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

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

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 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"