On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:41:26 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:Actually, when talking about laws and using legal terms it makes senseThe 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).
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.
Is that wrong?You post saying, effectively, that people break laws allthe time.
None, as stated multiple times. Which part of "none" do you haveMy 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?
difficulty understanding? The question here is not "whether" but
I'll do that, again. Every soul lost in the dark is worth the utmostKind 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...
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.)