For all you anti-immigrant fascists out there (maybe you should go
back to where your ancestors came from to "free" up America, eh
hypocrites?):

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2003/trall031020.gif

In reality the US is no longer an immigrant friendly country, as
evidenced by the longer timeframes to process legal immigrants (almost
2 years for AOS in many cases). So this debate is to some degree mute,
I believe that while many immigranst are still being processed the
flow will be significantly reduced. This is a shame because a lot of
smart, capable people who really contriute to country, pay their way
and pay lot's of taxes will not come to the US anymore.

For example, the US does not generate enough Electrical Engineers per
year to match the requirements of the electronics industry, there is
also a shortage of nurses and in many cases of teachers. Are we really
better without them?

I do realize that many US born people are unemployed and that some
foreigners are not, this does sound unfair to some, but the solution
is not less immigrants but retraining and support for unemployed
persons. How will having less foreign engineers or nurses help an
unemployed mechanic or factory worker without retraining?

I believe in any case that the debate is healthy, but the xenophobia
and hate displayed is not. Illegal immigrants are not all criminals
(probably very few are), in most cases they are highly motivated
workers because they really want to improve their situation. I am a
strong proponent of immigration but accept the fact that people have
other opinions.

"Mayo" <mario_segal@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:663cb69c.0311041357.63839812@posting.google.c om... In reality the US is no longer an immigrant friendly country, as evidenced by the longer timeframes to process legal immigrants (almost 2 years for AOS in many cases). So this debate is to some degree mute, I believe that while many immigranst are still being processed the flow will be significantly reduced. This is a shame because a lot of smart, capable people who really contriute to country, pay their way and pay lot's of taxes will not come to the US anymore. For example, the US does not generate enough Electrical Engineers per year to match the requirements of the electronics industry, there is also a shortage of nurses and in many cases of teachers. Are we really better without them? I do realize that many US born people are unemployed and that some foreigners are not, this does sound unfair to some, but the solution is not less immigrants but retraining and support for unemployed persons. How will having less foreign engineers or nurses help an unemployed mechanic or factory worker without retraining? I believe in any case that the debate is healthy, but the xenophobia and hate displayed is not. Illegal immigrants are not all criminals (probably very few are), in most cases they are highly motivated workers because they really want to improve their situation. I am a strong proponent of immigration but accept the fact that people have other opinions.

well, you speak nonsense as I personally KNOW electrical engineers out of
work due to H-1B visas! furthermore, my sister-in-law is an RN--she is out
of work....why ? because the hospital laid her off and replaced with a
foreign worker [much lower wages]

so screw the illegal immigrants and severely limit the legals---the country
can only hold so much!

kitty

"kitty" <cowgirla@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s4KdnYttF_xetTWiRVn-vw@comcast.com... "Mayo" <mario_segal@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:663cb69c.0311041357.63839812@posting.google.c om... In reality the US is no longer an immigrant friendly country, as evidenced by the longer timeframes to process legal immigrants (almost 2 years for AOS in many cases). So this debate is to some degree mute, I believe that while many immigranst are still being processed the flow will be significantly reduced. This is a shame because a lot of smart, capable people who really contriute to country, pay their way and pay lot's of taxes will not come to the US anymore. For example, the US does not generate enough Electrical Engineers per year to match the requirements of the electronics industry, there is also a shortage of nurses and in many cases of teachers. Are we really better without them? I do realize that many US born people are unemployed and that some foreigners are not, this does sound unfair to some, but the solution is not less immigrants but retraining and support for unemployed persons. How will having less foreign engineers or nurses help an unemployed mechanic or factory worker without retraining? I believe in any case that the debate is healthy, but the xenophobia and hate displayed is not. Illegal immigrants are not all criminals (probably very few are), in most cases they are highly motivated workers because they really want to improve their situation. I am a strong proponent of immigration but accept the fact that people have other opinions. well, you speak nonsense as I personally KNOW electrical engineers out of work due to H-1B visas! furthermore, my sister-in-law is an RN--she is out of work....why ? because the hospital laid her off and replaced with a foreign worker [much lower wages] so screw the illegal immigrants and severely limit the legals---the
country can only hold so much! kitty
The only people posting nonsense are Kitty I & II
You just don't see the big picture. If you compare
the density of people in the US with Europe or
even China, you see we can hold more than
2 Billion people - 10 times what we have now!
So shut the F U C K up you idiots. You are
absolutely clueless.

"Andrew DeFaria" <ADeFaria@Salira.com> wrote in message
news:267a6$3fa830bd$ceb8cc02$20481@msgid.meganewss ervers.com... Mayo wrote: In reality the US is no longer an immigrant friendly country, as evidenced by the longer timeframes to process legal immigrants (almost 2 years for AOS in many cases). WRT marriage based visas, the 2 years is codified into law specifically help stop fraudulent marriages. IOW unfriendly immigrants caused their own problem and we responded to protect ourselves. So this debate is to some degree mute, I believe that while many immigranst are still being processed the flow will be significantly reduced. This is a shame because a lot of smart, capable people who really contriute to country, pay their way and pay lot's of taxes will not come to the US anymore. The flow is still heavy though perhaps a bit slower. You see back in the day the US had unbounded good fortune and prosperty - the dot com boom - which has since subsided. Sure other countries also had booms and I bet their immigration picked up too. People tend to go where the money and/or opportunity is. So, for example, I doubt that Kenya's immigration inflow rose at all during these times. For example, the US does not generate enough Electrical Engineers per year to match the requirements of the electronics industry, there is also a shortage of nurses and in many cases of teachers. Are we really better without them? The shortage in teachers is due largely to the piss poor wages. Do we need to import EEs, teachers and nurses from other countries? Maybe. But to bring this back on topic - we don't need 'em if they will also break our laws.
Wages are only one of the factors. The srewed up and
expensive education system is another, in my opinion.
Even aother factor is that most young Americans are
just to lazy and not really motivated any more;
just seeing some kind of a dating show on TV
makes this very clear. An immigrant from India,
21 years old, already holds a Ph. D. and behaves
like an educated person - the American counter
parts are standing at the bar and having alcohol
poured down their throuts.
I call that the new "Spirit of America".

I do realize that many US born people are unemployed and that some foreigners are not, this does sound unfair to some, but the solution is not less immigrants but retraining and support for unemployed persons. How will having less foreign engineers or nurses help an unemployed mechanic or factory worker without retraining? I believe most people are talking about not allowing illegal (everybody seems to miss that word) immigrants remain here illegally. Most people are not saying "we want less immigrants" rather they are saying "we want to illegal ones to leave". I believe in any case that the debate is healthy, but the xenophobia and hate displayed is not. What xenophobia and hate have I displayed? Only xenophobia and hate (though I wouldn't say hate) against people who do not respect our laws. Illegal immigrants are not all criminals (probably very few are), Bsst.. Wrong but thanks for trying. The very fact that the word "illegal" preceeds "immigrant" is significant (otherwise don't use the "illegal" qualifier!). By it's very presence is changes the definition to mean an immigrant who has broken the law. People that break the law are criminals, period! Why is it that you don't seem to see that?
It's because we educated reader of this newsgroup know
that you are only a criminal if you comit a crime. Being
here illegally because somebody overstayed or worked
illegally is NOT a crime under the law as outlined before.
It is actually called "unlawfully present". So maybe
you want to read up on the law and stop wondering.

in most cases they are highly motivated workers because they really want to improve their situation. I am a strong proponent of immigration but accept the fact that people have other opinions. I am a strong proponent of immigration too. I am, however, equally strongly against illegal immigration.
Then change the stupid laws and make EVERY approval
process happen within 90 days. I agree with a former
opinion posted here, that you can hardly blame the
illegal immigrant, or overstayed for trying to get it done faster.

kitty wrote:
well, you speak nonsense as I personally KNOW electrical engineers out of work due to H-1B visas! furthermore, my sister-in-law is an RN--she is out of work....why ? because the hospital laid her off and replaced with a foreign worker [much lower wages]

And what did the government say when you sister-in-law filed the complaint?

"mrtravel" <postmaster@x.x> wrote in message
news:vEWpb.2610$yO4.87@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com. .. kitty wrote: well, you speak nonsense as I personally KNOW electrical engineers out
of work due to H-1B visas! furthermore, my sister-in-law is an RN--she is
out of work....why ? because the hospital laid her off and replaced with a foreign worker [much lower wages] And what did the government say when you sister-in-law filed the
complaint?
Just another simple education problem.

File a complaint? Why not go to school
and earn the right to make more money
by getting a better job afterwards?

Are you a union member or what?
Only Americans can get jobs, even if
the company has to overpay?

And consider this, maybe she just
worked there for too long and because
of the seniority, they had to pay her more.
Why do it, if somebody can do the
job, even if they haven't done it for years.

Circuit City recently fired everybody
above a certain level of income and
replaced them with fresh employees.

Blaming everything on immigrants becomes
to convenient lately...

Who Cares wrote:
And what did the government say when you sister-in-law filed the complaint? Just another simple education problem. File a complaint? Why not go to school and earn the right to make more money by getting a better job afterwards?

She's an RN...
What education problem?
The country needs nurses. She studied nursing.
There are still shortages of nurses, so I am wondering why she lost her
job... and I don't think it had anything to do with H1B.

Education and apptitude don't always go hand in hand. I have interviewed
a few "degree qualified" Americans for high tech that were unsuitable
for the job.

Who Cares wrote:
Bsst.. Wrong but thanks for trying. The very fact that the word "illegal" preceeds "immigrant" is significant (otherwise don't use the "illegal" qualifier!). By it's very presence is changes the definitionto mean an immigrant who has broken the law. People that break the law are criminals, period! Why is it that you don't seem to see that?It's because we educated reader of this newsgroup know that you are only a criminal if you comit a crime. Being here illegally because somebody overstayed or worked illegally is NOT a crime under the law as outlined before. It is actually called "unlawfully present". So maybe you want to read up on the law and stop wondering.
You use the term "illegal" to refer to somebody who is here legally and
you're calling me stupid?!? The law is clear, if you obtain employment
while here on a vistor's visa you have broken the law. If you stay
longer than your visa allows you have broken the law. Technically you
should be removed from the country (i.e. punished) for breaking the law.
In my book that illegal and you have committed a crime. I'm not sure
what book you're reading from.
in most cases they are highly motivated workers because they really want to improve their situation. I am a strong proponent of immigration but accept the fact that people have other opinions.I am a strong proponent of immigration too. I am, however, equally strongly against illegal immigration.Then change the stupid laws and make EVERY approval process happen within 90 days.
Hey you're the one who wants the laws changes so have at it. At this
time the law does not favor your opinion.

I do agree that the process needs to be sped up. I do not agree that AOS
for family based visas should be shortened from the current 2 years.
I agree with a former opinion posted here, that you can hardly blame the illegal immigrant,
Why you certainly can and I do. Again "illegal" means they broke the
law. Hardly fair to people who are playing by the rules.
or overstayed for trying to get it done faster.
That doesn't even parse!
--
I used to work at a factory where they made hydrants; but you couldn't
park anywhere near the place.

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

if you comit a crime. Being here illegally because somebody overstayed
or worked illegally is NOT a crime under the law as outlined before. It
is actually called "unlawfully present". So maybe you want to read up on
the law and stop wondering. You use the term "illegal" to refer to somebody who is here legally and you're calling me stupid?!? The law is clear, if you obtain employment while here on a vistor's visa you have broken the law. If you stay longer than your visa allows you have broken the law. Technically you should be removed from the country (i.e. punished) for breaking the law. In my book that illegal and you have committed a crime.

Try the US Code. Believe it or not, it actually defines what is a crime.
Unlawfully present, is not a crime.

The way you post messages makes you stupid.
What is it with this TABs?
You can't even post a message like a normal person.

And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law.
Get it on your head already!

I am getting tired even looking at your %$!@ HTML posts.

"Andrew DeFaria" <ADeFaria@Salira.com> wrote in message news:57fde$3fa854d0$ceb8cc02$24800@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
Who Cares wrote:

Bsst.. Wrong but thanks for trying. The very fact that the word "illegal" preceeds "immigrant" is significant (otherwise don't use the "illegal" qualifier!). By it's very presence is changes the definition
to mean an immigrant who has broken the law. People that break the law are criminals, period! Why is it that you don't seem to see that?
It's because we educated reader of this newsgroup know that you are only a criminal if you comit a crime. Being here illegally because somebody overstayed or worked illegally is NOT a crime under the law as outlined before. It is actually called "unlawfully present". So maybe you want to read up on the law and stop wondering.You use the term "illegal" to refer to somebody who is here legally and you're calling me stupid?!? The law is clear, if you obtain employment while here on a vistor's visa you have broken the law. If you stay longer than your visa allows you have broken the law. Technically you should be removed from the country (i.e. punished) for breaking the law. In my book that illegal and you have committed a crime. I'm not sure what book you're reading from.

in most cases they are highly motivated workers because they really want to improve their situation. I am a strong proponent of immigration but accept the fact that people have other opinions.
I am a strong proponent of immigration too. I am, however, equally strongly against illegal immigration.
Then change the stupid laws and make EVERY approval process happen within 90 days. Hey you're the one who wants the laws changes so have at it. At this time the law does not favor your opinion.

I do agree that the process needs to be sped up. I do not agree that AOS for family based visas should be shortened from the current 2 years.

I agree with a former opinion posted here, that you can hardly blame the illegal immigrant, Why you certainly can and I do. Again "illegal" means they broke the law. Hardly fair to people who are playing by the rules.

or overstayed for trying to get it done faster.That doesn't even parse!
--
I used to work at a factory where they made hydrants; but you couldn't park anywhere near the place.

Who Cares wrote:
The way you post messages makes you stupid.

That's cool because what you actual post makes you look stupid.
What is it with this TABs?

What "tabs"?
You can't even post a message like a normal person.

My posting is fine. You can't seem to handle it. That makes you stupid -
not me.
And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get it on your head already!

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. Anyway
you slice it the law says that are not supposed to be here. Call it
criminal, call it unlawful, call it what you like, it doesn't matter. Or
are you saying we should not respect the laws we have?

BTW if you look up the word crime you'll see:

1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a
crime to squander our country's natural resources.

Illegal immigrants violate our laws. Punishment (removal) is imposed
upon conviction. There activty is unlawful (this even covers the
"unlawfully present" phrase).
I am getting tired even looking at your %$!@ HTML posts.

Killfile me if you want. I don't care.
--
I got a new shadow. I had to get rid of the other one -- it wasn't doing
what I was doing.

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. Anyway you slice it the law says that are not supposed to be here. Call it criminal, call it unlawful, call it what you like, it doesn't matter. Or are you saying we should not respect the laws we have?

No, he was saying the some laws are criminal and some aren't BTW if you look up the word crime you'll see:

If you would bother look at the official document on Federal Law, you
will see that unlawful presence is not a criminal act. Have you ever
hear of the "US Code"?

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:32 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get it on your head already!If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.

You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight
face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed
limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:32 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get iton your head already!If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks.

And... neither speeding and unlawful presence are crimes.

mrtravel wrote:
Andrew DeFaria wrote: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. Anyway you slice it the law says that are not supposed to be here. Call it criminal, call it unlawful, call it what you like, it doesn't matter. Or are you saying we should not respect the laws we have? No, he was saying the some laws are criminal and some aren't

Big deal.
BTW if you look up the word crime you'll see: If you would bother look at the official document on Federal Law, you will see that unlawful presence is not a criminal act. Have you ever hear of the "US Code"?

Yes I have. Regardless, the common definition of the word crime includes
illegal activities both civil and criminal. In any event it still stands
that they are in violation of the law and the proscribed punishment is
removal. Again, to me, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -
it's a duck! YMMV.
--
I don't have a solution but I admire the problem.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:32 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get it on your head already! If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks.

Did I say that? No. So why do you put words in my mouth?

In any event, yes, I've sped. Got caught too. Suffered the consequences.
Why then shouldn't immigrants?

If immigrants who violate our laws are simply forgiven, then if an
immigrant speeds and gets caught should they not be made to face the
consequences?!? Your position is totally inconsistent!
--
I am in shape. Round is a shape!

mrtravel wrote:
Gerhard Fiedler wrote: On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:32 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:> And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get> it on your head already! If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks. And... neither speeding and unlawful presence are crimes.

And both have proscribe penalities that should not be ignored.
--
Is French kissing in France just called kissing?

Andrew DeFaria on 04 Nov 2003 suggested:
Mayo wrote: Illegal immigrants are not all criminals (probably very few are), Bsst.. Wrong but thanks for trying. The very fact that the word "illegal" preceeds "immigrant" is significant (otherwise don't use the "illegal" qualifier!). By it's very presence is changes the definition to mean an immigrant who has broken the law. People that break the law are criminals, period! Why is it that you don't seem to see that?
To use your terms, BZZZT!! You are wrong. As I have explained
many times before, merely being present in the USA in an undocumented
status is not in and of itself a crime. ("illegal" is a term hate-
mongers use to make these people appear to be criminals).

As I have said several times before, there are many types of laws,
but most primarily fall into two types, civil and criminal. You can
break the civil laws all you want, and you are NOT a criminal, PERIOD!

As I have challenged many times before, and not one person,
ranters or otherwise, has met the challenge so I will challenge again,
find me one single statute that makes mere presence in the USA in an
undocumented status a crime. You can't do it, because there isn't one.
I'll even get you started, yet again. If it exists, it should be in
Title 8 (ALIENS AND NATIONALITY) or Title 18 (CRIMES) of the United
States Code. If you should happen to find it, please do let me know.

--Douglas

On 4 Nov 2003 13:57:28 -0800, mario_segal@hotmail.com (Mayo) wrote:
I believe in any case that the debate is healthy, but the xenophobiaand hate displayed is not. Illegal immigrants are not all criminals(probably very few are), in most cases they are highly motivatedworkers because they really want to improve their situation.


I quote part of a Drudge article from this morning:

"The plaintiffs, who face deportation for being illegal immigrants, also
accuse Wal-Mart and its contractors of discriminating against them by
giving them lower wages and fewer benefits than other workers because of
their national origin."

I quote this because it references not the criminal illegal aliens, but
because it gives a hint of the impact on our country. It suggests that
businesses, in this case, WalMart, would prefer to, even at the risk of
getting caught, break the law by NOT paying a legal wage, and withholding
otherwise required benefits to these people.

When these people apply for a job, who do you think gets hired? The legal
citizen, who would require the business to pay their taxes as they should,
or the criminal illegal alien who, because they are not going to file
anyway, allows the business to get out of paying a fair wage?

Three guesses - and the first two don't count!

I the midwest, 10-15 years ago, a meat cutter got $15 per hour. Now they
make $9.00 per hour. The difference is that mass illegal immigration
provided a bunch of cheaper labor and brought the cost of labor down.
Don't even think that this impacted the price of meat! What it did do was
pad the pockets of the businesses hiring the illegal immigrants. WE, the
consumer, saw no such decrease in the price of our meat.

Kitty II

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:58:47 GMT, "Who Cares" <no@spam.com> wrote:
If you comparethe density of people in the US with Europe oreven China, you see we can hold more than2 Billion people - 10 times what we have now!So shut the F U C K up you idiots. You areabsolutely clueless.

It is not about density. It is about obeying the law. Resorting to name
calling is only a demonstration that you have nothing else to say.

Kitty II

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:26:49 GMT, "Who Cares" <no@spam.com> wrote:
I agree with a formeropinion posted here, that you can hardly blame theillegal immigrant, or overstayed for trying to get it done faster.

The hell I can't! The criminal illegal alien would have us believe that we
should expect that is okay to ignore our laws. It isn't.

Till these criminals deal with the hard fact that the very first thing they
do is break our laws, we have no business having ANY dealing with them -
other than throwing them across the nearest border.

Kitty II

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:32 -0800, Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com>
wrote:
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. Anywayyou slice it the law says that are not supposed to be here. Call itcriminal, call it unlawful, call it what you like, it doesn't matter. Orare you saying we should not respect the laws we have?BTW if you look up the word crime you'll see: 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime. 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.Illegal immigrants violate our laws.

these criminals violate our laws, and are looking for ANY way to
rationalize their behavior. This is, by far, the worst sort of attack on
our system. If we are to survive this nonsense, we HAVE TO establish some
pretty hard rules to live by. Starting with tossing the criminal illegal
alien across the nearest border.

Kitty II

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:07:56 -0800, Gerhard Fiedler <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:32 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get it on your head already!If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straightface that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speedlimit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks.

So, what you are saying is that because someone, sometime, once broke the
law, it's okay just to throw them all out, right?

Get a life!

Kitty II
www.ufire.net

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:32:01 GMT, mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote:
Gerhard Fiedler wrote: On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 20:23:32 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:>And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get it>on your head already!If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks.And... neither speeding and unlawful presence are crimes.

Man, you are good at rationalization! This discussion is not going
anywhere with you sad misguided arguments.

Kitty II
www.ufire.net

Kitty II wrote:
I quote part of a Drudge article from this morning:"The plaintiffs, who face deportation for being illegal immigrants, also accuse Wal-Mart and its contractors of discriminating against them by giving them lower wages and fewer benefits than other workers because of their national origin."I quote this because it references not the criminal illegal aliens, but because it gives a hint of the impact on our country. It suggests that businesses, in this case, WalMart, would prefer to, even at the risk of getting caught, break the law by NOT paying a legal wage, and withholding otherwise required benefits to these people.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the illegal aliens were all
hired by contractors - not Walmart itself. Doesn't make it any more
right though.
--
Shell to DOS... Come in DOS, do you copy? Shell to DOS...

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:43:10 GMT, Kitty II wrote:Man, you are good at rationalization! This discussion is not goinganywhere with you sad misguided arguments.

Well, thanks to your well-guided arguments like the one above it
actually does go somewhere... :)

What's wrong with a rational view at things? Does reason often get in
your way?

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:54:49 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:>> And yes, illegals are breaking the law, but not criminal law. Get>> it on your head already!>> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks. And... neither speeding and unlawful presence are crimes.And both have proscribe penalities that should not be ignored.

Well, in this context, I know for a fact that you have a huge majority
against you. Strictly enforcing speed limits would cause a revolution
-- at least in California. Or at the very least another immediate
recall... :)

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:53:42 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks.Did I say that? No. So why do you put words in my mouth?

What did you not say? What did I put in your mouth? (Heavens forbid
that I ever get that near your mouth! :)
In any event, yes, I've sped. Got caught too. Suffered the consequences.Why then shouldn't immigrants?

Did I ever say they shouldn't? Would be nice if you could back that up
with a citation, in case you think about anzwering with "yes".
If immigrants who violate our laws are simply forgiven, then if animmigrant speeds and gets caught should they not be made to face theconsequences?!? Your position is totally inconsistent!

Now what position do you read out of questions? Could it be that you
are so full of prejudice that you only need a question of mine to
start thinking all kinds of things you think I think?

Kind of shows that you actually didn't read my previous posts. If you
had, you could know by now more about my position than this.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:53:42 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. You can look somebody you respect in the face and say with a straight face that you never, ever, broke any rule? Like going over the speed limit? That's a duck, too... and there are quite a few of those ducks. Did I say that? No. So why do you put words in my mouth? What did you not say? What did I put in your mouth? (Heavens forbid that I ever get that near your mouth! :)

The claim above is that I says I never, ever broke any rule. I never
said that.
In any event, yes, I've sped. Got caught too. Suffered the consequences. Why then shouldn't immigrants? Did I ever say they shouldn't? Would be nice if you could back that up with a citation, in case you think about anzwering with "yes".

The next portion of the above cite says "Like going over the speed
limit" to which I answered yes I've sped and paid the price.
If immigrants who violate our laws are simply forgiven, then if an immigrant speeds and gets caught should they not be made to face the consequences?!? Your position is totally inconsistent! Now what position do you read out of questions? Could it be that you are so full of prejudice that you only need a question of mine to start thinking all kinds of things you think I think?

The topic of discussion here is illegal immigration. Please make an
effort to stay on topic. I post saying that If it looks like a duck and
quacks like a duck then it's a duck, referring to the fact that illegal
aliens are criminals (to which other picky people pick nits about the
word crime). You post saying, effectively, that people break laws all
the time. My response it targeted and oriented to the topic at hand,
illegal immigration so I say that any violations of any laws by any
people should be enforced. Which part of this are you having difficulty
following?
Kind of shows that you actually didn't read my previous posts. If you had, you could know by now more about my position than this.

You can also make an effort to explain your position, or you can, as you
have here, choose to continue to leave us in the dark...
--
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went
nuts.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:41:26 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:The topic of discussion here is illegal immigration. Please make aneffort to stay on topic. I post saying that If it looks like a duck andquacks like a duck then it's a duck, referring to the fact that illegalaliens are criminals (to which other picky people pick nits about theword crime).

Actually, when talking about laws and using legal terms it makes sense
to me to at least not use wrong language. I'm not saying that
everything should be legalese, but if you _know_ (and you should by
now) that there are basically two main types of laws (criminal and
civil), that there _is_ a crucial difference, and that criminals are
people _convicted_ of violating a _criminal_ law, you shouldn't call
anybody a criminal who doesn't fit that definition.

Which is the law, BTW, that you so cherish: it is against the law to
call somebody a criminal who doesn't fit the above criteria. If you
did that in public to somebody, he could actually sue you. The illegal
immigrants you're talking about can't do that, but this doesn't make
it any better.

Do you think of yourself as a criminal? According to you, you did
break the law on occasion (like most people). You call everybody who
breaks the law a criminal ("if it looks like a duck..."). The logical
combination of these two statements of yours would be that you call
yourself a criminal.
You post saying, effectively, that people break laws allthe time.

Is that wrong?
My response it targeted and oriented to the topic at hand,illegal immigration so I say that any violations of any laws by anypeople should be enforced. Which part of this are you having difficultyfollowing?

None, as stated multiple times. Which part of "none" do you have
difficulty understanding? The question here is not "whether" but
"how".
Kind of shows that you actually didn't read my previous posts. If you had, you could know by now more about my position than this.You can also make an effort to explain your position, or you can, as youhave here, choose to continue to leave us in the dark...

I'll do that, again. Every soul lost in the dark is worth the utmost
effort to bring the light to it... :)

In my book, law enforcement is about efficient prevention of illegal
actions, not about satisfying some need of revenge of some people. Now
in order to see the efficiency of your action, you have to look at the
reasons why people break laws and the effects of any possible
enforcement actions, mainly on those reasons.

In most cases the reasons are economical. Which also means that when
we look at an illegal immigrant, we almost always have a co-law
breaker: the one who employed that person. This employer is the one
who creates the reason for which people come here: making a decent
living. So as long as law enforcement actions are targeted at illegal
immigrants rather than the people who employ them (and give them a
reason to come in the first place), you don't really touch the cause.

Now looking at the effects... You take illegals and deport them. So
what? That doesn't prevent much. The rate of the ones we catch is too
low (and I've earlier mentioned a few methods how we could increase
the rate, but those are measures people don't really support) to make
a dent. And those illegal immigrants have very little to lose. This
the crucial thing you need to understand. That's why law enforcement
targeted at them is very inefficient -- law enforcement is only
efficient when people have actually something to lose.

Now the employers of illegal immigrants do have something to lose. And
the fact that employing illegal immigrants for substandard rates is
profitable could be changed by targeting them. This is a simple
economic excercise. We increase the risk of getting caught and
convicted (different from the illegal immigrants, these people
actually could go to court and get convicted), and increase the
possible penalty -- say, paying all social security taxes they would
have paid if they had employed legal residents for the going rate,
paying the difference in rate into a fund, paying for the deportation,
and since paying often gets circumvented by simply going bankrupt,
doing community service for a few years --, and we start working on
something actually useful.

In a sense, the illegal immigrants are foreigners and as such not
really required to know our laws. (I know you can object here, and I
agree with that, but I'm trying to make a point of degree.) OTOH, the
employers are usually at least residents, often citizens, and them
breaking the laws is more serious in my book. (Besides that enforcing
the law with them is more efficient.)

Of course, all that doesn't really work on the real causes. But that's
a different story... and well beyond law enforcement.

(And BTW, as an aside, when looking at law enforcement statistics, you
see that the USA in general doesn't really use efficient methods in
this area. The prison population is way higher than in any comparable
country, and the crime numbers are not lower -- if they aren't much
higher. So there's something going wrong here. Which may indicate that
law enforcement is not as straightforward and simple as some want to
look at it.)

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Actually, when talking about laws and using legal terms it makes sense to me to at least not use wrong language. I'm not saying that everything should be legalese, but if you _know_ (and you should by now) that there are basically two main types of laws (criminal and civil), that there _is_ a crucial difference, and that criminals are people _convicted_ of violating a _criminal_ law, you shouldn't call anybody a criminal who doesn't fit that definition.

WRT illegal immigration, whether illegally admitted, overstayed visa or
committed criminal acts while here, the punishment is all the same - get
out!
Which is the law, BTW, that you so cherish:

It's not that I "so cherish" it any more than you have such disdain for
it. I just think that laws should be enforced. What do you think?
it is against the law to call somebody a criminal who doesn't fit the above criteria.

Really? Please cite a reference (if you can).
If you did that in public to somebody, he could actually sue you.

For what? Telling the truth? Listen we are talking about actual people
who have violated the law and hence are criminal in the common
definition of the word. I highly doubt that the general public can be
compelled to use a legal dictionary nor punished for not using it.
The illegal immigrants you're talking about can't do that, but this doesn't make it any better.

Nor could you. If you violated a law, say a civil law, and I state you
are a criminal then go ahead and try to sue me - you will fail.
Do you think of yourself as a criminal?

Have been.
According to you, you did break the law on occasion (like most people). You call everybody who breaks the law a criminal ("if it looks like a duck...").

Yes I have broken the law. I am a criminal. I have paid the price and
suffered the consequences as proscribed by the law that I violated. Now
why can't the immigrants do likewise?
The logical combination of these two statements of yours would be that you call yourself a criminal.

Ah, well duh, yes. What's your point?
You post saying, effectively, that people break laws all the time. Is that wrong?

Well, ah, duh, of course it's wrong! That's why it's against the law.
My response it targeted and oriented to the topic at hand, illegal immigration so I say that any violations of any laws by any people should be enforced. Which part of this are you having difficulty following? None, as stated multiple times. Which part of "none" do you have difficulty understanding? The question here is not "whether" but "how".

The question that's been ask is whether. Some suggest that they should
not be enforced. So then you agree that illegal aliens should be removed?
Kind of shows that you actually didn't read my previous posts. If you had, you could know by now more about my position than this. You can also make an effort to explain your position, or you can, as you have here, choose to continue to leave us in the dark... I'll do that, again. Every soul lost in the dark is worth the utmost effort to bring the light to it... :) In my book, law enforcement is about efficient prevention of illegal actions

Ah, not really. Law enforcement entails enforcement of the laws. Pretty
simple eh? Now prevention is indeed a good thing, but it's not law
enforcement.
, not about satisfying some need of revenge of some people. Now in order to see the efficiency of your action, you have to look at the reasons why people break laws and the effects of any possible enforcement actions, mainly on those reasons.

Fine, don't let these illegals in in the first place. But what are you
gonna do with the illegals already here. The law says remove them.
In most cases the reasons are economical. Which also means that when we look at an illegal immigrant, we almost always have a co-law breaker: the one who employed that person. This employer is the one who creates the reason for which people come here: making a decent living. So as long as law enforcement actions are targeted at illegal immigrants rather than the people who employ them (and give them a reason to come in the first place), you don't really touch the cause.

Illegal immigrants come in many varieties. Working illegally is just one
of them. What about people who enter illegally? What about people who
simply overstay their visa? What about people who break the laws when here?

Actually, before most immigrant work illegally they have already commit
violations of law. Often they've illegally entered. Other times they've
presented false documentation in order to obtain work. In actuality they
are not supposed to even try to work. It is not the job of US business
to perform enforcement of the law. Still the government has burderned
businesses with the responsiblity of policing and looking for illegals.
They have codified that into a law but I believe that that law should
not be as such - that the government should be doing that. Yet that's a
whole 'nother argument.
Now looking at the effects... You take illegals and deport them. So what? That doesn't prevent much.

Sure it does. It demonstrably prevents them from continuing to abuse the
system. If enforcement is swift and thorough then it also serves as a
deterent.
The rate of the ones we catch is too low (and I've earlier mentioned a few methods how we could increase the rate, but those are measures people don't really support) to make a dent.

All this says is that we currently are failing to enforce the law. The
solution is to up it!
And those illegal immigrants have very little to lose.

They stand to lose that which they seek to gain. Considering many will
risk their very lives to cross the border, knowingly illegally, I'd say
they have very much to lose. They have little to lose because
enforcement is lax. If enforcement were not lax they'd have much to
loose. If enforcement is lax then you self-fulfill your prophecy.
This the crucial thing you need to understand. That's why law enforcement targeted at them is very inefficient -- law enforcement is only efficient when people have actually something to lose.

See above. Law enforcement is independent to having something to lose
and even so there is much to be lost.
Now the employers of illegal immigrants do have something to lose. And the fact that employing illegal immigrants for substandard rates is profitable could be changed by targeting them.

Yes let's not target those who have actually broke the law rather let's
target those who have money, regardless of whether or not they broke the
law. Amazingly circular logic. Troublingly wrong, IMHO.
This is a simple economic excercise. We increase the risk of getting caught and convicted (different from the illegal immigrants, these people actually could go to court and get convicted),

It should not be different. If we actually get them to court and convict
them (and follow through on punishment) then the deterent is in place -
otherwise it's not. I assure you that illegal aliens can and do go to
court (immigration court) and get convicted and punished. We just need
to do it more.
and increase the possible penalty -- say, paying all social security taxes they would have paid if they had employed legal residents for the going rate, paying the difference in rate into a fund, paying for the deportation, and since paying often gets circumvented by simply going bankrupt, doing community service for a few years --, and we start working on something actually useful. In a sense, the illegal immigrants are foreigners and as such not really required to know our laws. (I know you can object here, and I agree with that, but I'm trying to make a point of degree.)

Yes I disagree. As is often said "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
But aside from that, these people who sneak across our borders do indeed
know that what they are doing is wrong. Or do you dispute that?
OTOH, the employers are usually at least residents, often citizens, and them breaking the laws is more serious in my book. (Besides that enforcing the law with them is more efficient.)

Breaking a law, be it resident or alien, is equally serious.
Of course, all that doesn't really work on the real causes. But that's a different story... and well beyond law enforcement.

You neglect to address overstays, illegal entrants and law breakers who
are here legally.
(And BTW, as an aside, when looking at law enforcement statistics, you see that the USA in general doesn't really use efficient methods in this area. The prison population is way higher than in any comparable country,

WRT illegal immigration this is moot. The illegal immigrant does not
spend years and years in prison here (or at least they are not supposed
to). Instead they are shipped out. So processing illegal aliens should
not really effect prison population's or at least not for that long.
and the crime numbers are not lower -- if they aren't much higher. So there's something going wrong here. Which may indicate that law enforcement is not as straightforward and simple as some want to look at it.)

Your claim of high prison population, high crime numbers may just as
easily indicate efficient law enforcement and defficent prevention.
--
Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we
supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on
the postage stamps so the mailmen could look for them while they
delivered the mail?

You are correct, and if we were in a court of law, absolutely correct.
But, we are not. We are in a news group. Call these people what you will,
cite other issues as you wish -and there ARE other issues involved-,
however, none that change some facts about these criminal illegal
immigrants.

1) They lie and break our laws to get here.
2) They are takers, not givers. From our government, from citizens
looking for work, from welfare, from...need I go on?
3) Their attitude is accompanied by their elbow. They come, thinking that
they have some right to impose on anyone and anything that gets in their
way. They DO NOT come, by and large, to fit in, or to join what is already
in place here. Hence, because they are willing to impose, and we pretty
much, are soft enough not to understand the attitude we are confronted
with, are willing to move over, make room, put up with THEIR language, even
consider printing crap in a second (or more) language(s) in order to
accommodate their whining about it.

After watching our politicians pander to these people, I have lost any care
for them. Normally, I am willing to pitch in and help out. BUT, when I am
met with the attitude, over and over, that I HAD BETTER do so, I get my
back up, and start asking questions. The end result is that I AM willing
to call them criminals. I am willing to take on the likes of Chris Cannon,
and replace him with someone with a better attitude than he has. Hell, he
no longer even knows who voted him into office! I AM willing to call them
illegal aliens. I AM willing to call to task my local enforcement
agencies, and DEMAND that they start being part of deporting these ***
holes.

Had they come to join, I would not have a problem. BUT that is not the
case. They clearly have come to change us. So, to hell with them AND
their attitude!

I will get off the soap box for a bit....
KItty II

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:04:45 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:It's not that I "so cherish" it any more than you have such disdain forit. I just think that laws should be enforced. What do you think?

I think that laws should get enforced, or otherwise changed. I have
stated so multiple times. (And this will be the last time...)

Yes I have broken the law. I am a criminal. I have paid the price andsuffered the consequences as proscribed by the law that I violated.

Probably not all the time, only when you got caught. And I'm pretty
sure that the next time you break the law, you'll hope you won't get
caught, and don't turn yourself in. (In this respect, I just assume
that you are not different from me or anybody else I know. :)

How does that stack up with your opinion that all laws should get
always enforced? Are there not situations where you hope that a
certain law would not get enforced, at least not that one time?

You post saying, effectively, that people break laws all the time. Is that wrong?Well, ah, duh, of course it's wrong! That's why it's against the law.

I asked whether my assertion that "effectively, [...] people break
laws all the time" is wrong. Is it?

The question that's been ask is whether. Some suggest that they shouldnot be enforced. So then you agree that illegal aliens should be removed?

Removing illegals is one way to enforce this law. There are other
ways. So while I agree that the law should be enforced, the answer to
the "how" is a bit more complex. The question of limited resources for
law enforcement and the most efficient use of these is important in
this context.

(I also think that some parts of the law should be changed, but that's
not really important for the essence of this issue.)

In my book, law enforcement is about efficient prevention of illegal actionsAh, not really. Law enforcement entails enforcement of the laws. Prettysimple eh? Now prevention is indeed a good thing, but it's not lawenforcement.

For me, law enforcement means making sure that the law gets observed.
Is that not what you want? (A dictionary says "compel obedience" for
"enforce", which seems to support my understanding.)

Also in your arguments that followed this phrase, you seem to indicate
that you also see the ulterior motive of law enforcement to be
prevention of violations. You used the term "deterrent", for example.
Deterrent is prevention.

It's actually this idea of deterrent (that is, prevention) that is one
of the two basic pillars of punishment in law enforcement. The other
one is satisfaction, revenge. I don't think that the revenge one is
very helpful or necessary. That's why I look mainly at the prevention
(or deterrent) effect of law enforcement actions.

Of course one could say that we should do everything. But that's not
real -- we wouldn't want to spend all that money, we probably wouldn't
even be able to spend all that would be necessary and still survive on
the rest. So we define how much we want to spend on law enforcement,
and have to decide what exactly we do -- which also means to decide
which of the possible law enforcement actions we don't undertake.

And that decision should, IMO, mostly be taken based on the prevention
efficiency, or in other words, how efficient a certain measure is in
making sure that the law won't get broken again.

It is not the job of US business to perform enforcement of the law.
They have codified that into a law but I believe that that law shouldnot be as such - that the government should be doing that.

Do you say because you think that a law is wrong, it should not be
enforced? If not, this is not really material -- currently it is a
law, and businesses are required to require proper documentation from
any employee-to-be. (I don't quite see why they shouldn't be required
to do so. They need to file taxes for every employee, so they need to
have every employee's tax identification data. If somebody doesn't
have one, then there's something wrong. Doesn't need a law degree to
know that...)

All this says is that we currently are failing to enforce the law. Thesolution is to up it!

That's one solution. I doubt the efficiency of this solution, that's
all. IMO it would take law enforcement resource away from more
efficient measures, and result in more violations of the law. I don't
think there is a way we can find out whether I'm right -- we would
need parallel universes for that.

Yes let's not target those who have actually broke the law rather let'starget those who have money, regardless of whether or not they broke thelaw. Amazingly circular logic. Troublingly wrong, IMHO.

You know (you wrote it above) that the employers of illegal immigrants
break the law. Why do you say that they didn't break the law? Do you
propose to exempt them from proper law enforcement? If so, why them?

Actually, they usually have set up their operations in a way that they
don't have money. They make sure that all branding is done through a
company not associated with hiring the illegal immigrants, then just
go bankrupt with the business that actually hired them (which works
under contract of the brand owner business) when they get caught. Then
they just open a new business that takes over the same contracts, with
new illegal immigrants... Sounds pretty worthy of serious law
enforcement to me. That's why only financial penalties for the
businesses don't cut it -- they usually don't pay them anyway.

Your claim of high prison population, high crime numbers may just aseasily indicate efficient law enforcement and defficent prevention.

What is the purpose of law enforcement if not to make sure that laws
don't get broken? And wouldn't it indicate that there is something
wrong with the methods used if this goal doesn't get achieved
sufficiently?

How would you define the purpose of law enforcement -- if not making
sure that the laws don't get violated (which is essentially
prevention)?

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 04:31:59 GMT, Kitty II wrote:Had they come to join, I would not have a problem. BUT that is not thecase. They clearly have come to change us. So, to hell with them ANDtheir attitude!

I've seen my share of people like this. But I've also seen immigrants
(legal and illegal ones) that do want and try to fit in, to do the
right thing, who think that the USA is the best that ever existed on
the face of the earth.

So I'm wary of such sweeping generalizations. In many cases they
simply are not true.

Whoah - Kitty! Do you feel better after that?!

For my part - I won't make a generalisation against illegal aliens
(I'm UK, so I'm not part of the PC police). What I will say, however,
is that I am certain it's because of their illegal entry to the US
that we people are in the K1-K3-AOS quagmire. Doors have closed to
those wishing to enter following the rules, (whatever rules they
decide to put in front of us) because people enter illegally and then
disappear.

I cannot blame some people in relationships for entering illegally or
overstaying - the BCIS/UCIS/INS/whatever they're called are making it
so that our time apart from our loved ones is as unnecessarily and
heart-wrenchingly lengthy. It's love and emotional reactions that
makes people remain with their partners/wives/fiances. Why do we have
to go through the pain of distance for this length of time? At the
very start, it's over-facing (6-9 months, or more for Nebraska?), in
the middle you're in limbo, and from what I can gather it's Extremely
difficult to get any answers about where you are within the hamster
wheel that is K1.

I am still undergoing tearful departures from my fiance at the airport
- it's awful.

What I will add, however, is that if couples can survive this ordeal,
they can survive almost anything. But the "processes" don't give us
all a chance. I am certain that this process has driven many couples
apart - different people can deal with it in different ways; some are
stronger but some, the more emotional of us, find it agony. The other
result is that people then feel resentment against an agency in the
country in which they want to live with their partner. It taints our
view of America, no matter how we want to package it. I feel guilty
every time I go through immigration visiting my fiance - for no
reason! They have the Innocent until Proven Guilty the wrong way
around.

Ever seen the film Entrapment? I would liken the marriage visa
process to the laser-guarded room. Once false move, and all alarm
bells go off and you're back two steps. When in fact, it was a stray
lock of hair in the beam.

I guess we have to deal with this - as it's the only way to be with
our loved ones, but why - why can't they make it quicker and easier
for those who are so obviously and evidently committed and devoted to
each other - and can prove it beyond reasonable doubt? :(

Speaking as someone in the UK with property, car, job etc - it's that
limbo period which is the worst. 3 month notice period, house to
sell, car to sell... at what point do I deal with all this? They
advise not giving up your job until you have the visa - but then I
have to wait 3 months to get there after my notice period? Yes, I
know that's only my situation - but others must have similar
concerns/worries. Think - if it takes 9 months (worst case, I
*hope*), that's a year before I can get there. Barely in time for the
Christmas after this. It's depressing, but there's someone truly
lovely rooting for me, who will be my reward at the end.

I do hope that *someone* in the US government takes this process in
hand - from my point of view, more for TSC, CSC and NSC (I cannot
comment on k3 or AOS as I haven't yet gone through this - K1 process
looming in the next couple of days).

My little soap box done for today.

Hang in there, people, I'm telling myself that every day.

Kath

Andrew, you had made some earlier points in response to one of my
messages, I in turn responded to it but you probably never saw it. I
am really interested in your answer, so I am reposting it: (my
question just became more relevent given recent wal-mart news)

Andrew,

I guess you have a point, being here without a valid visa is against
the law, so is working without a work permit. And yes, people in those
categories (and many more) can be deported when found. Most countries
have those laws, no issues here from my part

I do make a distinction (and I believe US laws do as well) between
being here illegally and committing serious crimes (i.e. rape,
murder). But anybody who breaks the law is a criminal (maybe a
conviction is needed for that, otherwise anybody who speeded on a
highway will also be a criminal)

Following your point, what should happen to US companies and
businesses who hire illegal immigrants (be it to harvest, work in
factories, wash dishes, etc.), are they criminals too (they broke the
law, so according to your definition they are) - Please let us know
what your idea of an appropriate punishment is - Jail, payment of lost
wages to an unemployed American?
(This is a serious question, please either answer it seriously or just
ignore it)

I do maintain my belief that immigrants legal or not are good for the
country, they invigorate the economy, provide needed skills (from
dishwashing upwards), pay taxes (yes they do), spend money in US, and
in many cases serve and die in the military - Are the immigrants who
died in Iraq carrying out the orders of the President also criminals
(should their general be in jail for hiring them?)

Do you like Baseball? Are Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, and the many
other foreign players bad for Baseball - should they not be allowed to
play until all Americans who say they are baseball players play on an
MLB team? I believe that stadiums will be empty if that were the case

I do also agree that no system is perfect, US citizens wil be
unemployed no matter what, even if no foreign workers were allowed.
You have to recognize that this is true, even if you don't agree or
like it

Mayo wrote:
I do make a distinction (and I believe US laws do as well) between being here illegally and committing serious crimes (i.e. rape, murder).

Well I do view immigration violations as serious, not as serious as rape
and murder, but serious nonetheless. And there is also a large class of
illegal aliens who do indeed commit more serious crimes than just
illegal work/entry. They get involved in drugs, domestic violence, etc,
probably in porportion with the legal population. Then again they are
already operating outside the law so sometimes that causes them to get
into even more trouble to start with (no legal recourse causes them to
sometimes be more desperate and commit more violations).
But anybody who breaks the law is a criminal (maybe a conviction is needed for that, otherwise anybody who speeded on a highway will also be a criminal)

Well before a conviction, technically, they are an alleged criminals ;-) .
Following your point, what should happen to US companies and businesses who hire illegal immigrants (be it to harvest, work in factories, wash dishes, etc.), are they criminals too (they broke the law, so according to your definition they are) - Please let us know what your idea of an appropriate punishment is - Jail, payment of lost wages to an unemployed American? (This is a serious question, please either answer it seriously or just ignore it)

Perosnally I feel that, aside from active recruiting of illegals from
their country of origin, businesses should not be held liable at all(!).
I know you'll find that shocking. Effectively this is because I believe
it is not the job of business to be compelled into law enforcement.

However that's the libertarian in my talking. I recognize and admit that
as the law stands they are liable and that they should face prosecution
as the law proscribes. I'm not certain what an "apropriate punishment"
should be because #1 above, I don't think that they should be punished.
However I agree that they should be punished in accordance to the law as
it stands.
I do maintain my belief that immigrants legal or not are good for the country, they invigorate the economy, provide needed skills (from dishwashing upwards), pay taxes (yes they do), spend money in US, and in many cases serve and die in the military - Are the immigrants who died in Iraq carrying out the orders of the President also criminals (should their general be in jail for hiring them?)

Did they violate a law? If so then yes they are criminals. US citizens
are also good for the country. And likewise if they violate a law they
should be prosecuted and punished as the law proscribes.
Do you like Baseball?

Not really a baseball fan or fanatic.
Are Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, and the many other foreign players bad for Baseball - should they not be allowed to play until all Americans who say they are baseball players play on an MLB team? I believe that stadiums will be empty if that were the case

Depends. Have they violated laws? If so then they should face the
punishment, no? Or are they hear legally?
I do also agree that no system is perfect, US citizens wil be unemployed no matter what, even if no foreign workers were allowed.

Whether or not a US citizen is employeed is irrelevent to the issue of
violation of the law and application of the proscribed penalty.
You have to recognize that this is true, even if you don't agree or like it

I need do no such thing sir. While no system is perfect, making it less
perfect by ignoring the rules doesn't seem to me to be an effort of
striving for perfection, rather it is the opposite.
--
Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 04:31:59 GMT, Kitty II <Kitty@INet.com> did say
unto me:
You are correct, and if we were in a court of law, absolutely correct.But, we are not. We are in a news group. Call these people what you will,cite other issues as you wish -and there ARE other issues involved-,however, none that change some facts about these criminal illegalimmigrants.1) They lie and break our laws to get here.2) They are takers, not givers. From our government, from citizenslooking for work, from welfare, from...need I go on?3) Their attitude is accompanied by their elbow. They come, thinking thatthey have some right to impose on anyone and anything that gets in theirway. They DO NOT come, by and large, to fit in, or to join what is alreadyin place here. Hence, because they are willing to impose, and we prettymuch, are soft enough not to understand the attitude we are confrontedwith, are willing to move over, make room, put up with THEIR language, evenconsider printing crap in a second (or more) language(s) in order toaccommodate their whining about it.After watching our politicians pander to these people, I have lost any carefor them. Normally, I am willing to pitch in and help out. BUT, when I ammet with the attitude, over and over, that I HAD BETTER do so, I get myback up, and start asking questions. The end result is that I AM willingto call them criminals. I am willing to take on the likes of Chris Cannon,and replace him with someone with a better attitude than he has. Hell, heno longer even knows who voted him into office! I AM willing to call themillegal aliens. I AM willing to call to task my local enforcementagencies, and DEMAND that they start being part of deporting these assholes.Had they come to join, I would not have a problem. BUT that is not thecase. They clearly have come to change us. So, to hell with them ANDtheir attitude!

I can only talk about what I know, and I've seen quite a few
things that disgust me about the entire situation.
The first being, of course, that those of us doing things the
legal way are smacked around, ignored, and made to feel like
second-class citizens by our own government. We practically have to
beg and plead at the feet of USCIS and kiss its toes for even the
simplest little "mercy" in letting us be with those we love.
Meanwhile, illegals pour through our borders unchecked each day with
nothing done to stop them. For the past two years, I've been saving
money up for a house, and each year I've had to take a hit in the bank
account to pay USCIS, to pay for plane flights, hotels, and all the
other expenses that are part of this time-consuming and punishing
process. The illegals, however, pay for jack sh*t. This "punishment"
against citizens doing things legally, in part for the actions of
illegals, burns me. Our government, however, will do nothing to change
it.
Secondly, not all illegals are the "hard-working,"
"gosh-honest" souls that some try to make them appear. In my area,
there are quite a few stories of illegals driving around with fake
licenses, no car insurance, and committing crimes. An illegal gets
drunk and drives, and smashes into somebody, and nothing happens to
them. Oh, they make be fined or ticketed, but since they don't bother
to pay, it doesn't really do anything. And yes, there are citizens
doing the same stuff, and if I was in charge, their punishment would
be as harsh as necessary to curb or stop such reckless behavior.
People have to admit that while there are illegals who are fleeing
from some dirtball country to try and better themselves, there are
just as many looking for a free ride with the attitude of "screw you
all" and doing whatever they can to avoid the law while getting all
the benefits of being a citizen. And yes, despite what those who are
blind to the real world say, illegals can and do get false ID's to
collect welfare, unemployment, and everything else they can. I could
drive less than an hour to a certain location and do that if I wanted
to.
In Atlantic City, I have a couple of relatives who work with
legal immigrants, and this is almost worse. They are all from India,
Pakistan, or some other nation nearby. Trump is given a break from the
government for each one he hires, and those that he hires don't pay
income taxes. Yes, they would have to pay sales tax, but so what? I've
been regaled with descriptions of these people, and how they use their
tax-free income. Do they send it away to their families back in their
native land to help them? There were a couple who did, but the vast
majority didn't. They instead spent it on themselves. They drive
around in cars I can't afford, wear tons of gold jewerly and expensive
clothes, and have called the U.S. citizens that work with them
"suckers" for having to pay income tax. It's amazing how generous the
U.S. can be towards everyone but its own citizens, isn't it?

So should the illegal immigrants who served in Iraq be deported? They
followed the President orders but where in the US illegally (FYI by
law they can apply for citizenship)

If they died, should their families be deported?




Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message news:<6ff9a$3fafd2b7$44a7886c$28590@msgid.meganewsserver s.com>... Mayo wrote: I do make a distinction (and I believe US laws do as well) between being here illegally and committing serious crimes (i.e. rape, murder). Well I do view immigration violations as serious, not as serious as rape and murder, but serious nonetheless. And there is also a large class of illegal aliens who do indeed commit more serious crimes than just illegal work/entry. They get involved in drugs, domestic violence, etc, probably in porportion with the legal population. Then again they are already operating outside the law so sometimes that causes them to get into even more trouble to start with (no legal recourse causes them to sometimes be more desperate and commit more violations). But anybody who breaks the law is a criminal (maybe a conviction is needed for that, otherwise anybody who speeded on a highway will also be a criminal) Well before a conviction, technically, they are an alleged criminals ;-) . Following your point, what should happen to US companies and businesses who hire illegal immigrants (be it to harvest, work in factories, wash dishes, etc.), are they criminals too (they broke the law, so according to your definition they are) - Please let us know what your idea of an appropriate punishment is - Jail, payment of lost wages to an unemployed American? (This is a serious question, please either answer it seriously or just ignore it) Perosnally I feel that, aside from active recruiting of illegals from their country of origin, businesses should not be held liable at all(!). I know you'll find that shocking. Effectively this is because I believe it is not the job of business to be compelled into law enforcement. However that's the libertarian in my talking. I recognize and admit that as the law stands they are liable and that they should face prosecution as the law proscribes. I'm not certain what an "apropriate punishment" should be because #1 above, I don't think that they should be punished. However I agree that they should be punished in accordance to the law as it stands. I do maintain my belief that immigrants legal or not are good for the country, they invigorate the economy, provide needed skills (from dishwashing upwards), pay taxes (yes they do), spend money in US, and in many cases serve and die in the military - Are the immigrants who died in Iraq carrying out the orders of the President also criminals (should their general be in jail for hiring them?) Did they violate a law? If so then yes they are criminals. US citizens are also good for the country. And likewise if they violate a law they should be prosecuted and punished as the law proscribes. Do you like Baseball? Not really a baseball fan or fanatic. Are Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, and the many other foreign players bad for Baseball - should they not be allowed to play until all Americans who say they are baseball players play on an MLB team? I believe that stadiums will be empty if that were the case Depends. Have they violated laws? If so then they should face the punishment, no? Or are they hear legally? I do also agree that no system is perfect, US citizens wil be unemployed no matter what, even if no foreign workers were allowed. Whether or not a US citizen is employeed is irrelevent to the issue of violation of the law and application of the proscribed penalty. You have to recognize that this is true, even if you don't agree or like it I need do no such thing sir. While no system is perfect, making it less perfect by ignoring the rules doesn't seem to me to be an effort of striving for perfection, rather it is the opposite.

Mayo wrote: So should the illegal immigrants who served in Iraq be deported? They followed the President orders but where in the US illegally (FYI by law they can apply for citizenship) If they died, should their families be deported?


Which illegal immigrants that "served" in Iraq?
Illegal immigrants can't be in the US military.

Mayo wrote:
So should the illegal immigrants who served in Iraq be deported? They followed the President orders but where in the US illegally (FYI by law they can apply for citizenship)
Well you answered the question yourself there. If the law says they can
apply for citizenship then they can apply for citizenship.
If they died, should their families be deported?
Technically, I believe so.
--
Why are they called stairs inside but steps outside?

On 10 Nov 2003 09:17:26 -0800, mario_segal@hotmail.com (Mayo) wrote:
Andrew, you had made some earlier points in response to one of mymessages, I in turn responded to it but you probably never saw it. Iam really interested in your answer, so I am reposting it: (myquestion just became more relevent given recent wal-mart news)Andrew,I guess you have a point, being here without a valid visa is againstthe law, so is working without a work permit. And yes, people in thosecategories (and many more) can be deported when found. Most countrieshave those laws, no issues here from my partI do make a distinction (and I believe US laws do as well) betweenbeing here illegally and committing serious crimes (i.e. rape,murder). But anybody who breaks the law is a criminal (maybe aconviction is needed for that, otherwise anybody who speeded on ahighway will also be a criminal)Following your point, what should happen to US companies andbusinesses who hire illegal immigrants (be it to harvest, work infactories, wash dishes, etc.), are they criminals too (they broke thelaw, so according to your definition they are) - Please let us knowwhat your idea of an appropriate punishment is - Jail, payment of lostwages to an unemployed American?(This is a serious question, please either answer it seriously or justignore it)I do maintain my belief that immigrants legal or not are good for thecountry, they invigorate the economy, provide needed skills (fromdishwashing upwards), pay taxes (yes they do), spend money in US, andin many cases serve and die in the military - Are the immigrants whodied in Iraq carrying out the orders of the President also criminals(should their general be in jail for hiring them?)

As long as you restrict your concept of "immigrant" to those you
mention below, there's no issue. Unfortunately, most don' fall
remotely in that category.
Do you like Baseball? Are Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, and the manyother foreign players bad for Baseball - should they not be allowed toplay until all Americans who say they are baseball players play on anMLB team? I believe that stadiums will be empty if that were the caseI do also agree that no system is perfect, US citizens wil beunemployed no matter what, even if no foreign workers were allowed.You have to recognize that this is true, even if you don't agree orlike it

What about the numbers of unemployed sitizens? You think that's
independent of immigration levels for unskilled?

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:58:47 GMT, "Who Cares" <no@spam.com> wrote:
we can hold more than2 Billion people - 10 times what we have now!

Maybe we can. Just who the hell are you to tell us that we should? Does
this bother you somehow? Does this presumed fact make it somehow right
for another country's people to take advantage of this presumed fact?

Kitty II

On 11 Nov 2003 14:39:16 -0800, mario_segal@hotmail.com (Mayo) wrote:
So should the illegal immigrants who served in Iraq be deported? Theyfollowed the President orders but where in the US illegally (FYI bylaw they can apply for citizenship)

Tough. They are illegal and therefore should be deported without
question.If they died, should their families be deported?

YESAndrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message news:<6ff9a$3fafd2b7$44a7886c$28590@msgid.meganewsserver s.com>... Mayo wrote: I do make a distinction (and I believe US laws do as well) between being here illegally and committing serious crimes (i.e. rape, murder). Well I do view immigration violations as serious, not as serious as rape and murder, but serious nonetheless. And there is also a large class of illegal aliens who do indeed commit more serious crimes than just illegal work/entry. They get involved in drugs, domestic violence, etc, probably in porportion with the legal population. Then again they are already operating outside the law so sometimes that causes them to get into even more trouble to start with (no legal recourse causes them to sometimes be more desperate and commit more violations). But anybody who breaks the law is a criminal (maybe a conviction is needed for that, otherwise anybody who speeded on a highway will also be a criminal) Well before a conviction, technically, they are an alleged criminals ;-) . Following your point, what should happen to US companies and businesses who hire illegal immigrants (be it to harvest, work in factories, wash dishes, etc.), are they criminals too (they broke the law, so according to your definition they are) - Please let us know what your idea of an appropriate punishment is - Jail, payment of lost wages to an unemployed American? (This is a serious question, please either answer it seriously or just ignore it) Perosnally I feel that, aside from active recruiting of illegals from their country of origin, businesses should not be held liable at all(!). I know you'll find that shocking. Effectively this is because I believe it is not the job of business to be compelled into law enforcement. However that's the libertarian in my talking. I recognize and admit that as the law stands they are liable and that they should face prosecution as the law proscribes. I'm not certain what an "apropriate punishment" should be because #1 above, I don't think that they should be punished. However I agree that they should be punished in accordance to the law as it stands. I do maintain my belief that immigrants legal or not are good for the country, they invigorate the economy, provide needed skills (from dishwashing upwards), pay taxes (yes they do), spend money in US, and in many cases serve and die in the military - Are the immigrants who died in Iraq carrying out the orders of the President also criminals (should their general be in jail for hiring them?) Did they violate a law? If so then yes they are criminals. US citizens are also good for the country. And likewise if they violate a law they should be prosecuted and punished as the law proscribes. Do you like Baseball? Not really a baseball fan or fanatic. Are Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, and the many other foreign players bad for Baseball - should they not be allowed to play until all Americans who say they are baseball players play on an MLB team? I believe that stadiums will be empty if that were the case Depends. Have they violated laws? If so then they should face the punishment, no? Or are they hear legally? I do also agree that no system is perfect, US citizens wil be unemployed no matter what, even if no foreign workers were allowed. Whether or not a US citizen is employeed is irrelevent to the issue of violation of the law and application of the proscribed penalty. You have to recognize that this is true, even if you don't agree or like it I need do no such thing sir. While no system is perfect, making it less perfect by ignoring the rules doesn't seem to me to be an effort of striving for perfection, rather it is the opposite.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:45:32 GMT, mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote:
Mayo wrote: So should the illegal immigrants who served in Iraq be deported? They followed the President orders but where in the US illegally (FYI by law they can apply for citizenship) If they died, should their families be deported?Which illegal immigrants that "served" in Iraq?Illegal immigrants can't be in the US military.

Apparently you don't keep up on the news very well. They have them and
one was found out.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:23:40 GMT, Kitty II <Kitty@INet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:58:47 GMT, "Who Cares" <no@spam.com> wrote:we can hold more than2 Billion people - 10 times what we have now!

What an idiot you are. No more comment is needed because you have
already proven how utterly ignorant you truly are.Maybe we can. Just who the hell are you to tell us that we should? Doesthis bother you somehow? Does this presumed fact make it somehow rightfor another country's people to take advantage of this presumed fact?Kitty II

Graphic Queen wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:45:32 GMT, mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote:Mayo wrote:So should the illegal immigrants who served in Iraq be deported? Theyfollowed the President orders but where in the US illegally (FYI bylaw they can apply for citizenship)If they died, should their families be deported?Which illegal immigrants that "served" in Iraq?Illegal immigrants can't be in the US military. Apparently you don't keep up on the news very well. They have them and one was found out.

What do you mean "found out"?
Are you saying that he was not legal and this was found out?
If he illegally entered the military, and the military status gave him
citizenship, wouldn't that void the citizenship?

mrtravel wrote:
Apparently you don't keep up on the news very well. They have them and one was found out. What do you mean "found out"? Are you saying that he was not legal and this was found out? If he illegally entered the military, and the military status gave him citizenship, wouldn't that void the citizenship?

I vaguely recall a story about several troops that were found to be here
illegally but where already in the military and fighting (one wonders
how they get into the military illegal - if we were to follow the
thinkings of other posters here I guess we should sue the military and
put them in jail, however I digress) - one I believe died. The others
were granted immediate citizenship I think by an act of the president
himself or the Justice Department. Whichever agency it was it was made
legit by the government for their service and I'm OK with that.
--
2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:48:53 GMT, mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote:
Graphic Queen wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:45:32 GMT, mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote:Mayo wrote:>So should the illegal immigrants who served in Iraq be deported? They>followed the President orders but where in the US illegally (FYI by>law they can apply for citizenship)>>If they died, should their families be deported?>Which illegal immigrants that "served" in Iraq?Illegal immigrants can't be in the US military. Apparently you don't keep up on the news very well. They have them and one was found out.What do you mean "found out"?Are you saying that he was not legal and this was found out?If he illegally entered the military, and the military status gave himcitizenship, wouldn't that void the citizenship?

He is not a citizen. They found out that he is an illegal alien.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:55:28 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:I vaguely recall a story about several troops that were found to be hereillegally but where already in the military and fighting (one wondershow they get into the military illegal - if we were to follow thethinkings of other posters here I guess we should sue the military andput them in jail, however I digress)

That seems to be targeted at me :)

If so, I just like to add that I am talking about the businesses who
make a business out of hiring illegal immigrants. The military doesn't
yet seem to fit that description.

(We may get there, though, with the rising need for a stronger
military, considering all the possible deployment locations... But I'm
sure the necessary laws would be created so that this will happen
legally :)

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:41:54 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:>> So then you see nothing wrong with me wanting to see immigration>> laws enforced. Then why are we arguing (or are we arguing)?> The devil is in the details :) IIRC, it started with me posting some> opinions here and getting shredded.... Answer the question! Otherwise you are just being argumentive. Answer it for yourself! You asked "why are we arguing?" and "are we arguing?" I cant' answer that, and I thought you knew that. That's why I assumed that weren't really questions you wanted me to answer.That's not the question! The question is, and has been, do you think weshould enforce our current immigration laws and remove illegal aliensfrom the country?

Actually, and you can read that up above, your question was "why are
we arguing (or are we arguing)?"

But to answer your latter question, I don't have a problem with
removing illegal aliens. I just don't know whether I would want that
we spend all the resources I think would be necessary to do that.

IOW what do we do with the current violators? When you catch one, you deport one.You mean like fishing by standing on the shore and waiting for them tojump into your arms?

I have a question here. Currently, probably one of the most efficient
measures that brings illegals to light is through their employment.
Since you oppose that, what are your ideas how law enforcement
officers should find them? They can't go around and ask people for
their IDs...

We've been there before, and I think we have an agreement here. The question is how much of the limited law enforcement resources should get used trying to catch them all. At one point, you cited rape and murder as serious crimes, which seems to indicate that you still want some law enforcement resources dedicated to solving these crimes.Two totally different sets of law enforcement officers. Two differentbudgets, etc, etc.

Not quite. In the end, they all need to be paid for by the taxes that
we pay. They might be paid by different taxes (state, federal), but in
the end, it's still all from the one pot of taxes we have to pay. If
we increase the resources dedicated to one, either we increase the
taxes or we remove the resources from somewhere else. (Or, of course,
we increase the efficiency of the resources. I'd like to see how you
do that...)

We should put the appropriate law enforcement resources from theappropriate and proper agencies on the problem of illegal aliens. With agrowing number of illegal (now estimated at 7-8 million I hear) it'sclear to anyone that there is a big problem here.

This seems to be done. Or not? What else would the officers from these
agencies do?

None of this diminishes the fact that there is a big problem withillegals that is not getting any beter and that is failing!

No disagreement here.

You are the only person I've ever spoke to that thinks that enforcement== prevention.

Actually, this is not what I think. This is an ideal that I think we
should strive to achieve. Until then, only the purpose of law
enforcement is ultimately prevention.
Youcan look at say, fire fighters, whose primary job is fighting fires, butwho also perform many other tasks such as the proverbal getting the catout of trees or perhaps educating at schools about, yes, fireprevention. Yet I see nobody trying equate fire fighting with fireprevention (or arson investigation).

Let's look at the case of fighting fires.

We have whole government agencies that are concerned with fire
prevention. We have even fines for home and business owners who don't
take the required fire prevention measures. So we take fire prevention
quite seriously (albeit many people don't take it as seriously as they
should, especially here in So Cal).

We have some of that in law enforcement, but not really that
elaborate.

Then, when it burns, while it is burning, we have a second stage of
prevention. Fire fighters are mostly concerned with preventing
additional damage: to the building that is burning, to adjacent
buildings. They try to extinguish the fire to avoid that any more gets
damaged.

We usually don't have this stage in law enforcement, because we
usually don't have law enforcement officers at the scene while "it
burns", i.e. while the law gets broken.

To some degree, after the fire got extinguished, experts try to find
out how it started. This can lead to criminal charges, or to changes
to the building code or other fire safety codes, etc.

This is the equivalent to standard law enforcement work. This and only
this.

So yes, fighting fires is not so bad an analogy to what I think should
be done in law enforcement: we spend most of the efforts in
prevention, when something happens we try to catch it while it's
happening, and we check after the fact for reasons why it happened and
improve the prevention efforts accordingly.

Prevention is indeed a good thing. If you think that prevention shouldbe focused on then I submit to you that if that is indeed what they areattempting to do (prevent illegal aliens from entering and working inthis country) then it is failing horribly and perhaps we should switchback to just enforcing the law (IOW get the fishing pole out and stickit in the water!)

"If you think that prevention should be focused on [...] if that is
indeed what they are attempting to do"

I indeed think this is what we should be focused on, but I think this
obviously because I think we currently are not focused on it (that's
why the "we should" part). If we were, we probably would have fewer
problems.

So what is the purpose of the law, in your opinion? Isn't it the purpose of the law to provide justice? Isn't it a fact that the law changes all the time? Doesn't follow from that that the law is not perfect (but justice, as a principle is), and that we try to get as close as possible to ideal justice with real law?The law is not perfect. Still many people feel that the justice providedby the law is correct.

You didn't answer a single question of the ones above.

> You are probably right -- in theory. It seems that reality shows> that such improvements in efficiency go slowly. So I wouldn't count> on them for the near future. I find that things are achievable roughly in porportion to the belief that they are achievable. IOW if you believe it's not doable (i.e. "in theory") then you have condemned it to failure. I don't think so.You don't think what? You don't think that if one believes in their mindthat something is not possible that they will not tend to even try?

No. I don't think that it will have an effect on the person who does
something when I think that this person will or not succeed. I
explained that below in a few sentences, which you took apart and so
deprived you of the possibility to understand the context.

I don't see how what I think about efficiency of law enforcement could possibly affect the law enforcement officers.Then your thoughts should be dismissed(???)

No. In leading teams, I have made over and over the experience that
putting the expectiations right where the possibilities are is the
best recipy for a well-succeeded project and a happy team.
They work with their own measure of efficiency, which very well may be influenced by what they think they can achieve, but I deem it very unlikely that their efficiency gets influenced by what _I_ think about it.This is good! :-)

Of course it is. It is exactly the answer to your question above.
Maybe you do us both the favor and read the whole post before
commenting on single sentences.
What I still can't figure out is WRT the USCIS, why people always think that they are hopelessly inefficient and can never be fixed to be efficient. It's self fulfilling. Again, I don't think that there is a self-fulfilling thing going.I'm nearly convinced they are.

How?
I think we are talking about differrent officers.

It seems so.

I would not say, however, to "give up" on say drug smugglers just because we are not god at it, it's hard or it doesn't appear to be stopping them.Perhaps a bad example, however, illegal immigration is not drugsmuggling. OK change the above to say drunk driving or rape.

"Stopping them" (i.e. before they do it) is exactly what I mean. That
is prevention. The way you see law enforcement, it has nothing to do
with stopping anybody. It is merely doing something after the fact,
without any regard to the future.

I see a serious moral problem in prohibiting things that don't really affect somebody else. Why is it my business if somebody smokes pot? [...]Generally I agree with you. We can add to that prostitution, etc.However when the behavior does effect others (think drunk driving ordriving while stoned, or say stealing to feed your habit, etc) thensomething should be done. Granted there would be less problems if thingswere legal.

I'm glad when I find something that we can agree upon! In addition, I
think that the argumentation that a crime committed while drunk is
less serious than while sober (because the person wasn't really aware
of what he/she did) is completely bogus. I think that we should be
even more responsible for such crimes -- after all, when I decide to
get drunk or stoned, I have an increased responsibility to make sure I
don't bring anybody else into trouble, exactly because I know I will
be out of control. So yes, any crimes committed against others are
just as bad or worse.

It can be argued that illegal aliens are committing crimes againstothers (US citizens not having jobs - and yes there are Americans whowould take jobs that illegals have) as well as, and often forgotten ornot discussed even in this thread but a big problem nonetheless, alienswho commit crimes - real offenses - then continue to remain here whenthe law clearly states that they have worn our their welcome.

See, I have this idea about work visa. I think that between countries
with comparable economic level (for example the USA, Japan, the EU,
Switzerland, Australia) there could be a treaty that gives citizens
the right to live and work in the other countries, but no access to
social benefits. They would have to place a deposit with the
government of the country they want to go to that covers deportation.
When they go back without having gotten in trouble, they get it back.
If they get into any kind of trouble -- including requiring social
services --, the deposit is gone and gets used to pay for the
immediate deportation. Would be a good way to enable people to get to
know the world without all the bureaucratic hassles around it.

If an immigrant commits grand theft, domesitc violence or various drugoffenses, while the local or state law proscribes a specific punishmentthat that immigrant may serve the INA also specifies that that immigrantis removable. Are you in agreement that such an offender should besumarily removed? (In fact if an immigrant commits and aggravated felony- say bank robbery - that illegal is supposed to be taken from his jailcell (after convicted) and put into removal proceeding before he servesout his term. Do you agree with that too?). Because often such thingsare not happening!

Hm... it makes sense to let them serve their time in their home
country :)

But whether a name matches a SSN should be clear pretty soon.You mean in the Wal-Mart case?

No, I meant in the case of a small business that got a fake SSN from
an employee.
In any case, I think they are off the hook if they submitted tax statements about W-2 tax withholding with the SSNs they got from their employees.Who's off the hook?

The business owner.
At this point it would be the responsibility of the IRS to complain if the SSNs don't match the names -- I would think. IINL -- and I'm glad I ain't :)

Totally different situations here. Law enforcement officers arecompensated for working for the government. In the case of businessbeing enlisted to help law enforcement no compensation is given to thebusiness.

No compensation is given to the population at large that watches its
neighborhoods and help keeping them safe. That's an integral part of
overall security. No compensation is given either to home owners that
follow fire prevention regulations and clean up their brushes; you
could argue that this is the responsibility of the fire prevention
agencies.

OTOH, one can argue that it is the responsibility of the business
owner to make sure that no one without the proper permission works in
his business.

These do appear to be incidents of what you claim however I would notcall 30 a big numbers.

That's one guy, and that's 30 each time. That may make 3000 a year,
and with only a few hundred of such "businesses", that's millions.
Additionally this appears to be limited to farms,perhaps small farms, with few employees at best and that are close tothe Mexican border.

For what I understand, most of CA (and the other border states) is
"close to the Mexican border" in that respect.
But the vast marjority of the US is not close to theMexican border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area(San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts,K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc.

How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions?

> If X only has the purpose to maintain X, I'd say that X is not> necessary. That depends on whether or not X is necessary. If X is necessary then it needs to be maintained, even if X is charged with the responsibility of maintaining X. If X is necessary, it is necessary for a purpose. Back to law enforcement, why is law enforcement necessary?Law enforcement is necessary to uphold the law. Law is necessary toallow peaceful co-existance.

So the reason is peaceful co-existence, or, more specifically, to
uphold the law. Well, this is what I've been saying all the time. Any
law enforcement measure should be evaluated with this in mind: how it
helps to uphold the law. Putting somebody in jail or deporting
somebody or fining somebody are law enforcement measures, and should
be measured by their effect of upholding the law, and if necessary,
modified to increase their efficiency towards that goal.

(Note that "uphold the law" is definitely future-oriented and
practically synonymous to prevention of future violations of the
law...)

No, the immigration rate of e.g. Germany is comparable to the USA. (The immigration rate per citizen is about equal, the rate per square mile is much higher in Germany.) Similar numbers you will find in most developed European countries.Interesting.

So many poor countries nearby, without natural borders.

Considering that these comments were in the greater context of violations of the law in general, it is being done here (prosecuting crimes and punishing violators with jail time).Illegal aliens don't get jail time per se, they get removed.

"Greater context of violations of the law in general"
The prisons are full -- fuller than in any other developed country. No other developed, democratic country has 1% of its citizenry in jail. There is either something wrong with the citizenry or with the rules that created this situation.We cannot necessarily say that. Perhaps law breakers or breaking the lawin other countries goes unpunished (I'm not really saying that as Idon't know but it's a possibility)

It is a definite possibility. Yet the crime rate is lower. Isn't that
an indication that the goal of upholding the law gets achieved better?
With less people in jail?

I wish to see the appropriate law enforcement and application of the existing laws. I am sure that if this was tried that the problem of illegal aliens would be substantially effected and that deterrence would result and the problem would be drastically reduced. It doesn't work well in the case of legal but criminal citizens.It does work.

Then why has the USA the highest prison population of all developed
countries and still crime rates that are not lower? I wouldn't call
that "working".

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:41:54 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:>> So then you see nothing wrong with me wanting to see immigration>> laws enforced. Then why are we arguing (or are we arguing)?> The devil is in the details :) IIRC, it started with me posting some> opinions here and getting shredded.... Answer the question! Otherwise you are just being argumentive. Answer it for yourself! You asked "why are we arguing?" and "are we arguing?" I cant' answer that, and I thought you knew that. That's why I assumed that weren't really questions you wanted me to answer.That's not the question! The question is, and has been, do you think weshould enforce our current immigration laws and remove illegal aliensfrom the country?

Actually, and you can read that up above, your question was "why are
we arguing (or are we arguing)?"

But to answer your latter question, I don't have a problem with
removing illegal aliens. I just don't know whether I would want that
we spend all the resources I think would be necessary to do that.

IOW what do we do with the current violators? When you catch one, you deport one.You mean like fishing by standing on the shore and waiting for them tojump into your arms?

I have a question here. Currently, probably one of the most efficient
measures that brings illegals to light is through their employment.
Since you oppose that, what are your ideas how law enforcement
officers should find them? They can't go around and ask people for
their IDs...

We've been there before, and I think we have an agreement here. The question is how much of the limited law enforcement resources should get used trying to catch them all. At one point, you cited rape and murder as serious crimes, which seems to indicate that you still want some law enforcement resources dedicated to solving these crimes.Two totally different sets of law enforcement officers. Two differentbudgets, etc, etc.

Not quite. In the end, they all need to be paid for by the taxes that
we pay. They might be paid by different taxes (state, federal), but in
the end, it's still all from the one pot of taxes we have to pay. If
we increase the resources dedicated to one, either we increase the
taxes or we remove the resources from somewhere else. (Or, of course,
we increase the efficiency of the resources. I'd like to see how you
do that...)

We should put the appropriate law enforcement resources from theappropriate and proper agencies on the problem of illegal aliens. With agrowing number of illegal (now estimated at 7-8 million I hear) it'sclear to anyone that there is a big problem here.

This seems to be done. Or not? What else would the officers from these
agencies do?

None of this diminishes the fact that there is a big problem withillegals that is not getting any beter and that is failing!

No disagreement here.

You are the only person I've ever spoke to that thinks that enforcement== prevention.

Actually, this is not what I think. This is an ideal that I think we
should strive to achieve. Until then, only the purpose of law
enforcement is ultimately prevention.
Youcan look at say, fire fighters, whose primary job is fighting fires, butwho also perform many other tasks such as the proverbal getting the catout of trees or perhaps educating at schools about, yes, fireprevention. Yet I see nobody trying equate fire fighting with fireprevention (or arson investigation).

Let's look at the case of fighting fires.

We have whole government agencies that are concerned with fire
prevention. We have even fines for home and business owners who don't
take the required fire prevention measures. So we take fire prevention
quite seriously (albeit many people don't take it as seriously as they
should, especially here in So Cal).

We have some of that in law enforcement, but not really that
elaborate.

Then, when it burns, while it is burning, we have a second stage of
prevention. Fire fighters are mostly concerned with preventing
additional damage: to the building that is burning, to adjacent
buildings. They try to extinguish the fire to avoid that any more gets
damaged.

We usually don't have this stage in law enforcement, because we
usually don't have law enforcement officers at the scene while "it
burns", i.e. while the law gets broken.

To some degree, after the fire got extinguished, experts try to find
out how it started. This can lead to criminal charges, or to changes
to the building code or other fire safety codes, etc.

This is the equivalent to standard law enforcement work. This and only
this.

So yes, fighting fires is not so bad an analogy to what I think should
be done in law enforcement: we spend most of the efforts in
prevention, when something happens we try to catch it while it's
happening, and we check after the fact for reasons why it happened and
improve the prevention efforts accordingly.

Prevention is indeed a good thing. If you think that prevention shouldbe focused on then I submit to you that if that is indeed what they areattempting to do (prevent illegal aliens from entering and working inthis country) then it is failing horribly and perhaps we should switchback to just enforcing the law (IOW get the fishing pole out and stickit in the water!)

"If you think that prevention should be focused on [...] if that is
indeed what they are attempting to do"

I indeed think this is what we should be focused on, but I think this
obviously because I think we currently are not focused on it (that's
why the "we should" part). If we were, we probably would have fewer
problems.

So what is the purpose of the law, in your opinion? Isn't it the purpose of the law to provide justice? Isn't it a fact that the law changes all the time? Doesn't follow from that that the law is not perfect (but justice, as a principle is), and that we try to get as close as possible to ideal justice with real law?The law is not perfect. Still many people feel that the justice providedby the law is correct.

You didn't answer a single question of the ones above.

> You are probably right -- in theory. It seems that reality shows> that such improvements in efficiency go slowly. So I wouldn't count> on them for the near future. I find that things are achievable roughly in porportion to the belief that they are achievable. IOW if you believe it's not doable (i.e. "in theory") then you have condemned it to failure. I don't think so.You don't think what? You don't think that if one believes in their mindthat something is not possible that they will not tend to even try?

No. I don't think that it will have an effect on the person who does
something when I think that this person will or not succeed. I
explained that below in a few sentences, which you took apart and so
deprived you of the possibility to understand the context.

I don't see how what I think about efficiency of law enforcement could possibly affect the law enforcement officers.Then your thoughts should be dismissed(???)

No. In leading teams, I have made over and over the experience that
putting the expectiations right where the possibilities are is the
best recipy for a well-succeeded project and a happy team.
They work with their own measure of efficiency, which very well may be influenced by what they think they can achieve, but I deem it very unlikely that their efficiency gets influenced by what _I_ think about it.This is good! :-)

Of course it is. It is exactly the answer to your question above.
Maybe you do us both the favor and read the whole post before
commenting on single sentences.
What I still can't figure out is WRT the USCIS, why people always think that they are hopelessly inefficient and can never be fixed to be efficient. It's self fulfilling. Again, I don't think that there is a self-fulfilling thing going.I'm nearly convinced they are.

How?
I think we are talking about differrent officers.

It seems so.

I would not say, however, to "give up" on say drug smugglers just because we are not god at it, it's hard or it doesn't appear to be stopping them.Perhaps a bad example, however, illegal immigration is not drugsmuggling. OK change the above to say drunk driving or rape.

"Stopping them" (i.e. before they do it) is exactly what I mean. That
is prevention. The way you see law enforcement, it has nothing to do
with stopping anybody. It is merely doing something after the fact,
without any regard to the future.

I see a serious moral problem in prohibiting things that don't really affect somebody else. Why is it my business if somebody smokes pot? [...]Generally I agree with you. We can add to that prostitution, etc.However when the behavior does effect others (think drunk driving ordriving while stoned, or say stealing to feed your habit, etc) thensomething should be done. Granted there would be less problems if thingswere legal.

I'm glad when I find something that we can agree upon! In addition, I
think that the argumentation that a crime committed while drunk is
less serious than while sober (because the person wasn't really aware
of what he/she did) is completely bogus. I think that we should be
even more responsible for such crimes -- after all, when I decide to
get drunk or stoned, I have an increased responsibility to make sure I
don't bring anybody else into trouble, exactly because I know I will
be out of control. So yes, any crimes committed against others are
just as bad or worse.

It can be argued that illegal aliens are committing crimes againstothers (US citizens not having jobs - and yes there are Americans whowould take jobs that illegals have) as well as, and often forgotten ornot discussed even in this thread but a big problem nonetheless, alienswho commit crimes - real offenses - then continue to remain here whenthe law clearly states that they have worn our their welcome.

See, I have this idea about work visa. I think that between countries
with comparable economic level (for example the USA, Japan, the EU,
Switzerland, Australia) there could be a treaty that gives citizens
the right to live and work in the other countries, but no access to
social benefits. They would have to place a deposit with the
government of the country they want to go to that covers deportation.
When they go back without having gotten in trouble, they get it back.
If they get into any kind of trouble -- including requiring social
services --, the deposit is gone and gets used to pay for the
immediate deportation. Would be a good way to enable people to get to
know the world without all the bureaucratic hassles around it.

If an immigrant commits grand theft, domesitc violence or various drugoffenses, while the local or state law proscribes a specific punishmentthat that immigrant may serve the INA also specifies that that immigrantis removable. Are you in agreement that such an offender should besumarily removed? (In fact if an immigrant commits and aggravated felony- say bank robbery - that illegal is supposed to be taken from his jailcell (after convicted) and put into removal proceeding before he servesout his term. Do you agree with that too?). Because often such thingsare not happening!

Hm... it makes sense to let them serve their time in their home
country :)

But whether a name matches a SSN should be clear pretty soon.You mean in the Wal-Mart case?

No, I meant in the case of a small business that got a fake SSN from
an employee.
In any case, I think they are off the hook if they submitted tax statements about W-2 tax withholding with the SSNs they got from their employees.Who's off the hook?

The business owner.
At this point it would be the responsibility of the IRS to complain if the SSNs don't match the names -- I would think. IINL -- and I'm glad I ain't :)

Totally different situations here. Law enforcement officers arecompensated for working for the government. In the case of businessbeing enlisted to help law enforcement no compensation is given to thebusiness.

No compensation is given to the population at large that watches its
neighborhoods and help keeping them safe. That's an integral part of
overall security. No compensation is given either to home owners that
follow fire prevention regulations and clean up their brushes; you
could argue that this is the responsibility of the fire prevention
agencies.

OTOH, one can argue that it is the responsibility of the business
owner to make sure that no one without the proper permission works in
his business.

These do appear to be incidents of what you claim however I would notcall 30 a big numbers.

That's one guy, and that's 30 each time. That may make 3000 a year,
and with only a few hundred of such "businesses", that's millions.
Additionally this appears to be limited to farms,perhaps small farms, with few employees at best and that are close tothe Mexican border.

For what I understand, most of CA (and the other border states) is
"close to the Mexican border" in that respect.
But the vast marjority of the US is not close to theMexican border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area(San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts,K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc.

How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions?

> If X only has the purpose to maintain X, I'd say that X is not> necessary. That depends on whether or not X is necessary. If X is necessary then it needs to be maintained, even if X is charged with the responsibility of maintaining X. If X is necessary, it is necessary for a purpose. Back to law enforcement, why is law enforcement necessary?Law enforcement is necessary to uphold the law. Law is necessary toallow peaceful co-existance.

So the reason is peaceful co-existence, or, more specifically, to
uphold the law. Well, this is what I've been saying all the time. Any
law enforcement measure should be evaluated with this in mind: how it
helps to uphold the law. Putting somebody in jail or deporting
somebody or fining somebody are law enforcement measures, and should
be measured by their effect of upholding the law, and if necessary,
modified to increase their efficiency towards that goal.

(Note that "uphold the law" is definitely future-oriented and
practically synonymous to prevention of future violations of the
law...)

No, the immigration rate of e.g. Germany is comparable to the USA. (The immigration rate per citizen is about equal, the rate per square mile is much higher in Germany.) Similar numbers you will find in most developed European countries.Interesting.

So many poor countries nearby, without natural borders.

Considering that these comments were in the greater context of violations of the law in general, it is being done here (prosecuting crimes and punishing violators with jail time).Illegal aliens don't get jail time per se, they get removed.

"Greater context of violations of the law in general"
The prisons are full -- fuller than in any other developed country. No other developed, democratic country has 1% of its citizenry in jail. There is either something wrong with the citizenry or with the rules that created this situation.We cannot necessarily say that. Perhaps law breakers or breaking the lawin other countries goes unpunished (I'm not really saying that as Idon't know but it's a possibility)

It is a definite possibility. Yet the crime rate is lower. Isn't that
an indication that the goal of upholding the law gets achieved better?
With less people in jail?

I wish to see the appropriate law enforcement and application of the existing laws. I am sure that if this was tried that the problem of illegal aliens would be substantially effected and that deterrence would result and the problem would be drastically reduced. It doesn't work well in the case of legal but criminal citizens.It does work.

Then why has the USA the highest prison population of all developed
countries and still crime rates that are not lower? I wouldn't call
that "working".

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:19:34 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:I vaguely recall a story about several troops that were found to be here illegally but where already in the military and fighting (one wonders how they get into the military illegal - if we were to follow the thinkings of other posters here I guess we should sue the military and put them in jail, however I digress)That seems to be targeted at me :)If so, I just like to add that I am talking about the businesses who make a business out of hiring illegal immigrants. The military doesn't yet seem to fit that description.Whether or not they "make a business of it" if a business violates thelaw by knowingly hiring illegals then they should be held accountablefor such action in accordance to the law. The same standard should holdfor the government too, no?

If knowingly, and if the law applies to the government too, then yes.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a
single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the
rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions
provided in the law...

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:19:34 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:I vaguely recall a story about several troops that were found to be here illegally but where already in the military and fighting (one wonders how they get into the military illegal - if we were to follow the thinkings of other posters here I guess we should sue the military and put them in jail, however I digress)That seems to be targeted at me :)If so, I just like to add that I am talking about the businesses who make a business out of hiring illegal immigrants. The military doesn't yet seem to fit that description.Whether or not they "make a business of it" if a business violates thelaw by knowingly hiring illegals then they should be held accountablefor such action in accordance to the law. The same standard should holdfor the government too, no?

If knowingly, and if the law applies to the government too, then yes.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a
single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the
rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions
provided in the law...

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
When you catch one, you deport one. You mean like fishing by standing on the shore and waiting for them to jump into your arms? I have a question here. Currently, probably one of the most efficient measures that brings illegals to light is through their employment. Since you oppose that, what are your ideas how law enforcement officers should find them? They can't go around and ask people for their IDs...

It'd work better than "standing on the shore and waiting for them to
jump into your arms". Why not?

Actually illegals, like other people, often have encounters with the
law, like traffic stops, etc, where an enforcement officer could surely
ask for ID. I think it exceptionaly counter productive to give illegals
valid drivers licenses as we are doing here in California.
Two totally different sets of law enforcement officers. Two different budgets, etc, etc. Not quite.

USICE != local police. They perform semi similar functions but they are
not the same. And the budgets are different.
In the end, they all need to be paid for by the taxes that we pay.

I thought that the USICS is more similar to the post office WRT it's
funding. Yes ultimately everything comes either from our pockets or the
printing of new money.
They might be paid by different taxes (state, federal), but in the end, it's still all from the one pot of taxes we have to pay. If we increase the resources dedicated to one, either we increase the taxes or we remove the resources from somewhere else. (Or, of course, we increase the efficiency of the resources. I'd like to see how you do that...)

Increasing the efficiency of the current resources is definitely doable.
A lot more than you seem to think. Government is horribly inefficient
wouldn't you agree? Why then do you think it would be hard to increase
efficiency? (Perhaps just hard for them to allow you to attempt to
increase efficiency).
We should put the appropriate law enforcement resources from the appropriate and proper agencies on the problem of illegal aliens. With a growing number of illegal (now estimated at 7-8 million I hear) it's clear to anyone that there is a big problem here. This seems to be done. Or not? What else would the officers from these agencies do?

I disagree that this is being done really at all. I know of an immigrant
who violated the law and was in jail. They were put on "INS hold" while
in there. They were supposed to be picked up by the INS when released.
When the time came the INS simply neglected to pick them up. What do you
call that?
You can look at say, fire fighters, whose primary job is fighting fires, but who also perform many other tasks such as the proverbal getting the cat out of trees or perhaps educating at schools about, yes, fire prevention. Yet I see nobody trying equate fire fighting with fire prevention (or arson investigation). Let's look at the case of fighting fires.
So yes, fighting fires is not so bad an analogy to what I think should be done in law enforcement: we spend most of the efforts in prevention, when something happens we try to catch it while it's happening, and we check after the fact for reasons why it happened and improve the prevention efforts accordingly.

I understand and admit that police officers also perform tasks designed
to prevent law. But when they are in "enforcement mode" enforcing the
law it is similar to when a fire fighter is in "fire fighting mode"
fighting fires. It is part of their respective jobs. The difference is
that the 7-8 million illegals out there are akin to the recent wild
fires in Southern California. It's happening currently and should be
address - not allowed to continue to grow in a manner to similar to
letting the fire go wildly. Sure containment is one thing that needs to
be done as well as preventing further growth. Even so the fire fighters
fought the current existing blazes. One difference though was that a
fire, contained, will eventually burn itself out. Illegals will not burn
themselves out.
Prevention is indeed a good thing. If you think that prevention should be focused on then I submit to you that if that is indeed what they are attempting to do (prevent illegal aliens from entering and working in this country) then it is failing horribly and perhaps we should switch back to just enforcing the law (IOW get the fishing pole out and stick it in the water!) "If you think that prevention should be focused on [...] if that is indeed what they are attempting to do" I indeed think this is what we should be focused on, but I think this obviously because I think we currently are not focused on it (that's why the "we should" part). If we were, we probably would have fewer problems.

What then do we do with the current violators?
So what is the purpose of the law, in your opinion? Isn't it the purpose of the law to provide justice? Isn't it a fact that the law changes all the time? Doesn't follow from that that the law is not perfect (but justice, as a principle is), and that we try to get as close as possible to ideal justice with real law? The law is not perfect. Still many people feel that the justice provided by the law is correct. You didn't answer a single question of the ones above.

The purpose of law is to establish the rules by which a society will
function. Law describe the acceptable rules of conduct for the society
and proscribe penalties for violations of the rules. Laws change as
societies preception of justice changes. Preception of justices changes
just like law. Used to be that women couldn't vote or people could own
slaves. Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law.
They work with their own measure of efficiency, which very well may be influenced by what they think they can achieve, but I deem it very unlikely that their efficiency gets influenced by what _I_ think about it. This is good! :-) Of course it is. It is exactly the answer to your question above. Maybe you do us both the favor and read the whole post before commenting on single sentences.

I do. Then only comment on the parts that I think are relevent. As for
the above I was making a light hearted statement that I think it's good
that law enforcement is not influenced by what you think. IOW I'm glad
we are not doing it your way. It was a light hearted comment, hence the
smiley. You just didn't get the joke.
> What I still can't figure out is WRT the USCIS, why people always> think that they are hopelessly inefficient and can never be fixed> to be efficient. It's self fulfilling. Again, I don't think that there is a self-fulfilling thing going. I'm nearly convinced they are. How?

It's quite simple actually. Human nature compels people to achieve but
only such things as they believe is possible. If you start off thinking
"Man there's no way this will ever work" then you tend to not give it
enough effort to start with. This lack of effort tends to cause you to
fail. You have never noticed this in your life?!? I'd be quite shocked.

WRT USCIS many people here, and indeed many in the USCIS itself, have an
attitude of status quo, "that will not work", "they are just inefficient
- deal with it", "You're doing a K1? Well expect it to take XX months",
etc. Such negative thoughts "set the standard" as you say but sets the
standard and expectation up for failure to start. Visionaries "think the
unthinkable", "challenge the status quo" and effectively "gets things
done". There are literally thousands of examples of progress and extreme
progress that have been made by millions of people who simply didn't
know that they couldn't do X or Y.

Let alone the fact that government and the USCIS is known to be
extremely inefficient. My qualms are people just accept this as a given.
I'm convinced that a "can do" attitude needs to be established in order
to pull such horribly inefficient organizations up by the boot straps
into the semblence of decent efficienty.
"Stopping them" (i.e. before they do it) is exactly what I mean. That is prevention. The way you see law enforcement, it has nothing to do with stopping anybody. It is merely doing something after the fact, without any regard to the future.

I wouldn't say without any regard to the future. Enforcement of the laws
has a strong deterrent effect.
I'm glad when I find something that we can agree upon!

So am I. I have no problems arguing vehetmently with another about a
point and then going out and having a beer together. Alas you appear to
be in Southern California and I'm in Northern so the beer is probably
out of the question...
In addition, I think that the argumentation that a crime committed while drunk is less serious than while sober (because the person wasn't really aware of what he/she did) is completely bogus.

I understand where you are coming from however there is a certain "not
in your right mind" that alcohol induces. It's a hard call but I
wouldn't say completely bogus. I might say "often abused".
I think that we should be even more responsible for such crimes -- after all, when I decide to get drunk or stoned, I have an increased responsibility to make sure I don't bring anybody else into trouble, exactly because I know I will be out of control. So yes, any crimes committed against others are just as bad or worse.

The crimes are just as bad, true. But should the punishment be? I don't
know. You could, for example, be getting smashed in the privacy of your
own home, not intending to go out and drive, then for some unforseen
circumstance, have to drive or go out. At the time you had to make this
decision you were already not in your "right mind". However I believe
that such a circumstance is rare.
It can be argued that illegal aliens are committing crimes against others (US citizens not having jobs - and yes there are Americans who would take jobs that illegals have) as well as, and often forgotten or not discussed even in this thread but a big problem nonetheless, aliens who commit crimes - real offenses - then continue to remain here when the law clearly states that they have worn our their welcome. See, I have this idea about work visa. I think that between countries with comparable economic level (for example the USA, Japan, the EU, Switzerland, Australia) there could be a treaty that gives citizens the right to live and work in the other countries, but no access to social benefits. They would have to place a deposit with the government of the country they want to go to that covers deportation. When they go back without having gotten in trouble, they get it back. If they get into any kind of trouble -- including requiring social services --, the deposit is gone and gets used to pay for the immediate deportation. Would be a good way to enable people to get to know the world without all the bureaucratic hassles around it.

Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegal
alien will comply with the immediate deportation. Then again if illegals
complied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me that
you are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economic
levels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countries
cannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn't
that discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or that
it's necessarily bad).
If an immigrant commits grand theft, domesitc violence or various drug offenses, while the local or state law proscribes a specific punishment that that immigrant may serve the INA also specifies that that immigrant is removable. Are you in agreement that such an offender should be sumarily removed? (In fact if an immigrant commits and aggravated felony - say bank robbery - that illegal is supposed to be taken from his jail cell (after convicted) and put into removal proceeding before he serves out his term. Do you agree with that too?). Because often such things are not happening! Hm... it makes sense to let them serve their time in their home country :)

I don't think there is a requirement to see that the removed alien is
placed in jail in the other country.
But whether a name matches a SSN should be clear pretty soon. You mean in the Wal-Mart case? No, I meant in the case of a small business that got a fake SSN from an employee. In any case, I think they are off the hook if they submitted tax statements about W-2 tax withholding with the SSNs they got from their employees. Who's off the hook? The business owner.

OK, so then we agree here too.
At this point it would be the responsibility of the IRS to complain if the SSNs don't match the names -- I would think. IINL -- and I'm glad I ain't :) Totally different situations here. Law enforcement officers are compensated for working for the government. In the case of business being enlisted to help law enforcement no compensation is given to the business. No compensation is given to the population at large that watches its neighborhoods and help keeping them safe. That's an integral part of overall security.

And there are no fines for people who do not watch the neighborhood either.
No compensation is given either to home owners that follow fire prevention regulations and clean up their brushes; you could argue that this is the responsibility of the fire prevention agencies.

Hmmm... Here there may be fines for non-compliance - I'm not sure.
OTOH, one can argue that it is the responsibility of the business owner to make sure that no one without the proper permission works in his business.

That's exactly the argument being made. I guess we can look at it this
way. If we require that the business owner checks ID to insure the legal
right to work (as is done now) then that's OK. But if the business owner
finds an illegal should he be compelled to turn in that illegal? It
would be efficient no?
These do appear to be incidents of what you claim however I would not call 30 a big numbers. That's one guy, and that's 30 each time. That may make 3000 a year, and with only a few hundred of such "businesses", that's millions.

Provided your other assumptions above pan out, yes.
Additionally this appears to be limited to farms, perhaps small farms, with few employees at best and that are close to the Mexican border. For what I understand, most of CA (and the other border states) is "close to the Mexican border" in that respect.

They probably do ship them up pretty far WRT CA due to the fertile land.
You don't find as many illegals in say Utah, I bet.
But the vast marjority of the US is not close to the Mexican border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area (San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts, K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc. How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions?

I thought the charge we were talking about here was the active
involvment of actually recruiting workers from other countries to work,
not the illegal who happens to walk into the office and apply for a job.
I highly doubt say an independent CPA with 3 employees here in San Jose
takes trips to Mexico to find an office worker to perform meanial tasks.
Law enforcement is necessary to uphold the law. Law is necessary to allow peaceful co-existance. So the reason is peaceful co-existence, or, more specifically, to uphold the law. Well, this is what I've been saying all the time. Any law enforcement measure should be evaluated with this in mind: how it helps to uphold the law. Putting somebody in jail or deporting somebody or fining somebody are law enforcement measures, and should be measured by their effect of upholding the law, and if necessary, modified to increase their efficiency towards that goal. (Note that "uphold the law" is definitely future-oriented and practically synonymous to prevention of future violations of the law...)

I think we are just disagreeing with the deterrent effect of enforcement
of the law agains current violators. I happen to think the deterrent
effect is strong (provided law enforcement for current violators is
swift and assured). I think all you're saying is that you do not think
that the deterrent effect is strong enough and that we should
concentrate more on prevention.
The prisons are full -- fuller than in any other developed country. No other developed, democratic country has 1% of its citizenry in jail. There is either something wrong with the citizenry or with the rules that created this situation. We cannot necessarily say that. Perhaps law breakers or breaking the law in other countries goes unpunished (I'm not really saying that as I don't know but it's a possibility) It is a definite possibility. Yet the crime rate is lower. Isn't that an indication that the goal of upholding the law gets achieved better? With less people in jail?

The crime rate is the rate of known crime. If violations are routinely
ignored they are probably not included in the crime rate.
> I wish to see the appropriate law enforcement and application of> the existing laws. I am sure that if this was tried that the> problem of illegal aliens would be substantially effected and that> deterrence would result and the problem would be drastically reduced. It doesn't work well in the case of legal but criminal citizens. It does work. Then why has the USA the highest prison population of all developed countries and still crime rates that are not lower? I wouldn't call that "working".

Again, perhaps other countries do not report many violations. Or even
that other countries do not make certain behaviors illegal. There are a
lot of people in jail for drug offenses - in fact I hear claims that
most people are in jail because of such offenses - yet Demark has
legalized some drug use. That could skew figures somewhat.
--
The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
When you catch one, you deport one. You mean like fishing by standing on the shore and waiting for them to jump into your arms? I have a question here. Currently, probably one of the most efficient measures that brings illegals to light is through their employment. Since you oppose that, what are your ideas how law enforcement officers should find them? They can't go around and ask people for their IDs...

It'd work better than "standing on the shore and waiting for them to
jump into your arms". Why not?

Actually illegals, like other people, often have encounters with the
law, like traffic stops, etc, where an enforcement officer could surely
ask for ID. I think it exceptionaly counter productive to give illegals
valid drivers licenses as we are doing here in California.
Two totally different sets of law enforcement officers. Two different budgets, etc, etc. Not quite.

USICE != local police. They perform semi similar functions but they are
not the same. And the budgets are different.
In the end, they all need to be paid for by the taxes that we pay.

I thought that the USICS is more similar to the post office WRT it's
funding. Yes ultimately everything comes either from our pockets or the
printing of new money.
They might be paid by different taxes (state, federal), but in the end, it's still all from the one pot of taxes we have to pay. If we increase the resources dedicated to one, either we increase the taxes or we remove the resources from somewhere else. (Or, of course, we increase the efficiency of the resources. I'd like to see how you do that...)

Increasing the efficiency of the current resources is definitely doable.
A lot more than you seem to think. Government is horribly inefficient
wouldn't you agree? Why then do you think it would be hard to increase
efficiency? (Perhaps just hard for them to allow you to attempt to
increase efficiency).
We should put the appropriate law enforcement resources from the appropriate and proper agencies on the problem of illegal aliens. With a growing number of illegal (now estimated at 7-8 million I hear) it's clear to anyone that there is a big problem here. This seems to be done. Or not? What else would the officers from these agencies do?

I disagree that this is being done really at all. I know of an immigrant
who violated the law and was in jail. They were put on "INS hold" while
in there. They were supposed to be picked up by the INS when released.
When the time came the INS simply neglected to pick them up. What do you
call that?
You can look at say, fire fighters, whose primary job is fighting fires, but who also perform many other tasks such as the proverbal getting the cat out of trees or perhaps educating at schools about, yes, fire prevention. Yet I see nobody trying equate fire fighting with fire prevention (or arson investigation). Let's look at the case of fighting fires.
So yes, fighting fires is not so bad an analogy to what I think should be done in law enforcement: we spend most of the efforts in prevention, when something happens we try to catch it while it's happening, and we check after the fact for reasons why it happened and improve the prevention efforts accordingly.

I understand and admit that police officers also perform tasks designed
to prevent law. But when they are in "enforcement mode" enforcing the
law it is similar to when a fire fighter is in "fire fighting mode"
fighting fires. It is part of their respective jobs. The difference is
that the 7-8 million illegals out there are akin to the recent wild
fires in Southern California. It's happening currently and should be
address - not allowed to continue to grow in a manner to similar to
letting the fire go wildly. Sure containment is one thing that needs to
be done as well as preventing further growth. Even so the fire fighters
fought the current existing blazes. One difference though was that a
fire, contained, will eventually burn itself out. Illegals will not burn
themselves out.
Prevention is indeed a good thing. If you think that prevention should be focused on then I submit to you that if that is indeed what they are attempting to do (prevent illegal aliens from entering and working in this country) then it is failing horribly and perhaps we should switch back to just enforcing the law (IOW get the fishing pole out and stick it in the water!) "If you think that prevention should be focused on [...] if that is indeed what they are attempting to do" I indeed think this is what we should be focused on, but I think this obviously because I think we currently are not focused on it (that's why the "we should" part). If we were, we probably would have fewer problems.

What then do we do with the current violators?
So what is the purpose of the law, in your opinion? Isn't it the purpose of the law to provide justice? Isn't it a fact that the law changes all the time? Doesn't follow from that that the law is not perfect (but justice, as a principle is), and that we try to get as close as possible to ideal justice with real law? The law is not perfect. Still many people feel that the justice provided by the law is correct. You didn't answer a single question of the ones above.

The purpose of law is to establish the rules by which a society will
function. Law describe the acceptable rules of conduct for the society
and proscribe penalties for violations of the rules. Laws change as
societies preception of justice changes. Preception of justices changes
just like law. Used to be that women couldn't vote or people could own
slaves. Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law.
They work with their own measure of efficiency, which very well may be influenced by what they think they can achieve, but I deem it very unlikely that their efficiency gets influenced by what _I_ think about it. This is good! :-) Of course it is. It is exactly the answer to your question above. Maybe you do us both the favor and read the whole post before commenting on single sentences.

I do. Then only comment on the parts that I think are relevent. As for
the above I was making a light hearted statement that I think it's good
that law enforcement is not influenced by what you think. IOW I'm glad
we are not doing it your way. It was a light hearted comment, hence the
smiley. You just didn't get the joke.
> What I still can't figure out is WRT the USCIS, why people always> think that they are hopelessly inefficient and can never be fixed> to be efficient. It's self fulfilling. Again, I don't think that there is a self-fulfilling thing going. I'm nearly convinced they are. How?

It's quite simple actually. Human nature compels people to achieve but
only such things as they believe is possible. If you start off thinking
"Man there's no way this will ever work" then you tend to not give it
enough effort to start with. This lack of effort tends to cause you to
fail. You have never noticed this in your life?!? I'd be quite shocked.

WRT USCIS many people here, and indeed many in the USCIS itself, have an
attitude of status quo, "that will not work", "they are just inefficient
- deal with it", "You're doing a K1? Well expect it to take XX months",
etc. Such negative thoughts "set the standard" as you say but sets the
standard and expectation up for failure to start. Visionaries "think the
unthinkable", "challenge the status quo" and effectively "gets things
done". There are literally thousands of examples of progress and extreme
progress that have been made by millions of people who simply didn't
know that they couldn't do X or Y.

Let alone the fact that government and the USCIS is known to be
extremely inefficient. My qualms are people just accept this as a given.
I'm convinced that a "can do" attitude needs to be established in order
to pull such horribly inefficient organizations up by the boot straps
into the semblence of decent efficienty.
"Stopping them" (i.e. before they do it) is exactly what I mean. That is prevention. The way you see law enforcement, it has nothing to do with stopping anybody. It is merely doing something after the fact, without any regard to the future.

I wouldn't say without any regard to the future. Enforcement of the laws
has a strong deterrent effect.
I'm glad when I find something that we can agree upon!

So am I. I have no problems arguing vehetmently with another about a
point and then going out and having a beer together. Alas you appear to
be in Southern California and I'm in Northern so the beer is probably
out of the question...
In addition, I think that the argumentation that a crime committed while drunk is less serious than while sober (because the person wasn't really aware of what he/she did) is completely bogus.

I understand where you are coming from however there is a certain "not
in your right mind" that alcohol induces. It's a hard call but I
wouldn't say completely bogus. I might say "often abused".
I think that we should be even more responsible for such crimes -- after all, when I decide to get drunk or stoned, I have an increased responsibility to make sure I don't bring anybody else into trouble, exactly because I know I will be out of control. So yes, any crimes committed against others are just as bad or worse.

The crimes are just as bad, true. But should the punishment be? I don't
know. You could, for example, be getting smashed in the privacy of your
own home, not intending to go out and drive, then for some unforseen
circumstance, have to drive or go out. At the time you had to make this
decision you were already not in your "right mind". However I believe
that such a circumstance is rare.
It can be argued that illegal aliens are committing crimes against others (US citizens not having jobs - and yes there are Americans who would take jobs that illegals have) as well as, and often forgotten or not discussed even in this thread but a big problem nonetheless, aliens who commit crimes - real offenses - then continue to remain here when the law clearly states that they have worn our their welcome. See, I have this idea about work visa. I think that between countries with comparable economic level (for example the USA, Japan, the EU, Switzerland, Australia) there could be a treaty that gives citizens the right to live and work in the other countries, but no access to social benefits. They would have to place a deposit with the government of the country they want to go to that covers deportation. When they go back without having gotten in trouble, they get it back. If they get into any kind of trouble -- including requiring social services --, the deposit is gone and gets used to pay for the immediate deportation. Would be a good way to enable people to get to know the world without all the bureaucratic hassles around it.

Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegal
alien will comply with the immediate deportation. Then again if illegals
complied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me that
you are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economic
levels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countries
cannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn't
that discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or that
it's necessarily bad).
If an immigrant commits grand theft, domesitc violence or various drug offenses, while the local or state law proscribes a specific punishment that that immigrant may serve the INA also specifies that that immigrant is removable. Are you in agreement that such an offender should be sumarily removed? (In fact if an immigrant commits and aggravated felony - say bank robbery - that illegal is supposed to be taken from his jail cell (after convicted) and put into removal proceeding before he serves out his term. Do you agree with that too?). Because often such things are not happening! Hm... it makes sense to let them serve their time in their home country :)

I don't think there is a requirement to see that the removed alien is
placed in jail in the other country.
But whether a name matches a SSN should be clear pretty soon. You mean in the Wal-Mart case? No, I meant in the case of a small business that got a fake SSN from an employee. In any case, I think they are off the hook if they submitted tax statements about W-2 tax withholding with the SSNs they got from their employees. Who's off the hook? The business owner.

OK, so then we agree here too.
At this point it would be the responsibility of the IRS to complain if the SSNs don't match the names -- I would think. IINL -- and I'm glad I ain't :) Totally different situations here. Law enforcement officers are compensated for working for the government. In the case of business being enlisted to help law enforcement no compensation is given to the business. No compensation is given to the population at large that watches its neighborhoods and help keeping them safe. That's an integral part of overall security.

And there are no fines for people who do not watch the neighborhood either.
No compensation is given either to home owners that follow fire prevention regulations and clean up their brushes; you could argue that this is the responsibility of the fire prevention agencies.

Hmmm... Here there may be fines for non-compliance - I'm not sure.
OTOH, one can argue that it is the responsibility of the business owner to make sure that no one without the proper permission works in his business.

That's exactly the argument being made. I guess we can look at it this
way. If we require that the business owner checks ID to insure the legal
right to work (as is done now) then that's OK. But if the business owner
finds an illegal should he be compelled to turn in that illegal? It
would be efficient no?
These do appear to be incidents of what you claim however I would not call 30 a big numbers. That's one guy, and that's 30 each time. That may make 3000 a year, and with only a few hundred of such "businesses", that's millions.

Provided your other assumptions above pan out, yes.
Additionally this appears to be limited to farms, perhaps small farms, with few employees at best and that are close to the Mexican border. For what I understand, most of CA (and the other border states) is "close to the Mexican border" in that respect.

They probably do ship them up pretty far WRT CA due to the fertile land.
You don't find as many illegals in say Utah, I bet.
But the vast marjority of the US is not close to the Mexican border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area (San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts, K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc. How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions?

I thought the charge we were talking about here was the active
involvment of actually recruiting workers from other countries to work,
not the illegal who happens to walk into the office and apply for a job.
I highly doubt say an independent CPA with 3 employees here in San Jose
takes trips to Mexico to find an office worker to perform meanial tasks.
Law enforcement is necessary to uphold the law. Law is necessary to allow peaceful co-existance. So the reason is peaceful co-existence, or, more specifically, to uphold the law. Well, this is what I've been saying all the time. Any law enforcement measure should be evaluated with this in mind: how it helps to uphold the law. Putting somebody in jail or deporting somebody or fining somebody are law enforcement measures, and should be measured by their effect of upholding the law, and if necessary, modified to increase their efficiency towards that goal. (Note that "uphold the law" is definitely future-oriented and practically synonymous to prevention of future violations of the law...)

I think we are just disagreeing with the deterrent effect of enforcement
of the law agains current violators. I happen to think the deterrent
effect is strong (provided law enforcement for current violators is
swift and assured). I think all you're saying is that you do not think
that the deterrent effect is strong enough and that we should
concentrate more on prevention.
The prisons are full -- fuller than in any other developed country. No other developed, democratic country has 1% of its citizenry in jail. There is either something wrong with the citizenry or with the rules that created this situation. We cannot necessarily say that. Perhaps law breakers or breaking the law in other countries goes unpunished (I'm not really saying that as I don't know but it's a possibility) It is a definite possibility. Yet the crime rate is lower. Isn't that an indication that the goal of upholding the law gets achieved better? With less people in jail?

The crime rate is the rate of known crime. If violations are routinely
ignored they are probably not included in the crime rate.
> I wish to see the appropriate law enforcement and application of> the existing laws. I am sure that if this was tried that the> problem of illegal aliens would be substantially effected and that> deterrence would result and the problem would be drastically reduced. It doesn't work well in the case of legal but criminal citizens. It does work. Then why has the USA the highest prison population of all developed countries and still crime rates that are not lower? I wouldn't call that "working".

Again, perhaps other countries do not report many violations. Or even
that other countries do not make certain behaviors illegal. There are a
lot of people in jail for drug offenses - in fact I hear claims that
most people are in jail because of such offenses - yet Demark has
legalized some drug use. That could skew figures somewhat.
--
The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:19:34 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:> I vaguely recall a story about several troops that were found to be> here illegally but where already in the military and fighting (one> wonders how they get into the military illegal - if we were to> follow the thinkings of other posters here I guess we should sue> the military and put them in jail, however I digress)> That seems to be targeted at me :) If so, I just like to add that I am talking about the businesses who make a business out of hiring illegal immigrants. The military doesn't yet seem to fit that description. Whether or not they "make a business of it" if a business violates the law by knowingly hiring illegals then they should be held accountable for such action in accordance to the law. The same standard should hold for the government too, no? If knowingly,

Kinda hard to do with the "don't ask - don't tell" mentality of the
military eh? :-)
and if the law applies to the government too, then yes.

I happend to believe that laws should apply equally to everybody,
including the government.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions provided in the law...

Would you similarly say that if say it is found that only one hiring
manager in Wal-Mart were responsible for knowingly hiring illegals that
only that manager should face the punishment? Or should we go after the
bigger Wal-Mart because they got more money? I'm curious.
--
I played a blank tape on full volume. The mime who lived next door
complained. So I shot him with a gun with a silencer.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:19:34 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:> I vaguely recall a story about several troops that were found to be> here illegally but where already in the military and fighting (one> wonders how they get into the military illegal - if we were to> follow the thinkings of other posters here I guess we should sue> the military and put them in jail, however I digress)> That seems to be targeted at me :) If so, I just like to add that I am talking about the businesses who make a business out of hiring illegal immigrants. The military doesn't yet seem to fit that description. Whether or not they "make a business of it" if a business violates the law by knowingly hiring illegals then they should be held accountable for such action in accordance to the law. The same standard should hold for the government too, no? If knowingly,

Kinda hard to do with the "don't ask - don't tell" mentality of the
military eh? :-)
and if the law applies to the government too, then yes.

I happend to believe that laws should apply equally to everybody,
including the government.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions provided in the law...

Would you similarly say that if say it is found that only one hiring
manager in Wal-Mart were responsible for knowingly hiring illegals that
only that manager should face the punishment? Or should we go after the
bigger Wal-Mart because they got more money? I'm curious.
--
I played a blank tape on full volume. The mime who lived next door
complained. So I shot him with a gun with a silencer.

Citizen Outkast wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:49:02 -0500, c@y.com did say unto me:It certainly surprises me to hear that there's any sort of income taxbreak received simply because one is a legal alien. I can ask my sister's boyfriend, who still works with these people. From what I was told, they get the break because they are from a "poor" nation or something like that. Some kind of entitlement or break from being from a certain area/nation. They liked to parade around the fact that they got to keep much more of their money than the natural citizens, though. One guy who was legal (and a good person, at that) was deported for accidently not renewing some document, but he did have to pay tax since he wasn't from the same nation as the others. And no, it wasn't tax evasion, it was legal. Like I said, I'll see if I can get more information.

I am wondering if they are actually referring to the EIC (earned income
credit) which allows some low income people to not only not pay income
tax, but also get money back. This is not restricted to immigrants.

Citizen Outkast wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:49:02 -0500, c@y.com did say unto me:It certainly surprises me to hear that there's any sort of income taxbreak received simply because one is a legal alien. I can ask my sister's boyfriend, who still works with these people. From what I was told, they get the break because they are from a "poor" nation or something like that. Some kind of entitlement or break from being from a certain area/nation. They liked to parade around the fact that they got to keep much more of their money than the natural citizens, though. One guy who was legal (and a good person, at that) was deported for accidently not renewing some document, but he did have to pay tax since he wasn't from the same nation as the others. And no, it wasn't tax evasion, it was legal. Like I said, I'll see if I can get more information.

I am wondering if they are actually referring to the EIC (earned income
credit) which allows some low income people to not only not pay income
tax, but also get money back. This is not restricted to immigrants.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:25:31 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: I have a question here. Currently, probably one of the most efficient measures that brings illegals to light is through their employment. Since you oppose that, what are your ideas how law enforcement officers should find them? They can't go around and ask people for their IDs...It'd work better than "standing on the shore and waiting for them tojump into your arms". Why not?

It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that
looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :). Police
in, say, Germany can do that, but not here in the USA. And it seems to
be one of the freedoms many US citizens are most proud of. (I actually
think it's not that big of a deal, and I wouldn't object to a law that
enables police to ask anybody for a proper ID, without probable cause.
But I doubt that a majority would agree with me.)
Actually illegals, like other people, often have encounters with thelaw, like traffic stops, etc, where an enforcement officer could surelyask for ID. I think it exceptionaly counter productive to give illegalsvalid drivers licenses as we are doing here in California.

Yes, this comes back to the fact that there is no ID in the USA that
states the immigration status. This would have to be a federal ID,
since immigration is a federal issue. But a federal ID isn't really
popular. Again, a result of something most citizens are proud of --
the strongly federative structure of the USA.

Increasing the efficiency of the current resources is definitely doable.A lot more than you seem to think. Government is horribly inefficientwouldn't you agree? Why then do you think it would be hard to increaseefficiency? (Perhaps just hard for them to allow you to attempt toincrease efficiency).

I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you
increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?

I disagree that this is being done really at all. I know of an immigrantwho violated the law and was in jail. They were put on "INS hold" whilein there. They were supposed to be picked up by the INS when released.When the time came the INS simply neglected to pick them up. What do youcall that?

I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?

Let's look at the case of fighting fires.
[essential pieces snipped] So yes, fighting fires is not so bad an analogy to what I think should be done in law enforcement: we spend most of the efforts in prevention, when something happens we try to catch it while it's happening, and we check after the fact for reasons why it happened and improve the prevention efforts accordingly.I understand and admit that police officers also perform tasks designedto prevent law. But when they are in "enforcement mode" enforcing thelaw it is similar to when a fire fighter is in "fire fighting mode"fighting fires.

In the snipped part, I tried to explain that this is not true. When
fire fighters are fighting a fire, they are still doing a preventive
job: they are trying to prevent the fire from creating more damage
than it already has. When the police is only enforcing the law as you
understand it, they are (according to your own admission) not
concerned with preventing anything.
The difference isthat the 7-8 million illegals out there are akin to the recent wildfires in Southern California. It's happening currently and should beaddress - not allowed to continue to grow in a manner to similar toletting the fire go wildly. Sure containment is one thing that needs tobe done as well as preventing further growth. Even so the fire fightersfought the current existing blazes. One difference though was that afire, contained, will eventually burn itself out. Illegals will not burnthemselves out.

I'm glad you mentioned the fires here. Much if not most (if not all)
of the damage was due to lack of prevention: recognize the properties
of the ecosystem and let smaller fires burn away the brush earlier in
the summer, know that fires in such an environment are inevitable and
not put dry wood on your roof, clean the brush around your house, etc.

They burned themselves out, but not forever. If the prevention
measures are not being taken, they will be back. You can count on
that.

In that sense, it is similar to the problem with illegal immigration.
Fighting the fires only gets you so far. Prevention is the real thing
to go after, that's where efficiency can be achieved.

What then do we do with the current violators?

As I said: when we catch them (like, as you suggested, when one has an
unrelated encounter with law enforcement), we deport them. Other than
than, we focus on solving the problem rather than trying to fix a
symptom.

> So what is the purpose of the law, in your opinion? Isn't it the> purpose of the law to provide justice? Isn't it a fact that the law> changes all the time? Doesn't follow from that that the law is not> perfect (but justice, as a principle is), and that we try to get as> close as possible to ideal justice with real law? The law is not perfect. Still many people feel that the justice provided by the law is correct. You didn't answer a single question of the ones above.The purpose of law is to establish the rules by which a society willfunction.

That's not really a purpose, it is a definition ("laws are the rules
by which...").

But independently of that, I guess we can agree that our ultimate goal
is that the laws are being observed as much as possible. Or not?
Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law.

That's what I meant with the law trying to approximate what we
perceive as justice. The idea that slavery was unjust was around long
before the law got changed. It probably even had a majority some time
before the law was changed. So the law came later than society's
viewpoint.

And like this it is all the time. The law is a fluid approximation to
justice, it is not what defines justice. Just because something is the
law doesn't mean it's just. We need to look at things independently of
the law and see whether we think they are just. Then we see what the
law says, and where there is a difference, there is a need to see
whether that difference is a singular instance or something regular.
If it is regular, there might be a need to change the law, to
approximate it better to what we perceive as justice.

You just didn't get the joke.

I actually got it, but I did feel that some of the previous comments
of yours just plain disregarded comments of mine. But it's not a major
deal, really. Both the length of the thread and the length of the
individual messages show that this is more a discussion that the
typical flamewar.

It's quite simple actually. Human nature compels people to achieve butonly such things as they believe is possible. If you start off thinking"Man there's no way this will ever work" then you tend to not give itenough effort to start with. This lack of effort tends to cause you tofail. You have never noticed this in your life?!? I'd be quite shocked.WRT USCIS many people here, and indeed many in the USCIS itself, have anattitude of status quo, "that will not work", "they are just inefficient- deal with it", "You're doing a K1? Well expect it to take XX months",etc. Such negative thoughts "set the standard" as you say but sets thestandard and expectation up for failure to start. Visionaries "think theunthinkable", "challenge the status quo" and effectively "gets thingsdone". There are literally thousands of examples of progress and extremeprogress that have been made by millions of people who simply didn'tknow that they couldn't do X or Y.Let alone the fact that government and the USCIS is known to beextremely inefficient. My qualms are people just accept this as a given.I'm convinced that a "can do" attitude needs to be established in orderto pull such horribly inefficient organizations up by the boot strapsinto the semblence of decent efficienty.

I just don't think that my attitude towards the immigration
bureaucracy would change their efficiency. Until I'm a citizen, I'm
not even a constituency of anybody who might want to get elected. Have
you ever applied for a visa that is more than a tourist visa? You are
in "no rights" land when applying for visa. The only attitude that
gets you anywhere is to do what they expect you to do and accept what
they do. You start complaining, and you may wait forever. And there is
no higher instance where you could go and complain or excercise some
pressure. What do you think you could do in such a situation?

Who can excercise pressure are the citizens, not the ones applying for
visa. But they are usually not very concerned, mostly not even very
informed.

Of course I think that government in general should be more efficient,
and that the immigration bureaucracy could be a lot more efficient. I
don't think that this had any effect whatsoever, though.

I wouldn't say without any regard to the future. Enforcement of the lawshas a strong deterrent effect.

And this is good. Inasmuch as it has, it often is good and efficient
to do so.

Alas you appear tobe in Southern California and I'm in Northern so the beer is probablyout of the question...

For the time being that's correct :)

I understand where you are coming from however there is a certain "notin your right mind" that alcohol induces. It's a hard call but Iwouldn't say cmpletely bogus. I might say "often abused".

Maybe... For example, killing somebody while driving drunk is more
than just an accident. This is closer to manslaughter, IMO. (But that
gets me into application of general legal principles to driving, which
is a whole different subject :)

OTOH, alcohol and its effects is nothing new. Some people get sleepy
and not very likely to do anything more stupid than vomiting on the
carpet. Others become regularly aggressive and it's very likely that
they will do something stupider than causing a carpet problem. I don't
see any excuse for such a person if actually something happens. If you
get dangerously out of your mind when drinking (or smoking, or
anything) -- either stop it, or make sure you do it in a safe
environment.

But maybe there are cases where it applies righfully (for me). Haven't
seen one yet, though.

The crimes are just as bad, true. But should the punishment be? I don'tknow. You could, for example, be getting smashed in the privacy of yourown home, not intending to go out and drive, then for some unforseencircumstance, have to drive or go out. At the time you had to make thisdecision you were already not in your "right mind". However I believethat such a circumstance is rare.

Don't know... I think this wouldn't qualify in my book. If you feel
that you might drive when drunk, you need to give your car keys away
to somebody where you can't get to them until you're sober. Or better,
don't drink to start with, if there is the slightest chance that you
might drive.

Or maybe make sure that you actually drive safe. I'm not really a fan
of making DUI itself a crime -- everybody is different, and some
people are probably less of a danger to the public with three beers
than others without any. But any accident while DUI should be punished
much more seriously, and getting the drivers license back should
require some serious commitment.

Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegalalien will comply with the immediate deportation.

Not necessarily. But say you have a court appearance for DUI. Until
found guilty you are assumed innocent, of course. But the moment you
are found guilty, the drill kicks in -- deposit gone, instead of to
the local jail you go back to your home country (prepaid :) and may
face jail time there, or another trial, to establish the punishment
that's appropriate there.
Then again if illegalscomplied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me thatyou are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economiclevels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countriescannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn'tthat discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or thatit's necessarily bad).

Discrimination in the sense of "making fine distinctions" is not
necessarily bad :) I don't think that it is any more discriminating
than immigration laws already are. For example, Germans have a visa
waiver -- they don't need a tourist visa (up to 3 months). Angola
probably doesn't have this privilege.

It's not a question of trust. It's a question of motivation. As a
German, I don't really have strong economic reasons to come here. So
there wouldn't be a strong flux in either direction. Mostly people
interested in the country, and possibly the fluxes in both directions
cancel themselves out over time. The provision that you don't have
access to social services is there to avoid freeriding on another
country's superior social services. You need them, you need to go
back.

This is different with most of the economic immigrants from poor
countries. With them, this wouldn't work and would create a strong,
onsided flux of immigrants. That's why the idea of economically
similar countries. As such, this idea really doesn't have much
relevance for illegal immigrants. Only a small portion of illegal
immigrants come from countries that would qualify.

I don't think there is a requirement to see that the removed alien isplaced in jail in the other country.

I don't think this could be enforced or even verified. That is up to
the home country.

No compensation is given to the population at large that watches its neighborhoods and help keeping them safe. That's an integral part of overall security.And there are no fines for people who do not watch the neighborhood either.

That's right; I missed this difference.
No compensation is given either to home owners that follow fire prevention regulations and clean up their brushes; you could argue that this is the responsibility of the fire prevention agencies.Hmmm... Here there may be fines for non-compliance - I'm not sure.

There are fines for some violations. Some violations can even lead to
forced closing of the building (if it is a business building
accessible to the public).

That's exactly the argument being made. I guess we can look at it thisway. If we require that the business owner checks ID to insure the legalright to work (as is done now) then that's OK. But if the business ownerfinds an illegal should he be compelled to turn in that illegal? Itwould be efficient no?

I think that this is probably up to the business owner -- if he
doesn't hire that guy. But he shouldn't hire him. And I think that is
what the current law says. I feel that this is ok.

Actually, here is a problem. A state ID or drivers license doesn't
tell anything about visa status or work permission. I remeber vaguely
that when I was here as a tourist for half a year many years ago, I
could have gotten a drivers license. I remember that I thought that it
would be a cool thing to have, but then didn't go through with it --
found better things to do :)

Comes back to the federal ID (something like an SSN that is a
reasonably fake-safe card with a picture).

But the vast marjority of the US is not close to the Mexican border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area (San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts, K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc. How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions?

This was a real question.
I thought the charge we were talking about here was the activeinvolvment of actually recruiting workers from other countries to work,not the illegal who happens to walk into the office and apply for a job.I highly doubt say an independent CPA with 3 employees here in San Josetakes trips to Mexico to find an office worker to perform meanial tasks.

I think there are different levels. As it seems, few businesses where
these people actually work have an "operation" set up themselves. This
is "outsources" to "specialists" who just either bring them in, or
take them when they are already in, and bring them to the businesses.
I don't think it really matters whether they do it themselves or pay
somebody a "finder's fee".

I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN
and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't
complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.

I think the businesses that do this are operations that require a lot
of simple, manual labor. It doesn't make sense to get involved with
that for one or two. But I'm sure that a lot of people hire nannies
and other domestic helpers purposely without asking for any
documentation, happy that they get such cheap help.

Now whether that's a good thing (from a human perspective) or a bad
thing (from a national-social perspective) is not an easy thing to
answer. But whether they often do it on purpose, I think that's easy
to answer.

I think we are just disagreeing with the deterrent effect of enforcementof the law agains current violators. I happen to think the deterrenteffect is strong (provided law enforcement for current violators isswift and assured). I think all you're saying is that you do not thinkthat the deterrent effect is strong enough and that we shouldconcentrate more on prevention.

Basically, yes. Furthermore, I think that prevention of violations is
the ultimate goal of any legislation, and that any measures should be
judged by their prevention effect.

Again, perhaps other countries do not report many violations. Or eventhat other countries do not make certain behaviors illegal. There are alot of people in jail for drug offenses - in fact I hear claims thatmost people are in jail because of such offenses - yet Demark haslegalized some drug use. That could skew figures somewhat.

I didn't really think of the reporting rate. But for violent crimes,
the ones that result in MDs or hospitals or mortuaries involved, I
would say that the reporting rate is pretty close to 100% in the
countries I'm talking about. So not much leeway here for reporting
differences.

One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.
And people are used to doing everything with their guns. So IMO it is
obvious why there are so much more gun-related crimes -- which tend to
be more violent than, say, fist-related crimes.

Another difference could be that people there in general are more
inclined to accept the priority of prevention in law enforcement
(rather than merely applying a "just" penalty), and that this has
found more place in official policies.

And you are right about the drug thing. Which gets back to the
question: is this a good law? Does it make us here in the USA safer
(to have all these people in jail for drug offenses)? I doubt it. I
don't see the purpose it serves.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:25:31 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: I have a question here. Currently, probably one of the most efficient measures that brings illegals to light is through their employment. Since you oppose that, what are your ideas how law enforcement officers should find them? They can't go around and ask people for their IDs...It'd work better than "standing on the shore and waiting for them tojump into your arms". Why not?

It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that
looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :). Police
in, say, Germany can do that, but not here in the USA. And it seems to
be one of the freedoms many US citizens are most proud of. (I actually
think it's not that big of a deal, and I wouldn't object to a law that
enables police to ask anybody for a proper ID, without probable cause.
But I doubt that a majority would agree with me.)
Actually illegals, like other people, often have encounters with thelaw, like traffic stops, etc, where an enforcement officer could surelyask for ID. I think it exceptionaly counter productive to give illegalsvalid drivers licenses as we are doing here in California.

Yes, this comes back to the fact that there is no ID in the USA that
states the immigration status. This would have to be a federal ID,
since immigration is a federal issue. But a federal ID isn't really
popular. Again, a result of something most citizens are proud of --
the strongly federative structure of the USA.

Increasing the efficiency of the current resources is definitely doable.A lot more than you seem to think. Government is horribly inefficientwouldn't you agree? Why then do you think it would be hard to increaseefficiency? (Perhaps just hard for them to allow you to attempt toincrease efficiency).

I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you
increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?

I disagree that this is being done really at all. I know of an immigrantwho violated the law and was in jail. They were put on "INS hold" whilein there. They were supposed to be picked up by the INS when released.When the time came the INS simply neglected to pick them up. What do youcall that?

I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?

Let's look at the case of fighting fires.
[essential pieces snipped] So yes, fighting fires is not so bad an analogy to what I think should be done in law enforcement: we spend most of the efforts in prevention, when something happens we try to catch it while it's happening, and we check after the fact for reasons why it happened and improve the prevention efforts accordingly.I understand and admit that police officers also perform tasks designedto prevent law. But when they are in "enforcement mode" enforcing thelaw it is similar to when a fire fighter is in "fire fighting mode"fighting fires.

In the snipped part, I tried to explain that this is not true. When
fire fighters are fighting a fire, they are still doing a preventive
job: they are trying to prevent the fire from creating more damage
than it already has. When the police is only enforcing the law as you
understand it, they are (according to your own admission) not
concerned with preventing anything.
The difference isthat the 7-8 million illegals out there are akin to the recent wildfires in Southern California. It's happening currently and should beaddress - not allowed to continue to grow in a manner to similar toletting the fire go wildly. Sure containment is one thing that needs tobe done as well as preventing further growth. Even so the fire fightersfought the current existing blazes. One difference though was that afire, contained, will eventually burn itself out. Illegals will not burnthemselves out.

I'm glad you mentioned the fires here. Much if not most (if not all)
of the damage was due to lack of prevention: recognize the properties
of the ecosystem and let smaller fires burn away the brush earlier in
the summer, know that fires in such an environment are inevitable and
not put dry wood on your roof, clean the brush around your house, etc.

They burned themselves out, but not forever. If the prevention
measures are not being taken, they will be back. You can count on
that.

In that sense, it is similar to the problem with illegal immigration.
Fighting the fires only gets you so far. Prevention is the real thing
to go after, that's where efficiency can be achieved.

What then do we do with the current violators?

As I said: when we catch them (like, as you suggested, when one has an
unrelated encounter with law enforcement), we deport them. Other than
than, we focus on solving the problem rather than trying to fix a
symptom.

> So what is the purpose of the law, in your opinion? Isn't it the> purpose of the law to provide justice? Isn't it a fact that the law> changes all the time? Doesn't follow from that that the law is not> perfect (but justice, as a principle is), and that we try to get as> close as possible to ideal justice with real law? The law is not perfect. Still many people feel that the justice provided by the law is correct. You didn't answer a single question of the ones above.The purpose of law is to establish the rules by which a society willfunction.

That's not really a purpose, it is a definition ("laws are the rules
by which...").

But independently of that, I guess we can agree that our ultimate goal
is that the laws are being observed as much as possible. Or not?
Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law.

That's what I meant with the law trying to approximate what we
perceive as justice. The idea that slavery was unjust was around long
before the law got changed. It probably even had a majority some time
before the law was changed. So the law came later than society's
viewpoint.

And like this it is all the time. The law is a fluid approximation to
justice, it is not what defines justice. Just because something is the
law doesn't mean it's just. We need to look at things independently of
the law and see whether we think they are just. Then we see what the
law says, and where there is a difference, there is a need to see
whether that difference is a singular instance or something regular.
If it is regular, there might be a need to change the law, to
approximate it better to what we perceive as justice.

You just didn't get the joke.

I actually got it, but I did feel that some of the previous comments
of yours just plain disregarded comments of mine. But it's not a major
deal, really. Both the length of the thread and the length of the
individual messages show that this is more a discussion that the
typical flamewar.

It's quite simple actually. Human nature compels people to achieve butonly such things as they believe is possible. If you start off thinking"Man there's no way this will ever work" then you tend to not give itenough effort to start with. This lack of effort tends to cause you tofail. You have never noticed this in your life?!? I'd be quite shocked.WRT USCIS many people here, and indeed many in the USCIS itself, have anattitude of status quo, "that will not work", "they are just inefficient- deal with it", "You're doing a K1? Well expect it to take XX months",etc. Such negative thoughts "set the standard" as you say but sets thestandard and expectation up for failure to start. Visionaries "think theunthinkable", "challenge the status quo" and effectively "gets thingsdone". There are literally thousands of examples of progress and extremeprogress that have been made by millions of people who simply didn'tknow that they couldn't do X or Y.Let alone the fact that government and the USCIS is known to beextremely inefficient. My qualms are people just accept this as a given.I'm convinced that a "can do" attitude needs to be established in orderto pull such horribly inefficient organizations up by the boot strapsinto the semblence of decent efficienty.

I just don't think that my attitude towards the immigration
bureaucracy would change their efficiency. Until I'm a citizen, I'm
not even a constituency of anybody who might want to get elected. Have
you ever applied for a visa that is more than a tourist visa? You are
in "no rights" land when applying for visa. The only attitude that
gets you anywhere is to do what they expect you to do and accept what
they do. You start complaining, and you may wait forever. And there is
no higher instance where you could go and complain or excercise some
pressure. What do you think you could do in such a situation?

Who can excercise pressure are the citizens, not the ones applying for
visa. But they are usually not very concerned, mostly not even very
informed.

Of course I think that government in general should be more efficient,
and that the immigration bureaucracy could be a lot more efficient. I
don't think that this had any effect whatsoever, though.

I wouldn't say without any regard to the future. Enforcement of the lawshas a strong deterrent effect.

And this is good. Inasmuch as it has, it often is good and efficient
to do so.

Alas you appear tobe in Southern California and I'm in Northern so the beer is probablyout of the question...

For the time being that's correct :)

I understand where you are coming from however there is a certain "notin your right mind" that alcohol induces. It's a hard call but Iwouldn't say cmpletely bogus. I might say "often abused".

Maybe... For example, killing somebody while driving drunk is more
than just an accident. This is closer to manslaughter, IMO. (But that
gets me into application of general legal principles to driving, which
is a whole different subject :)

OTOH, alcohol and its effects is nothing new. Some people get sleepy
and not very likely to do anything more stupid than vomiting on the
carpet. Others become regularly aggressive and it's very likely that
they will do something stupider than causing a carpet problem. I don't
see any excuse for such a person if actually something happens. If you
get dangerously out of your mind when drinking (or smoking, or
anything) -- either stop it, or make sure you do it in a safe
environment.

But maybe there are cases where it applies righfully (for me). Haven't
seen one yet, though.

The crimes are just as bad, true. But should the punishment be? I don'tknow. You could, for example, be getting smashed in the privacy of yourown home, not intending to go out and drive, then for some unforseencircumstance, have to drive or go out. At the time you had to make thisdecision you were already not in your "right mind". However I believethat such a circumstance is rare.

Don't know... I think this wouldn't qualify in my book. If you feel
that you might drive when drunk, you need to give your car keys away
to somebody where you can't get to them until you're sober. Or better,
don't drink to start with, if there is the slightest chance that you
might drive.

Or maybe make sure that you actually drive safe. I'm not really a fan
of making DUI itself a crime -- everybody is different, and some
people are probably less of a danger to the public with three beers
than others without any. But any accident while DUI should be punished
much more seriously, and getting the drivers license back should
require some serious commitment.

Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegalalien will comply with the immediate deportation.

Not necessarily. But say you have a court appearance for DUI. Until
found guilty you are assumed innocent, of course. But the moment you
are found guilty, the drill kicks in -- deposit gone, instead of to
the local jail you go back to your home country (prepaid :) and may
face jail time there, or another trial, to establish the punishment
that's appropriate there.
Then again if illegalscomplied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me thatyou are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economiclevels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countriescannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn'tthat discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or thatit's necessarily bad).

Discrimination in the sense of "making fine distinctions" is not
necessarily bad :) I don't think that it is any more discriminating
than immigration laws already are. For example, Germans have a visa
waiver -- they don't need a tourist visa (up to 3 months). Angola
probably doesn't have this privilege.

It's not a question of trust. It's a question of motivation. As a
German, I don't really have strong economic reasons to come here. So
there wouldn't be a strong flux in either direction. Mostly people
interested in the country, and possibly the fluxes in both directions
cancel themselves out over time. The provision that you don't have
access to social services is there to avoid freeriding on another
country's superior social services. You need them, you need to go
back.

This is different with most of the economic immigrants from poor
countries. With them, this wouldn't work and would create a strong,
onsided flux of immigrants. That's why the idea of economically
similar countries. As such, this idea really doesn't have much
relevance for illegal immigrants. Only a small portion of illegal
immigrants come from countries that would qualify.

I don't think there is a requirement to see that the removed alien isplaced in jail in the other country.

I don't think this could be enforced or even verified. That is up to
the home country.

No compensation is given to the population at large that watches its neighborhoods and help keeping them safe. That's an integral part of overall security.And there are no fines for people who do not watch the neighborhood either.

That's right; I missed this difference.
No compensation is given either to home owners that follow fire prevention regulations and clean up their brushes; you could argue that this is the responsibility of the fire prevention agencies.Hmmm... Here there may be fines for non-compliance - I'm not sure.

There are fines for some violations. Some violations can even lead to
forced closing of the building (if it is a business building
accessible to the public).

That's exactly the argument being made. I guess we can look at it thisway. If we require that the business owner checks ID to insure the legalright to work (as is done now) then that's OK. But if the business ownerfinds an illegal should he be compelled to turn in that illegal? Itwould be efficient no?

I think that this is probably up to the business owner -- if he
doesn't hire that guy. But he shouldn't hire him. And I think that is
what the current law says. I feel that this is ok.

Actually, here is a problem. A state ID or drivers license doesn't
tell anything about visa status or work permission. I remeber vaguely
that when I was here as a tourist for half a year many years ago, I
could have gotten a drivers license. I remember that I thought that it
would be a cool thing to have, but then didn't go through with it --
found better things to do :)

Comes back to the federal ID (something like an SSN that is a
reasonably fake-safe card with a picture).

But the vast marjority of the US is not close to the Mexican border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area (San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts, K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc. How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions?

This was a real question.
I thought the charge we were talking about here was the activeinvolvment of actually recruiting workers from other countries to work,not the illegal who happens to walk into the office and apply for a job.I highly doubt say an independent CPA with 3 employees here in San Josetakes trips to Mexico to find an office worker to perform meanial tasks.

I think there are different levels. As it seems, few businesses where
these people actually work have an "operation" set up themselves. This
is "outsources" to "specialists" who just either bring them in, or
take them when they are already in, and bring them to the businesses.
I don't think it really matters whether they do it themselves or pay
somebody a "finder's fee".

I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN
and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't
complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.

I think the businesses that do this are operations that require a lot
of simple, manual labor. It doesn't make sense to get involved with
that for one or two. But I'm sure that a lot of people hire nannies
and other domestic helpers purposely without asking for any
documentation, happy that they get such cheap help.

Now whether that's a good thing (from a human perspective) or a bad
thing (from a national-social perspective) is not an easy thing to
answer. But whether they often do it on purpose, I think that's easy
to answer.

I think we are just disagreeing with the deterrent effect of enforcementof the law agains current violators. I happen to think the deterrenteffect is strong (provided law enforcement for current violators isswift and assured). I think all you're saying is that you do not thinkthat the deterrent effect is strong enough and that we shouldconcentrate more on prevention.

Basically, yes. Furthermore, I think that prevention of violations is
the ultimate goal of any legislation, and that any measures should be
judged by their prevention effect.

Again, perhaps other countries do not report many violations. Or eventhat other countries do not make certain behaviors illegal. There are alot of people in jail for drug offenses - in fact I hear claims thatmost people are in jail because of such offenses - yet Demark haslegalized some drug use. That could skew figures somewhat.

I didn't really think of the reporting rate. But for violent crimes,
the ones that result in MDs or hospitals or mortuaries involved, I
would say that the reporting rate is pretty close to 100% in the
countries I'm talking about. So not much leeway here for reporting
differences.

One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.
And people are used to doing everything with their guns. So IMO it is
obvious why there are so much more gun-related crimes -- which tend to
be more violent than, say, fist-related crimes.

Another difference could be that people there in general are more
inclined to accept the priority of prevention in law enforcement
(rather than merely applying a "just" penalty), and that this has
found more place in official policies.

And you are right about the drug thing. Which gets back to the
question: is this a good law? Does it make us here in the USA safer
(to have all these people in jail for drug offenses)? I doubt it. I
don't see the purpose it serves.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 06:03:55 GMT, mrtravel wrote:Citizen Outkast wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:49:02 -0500, c@y.com did say unto me:It certainly surprises me to hear that there's any sort of income taxbreak received simply because one is a legal alien. I can ask my sister's boyfriend, who still works with these people. From what I was told, they get the break because they are from a "poor" nation or something like that. Some kind of entitlement or break from being from a certain area/nation. They liked to parade around the fact that they got to keep much more of their money than the natural citizens, though. One guy who was legal (and a good person, at that) was deported for accidently not renewing some document, but he did have to pay tax since he wasn't from the same nation as the others. And no, it wasn't tax evasion, it was legal. Like I said, I'll see if I can get more information.I am wondering if they are actually referring to the EIC (earned incomecredit) which allows some low income people to not only not pay incometax, but also get money back. This is not restricted to immigrants.

But this is only for relatively low incomes.

In any case, I'd like to know about this. It sounds too odd.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 06:03:55 GMT, mrtravel wrote:Citizen Outkast wrote: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:49:02 -0500, c@y.com did say unto me:It certainly surprises me to hear that there's any sort of income taxbreak received simply because one is a legal alien. I can ask my sister's boyfriend, who still works with these people. From what I was told, they get the break because they are from a "poor" nation or something like that. Some kind of entitlement or break from being from a certain area/nation. They liked to parade around the fact that they got to keep much more of their money than the natural citizens, though. One guy who was legal (and a good person, at that) was deported for accidently not renewing some document, but he did have to pay tax since he wasn't from the same nation as the others. And no, it wasn't tax evasion, it was legal. Like I said, I'll see if I can get more information.I am wondering if they are actually referring to the EIC (earned incomecredit) which allows some low income people to not only not pay incometax, but also get money back. This is not restricted to immigrants.

But this is only for relatively low incomes.

In any case, I'd like to know about this. It sounds too odd.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:28:17 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: If knowingly,Kinda hard to do with the "don't ask - don't tell" mentality of themilitary eh? :-)

Not everybody can come up with good rules. In their absence, you take
what you can come up with... :)
and if the law applies to the government too, then yes.I happend to believe that laws should apply equally to everybody,including the government.

This "equally" is often a problem. But where possible, of course.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions provided in the law...Would you similarly say that if say it is found that only one hiringmanager in Wal-Mart were responsible for knowingly hiring illegals thatonly that manager should face the punishment? Or should we go after thebigger Wal-Mart because they got more money? I'm curious.

I don't think it matters who got the money for the criminal aspect of
it. I think if there is no evidence that the manager acted upon
request from another, higher manager, then he's the one who should be
on the hook.

Of course there is always the tax question. If they hired illegals,
they probably also evaded taxes. Or didn't file appropriate
documentation.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:28:17 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: If knowingly,Kinda hard to do with the "don't ask - don't tell" mentality of themilitary eh? :-)

Not everybody can come up with good rules. In their absence, you take
what you can come up with... :)
and if the law applies to the government too, then yes.I happend to believe that laws should apply equally to everybody,including the government.

This "equally" is often a problem. But where possible, of course.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions provided in the law...Would you similarly say that if say it is found that only one hiringmanager in Wal-Mart were responsible for knowingly hiring illegals thatonly that manager should face the punishment? Or should we go after thebigger Wal-Mart because they got more money? I'm curious.

I don't think it matters who got the money for the criminal aspect of
it. I think if there is no evidence that the manager acted upon
request from another, higher manager, then he's the one who should be
on the hook.

Of course there is always the tax question. If they hired illegals,
they probably also evaded taxes. Or didn't file appropriate
documentation.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :).

Probable cause is not that hard to come up with.
I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?

By adopting efficeincy practices prevelent in business and dropping the
"this is government not business" attitute. By holding people
responsible and accountable for their production, etc. I could go on and on.
I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?

They said they forgot!
In the snipped part, I tried to explain that this is not true. When fire fighters are fighting a fire, they are still doing a preventive job: they are trying to prevent the fire from creating more damage than it already has. When the police is only enforcing the law as you understand it, they are (according to your own admission) not concerned with preventing anything.

Sure they are! They are also preventing future violations of the
criminal! Think arresting say a bank robber.
The difference is that the 7-8 million illegals out there are akin to the recent wild fires in Southern California. It's happening currently and should be address - not allowed to continue to grow in a manner to similar to letting the fire go wildly. Sure containment is one thing that needs to be done as well as preventing further growth. Even so the fire fighters fought the current existing blazes. One difference though was that a fire, contained, will eventually burn itself out. Illegals will not burn themselves out. I'm glad you mentioned the fires here. Much if not most (if not all) of the damage was due to lack of prevention: recognize the properties of the ecosystem and let smaller fires burn away the brush earlier in the summer, know that fires in such an environment are inevitable and not put dry wood on your roof, clean the brush around your house, etc.

No excuse for not putting out the current fire! I agree that neglect of
the forests contributed to the enormity of the fires. Fire fighters
allow fires to clean the forest because it's a lot easier to let the
fire clean it (as opposed to cleaning it by some other means).
They burned themselves out, but not forever. If the prevention measures are not being taken, they will be back. You can count on that.

One prevention method is allowing the fires to burn off the excess growth.
In that sense, it is similar to the problem with illegal immigration. Fighting the fires only gets you so far. Prevention is the real thing to go after, that's where efficiency can be achieved.

It also can be said that neglecting the forests is akin to neglecting
our current immigration problems.
What then do we do with the current violators? As I said: when we catch them (like, as you suggested, when one has an unrelated encounter with law enforcement), we deport them. Other than than, we focus on solving the problem rather than trying to fix a symptom.

Then we are in agreement. As I have been stating since the beginning of
this long thread, I am only advocating that current laws are enforced.
You didn't answer a single question of the ones above. The purpose of law is to establish the rules by which a society will function. That's not really a purpose, it is a definition ("laws are the rules by which...").

They allow society to exist in peaceful harmony.
But independently of that, I guess we can agree that our ultimate goal is that the laws are being observed as much as possible. Or not?

Yes
Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law. That's what I meant with the law trying to approximate what we perceive as justice. The idea that slavery was unjust was around long before the law got changed. It probably even had a majority some time before the law was changed. So the law came later than society's viewpoint.

Are you saying that you believe illegals should be able to just walk
over the border, work, violate other laws with impunity, etc?!? I think
not. Are you saying our current immigration laws should be relaxed or
changed?
And like this it is all the time. The law is a fluid approximation to justice, it is not what defines justice. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. We need to look at things independently of the law and see whether we think they are just. Then we see what the law says, and where there is a difference, there is a need to see whether that difference is a singular instance or something regular. If it is regular, there might be a need to change the law, to approximate it better to what we perceive as justice.

Are you saying that the current immigration laws are unjust? If so how
are they unjust and what would you change?
I just don't think that my attitude towards the immigration bureaucracy would change their efficiency. Until I'm a citizen, I'm not even a constituency of anybody who might want to get elected. Have you ever applied for a visa that is more than a tourist visa? You are in "no rights" land when applying for visa. The only attitude that gets you anywhere is to do what they expect you to do and accept what they do. You start complaining, and you may wait forever. And there is no higher instance where you could go and complain or excercise some pressure. What do you think you could do in such a situation?

I don't believe you have a "right" to a visa - it's a privillege - so
I'm not sure what your complaint is. You seem to think you have the
right to demand it.
Who can excercise pressure are the citizens, not the ones applying for visa. But they are usually not very concerned, mostly not even very informed.

Well I happend to be a citizen.
I wouldn't say without any regard to the future. Enforcement of the laws has a strong deterrent effect. And this is good. Inasmuch as it has, it often is good and efficient to do so.

Sometimes I wonder why we are discussing things as much as we are. I am
simply saying that current laws should be enforced and people argue with
me about this. I ask them do you think that the law should not be
enforced and after much verbage they agree. I say I think enforcement
has a strong deterrent effect and after much verbage they agree. If we
agree then what's the point of further discussion? If you wish to work
to have other measures implemented, various prevention things, etc then
fine. Work for them. But my point has been made and agreed to by you and
I really do not wish to get into discussions about what you feel would
be best.
I understand where you are coming from however there is a certain "not in your right mind" that alcohol induces. It's a hard call but I wouldn't say completely bogus. I might say "often abused". Maybe... For example, killing somebody while driving drunk is more than just an accident. This is closer to manslaughter, IMO. (But that gets me into application of general legal principles to driving, which is a whole different subject :)

Not necessarily. As you said before some people get sleepy. They could
simply fall asleep at the wheel. That's not murder but manslauhter I
believe.
Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegal alien will comply with the immediate deportation. Not necessarily. But say you have a court appearance for DUI. Until found guilty you are assumed innocent, of course. But the moment you are found guilty, the drill kicks in -- deposit gone, instead of to the local jail you go back to your home country (prepaid :)

Aside from the prepaid part, how is this at all different than what we
currently have?
and may face jail time there, or another trial, to establish the punishment that's appropriate there.

That we have no control over.
Then again if illegals complied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me that you are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economic levels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countries cannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn't that discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or that it's necessarily bad). Discrimination in the sense of "making fine distinctions" is not necessarily bad :)

I agree, as my last sentence said, however this is not much different
than any form of discrimination. One can say they are making find
distinctions between say men and women, whites and blacks or Europeans
and Muslims.
That's exactly the argument being made. I guess we can look at it this way. If we require that the business owner checks ID to insure the legal right to work (as is done now) then that's OK. But if the business owner finds an illegal should he be compelled to turn in that illegal? It would be efficient no? I think that this is probably up to the business owner

But that didn't answer the question. I asked should the business owner
be compelled to turn in the illegal not whether or not it was up to the
business owner.
-- if he doesn't hire that guy. But he shouldn't hire him. And I think that is what the current law says. I feel that this is ok. Actually, here is a problem. A state ID or drivers license doesn't tell anything about visa status or work permission.

Ah... until recently a DL did. DLs were not given to illegals. Of
course, recently that changed.
I remeber vaguely that when I was here as a tourist for half a year many years ago, I could have gotten a drivers license. I remember that I thought that it would be a cool thing to have, but then didn't go through with it -- found better things to do :)

Yes, that's a slight problem in that DLs can be issued because aliens
have legal status right now and they often last longer than the legal
status does. Why not require that the issuance of a DL requires proof of
citizenship or proper visa and if a visa is involved then the DL is made
valid only for the duration of the visa?
> But the vast marjority of the US is not close to the Mexican> border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area> (San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts,> K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc. How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions? This was a real question.

It is demonstrable that the vast majority of the US is not close to the
Mexican border! ;-)

Oh you meant something else? I think it is common sense to realize that
there are also illegals working in non agricultural jobs too.
I thought the charge we were talking about here was the active involvment of actually recruiting workers from other countries to work, not the illegal who happens to walk into the office and apply for a job. I highly doubt say an independent CPA with 3 employees here in San Jose takes trips to Mexico to find an office worker to perform meanial tasks. I think there are different levels. As it seems, few businesses where these people actually work have an "operation" set up themselves. This is "outsources" to "specialists" who just either bring them in, or take them when they are already in, and bring them to the businesses. I don't think it really matters whether they do it themselves or pay somebody a "finder's fee". I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.

I submit to you that this probably happens a lot more than you think.
I think the businesses that do this are operations that require a lot of simple, manual labor. It doesn't make sense to get involved with that for one or two. But I'm sure that a lot of people hire nannies and other domestic helpers purposely without asking for any documentation, happy that they get such cheap help.

Earlier you said that citizens are largely ignorant of immigration law
and now you are trying to say that people hire illegals knowingly
instead of assuming that the private citizen employer was simply
ignorant of what was required by immigration law?!?
Now whether that's a good thing (from a human perspective) or a bad thing (from a national-social perspective) is not an easy thing to answer. But whether they often do it on purpose, I think that's easy to answer.

I'm not convinced. If I were going to hire say a gardener or a main
chances are around here that they will all look alien. Many are legal,
some are illegal. I have no idea how to verify they are legit (actually
I have some ideas but this is only because I've been involved in
immigration, hence my presence here, however the vast majority of
citizens, as you say, are ignorant of immigration issues). But you say
that such people "hire illegals on purpose" and that that is "easy to
answer". Do I suspect that they are perhaps illegal? Yes I would suspect
it but I do not know and I do not know how to prove it one way or another.

So I go to an agency, say a maid agency, and trust, perhaps hope, that
they being a business would not want to be caught hiring illegals so
perhaps they've screened them and this provides me a little protection
and assurance that I'm doing the right thing. It's not much but it's
more than I can do myself. But the business failed to screen them so I'm
also held accountable?

It doesn't take much to continue this to the Wal-Mart case and yet
people here attempt to condemn the businesses saying that they are
outsourcing their intentional illegal activities.
One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.

I disagree. I've been here a lot longer than you and I can safely say
that I do not know of a single person who owns a gun. My aunt(s) do not
own guns. In fact nobody in my family owns a gun.
And people are used to doing everything with their guns.

Huh? Who do you know owns a gun and what have they done with that gun? I
get up, work, shop, etc all without the "benefits" of a gun. I've never
been in a mall and seen a gun (expect on police) for that matter. What
are you talking about?!?
So IMO it is obvious why there are so much more gun-related crimes -- which tend to be more violent than, say, fist-related crimes.

Actually I think if more people owned guns there would be less crime.
Problem is we've managed to make it so that law biding citizens are
largely gunless and the criminals have the guns.
And you are right about the drug thing. Which gets back to the question: is this a good law?

I'd say no.
Does it make us here in the USA safer (to have all these people in jail for drug offenses)? I doubt it. I don't see the purpose it serves.

Well with all the illegality around drugs (other criminal offense and
violent crimes) I'd tend to feel safer with the drug pushers in jail.
However I recognize that a lot of the crime surrounding drugs is there
because drugs themselves are placed in the illegal category. IOW if
drugs were legalized a lot of the crime associated with them would go
away - but not all of it. Would this be better? It's debatable.

--
Everyone has the right to be stupid, but your abusing the privilage.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :).

Probable cause is not that hard to come up with.
I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?

By adopting efficeincy practices prevelent in business and dropping the
"this is government not business" attitute. By holding people
responsible and accountable for their production, etc. I could go on and on.
I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?

They said they forgot!
In the snipped part, I tried to explain that this is not true. When fire fighters are fighting a fire, they are still doing a preventive job: they are trying to prevent the fire from creating more damage than it already has. When the police is only enforcing the law as you understand it, they are (according to your own admission) not concerned with preventing anything.

Sure they are! They are also preventing future violations of the
criminal! Think arresting say a bank robber.
The difference is that the 7-8 million illegals out there are akin to the recent wild fires in Southern California. It's happening currently and should be address - not allowed to continue to grow in a manner to similar to letting the fire go wildly. Sure containment is one thing that needs to be done as well as preventing further growth. Even so the fire fighters fought the current existing blazes. One difference though was that a fire, contained, will eventually burn itself out. Illegals will not burn themselves out. I'm glad you mentioned the fires here. Much if not most (if not all) of the damage was due to lack of prevention: recognize the properties of the ecosystem and let smaller fires burn away the brush earlier in the summer, know that fires in such an environment are inevitable and not put dry wood on your roof, clean the brush around your house, etc.

No excuse for not putting out the current fire! I agree that neglect of
the forests contributed to the enormity of the fires. Fire fighters
allow fires to clean the forest because it's a lot easier to let the
fire clean it (as opposed to cleaning it by some other means).
They burned themselves out, but not forever. If the prevention measures are not being taken, they will be back. You can count on that.

One prevention method is allowing the fires to burn off the excess growth.
In that sense, it is similar to the problem with illegal immigration. Fighting the fires only gets you so far. Prevention is the real thing to go after, that's where efficiency can be achieved.

It also can be said that neglecting the forests is akin to neglecting
our current immigration problems.
What then do we do with the current violators? As I said: when we catch them (like, as you suggested, when one has an unrelated encounter with law enforcement), we deport them. Other than than, we focus on solving the problem rather than trying to fix a symptom.

Then we are in agreement. As I have been stating since the beginning of
this long thread, I am only advocating that current laws are enforced.
You didn't answer a single question of the ones above. The purpose of law is to establish the rules by which a society will function. That's not really a purpose, it is a definition ("laws are the rules by which...").

They allow society to exist in peaceful harmony.
But independently of that, I guess we can agree that our ultimate goal is that the laws are being observed as much as possible. Or not?

Yes
Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law. That's what I meant with the law trying to approximate what we perceive as justice. The idea that slavery was unjust was around long before the law got changed. It probably even had a majority some time before the law was changed. So the law came later than society's viewpoint.

Are you saying that you believe illegals should be able to just walk
over the border, work, violate other laws with impunity, etc?!? I think
not. Are you saying our current immigration laws should be relaxed or
changed?
And like this it is all the time. The law is a fluid approximation to justice, it is not what defines justice. Just because something is the law doesn't mean it's just. We need to look at things independently of the law and see whether we think they are just. Then we see what the law says, and where there is a difference, there is a need to see whether that difference is a singular instance or something regular. If it is regular, there might be a need to change the law, to approximate it better to what we perceive as justice.

Are you saying that the current immigration laws are unjust? If so how
are they unjust and what would you change?
I just don't think that my attitude towards the immigration bureaucracy would change their efficiency. Until I'm a citizen, I'm not even a constituency of anybody who might want to get elected. Have you ever applied for a visa that is more than a tourist visa? You are in "no rights" land when applying for visa. The only attitude that gets you anywhere is to do what they expect you to do and accept what they do. You start complaining, and you may wait forever. And there is no higher instance where you could go and complain or excercise some pressure. What do you think you could do in such a situation?

I don't believe you have a "right" to a visa - it's a privillege - so
I'm not sure what your complaint is. You seem to think you have the
right to demand it.
Who can excercise pressure are the citizens, not the ones applying for visa. But they are usually not very concerned, mostly not even very informed.

Well I happend to be a citizen.
I wouldn't say without any regard to the future. Enforcement of the laws has a strong deterrent effect. And this is good. Inasmuch as it has, it often is good and efficient to do so.

Sometimes I wonder why we are discussing things as much as we are. I am
simply saying that current laws should be enforced and people argue with
me about this. I ask them do you think that the law should not be
enforced and after much verbage they agree. I say I think enforcement
has a strong deterrent effect and after much verbage they agree. If we
agree then what's the point of further discussion? If you wish to work
to have other measures implemented, various prevention things, etc then
fine. Work for them. But my point has been made and agreed to by you and
I really do not wish to get into discussions about what you feel would
be best.
I understand where you are coming from however there is a certain "not in your right mind" that alcohol induces. It's a hard call but I wouldn't say completely bogus. I might say "often abused". Maybe... For example, killing somebody while driving drunk is more than just an accident. This is closer to manslaughter, IMO. (But that gets me into application of general legal principles to driving, which is a whole different subject :)

Not necessarily. As you said before some people get sleepy. They could
simply fall asleep at the wheel. That's not murder but manslauhter I
believe.
Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegal alien will comply with the immediate deportation. Not necessarily. But say you have a court appearance for DUI. Until found guilty you are assumed innocent, of course. But the moment you are found guilty, the drill kicks in -- deposit gone, instead of to the local jail you go back to your home country (prepaid :)

Aside from the prepaid part, how is this at all different than what we
currently have?
and may face jail time there, or another trial, to establish the punishment that's appropriate there.

That we have no control over.
Then again if illegals complied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me that you are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economic levels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countries cannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn't that discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or that it's necessarily bad). Discrimination in the sense of "making fine distinctions" is not necessarily bad :)

I agree, as my last sentence said, however this is not much different
than any form of discrimination. One can say they are making find
distinctions between say men and women, whites and blacks or Europeans
and Muslims.
That's exactly the argument being made. I guess we can look at it this way. If we require that the business owner checks ID to insure the legal right to work (as is done now) then that's OK. But if the business owner finds an illegal should he be compelled to turn in that illegal? It would be efficient no? I think that this is probably up to the business owner

But that didn't answer the question. I asked should the business owner
be compelled to turn in the illegal not whether or not it was up to the
business owner.
-- if he doesn't hire that guy. But he shouldn't hire him. And I think that is what the current law says. I feel that this is ok. Actually, here is a problem. A state ID or drivers license doesn't tell anything about visa status or work permission.

Ah... until recently a DL did. DLs were not given to illegals. Of
course, recently that changed.
I remeber vaguely that when I was here as a tourist for half a year many years ago, I could have gotten a drivers license. I remember that I thought that it would be a cool thing to have, but then didn't go through with it -- found better things to do :)

Yes, that's a slight problem in that DLs can be issued because aliens
have legal status right now and they often last longer than the legal
status does. Why not require that the issuance of a DL requires proof of
citizenship or proper visa and if a visa is involved then the DL is made
valid only for the duration of the visa?
> But the vast marjority of the US is not close to the Mexican> border. These examples do nothing to address illegals in my area> (San Jose) who work in all sorts of businesses such as Wal-Marts,> K-Marts, car rental places, Home depots, gardeners, etc, etc. How do you know this? Suspicion or convictions? This was a real question.

It is demonstrable that the vast majority of the US is not close to the
Mexican border! ;-)

Oh you meant something else? I think it is common sense to realize that
there are also illegals working in non agricultural jobs too.
I thought the charge we were talking about here was the active involvment of actually recruiting workers from other countries to work, not the illegal who happens to walk into the office and apply for a job. I highly doubt say an independent CPA with 3 employees here in San Jose takes trips to Mexico to find an office worker to perform meanial tasks. I think there are different levels. As it seems, few businesses where these people actually work have an "operation" set up themselves. This is "outsources" to "specialists" who just either bring them in, or take them when they are already in, and bring them to the businesses. I don't think it really matters whether they do it themselves or pay somebody a "finder's fee". I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.

I submit to you that this probably happens a lot more than you think.
I think the businesses that do this are operations that require a lot of simple, manual labor. It doesn't make sense to get involved with that for one or two. But I'm sure that a lot of people hire nannies and other domestic helpers purposely without asking for any documentation, happy that they get such cheap help.

Earlier you said that citizens are largely ignorant of immigration law
and now you are trying to say that people hire illegals knowingly
instead of assuming that the private citizen employer was simply
ignorant of what was required by immigration law?!?
Now whether that's a good thing (from a human perspective) or a bad thing (from a national-social perspective) is not an easy thing to answer. But whether they often do it on purpose, I think that's easy to answer.

I'm not convinced. If I were going to hire say a gardener or a main
chances are around here that they will all look alien. Many are legal,
some are illegal. I have no idea how to verify they are legit (actually
I have some ideas but this is only because I've been involved in
immigration, hence my presence here, however the vast majority of
citizens, as you say, are ignorant of immigration issues). But you say
that such people "hire illegals on purpose" and that that is "easy to
answer". Do I suspect that they are perhaps illegal? Yes I would suspect
it but I do not know and I do not know how to prove it one way or another.

So I go to an agency, say a maid agency, and trust, perhaps hope, that
they being a business would not want to be caught hiring illegals so
perhaps they've screened them and this provides me a little protection
and assurance that I'm doing the right thing. It's not much but it's
more than I can do myself. But the business failed to screen them so I'm
also held accountable?

It doesn't take much to continue this to the Wal-Mart case and yet
people here attempt to condemn the businesses saying that they are
outsourcing their intentional illegal activities.
One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.

I disagree. I've been here a lot longer than you and I can safely say
that I do not know of a single person who owns a gun. My aunt(s) do not
own guns. In fact nobody in my family owns a gun.
And people are used to doing everything with their guns.

Huh? Who do you know owns a gun and what have they done with that gun? I
get up, work, shop, etc all without the "benefits" of a gun. I've never
been in a mall and seen a gun (expect on police) for that matter. What
are you talking about?!?
So IMO it is obvious why there are so much more gun-related crimes -- which tend to be more violent than, say, fist-related crimes.

Actually I think if more people owned guns there would be less crime.
Problem is we've managed to make it so that law biding citizens are
largely gunless and the criminals have the guns.
And you are right about the drug thing. Which gets back to the question: is this a good law?

I'd say no.
Does it make us here in the USA safer (to have all these people in jail for drug offenses)? I doubt it. I don't see the purpose it serves.

Well with all the illegality around drugs (other criminal offense and
violent crimes) I'd tend to feel safer with the drug pushers in jail.
However I recognize that a lot of the crime surrounding drugs is there
because drugs themselves are placed in the illegal category. IOW if
drugs were legalized a lot of the crime associated with them would go
away - but not all of it. Would this be better? It's debatable.

--
Everyone has the right to be stupid, but your abusing the privilage.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
and if the law applies to the government too, then yes. I happend to believe that laws should apply equally to everybody, including the government. This "equally" is often a problem. But where possible, of course.

So you're OK with say charging Wal-Mart the company but not the
government when both commit essentially equal violations of the law.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions provided in the law... Would you similarly say that if say it is found that only one hiring manager in Wal-Mart were responsible for knowingly hiring illegals that only that manager should face the punishment? Or should we go after the bigger Wal-Mart because they got more money? I'm curious. I don't think it matters who got the money for the criminal aspect of it. I think if there is no evidence that the manager acted upon request from another, higher manager, then he's the one who should be on the hook.

We'll see what will eventually happen but going after the corporation
instead of the individual that actually violated the law for the
purposes of getting more $$$ is very commonplace.
Of course there is always the tax question. If they hired illegals, they probably also evaded taxes. Or didn't file appropriate documentation.

Who is "they"? The corporation or perhaps an employee?
--
The Definition of an Upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
and if the law applies to the government too, then yes. I happend to believe that laws should apply equally to everybody, including the government. This "equally" is often a problem. But where possible, of course.

So you're OK with say charging Wal-Mart the company but not the
government when both commit essentially equal violations of the law.
And in that case, it would probably be not the government, but a single responsible officer who knowingly did something against the rules. I'm sure there are appropriate disciplinary and other actions provided in the law... Would you similarly say that if say it is found that only one hiring manager in Wal-Mart were responsible for knowingly hiring illegals that only that manager should face the punishment? Or should we go after the bigger Wal-Mart because they got more money? I'm curious. I don't think it matters who got the money for the criminal aspect of it. I think if there is no evidence that the manager acted upon request from another, higher manager, then he's the one who should be on the hook.

We'll see what will eventually happen but going after the corporation
instead of the individual that actually violated the law for the
purposes of getting more $$$ is very commonplace.
Of course there is always the tax question. If they hired illegals, they probably also evaded taxes. Or didn't file appropriate documentation.

Who is "they"? The corporation or perhaps an employee?
--
The Definition of an Upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:19:47 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :).Probable cause is not that hard to come up with.

I thought that law enforcement shouldn't "come up" with something, but
only act when there actually _is_ something.

I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?By adopting efficeincy practices prevelent in business and dropping the"this is government not business" attitute. By holding peopleresponsible and accountable for their production, etc. I could go on and on.

How would you measure efficiency of law enforcement? Numbers of jailed
people? Or the lack thereof? I'd say that a low number of people in
jail, together with a low crime rate, is a good indicator for
efficient law enforcement. But how to quantify that? Or attribute it
to an individual?

I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?They said they forgot!

That's a funny one :)

No excuse for not putting out the current fire! I agree that neglect ofthe forests contributed to the enormity of the fires. Fire fightersallow fires to clean the forest because it's a lot easier to let thefire clean it (as opposed to cleaning it by some other means).
One prevention method is allowing the fires to burn off the excess growth.

Actually, this doesn't seem to happen enough, at least not in SoCal.
From what I read, many people think that extinguishing all the smaller
fires early in the summer contributes significantly to the much bigger
late-summer Santa Ana fires. In Mexico, for example, just across the
border, they don't have many big fires -- exactly because they don't
fight most of the smaller early summer fires. (Other than that, they
don't have better prevention.)

Then we are in agreement. As I have been stating since the beginning ofthis long thread, I am only advocating that current laws are enforced.

And I never ever said that I thought that this was wrong.

They allow society to exist in peaceful harmony.

I can agree to that (as the purpose of law enforcement). So I think
both the laws and law enforcement should be measured on the degree of
peaceful harmony they create. That's the benefit side of the
efficiency equation.

But independently of that, I guess we can agree that our ultimate goal is that the laws are being observed as much as possible. Or not?Yes Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law. That's what I meant with the law trying to approximate what we perceive as justice. The idea that slavery was unjust was around long before the law got changed. It probably even had a majority some time before the law was changed. So the law came later than society's viewpoint.Are you saying that you believe illegals should be able to just walkover the border, work, violate other laws with impunity, etc?!? I thinknot. Are you saying our current immigration laws should be relaxed orchanged?

I think our whole idea of independent nations has outlived its useful
time. I think that the strongly federalist government structure of the
USA, including the various compromises and "checks and balances" (as
for example having a House with numbers of representatives by
population and a Senate with numbers by entities), gives a good
example how such a structure could be extended into the international
sphere.

What I don't understand is that especially the US governments seem not
to understand the benefits this would bring for the USA. In the
aftermath of the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for
the USA to become the leader in democratization of the world. But
instead, the USA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more
democratization of the international sphere, together with China and a
bunch of rogue states.

You may ask what that has to do with immigration. Well, just as with
protection of the environment, these things don't know borders. Dirty
air, just as the flows of people so poor the don't feel they have
anything to lose, don't stop at borders. These are phenomena that are
independent of national laws.

The logical consequence is that only international laws can help
create peaceful harmony here. For international laws, we need some
kind of international government, for which (as I said above) I think
the USA provides a good model.

Some may think that this is none of our business. I think otherwise. I
have lived in Brazil. One of the big problems of that country is that
the elite class, over centuries, failed to provide conditions for the
poor people to become anything but again poor (and I mean dirt poor)
people. This created over time a situation where it became clear that
if the rich had not done everything to make it impossible for the poor
to grow, all -- including the rich -- would be better off now. Instead
they thought that if they gave them the opportunity, they would lose
cheap labor slaves. That was clearly wrong policy. This can be
extended, with care, to the international situation we're facing
currently.

I just don't think that my attitude towards the immigration bureaucracy would change their efficiency. Until I'm a citizen, I'm not even a constituency of anybody who might want to get elected. Have you ever applied for a visa that is more than a tourist visa? You are in "no rights" land when applying for visa. The only attitude that gets you anywhere is to do what they expect you to do and accept what they do. You start complaining, and you may wait forever. And there is no higher instance where you could go and complain or excercise some pressure. What do you think you could do in such a situation?I don't believe you have a "right" to a visa - it's a privillege - soI'm not sure what your complaint is. You seem to think you have theright to demand it.

No. please re-read. I said "You are in 'no rights' land when applying
for visa." This should mean you have no night to anything. This
paragraph was a response to you saying that the people here accept the
inefficiencies of the immigration bureaucracy to easily. To which I
responded with the above, saying taht since they don't have any
rights, they don't have any possibility besides accepting. There is
not a single complaint in the whole paragraph.

Who can excercise pressure are the citizens, not the ones applying for visa. But they are usually not very concerned, mostly not even very informed.Well I happend to be a citizen.

I know -- or I figured so much. But you were talking about the people
in this group, which are mostly not citizens. I also know that you are
concerned, but you probably agree with me that you are not typical for
the majority of US citizens in this.

Sometimes I wonder why we are discussing things as much as we are. I amsimply saying that current laws should be enforced and people argue withme about this.

I don't, and if you go back and read what I wrote, you probably won't
find a single place where I question that.
I ask them do you think that the law should not beenforced and after much verbage they agree.

I agreed to that from the beginning.
I say I think enforcementhas a strong deterrent effect and after much verbage they agree.

Never claimed that not.
If we agree then what's the point of further discussion?

You question some of the things I say, and I respond. You don't have
to, though :)

Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegal alien will comply with the immediate deportation. Not necessarily. But say you have a court appearance for DUI. Until found guilty you are assumed innocent, of course. But the moment you are found guilty, the drill kicks in -- deposit gone, instead of to the local jail you go back to your home country (prepaid :)Aside from the prepaid part, how is this at all different than what wecurrently have?

It would remove some IMO unnecessary visa restrictions. Has not much
to do though with illegal immigration, IMO.

Then again if illegals complied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me that you are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economic levels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countries cannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn't that discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or that it's necessarily bad). Discrimination in the sense of "making fine distinctions" is not necessarily bad :)I agree, as my last sentence said, however this is not much differentthan any form of discrimination. One can say they are making finddistinctions between say men and women, whites and blacks or Europeansand Muslims.

But immigration laws are already made by country. There are already
all kinds of "discriminations" in place.

On a side note, it may be difficult to make a "fine distinction"
between Europeans and Muslims. A number of Europeans are actually
Muslims... :)

But that didn't answer the question. I asked should the business ownerbe compelled to turn in the illegal not whether or not it was up to thebusiness owner.

IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don't think
he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe I said so
earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't know whether
that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that the person is
legal (which is something different).

Ah... until recently a DL did. DLs were not given to illegals. Ofcourse, recently that changed.
I remeber vaguely that when I was here as a tourist for half a year many years ago, I could have gotten a drivers license. I remember that I thought that it would be a cool thing to have, but then didn't go through with it -- found better things to do :)Yes, that's a slight problem in that DLs can be issued because alienshave legal status right now and they often last longer than the legalstatus does. Why not require that the issuance of a DL requires proof ofcitizenship or proper visa and if a visa is involved then the DL is madevalid only for the duration of the visa?

There are legal residents without a work permit. They are in most
states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL. They
are not illegals, but they are not legal to work. So the DL was never
a document that stated whether somebody is allowed to work (and that's
what we were discussing here -- the WalMart etc situation of working
illegally). It is a document that states whether somebody is allowed
to _drive_.

I mean, that is in the name of the thing -- it is a Drivers License
(issued by the state), not a federal ID. As such, it has nothing to do
with the (federal) immigration status of a person, and was never meant
to have anything to do with federal laws. That's part of the
federalist structure.

(Which is not meant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants
should be allowed to get DLs.)

I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.I submit to you that this probably happens a lot more than you think.

How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?

Earlier you said that citizens are largely ignorant of immigration lawand now you are trying to say that people hire illegals knowinglyinstead of assuming that the private citizen employer was simplyignorant of what was required by immigration law?!?

I said they don't care, and they don't care about the details. This
doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't know that someone is
illegal. If this is true, then the fact that there are so many is
probably partly due to the fact that a majority of citizens simply
doesn't care.

I'm not convinced. If I were going to hire say a gardener or a mainchances are around here that they will all look alien. Many are legal,some are illegal. I have no idea how to verify they are legit (actuallyI have some ideas but this is only because I've been involved inimmigration, hence my presence here, however the vast majority ofcitizens, as you say, are ignorant of immigration issues). But you saythat such people "hire illegals on purpose" and that that is "easy toanswer". Do I suspect that they are perhaps illegal? Yes I would suspectit but I do not know and I do not know how to prove it one way or another.

How about a conversation? If you hire a gardener or other
professional, you know (that's unrelated to immigration issues) that
they usually have to have some kind of business license. You could ask
for that.

But I agree that this is quite a gray zone. That's why I think a
federal ID that states the immigration status would be a helpful thing
-- it would become as easy as looking at that ID to know about these
things.

So I go to an agency, say a maid agency, and trust, perhaps hope, thatthey being a business would not want to be caught hiring illegals soperhaps they've screened them and this provides me a little protectionand assurance that I'm doing the right thing. It's not much but it'smore than I can do myself. But the business failed to screen them so I'malso held accountable?

I'm not sure. I don't think you are.
It doesn't take much to continue this to the Wal-Mart case and yetpeople here attempt to condemn the businesses saying that they areoutsourcing their intentional illegal activities.

Of course, that's innocent until proven guilty. But if there is proof
that this was intentional, why not go after them? Prosecution will
have to show that there was at least unlawful negligence.

One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.I disagree. I've been here a lot longer than you and I can safely saythat I do not know of a single person who owns a gun. My aunt(s) do notown guns. In fact nobody in my family owns a gun. And people are used to doing everything with their guns.Huh? Who do you know owns a gun and what have they done with that gun? Iget up, work, shop, etc all without the "benefits" of a gun. I've neverbeen in a mall and seen a gun (expect on police) for that matter. Whatare you talking about?!?

private firearms:
US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person
Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person

That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actually
see them. As a side note: it was here in the USA when I first saw a
gun on the street, after 25 years in Germany without that experience.
(And it was aimed at me, but that is a different story... :)

While we're at it, there's this:

homicides per year per 100k habitants
US: approx 5
Germany: approx 1

prisoners per 100k habitants:
US: about 600
Germany: about 100

That's not an argument for gun control (I know that the issue is more
complex). But among the "developed countries", the US has the highest
rates of gun ownership, of homicides, and of prison population.

IOW ifdrugs were legalized a lot of the crime associated with them would goaway - but not all of it. Would this be better? It's debatable.

"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way --
even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:19:47 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :).Probable cause is not that hard to come up with.

I thought that law enforcement shouldn't "come up" with something, but
only act when there actually _is_ something.

I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?By adopting efficeincy practices prevelent in business and dropping the"this is government not business" attitute. By holding peopleresponsible and accountable for their production, etc. I could go on and on.

How would you measure efficiency of law enforcement? Numbers of jailed
people? Or the lack thereof? I'd say that a low number of people in
jail, together with a low crime rate, is a good indicator for
efficient law enforcement. But how to quantify that? Or attribute it
to an individual?

I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?They said they forgot!

That's a funny one :)

No excuse for not putting out the current fire! I agree that neglect ofthe forests contributed to the enormity of the fires. Fire fightersallow fires to clean the forest because it's a lot easier to let thefire clean it (as opposed to cleaning it by some other means).
One prevention method is allowing the fires to burn off the excess growth.

Actually, this doesn't seem to happen enough, at least not in SoCal.
From what I read, many people think that extinguishing all the smaller
fires early in the summer contributes significantly to the much bigger
late-summer Santa Ana fires. In Mexico, for example, just across the
border, they don't have many big fires -- exactly because they don't
fight most of the smaller early summer fires. (Other than that, they
don't have better prevention.)

Then we are in agreement. As I have been stating since the beginning ofthis long thread, I am only advocating that current laws are enforced.

And I never ever said that I thought that this was wrong.

They allow society to exist in peaceful harmony.

I can agree to that (as the purpose of law enforcement). So I think
both the laws and law enforcement should be measured on the degree of
peaceful harmony they create. That's the benefit side of the
efficiency equation.

But independently of that, I guess we can agree that our ultimate goal is that the laws are being observed as much as possible. Or not?Yes Society's viewpoint of what is just changed and so did the law. That's what I meant with the law trying to approximate what we perceive as justice. The idea that slavery was unjust was around long before the law got changed. It probably even had a majority some time before the law was changed. So the law came later than society's viewpoint.Are you saying that you believe illegals should be able to just walkover the border, work, violate other laws with impunity, etc?!? I thinknot. Are you saying our current immigration laws should be relaxed orchanged?

I think our whole idea of independent nations has outlived its useful
time. I think that the strongly federalist government structure of the
USA, including the various compromises and "checks and balances" (as
for example having a House with numbers of representatives by
population and a Senate with numbers by entities), gives a good
example how such a structure could be extended into the international
sphere.

What I don't understand is that especially the US governments seem not
to understand the benefits this would bring for the USA. In the
aftermath of the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for
the USA to become the leader in democratization of the world. But
instead, the USA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more
democratization of the international sphere, together with China and a
bunch of rogue states.

You may ask what that has to do with immigration. Well, just as with
protection of the environment, these things don't know borders. Dirty
air, just as the flows of people so poor the don't feel they have
anything to lose, don't stop at borders. These are phenomena that are
independent of national laws.

The logical consequence is that only international laws can help
create peaceful harmony here. For international laws, we need some
kind of international government, for which (as I said above) I think
the USA provides a good model.

Some may think that this is none of our business. I think otherwise. I
have lived in Brazil. One of the big problems of that country is that
the elite class, over centuries, failed to provide conditions for the
poor people to become anything but again poor (and I mean dirt poor)
people. This created over time a situation where it became clear that
if the rich had not done everything to make it impossible for the poor
to grow, all -- including the rich -- would be better off now. Instead
they thought that if they gave them the opportunity, they would lose
cheap labor slaves. That was clearly wrong policy. This can be
extended, with care, to the international situation we're facing
currently.

I just don't think that my attitude towards the immigration bureaucracy would change their efficiency. Until I'm a citizen, I'm not even a constituency of anybody who might want to get elected. Have you ever applied for a visa that is more than a tourist visa? You are in "no rights" land when applying for visa. The only attitude that gets you anywhere is to do what they expect you to do and accept what they do. You start complaining, and you may wait forever. And there is no higher instance where you could go and complain or excercise some pressure. What do you think you could do in such a situation?I don't believe you have a "right" to a visa - it's a privillege - soI'm not sure what your complaint is. You seem to think you have theright to demand it.

No. please re-read. I said "You are in 'no rights' land when applying
for visa." This should mean you have no night to anything. This
paragraph was a response to you saying that the people here accept the
inefficiencies of the immigration bureaucracy to easily. To which I
responded with the above, saying taht since they don't have any
rights, they don't have any possibility besides accepting. There is
not a single complaint in the whole paragraph.

Who can excercise pressure are the citizens, not the ones applying for visa. But they are usually not very concerned, mostly not even very informed.Well I happend to be a citizen.

I know -- or I figured so much. But you were talking about the people
in this group, which are mostly not citizens. I also know that you are
concerned, but you probably agree with me that you are not typical for
the majority of US citizens in this.

Sometimes I wonder why we are discussing things as much as we are. I amsimply saying that current laws should be enforced and people argue withme about this.

I don't, and if you go back and read what I wrote, you probably won't
find a single place where I question that.
I ask them do you think that the law should not beenforced and after much verbage they agree.

I agreed to that from the beginning.
I say I think enforcementhas a strong deterrent effect and after much verbage they agree.

Never claimed that not.
If we agree then what's the point of further discussion?

You question some of the things I say, and I respond. You don't have
to, though :)

Interesting approach. I think it assumes that the legal turned illegal alien will comply with the immediate deportation. Not necessarily. But say you have a court appearance for DUI. Until found guilty you are assumed innocent, of course. But the moment you are found guilty, the drill kicks in -- deposit gone, instead of to the local jail you go back to your home country (prepaid :)Aside from the prepaid part, how is this at all different than what wecurrently have?

It would remove some IMO unnecessary visa restrictions. Has not much
to do though with illegal immigration, IMO.

Then again if illegals complied with such demands we wouldn't have a problem. Seems to me that you are saying that immigrants from countries of comparable economic levels can be trusted implying that immigrants from say poor countries cannot be trusted. In general I'd say you are probably right but isn't that discrimination? (not that discrimination does not happen or that it's necessarily bad). Discrimination in the sense of "making fine distinctions" is not necessarily bad :)I agree, as my last sentence said, however this is not much differentthan any form of discrimination. One can say they are making finddistinctions between say men and women, whites and blacks or Europeansand Muslims.

But immigration laws are already made by country. There are already
all kinds of "discriminations" in place.

On a side note, it may be difficult to make a "fine distinction"
between Europeans and Muslims. A number of Europeans are actually
Muslims... :)

But that didn't answer the question. I asked should the business ownerbe compelled to turn in the illegal not whether or not it was up to thebusiness owner.

IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don't think
he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe I said so
earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't know whether
that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that the person is
legal (which is something different).

Ah... until recently a DL did. DLs were not given to illegals. Ofcourse, recently that changed.
I remeber vaguely that when I was here as a tourist for half a year many years ago, I could have gotten a drivers license. I remember that I thought that it would be a cool thing to have, but then didn't go through with it -- found better things to do :)Yes, that's a slight problem in that DLs can be issued because alienshave legal status right now and they often last longer than the legalstatus does. Why not require that the issuance of a DL requires proof ofcitizenship or proper visa and if a visa is involved then the DL is madevalid only for the duration of the visa?

There are legal residents without a work permit. They are in most
states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL. They
are not illegals, but they are not legal to work. So the DL was never
a document that stated whether somebody is allowed to work (and that's
what we were discussing here -- the WalMart etc situation of working
illegally). It is a document that states whether somebody is allowed
to _drive_.

I mean, that is in the name of the thing -- it is a Drivers License
(issued by the state), not a federal ID. As such, it has nothing to do
with the (federal) immigration status of a person, and was never meant
to have anything to do with federal laws. That's part of the
federalist structure.

(Which is not meant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants
should be allowed to get DLs.)

I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.I submit to you that this probably happens a lot more than you think.

How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?

Earlier you said that citizens are largely ignorant of immigration lawand now you are trying to say that people hire illegals knowinglyinstead of assuming that the private citizen employer was simplyignorant of what was required by immigration law?!?

I said they don't care, and they don't care about the details. This
doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't know that someone is
illegal. If this is true, then the fact that there are so many is
probably partly due to the fact that a majority of citizens simply
doesn't care.

I'm not convinced. If I were going to hire say a gardener or a mainchances are around here that they will all look alien. Many are legal,some are illegal. I have no idea how to verify they are legit (actuallyI have some ideas but this is only because I've been involved inimmigration, hence my presence here, however the vast majority ofcitizens, as you say, are ignorant of immigration issues). But you saythat such people "hire illegals on purpose" and that that is "easy toanswer". Do I suspect that they are perhaps illegal? Yes I would suspectit but I do not know and I do not know how to prove it one way or another.

How about a conversation? If you hire a gardener or other
professional, you know (that's unrelated to immigration issues) that
they usually have to have some kind of business license. You could ask
for that.

But I agree that this is quite a gray zone. That's why I think a
federal ID that states the immigration status would be a helpful thing
-- it would become as easy as looking at that ID to know about these
things.

So I go to an agency, say a maid agency, and trust, perhaps hope, thatthey being a business would not want to be caught hiring illegals soperhaps they've screened them and this provides me a little protectionand assurance that I'm doing the right thing. It's not much but it'smore than I can do myself. But the business failed to screen them so I'malso held accountable?

I'm not sure. I don't think you are.
It doesn't take much to continue this to the Wal-Mart case and yetpeople here attempt to condemn the businesses saying that they areoutsourcing their intentional illegal activities.

Of course, that's innocent until proven guilty. But if there is proof
that this was intentional, why not go after them? Prosecution will
have to show that there was at least unlawful negligence.

One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.I disagree. I've been here a lot longer than you and I can safely saythat I do not know of a single person who owns a gun. My aunt(s) do notown guns. In fact nobody in my family owns a gun. And people are used to doing everything with their guns.Huh? Who do you know owns a gun and what have they done with that gun? Iget up, work, shop, etc all without the "benefits" of a gun. I've neverbeen in a mall and seen a gun (expect on police) for that matter. Whatare you talking about?!?

private firearms:
US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person
Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person

That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actually
see them. As a side note: it was here in the USA when I first saw a
gun on the street, after 25 years in Germany without that experience.
(And it was aimed at me, but that is a different story... :)

While we're at it, there's this:

homicides per year per 100k habitants
US: approx 5
Germany: approx 1

prisoners per 100k habitants:
US: about 600
Germany: about 100

That's not an argument for gun control (I know that the issue is more
complex). But among the "developed countries", the US has the highest
rates of gun ownership, of homicides, and of prison population.

IOW ifdrugs were legalized a lot of the crime associated with them would goaway - but not all of it. Would this be better? It's debatable.

"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way --
even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:19:47 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :).
Probable cause is not that hard to come up with.
I thought that law enforcement shouldn't "come up" with something, but only act when there actually _is_ something.
What I mean is that often it is easy to find a law that is being violated so that you can ask for proper ID. For example, jaywalking.
I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?
By adopting efficeincy practices prevelent in business and dropping the "this is government not business" attitute. By holding people responsible and accountable for their production, etc. I could go on and on.
How would you measure efficiency of law enforcement? Lots of ways. They currently have measures for it.
I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?
They said they forgot!
That's a funny one :)
I'm not laughing and I do not consider it a laughing matter.
Are you saying that you believe illegals should be able to just walk over the border, work, violate other laws with impunity, etc?!? I think not. Are you saying our current immigration laws should be relaxed or changed?
I think our whole idea of independent nations has outlived its useful time. Well we definitely disagree here.
What I don't understand is that especially the US governments seem not to understand the benefits this would bring for the USA. Or perhaps we just disagree with your idea...
In the aftermath of the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for the USA to become the leader in democratization of the world. Ah... we are...
But instead, the USA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more democratization of the international sphere, together with China and a bunch of rogue states.
Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit deciding what to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...
You may ask what that has to do with immigration. Well, just as with protection of the environment, these things don't know borders. Dirty air, just as the flows of people so poor the don't feel they have anything to lose, don't stop at borders. These are phenomena that are independent of national laws.
But immigration is not a phenomena that is indepedent of national laws.
The logical consequence is that only international laws can help create peaceful harmony here. Nonsense.
For international laws, we need some kind of international government, for which (as I said above) I think
the USA provides a good model.
I'm not a believer of the one world nation theory.
Some may think that this is none of our business. I think otherwise. I have lived in Brazil. One of the big problems of that country is that the elite class, over centuries, failed to provide conditions for the poor people to become anything but again poor (and I mean dirt poor) people. If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of the rich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.
No. please re-read. I said "You are in 'no rights' land when applying for visa." This should mean you have no night to anything. This paragraph was a response to you saying that the people here accept the inefficiencies of the immigration bureaucracy to easily. To which I responded with the above, saying taht since they don't have any
rights, they don't have any possibility besides accepting. There is not a single complaint in the whole paragraph.
The people I'm complaining about, who accept the inefficiences, are US citizens and people working in the INS as well as lawyers, etc, not the immigrants.
I know -- or I figured so much. But you were talking about the people in this group, which are mostly not citizens. I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration group about family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the poster is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse or spouse to be.
I also know that you are concerned, but you probably agree with me that you are not typical for the majority of US citizens in this.
It need not be a majority. In any instance accepting the inefficient status quo and status quo and immovable is wrong, IMHO.
Sometimes I wonder why we are discussing things as much as we are. I am simply saying that current laws should be enforced and people argue with me about this.
I don't, and if you go back and read what I wrote, you probably won't find a single place where I question that.
You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we should shift resources there. It'd be more efficient. Currently enforcement (as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against current violators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into the country. Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcing the law against current violators you will be allowing more people to be in violation of the law. In my book that means that you're taking a stance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take to me that you don't think the current laws should be enforced. And your crack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up a current violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the law against a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but you certainly are implying it.
I ask them do you think that the law should not be enforced and after much verbage they agree.
I agreed to that from the beginning.
I say I think enforcement has a strong deterrent effect and after much verbage they agree.
Never claimed that not.
Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that we can experience the strong detterent effect!

Listening to talk radio I heard of a program called Operation Wetback that the INS ran in the '50's where they rounded up many illegals and processed them. The program was very successful. Why then are we not doing such operations anymore?
If we agree then what's the point of further discussion?
You question some of the things I say, and I respond. You don't have to, though :)
Nor do you.
But that didn't answer the question. I asked should the business owner be compelled to turn in the illegal not whether or not it was up to the business owner.
IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don't think he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe I said so earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't know whether that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that the person is legal (which is something different).
But it would be efficient! ;-)
Yes, that's a slight problem in that DLs can be issued because aliens have legal status right now and they often last longer than the legal status does. Why not require that the issuance of a DL requires proof of citizenship or proper visa and if a visa isinvolved then the DL is made valid only for the duration of the visa?
There are legal residents without a work permit. They are in most states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL. Nobody is required to get a DL.
They are not illegals, but they are not legal to work. So the DL was never a document that stated whether somebody is allowed to work (and that's what we were discussing here -- the WalMart etc situation of working illegally). It is a document that states whether somebody is allowed to _drive_.
Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everything is legit.
I mean, that is in the name of the thing -- it is a Drivers License (issued by the state), not a federal ID. As such, it has nothing to do with the (federal) immigration status of a person, and was never meant to have anything to do with federal laws. That's part of the federalist structure.
Technically yes. However you and I know this but not everybody else. There are many benefits to a DL in the US. I don't think illegals should be afforded any of those benefits including the right to drive.
(Which is not meant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants should be allowed to get DLs.)
Completely illegal immigrants?!? What are they? Is that anything like sorta pregnant! Either your an illegal immigratnt or your legal immigrant.
I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.
I submit to you that this probably happens a lot more than you think.
How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?
You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegal immigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)
Earlier you said that citizens are largely ignorant of immigration law and now you are trying to say that people hire illegals knowingly instead of assuming that the private citizen employer was simply ignorant of what was required by immigration law?!?
I said they don't care, and they don't care about the details. No you said they were ignorant of immigration law.
This doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't know that someone is illegal. How can they know that someone is illegal when they are ignorant of the law? Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turn in illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeed illegal. Here you stated that people knowingly hire illegal immigrants. How can both of these statements be considered a consistent viewpoint? They can't. And you're attempting to sing and dance your way out of this inconsistency.
If this is true, then the fact that there are so many is probably partly due to the fact that a majority of citizens simply doesn't care.
Doesn't necessarily follow.
I'm not convinced. If I were going to hire say a gardener or a main chances are around here that they will all look alien. Many are legal, some are illegal. I have no idea how to verify they are legit (actually I have some ideas but this is only because I've been involved in immigration, hence my presence here, however the vast majority of
citizens, as you say, are ignorant of immigration issues). But you say that such people "hire illegals on purpose" and that that is "easy to answer". Do I suspect that they are perhaps illegal? Yes I would suspect it but I do not know and I do not know how to prove it one way or another.
How about a conversation? If you hire a gardener or other professional, you know (that's unrelated to immigration issues) that they usually have to have some kind of business license. You could ask for that.
They could provide me with any piece of paper that looks like a business license. How do I know it's legit? Call the BBB and thoroughly check the background of this business? Yes that would work but how many people go to such troubles before hiring somebody to cut the grass!
But I agree that this is quite a gray zone. That's why I think a federal ID that states the immigration status would be a helpful thing -- it would become as easy as looking at that ID to know about these things.
A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.
So I go to an agency, say a maid agency, and trust, perhaps hope, that they being a business would not want to be caught hiring illegals so perhaps they've screened them and this provides me a little protection and assurance that I'm doing the right thing. It's not much but it's more than I can do myself. But the business failed to screen them so I'm also held accountable?
I'm not sure. I don't think you are.
Then neither should Wal-Mart.
It doesn't take much to continue this to the Wal-Mart case and yet people here attempt to condemn the businesses saying that they are outsourcing their intentional illegal activities.
Of course, that's innocent until proven guilty. But if there is proof that this was intentional, why not go after them? Prosecution will have to show that there was at least unlawful negligence.
Of course, there will need to be reasonable suspicion that there is some cupability here. But going after them just because they have more $$$ is wrong. And it will cost them to defend themselves. Guess who's gonna pay that tab?
One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.
I disagree. I've been here a lot longer than you and I can safely say that I do not know of a single person who owns a gun. My aunt(s) do not own guns. In fact nobody in my family owns a gun.
And people are used to doing everything with their guns.
Huh? Who do you know owns a gun and what have they done with that gun? I get up, work, shop, etc all without the "benefits" of a gun. I've never been in a mall and seen a gun (expect on police) for that matter. What
are you talking about?!?
private firearms:
US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person
Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person

That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actually see them. I submit than many (most) gun owners have multiple guns.
As a side note: it was here in the USA when I first saw a gun on the street, after 25 years in Germany without that experience. (And it was aimed at me, but that is a different story... :)
Who was aiming it?
While we're at it, there's this:

homicides per year per 100k habitants
US: approx 5
Germany: approx 1
All gun homicides? You don't need a gun to kill somebody.
prisoners per 100k habitants:
US: about 600
Germany: about 100

That's not an argument for gun control (I know that the issue is morecomplex). But among the "developed countries", the US has the highest rates of gun ownership, of homicides, and of prison population.
Again, just because you own a gun does not mean that you committed a homicide and just because you're in prision does not mean that you used a gun in the commision of your crime.

And you didn't answer the question about your claim that American's use guns to do everything. You didn't name one thing that Americans use a gun for (except perhaps commit a crime - which is not the majority of Americans).
IOW if drugs were legalized a lot of the crime associated with them would go away - but not all of it. Would this be better? It's debatable.
"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way -- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.
Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.

--
I used to have a handle on life, then it broke.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:19:47 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :).
Probable cause is not that hard to come up with.
I thought that law enforcement shouldn't "come up" with something, but only act when there actually _is_ something.
What I mean is that often it is easy to find a law that is being violated so that you can ask for proper ID. For example, jaywalking.
I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?
By adopting efficeincy practices prevelent in business and dropping the "this is government not business" attitute. By holding people responsible and accountable for their production, etc. I could go on and on.
How would you measure efficiency of law enforcement? Lots of ways. They currently have measures for it.
I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?
They said they forgot!
That's a funny one :)
I'm not laughing and I do not consider it a laughing matter.
Are you saying that you believe illegals should be able to just walk over the border, work, violate other laws with impunity, etc?!? I think not. Are you saying our current immigration laws should be relaxed or changed?
I think our whole idea of independent nations has outlived its useful time. Well we definitely disagree here.
What I don't understand is that especially the US governments seem not to understand the benefits this would bring for the USA. Or perhaps we just disagree with your idea...
In the aftermath of the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for the USA to become the leader in democratization of the world. Ah... we are...
But instead, the USA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more democratization of the international sphere, together with China and a bunch of rogue states.
Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit deciding what to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...
You may ask what that has to do with immigration. Well, just as with protection of the environment, these things don't know borders. Dirty air, just as the flows of people so poor the don't feel they have anything to lose, don't stop at borders. These are phenomena that are independent of national laws.
But immigration is not a phenomena that is indepedent of national laws.
The logical consequence is that only international laws can help create peaceful harmony here. Nonsense.
For international laws, we need some kind of international government, for which (as I said above) I think
the USA provides a good model.
I'm not a believer of the one world nation theory.
Some may think that this is none of our business. I think otherwise. I have lived in Brazil. One of the big problems of that country is that the elite class, over centuries, failed to provide conditions for the poor people to become anything but again poor (and I mean dirt poor) people. If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of the rich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.
No. please re-read. I said "You are in 'no rights' land when applying for visa." This should mean you have no night to anything. This paragraph was a response to you saying that the people here accept the inefficiencies of the immigration bureaucracy to easily. To which I responded with the above, saying taht since they don't have any
rights, they don't have any possibility besides accepting. There is not a single complaint in the whole paragraph.
The people I'm complaining about, who accept the inefficiences, are US citizens and people working in the INS as well as lawyers, etc, not the immigrants.
I know -- or I figured so much. But you were talking about the people in this group, which are mostly not citizens. I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration group about family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the poster is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse or spouse to be.
I also know that you are concerned, but you probably agree with me that you are not typical for the majority of US citizens in this.
It need not be a majority. In any instance accepting the inefficient status quo and status quo and immovable is wrong, IMHO.
Sometimes I wonder why we are discussing things as much as we are. I am simply saying that current laws should be enforced and people argue with me about this.
I don't, and if you go back and read what I wrote, you probably won't find a single place where I question that.
You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we should shift resources there. It'd be more efficient. Currently enforcement (as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against current violators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into the country. Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcing the law against current violators you will be allowing more people to be in violation of the law. In my book that means that you're taking a stance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take to me that you don't think the current laws should be enforced. And your crack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up a current violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the law against a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but you certainly are implying it.
I ask them do you think that the law should not be enforced and after much verbage they agree.
I agreed to that from the beginning.
I say I think enforcement has a strong deterrent effect and after much verbage they agree.
Never claimed that not.
Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that we can experience the strong detterent effect!

Listening to talk radio I heard of a program called Operation Wetback that the INS ran in the '50's where they rounded up many illegals and processed them. The program was very successful. Why then are we not doing such operations anymore?
If we agree then what's the point of further discussion?
You question some of the things I say, and I respond. You don't have to, though :)
Nor do you.
But that didn't answer the question. I asked should the business owner be compelled to turn in the illegal not whether or not it was up to the business owner.
IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don't think he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe I said so earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't know whether that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that the person is legal (which is something different).
But it would be efficient! ;-)
Yes, that's a slight problem in that DLs can be issued because aliens have legal status right now and they often last longer than the legal status does. Why not require that the issuance of a DL requires proof of citizenship or proper visa and if a visa isinvolved then the DL is made valid only for the duration of the visa?
There are legal residents without a work permit. They are in most states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL. Nobody is required to get a DL.
They are not illegals, but they are not legal to work. So the DL was never a document that stated whether somebody is allowed to work (and that's what we were discussing here -- the WalMart etc situation of working illegally). It is a document that states whether somebody is allowed to _drive_.
Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everything is legit.
I mean, that is in the name of the thing -- it is a Drivers License (issued by the state), not a federal ID. As such, it has nothing to do with the (federal) immigration status of a person, and was never meant to have anything to do with federal laws. That's part of the federalist structure.
Technically yes. However you and I know this but not everybody else. There are many benefits to a DL in the US. I don't think illegals should be afforded any of those benefits including the right to drive.
(Which is not meant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants should be allowed to get DLs.)
Completely illegal immigrants?!? What are they? Is that anything like sorta pregnant! Either your an illegal immigratnt or your legal immigrant.
I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.
I submit to you that this probably happens a lot more than you think.
How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?
You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegal immigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)
Earlier you said that citizens are largely ignorant of immigration law and now you are trying to say that people hire illegals knowingly instead of assuming that the private citizen employer was simply ignorant of what was required by immigration law?!?
I said they don't care, and they don't care about the details. No you said they were ignorant of immigration law.
This doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't know that someone is illegal. How can they know that someone is illegal when they are ignorant of the law? Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turn in illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeed illegal. Here you stated that people knowingly hire illegal immigrants. How can both of these statements be considered a consistent viewpoint? They can't. And you're attempting to sing and dance your way out of this inconsistency.
If this is true, then the fact that there are so many is probably partly due to the fact that a majority of citizens simply doesn't care.
Doesn't necessarily follow.
I'm not convinced. If I were going to hire say a gardener or a main chances are around here that they will all look alien. Many are legal, some are illegal. I have no idea how to verify they are legit (actually I have some ideas but this is only because I've been involved in immigration, hence my presence here, however the vast majority of
citizens, as you say, are ignorant of immigration issues). But you say that such people "hire illegals on purpose" and that that is "easy to answer". Do I suspect that they are perhaps illegal? Yes I would suspect it but I do not know and I do not know how to prove it one way or another.
How about a conversation? If you hire a gardener or other professional, you know (that's unrelated to immigration issues) that they usually have to have some kind of business license. You could ask for that.
They could provide me with any piece of paper that looks like a business license. How do I know it's legit? Call the BBB and thoroughly check the background of this business? Yes that would work but how many people go to such troubles before hiring somebody to cut the grass!
But I agree that this is quite a gray zone. That's why I think a federal ID that states the immigration status would be a helpful thing -- it would become as easy as looking at that ID to know about these things.
A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.
So I go to an agency, say a maid agency, and trust, perhaps hope, that they being a business would not want to be caught hiring illegals so perhaps they've screened them and this provides me a little protection and assurance that I'm doing the right thing. It's not much but it's more than I can do myself. But the business failed to screen them so I'm also held accountable?
I'm not sure. I don't think you are.
Then neither should Wal-Mart.
It doesn't take much to continue this to the Wal-Mart case and yet people here attempt to condemn the businesses saying that they are outsourcing their intentional illegal activities.
Of course, that's innocent until proven guilty. But if there is proof that this was intentional, why not go after them? Prosecution will have to show that there was at least unlawful negligence.
Of course, there will need to be reasonable suspicion that there is some cupability here. But going after them just because they have more $$$ is wrong. And it will cost them to defend themselves. Guess who's gonna pay that tab?
One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.
I disagree. I've been here a lot longer than you and I can safely say that I do not know of a single person who owns a gun. My aunt(s) do not own guns. In fact nobody in my family owns a gun.
And people are used to doing everything with their guns.
Huh? Who do you know owns a gun and what have they done with that gun? I get up, work, shop, etc all without the "benefits" of a gun. I've never been in a mall and seen a gun (expect on police) for that matter. What
are you talking about?!?
private firearms:
US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person
Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person

That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actually see them. I submit than many (most) gun owners have multiple guns.
As a side note: it was here in the USA when I first saw a gun on the street, after 25 years in Germany without that experience. (And it was aimed at me, but that is a different story... :)
Who was aiming it?
While we're at it, there's this:

homicides per year per 100k habitants
US: approx 5
Germany: approx 1
All gun homicides? You don't need a gun to kill somebody.
prisoners per 100k habitants:
US: about 600
Germany: about 100

That's not an argument for gun control (I know that the issue is morecomplex). But among the "developed countries", the US has the highest rates of gun ownership, of homicides, and of prison population.
Again, just because you own a gun does not mean that you committed a homicide and just because you're in prision does not mean that you used a gun in the commision of your crime.

And you didn't answer the question about your claim that American's use guns to do everything. You didn't name one thing that Americans use a gun for (except perhaps commit a crime - which is not the majority of Americans).
IOW if drugs were legalized a lot of the crime associated with them would go away - but not all of it. Would this be better? It's debatable.
"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way -- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.
Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.

--
I used to have a handle on life, then it broke.

You would have made it easier if you hadn't posted in HTML. So here it
goes...

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:57:40 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:What I mean is that often it is easy to find a law that is beingviolated so that you can ask for proper ID. For example, jaywalking.<br>

I think that's exactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalking
to target people they don't like, like for example that guy who seemed
to smile at his sister the other day in the park...
<blockquote type="cite" cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">In the aftermathof the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for the USA tobecome the leader in democratization of the world. </blockquote>Ah... we are...<br>

Only within the USA, which doesn't count for much towards the
credentials of being the leader of the _world_ (which, other than in
the "World Series" actually includes the rest of the world). These
must be earned internationally -- and the USA is not much of a leader
currently. Definitely not in democratization. Or can you cite a
significant portion of foreign opinions that would give the USA
significant credentials in this area? After 50+ years of heavy support
for almost every right-wing fascist dictator on the planet?

cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">But instead, theUSA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more democratization ofthe international sphere, together with China and a bunch of roguestates.<br></blockquote>Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit decidingwhat to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...<br>

Well, I've got news for you. A representative republic _is_ a
democracy. It seems even the (republican) president agrees with me on
that; or how would you explain the fact that he want to "bring
democracy to Iraq"? He didn't say that he wants to bring a republic to
Iraq :)

I sometimes get the feeling that some Republicans can't swallow that a
republic is a democracy, only because their major opponents are the
Democrats :))
But immigration is not a phenomena that is indepedent of national laws.<br>

That's where you just don't see the real causes. The reasons why the
immigration pressure is so high are largely independent of the US
laws,
Nonsense.<br>

Now this response is so full of good arguments that I rest my case.
If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of therich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.<br>

Now look again, a bit closer. There are many elements in the US laws
that have an equalizing effect.

But I didn't say that it was the responsibility to provide anything.
Maybe you take a class in text interpretation. Yours seems to lack
sometimes, or maybe you just want to make an argument, no matter what
I wrote.

I said that in the end, that's a lot cheaper and much more effective
than to try to fight the tide. But it seems you want to go the
stubborn way. Your right, of course.
I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration groupabout family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that theposter is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse orspouse to be.<br>

Actually, I'm responding in alt.visa.us, to where you crossposted.
This is the full list of newsgroups to where this thread went (and
continues to go): misc.immigration.misc, alt.visa.us.marriage-based,
alt.visa.us, misc.immigration.usa. Only one is about marriage-based
visa. That brings your percentage way down.
You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we shouldshift resources there. It'd be more efficient.

At least start thinking about the huge importance of it. Yes.
Currently enforcement(as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against currentviolators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into thecountry.

Agreed. That's exactly why I think that prevention (working on the
real causes) is so much more important.
Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcingthe law against current violators you will be allowing more people tobe in violation of the law.

Probably, until the prevention effect kicks in. Sometimes you have to
take a step back in order to solve an issue. Of course you can go
ahead and try to fix the symptoms without solving it, but there will
often come a point where this won't work anymore
In my book that means that you're taking astance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take tome that you don't think the current laws should be enforced.

That's taken out of context. I think spending more resources on
prevention is essential, but I think that all the (remaining)
available resources should continue with what you call law
enforcement.
And yourcrack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up acurrent violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the lawagainst a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but youcertainly are implying it.<br>

Come on, lighten up. There are things that can only be taken with
humor, or you lose it. (Have you lost it already? :)
Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that wecan experience the strong detterent effect!<br>

Again: how do you propose to "round them up" with the available
resources (well, and laws, since enforcing them is the objective)?
Listening to talk radio I heard of a program called Operation Wetbackthat the INS ran in the '50's where they rounded up many illegals andprocessed them. The program was very successful. Why then are we notdoing such operations anymore?<br>

Maybe you should follow up your talk radio sessions with some research
of your own. Here's a historian's account of what happened then:

"... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on
the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and
angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent.
Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of
"police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned"

This operation seemed to have been based on illegal practices, which
ultimately was the reason why it got abandoned. So why would you, of
all, propose this as a solution? Isn't your objective to uphold the
law? Or is it only the immigration law that you want to uphold? Or
uphold the law only insofar the person to be protected by it doesn't
"look Mexican"?
Nor do you.<br>

But I don't ask you why I'm doing this :)
<!---->IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don'tthink he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe Isaid so earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't knowwhether that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that theperson is legal (which is something different).<br></blockquote>But it would be efficient! <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-) </span></span><br>

What would be efficient? At that point, there is not yet an illegal.
There is only a person who didn't provide -- for whatever reason --
the necessary documentation to get the job. That's not a crime, nor
another type of violation of any law.
<!---->There are legal residents without a work permit. They are inmost states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL. </blockquote>Nobody is <b>required</b> to get a DL.<br>

"...required to get one to drive," I should add. Tourists in most
cases are allowed to drive with their home country license.
Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everythingis legit.<br>

Exactly my point. The non-existence of a federal ID is a real problem
for immigration issues.
cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">(Which is notmeant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants should beallowed to get DLs.)<br></blockquote>Completely illegal immigrants?!? What are they? Is that anything likesorta pregnant! Either your an illegal immigratnt or your legalimmigrant.<br>

There are immigrants that are working illegally, but otherwise are
legal. There are other immigrants that are completely illegal (and of
those there are still at least two categories that the law
distinguishes: the overstayers and the ones who came in illegally).
Since your objective is to uphold the law, you should really take more
care in looking at it.
How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?<br></blockquote>You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegalimmigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)<br>

?? How can I get a SSN illegally? Don't get SSNs automatically
canceled (or marked) after visa expiration, convictions, etc.?
Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turnin illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeedillegal.

They have no way of knowing before they hire them. After they hired
them without requiring a proper SSN, for example, the employer has
done something illegal.
Here you stated that people knowingly hire illegal immigrants.How can both of these statements be considered a consistent viewpoint?They can't. And you're attempting to sing and dance your way out ofthis inconsistency.<br>

Thanks for the compliment! (Idon't consider myself a good dancer, but
any compliment makes me happy.) There is no inconsistency. After I
hire somebody who wouldn't give me a SSN, I pretty much know that
there's something wrong. And go on accepting (and possibly knowingly
making a profit out of) that.

A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.<br>

Hum... Are you saying we should abandon any type of ID and DL and
passport and money due to it being forgeable?

Why do we go through the effort to check all those forgeable passports
at the border, even make the decision whether to let that person in or
not based on that forgeable passport?
<!---->private firearms:<br>US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person<br>Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person<br> <br>That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actuallysee them. </blockquote>I submit than many (most) gun owners have multiple guns. <br>

Those 200+ million firearms in the US are owned by 60+ million owners.
That leaves enough room to claim that nobody in CA owns any of them...
:) But not really plausible.
cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">As a side note:it was here in the USA when I first saw a gun on the street, after 25years in Germany without that experience. (And it was aimed at me, butthat is a different story... :)<br></blockquote>Who was aiming it?<br>

Police. I've had had some encounters with law enforcement before (like
traffic checks, or terrorism related "events" in the 80ies), but never
really had to face a gun. Police in Germany don't usually do this.

Here I was sitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LA
area, getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe,
I've done it countless times in many countries over there), when a
police car stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and two
police officers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kind
of big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with his
handgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after some
document checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that I
was harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this here
anymore. Which I did :)

homicides per year per 100k habitants<br>US: approx 5 <br>Germany: approx 1<br></blockquote>All gun homicides? You don't need a gun to kill somebody.<br>

No, not all gun homicides. But if you take the gun-related deaths, the
difference is more pronounced still. (I'm just too lazy now to look it
up, but it is a known fact.)
<blockquote type="cite" cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">prisoners per100k habitants:<br>US: about 600 <br>Germany: about 100 <br>

The point is that the US has more serious crimes and more prisoners.
It seems that putting people in prison is not really the most
efficient way to get the numbers down. Maybe look at some other
countries, how they manage to get the lower crime (and prison
population) rates. It is IMO a real possibility that somebody in the
US could learn something from somebody from somewhere else. A
revolutionaly concept for some, but a real one.

And you didn't answer the question about your claim that American's useguns to do everything.

You are right -- they don't poke their nose with guns, to my
knowledge.
You didn't name one thing that Americans use agun for (except perhaps commit a crime - which is not the majority ofAmericans).<br>

AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)
<!---->"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way-- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.<br></blockquote>Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.<br>

That would mean that there's something seriously wrong with the way
laws get made.

The real reason for immigration is over population. Way back in the 70s
there was a "Zero Population Growth" attitude but that fell by the wayside
as employers demanded cheaper wages and those desperate to escape the
poverty of overpopulated countries pushed northward. They were welcomed by
many who were too greedy to pay fair wages to americans. The "middle class"
that was created by the labor union movement of the 30s to 50s began to
disappear after Reagan anniolated the Unions by his punative action against
the air traffic controlers. Labor was effectively casterated, opening up
opportunities for greed at the top, golden parachutes, inside traders,
savings and loan scandals, enron etc. To end the massive influx of desperate
workers populations must be brought under control. The Roman Catholic Church
is a major offender and we are having to deal with their failed policies,
That's the bottom line.
"Gerhard Fiedler" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax.com... You would have made it easier if you hadn't posted in HTML. So here it goes... On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:57:40 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:What I mean is that often it is easy to find a law that is beingviolated so that you can ask for proper ID. For example, jaywalking.<br> I think that's exactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalking to target people they don't like, like for example that guy who seemed to smile at his sister the other day in the park...<blockquote type="cite" cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">In the aftermathof the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for the USA tobecome the leader in democratization of the world. </blockquote>Ah... we are...<br> Only within the USA, which doesn't count for much towards the credentials of being the leader of the _world_ (which, other than in the "World Series" actually includes the rest of the world). These must be earned internationally -- and the USA is not much of a leader currently. Definitely not in democratization. Or can you cite a significant portion of foreign opinions that would give the USA significant credentials in this area? After 50+ years of heavy support for almost every right-wing fascist dictator on the planet? cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">But instead, theUSA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more democratization ofthe international sphere, together with China and a bunch of roguestates.<br></blockquote>Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit decidingwhat to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...<br> Well, I've got news for you. A representative republic _is_ a democracy. It seems even the (republican) president agrees with me on that; or how would you explain the fact that he want to "bring democracy to Iraq"? He didn't say that he wants to bring a republic to Iraq :) I sometimes get the feeling that some Republicans can't swallow that a republic is a democracy, only because their major opponents are the Democrats :))But immigration is not a phenomena that is indepedent of national
laws.<br> That's where you just don't see the real causes. The reasons why the immigration pressure is so high are largely independent of the US laws,Nonsense.<br> Now this response is so full of good arguments that I rest my case.If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of therich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.<br> Now look again, a bit closer. There are many elements in the US laws that have an equalizing effect. But I didn't say that it was the responsibility to provide anything. Maybe you take a class in text interpretation. Yours seems to lack sometimes, or maybe you just want to make an argument, no matter what I wrote. I said that in the end, that's a lot cheaper and much more effective than to try to fight the tide. But it seems you want to go the stubborn way. Your right, of course.I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration groupabout family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that theposter is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse orspouse to be.<br> Actually, I'm responding in alt.visa.us, to where you crossposted. This is the full list of newsgroups to where this thread went (and continues to go): misc.immigration.misc, alt.visa.us.marriage-based, alt.visa.us, misc.immigration.usa. Only one is about marriage-based visa. That brings your percentage way down.You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we shouldshift resources there. It'd be more efficient. At least start thinking about the huge importance of it. Yes.Currently enforcement(as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against currentviolators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into thecountry. Agreed. That's exactly why I think that prevention (working on the real causes) is so much more important.Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcingthe law against current violators you will be allowing more people tobe in violation of the law. Probably, until the prevention effect kicks in. Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to solve an issue. Of course you can go ahead and try to fix the symptoms without solving it, but there will often come a point where this won't work anymoreIn my book that means that you're taking astance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take tome that you don't think the current laws should be enforced. That's taken out of context. I think spending more resources on prevention is essential, but I think that all the (remaining) available resources should continue with what you call law enforcement.And yourcrack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up acurrent violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the lawagainst a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but youcertainly are implying it.<br> Come on, lighten up. There are things that can only be taken with humor, or you lose it. (Have you lost it already? :)Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that wecan experience the strong detterent effect!<br> Again: how do you propose to "round them up" with the available resources (well, and laws, since enforcing them is the objective)?Listening to talk radio I heard of a program called Operation Wetbackthat the INS ran in the '50's where they rounded up many illegals andprocessed them. The program was very successful. Why then are we notdoing such operations anymore?<br> Maybe you should follow up your talk radio sessions with some research of your own. Here's a historian's account of what happened then: "... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned" This operation seemed to have been based on illegal practices, which ultimately was the reason why it got abandoned. So why would you, of all, propose this as a solution? Isn't your objective to uphold the law? Or is it only the immigration law that you want to uphold? Or uphold the law only insofar the person to be protected by it doesn't "look Mexican"?Nor do you.<br> But I don't ask you why I'm doing this :)<!---->IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don'tthink he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe Isaid so earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't knowwhether that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that theperson is legal (which is something different).<br></blockquote>But it would be efficient! <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-)
</span></span><br> What would be efficient? At that point, there is not yet an illegal. There is only a person who didn't provide -- for whatever reason -- the necessary documentation to get the job. That's not a crime, nor another type of violation of any law.<!---->There are legal residents without a work permit. They are inmost states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL.
</blockquote>Nobody is <b>required</b> to get a DL.<br> "...required to get one to drive," I should add. Tourists in most cases are allowed to drive with their home country license.Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everythingis legit.<br> Exactly my point. The non-existence of a federal ID is a real problem for immigration issues. cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">(Which is notmeant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants should beallowed to get DLs.)<br></blockquote>Completely illegal immigrants?!? What are they? Is that anything likesorta pregnant! Either your an illegal immigratnt or your legalimmigrant.<br> There are immigrants that are working illegally, but otherwise are legal. There are other immigrants that are completely illegal (and of those there are still at least two categories that the law distinguishes: the overstayers and the ones who came in illegally). Since your objective is to uphold the law, you should really take more care in looking at it.How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?<br></blockquote>You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegalimmigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)<br> ?? How can I get a SSN illegally? Don't get SSNs automatically canceled (or marked) after visa expiration, convictions, etc.?Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turnin illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeedillegal. They have no way of knowing before they hire them. After they hired them without requiring a proper SSN, for example, the employer has done something illegal.Here you stated that people knowingly hire illegal immigrants.How can both of these statements be considered a consistent viewpoint?They can't. And you're attempting to sing and dance your way out ofthis inconsistency.<br> Thanks for the compliment! (Idon't consider myself a good dancer, but any compliment makes me happy.) There is no inconsistency. After I hire somebody who wouldn't give me a SSN, I pretty much know that there's something wrong. And go on accepting (and possibly knowingly making a profit out of) that.A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.<br> Hum... Are you saying we should abandon any type of ID and DL and passport and money due to it being forgeable? Why do we go through the effort to check all those forgeable passports at the border, even make the decision whether to let that person in or not based on that forgeable passport?<!---->private firearms:<br>US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person<br>Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person<br> <br>That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actuallysee them. </blockquote>I submit than many (most) gun owners have multiple guns. <br> Those 200+ million firearms in the US are owned by 60+ million owners. That leaves enough room to claim that nobody in CA owns any of them... :) But not really plausible. cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">As a side note:it was here in the USA when I first saw a gun on the street, after 25years in Germany without that experience. (And it was aimed at me, butthat is a different story... :)<br></blockquote>Who was aiming it?<br> Police. I've had had some encounters with law enforcement before (like traffic checks, or terrorism related "events" in the 80ies), but never really had to face a gun. Police in Germany don't usually do this. Here I was sitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LA area, getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe, I've done it countless times in many countries over there), when a police car stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and two police officers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kind of big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with his handgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after some document checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that I was harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this here anymore. Which I did :)homicides per year per 100k habitants<br>US: approx 5 <br>Germany: approx 1<br></blockquote>All gun homicides? You don't need a gun to kill somebody.<br> No, not all gun homicides. But if you take the gun-related deaths, the difference is more pronounced still. (I'm just too lazy now to look it up, but it is a known fact.)<blockquote type="cite" cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">prisoners per100k habitants:<br>US: about 600 <br>Germany: about 100 <br> The point is that the US has more serious crimes and more prisoners. It seems that putting people in prison is not really the most efficient way to get the numbers down. Maybe look at some other countries, how they manage to get the lower crime (and prison population) rates. It is IMO a real possibility that somebody in the US could learn something from somebody from somewhere else. A revolutionaly concept for some, but a real one.And you didn't answer the question about your claim that American's useguns to do everything. You are right -- they don't poke their nose with guns, to my knowledge.You didn't name one thing that Americans use agun for (except perhaps commit a crime - which is not the majority ofAmericans).<br> AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)<!---->"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way-- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty
obvious.<br></blockquote>Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.<br> That would mean that there's something seriously wrong with the way laws get made.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:12:22 -0800, Sitting Bull wrote:The real reason for immigration is over population.
....That's the bottom line.

While I don't agree in all details, and think that besides
overpopulation there are a number of other reasons (the areas in Latin
America where many immigrants come from are not very densly populated;
similar in Europe, where many people immigrate from not very densly
populated areas to the richer but quite populated countries like
Germany), it comes down to what I'm trying to get across: the reasons
don't have much to do with the legislation or the law enforcement in
the target countries, and law enforcement doesn't help in the long
run. And when looking at population, it's the long run that counts.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:17:05 -0200, Gerhard Fiedler <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
You would have made it easier if you hadn't posted in HTML. So here itgoes...On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:57:40 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:What I mean is that often it is easy to find a law that is beingviolated so that you can ask for proper ID. For example, jaywalking.<br>I think that's exactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalkingto target people they don't like, like for example that guy who seemedto smile at his sister the other day in the park...<blockquote type="cite" cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">In the aftermathof the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for the USA tobecome the leader in democratization of the world. </blockquote>Ah... we are...<br>Only within the USA, which doesn't count for much towards thecredentials of being the leader of the _world_ (which, other than inthe "World Series" actually includes the rest of the world). Thesemust be earned internationally -- and the USA is not much of a leadercurrently. Definitely not in democratization. Or can you cite asignificant portion of foreign opinions that would give the USAsignificant credentials in this area? After 50+ years of heavy supportfor almost every right-wing fascist dictator on the planet? cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">But instead, theUSA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more democratization ofthe international sphere, together with China and a bunch of roguestates.<br></blockquote>Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit decidingwhat to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...<br>Well, I've got news for you. A representative republic _is_ ademocracy. It seems even the (republican) president agrees with me onthat; or how would you explain the fact that he want to "bringdemocracy to Iraq"? He didn't say that he wants to bring a republic toIraq :)I sometimes get the feeling that some Republicans can't swallow that arepublic is a democracy, only because their major opponents are theDemocrats :))But immigration is not a phenomena that is indepedent of national laws.<br>That's where you just don't see the real causes. The reasons why theimmigration pressure is so high are largely independent of the USlaws,Nonsense.<br>Now this response is so full of good arguments that I rest my case.If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of therich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.<br>Now look again, a bit closer. There are many elements in the US lawsthat have an equalizing effect.But I didn't say that it was the responsibility to provide anything.Maybe you take a class in text interpretation. Yours seems to lacksometimes, or maybe you just want to make an argument, no matter whatI wrote.I said that in the end, that's a lot cheaper and much more effectivethan to try to fight the tide. But it seems you want to go thestubborn way. Your right, of course.I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration groupabout family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that theposter is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse orspouse to be.<br>Actually, I'm responding in alt.visa.us, to where you crossposted.This is the full list of newsgroups to where this thread went (andcontinues to go): misc.immigration.misc, alt.visa.us.marriage-based,alt.visa.us, misc.immigration.usa. Only one is about marriage-basedvisa. That brings your percentage way down.You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we shouldshift resources there. It'd be more efficient.At least start thinking about the huge importance of it. Yes.Currently enforcement(as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against currentviolators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into thecountry.Agreed. That's exactly why I think that prevention (working on thereal causes) is so much more important.Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcingthe law against current violators you will be allowing more people tobe in violation of the law.Probably, until the prevention effect kicks in. Sometimes you have totake a step back in order to solve an issue. Of course you can goahead and try to fix the symptoms without solving it, but there willoften come a point where this won't work anymoreIn my book that means that you're taking astance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take tome that you don't think the current laws should be enforced.That's taken out of context. I think spending more resources onprevention is essential, but I think that all the (remaining)available resources should continue with what you call lawenforcement.

What did you have in mind, specifically.
And yourcrack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up acurrent violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the lawagainst a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but youcertainly are implying it.<br>Come on, lighten up. There are things that can only be taken withhumor, or you lose it. (Have you lost it already? :)Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that wecan experience the strong detterent effect!<br>Again: how do you propose to "round them up" with the availableresources (well, and laws, since enforcing them is the objective)?Listening to talk radio I heard of a program called Operation Wetbackthat the INS ran in the '50's where they rounded up many illegals andprocessed them. The program was very successful. Why then are we notdoing such operations anymore?<br>Maybe you should follow up your talk radio sessions with some researchof your own. Here's a historian's account of what happened then:"... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens onthe street and asking for identification. This practice incited andangered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent.Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of"police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned"This operation seemed to have been based on illegal practices, whichultimately was the reason why it got abandoned. So why would you, ofall, propose this as a solution? Isn't your objective to uphold thelaw? Or is it only the immigration law that you want to uphold? Oruphold the law only insofar the person to be protected by it doesn't"look Mexican"?Nor do you.<br>But I don't ask you why I'm doing this :)<!---->IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don'tthink he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe Isaid so earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't knowwhether that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that theperson is legal (which is something different).<br></blockquote>But it would be efficient! <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span> ;-) </span></span><br>What would be efficient? At that point, there is not yet an illegal.There is only a person who didn't provide -- for whatever reason --the necessary documentation to get the job. That's not a crime, noranother type of violation of any law.<!---->There are legal residents without a work permit. They are inmost states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL. </blockquote>Nobody is <b>required</b> to get a DL.<br>"...required to get one to drive," I should add. Tourists in mostcases are allowed to drive with their home country license.Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everythingis legit.<br>Exactly my point. The non-existence of a federal ID is a real problemfor immigration issues. cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">(Which is notmeant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants should beallowed to get DLs.)<br></blockquote>Completely illegal immigrants?!? What are they? Is that anything likesorta pregnant! Either your an illegal immigratnt or your legalimmigrant.<br>There are immigrants that are working illegally, but otherwise arelegal. There are other immigrants that are completely illegal (and ofthose there are still at least two categories that the lawdistinguishes: the overstayers and the ones who came in illegally).Since your objective is to uphold the law, you should really take morecare in looking at it.How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?<br></blockquote>You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegalimmigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)<br>?? How can I get a SSN illegally? Don't get SSNs automaticallycanceled (or marked) after visa expiration, convictions, etc.?

No. The systems don't communicate with each other.
Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turnin illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeedillegal.They have no way of knowing before they hire them. After they hiredthem without requiring a proper SSN, for example, the employer hasdone something illegal.Here you stated that people knowingly hire illegal immigrants.How can both of these statements be considered a consistent viewpoint?They can't. And you're attempting to sing and dance your way out ofthis inconsistency.<br>Thanks for the compliment! (Idon't consider myself a good dancer, butany compliment makes me happy.) There is no inconsistency. After Ihire somebody who wouldn't give me a SSN, I pretty much know thatthere's something wrong. And go on accepting (and possibly knowinglymaking a profit out of) that.A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.<br>Hum... Are you saying we should abandon any type of ID and DL andpassport and money due to it being forgeable?Why do we go through the effort to check all those forgeable passportsat the border, even make the decision whether to let that person in ornot based on that forgeable passport?<!---->private firearms:<br>US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person<br>Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person<br> <br>That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actuallysee them. </blockquote>I submit than many (most) gun owners have multiple guns. <br>Those 200+ million firearms in the US are owned by 60+ million owners.That leaves enough room to claim that nobody in CA owns any of them...:) But not really plausible. cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">As a side note:it was here in the USA when I first saw a gun on the street, after 25years in Germany without that experience. (And it was aimed at me, butthat is a different story... :)<br></blockquote>Who was aiming it?<br>Police. I've had had some encounters with law enforcement before (liketraffic checks, or terrorism related "events" in the 80ies), but neverreally had to face a gun. Police in Germany don't usually do this.Here I was sitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LAarea, getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe,I've done it countless times in many countries over there), when apolice car stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and twopolice officers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kindof big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with hishandgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after somedocument checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that Iwas harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this hereanymore. Which I did :)homicides per year per 100k habitants<br>US: approx 5 <br>Germany: approx 1<br></blockquote>All gun homicides? You don't need a gun to kill somebody.<br>No, not all gun homicides. But if you take the gun-related deaths, thedifference is more pronounced still. (I'm just too lazy now to look itup, but it is a known fact.)<blockquote type="cite" cite="middsuprvc188ida6eetqqtde9bh0u4ehpung@4ax.com">prisoners per100k habitants:<br>US: about 600 <br>Germany: about 100 <br>The point is that the US has more serious crimes and more prisoners.It seems that putting people in prison is not really the mostefficient way to get the numbers down. Maybe look at some othercountries, how they manage to get the lower crime (and prisonpopulation) rates. It is IMO a real possibility that somebody in theUS could learn something from somebody from somewhere else. Arevolutionaly concept for some, but a real one.And you didn't answer the question about your claim that American's useguns to do everything.You are right -- they don't poke their nose with guns, to myknowledge.You didn't name one thing that Americans use agun for (except perhaps commit a crime - which is not the majority ofAmericans).<br>AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)<!---->"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way-- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.<br></blockquote>Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.<br>That would mean that there's something seriously wrong with the waylaws get made.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:14:48 -0500, Oliver Costich wrote:That's taken out of context. I think spending more resources onprevention is essential, but I think that all the (remaining)available resources should continue with what you call lawenforcement.What did you have in mind, specifically.

Regarding prevention? I think that international cooperation is
essential. IMO immigration is like pollution (of air, water etc) and
finances and economy one of those areas where the limitation of the
idea of sovereign nations becomes very clear.

I'm an immigrant in the USA. I come from a "rich" country, and I
didn't come to the USA out of despair. I came out of interest. This is
the kind of immigration that does good to a country. It is also the
kind of immigration that doesn't tend to create many illegal
immigrants -- there's not much to gain for me to be illegally in the
USA.

It is the kind of immigration that occurs out of despair that creates
problems -- in a way, it spreads the problems that created the
despair. The only way to reduce this kind of immigration effectively
and in the long run is to reduce the amount of despair.

(This makes some simplifications, especially when you look at borders
like US/Mexico, where many things are severely distorted. But in a
way, this applies even there.)

So IMO working towards a situation in the world that reduces the
"despair situations" is one way to prevent this type of immigration.
There are of course several ways to do that, and I have my opinions
about them... For example, the Bush administration's arguments for the
war in Iraq go in this direction: reduce despair, bring democracy. I
think in general legal principles work better than war, so I favor
efforts to create a world law, and a wold legislative -- and then, of
course, a world police, controlled by both. I think this could go a
long way to reduce despair in many areas (and in consequence illegal
immigration).

I also think that democracy (and for the republic fans, a republic or
representative democracy is included here :) is a good way to reduce
despair. So I think that supporting democracy movements is a good
thing. Even though this may, in some cases, go against short term
economic benefits, but in the long run I think it is a benefit for
all. And I again think that it is a good way to make people proud of
their country, let them have the feeling that they actually have a
future in their home country, and let hem have good reasons to stay
there.

Both of these proposals go against traditional US foreign policy. So
that's why I think that there is a huge potential -- there hasn't been
done much in those respects so far.

You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegalimmigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)<br>?? How can I get a SSN illegally? Don't get SSNs automaticallycanceled (or marked) after visa expiration, convictions, etc.?No. The systems don't communicate with each other.

Well, I almost thought so much. This practically boils down to the
fact that there is no single federal document that lets law
enforcement know about the immigration status of a person, and the
rights that person has. Seems to me that this is something quite
important that's being missed.

I would like to put my two cents in here. Please excuse me if I go off
course.

I an an immigrant too who have served in the armed force to defend this
country. My experience has been very clear from day one when my family and I
made that first step in San Francisco International Airport. We are not
going to identify the kind of people or races who gave us grief. Yet, we can
say that less than 50 percent welcomed us. We are talking about general
population and those who served with me in the military. I would never
forget those days.

Now, things have changed, atleast where we are at. We, immigrants, have
formed and matured to be a part of the community. We have children, grand
children. The majority of poeple in this area now are those of immigrant
decent. Many of them are highly educated. They don't see us as parasite
anylonger.
What is wrong with that?
Why were we bad people then, and good people now? We are the same person.
Ofcourse, that's called prejudice. I told some officials of the city
government once this sentence:" I perhaps can't do anything, but my children
will."
Ofcourse, they are doing it today. Our immigrant children thrive so hard
with our full support because we want them to succeed. We were CHINK then,
and we are still CHINK now. However, we are just richer or more powerful
CHINKS.

Now, we are looking back at those who gave us grieves. Yes, they have not
been doing so well. We, immigrants, have surpassed very long time ago. Many
of them have shut up because they were wrong. Ofcourse, they can't say
anything. We are not here to steal anything from anybody. WE JUST WANT TO BE
PRODUCTIVE CITIZENs AND A PART OF THE COMMUNITY. Treat us right. We too are
humans.

Finally, CHINKS are still CHINKS. Remember! We don't forget. We fight by
working to make our lives better faster to show that you are wrong. Also
remember! Many of us were highly educated somewhere else before coming to
the US. We may not have a GED here. Yet, our knowledge may be something you
really never thought of. THINK ABOUT IT.


"Gerhard Fiedler" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:g6pjsv44lb9f7mj2mmrtdqed2m5qhf94fk@4ax.com... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:14:48 -0500, Oliver Costich wrote:That's taken out of context. I think spending more resources onprevention is essential, but I think that all the (remaining)available resources should continue with what you call lawenforcement.What did you have in mind, specifically. Regarding prevention? I think that international cooperation is essential. IMO immigration is like pollution (of air, water etc) and finances and economy one of those areas where the limitation of the idea of sovereign nations becomes very clear. I'm an immigrant in the USA. I come from a "rich" country, and I didn't come to the USA out of despair. I came out of interest. This is the kind of immigration that does good to a country. It is also the kind of immigration that doesn't tend to create many illegal immigrants -- there's not much to gain for me to be illegally in the USA. It is the kind of immigration that occurs out of despair that creates problems -- in a way, it spreads the problems that created the despair. The only way to reduce this kind of immigration effectively and in the long run is to reduce the amount of despair. (This makes some simplifications, especially when you look at borders like US/Mexico, where many things are severely distorted. But in a way, this applies even there.) So IMO working towards a situation in the world that reduces the "despair situations" is one way to prevent this type of immigration. There are of course several ways to do that, and I have my opinions about them... For example, the Bush administration's arguments for the war in Iraq go in this direction: reduce despair, bring democracy. I think in general legal principles work better than war, so I favor efforts to create a world law, and a wold legislative -- and then, of course, a world police, controlled by both. I think this could go a long way to reduce despair in many areas (and in consequence illegal immigration). I also think that democracy (and for the republic fans, a republic or representative democracy is included here :) is a good way to reduce despair. So I think that supporting democracy movements is a good thing. Even though this may, in some cases, go against short term economic benefits, but in the long run I think it is a benefit for all. And I again think that it is a good way to make people proud of their country, let them have the feeling that they actually have a future in their home country, and let hem have good reasons to stay there. Both of these proposals go against traditional US foreign policy. So that's why I think that there is a huge potential -- there hasn't been done much in those respects so far.>You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegal>immigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)<br>?? How can I get a SSN illegally? Don't get SSNs automaticallycanceled (or marked) after visa expiration, convictions, etc.?No. The systems don't communicate with each other. Well, I almost thought so much. This practically boils down to the fact that there is no single federal document that lets law enforcement know about the immigration status of a person, and the rights that person has. Seems to me that this is something quite important that's being missed.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
You would have made it easier if you hadn't posted in HTML. So here it goes...
It'd also be easier if you posted in HTML! ;-)
I think that's exactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalking to target people they don't like, like for example that guy who seemed to smile at his sister the other day in the park...
Sorry dude but that's the law.
Only within the USA, which doesn't count for much towards the credentials of being the leader of the _world_ (which, other than in the "World Series" actually includes the rest of the world). These must be earned internationally No they don't. The US is indeed the leader of the world in many aspects, none of which need earning, just stats.
-- and the USA is not much of a leader currently. Definitely not in democratization. Good. Cause we ain't no democracy. We're a representative republic. True democracy is a pack of wolves and a rabbit deciding what to have for dinner!
Or can you cite a significant portion of foreign opinions that would give the USA significant credentials in this area? Again, opinions of other countries do not matter with respect to the leadership I was refering to. You clearly have another agenda here - one I do not wish to engage in.
Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit deciding what to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...&lt;br&gt;
Well, I've got news for you. A representative republic _is_ a democracy. Funny - their spelt differently! That's specifically why I say "in it's true form".
It seems even the (republican) president agrees with me on that; or how would you explain the fact that he want to "bring democracy to Iraq"? He didn't say that he wants to bring a republic to Iraq :)
A lot of people screw it up (IMHO) and use democracy as a synonym for representative republic and not what a true democracy is.
I sometimes get the feeling that some Republicans can't swallow that a republic is a democracy, only because their major opponents are the Democrats :))
Well I'm ont a republican.
That's where you just don't see the real causes. The reasons why the immigration pressure is so high are largely independent of the US laws,
Yeah they just want our bucks...
If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of the rich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.&lt;br&gt;
Now look again, a bit closer. There are many elements in the US laws that have an equalizing effect.
When laws are broken and/or rights violated - yes. But not to demand charity.
I said that in the end, that's a lot cheaper and much more effective than to try to fight the tide. But it seems you want to go the stubborn way. Your right, of course.
Thank you for the admission.
I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration group about family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the poster is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse or spouse to be.&lt;br&gt;
Actually, I'm responding in alt.visa.us, to where you crossposted.
I do not read, nor post to alt.visa.us. Any crossposting is a result of other people's crossposting - not mine. I simply reply.
This is the full list of newsgroups to where this thread went (and continues to go): misc.immigration.misc, alt.visa.us.marriage-based, alt.visa.us, misc.immigration.usa. Only one is about marriage-based visa. That brings your percentage way down.
Hey I know, and can see that - but it was not my doing.
You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we should shift resources there. It'd be more efficient.
At least start thinking about the huge importance of it. Yes.
Currently enforcement (as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against current violators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into the country.
Agreed. That's exactly why I think that prevention (working on the real causes) is so much more important.
The "real causes" is that aliens want to come here for the opportunity and the bucks. If you really want to address the real causes perhaps we should rid ourselves of our wealth, opportunity and freedoms - then nobody'd want to be here. But it still seems to me that we have a huge problem to start with and we need to first "stop the bleeding". If we draw an analogy to somebody coming into the an emergency room with a heart attack you'd be there screaming "We need to stop all the fast food chains - that's what caused this man's heart attack" and I'd be saying - "perhaps we should treat him first"!
Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcing the law against current violators you will be allowing more people to be in violation of the law.
Probably, until the prevention effect kicks in. Sometimes you have to take a step back in order to solve an issue. Sorry. Don't buy it. You have no proof that it'd work and it does nothing for the current problem and encourages more people to violate the laws because they think they won't get caught. Effectively it's an amensty program because current violators are effective excused. We've tried amensty programs before. It just makes the problem worse.
Of course you can go ahead and try to fix the symptoms without solving it, but there will often come a point where this won't work anymore
In my book that means that you're taking a stance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take to me that you don't think the current laws should be enforced.
That's taken out of context. I think spending more resources on prevention is essential, but I think that all the (remaining) available resources should continue with what you call law enforcement.
You can't have it both ways. If you put more resources on prevention you're gonna take resources from enforcement thus a more relaxed enforcement of current violators which, to me, allows violators to get off.
And your crack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up a current violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the law against a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but you certainly are implying it.&lt;br&gt;
Come on, lighten up. There are things that can only be taken with humor, or you lose it. (Have you lost it already? :)
And there are things and times when one should be serious. To me illegal activing and illegal aliens is one of those things.
Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that we can experience the strong detterent effect!&lt;br&gt;
Again how do you propose to "round them up" with the available resources (well, and laws, since enforcing them is the objective)?
Let's take away those resources you use for prevention!&nbsp; :-) Or we could simply not forget! ;-)
Listening to talk radio I heard of a program called Operation Wetback that the INS ran in the '50's where they rounded up many illegals and processed them. The program was very successful. Why then are we not doing such operations anymore?&lt;br&gt;
Maybe you should follow up your talk radio sessions with some research of your own. Here's a historian's account of what happened then:

"... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned"
Ah, that old PC thing. It'll be the death of us...
This operation seemed to have been based on illegal practices, which ultimately was the reason why it got abandoned. Aren't immigrants supposed to be documented? What's illegal about asking for such documentation? How else are you gonna know? It was abandoned because it was unpopular due to PC.
So why would you, of all, propose this as a solution? Isn't your objective to uphold the law? Or is it only the immigration law that you want to uphold? Or uphold the law only insofar the person to be protected by it doesn't
"look Mexican"?
I don't happen to think that the activity is, or should be, illegal. I'm not convinced that it is illegal. Can you cite the law that says it is? (And not "unreasonable search and seizure" 'cause I do not think it is unreasonable).
They are in most states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL. &lt;/blockquote&gt;
Nobody is &lt;b&gt;required&lt;/b&gt; to get a DL.&lt;br&gt;
"...required to get one to drive," I should add. You sure should...
Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everything is legit.&lt;br&gt;
Exactly my point. The non-existence of a federal ID is a real problem for immigration issues.
So then you agree - we should not be giving illegals a DL...
There are immigrants that are working illegally, but otherwise are legal. There are bank robbers who are stealing money from banks - but otherwise are law biding...
There are other immigrants that are completely illegal (and of those there are still at least two categories that the law
distinguishes: the overstayers and the ones who came in illegally). Since your objective is to uphold the law, you should really take more care in looking at it.
A ah! You missed the immigrants who have commited crimes which make them removable! In any event, all are violators of the law and should be prosecuted. It is illegal to work here illegal (naturally). It is illegal to overstay. It is illegal to come here illegal. It is also illegal to commit fraud, robbery, murder, deal drugs, etc...
How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegal immigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)&lt;br&gt;
?? How can I get a SSN illegally? Don't get SSNs automatically canceled (or marked) after visa expiration, convictions, etc.?
Not to my knowledge...
Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turn in illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeed illegal.
They have no way of knowing before they hire them. After they hired them without requiring a proper SSN, for example, the employer has done something illegal.
Again, I do not think that the SS# gets zapped immediately, if at all. And we all know how long government agencies take and how well they communicate with each other. ;-)
Thanks for the compliment! (Idon't consider myself a good dancer, but any compliment makes me happy.) There is no inconsistency. After I hire somebody who wouldn't give me a SSN, I pretty much know that there's something wrong. And go on accepting (and possibly knowingly making a profit out of) that.
Do you know how easy it is to get a SS#? And many immigrants have SS#'s. It's one of the first things they get - cause they need it to work. But whether or not an alien is still legal is another matter.
A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.&lt;br&gt;
Hum... Are you saying we should abandon any type of ID and DL and passport and money due to it being forgeable?

Why do we go through the effort to check all those forgeable passports at the border, even make the decision whether to let that person in or not based on that forgeable passport?
No. As in anything else security related - nothing is 100%. All you do in security is throw up road blocks to keep honest people honest and to catch "not to capable" dishonest people. If done right a national ID would indeed help.
Here I was sitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LA area, getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe, I've done it countless times in many countries over there), when a police car stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and two police officers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kind
of big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with his handgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after some document checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that I was harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this here anymore. Which I did :)
Sounds like you were in a bad area or something. Do you really blame the police for spotting something suspicious and checking it out?
The point is that the US has more serious crimes and more prisoners. It seems that putting people in prison is not really the most efficient way to get the numbers down. But, WRT illegal aliens, shipping them out will... ;-)
You didn't name one thing that Americans use a gun for (except perhaps commit a crime - which is not the majority of Americans).&lt;br&gt;
AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)
You claim that "Americans use guns to do everything" is therefore baseless...
&lt;!----&gt;"Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way -- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.&lt;br&gt;
That would mean that there's something seriously wrong with the way laws get made.
No it's just a representative republic in action. Now is we were a true democracy the law(s) would already have been changed.. ;-)

--
Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.

.. wrote:
I an an immigrant too who have served in the armed force to defend this country. My experience has been very clear from day one when my family and I made that first step in San Francisco International Airport. We are not going to identify the kind of people or races who gave us grief. Yet, we can say that less than 50 percent welcomed us.

Perhaps you are mistaking not being "welcomed" with simply being
cautious and needing to get to know you first. I cannot say because I'm
not in your shoes, however I can say, as an American even, I'm very open
to people but I find most other people much more reserved. I happen to
think it's because I'm from back East but maybe I'm wrong. Don't mistake
somebody who doesn't open their arms up wide to greet you with somebody
who hates you. (Of course, again, I could be wrong).
We are talking about general population and those who served with me in the military. I would never forget those days. Now, things have changed, atleast where we are at. We, immigrants, have formed and matured to be a part of the community. We have children, grand children. The majority of poeple in this area now are those of immigrant decent. Many of them are highly educated. They don't see us as parasite anylonger. What is wrong with that? Why were we bad people then, and good people now? We are the same person.Ofcourse, that's called prejudice. I told some officials of the city government once this sentence:" I perhaps can't do anything, but my children will." Ofcourse, they are doing it today. Our immigrant children thrive so hard with our full support because we want them to succeed. We were CHINK then, and we are still CHINK now. However, we are just richer or more powerful CHINKS. Now, we are looking back at those who gave us grieves. Yes, they have not been doing so well. We, immigrants, have surpassed very long time ago. Many of them have shut up because they were wrong. Ofcourse, they can't say anything. We are not here to steal anything from anybody. WE JUST WANT TO BE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENs AND A PART OF THE COMMUNITY. Treat us right. We too are humans.

You sound bitter.
Finally, CHINKS are still CHINKS. Remember! We don't forget. We fight by working to make our lives better faster to show that you are wrong. Also remember! Many of us were highly educated somewhere else before coming to the US. We may not have a GED here. Yet, our knowledge may be something you really never thought of. THINK ABOUT IT.

I, for one, have no problems with hard working, law biding people -
whoever they are.
--
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

There were many people like you then. Unfortunately, there were many many
people who spit at us, yelled at us etc...... They even made it clear in the
US MILITARY that they didn't like me because I was not born here. That was
very clear. I still remember that. I also still remember those who came to
my defense.



"Andrew DeFaria" <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote in message
news:d08ba$3fcb129d$44a7886c$16980@msgid.meganewss ervers.com... . wrote: I an an immigrant too who have served in the armed force to defend this country. My experience has been very clear from day one when my family and I made that first step in San Francisco International Airport. We are not going to identify the kind of people or races who gave us grief. Yet, we can say that less than 50 percent welcomed us. Perhaps you are mistaking not being "welcomed" with simply being cautious and needing to get to know you first. I cannot say because I'm not in your shoes, however I can say, as an American even, I'm very open to people but I find most other people much more reserved. I happen to think it's because I'm from back East but maybe I'm wrong. Don't mistake somebody who doesn't open their arms up wide to greet you with somebody who hates you. (Of course, again, I could be wrong). We are talking about general population and those who served with me in the military. I would never forget those days. Now, things have changed, atleast where we are at. We, immigrants, have formed and matured to be a part of the community. We have children, grand children. The majority of poeple in this area now are those of immigrant decent. Many of them are highly educated. They don't see us as parasite anylonger. What is wrong with that? Why were we bad people then, and good people now? We are the same person.Ofcourse, that's called prejudice. I told some officials of the city government once this sentence:" I perhaps can't do anything, but my children will." Ofcourse, they are doing it today. Our immigrant children thrive so hard with our full support because we want them to succeed. We were CHINK then, and we are still CHINK now. However, we are just richer or more powerful CHINKS. Now, we are looking back at those who gave us grieves. Yes, they have not been doing so well. We, immigrants, have surpassed very long time ago. Many of them have shut up because they were wrong. Ofcourse, they can't say anything. We are not here to steal anything from anybody. WE JUST WANT TO BE PRODUCTIVE CITIZENs AND A PART OF THE COMMUNITY. Treat us right. We too are humans. You sound bitter. Finally, CHINKS are still CHINKS. Remember! We don't forget. We fight by working to make our lives better faster to show that you are wrong. Also remember! Many of us were highly educated somewhere else before coming to the US. We may not have a GED here. Yet, our knowledge may be something you really never thought of. THINK ABOUT IT. I, for one, have no problems with hard working, law biding people - whoever they are. -- Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:55:39 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
It'd also be easier if you posted in HTML! <span class="moz-smiley-s3"><span>;-) </span></span><br>

well... you didn't up until a few posts ago. sorry if i don't follow
your personal (and ever-changing) preferences and rather stick with
the usenet standard. (its' not a law, though, so i guess you don't
care :)
<blockquote type="cite" cite="midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax.com">I think that'sexactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalking to target peoplethey don't like, like for example that guy who seemed to smile at hissister the other day in the park...<br></blockquote>Sorry dude but that's the law. <br>

if that's your vision of the law and proper law enforcement, we can
stop right here. there's no way we get anywhere.
No they don't. The US is indeed the leader of the world in manyaspects, none of which need earning, just stats.<br>

stats don't define leadership. maybe who's champion, but not who's
leader.
<blockquote type="cite" cite="midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax.com">-- and the USA isnot much of a leader currently. Definitely not in democratization. </blockquote>Good. Cause we ain't no democracy. We're a representative republic.True democracy is a pack of wolves and a rabbit deciding what to havefor dinner!<br>

then i really wonder why the president wants to bring democracy to
iraq.

you should get a clue. republic (defined as representative democracy)
is still democracy, or else it wouldn't be called representative
democracy. that's like saying that a sportscar is not a car.

"representative republic" is pretty much nonsense. republic means
"representative democracy," so the "representative" part is already
included.

re-pub-lic (ri pub'lik) n.
1. a state in which the supreme power rests
in the body of citizens entitled to vote
and is exercised by representatives
chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. a state in which the head of government
is not a monarch and is usu. an elected
or nominated president.
3. the form of government of such a state.

de-moc-ra-cy (di mok'ruh see) n. pl. <-cies>
1. government by the people; a form of
government in which the supreme power is
vested in the people and exercised
directly by them or by their elected
agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government.
3. a state of society characterized by
formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic
spirit.

does any of this ring a bell? maybe you look up the constitution every
now and then.
Again, opinions of other countries do not matter with respect to theleadership I was refering to. You clearly have another agenda here -one I do not wish to engage in.<br>

now do you remember what leadership you were referring to? (because it
was actually me who brought this up...)
Funny - their spelt differently!

i won't comment on spelling in this context :))

I do not read, nor post to alt.visa.us. Any crossposting is a result ofother people's crossposting - not mine. I simply reply.<br>

not knowing what one is doing is not really a good excuse for
anything. fact is that you _are_ crossposting.

If wedraw an analogy to somebody coming into the an emergency room with aheart attack you'd be there screaming "We need to stop all the fastfood chains - that's what caused this man's heart attack" and I'd besaying - "perhaps we should treat him first"!<br>

well, i'm not having a heart attack. maybe my pinky is bleeding. but
that doesn't need the attention of a doctor (in may case -- your
mileage may vary).

Sorry. Don't buy it. You have no proof that it'd work

neither do youand it doesnothing for the current problem and encourages more people to violatethe laws because they think they won't get caught. Effectively it's anamensty program because current violators are effective excused. We'vetried amensty programs before. It just makes the problem worse.<br>

amnesty without going at the causes really doesn't do much towards a
solution.
You can't have it both ways. If you put more resources on preventionyou're gonna take resources from enforcement thus a more relaxedenforcement of current violators which, to me, allows violators to getoff. <br>

didn't you say earlier that not being able to catch all is no excuse
for not spending whatever is available to catch as many as is possible
with those resources?
<!---->Come on, lighten up. There are things that can only be takenwith humor, or you lose it. (Have you lost it already? :)<br></blockquote>And there are things and times when one should be serious. To meillegal activing and illegal aliens is one of those things.<br>

there are many serious opinions that state that going at serious
things with a fresh mind, a good dose of humor and free from calcified
obstructions brings better and quicker solutions. at least that's what
successful people do in their business. and that's what i'm trying to
do. (and i'm not in the heart attack situation that you envision
yourself.)
"... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on thestreet and asking for identification. "<br></blockquote>Ah, that old PC thing. It'll be the death of us...<br>

so following the law where it doesn't fit your agenda is an "old PC
thing"? i thought your agenda was to uphold the law, any law
(including the probable cause thing). maybe you just outed yourself as
a big hypocrite?
<blockquote type="cite" cite="midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax.com">This operationseemed to have been based on illegal practices, which ultimately wasthe reason why it got abandoned. </blockquote>Aren't immigrants supposed to be documented? What's illegal aboutasking for such documentation? How else are you gonna know? It wasabandoned because it was unpopular due to PC.<br>

you may not know it, but asking for documentation without probable
cause is not legal. and a mexican-looking face doesn't uphold in court
as probable cause for illegal immigration. that's the law -- it's as
simple as that.
I don't happen to think that the activity is, or should be, illegal.I'm not convinced that it is illegal. Can you cite the law that says itis? (And not "unreasonable search and seizure" 'cause I do not think itis unreasonable).<br>

well, the evidence is that it got abandoned because it was illegal.
and by the law, the mere fact that one belongs to a certain race is
not probable cause for anything. (this is actually a constitutional
law -- again, you may check the constitution against your "opinions"
every now and then; at least, if you cherish our legal system.)

show me a single case where a judge admitted probable cause for search
or seizure being "this guy looked like a
mexican/black/japanese/north-european/whatever race."
So then you agree - we should not be giving illegals a DL...<br>

are you suffering from dementia? i must have stated that at least a
few times in this thread. maybe you should write less and read (or
think) more.

How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?&lt;br&gt;<br> You get the SSN illegally. ?? How can I get a SSN illegally?

again: how do you get a SSN illegally?

cite="midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax.com">Here I wassitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LA area,getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe, I'vedone it countless times in many countries over there), when a policecar stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and two policeofficers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kind<br>of big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with hishandgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after somedocument checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that Iwas harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this hereanymore. Which I did :)<br>
Sounds like you were in a bad area or something.

no, exactly the opposite. in a bad area, nobody would have cared (and
i might have got robbed or so instead).
Do you really blamethe police for spotting something suspicious and checking it out?<br>

again, the reading thing. where did i blame anybody? would you do us
all a favor and only respond when you actually read the post?
But, WRT illegal aliens, shipping them out will... <span

that's your theory. i'm on pretty safe turf to predict you that you
won't see that happen (neither shipping them out, nor the numbers
going down). because it's pretty unlikely that politics will actually
start working on the causes of anything.
AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)<br>You claim that "Americans use guns to do everything" is thereforebaseless...<br>

yes, you are correct. i didn't mean to say that americans use guns to
wash their dishes, for example.
Now is we were a truedemocracy the law(s) would already have been changed..

that "true democracy" thing could use a reality check, with a
dictionary or so for example. or is this your personal code?

.. wrote:
There were many people like you then. Unfortunately, there were many many people who spit at us, yelled at us etc...... They even made it clear in the US MILITARY that they didn't like me because I was not born here. That was very clear. I still remember that. I also still remember those who came to my defense.

I've never spat nor yelled at anybody who didn't "deserve" it. Not being
born here is not, to me, something that is "deserving" (Being an
asshole, however, is, regardless of where you were born). I've never met
anybody in my life who spat nor yelled at somebody based on where they
were born, except for foreigners showing their prejudice toward other
foreigners. YMMV.
--
If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does
he become disoriented?

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:55:39 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
It'd also be easier if you posted in HTML! &lt;span class="moz-smiley-s3"&gt;&lt;span&gt;
;-) &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;
well... you didn't up until a few posts ago. sorry if i don't follow your personal (and ever-changing) preferences My personal preferences have not changed. Your error.
and rather stick with the usenet standard. (its' not a law, though, so i guess you don't care :)
Exactly!
&lt;blockquote type="cite"
cite="midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax.com" (mailto:midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax. com)&gt;I think that's
exactly what police shouldn't do: use e.g. jaywalking to target people
they don't like, like for example that guy who seemed to smile at his
sister the other day in the park...&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Sorry dude but that's the law. &lt;br&gt;
if that's your vision of the law and proper law enforcement, we can stop right here. there's no way we get anywhere.
It's irrespective if it is my vision or not. The facts remain. It is the law. Sorry you have such difficulties with facts.
No they don't. The US is indeed the leader of the world in many aspects, none of which need earning, just stats.&lt;br&gt;
stats don't define leadership. maybe who's champion, but not who's leader.
You have an odd way of thinking. Which country is the leader in say production of diamonds? Come on now. Look it up but don't use any stats...
Good. Cause we ain't no democracy. We're a representative republic. True democracy is a pack of wolves and a rabbit deciding what to have for dinner!&lt;br&gt;
then i really wonder why the president wants to bring democracy to iraq.

you should get a clue. republic (defined as representative democracy) is still democracy, or else it wouldn't be called representative democracy. that's like saying that a sportscar is not a car.

"representative republic" is pretty much nonsense. republic means "representative democracy," so the "representative" part is already included.

re-pub-lic (ri pub'lik) n.
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch and is usu. an elected
or nominated president.
3. the form of government of such a state.

de-moc-ra-cy (di mok'ruh see) n. pl. &lt;-cies&gt;
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
Perhaps you should do a little historical research about what a *true* democracy is.
does any of this ring a bell? maybe you look up the constitution every now and then.
Out of curiosity I searched the Constitution for words like democracy, democratic, etc. They do not appear in the Constitution. ;-)
I do not read, nor post to alt.visa.us. Any crossposting is a result of other people's crossposting - not mine. I simply reply.&lt;br&gt;
not knowing what one is doing is not really a good excuse for anything. fact is that you _are_ crossposting.
I know what I'm doing! All I'm saying is that I did not start it. My assumption is if somebody listed other groups to crosspost to then I assume they wanted it posted that way and it's not my place to remove them.
If we draw an analogy to somebody coming into the an emergency room with a heart attack you'd be there screaming "We need to stop all the fast food chains - that's what caused this man's heart attack" and I'd be saying - "perhaps we should treat him first"!&lt;br&gt;
well, i'm not having a heart attack. maybe my pinky is bleeding. but that doesn't need the attention of a doctor (in may case -- your mileage may vary).
Well we're not talking about you - we're talking about illegal aliens - 7 - 8 million of them, which is a problem that needs to be addressed now, much like the heart attack victim in the analogy.
You can't have it both ways. If you put more resources on prevention you're gonna take resources from enforcement thus a more relaxed enforcement of current violators which, to me, allows violators to get off. &lt;br&gt;
didn't you say earlier that not being able to catch all is no excuse for not spending whatever is available to catch as many as is possible with those resources?
Yes I did. However I fail to see what your point is here.
there are many serious opinions that state that going at serious things with a fresh mind, a good dose of humor and free from calcified obstructions brings better and quicker solutions. at least that's what successful people do in their business. and that's what i'm trying to
do. I'm not laughing. I do not believe laughing at problems will do anything to help.
(and i'm not in the heart attack situation that you envision yourself.)
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say I was in a heart attack situation nor that you were.
"... adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. "&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Ah, that old PC thing. It'll be the death of us...&lt;br&gt;
so following the law where it doesn't fit your agenda is an "old PC thing"? i thought your agenda was to uphold the law, any law (including the probable cause thing). maybe you just outed yourself as a big hypocrite?
What law do you speak of?
you may not know it, but asking for documentation without probable cause is not legal. and a mexican-looking face doesn't uphold in court as probable cause for illegal immigration. that's the law -- it's as simple as that.
Nobody said they were asking for documentation just for having a Mexican looking face. What makes you say they had no probably cause? Are you saying that looking Mexican it not a good indicator that you are indeed Mexican?!? What does the question "Are you a US citizen" on a job application fer anyway?
I'm not convinced that it is illegal. Can you cite the law that says it is? (And not "unreasonable search and seizure" 'cause I do not think it is unreasonable).&lt;br&gt;
I don't happen to think that the activity is, or should be, illegal.
??? So is it illegal or not? You waffle too much... Just above you state "asking for documentation without probable cause is not legal" and here you contradict yourself!
well, the evidence is that it got abandoned because it was illegal. and by the law, the mere fact that one belongs to a certain race is not probable cause for anything. (this is actually a constitutional law -- again, you may check the constitution against your "opinions" every now and then; at least, if you cherish our legal system.)
Really? I highly doubt that the Constitution itself says that. Can you cite the reference?
show me a single case where a judge admitted probable cause for search or seizure being "this guy looked like a mexican/black/japanese/north-european/whatever race."
Are we talking immigration law or some other classification of law? And besides we are not talking about search or seizure anyway.
So then you agree - we should not be giving illegals a DL...&lt;br&gt;
are you suffering from dementia? i must have stated that at least a few times in this thread. maybe you should write less and read (or think) more.
Sorry but your views are all over the map at times and very tough to follow.
How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;
You get the SSN illegally.
?? How can I get a SSN illegally?
again: how do you get a SSN illegally?
There are many unscrupulous people who perform such services. I don't personally know them as I am an American citizen and got my SS# a long, long time ago thus I don't have a need to get another one, legally or illegally. Are you somehow saying that getting an illegal SS# is hard to do?!? I do recall seeing many news programs and other stories about how easy it is to do.
cite="midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax.com" (mailto:midailesv4kjmvjqq8q3bln9jvgn4tn6djjeq@4ax. com)&gt;Here I was sitting on the porch of an empty house somewhere in the LA area, getting ready for the night (something really common in Europe, I've done it countless times in many countries over there), when a police car stopped, a really bright spot was pointed at me, and two police
officers stepped out. One remained at the car, with some kind&lt;br&gt; of big gun aimed at me, the other came slowly towards me with his handgun ready to fire. I didn't feel too well... But after some document checking and a short conversation, they were convinced that I was harmless, and just told me to leave and not to do this here anymore. Which I did :)&lt;br&gt;
Sounds like you were in a bad area or something.
no, exactly the opposite. in a bad area, nobody would have cared (and i might have got robbed or so instead).
Let me guess - you didn't bother to ask them why they wanted to check your documents right?
Do you really blame the police for spotting something suspicious and checking it out?&lt;br&gt;
again, the reading thing. where did i blame anybody? would you do us all a favor and only respond when you actually read the post?
Listen idiot. Practice what you preach! Did I say you blamed anybody? No. You read what I post! I asked you a frigging question - a non rhetorical question, which, of course, you conveniently neglect to answer. I asked the question specifically because I wanted an answer. You tell a story that on the face of it looks like perhaps you might hold some animosity against the police for checking you out. Maybe even you do blame them for something or other. Lord only knows why you decided to tell us all that story. So I ask a simple question for clarification and you blast me back implying I don't read what you write. Of course I do. And I ask questions. There is nothing wrong with that. But, instead you deflect the question and then imply it was my error. You do this constantly and I'm quite tired of it. To me it just shows the weaknesses in your argument more than anything else.
AFAIK, they use it usually for shooting :)&lt;br&gt;
You claim that "Americans use guns to do everything" is therefore baseless...&lt;br&gt;
yes, you are correct. i didn't mean to say that americans use guns to wash their dishes, for example.
So then how can we trust that much of your other arguments?
Now is we were a true democracy the law(s) would already have been changed..
that "true democracy" thing could use a reality check, with a dictionary or so for example. or is this your personal code?
It's just what is. Sorry you have difficulties with such concepts.

--
I was thinking that women should put pictures of missing husbands on beer cans.