It’s a trick question!
No, actually I skipped it the first time because it’s a silly question to ask. It does beg the question though: Why would we allow political advocacy by those not here legally?
If Chen019’s quote is right,
then the wages being paid to those immigrants are too low. Indeed, I’ve met Americans who work in two or even three jobs to get by. If that’s true, then minimum wages are too low – perhaps because of all the union-busting that goes on in the US – and they should be raised so that people can live on the minimum wage.
Why is it a silly question? Do you support random checks of people’s papers to make sure they are here legally? Whose papers will be checked?
In fact, you don’t know if any of the people demonstrating for immigration reform were here illegally. You can’t tell by looking at someone if they are here illegally, were legal immigrants, or were born here. Although clearly a significant wing of the anti-immigration reform movement believes that you can.
Because political advocacy comes under the First Amendment, and no part of the Bill of Rights is limited to U.S. citizens, nor to legal residents. Broadly speaking, U.S. citizens have only two classes of rights non-citizens have not: (1) Right of full political participation, to the extent of voting and holding public office. (Of course, even citizens can be deprived of those rights, as by felony conviction in some states, or adjudication of mental incompetence.) (2) Right of residence on U.S. soil. No exceptions to that that I know of. If you’re convicted of a crime and you’re a citizen, the state can deprive you of most of your civil rights, lock you up, even kill you; but it cannot deport you. (Unless you’re a naturalized citizen and deprived of citizenship by due process of law.) Exile is a punishment unknown to American law.
As it stands currently, whether or not the law is written this way or not, if an illegal alien gets deported there is no way in hell is granted a work or other visa.
Because of the First Amendment.
This first amendment: First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia?
How does that apply to non-citizens?
do you have reading comprehension problem, BrainGlutton? I didn’t say it’s easy for Mexicans to come HERE. I said it’s easy for illegal immigrants here in America to go to MEXICO. And live there using money from savings they made working in America, while freeing up the jobs for Americans. Meanwhile, Americans would find it relatively difficult to go to Mexico by themselves. Mexico’s greatest strength apparently is not their diversity…
All of the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens. See post #44.
No, they wouldn’t. What are you talking about?
The really long delays are not administrative in nature but rather laws specifying annual quotas for certain categories of permanent resident. Someone stuck in a queue for five or twenty years typically isn’t stuck simply because a bureaucrat hasn’t gotten around to reviewing his application, he is stuck there because only X number of people are allowed by law to obtain permanent residency in a year, and there are 5X people in front of him in the queue (a horrible oversimplification for illustrative purposes only). So this would mostly be a legislative issue rather than an administrative issue.
In contrast, my permanent residency application based on marriage to a US citizen has no legally defined quotas and took about six months to process, and my removal of conditions after two years took four months. Still pretty lengthy, but at least not measured in years.
Then why is campaign finance illegal from foreign sources?
Except the company had gone through this process every year for the past 10 years or so, because they have chronic problems finding unskilled labor.
But that’s a whole separate discussion. I thought the larger discussion here was about whether there is ever a legitimate need for U.S. companies to hire foreign workers, and if so, what might a reasonable process be like for doing so within the law.
Correct, Unions should logically oppose this influx of low skill migrants who are driving wages through the floor. Also, those who are concerned about the rate of unemployment should logically oppose low skill immigration.
Exactly what are you basing this ridiculous idea on? tons of Americans retire to Mexico and other third world countries. Poor countries WANT americans spending their money there, thats just fucking common sense.
Just ask Rush Limbaugh. I hear he’s moving to Costa Rica.
I’m not sure – perhaps because the federal courts have not been entirely consistent in applying that bullshit “money = speech” theory (that gets in the way of the campaign-finance reform that we so urgently need to put down plutocracy in the U.S.; but that’s another debate).
In this thread recently you argued for “skills-based” immigration standards. Does the fourth of Lind’s proposals meet your criteria there?
And what is “e-verify”?
As for “end birthright citizenship,” that would require either a constitutional amendment, or a major Supreme Court decision reversing an interpretation of the 14th Amendment going back to 1898. Don’t expect to see either in your lifetime.
:mad: Rush! Don’t tease us!
Here’s some basic info on e-Verify. The program’s effectiveness has been mixed; there have been problems with data verification, both with false positives and false negatives.