[QUOTE=Maureen]
And you are frothing. Ravingly. Check the post above yours. I showed you why I think this law is targeting Hispanics. It’s in the OP. I’m going to give you a little time to go take your meds and calm down.
[/QUOTE]
The post above mine proved nothing. Neither did the OP. Neither has anything you have said in this thread. How about providing some cites instead of relying on your innate prejudices? Can you do that?
Maureen, back in post #45 I asked you this:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
But let me ask you this. What would you propose. We can starte with your idea of serioulsy funding the INS, but that will take quite a bit of time for the funding to get allocated and then for to see the results of it. So what would you propose in the meantime? Anything? Nothing?
[/QUOTE]
Do you care to share your thoughts?
For what, Dave? Fercryinoutloud, every single one of my responses to you has been in direct response to your first post. You remember? The one in which you state:
Now, you didn’t quote me, you didn’t quote any of the posters after me, you didn’t quote the article. About all I can get out of it is you’re the spouse of an immigrant and you’re more than happy to provide your credentials when demanded. Every response I’ve made to you has gone from there. Starting with my first one, in which I quite clearly stated:
I did limit my OP to the mayor. He’s a racist twit. This law stems from his racism, as it is legislation he is pushing due to one incident of violent crime involving an illegal immigrant. It supercedes federal law. There are already laws in place to require employers to hire only legal immigrants. If he wants to help the federales, he can certainly enforce those laws without passing additional legislation. As for the landlords, you still haven’t explained how they are supposed to know how someone is a legal immigrant, a citizen, or an illegal immigrant. Aside from requiring papers or a birth certificate, how are they supposed to know? Really?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Maureen, back in post #45 I asked you this:
Do you care to share your thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do, and I apologize for getting side tracked.
I think if local community forces wish to get involved with the immigration issue, they need to do so with federal sanction. I agree with your idea (somewhat) about acting locally; the laws need to be enforced and the INS obviously isn’t in a position to do so.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
It seemed obvious to me that the whole hispanic/race thing was a side issue and I treated it as such while still addressing it, but if you want to pretend that that’s what this thread is all about, go right ahead.
[/QUOTE]
Where did I “pretend that that’s what this thread is all about”? It was a moronic thing to bring up, and a moronic thing to actually argue about. Am I only permitted to say that about the main topic of the thread? Because this had earned several posts back and forth when I posted about it - what the fuck is your problem with me for mentioning it? What the hell are you smoking?
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
I favor a policy whose sanctions for employers is just as harsh as the punishments for illegal immigrants. If we, as a society, decide that a tough immigration policy is necessary, then we should crack down on employers just as hard as we do on the immigrants themselves. It’s as much about equity as anything else; the current practice of shipping off or jailing the immigrants while essentially letting the employers move on to another set of illegal employees gives the impression that America doesn’t really care about illegal immigration in any meaningful sense, and merely uses it as a tool to keep the brown folks in line.
So, if we’re going to be harsh on illegals, we should be harsh on employers too. If, on the other hand, we decide that a policy of amnesty and residency is appropriate for illegals, we should be similarly lenient on employers.
Personally, i would only support the harsh set of punishments if it were combined with an intelligent overall immigration policy, one that recognized the realities of both the push and pull factors in immigration patterns, and that acknowledged the American economy’s current reliance on illegal immigrants.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
2. Do you favor or oppose revisions to the immigration policy that would make it easier for persons of Mexican citizenship to enter and work in the U.S. legally? Why or why not?
[/quote]
Favor. See above.
And, on this issue, i don’t buy weirddave’s “treat all peoples equally” argument. Immigration law already makes distinctions based on a wide variety of rather arbitrary distinctions. Some nationalities, for example, can’t enter the green card lottery. Some nationalities find it much easier than others to get work visas. Some skill sets are favoured over others, even when there are often employers willing to hire immigrants in the less accessible categories.
Given the large demand for access from Mexicans, and the relatively easy access between Mexico and the United States, i see no problem with having immigrations quotas or formulae that take into account the uniqueness of the Mexican situation. It just makes sense.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
3. Do you favor or oppose the offering of services to persons who are in the U.S. without reference to their immigration status? If not a flat yes or no, what services? And again why or why not?
[/QUOTE]
I’m a bit torn on this. The American system of social services and other public amenities are being gutted, often by the same people who get so up in arms about illegal immigration. It’s a little hard to take them seriously when they keep reducing funds and ripping money out of social services, and then complain that these social services are suffering due to the overload of illegal immigrants.
On one hand, the pressure on social resources, and the dwindling funds available for them, suggests that we should probably reserve them for people who are here legally. On the other, if these illegals start dropping dead or whatever because we make no provision for them, we might be left with just as big an economic crisis, as well as a grave humanitarian crisis.
I guess i feel the same about this as about all of these issues—whatever we do should be done as part of a broad and comprehensive and sensible immigration policy, not as a series of ad hoc measures that effectively deny any links between these various pressing social and economic questions.
For the record, the reason I singled out Mexicans in question #2 is that, observably, the quotas for Mexican nationals entering the U.S. in most of the major categories of legal entry are a small percentage of “demand” in the market sense. I would venture to guess that it is far easier to enter the U.S. as an unskilled laborer seeking permanent residence, the same thing on a work permit, a trained nurse or M.D.-equivalent physician, etc., from Moldova or Chad than it is from Mexico, simply because the availability of a slot in the existing quotas is far more likely to be open or become available.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
As for the landlords, you still haven’t explained how they are supposed to know how someone is a legal immigrant, a citizen, or an illegal immigrant. Aside from requiring papers or a birth certificate, how are they supposed to know? Really?
[/QUOTE]
As I hinted above, private employers and Virginia’s DMV are both tasked with enforcing similar provisions of law. Here is how the DMV verifies identity and legal presence of their applicants:
To prove identity, applicants must present one document from the following list:
Primary Documents
[ul]
[li]Virginia DMV-issued driver’s license unexpired or expired for[/li]not more than one year.
[li]Virginia DMV-issued learner’s/instruction permit unexpired or[/li]expired for not more than one year.
[li]Virginia DMV-issued photo identification card [/li][li]Unexpired U.S. [issued by a U.S. state (other than Virginia),[/li]jurisdiction or territory] or Canadian driver’s license or learner’s/
instruction permit (with photo), not less than 60 days old (other
foreign country and international driver’s licenses are not
accepted).
[li]Birth document issued by a U.S. state, jurisdiction or territory (birth[/li]documents issued by a hospital, and foreign birth certificates are
not accepted).
[li]Unexpired photo ID card, not less than 60 days old, issued by a[/li]U.S. state (other than Virginia), jurisdiction or
territory (school/employee ID cards and Native American
citizenship cards are not accepted).
[li]Unexpired U.S. Active Duty/Retiree/Reservist Military ID Card[/li](DD-2 or Common Access Card). (Military dependent ID cards are
not accepted as primary documents).
[li]Unexpired or expired U.S. passport.[/li][li]Unexpired foreign passport [/li][li]U.S. Certificate of Naturalization.[/li][li]U.S. Certificate of Citizenship.[/li][li]Unexpired Conditional Resident Alien Card (I-551) valid for two[/li]years.
[li]U.S. Citizen Identification Card (I-179 or I-197)[/li][li]Unexpired Temporary Resident ID Card[/li][li]Unexpired Employment Authorization Card (I-688A, I-688B[/li]or I-766).
[li]Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (I-571).[/li][li]Resident Alien Card, Permanent Resident Card, Northern[/li]Marianas Card (I-551) unexpired or expired for not more than one
year .
[li]Certification of Report of Birth of a U.S. Citizen (DS-1350).[/li][li]Certificate of Birth Abroad (FS-545).[/li][li]Consular Report of Birth Abroad (FS-240).[/li][li]Asylees or applicants for asylum may present an application for[/li]asylum along with documentation from the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service or U.S. Immigration Court
indicating either receipt or approval of the application.
[/ul]
They must also present a secondary document, which may be from the list above or may be one of the following:
[ul]
[li]U.S. Selective Service Card.[/li][li]Court order for adoption, name change or gender change from a[/li]U.S. state, jurisdiction or territory. Must contain court seal. Abstracts
of criminal/civil convictions are not accepted).
[li]U.S. military discharge papers .[/li][li]Certified copy of school records/transcript issued by a school[/li]accredited by a U.S. state, jurisdiction or territory OR a Virginia
Department of Education Certificate of Enrollment form (a report
card is not accepted).
[li]Medicare Card/Medicaid Card.[/li][li]Unexpired welfare/social services identification card with photo,[/li]issued by a municipality.
[li]Marriage license issued by a U.S. state, jurisdiction, territory or[/li]municipality.
[li]Unexpired military dependent ID card with photo.[/li][li]Unexpired weapons or gun permit issued by federal, state or[/li]municipal government.
[li]Unexpired U.S. pilot’s license.[/li][li]INS form I-797 displaying applicant’s name (depending on the[/li]nature and purpose of the form, the I-797 may not be accepted).
[li]U.S. Department of State form DS-2019 (applicant’s name must[/li]appear on the form).
[li]Veterans Universal Access Identification Card.[/li][li]Authorization for Parole of an Alien into the U.S. (I-512).[/li][li]Virginia Criminal Justice Agency Offender Information Form.[/li][li]United States Probation Offender Information Form.[/li][li]INS student or dependent SEVIS I-20 with or without INS stamp[/li](applicant’s name must appear on the form).
[li]U.S. Federal Agency Employer ID Card with applicant’s name and[/li]photo.[/ul]
To establish their legal presence, the DMV requires that applicants produce:
[ul]
[li]Birth document issued by a U.S. state, jurisdiction or territory (birth[/li]documents issued by a hospital, and foreign birth certificates ar
not accepted).
[li]Certification of Report of Birth of a U.S. Citizen (DS-1350).[/li][li]Certificate of Birth Abroad (FS-545).Consular Report of Birth[/li]Abroad (FS-240).
[li]Unexpired or expired U.S. Passport.[/li][li]U.S.Certificate of Naturalization.[/li][li]U.S.Certificate of Citizenship.[/li][li]Unexpired U.S. Active Duty/Retiree/Reservist Military ID Card[/li](DD-2 or Common Access Card ).
[li]U.S. military discharge papers.[/li][li]Unexpired Employment Authorization Card (I-688A/I-688B, I-766).[/li][li]U.S. Citizen Identification card (I-179, I-197).[/li][li]Resident Alien Card, Permanent Resident Card (I-551) unexpired or[/li]expired for not more than one year.
[li]Unexpired foreign passport with an unexpired or expired for not[/li]more than one year I-551stamp.
[li]Unexpired Temporary Resident Card (I-688).[/li][li]Alien Registration Receipt Card (I-151).[/li][li]Unexpired Re-entry Permit (I-327).[/li][li]Unexpired or expired not more than one year temporary I-551[/li]stamp on an I-94, with photograph of the bearer.
[li]Unexpired Conditional Resident Alien Card (I-551)[/li][li]Unexpired foreign passport with an unexpired or expired visa and a[/li]valid I-94.
[li]INS form I-797 displaying applicant’s name (depending on the[/li]purpose and nature of the form, the I-797 may not be accepted).
[li]Unexpired Canadian Passport with valid I-94.[/li][li]Unexpired Refugee Travel Document (I-571).[/li][li]U.S. Department of Receptions and Placement Program Assurance[/li]Form (Refugee) and I-94 stamped Refugee.
[li]Form I-94 Record of Arrival and Departure stamped Asylee, Parolee[/li]or Parole, refugee, asylum, HP (humanitarian parolee), or PIP
(public interest parolee).
[li]Asylees or applicants for asylum may present an application for[/li]asylum along with documentation from the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service or U.S. Immigration Court
indicating either receipt or approval of the application.
[/ul]
Thanks, Bricker, I appreciate the information, and I’m sorry I didn’t see your other post earlier. But my question remains: is this town setting those types of guidelines to assist landlords in identifying illegal aliens, or just passing this law and expecting the property owners to muddle their own way through determining someone’s citizenship? Or is it a case of pass the law, work out the details later?
Again, it sounds to me as if the law was not thought through very well, or if it was, it’s being used mainly as a re-election tactic on the part of the mayor.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
(… a lot of stuff about ID cards in Virgina) [/Bricker]
So if I’m an employer in Virginia, and I get the two forms of ID, and the individual turns out to be illegal, I’m not going to get fined or go to jail, right? I’ve done what the State can reasonably expect to make sure I only hire people who are allowed to work. Virginia’s law has all the earmarks of legislation that was not written by someone in a kevlar vest. For example:
Now once again, I don’t see a mechanism for a landlord in Hazelton to protect himself. The illegal immigrants who inspired this ordinance had four different pieces of forged documentation on them. So if it turns out that a tenant gave me forged documents to prove he was legal, do I still pay the fine? It looks like he does, because there is no process laid out for him to protect himself legally.
Sometimes I like to switch from first to third person without explanation, because he likes to keep them on your toes.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
Sometimes I like to switch from first to third person without explanation, because he likes to keep them on your toes.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve heard referring to yourself in the third person is a symptom of schizophrenia.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
I’ve heard referring to yourself in the third person is a symptom of schizophrenia.
[/QUOTE]
He thinks they mean Mulitple Personality Disorder. She is often confused with schizoiphrenia.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
I’ve heard referring to yourself in the third person is a symptom of schizophrenia.
[/QUOTE]
That’s only what the voices want you to believe.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
Thanks, Bricker, I appreciate the information, and I’m sorry I didn’t see your other post earlier. But my question remains: is this town setting those types of guidelines to assist landlords in identifying illegal aliens, or just passing this law and expecting the property owners to muddle their own way through determining someone’s citizenship? Or is it a case of pass the law, work out the details later?
Again, it sounds to me as if the law was not thought through very well, or if it was, it’s being used mainly as a re-election tactic on the part of the mayor.
[/QUOTE]
If I saw that this law was accompanied by specific plans to, say, print out and distribute to commercial landlords a pamphlet with a list similar to the above, and a handy-dandy guide to what documents establish residency and identity, and a specific guide to landlords about what record-keeping requirements they had, then I’d be sanguine (well, relatively sanguine) that, regardless of the intentionality unerlying the law, it was a law that made sense.
If it’s simply tossed out there with no underlying support or guidance, I’m not so sanguine.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
He thinks they mean Mulitple Personality Disorder. She is often confused with schizoiphrenia.
[/QUOTE]
I have heard people confuse the diseases, but I don’t think that was the situation here. The context was a doctor on a radio show remarking on a caller’s inadvertent use of “himself” in the middle of a sentence; the caller was clearly not describing multiple personalities or referencing something that he believed someone else had done. In fact, in another part of the sentence he used “I”; he said something like “I did that himself”, which doesn’t jibe with the notion that he was confused about who he was referring to.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
So if I’m an employer in Virginia, and I get the two forms of ID, and the individual turns out to be illegal, I’m not going to get fined or go to jail, right? I’ve done what the State can reasonably expect to make sure I only hire people who are allowed to work. Virginia’s law has all the earmarks of legislation that was not written by someone in a kevlar vest. For example:
[/quote]
Correct.
Of course, the law is not a matter of magic words. If you are relying on a driver’s license written in crayon, or one that shows a photo of an eighty-year-old white man presented by a twenty-year-old Salvadorean, then your reliance on the document is objectively unreasonable.
But yeah – if you reasonably rely on documents, then you’re not liable.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
If you’re not breaking a law, you shouldn’t have to prove it. It’s the other way around here, remember?
[/QUOTE]
The proper, All-American response to anybody demanding you prove your US citizenship is, “Fuck you. Prove I’m not.” I’m not saying it works, especially if the HR guy is a resident alien*, but if more people reacted that way fewer people would try to cow them into showing their papers.
I heard a resident of Hazleton who was originally from Puerto Rico express concern that he would be caught up in this overly broad net since he is Hispanic and speaks with a thick accent, so he was planning to move away. But I suppose rural towns like Hazleton have plenty of other doctors so scaring off an American citizen is no big deal.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
The proper, All-American response to anybody demanding you prove your US citizenship is, “Fuck you. Prove I’m not.” I’m not saying it works, especially if the HR guy is a resident alien*, but if more people reacted that way fewer people would try to cow them into showing their papers.
[/QUOTE]
Employers do that to keep on the good side of current federal immigration law, the same one that provided the amnesty. Since they’re the ones that get hit with the sanctions, they probably will not stop asking for ID.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
The proper, All-American response to anybody demanding you prove your US citizenship is, “Fuck you. Prove I’m not.” I’m not saying it works, especially if the HR guy is a resident alien*, but if more people reacted that way fewer people would try to cow them into showing their papers.
[/quote]
Nobody should be asking about citizenship – the issue is legal residence. Persons may absolutely reasonably be asked to show they are legally resident at certain times – like applying for a job, renewing a license, or renting an aoartment.