If all the illegal workers up and left the US what would really happen?

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=tmcinroy]
Does anyone really think that there are 11 million unemployed, employable, citizens in the country. Media reports suggest that some subsantial number of Undocumented workers receive more than minimum wage. If there is no way for illegals to become legal, how will we ever deal with them without spending vast sums on enforcement.

Many of the political arguments I have heard strike me as impractical.
[/QUOTE]

I’m a little biased on this issue, but in all seriousness and reality,

they all have the right and to become U.S. citizens.

No one will deny that. They just need to apply for citizenship and wait their turn.
G. Bush is pushing for amnesty. They need to take advantage of that and fill out an application.

Other stipulations were for them to pay back-taxes, and learn english.

62

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
This grabbed my attention, since I live in L.A. and am just dark enough that I could get caught up in just such a dragnet. Any guy who did that to me, I’d have their ass quick.

  1. I was born here. I have a right to be here.
  2. I am not “one of the brown people” but what the heck, wops are close enough for you (?).
  3. I am a federal employee, so I’d probably be able to get many agencies and people riled up - both civilian managers and military officers - DoD, NASA, DCMA, DCAA, the V.A., etc.
  4. The false arrest and unlawful detainment charges would be a slam dunk. Lawsuits would follow against their agency, and against them personally. I would also pursue any criminal charges that might apply.
  5. Any person involved in it - I would hold the grudge forever, and do anything ethical or unethical to ruin him forever and exact my revenge.

It would be very very ugly, and it would never end. I’m a vengeful old bastard.
[/QUOTE]

I think there is a torte law of some sort that prevents anyone from suing the Govt for enforcing laws. I could be mistaken. I’ll see if I can find anything on it.
There’s nothing else to stop you from other more violent means of protest.
If they weren’t protesting, a law I believe is extremely fair, they wouldn’t be in that predicament.

63

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Or - maybe they don’t agree with the laws. Or with racism of this whole anti-immigrant crusade, or any number of things. Do the words “First Amendment” mean anything to you ?

And when it turns out they were legal citizens or legal immigrants, and want their homes and businesses back ?

The same can be said of mass executions and nuclear war; that doesn’t make them bright ideas. Sometime’s even politicians can figure out that somethings a bad idea before actually doing it.
[/QUOTE]

Your right, the law is unfair. No one should have to fill in applications, wait their turn, learn english or pay taxes.

Illegal aliens should have the freedom of Speech, press, and assembly to protest this unfairness. Add religion to this and they can proclaim a holy war against us.

What was I thinking. You’ve opened my eyes.

Why don’t we tear down the borders and whoever wants to come in can waltz right in. Fire the border patrol.
Seems like alot of people are against having guards, fences, and laws.

Let’s get rid of our military next because everyone wants peace.
Disband the police so we don’t have anymore Rodney King incidents or riots.

Mass executions and nuclear war is definitely synonamous with deportation.

Please give me for being so ignorant!!!

64

forgive

65

[QUOTE=rwong]
Illegal aliens should have the freedom of Speech, press, and assembly to protest this unfairness. Add religion to this and they can proclaim a holy war against us.
[/quote]
You are the one claiming that all the protestors are illegal immigrants, not me. Not that it matters, since they do have most or all of those things, anyway; you can deport an illegal immigrant, but you can’t shoot him because he’s Catholic.

[QUOTE=rwong]
Mass executions and nuclear war is definitely synonamous with deportation.
[/quote]
I never claimed they were; I claimed that nuclear war, mass executions and mass indiscriminate deportation are all stupid, and they are.

[QUOTE=rwong]
Please give me for being so ignorant!!!
[/QUOTE]
I suggest you contemplate the motto of this site.

66

[QUOTE=rwong]
I think there is a torte law of some sort that prevents anyone from suing the Govt for enforcing laws. I could be mistaken. I’ll see if I can find anything on it.
There’s nothing else to stop you from other more violent means of protest.
If they weren’t protesting, a law I believe is extremely fair, they wouldn’t be in that predicament.
[/QUOTE]

Yawn. You were talking about a giant dragnet. These generally sweep up plenty of inocent people.

There are laws against false arrest. There are avenues to file suit or charges. The law is not exactly the carte blanche you think it is. At the risk of getting flamed, even if the law gave no relief, I’d still get even.

It looks like you never read the 14th Amendment, probably not the 4th either. It has some silly stuff about due process and warrants and stuff like that.

67
  • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*

From FindLaw:
Seizing also includes arrest, as it is the seizing of the person. A Fourth Amendment ‘‘seizure’’ of the person, the Court has determined, is the same as a common law arrest; there must be either application of physical force (or the laying on of hands), or submission to the assertion of authority.
From Roberts Law:
Individuals may sue federal officials under Bivens and state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both Bivens and § 1983 allow a plaintiff to seek money damages from government officials who have violated his Fourth Amendment rights. See § 1983; Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (the U.S. Marshals Service respondents), But government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Wilson v. Layne 526 U.S. 603, 609, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1696 (U.S.Md.,1999).
From Dhammika Dharmapala (University of Connecticut) and Thomas J. Miceli (University of Connecticut):
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures in criminal investigations. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to require that police obtain a warrant prior to search and that illegally seized evidence be excluded from trial. A consensus has developed in the law and economics literature that tort liability for police officers is a superior means of deterring unreasonable searches.
Lopez v The United States:
Resulted in a Bivins-type settlement of $62,500 (Bivins being the prevailing precedent on this topic). While the Lopez case is relevant, it seems more to represent a deal to make the case go away, rather than an actual response to specific damages.
Bari and Cherney (Bari vs FBI):
The activists sued both federal and local law enforcement authorities for numerous rights violations. More than a decade later – and after innumerable court proceedings – a jury awarded them several million dollars in damages. Eighty percent of the damages were for violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment, validating Bari and Cherney’s longstanding claim that they were targeted for false charges because of their political activism for the redwoods. The balance of the damages were for the Fourth Amendment violations of false arrest and unlawful search.

Two Albuquerque, N.M., police officers who took part in a joke arrest of a new Southwest Airlines employee must face charges that they are liable for the psychological injuries allegedly suffered by the “arrestee” as a result of the prank, a federal appeals court in Denver has ruled.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said Marcie Fuerschbach’s constitutional claims were sufficient to survive the officers’ assertion of qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability provided their actions do not violate statutory or constitutional rights that are clearly established at the time and that a reasonable person would have known about

Durruthy v. Pastor
The National Press Photographers Association, through their counsel, Covington & Burling, submitted an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief on July 12, 2004, to the United States Supreme Court in support of the petitioner in Durruthy v. Pastor. In this case the petitioner, Albert Durruthy, a photojournalist, is suing a Miami, FL, police officer for false arrest, assault and excessive use of force.

So, there are avenues to file charges and pursue lawsuits in the case of false arrest and unlawful detainment - against the arresting officers and their agencies. Like I said in an eralier post, if anyone swept me up in a Los Angeles dragnet, locked me up, or shipped me off to Mexico, I would OWN them.

68

[QUOTE=Little Plast

So yes, a person who gets run over in the street and needs medical attention should get it, regardless of their citizenship. (Granted, I also believe in socialized medicine, which makes me the odd sort of conservative. What’s it called? Moderate? Liberal?) But I remember the furor over undocumented immigrants being unable to receive driver’s licenses. Inalienable human rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not necessarily a car.[/QUOTE]

Actually I would call you a Chancellor Bismark who outlawed the SPD in Germany, and instituted socialized medicine there. NOT for the benefit of the people, but because the Prussian Army recruits were medically in such bad shape when they showed up for induction that they didn’t have enough fit men.
The Mexicans have a FAR different approach to medical care for those who are not citizens and don’t have medical insurance or sufficient funds to pay. They don’t treat them. They also apply the same standard to their own citizens who get no medical care if they are not part of the national health insurance plan.
A person I know was injured in a plane crash in Monterey Mexico, was transported to a hospital, and was just left there with NO treatment as it was found out he did not have the funds or insurance to pay for his treatment. It was his own plane that had crashed so that was not available to pay for his treatment either. The other passengers escaped without much injuries, but the Mexicans would not let him leave because he had hit a derelict DC-3 at the airport which was worthless. So his buddies had to go out and buy him painkillers to keep him from hollering so much, and in the dead of night chartered a med-evac flight from Texas and smuggled him out to the airport, and flew him back to the US. If they had not done that he would have DIED!
So much for the tender mercies of Mexico.

69

[QUOTE=randyjet]
Actually I would call you a Chancellor Bismark who outlawed the SPD in Germany, and instituted socialized medicine there. NOT for the benefit of the people, but because the Prussian Army recruits were medically in such bad shape when they showed up for induction that they didn’t have enough fit men.
The Mexicans have a FAR different approach to medical care for those who are not citizens and don’t have medical insurance or sufficient funds to pay. They don’t treat them. They also apply the same standard to their own citizens who get no medical care if they are not part of the national health insurance plan.
A person I know was injured in a plane crash in Monterey Mexico, was transported to a hospital, and was just left there with NO treatment as it was found out he did not have the funds or insurance to pay for his treatment. It was his own plane that had crashed so that was not available to pay for his treatment either. The other passengers escaped without much injuries, but the Mexicans would not let him leave because he had hit a derelict DC-3 at the airport which was worthless. So his buddies had to go out and buy him painkillers to keep him from hollering so much, and in the dead of night chartered a med-evac flight from Texas and smuggled him out to the airport, and flew him back to the US. If they had not done that he would have DIED!
So much for the tender mercies of Mexico.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t be as unsympathetic as Mexico, but YES that is a perferct example of the precedence we need to follow.

70

[QUOTE=SteveG1]
It looks like you never read the 14th Amendment, probably not the 4th either. It has some silly stuff about due process and warrants and stuff like that.
[/QUOTE]

Which only applies to U.S. Citizens…oh damn they’re not Citizens.

There are plenty of laws, codes, etc, tools for officials to use to make a search and seizure legal, especially when they’ve broken the law and made it easier for them to arrest them for deportation.

In this instance, protestors are actually considered aiding and abating.
I would see aiding and abating criminals will satisfy the 4th and 14th ammendment

They can spit gum on the sidewalk get arrested for littering and then get the realization that they are also illegal, whoa your out of here amigo.

We can offer the illegals the 6th ammendent, so as not to waste their time getting back to that fence they’ve climbed over before or the tunnels they bored.

or they can file an application for Citizenship and wait their turn!

Yes, dragnets sweeps up innocent people and eventually they let the innocent go. Aiding and abating makes you guilty, automatically.
There have been plenty of drug busts that picked up innocent victims in the past and I don’t believe that law enforcement was ever successfully sued for it.
If you weren’t there aiding and abating criminals than you have nothing to worry.

The Supreme court won’t let you sue the Govt for mistaking you for an illegal
and there will definitely no tears shed if you were caught aiding criminals.

71

[QUOTE=rwong]
Which only applies to U.S. Citizens…oh damn they’re not Citizens.
[/quote]

You get it better later on the post, but here you just sound like you are ignoring that he is talking about legals. So you point here is.. something, but not a point.

When there is no due process, I have to say you need a big cite for this, otherwise you are not only fantasizing, you are lying now.

Since it is the state that has to prove the abating first, you are also lying here unless you produce a cite.

72

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
You are the one claiming that all the protestors are illegal immigrants, not me. Not that it matters, since they do have most or all of those things, anyway; you can deport an illegal immigrant, but you can’t shoot him because he’s Catholic.

I never claimed they were; I claimed that nuclear war, mass executions and mass indiscriminate deportation are all stupid, and they are.

I suggest you contemplate the motto of this site.
[/QUOTE]

I said they may as well be, but aiding and abating is just as bad if not worse.
Mass deportation is only considered stupid by the ones protecting illegals.
Nukes and execution weren’t a bad idea for alot of people when the Trade Center collapsed, but then they’ve calmed down and sent a quarter million soldiers to Iraq instead, much better heh!

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
but you can’t shoot him because he’s Catholic.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s leave this one for the IRA or another thread.

73

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
You get it better later on the post, but here you just sound like you are ignoring that he is talking about legals. So you point here is.. something, but not a point.

When there is no due process, I have to say you need a big cite for this, otherwise you are not only fantasizing, you are lying now.
Since it is the state that has to prove the abating first, you are also lying here unless you produce a cite.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I should rephrase that.

You can sue for anything under the sky, it doesn’t mean you will win.

74

[QUOTE=rwong]
I wouldn’t be as unsympathetic as Mexico, but YES that is a perferct example of the precedence we need to follow.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because it’s not like impovershed foreigners are human, after all.

[QUOTE=rwong]
Which only applies to U.S. Citizens…oh damn they’re not Citizens.
[/quote]
Ignoring all the innocent legal citizens your stupid plan would sweep up : don’t be silly, rights apply to everyone. By your “logic”, we could legally reinstitute slavery, as long as the slaves were foreigners.

[QUOTE=rwong]
In this instance, protestors are actually considered aiding and abating.
I would see aiding and abating criminals will satisfy the 4th and 14th ammendment
[/QUOTE]
Don’t be ridiculous; there’s nothing illegal against protesting against laws you don’t like; that’s one of the major points of the First Amendment. You know, one of those laws you’re so hot about.

[QUOTE=rwong]
Yes, dragnets sweeps up innocent people and eventually they let the innocent go. Aiding and abating makes you guilty, automatically.
There have been plenty of drug busts that picked up innocent victims in the past and I don’t believe that law enforcement was ever successfully sued for it.
[/QUOTE]
Yes ! Punishing the innocent will solve all our problems ! Why didn’t I see that before ?! :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=rwong]
Mass deportation is only considered stupid by the ones protecting illegals.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, sure; there couldn’t possibly be any other reason.

[QUOTE=rwong]
Nukes and execution weren’t a bad idea for alot of people when the Trade Center collapsed, but then they’ve calmed down and sent a quarter million soldiers to Iraq instead, much better heh!
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so we should have done even a better job of convincing people the terrorists were right to consider us evil ? I’ve sure that killing millions of innocents would have made everything better, just like it did for the Nazis.

And no, that’s not Godwinizing the thread; as the phrase goes, it’s not Godwinizing when they start building concentration camps. Mass murder by nukes is close enough.

[QUOTE=rwong]
Let’s leave this one for the IRA or another thread.
[/QUOTE]
You’re the one who claimed freedom of religion would lead to a holy war from the illegal aliens against us. :rolleyes:

75

[QUOTE=rwong]
I said they may as well be, but aiding and abating is just as bad if not worse.
Mass deportation is only considered stupid by the ones protecting illegals.
[/quote]

I guess this Navy Republican guy is stupid too:

And the ones proposing mass deportation are the minority even in the Republican leadership, and yes, ignorant to boot:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/the-high-cost-of-deportation/

[QUOTE=rwong]
Nukes and execution weren’t a bad idea for alot of people when the Trade Center collapsed, but then they’ve calmed down and sent a quarter million soldiers to Iraq instead, much better heh!
[/QUOTE]

Cite for that? Or you just one again showed your level of knowledge on what is going on in Iraq?

76

[QUOTE=rwong]
Sorry, I should rephrase that.

You can sue for anything under the sky, it doesn’t mean you will win.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry bud, I demand a cite saying we can ship **legals ** out with no due process and declare them guilty of abating also with no due process, Otherwise you are indeed lying. It is your side that needs to explain why ignoring those items are a winning combination and that it will not generate multi billion class actions suits, I have enough knowledge of the law to say you are more likely to lose.

77

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yeah, because it’s not like impovershed foreigners are human, after all.

Ignoring all the innocent legal citizens your stupid plan would sweep up : don’t be silly, rights apply to everyone. By your “logic”, we could legally reinstitute slavery, as long as the slaves were foreigners.

Don’t be ridiculous; there’s nothing illegal against protesting against laws you don’t like; that’s one of the major points of the First Amendment. You know, one of those laws you’re so hot about.

Yes ! Punishing the innocent will solve all our problems ! Why didn’t I see that before ?! :rolleyes:

Yeah, sure; there couldn’t possibly be any other reason.

Ah, so we should have done even a better job of convincing people the terrorists were right to consider us evil ? I’ve sure that killing millions of innocents would have made everything better, just like it did for the Nazis.

And no, that’s not Godwinizing the thread; as the phrase goes, it’s not Godwinizing when they start building concentration camps. Mass murder by nukes is close enough.

You’re the one who claimed freedom of religion would lead to a holy war from the illegal aliens against us. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Nobody is being ignored. So your saying our constitution would be valid in other countries and supercedes theirs?

Most of those protestors are harboring illegals. While assembly is a right, aiding and abating isn’t. The protestors are borderlining on civil disobedience, rather than standing up for injustice. What’s just about someone cheating their way into the U.S.?

Now we have to worry about drug traffickers, terrorists and other felons getting in because a select few say no border patrols, no deportation, no, no, no.

I didn’t suggest genocide was an option, I’m merely stating the sentiments of 911. What we actually did was put 250,000 U.S. Citizens in harms way over in Iraq who didn’t even attack us.

People are taking out of context the meaning of “Free Country”
Don’t think the illegal’s won’t try to make this a race and/or religious issue.
Rodney King tried to pull the race card, had nothing to do with him breaking the law, evading, and disobeying police instruction.

78

[QUOTE=rwong]
In this instance, protestors are actually considered aiding and abating.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you’re the one who’s wanting to do the abating, not the protestors. Perhaps we should kick you out of the country and let you write your congressional representative a letter asking to be let back in.

The rest of arguments are just as silly as your Freudian slip. The Taliban might be expected to expel protestors, but not the U.S. You must be one of those types who hate our freedoms. What does W. call them again? Oh, that’s right, terrorists.

79

[QUOTE=rwong]
Nobody is being ignored. So your saying our constitution would be valid in other countries and supercedes theirs?
[/quote]
What are you babbling about ? If they are here, they are subject to our laws, which means they have rights.

[QUOTE=rwong]
Most of those protestors are harboring illegals.
[/quote]
And you have proof of this; proof that will stand up in court ?

[QUOTE=rwong]
The protestors are borderlining on civil disobedience, rather than standing up for injustice.
[/quote]
No, you are the one standing up for injustice.

80

[QUOTE=rwong]
Most of those protestors are harboring illegals.
[/QUOTE]
Ah bullshit. Cite?

Unless those unnamed select few are currently in power, then no we don’t have to worry about that.

What sentiments are those exactly?

When people break the law, evade, and disobey police instruction, is the common response to cause eleven skull fractures, broken bones and teeth, kidney injuries, and permanent brain damage, long after they are subdued? Oh, and it partially IS a racial issue, as there are plenty of racists who are on your side. There are others who have a problem with their religion, although that’s mostly a cover for racists who think Catholic Mexicans have too many babies and will therefore turn the U.S. into “North Mexico.”