If the law affected the illegals themselves only, would you still characterize the change as cruel? In fact, let’s talk about one specific case: single person who snuck in here three years ago. If we simply changed his status from “illegal” to “felon” is that cruel? If so, why?
If you choose to respond, please address my specific questions. Thanks.
I strongly agreed with just about everything in this post. I just snipped this paragraph out (rather than quoting the whole thing and bolding this section) because it brings up a valid point that nobody has really addressed in this thread so far.
My mom came to America legally and earned her citizenship by the (long, difficult) standard process. I was six when she took the oath of citizenship and I still remember the tears in her and my dad’s eyes.
What does it say to her if we say, “Well, we have all these immigration rules in place, but if you sneak in and fall in love, I mean really fall in love, we’ll make an exception.” I assure you my mom and dad were really in love. Really, really in love. They still obeyed the law.
Not to say that Gustave and his wife aren’t really in love, or there’s any ulterior motive to their marriage. I don’t know them.
You’re already married.
Again, Unregistered Bull, you demostrate your powerful technique of debate and discourse. I salute your proud national origin: :wally You show shining glory on all of your Putzian Traditions. I hope to see your National Flag of Putz at future rallies for the “reform” of those pesky immigration laws.
Generally speaking, the assumption of a false identity via the acquisition and purchase of forged documents used to establish a false, legal persona for US employment, such as falsified or stolen:
Birth Certificates,
SS Numbers,
US Drivers Licenses,
and the like either do, or should constitute more than mere “misdemeanors”. These acts, when take as a whole, constitute fraud with intent to obtain personal gain, and represent a crime, however you may choose to classify it.
The simple act of crossing the fucking border itself is a crime, unless of course one does so legally. Is that so inpenetrably hard for you to get?
When an illegal alien uses false papers to get and obtain work in the US, it is a crime above and beyond the simple act of crossing.
Does the allegation that I am, indeed, a black-hearted son-of-bitch change the laws of the land? If so, how?
Does it penetrate your thick, fucking skull that we live in a constitutional republic? The central feature of a constitutional republic is that we are ruled by laws, not by what “feels good” or seems compassionate.
How compassionate is it to give the illegals who happen to have the advantage of closer borders special dispensation? Are you prepared to extend this largesse to any and every illegal alien?
Is there a limit to your desire to fling wide the borders, to trivialize and reduce the concept of citizenship to a matter of being willing to evade, flaunt and violate the law?
As has already been stated, you are already married. And you’ve gotten some really crappy legal advice so far. I can’t write more right now - I have to run off to work so I can bring in foreigners to steal American jobs - but there are nonprofits all over the country that provide advice to people in situations like yours (which is not AT ALL unusual, by the way). Take a look here and see if any of the agencies can help you, and if they can’t, they should be able to refer you to a competent immigration attorney.
[QUOTE=Ink a dink a dink]
It’s incredible, and my tax dollars are paying for their services. Look, some may pay with a TAX ID#, but you can’t tell me all those day laborers are paying and reporting and filing tax returns. But are they going to hospitals or trying to get other services on my dime? You can put money on that.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, most go to “clinicas,” and pay with what little money they have. That’s what we did when we suffered fetal demise. I suppose my child would eventually have gone to public school, but, as the cliche goes, “If you don’t like education, try ignorance.” I had a Nicacuargan girlfriend here once who not only graduated top of her highschool class, but is now a successful lawyer. The Junior College law allowed her her success. She was initially illagal for very similar reasons.
[QUOTE=Ink a dink]
I realize that it’s much more than a question of racism. t a racist. (And I really get pissed off when I feel like I have to make that assertation just to take part in this discussion. I should have no bearing.) I fully believe that anyone can make a better life here in the land of opportunity - which might be naively optimistic, but I also believe it has to be done legally. Can I stress the legal part again?
[/QUOTE]
I promise not to call you a racist, okay? And I believe it should be preferrably done legally as well. The fact is that globalization makes it a morally irrelevant.
I’ve gone over a couple of (neutral studies) and they both say that illegal immigration is an economic wash in the U.S. No economic harm is done, but the media sure like to make peole think they’re under some kind of attack.
Granted, there are those undesirables who end up here, and I whole-heartedly agree they should be jailed–not deported.
[QUOTE=ink a dink a dink]
I also believe EVERY immigrant should have to learn English. It IS our country’s language.
[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, the U.S. has no “official language.” Nevertheless, of course it behooves them to learn it. Do you honestly think there is any immigrant who would not like to learn English? Or any other language for that matter? Wouldn’t you like to learn Mandarin, especially since we are so indebted to the Chinese that you may have to go there for economic reasons? Manadarin is hard, but English is no piece of cake either.
[QUOTE=ink a dink a dink]
despite what the minoroity rates are or are projected to be. It is English. If I can’t communicate with you, I’m not going to hire you.
[/QUOTE]
Well, thousands of Korean owned sweat shops do, and they make out quite fine. Maybe you should reconsider.
[QUOTE=ink a dink a dink]
I even know something about trying to get a marriage visa - a couple of years ago - right after 9/11, I was involved with a man from the UK. We were trying to get married and so I know the paperwork involved. But if it’s worth it - YOU DO IT.
[/QUOTE]
Oh I will, and we’ll pay our restortutions.
[QUOTE=ink a dink a dink]
Just my opinion. YMMV.
Respectfully,
[/QUOTE]
With all equal respect.
[QUOTE=cerberus]
They guy is one hundred flavours of stupid, narcissistic and careless in his choices and conduct. And when the consequences arrive, well, it’s everyone else’s fault, and not his own.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to know me quite well considering we’ve never met. I’ll admit to one or two flavours of stupid, but “narcissistic”? Do you have a dictionary? And I’m fully prepared to pay for my errors, but I’m not sure one should pay for an action that wasn’t a crime when it was commited. The pit–as far as I know–is to vent anger. That’s all I meant to do. The vitriol of your response suggests that maybe you have misinterpreted my intent.
So you knowingly aid, abet and support a criminal. After you know of her illegal status, you jumped right in.
Stupid: That’s the part where you needlessly complicated your life by jumping right in.
Narcissistic: That’s the part where your desires and priorities counted more to you than the rights of others and the prevailing laws of the land.
So she’s a nice, loving criminal. So it’s alright to abet her in her fraudulent status.
She isn’t here legally, so there is some sort of fraud going on here regarding her work and tax status. Fraud, crime, comprende? You and her employer are helping in this crime, for your own personal gain.
She came here illegally. She has a sad story. Shall we let in every single person in who has a sad story? And I have little doubt that “Mom” did the same thing (coming here illegally) but somehow got legalized under some amnesty program.
Yes, stuuuuuuuuupid. You put yourself in this position. She put herself in this position. Stuuuuuuuuupiiiiiiiiiiiiiid.
Her (and your) utter disregard for the concept of legal immigration makes her situation just. Just with respect to the immigrants who do it legally, and to the citizens who follow the legal process for naturalizing a spouse. Your nad her contempt for the process is an insult to these people.
Contempt for the law yields consequences.
We actually do understand the “complexity” of the “whole issue.” But we see through to the rotten core of non-ethics employed by you and your wife. You place personal gain above the law (stupid, careless, narcissistic), because, somehow, you are more important than all those suckers who do it legally.
Those of us who respect and admire those legal immigrants who do the process with care, respect, diligence and ethics cannot sit idly by and listen to you whinge on about the consequences of your dirty little shortcuts.
[QUOTE=cerberus]
So you knowingly aid, abet and support a criminal. After you know of her illegal status, you jumped right in.
Stupid: That’s the part where you needlessly complicated your life by jumping right in.
Narcissistic: That’s the part where your desires and priorities counted more to you than the rights of others and the prevailing laws of the land.
Stupid and careless and narcissistic. It’s our problem that you’re too stupid to see the problem. You break the law, you abet a criminal, you aid and abet her fraudulent work and tax status. But it’s our problem. Riiiiiiiiight.
So she’s a nice, loving criminal. So it’s alright to abet her in her fraudulent status.
She isn’t here legally, so there is some sort of fraud going on here regarding her work and tax status. Fraud, crime, comprende? You and her employer are helping in this crime, for your own personal gain.
She came here illegally. She has a sad story. Shall we let in every single person in who has a sad story? And I have little doubt that “Mom” did the same thing (coming here illegally) but somehow got legalized under some amnesty program.
Yes, stuuuuuuuuupid. You put yourself in this position. She put herself in this position. Stuuuuuuuuupiiiiiiiiiiiiiid.
Her (and your) utter disregard for the concept of legal immigration makes her situation just. Just with respect to the immigrants who do it legally, and to the citizens who follow the legal process for naturalizing a spouse. Your nad her contempt for the process is an insult to these people.
Contempt for the law yields consequences.
We actually do understand the “complexity” of the “whole issue.” But we see through to the rotten core of non-ethics employed by you and your wife. You place personal gain above the law (stupid, careless, narcissistic), because, somehow, you are more important than all those suckers who do it legally.
Those of us who respect and admire those legal immigrants who do the process with care, respect, diligence and ethics cannot sit idly by and listen to you whinge on about the consequences of your dirty little shortcuts.
[/QUOTE]
Well, then, on your advice, I will deport her personally. Maybe even beat her a little–not that the law requires it, but it seems it will satisfy you somewhat. Will that make you calm down? (Oh, and I’ll turn myself in to the proper authorities; maybe even then they’ll send me to Donovan for ten or so years.) And then all our immigration problems will be solved. And NAFTA will work perfectly. And “globalization” will bring Heaven to earth, or at least the Western hemishpere.
And when she becomes a legal immigrant, she’ll greet you nicely with a smile.
[QUOTE=Gustave]
And when she becomes a legal immigrant, she’ll greet you nicely with a smile.
[/QUOTE]
Because she’s Catholic, and highly admires Saints like you and Bricker
Cerberus sure seems riled up. Maybe it’s more than just a respect for the law, maybe not. I wonder what he’d do to a jaywalker–a Canadian one, for example, one with an expired visa. This is pure conjecture, and I don’t mean to imply anthing at all. It just crossed my mind.
Since someone else already brought up residency in California as a special “appeal to authority” sort of thing, well here. I live in southern California too. Before that, I lived in Texas. I guess both places can be called oversized “border towns”. I don’t have a problem with the Invading Hordes Of Illegal Mexicans Who Want To Destroy The American Way Of Life. If anything, I see them as believing in it and wanting a piece of it.
I also find it strange that this has become such a big issue all of a sudden. We’ve had Mexicans - legal or otherwise - here since before California or Texas were even states. It has not been a big issue until now. I wonder why.
I’ll tell you why. I suspect The Right will make it one of their banner wedge isues for the 2006 “midterm” elections, along with an antigay “family values” proclamation. In short, immigration and values will be the platform because everything else has gone to shit for them. It will be an appeal to intolerance, bigotry and racism, all wrapped up in the flag.
That is my assessment and my prediction. If any kind Dopers want to book mark this for future reference, please do. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong, but I don’t see that happening.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
It doubt I would. My question was simply trying to seperate two issues that seem to be wound together in your situation. One is the fact that you knowingly married someone who did not, and possibly may not, have the right to live here. You weighed the degree of difficulty and made a decision. One that I’d probably make myself.
The other issue is the degree to which you got kinda screwed yourself after the fact. You agreed to marry your wife, even with the “difficulties” you knew might be in store for you. But now the law might change and fuck your equation up completely. I do feel for you, as I do not see how you could have foreseen that things would escalate to where they threaten now.
While I do see the practical benefits of making illegal immigrants themselves felons and support sending illegals back and securing the borders and going after employers, etc., I do not think that doing so means that there aren’t ways to craft laws to take extraordinary situations like yours into account. For instance, even IF it turns out your wife becomes a felon if this law is passed, I do not think that automatically means that you would become a felon for living with her. I would guess there are currently thousands of felons living with wives and mothers, and as these felons are caught, we don’t expect these family members to be arrested as well. I am not a lawyer, but we could craft the law to be anything that we want. And enforce it the way we want, just as we haven’t enforced our immigration laws all these years.
That said, I hope you find a way through your particular situation. And thanks for the honest answer to my question.
[/QUOTE]
Except, dipwad, that if you had read the OP with an ounce of coherence, you would see that the rant was about the House’s “get tough on illegals” bill that you like so much making him, himself, a felon for doing his duty as husband to his wife – to wit, he’s giving her “aid and comfort” by sharing a home with her.
But don’t let the immorality of a law by both Biblical and humanistic ethics divert you from your blindness against illegal aliens.
By the way, you’ve never explained to me what Native American tribe you belong to. Because if you’re opposed to “illegal immigrants” you obviously must be full blooded Native American, or else a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=SteveG1]
I’ll tell you why. I suspect The Right will make it one of their banner wedge isues for the 2006 “midterm” elections, along with an antigay “family values” proclamation. In short, immigration and values will be the platform because everything else has gone to shit for them. It will be an appeal to intolerance, bigotry and racism, all wrapped up in the flag.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re right, because immigration (illegal or otherwise) has been going on for a long time. Strange how it politically comes up now, when probably nothing will come of it. It’s just part of globalization. I’m all for the law, but when things like Rampart happen, it seems to me that it’s more about economics. Then some politician comes along and (usually with the help of talk radio), gets people all riled up. They go to the border, giving themselves ridiculous titles, and accomplish practically nothing. I won’t use the terms bigotry or racism, but if it walks like a duck and squacks like a duck…
L.A. is the largest Canadian city outside of Toronto; it’s the largest Thai city outside of Bangkok; it’s the largest Armerian city outside of Yerevan; add Iran, etc. But those dirty Mexicans, damned if they’ll get in.
I’m going to agree with SteveG1 here. Except I don’t think the Republicans figured the Dems would counter with the 'Well, they’re here, let’s make ‘em legal… then get tough!’ argument. Which it seems they did.
I wish the best for you and your wife, man. All I can suggest is that you try to find the right people to make this work for you. Eva Luna might know who. Is she still here?
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Except, dipwad, that if you had read the OP with an ounce of coherence, you would see that the rant was about the House’s “get tough on illegals” bill that you like so much making him, himself, a felon for doing his duty as husband to his wife – to wit, he’s giving her “aid and comfort” by sharing a home with her.
[/QUOTE]
Man, you’ve got a bug up your ass. Be careful he doesn’t sting you on your lip. I’ve addressed this above. If you want a specific answer to a specific question, ask it.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
But don’t let the immorality of a law by both Biblical and humanistic ethics divert you from your blindness against illegal aliens.
[/QUOTE]
I have no blindness. It’s funny you assume so. I guess anyone who disagrees with you must have not thought about the issue. Or do you have a problem with people who believe in the rule of law in general? And tell me, how does it fell to have a that monopoly on morality?
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
By the way, you’ve never explained to me what Native American tribe you belong to. Because if you’re opposed to “illegal immigrants” you obviously must be full blooded Native American, or else a hypocrite.
[/QUOTE]
My ancestors came here through Ellis Island, completely legally.
[QUOTE=SteveG1]
I’ll tell you why. I suspect The Right will make it one of their banner wedge isues for the 2006 “midterm” elections, along with an antigay “family values” proclamation. In short, immigration and values will be the platform because everything else has gone to shit for them. It will be an appeal to intolerance, bigotry and racism, all wrapped up in the flag.
That is my assessment and my prediction. If any kind Dopers want to book mark this for future reference, please do. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong, but I don’t see that happening.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see immigration being much of an issue except possibly in states without immigration problems. Politicians are awfully squeamish when it comes to losing large blocks of voters. Coming out in favor of stronger punishments for illegals may cost you the hispanic vote. Coming out in favor of of complete amnesty for all illegals and you could lose another block of voters, and it wouldn’t just be the racist and bigoted voters either (I’m hoping you weren’t reaching for the big brush there).
I predict this issue will drop off of the radar fast in favor of homeland security and energy costs. Those are issues with much easier answers.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
My ancestors came here through Ellis Island, completely legally.
[/QUOTE]
And thanks to amnesty in 1986 and then with the NACARA law I became legal and then a citizen, there is nothing wrong in changing the law to fit more with the real world.
Incidentally, before your ancestors came to Ellis island pretty much anyone could enter the USA, Ellis island was the beginning to controlling the influx, simply if your ancestors had not come then, they would be in the same “boat” with many of the illegal immigrants, but times chance, the example of Ellis island is irrelevant now, it is time to control the borders in a different way and better; but then, with what money? The Senate solution that was put on hold has the way to fund better policing of our borders, your sick inhuman fairytale solutions take money away from other needs.
Your bug in your but of those people being illegals is solved by making them legal, and to make them follow and pay a fine for their previous transgression. A transgression which attempts to make it a felony, just like prohibition, will prove to be more expensive and damaging to society once draconian solutions are attempted to solve human problems.
*Reporter: Mr Ness! Word is they’re going to repeal Prohibition. What’ll you do then?
Eliot Ness: I think I’ll have a drink. * - From the Untouchables.
[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
I don’t see immigration being much of an issue except possibly in states without immigration problems. Politicians are awfully squeamish when it comes to losing large blocks of voters. Coming out in favor of stronger punishments for illegals may cost you the hispanic vote.
[/quote]
May? the local, usually conservative Hispanic paper, has no kind words for the draconian Republican plan that is what remains as an option (unlikely to be considered since the senate and the president have other ideas)
I found that the Republican representative I have down here is calling the Hispanics that got in with the amnesty in 1986 frauds, because there were not that many farmer workers and lots more got amnesty.. and this guy is allowed to make laws? The amnesty in 1986 also covered people that could prove they were in the USA before 1982, not all those workers were in farming as (R) Congressman J.D. Hayworth imagines his idyllic [del]plantation[/del] past
And it is an amazing mislead for opponents of the senate plan to call it an amnesty, the reality is that fines and many hoops will have to be passed by the former illegals, and indeed the plan had enough votes to pass in the Senate, but I wish I could not apply the racist brush to some of the members of the senate that prevented a vote with procedural moves, but it is hard not to see it when the majority in the senate got convinced by the arguments.
Uh, you don’t know that the INS has been absorbed by homeland security?
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
And thanks to amnesty in 1986 and then with the NACARA law I became legal and then a citizen, there is nothing wrong in changing the law to fit more with the real world.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. And when a country has 11 million people within their borders illegally, and hundreds or thousands more sneaking daily, it sounds like something needs to be doen to remedy that. Enforcig the laws we have , srtrengthening them, as well as adding new ones all makes sense. You want the law to bend to reward illegal behavior. I want the law to get firmer to stop people from breaking it and reward those who seek to come here legally.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Incidentally, before your ancestors came to Ellis island pretty much anyone could enter the USA, Ellis island was the beginning to controlling the influx, simply if your ancestors had not come then, they would be in the same “boat” with many of the illegal immigrants, but times chance, the example of Ellis island is irrelevant now, it is time to control the borders in a different way and better;
[/QUOTE]
Knowing who is coming into your country is a damn good start. And checking them for disease is a pretty good idea, too. Ellis Island did both those things. While I do agreee that legal immigration needs an overhaul, it must at least be able to do those two things.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
but then, with what money? The Senate solution that was put on hold has the way to fund better policing of our borders, your sick inhuman fairytale solutions take money away from other needs.
[/QUOTE]
Any money spent takes away from another need. So what? This is critical, an issue of national security and sovereignity. First you fund things like this and the military, and than you fund other stuff. And don’t forget the savings involved. You seem to know my position from other threads, so a won’t cite the same information again.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Your bug in your but of those people being illegals is solved by making them legal,
[/QUOTE]
Fantastic! Now I know how to solve the problem with murder, embezzlement, and rape. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
and to make them follow and pay a fine for their previous transgression.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. You’re rewarding their illegal behavior. There are people who want the same thing these law-breakers do, to live in the U.S., people who have been waiting patiaently to do so legally. This is a slap in their face. Right now, if the idea to come to the U.S. dawns on someone, they have two options: attempt to do so legally and wait in line or sneak in. There is no third option of come here, pay some extra money and your on your way to citizenship. This “earned amnesty” creates this third way where it was not an option. Again, a slap into the face of those who are trying to come here legally. Not only that, it makes a mockery of our laws and will simply encourage more illegal immigration. But I guess that’s fine with you.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
A transgression which attempts to make it a felony, just like prohibition, will prove to be more expensive and damaging to society once draconian solutions are attempted to solve human problems.
[/QUOTE]
I simply think the cost to our nation—monetary and otherwise—is higher if you don’t control the borders and enforce our immigration laws. I was glad to see the recent sweep that rounded up both management and illegals working at a pallet manufacturer. Maybe there’s hope for the rule of law yet.