# Legal immigrants on the outside because illegals didn't get the same opportunity **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 14, 2007, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147 "2007-09-14T05:52:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/101 "2007-09-14T23:17:42Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] Clearly some rights are reserved to citizens, like voting. But many of the amendments to the Constitution distinguish between “citizens” and “the people” or “any person.” Such as the 14th Amendment: If the Constitution says that no person may be denied equal protection of the laws, I’m not sure on what basis you seem to be arguing that only citizens should not be denied equal protection of the laws. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “All” persons is qualified. Those who are both: 1)“born and naturalized in the United States, AND” 2) “subject to the jurisdiction therein…” (emphasis mine). How do illegal aliens satisfy that two-pronged litmus test? They 1) were NOT born here or naturalized and 2) and they flout not just immigration laws, but tax laws, driving laws, and many others. And I’m not even talking about the gang members and those that have been ordsered out and either never left or snuck back in, committing a felony in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/102 "2007-09-14T23:21:40Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Do you dispute that illegal aliens are persons, or that they are within the jurisdiction of the US? [/QUOTE] You misstate the amendment. It says “subject to”, not “within”. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/103 "2007-09-14T23:25:36Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] You misstate the amendment. It says “subject to”, not “within”. [/QUOTE] It says both: > [@](#): > > Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Kokopilau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Kokopilau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kokopilau)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/104 "2007-09-14T23:34:07Z")
[QUOTE=danceswithcats] Don’t believe I stated or claimed that accusation is sufficient. If I did, please cite. To use the Sara Lee plant scenario, there is no suggestion that “this bunch is all illegal immigrants” any more so than a raid on a party attended by a bunch of twenty-something young adults presupposes “these kids are all underage drinkers”. On one hand, you have to show documentation that you are in the country legally, and on the other, you have to show that you are of age to consume alcoholic beverages legally. Failure to prove legal status in either case is cause for arrest. [/QUOTE] I think I misunderstood what you meant when you said “isn’t the term ‘illegal immigrant’ prima facie evidence.” I assumed you meant “the appellation itself is sufficient evidence”, but I think now you meant “the actual legal status of ‘illegal immigrant’ is prima facie evidence.” Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/105 "2007-09-14T23:37:05Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] “All” persons is qualified. Those who are both: 1)“born and naturalized in the United States, AND” 2) “subject to the jurisdiction therein…” (emphasis mine). How do illegal aliens satisfy that two-pronged litmus test? They 1) were NOT born here or naturalized and 2) and they flout not just immigration laws, but tax laws, driving laws, and many others. And I’m not even talking about the gang members and those that have been ordsered out and either never left or snuck back in, committing a felony in doing so. [/QUOTE] you are assuming (erroneously) that this part (“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”) referring to “any person” refers **only** to citizens (which is the subject of the rest of the amend. However, it clearly says “any **person** ” and **not** “any **citizen** ” and the application of the laws in the US also clearly and consistently keep to the “any person” vs. “any citizen” distinction. Criminal law, for example, does not have one set of rules of evidence for citizens and another for non citizens. You break the law in the US, cops must mirandize, even if you’re a tourist. The FF clearly had the ability to use either “all citizens” or “all persons”. They clearly also specified who would be a citizen. It seems rather tortourous logic that would allow some one to take the position you appear to be doing, that this amendment only guarentees rights to citizens, and not ‘any person with the jurisdiction’. It also seems odd to me that the radical right seem to ignore what the constitution _actually says_ in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Kokopilau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Kokopilau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kokopilau)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/106 "2007-09-14T23:42:23Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] “All” persons is qualified. Those who are both: 1)“born and naturalized in the United States, AND” 2) “subject to the jurisdiction therein…” (emphasis mine). How do illegal aliens satisfy that two-pronged litmus test? They 1) were NOT born here or naturalized and 2) and they flout not just immigration laws, but tax laws, driving laws, and many others. And I’m not even talking about the gang members and those that have been ordsered out and either never left or snuck back in, committing a felony in doing so. [/QUOTE] They don’t; no one is claiming that illegal aliens are citizens. But again, it makes it clear that “persons” and “citizens” are different categories, and one section describes how some “persons” become “citizens”, and the other states that noncitizen “persons” are still subject to due process and equal protection. Aliens don’t have to meet either of the first clause’s prongs to gain those rights. > [@](#): > > You misstate the amendment. It says “subject to”, not “within”. I’m rather impressed that you manage to say something like this, the \*very next post \*after you quote the actual wording of the amendment in question showing that the wording is indeed “within” and not “subject to” in the section **Richard Parker** was speaking about. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/107 "2007-09-14T23:52:15Z")
[QUOTE=Kokopilau] I think I misunderstood what you meant when you said “isn’t the term ‘illegal immigrant’ prima facie evidence.” I assumed you meant “the appellation itself is sufficient evidence”, but I think now you meant “the actual legal status of ‘illegal immigrant’ is prima facie evidence.” Is that correct? [/QUOTE] Yes, that is correct. Sorry that I wasn’t more clear. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/108 "2007-09-15T00:06:49Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] It says both: [/QUOTE] Yes, my mistake. I had assumed he was referring to the first clause. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/109 "2007-09-15T00:31:34Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] …if you provide a secure area to engage in that activity, then you can require, as a prerequisite to gaining access to that area, that people must show documentation of their legal status. Now, that will be a royal PITA, but it can be done… I don’t see how it could be called unconstitutional. [/QUOTE] Do you at least see that it _has_ been called unconstitutional, by real judges, no less? \*\*Giraffe[/B has it about right: “how is requiring documentation to enter the job center any different than requiring documentation to walk down the street? (From a legal standpoint, I mean).” The point being, the city brought the requirement to create a designated public forum on itself, by prohibiting certain types of speech on the streets and in parking lots. The public forum having been created, it cannot be restricted to a preferred class of persons within the U.S., because that would be illegal and make anyone with a conscience vomit. And there’s still a big empty evidence gap surrounding the claim that even an illegal immigrant asking for employment as a day laborer in this jurisdiction is committing a crime. And, man, is this ever all missing the point: Herndon, VA is a town on the skids, population-wise, but hardly endangered, and is being threatened _not at all_ by the menace of illegal immigration. It’s continuing efforts, not to enforce immigration law, but rather to make low-paid immigrant labor as uncomfortable as possible, are just plain illegal, whether people can wrap their minds around it or not. ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/110 "2007-09-15T00:47:23Z")
[QUOTE=danceswithcats] Isn’t the term ‘illegal alien’ _prima facie_ evidence? [/QUOTE] Wait, aren’t you a cop? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/111 "2007-09-15T01:37:09Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] But an illegal alien soliciting employment will result in a crime every time… [/quote] John, I don’t mean to be dense but could you please cite that it is a crime for a private citizen to pay someone to cut their grass without first checking their legal status? I know that businesses are often sanctioned for employing illegals but to my knowledge it has to do with federal requirements imposed on businesses. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/112 "2007-09-15T01:39:56Z")
[QUOTE=The King of Soup] Do you at least see that it _has_ been called unconstitutional, by real judges, no less? [/quote] No, because I can’t see that any town has ever done that and had it ruled unconstitutional. However, if a judge were to so rule that, I’d respectfully disagree. If the SCOTUS were to rule thusly, I would accept that precedent since that’s the way the system works. > [@](#): > > \*\*Giraffe[/B has it about right: “how is requiring documentation to enter the job center any different than requiring documentation to walk down the street? (From a legal standpoint, I mean).” The point being, the city brought the requirement to create a designated public forum on itself, by prohibiting certain types of speech on the streets and in parking lots. The public forum having been created, it cannot be restricted to a preferred class of persons within the U.S., because that would be illegal and make anyone with a conscience vomit. > > And there’s still a big empty evidence gap surrounding the claim that even an illegal immigrant asking for employment as a day laborer in this jurisdiction is committing a crime. I didn’t say he would be breaking the law, I said he would be asking someone else to break the law. I don’t see that the constitution protects speech, the contents of which is to ask someone to break the law. > [@](#): > > And, man, is this ever all missing the point: Herndon, VA is a town on the skids, population-wise, but hardly endangered, and is being threatened _not at all_ by the menace of illegal immigration. It’s continuing efforts, not to enforce immigration law, but rather to make low-paid immigrant labor as uncomfortable as possible, are just plain illegal, whether people can wrap their minds around it or not. Well, I’ve said twice now that it’s a separate issue as to whether or not this would be good public policy. Generally, I think we should do whatever is practical and reasonable to discourage illegal immigration. If this would be practical, then I have no objection. If it really is the case that the majority of these day laborers are legal immigrants or US citizens, then I’d say it’s a waste of time. Somehow I doubt that’s true, but if you have evidence that it is, I’d be happy to change my mind. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/113 "2007-09-15T01:55:09Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] John, I don’t mean to be dense but could you please cite that it is a crime for a private citizen to pay someone to cut their grass without first checking their legal status? I know that businesses are often sanctioned for employing illegals but to my knowledge it has to do with federal requirements imposed on businesses. [/QUOTE] [INA: Section 274A - Unlawful Employment of Aliens](http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/whd/0006.iana.htm) > [@](#): > > Section 274A as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) I9 Review > > (a) Making Employment of Unauthorized Aliens Unlawful. > > (1) In general.It is unlawful for a person or other entity > > (A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with respect to such employment, or > > (B)(i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) or (ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b). Subsection (b): > [@](#): > > (b) Employment Verification System.The requirements referred to in paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (a) are, in the case of a person or other entity hiring, recruiting, or referring an individual for employment in the United States, the requirements specified in the following three paragraphs: > > (1) Attestation after examination of documentation. > > (A) In general.The person or entity must attest, under penalty of perjury and on a form designated or established by the Attorney General by regulation, that it has verified that the individual is not an unauthorized alien by examining > > (i) a document described in subparagraph (B), or > > (ii) a document described in subparagraph (C) and a document described in subparagraph (D). A person or entity has complied with the requirement of this paragraph with respect to examination of a document if the document reasonably appears on its face to be genuine. If an individual provides a document or combination of documents that reasonably appears on its face to be genuine and that is sufficient to meet the requirements of the first sentence of this paragraph, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring the person or entity to solicit the production of any other document or as requiring the individual to produce such another document. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/114 "2007-09-15T03:49:07Z")
[QUOTE=black rabbit] Wait, aren’t you a cop? [/QUOTE] No. Not a LEO. ---
**Author:** ![The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@The\_King\_of\_Soup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_King_of_Soup)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/115 "2007-09-15T04:13:58Z")
Oh for Pete’s sake. **John Mace** can “respectfully disagree” all he wants, but until such time as SCOTUS weighs in on his side, he’ll be respectfully disagreeing from the contempt cage, at least in Fairfax County. His contention that when it comes to laws he doesn’t like he must answer _only_ to the Supreme Court is frequently shared, mostly by people _I_ wouldn’t invite to a picnic, but never upheld. Meanwhile, his citation of bits and pieces of a law respecting the duties of an employer with respect to illegal aliens still falls short of demonstrating that an illegal immigrant’s presence at a public venue specifically designated for soliciting employment on an impermanent day-to-day basis impacts the freedom-of-speech rights the venue was specifically directed by the courts to protect on behalf of everybody, specifically including illegal immigrants. The city of Herndon, once more with feeling, is not _trying_ to enforce immigration laws. It’s trying to selectively enforce minor municipal ordinances in a way that discourages low-wage immigrant labor (legal or not) from settling there. For the last time, it does not have any discernable problems traceable to immigration, legal or not. Herndon does have a problem, mind you: it just doesn’t quite want to acknowledge what it is. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/116 "2007-09-15T04:49:00Z")
**John** , Here’s the thing. It does in fact say it is unlawful to knowingly hire an illegal alien but: > [@](#): > > (C) Issuance of orders.If the administrative law judge determines, upon the preponderance of the evidence received, that a person or entity named in the complaint has violated subsection (a) or (g)(l), the administrative law judge shall state his findings of fact and issue and cause to be served on such person or entity an order described in paragraph (4), (5), or (6). > > (4) Cease and desist order with civil money penalty for hiring, recruiting, and referral violations.With respect to a violation of subsection (a)(l)(A) or (a)(2), the order under this subsection > > (A) shall require the person or entity to cease and desist from such violations and to pay a **civil penalty** in an amount of > > (i) not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom a violation of either such subsection occurred, Usually for something to be a crime it has criminal penalties. Notice the statute, while declaring it unlawful merely imposes a civil penalty. One could argue that there is apparently a distinction being made between unlawful acts and crimes. Seems specious but I can’t figure out any other reason the penalty for violating the act is specifically a civil fine. Fines can be either criminal or civil here they specifically designate it a civil penalty. I don’t pretend to have much knowledge of Federal law, but it seems an argument can be made that soliciting employment by an illegal alien is not necessarily an invitation to commit a crime. ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2007, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147/117 "2007-09-17T00:54:55Z")
> [@The King of Soup](#): > > And, man, is this ever all missing the point: Herndon, VA is a town on the skids, population-wise, but hardly endangered, and is being threatened not at all by the menace of illegal immigration. I’d like to know what you mean by “on the skids” and how it is germane to the OP. A number of explanations exist for flat line population growth, including urban decay, poor schools, high crime stats, low employment prospects, none of which seem to be applicable, here. I’m going to venture another guess, and **DudleyGarrett** can confirm or refute it. When a municipality has developed everything that isn’t preserved as open space, population will only grow if low density R zoned construction is torn down and replaced with higher density zoned structures. In an older, established community, that isn’t likely to happen. Does Herndon dislike Latinos? I’m going to say no, given that Latinos/Hispanic persons comprise over one quarter of the population, and are second only to white people, who make up a little better than half of the population. Where are these day laborers working? I don’t think agriculture is big in that area, but if I’m wrong, welcome the correction. There’s a lot of construction work along the Dulles corridor, but I doubt that’s the draw, as they are very likely to be union or prevailing wage governed jobsites. So what’s left? Residential construction, remodeling, and associated trades is where I place my bet. Older communities are hot regarding improve the inside, upgrade the amenities, stick on an addition rather than move. That’s what I’m seeing in my area, and that’s what the national trade magazines are telling me, too. FWIW-I own and operate a construction/contracting company. You know what else those magazines are talking about? Day laborers, and the world of a mess I could be in, were I to hire someone lacking the proper paperwork to prove their legal status. There are companies that do it to make a few extra bucks, just like there are people who drive without insurance, and guys who put on additions without getting plans and permits approved. Guess what-it’s all illegal! > [@The King of Soup](#): > > But I’ve seen no law ever that makes it illegal for someone to seek or accept employment no matter what their immigration status is, and the job-seeker is the only one who knows his status. While I will admit ignorance of Virginia law, (hello, **Bricker**?) the Commonwealth of PA in 18 Pa.C.S. § 902. Criminal solicitation. reads (a) DEFINITION OF SOLICITATION. – A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the intent of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission. Assuming that Mr. illegal immigrant day laborer doesn’t think he was magically teleported to Herndon overnight, he knows he is not in the US lawfully. He also knows that hiring him is an illegal act. To argue otherwise is disingenuous. > [@Giraffe](#): > > But wasn’t the original argument that the job center was a public area? If so, how is requiring documentation to enter the job center any different than requiring documentation to walk down the street? (From a legal standpoint, I mean.) Walking down the street is legal for everyone who is not (a) an illegal immigrant, who shouldn’t be in the country, or (b) a fugitive from justice, who should be in jail. Beyond that, walking down the street isn’t engaging in any conduct or attempting an act for which special restrictions apply. If I wish to: buy a firearm, carry a firearm, get a tattoo or body piercing, or purchase and consume alcohol, I have to show evidence satisfactory to the other party engaging in the business transaction that it is legal for me to engage in said transaction. If it’s not legal for me, then doing it is illegal for us. I dunno why this is such a hard point for folks to get in tune with. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-immigrants-on-the-outside-because-illegals-didnt-get-the-same-opportunity/419147.md?page=5)