McClatchy News: A guide to the new Immigration Bill

[JMS]

Hmmm, no trial, interesting, see my above post to MSF, because you need to remember that the Constitution which you supposedly support grants all the RIGHT to a trial, regardless of what you want. Thank God you're not in charge because America would cease to be a Republican Democracy and would then become a facist state.

AsburySkinsFan. I think you're wrong here. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution makes it the federal government's responsibility to protect the member states from invasion. The Constitution is not on the illegals side here. It's on the American Citizens side.

Illegal immigrants are criminals. They are in violation of our laws. "Trials" to deport such people are not akin to trials given to citizens. Basically show papers to the effect you have the right to live here, or be deported. It's not akin to the multi year legal process OJ was afforded.

Likewise it's not unAmerican to wish our laws are enforced. It's not like we haven't had immigration laws for more than 100 years. It's not like Mexico's immigration laws aren't more stringent than Americas. It's not like America doesn't currently accept more legal immigrants than any other country on earth.

The current immigration Bill does nothing to provide a solution for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants flooding into our country to find work which they can not find in their own country. The bill merely addresses the folks currently in the country by putting the vast majority of them on a slow tedious path to citizenship. Why slow, why tedious; because it allows them to be exploited longer. The day these folks become citizens, is the day they can stop being exploited; which is the same day another batch of illegals will come over the boarder for those low waged jobs, and hopefully on their part; citizenship. This bill makes the problem worse and doesn't address the underlying problem. American corporations which love the cheap labor and the fact that illegals aren't able to organize or speak up for themselves.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Obviously we read the document differently. I believe it refers to AMERICAN CITIZENS ONLY.

Then you need to go back and re-read the equal protections amendemnt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

ALL People, not just the one's you want to be protected or the one's that you like protected, ALL.

[Sarge]

Then you need to go back and re-read the equal protections amendemnt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

ALL People, not just the one's you want to be protected or the one's that you like protected, ALL.

And before the 14th amendment it says, right at the very tippy top

We the People of the United States

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Then you need to go back and re-read the equal protections amendemnt:....

.....ALL People, not just the one's you want to be protected or the one's that you like protected, ALL.

Which is why, as I've commented in the past, I'm not a big fan of the vast majority of the Amendments beyond #10.

That's also part of why I believe we need to go back to Ground Zero and start over from scratch.... we've revised the document so far away from what I believe it was intended to be; both via Amendment and via Legislature and Judicial decision that I'm not sure this country looks anything like what the Founders envisioned.

[AsburySkinsFan]

AsburySkinsFan. I think you're wrong here. Illegal imigrants are criminals. They are in violation of our laws. "Trials" to deport such people are not akin to trials given to citizens. Basically show papers to the effect you have the right to live here, or be deported. It's not akin to the multi year leagal process OJ was afforded.

Likewise it's not unAmerican to wish our laws are enforced. It's not like we haven't had immigration laws for more than 100 years. It's not like Mexico's immigration laws aren't more stringent than Americas.

Look its like this, if for many years certain laws were all but ignored as irrelevant by governing officials then how in the world can you come back years later and claim that these laws are now legit? As someone noted earlier there are plenty of laws on the books that make certain actions illegal, but if those are not enforced equally then one tends to doubt whether or not the government really believes that the government views them as being worthy of enforcement, thereby nullifying the law via a sense of apathy toward the law. This is what has happened with immigration law for the past decades. There was a token effort to enforce such laws and now all the sudden we are supposed to believe that the threat is as great as they say? It really does beg the question to whether or not what they are saying is true.

BTW, how many 9/11 hijackers came through Mexico? Oh, and how many entered the country illegally? My guess is that Al Qaeda is not so stupid as to risk breaking meanial laws in their attempt to bring large scale attacks. Its like speeding on the way to make a bank robbery, it just doesn't make sense.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Which is why, as I've commented in the past, I'm not a big fan of the vast majority of the Amendments beyond #10.

That's also part of why I believe we need to go back to Ground Zero and start over from scratch.... we've revised the document so far away from what I believe it was intended to be; both via Amendment and via Legislature and Judicial decision that I'm not sure this country looks anything like what the Founders envisioned.

The problem is that the Constitution allows for continued change and reform, so it is completely American, its just a version of America where you find yourself in the extreme minority, and potentially not that American at all. Maybe America left you behind, or maybe it never existed to begin with.

[Sarge]

Then you need to go back and re-read the equal protections amendemnt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

ALL People, not just the one's you want to be protected or the one's that you like protected, ALL.

You also left out the first part of the Amendment to fit your flawed arguement

It reads

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.

[Destino]

Not much of an argument. You either have a legal right to be here or you don't.

Or you request asylum.... or any number of legal strategies employed to delay or stop the process of deportation. This done 20million times can't be done with our current immirgation trial system if you want the situation to be dealt with reasonably.

That's redicoulous. This administration and others have created this problem by lax enforcement of laws. Both at the boarders and in our communities. They created this problem and don't have the political will to stand up to the corporations who profit directly from the government policies. So they want us to allow them to continue to worsen the situation under the guise of solving the situation. This bill doesn't solve anything it makes it worse. Orders of magnatude worse.

I disagree this bill would solve the problem if the enforcement side is actually carried out. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that it won't but when that is the case it doesn't really matter what the bill does.

This bill is also bad because it sets aside a huge segment of the population, 12, 25 million folks who are now legal immigrants; and locks them into that limbo no citizen status for more than a decade.

Nonsense. That "limbo" is called "legal resident" and they are afforded pretty much all the same rights.

The bill goes further and creates 400,000 - 500,000 temp visa's for farm workers who will have no path for citizenship. This goes a long way to create a permanent non citizen worker class, which American corporations have pined for. It's not a good thing for the republic.

This is a problem? There is clearly a demand for unskilled labor that IMO should be met. You may think it's not good for the republic but this nation has relied on unskilled immigrant labor for much if not all of it's history. Sadly allowing them to come here to stay isn't getting by those concerned immigrants will destroy our culture... a repeated theme in this nations history.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And before the 14th amendment it says, right at the very tippy top

We the People of the United States

That's exactly right, We the People of the United States grant to ALL people equal protection under the law. If they only wanted it to be citizens then something tells me that they had the vocabulary to do so, but instead they said ALL people, because ALL people have these unalienable rights not just American citizens.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You also left out the first part of the Amendment to fit your flawed arguement

It reads

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.

The 14th Amendment further expands this understanding of who is protected under the Law, that's why it is an Amendment.

[Destino]

That's exactly right, We the People of the United States grant to ALL people equal protection under the law. If they only wanted it to be citizens then something tells me that they had the vocabulary to do so, but instead they said ALL people, because ALL people have these unalienable rights not just American citizens.

You are correct. The rights are given to us by our creator... at least that's how the story goes. That's what the US was all about - that government did not grant anyone their rights, that it instead worked to deny them. The constitution is a document that in part limits the governments ability to deny the rights given to us by the good lord.

To hear "patriots" these days our rights are granted to us and only to some of us. They've lost sight of what the nation stands for.

[AsburySkinsFan]

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.

Not to mention that under your argument and use of this section undocumented persons would thereby be exempt from American laws since they only pertain to "born or naturalized" persons. Therefore since they are were not born nor naturalized they are not under US law, even immigration law.

Something tells me that there is a hole in your bucket.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You are correct. The rights are given to us by our creator... at least that's how the story goes. That's what the US was all about - that government did not grant anyone their rights, that it instead worked to deny them. The constitution is a document that in part limits the governments ability to deny the rights given to us by the good lord.

To hear "patriots" these days our rights are granted to us and only to some of us. They've lost sight of what the nation stands for.

He's at the 50!

the 40!

the 30!

the 20!

the 10!

the 5!

He SCORES!!!!

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The problem is that the Constitution allows for continued change and reform, so it is completely American, its just a version of America where you find yourself in the extreme minority, and potentially not that American at all. Maybe America left you behind, or maybe it never existed to begin with.

The ability to amend the document is one of the things I've always disliked about it.

[PeterMP]

Not to mention that under your argument and use of this section undocumented persons would thereby be exempt from American laws since they only pertain to "born or naturalized" persons. Therefore since they are were not born nor naturalized they are not under US law, even immigration law.

Something tells me that there is a hole in your bucket.

Are you trying to say that EVERYBODY is granted rights under the constitution? Can somebody in China claim that the Chinese goverment has violated his Constitutional rights? That clearly isn't true.

The Constitution does not say that the goverment cannot pass laws against people that are not citizens. Clearly, there were restrictions on people that came here and were not citizens even at the time the Constitution was approved (i.e. they would have been expected to obey the law).

[PeterMP]

He's at the 50!

the 40!

Practically though how does that work. Should the US force China to respect the rights of its citizens?

[AsburySkinsFan]

The ability to amend the document is one of the things I've always disliked about it.

Hmmm, slavery, women's sufferage, equal rights (race, religion, creed). Hmmm, you had just better be glad that you were born the right race and gender. The ability to amend our most important document is what makes our country great! Because it gives us the ability to fix our mistakes, instead of being stuck with them forever, or having a coup d' etat to force such changes.

[Sarge]

Not to mention that under your argument and use of this section undocumented persons would thereby be exempt from American laws since they only pertain to "born or naturalized" persons. Therefore since they are were not born nor naturalized they are not under US law, even immigration law.

Something tells me that there is a hole in your bucket.

Something tells me they weren't "born or naturalized" here, hence they have no status. We see them in our court system because that is the venue we use to sort issues

A court in New York seems to agree

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/9512/U_S_can_hold_noncitizens_indefinitely

Legal ruling gives broad powers to federal government

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.

[Sarge]

Are you trying to say that EVERYBODY is granted rights under the constitution? Can somebody in China claim that the Chinese goverment has violated his Constitutional rights? That clearly isn't true.

The Constitution does not say that the goverment cannot pass laws against people that are not citizens. Clearly, there were restrictions on people that came here and were not citizens even at the time the Constitution was approved (i.e. they would have been expected to obey the law).

Actually I was thinking that the next time I get sick, I'd fly to France and use their sick leave system.

Voila, instant two months off!

[JMS]

Look its like this, if for many years certain laws were all but ignored as irrelevant by governing officials then how in the world can you come back years later and claim that these laws are now legit?

You are confusing the enforcement of the laws with the legitimacy of the laws. Laws are legitimate whether enforced or not, until they are repealed.

Also as I've said, it's not like our immigration laws were not enforced on legitimacy grounds. They weren't enforced because many large American corporations love having a low priced, unempowered workforce to exploit. Again, that doesn't make the laws illegitimate, or the American people unreasonable for seeking relief from the problem.

As someone noted earlier there are plenty of laws on the books that make certain actions illegal, but if those are not enforced equally then one tends to doubt whether or not the government really believes that the government views them as being worthy of enforcement, thereby nullifying the law via a sense of apathy toward the law. This is what has happened with immigration law for the past decades. There was a token effort to enforce such laws and now all the sudden we are supposed to believe that the threat is as great as they say? It really does beg the question to whether or not what they are saying is true.

Now you are confusing apathy with actions taken for profit. Illegal immigrants work for significantly less money than Americans. They are also unempowered by the legal system to organize to address their working conditions. American businesses make Billions annually off these people. The lax enforcement of our boarders and immigration laws have more to do with that than the illegitimacy of immigration laws. Every country on earth has immigration laws. As I've said Mexico's own immigration laws are considerable more draconian than anything proposed in America. Suggesting America which accepted more legal immigrants from around the world than any other country on earth has unreasonable immigration laws is rather comical.

BTW, how many 9/11 hijackers came through Mexico? Oh, and how many entered the country illegally? My guess is that Al Qaeda is not so stupid as to risk breaking meanial laws in their attempt to bring large scale attacks. Its like speeding on the way to make a bank robbery, it just doesn't make sense.

Like we can't have a problem in this country which is not directly associated with Al Quada or terrorism?

A differnt argument, after Reagan legalized 2 million illegals in 1986 ( half the 5 million illegals then in the country ), we got 12-25 million more by the early twenty first century. Why do you think legalizing 12-25 million in 2007 won't yield 50 million more illegals in 2030? How does legalizing them do anything but provide incentive for them to break our laws, and come here hoping for another future amnesty program? Which historically, they would be likely to recieve. Isn't that exactly what the Reagan amnesty program did, give incentive for more folks to break our laws? Amnesty doesn't even address the problem. The base problem is the profit through exploitation these people represent to American corporations. The problem is that 10-20 million empowered desperate people in the country lower wages, and lower benefits for the poorest most vulnerable segment of the American population who can least afford these loss of benefits.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Are you trying to say that EVERYBODY is granted rights under the constitution? Can somebody in China claim that the Chinese goverment has violated his Constitutional rights? That clearly isn't true.

The Constitution does not say that the goverment cannot pass laws against people that are not citizens. Clearly, there were restrictions on people that came here and were not citizens even at the time the Constitution was approved (i.e. they would have been expected to obey the law).

This is why we say that China has violated their Human Rights, and our Constitution acknowledges the basic human rights that are to be afforded to all. You may here periodically in the news that such-and-such a nation has a terrible "human rights" record. This is the exact stuff that they are talking about.

[Sarge]

This is why we say that China has violated their Human Rights, and our Constitution acknowledges the basic human rights that are to be afforded to all. You may here periodically in the news that such-and-such a nation has a terrible "human rights" record. This is the exact stuff that they are talking about.

Now you're confusing the US Constitution with the Human Rights Accord we signed.

You seem confused a lot

[AsburySkinsFan]

Something tells me they weren't "born or naturalized" here, hence they have no status. We see them in our court system because that is the venue we use to sort issues

A court in New York seems to agree

http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/9512/U_S_can_hold_noncitizens_indefinitely

Legal ruling gives broad powers to federal government

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.

And you know as well as I do that this will immediately be bumped to a higher court to determine its Constitutionality. Just 'cause one judge in Brooklyn says its is so, don't mean it is.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Now you're confusing the US Constitution with the Human Rights Accord we signed.

You seem confused a lot

LOL, no sir you are the one who is confused, and for that I'm glad, because as long as you're confused, no one will listen to your silliness.

[DjTj]

AsburySkinsFan. I think you're wrong here. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution makes it the federal government's responsibility to protect the member states from invasion. The Constitution is not on the illegals side here. It's on the American Citizens side.

Illegal immigrants are criminals. They are in violation of our laws. "Trials" to deport such people are not akin to trials given to citizens. Basically show papers to the effect you have the right to live here, or be deported. It's not akin to the multi year legal process OJ was afforded.

This is right. Illegal immigrants don't get the same due process rights as citizens if all we are doing is deporting them. If we want to throw them in jail, then they are entitled to a trial by jury under the Fourteenth Amendment, but if we are simply deporting them, they only have the right to a very basic hearing.

...and this may just be an issue of semantics, but when we are talking about Constitutional rights, illegal immigrants actually aren't "criminals" - anyone punished under the criminal code would be entitled to constitutional due process. Immigration violations aren't exactly civil law either, but calling them criminals probably isn't correct in the context of the constitutional rights.

Likewise it's not unAmerican to wish our laws are enforced. It's not like we haven't had immigration laws for more than 100 years. It's not like Mexico's immigration laws aren't more stringent than Americas. It's not like America doesn't currently accept more legal immigrants than any other country on earth.

The current immigration Bill does nothing to provide a solution for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants flooding into our country to find work which they can not find in their own country. The bill merely addresses the folks currently in the country by putting the vast majority of them on a slow tedious path to citizenship. Why slow, why tedious; because it allows them to be exploited longer. The day these folks become citizens, is the day they can stop being exploited; which is the same day another batch of illegals will come over the boarder for those low waged jobs, and hopefully on their part; citizenship. This bill makes the problem worse and doesn't address the underlying problem. American corporations which love the cheap labor and the fact that illegals aren't able to organize or speak up for themselves.

Having a legal visa will give the immigrant workers significantly more power than they had as illegals. There is a huge leap between illegal and legal, and there is another big leap between holding a visa and having a green card, and another one once you reach citizenship. Even if it's slow and tedious, giving the immigrants one step up that ladder will significantly improve their situations.

And if there's one good thing this bill does, it's that it tries to create a system where the onus is really on the employer to verify the immigration status of their employees. One of the biggest loopholes in the system now is that I-9 forms aren't reported to the government at all so employers have plausible deniability when they hire illegals. If you take that away, you make it harder for employers to exploit illegal labor.