates like this is that there are just too many aspects to the discussion to have it neatly encapsulated in an opinion.

Does a nation have a legitimate interest in regulating immigration and enforcing immigration laws? Without question, and I agree that it's not inherently racist to advocate for secure borders.

But the history of immigration in the U.S. makes it clear that immigration has not been colorblind, so a person can be forgiven for suspecting racism when someone has an unhealthy obsession over immigration or 'illegals'. Illegal immigrants weren't responsible for our country's disastrous decision to invade Iraq; in fact, some of them have actually fought in the War on Terror. Illegal immigrants weren't responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. There are valid concerns over illegal immigration, but a lot of this is just scapegoating.

Lemur866 01-10-2018 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20714584)
As for the OP, the answer is obvious and there is only one: voters have an absolute right to decide who is a citizen, who is a permanent resident, who can stay temporarily, and who can't come at all.

So when the voters decide to strip Jews of their citizenship and expel them from the country, that's fine with you because the voters decided?

In America we have a long list of things the voters and their elected representatives aren't allowed to do, you might have learned about this in school.

Clothahump 01-10-2018 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 20713379)
There can be little doubt that citizens and people with visas, green cards, etc. have a legal right to reside in a country. But when it comes to illegal immigration, at which point has the illegal immigrant crossed over from "don't have a right to be here" to "DO have a right to be here?"

Never. See that word "illegal"? Trumps everything (no pun intended).

Little Nemo 01-10-2018 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 20716070)
Really? I can enter America legally on a travel visa but when it expirees I am illegally living in the country.

You should notify the Supreme Court of that. They seem to be unaware of it.

Quote:

"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States."

Arizona v. United States

Lemur866 01-10-2018 04:48 PM

Hint: a deportation is not a criminal prosecution. There may be standards of evidence used, there may be a judge involved, there may be legal challenges to the deportation.

That doesn't mean the deportee is being charged with a crime.

DSYoungEsq 01-10-2018 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 20715399)
IANAL but I find this argument questionable. This is akin to saying that if a squatter breaks into someone's house and secretly stays in their basement, that he is not committing a crime by staying in their house; the crime was committed when he picked the door locks and entered the house. Or maybe that is in fact legally true, but it seems like a strange argument.

The two are inapposite. Staying in the house is a continued criminal act (trespass); staying in the country is not (since we have not yet criminalized "trespassing" by people in the country without permission.

DSYoungEsq 01-10-2018 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20716354)
You should notify the Supreme Court of that. They seem to be unaware of it.

Did you miss my post above? :smack:

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikecurtis (Post 20716191)
How are they living in secret? They're not in caves communicating by code. . .
I personally know may who are living just as open as you are; they have valid driver's licenses, their children attend public schools, they work jobs that pay by check and withhold taxes, they own homes or rent apts that they keep up, they frequent local businesses. Some of them even crossed the border "legally," they just never applied for resident alien status, or did and continued to stay after the visa expired.

However you came to be somewhere, if you've been there long enough and have functioned as a resident, then you are a resident.

mc

Not legally you are not. Your presence is illegal.

They are living in secret, the "owners" (the government in this case) do not have a reasonable opportunity to confront them and object to their presence.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemur866 (Post 20716266)
So when the voters decide to strip Jews of their citizenship and expel them from the country, that's fine with you because the voters decided?

In America we have a long list of things the voters and their elected representatives aren't allowed to do, you might have learned about this in school.

One thing they CAN do is decide who can immigrate, who gets extended the franchise.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 20716354)
You should notify the Supreme Court of that. They seem to be unaware of it.

Its not a crime but it is illegal in the same way that double parking is illegal.

UDS 01-10-2018 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 20716745)
One thing they CAN do is decide who can immigrate, who gets extended the franchise.

Yes, they can. That's why we are having this thread. The thread is not about whether the government has this power, but how they should exercise it.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20716230)
My problem with debates like this is that there are just too many aspects to the discussion to have it neatly encapsulated in an opinion.

Does a nation have a legitimate interest in regulating immigration and enforcing immigration laws? Without question, and I agree that it's not inherently racist to advocate for secure borders.

But the history of immigration in the U.S. makes it clear that immigration has not been colorblind, so a person can be forgiven for suspecting racism when someone has an unhealthy obsession over immigration or 'illegals'. Illegal immigrants weren't responsible for our country's disastrous decision to invade Iraq; in fact, some of them have actually fought in the War on Terror. Illegal immigrants weren't responsible for the financial crisis of 2008. There are valid concerns over illegal immigration, but a lot of this is just scapegoating.

Illegal immigration is not being blamed the war in Iraq or the financial crisis. They are being blamed for driving down wages of uneducated unskilled workers (AKA Trump voters). It is pretty clear that they do this at least to some extent.

Damuri Ajashi 01-10-2018 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDS (Post 20716755)
Yes, they can. That's why we are having this thread. The thread is not about whether the government has this power, but how they should exercise it.

Yes and I thought that adaher was saying that the government should exercise this power the way the voters want them to. But apparently someone thought that adaher was saying that he thinks that we can kick out the Jews. So I was reminding that person that we are talking about illegal immigration and the rules regarding immigration are set by the government and they should be set in a way that is consistent with the will of the voters.

UDS 01-10-2018 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 20716776)
Yes and I thought that adaher was saying that the government should exercise this power the way the voters want them to. But apparently someone thought that adaher was saying that he thinks that we can kick out the Jews. So I was reminding that person that we are talking about illegal immigration and the rules regarding immigration are set by the government and they should be set in a way that is consistent with the will of the voters.

Which raised the obvious question; if kicking out the Jews were popular with voters, should the government set the immigration rules to produce this outcome?

D'Anconia 01-10-2018 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by running coach (Post 20715446)
Because that fucker doesn't undersand honoring a deal.

Why should a President be required to honor a deal made by a previous Administration?

For example, if President Trump makes a deal with Russia, is President Warren required to honor it?

Quote:

And frankly, anyone who was brought here as a child or infant has a right to stay in the only country and culture they know.
Cite that such a right exists, please.

asahi 01-10-2018 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 20716760)
Illegal immigration is not being blamed the war in Iraq or the financial crisis. They are being blamed for driving down wages of uneducated unskilled workers (AKA Trump voters). It is pretty clear that they do this at least to some extent.

It's not so clear.

adaher 01-10-2018 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doreen (Post 20716096)
Define "workplace raids" . Seriously. Because if you are talking about rounding up illegal immigrants at their workplaces, that's not making those who provide the jobs responsible. They will just hire a new bunch and consider any fines the cost of doing business. This http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/i..._gets_pri.html is making those who provide the jobs responsible. But it rarely happens, certainly not often enough to serve as a deterrent.

How about I-9 inspections like the ones done on 7 11s all over the country today? They did get some illegal workers in the process but the focus was on fining and/or arresting the franchise owners for violations of regulatory compliance.

Well, and of course during any I-9 inspection you have to suspend or fire all your non-compliant workers.

adaher 01-10-2018 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemur866 (Post 20716266)
So when the voters decide to strip Jews of their citizenship and expel them from the country, that's fine with you because the voters decided?

In America we have a long list of things the voters and their elected representatives aren't allowed to do, you might have learned about this in school.

That's the beauty of our Constitution. It already provides for robust citizenship rights: if you're born here, you're an American citizen. If you have an American parent, you're an American citizen. Most countries do not enshrine that in their supreme law. We did.

Now of course anything beyond that, we can decide who comes and who doesn't, although other Constitutional concepts like due process and equality can come into play. But as long as we obey due process and don't discriminate too much(some discrimination in immigration policy is allowed, although it's not clear how much), we can ban all immigration if we want. Most rich countries don't even allow low skill immigration at all. They allow high skill immigration and they allow refugees. That's pretty much it.

adaher 01-10-2018 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemur866 (Post 20716475)
Hint: a deportation is not a criminal prosecution. There may be standards of evidence used, there may be a judge involved, there may be legal challenges to the deportation.

That doesn't mean the deportee is being charged with a crime.

That's a choice we make though, it's not in the Constitution. And it's a good choice. First time entry should not be a crime. Second time is though, and that's also as it should be.

UDS 01-10-2018 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D'Anconia (Post 20716835)
Why should a President be required to honor a deal made by a previous Administration?

For example, if President Trump makes a deal with Russia, is President Warren required to honor it?

Yes, she is.

Russia doesn't make a deal with President Trump; Russia makes a deal with the United States of America. Constitutionally, President Trump is the agent who acts on behalf of the United States in negotiating and concluding the deal, but it remains a deal with the US, not a deal with Donald J. Trump.

mikecurtis 01-10-2018 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 20716841)
It's not so clear.

Actually its both. While immigration (both legal and illegal) is a net benefit to the economy, even to the point of driving up certain wage groups, according to The Center for Immigration Studies (among others):

Quote:

Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low-wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor.
. . .

Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers . .
mc

doreen 01-10-2018 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20716882)
How about I-9 inspections like the ones done on 7 11s all over the country today? They did get some illegal workers in the process but the focus was on fining and/or arresting the franchise owners for violations of regulatory compliance.

Well, and of course during any I-9 inspection you have to suspend or fire all your non-compliant workers.

Let's see what happens to the owners- this was apparently related to a 2013 investigation where 8 franchisees and managers pled guilty, apparently to charges regarding using stolen identities so they could employ illegal workers and pay them less than minimum wage. As far as I can tell, the only punishment was that they had to pay back wages. Not much of a deterrent, more a cost of doing business.

CBEscapee 01-10-2018 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 20715936)
I love how the only context in which you can infer that a country is a really shitty place is when you're threatening to send people back to it.

Anyway, the reality is that Mexico is a middle income country with low unemployment. It is not a hellhole, although as with our own country there are certainly places you wouldn't want to live within Mexico.

I am Mexican, born and lived my whole life in Guadalajara. And you didn't answer the question.

adaher 01-10-2018 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doreen (Post 20716927)
Let's see what happens to the owners- this was apparently related to a 2013 investigation where 8 franchisees and managers pled guilty, apparently to charges regarding using stolen identities so they could employ illegal workers and pay them less than minimum wage. As far as I can tell, the only punishment was that they had to pay back wages. Not much of a deterrent, more a cost of doing business.

Well, the penalties are supposed to be $10,000 per violation. And they can keep on coming back and fine that same $10,000 per employee every time employee files aren't compliant. Employers can be hit hard financially, the tools are there.

asahi 01-11-2018 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikecurtis (Post 20716913)
Actually its both. While immigration (both legal and illegal) is a net benefit to the economy, even to the point of driving up certain wage groups, according to The Center for Immigration Studies (among others):



mc

First of all, the Center for Immigration Studies is NOT a neutral source, though surprisingly, despite your source, I don't think your claims are particularly biased in this case.

What I would submit, however, is that automation and the overall restructuring of the labor force over the past decades (including the shift to global supply chains) has had much more to do with declining wages than immigration. Immigration usually follows a demand for labor that is not being filled by the existing labor pool within the country. When the demand for labor dries up, then you see competition for labor, but the natural born citizens have the advantages that immigrants (legal or otherwise) don't. I agree with the criticism that it's over-simplification to claim that immigrants always take the jobs that citizens don't want - that's not always true, I agree. But more often than not, the fill labor shortages that are caused by a multitude of factors.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.