Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guitardian wrote:How many times do I have to say it? YOU ARE ALL ILLEGAL!

And yet, despite all those laws we natives have passed, they continue to refuse to go back to Europe. Or wherever.

Federal Law makes it a crime for a foreign national to be in this Country by entering through a point other than one established by ...Federal Law.

The Government Office in charge of border regulation is also charged with the issue of those in this country "illegally".

The head of that Office has stated that "there is no problem".

The States have the Right to enforce Federal Laws within their jurisdiction. (Car Insurance is a Federally Mandated Law, enforced by the individual States.)

Arizona has the Right to enforce Federal Immigration Standards within its own borders.

And that is what the law in Arizona is doing. Enforcing a Standard set by the Federal Government concerning Lawful and unlawful entry into this country.

Not long ago a person needed a passport to travel from France to England, or Germany to France. The last time a few hundred thousand people migrated from Germany to France without passports, A war was under way. (Ok, true the Germans came with tanks but the numbers similar.)

helgrenze wrote:Federal Law makes it a crime for a foreign national to be in this Country by entering through a point other than one established by ...Federal Law.

The Government Office in charge of border regulation is also charged with the issue of those in this country "illegally".

The head of that Office has stated that "there is no problem".

The States have the Right to enforce Federal Laws within their jurisdiction. (Car Insurance is a Federally Mandated Law, enforced by the individual States.)

Arizona has the Right to enforce Federal Immigration Standards within its own borders.

And that is what the law in Arizona is doing. Enforcing a Standard set by the Federal Government concerning Lawful and unlawful entry into this country.

Not long ago a person needed a passport to travel from France to England, or Germany to France. The last time a few hundred thousand people migrated from Germany to France without passports, A war was under way. (Ok, true the Germans came with tanks but the numbers similar.)

There is a difference between enforcing an existing set of statutes and writing into existence a set that oversteps state jurisdiction and circumvents due process.

They want to enforce the existing laws then do so, but don't write up a order to commence crystal nacht and try to sugar coat it as protecting our populace and freedoms.

Funny you mention Europes border changes. Why is it all over the world, borders are coming down while the U.S. is erecting them?

Murdering Millions of Jews = Legal under German law at that time.

The Crucifixion = Legal under Roman Law.

The Trail of Tears = Legal under US law at the time.

Andersonville Prison Camp = Legal under the laws of the US/CSA at that time. (Wurtz was tried for murdering individual POWs, rather then the conditions at the camp)

The Entire Reign of Vlad Tepes = Legal.

Death Squads = Legal

Claiming that something is 'legal' does not equate 'right'.

I believe your last question can be answered by the statue of liberty and the inscribed words at her base. Maybe they should just take down lady liberty.

Guitardian wrote:I believe your last question can be answered by the statue of liberty and the inscribed words at her base. Maybe they should just take down lady liberty.

... great, now they quote me from pages ago, having ignored me the rest of the time.

And don't give them ideas. True to form, they'll also take down the cross from all the churches, and supplant it with the symbol of the immortal Reich. (Law passed in Germany under Hitler)

And Visiting a foreign Country and Moving To the same Country are exactly the same under the law?

Those that "followed Lady Liberty" entered the country under the legal statutes of the time. Ellis Island exists for a reason.

And if you READ the federal Statutes concerning immigration and just what constitutes "illegal" you will find that the AZ law simply reiterates the Federal one. It simply empowers the state law enforcers to do what the Feds say they lack the manpower, money, and resources to do.

Don't waste your breath helgrenze.

Some people just won't be convinced.

Most likely because, at this point, both sides are talking past each other.

The pro side seems to be discussing the bill itself, while the con side seems to be interested in the larger of immigration.

It may be moot at this point, but how do people feel about the elimination, or reduction, of the fees associated with immigration processing? Perhaps as an extension of a larger effort to limit the citizen costs of all bureaucratic processing, save those related to crime of course.

helgrenze wrote:Not long ago a person needed a passport to travel from France to England, or Germany to France. The last time a few hundred thousand people migrated from Germany to France without passports, A war was under way. (Ok, true the Germans came with tanks but the numbers similar.)

Congratulations, that may be an even sillier comparison than the efforts by other posters to compare the Arizona law to the Nazis.

And again, I'm just going to ask you to consider that physically blocking a border and tracking and investigating people for legal citizenship is an extremely costly and largely ineffective measure for stopping illegal immigration, and consider the idea of removing the reason for illegal immigration. No jobs no border crossings.

And I fully expect to have this point ignored, again, in favour of more of the above. Honest debate and the internet, is it too impossible a dream?

helgrenze wrote:
And if you READ the federal Statutes concerning immigration and just what constitutes "illegal" you will find that the AZ law simply reiterates the Federal one. It simply empowers the state law enforcers to do what the Feds say they lack the manpower, money, and resources to do.

Are you talking about reasonable suspicion of illegal status when occupying Federal property, and the associated ID requirement?

If so, the change in language from Federal property, to public property is a significant expansion of the requirement.

Additionally, many states have passed statutes which prohibit the implementation of the act in question (REAL ID Act of 2005); including Arizona.

dogma wrote:It may be moot at this point, but how do people feel about the elimination, or reduction, of the fees associated with immigration processing? Perhaps as an extension of a larger effort to limit the citizen costs of all bureaucratic processing, save those related to crime of course.

It would be hard to argue with that. I've heard from quite a few sources that bureaucracy in the immigration department has gotten really bad, both from a standpoint of fees and especially waiting periods.

sebster wrote:
Congratulations, that may be an even sillier comparison than the efforts by other posters to compare the Arizona law to the Nazis.

And again, I'm just going to ask you to consider that physically blocking a border and tracking and investigating people for legal citizenship is an extremely costly and largely ineffective measure for stopping illegal immigration, and consider the idea of removing the reason for illegal immigration. No jobs no border crossings.

Sadly, we'll never get any action on immigration without beefing up border security, though that's going to be necessary if we are to quell the drug trade violence in the area. However, it would be relatively easy, especially in this political climate, to build support for actual enforcement of the laws regarding the employment of illegals.

sebster wrote:
And I fully expect to have this point ignored, again, in favour of more of the above. Honest debate and the internet, is it too impossible a dream?

The XKCD forums are pretty good. I don't post there much because I don't like the interface.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:It would be hard to argue with that. I've heard from quite a few sources that bureaucracy in the immigration department has gotten really bad, both from a standpoint of fees and especially waiting periods.

So have I, and I'd like to avoid cases such as Guitardian's as much as possible.

Indeed, I've seen studies that claim the sheer cost of legal immigration via the guest worker program, or an extended visa drives a lot of people from all over the world to immigrate illegally.

One my friends, for example, couldn't afford to apply for citizenship after his student visa ran up, so he was here illegally for 3 years.

helgrenze wrote:And Visiting a foreign Country and Moving To the same Country are exactly the same under the law?

Those that "followed Lady Liberty" entered the country under the legal statutes of the time. Ellis Island exists for a reason.

And if you READ the federal Statutes concerning immigration and just what constitutes "illegal" you will find that the AZ law simply reiterates the Federal one. It simply empowers the state law enforcers to do what the Feds say they lack the manpower, money, and resources to do.

If this were true then the whole bill would be a waste of time, due to the simple fact that local law unforcement already has the authority to arrest those people breaking federal laws and to detain them until the proper agency picks them up.

Do you really think that a AZ cop doesn't have the ability to arrest someone for breaking a Federal law? They already have this ability. This law is about setting a precedent that has far reaching implications.


@Dogma- My concern is not with immigration in general but with the continued march of this nation towards being a Police State. I know that it is futile to struggle against what history holds to be an ineveibilty, but just because this may be the losing side does not in any way mean that those who resist such legislation are wrong.

@focusedfire:

I suppose I was thinking of the good Baron, rather than you. His was simply the last post I read.

Ok, let me try it this way: since everyone is really intent on ignoring me, I'll give it a shot:

History shows that we can build a wall, man it with soldiers and machine gun towers and land mines, and shoot to kill.

Guess what?

It doesn't work. The lawmakers in Arizona may have some idea about this, since they all seem to have escaped from East Berlin to avoid being tried as war criminals by the Russians.

So: in an attempt to do the impossible, Arizona turns to a tactic that history also shows is made of fail: the police state, where every citizen must carry documentation, and regular checkpoints and road blocks are set up to examine your papers.

To see how well this works: see Occupied France.

So, what MIGHT actually work?

Well, why do they enter illegally?

Possiblities:

A)They're an oppressed minority. Not uncommon in Southern Mexico, where the Federales continue to have problems with the Zapotec and local insurrections among the native peoples. Which are put down with brutal efficiency. (Somehow, all the prisoners are somehow shot while trying to escape. Usually at close range in the back of the head while blindfolded and hogtied.)

B) They're poor and seeking jobs in the US. Frankly, that's why, at some level, EVERY immigrant comes here.

C) They're being driven to flee due to the drug wars.

D) Some combination of the above.


Now, A) is hard to deal with, aside from overthrowing the Mexican government and annexing Mexico. Which has it's appeal at times, I grant. The only thing more crooked then one of our politicians is a south and central American politician. (For those interested, President for Life seems to have a term of about 20 years on average, not counting Fidel)

B) How do you fight your own economic success? I would suggest that we post heavy taxes on companies in the US that ship jobs overseas and tax breaks for bringing them back. Or just make it a crime to outsource overseas. With more jobs IN the US, the competition for jobs decreases, and illegal immigration becomes a minor annoyance rather then a major social issue, again. The average drug dealer and street punk, it has been found, prefers to make an honest living. There's less chance of being gunned down by a rival cubical farmer or garbage man.

Also: support your local Organized Crime syndicate. Usually established local crime lords tend to deal with 'invasive' species of criminal before they become a pest for the rest of the population.

C) Legalize weed. It would seriously damage cartels financial underpinnings.

BaronIveagh wrote:
B) How do you fight your own economic success? I would suggest that we post heavy taxes on companies in the US that ship jobs overseas and tax breaks for bringing them back. Or just make it a crime to outsource overseas. With more jobs IN the US, the competition for jobs decreases, and illegal immigration becomes a minor annoyance rather then a major social issue, again. The average drug dealer and street punk, it has been found, prefers to make an honest living. There's less chance of being gunned down by a rival cubical farmer or garbage man.

That is politically infeasible, and economically foolish.

BaronIveagh wrote:
C) Legalize weed. It would seriously damage cartels financial underpinnings.

Marijuana is nowhere near as profitable as cocaine. The domestic supply of pot ensures that.

dogma wrote:

That is politically infeasible, and economically foolish.

Marijuana is nowhere near as profitable as cocaine. The domestic supply of pot ensures that.

A) Given the job situation in the US, we might not have a choice. Either we bring jobs back here, or our economy will collapse (again) anyway. The idea of an entirely service based economy being feasible has proven to be by and large untrue. Edit: I'll toss in that Protectionism is actually practiced by most other countries. However, feeling that wallstreet fat cats...errr... influence peddlers... errr... American Industrialists! (yeah, that's hte ticket) might suffer, there is a myth engendered by certain politicians in the US that the government protecting American businesses and jobs from foreign competition is a bad thing.

B) Cocaine may be profitable, but weed is bread and butter to street dealers. Further, if the DEA wasn't looking for all that home grown pot, they'd have a lot more time and manpower to go after the coke dealers.

BaronIveagh wrote:
A) Given the job situation in the US, we might not have a choice. Either we bring jobs back here, or our economy will collapse (again) anyway. The idea of an entirely service based economy being feasible has proven to be by and large untrue.

The fact that the US economy is primarily based in service has more to do with the congregation of wealth than anything else. Additionally, it isn't as if we produce nothing. We are the third largest exporter in the world, behind the largest (China) by ~$160 billion.

BaronIveagh wrote:
B) Cocaine may be profitable, but weed is bread and butter to street dealers. Further, if the DEA wasn't looking for all that home grown pot, they'd have a lot more time and manpower to go after the coke dealers.

The point is that the decriminalization of weed does not remove the profit motive from the people that we're attempting to stop: the cartels.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Edit: I'll toss in that Protectionism is actually practiced by most other countries. However, feeling that wallstreet fat cats...errr... influence peddlers... errr... American Industrialists! (yeah, that's hte ticket) might suffer, there is a myth engendered by certain politicians in the US that the government protecting American businesses and jobs from foreign competition is a bad thing.

Protectionism is practiced in America, right now. The problem is that too much protectionism, or protections which are too broad, is bad for the economy, innovation, and the country as a whole.

BaronIveagh wrote:I found this motivator and thought it sums up my opinion of the whole thing perfectly.

Remember folks, Hitler was the Constitutionally elected leader of Germany.

Though I admit it puts a new spin on 'Work Makes You Free'...

Take the pic off of the Dakka server...

Into your gallery and press the button.

Host via Photobucket or Flicker, and keep the mods off of your back.

@Dogma- I actually like and agree with most of your points on immigration.

IMO,The current immigration policies favor individuals immigrating from wealthier countries to the point that it smacks of elitism to some extent.

I would like to see a set up where anyone can come in as long as they sign-in. But only those who develop as contributing members of society may stay. Sort of a goals system where:

Upon arrival the immigrants must submit to blood and health tests to determine if they are currently carrying an illness that could be a public health concern.

"They"(Happy guitard?) must bring vaccinations up to date.

Within 60 days of arrival, adults have to have a job with taxable income.

Their children must go to school. Young adults(18-20) must enroll in the selective service and either go to school or get a job

Within 6 months pass a basic test on what is acceptable behaviour in the U.S. and demonstrate basic english skills(They know what Stop and a few other fundemental words mean)

Within 12 months they must show increased language skills and knowledge of culture in their first of three naturalization tests.




Something along those lines. If that won't work then I'd suggest letting Minnesota and Texas secede.

Minnesota would finally fit in and realize their potential as a part of Canadia.

Texas would declare war on or join Mexico in some way. Up side is that immigration would stop being a problem but Texas would more than double in size, population, and ego.

This would leave room for California to split into the seperate states they've always wanted to be and Puerto Rico would finally become a state. The U.S. would still have 50 states without near as much middle america interference with what the 2 coasts want................sorry, I started to ramble. Didn't I?

edit spelling

Minnesotans don't have beady eyes and pronounce "OU" as "OO". LOL.

dogma wrote:
Protectionism is practiced in America, right now. The problem is that too much protectionism, or protections which are too broad, is bad for the economy, innovation, and the country as a whole.

Yes, but having too little, which is where we have been for years, is also bad. While National unemployment figures may 'only' be at 10% (approx) regional unemployment can go much, much higher. We hav entire little closet departments within the Dept of Interior that go around and try to 'stimulate' these depressed regions, and have been doing it for more then twenty years. Former steel producing regions continue to decline, as the supposed high tech boom that was promised never materialized in these areas. I know when I had a meeting with one of them for the Appalachia region, I heard unemployment numbers as high as 50% in some areas.

If only a few people work, there are only two options: a welfare state, like England, with titanic taxation on income and inheritance (which most people will tell you is bad) or we need to find ways to make the US more appealing to manufacturers then the slave labor camps of China and expand our job market. (dramatic emphasis there. I know they're 'paid' three cents an hour. Or the Party/local officials are paid. It varies.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:

dogma wrote:It may be moot at this point, but how do people feel about the elimination, or reduction, of the fees associated with immigration processing? Perhaps as an extension of a larger effort to limit the citizen costs of all bureaucratic processing, save those related to crime of course.

It would be hard to argue with that. I've heard from quite a few sources that bureaucracy in the immigration department has gotten really bad, both from a standpoint of fees and especially waiting periods.

My student placement employee got his tourist visa application refused when he arrived for interview. Can't get much faster than that.

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- I actually like and agree with most of your points on immigration.

While I like your proposal, I don't think its the sort of thing that's really feasible. Too much change in too little time for the sort of political system we inhabit. Democracy is a frustrating thing at times.

Generally I advocate something similar to what Orkeo posted earlier; adding increased development aid to Mexico.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but having too little, which is where we have been for years, is also bad. While National unemployment figures may 'only' be at 10% (approx) regional unemployment can go much, much higher. We hav entire little closet departments within the Dept of Interior that go around and try to 'stimulate' these depressed regions, and have been doing it for more then twenty years. Former steel producing regions continue to decline, as the supposed high tech boom that was promised never materialized in these areas. I know when I had a meeting with one of them for the Appalachia region, I heard unemployment numbers as high as 50% in some areas.

I don't think there's anything to be done for many of these areas. Killing the national minimum wage might help, and its something that I favor, but the protectionist policies required to float such industries do nothing beyond pushing costs up; encouraging investors to shift their focus elsewhere, and therefore kill the jobs which we're trying to save.

BaronIveagh wrote:
If only a few people work, there are only two options: a welfare state, like England, with titanic taxation on income and inheritance (which most people will tell you is bad) or we need to find ways to make the US more appealing to manufacturers then the slave labor camps of China and expand our job market. (dramatic emphasis there. I know they're 'paid' three cents an hour. Or the Party/local officials are paid. It varies.)

Or we can provide incentives for people to retrain, or train, for more profitable jobs. This can be done with market incentives, and badly needed education reform.

dogma wrote:Sadly, we'll never get any action on immigration without beefing up border security, though that's going to be necessary if we are to quell the drug trade violence in the area. However, it would be relatively easy, especially in this political climate, to build support for actual enforcement of the laws regarding the employment of illegals.

Drug control is another problem entirely, as it's much, much harder to target demand.

The XKCD forums are pretty good. I don't post there much because I don't like the interface.

Yeah, there's a few decent places, normally a result of a core of dedicated posters who look to debate standards first and ideology second. To be honest I tend not to post in those places, I just read them and notice someone else has made all the good points more clearly than I could.

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- I actually like and agree with most of your points on immigration.



Within 6 months pass a basic test on what is acceptable behaviour in the U.S. and demonstrate basic english skills(They now what Stop and a few other fundemental words mean)

must show increased language skills and knowledge of culture in their first of three naturalization tests.

hmm... "they NOW what Stop and a few other fundamental words mean"

Sarcasm is cool, but irony is hard to argue. Not sure where the point is going with that but it was a fun read. Notice you began a sentence with 'must...'. There is no subject for that verb. You already failed your own naturalization test man.

Ironically many native inhabitants of the USA or UK probably would fail the naturalization test without studying for it first.

Try for yourself here...

http://www.britishexam.com/uktest/index.jsp


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and here...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I scored 87.5% on the UK test and 85% on the US test so apparently they would let me in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The US one is done as an interview which makes it more difficult.

Guitardian wrote:

focusedfire wrote:hmm... "they NOW what Stop and a few other fundamental words mean"

Sarcasm is cool, but irony is hard to argue. Not sure where the point is going with that but it was a fun read. Notice you began a sentence with 'must...'. There is no subject for that verb. You already failed your own naturalization test man.

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I am fixing the spelling now.

Now remember, this is the U.S., accurate spelling and sentence structure do not apply. Also, if you go back and re-read you might notice that I never said that they had to spell or write well. Just stated that the immigrants would need to know/recognize the meanings of basic words and how to behave(Understanding basic social mores). Typin' poorly on the interwebs might actually be a part of the naturalization final exam.
Can't trust 'em if they is too smart, nope don't want no uppity immagrantz hear in dis cuntry.

As to where the point was going, The first part of the post was suggesting that anyone who makes it to these shores/fences(Sad sigh over decline into police state.) should be able to petition for citizenship. Petitioners would have to demostrate that they are trying to assimilate by doing the basic things to become a functioning member of society.

The second part of the post was a humorous jab at Fateweaver and myself via poking fun at our home states.


Now, Should I return this stone to you and your glass house by the same means it was thrown through my window?

edit spelling and to add appropriate Orkmoticon

Anyone else here visited Mexico?

Ever had a look at some of their laws?

The Mexican Gov't has the right to bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics."

Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

Being illegal in Mexico, until recently, was a Felony, punishable by 2 years in a Mexican Prison. Now its a @$500.00 fine and deportation, once the fine is paid.

Mexico also will not extradite, to any jurisdiction, a felon facing the death penalty. This was the case when a Marine of Mexican Birth (Cesar Laurean) killed a fellow marine (Maria Lauterbach) and then fled from active duty to Mexico at a time he was supposed to be deployed to Iraq.

(Non citizens are not allowed to enlist in the Mexican military)

Under the Mexican constitution, political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

But Mexico is Demanding that the US grant Amnesty to Illegals here. Something they do not do within their own borders.
They have petitioned the US to stop workplace raids for illegals.

Mexico apparently wants a one-way door installed at the border.....North only.