View Full Version : Immigration Case Review
I think this (http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/08/immigration/xVwK5kIcuveuzkoAFlilFJ/index.html) is a good move for several reasons. The illegal immigration cases have created a huge backlog which this should help clear up. Also I think it is a good political move. It will force the discussion on immigration to the forefront which I think is long overdue. Wonder what Lou Dobbs will say? :~) What do ya think?
The Obama administration took one of its boldest steps yet toward addressing illegal immigration today by announcing it would halt potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court if they do not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today that the agency will launch a case-by-case review of 300,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the nation to focus on the federal government’s top priority, detaining and deporting criminals and serious violators of immigration law.
Immigrants classified as low-priority cases could receive a stay of deportation and the chance to apply for a work permit.
Peace
It's a shrewd political move. It effectively by-passes our legislative process by implementing some aspects of The Dream Act without the bother of Congressional approval, and will play well with potential Hispanic voters.
What's the difference between "a serious violation" of immigration law and and your common garden variety lawbreaker? What's so bold about this move? It appears to me that the administration is looking to issue an amnesty by royal decree rather than by operation of law.
Unsurprisingly, I'm a Dream Act supporter, and an Amnesty supporter. I have at least a dozen immediate family members who have immigrated in the last 20 years, and been born to those immigrants. All of the undocumented immigrants came here as children or young teens, and all have started their own businesses, which are thriving and employing people. Processing them through the court system would be ridiculously expensive, as well as disrupting many lives; those of their immediate families and those of their employees.
I also live in a neighborhood of immigrants, and amazingly enough, I've noticed that immigrants come with the same wide variety of human qualities that everyone else comes with: most are upstanding, kind, caring, etc. A few are not. The web of community is strong here. The nine +/- languages spoken on my block alone is the sound of America.
Every beat & traffic cop has the latitude to decide if and how to charge someone with an offense - I've been darn lucky to get away with warnings at traffic stops lately (I think it's the Grandma profile being applied to me...). The President recognizes the fact that immigrants are integral part of our communities regardless of their documentation, and a wholesale ripping away of these families, workers, and community members is destructive and unnecessary. Moving forward by processing those who are actually dangerous is logical and humane.
Our country has always had xenophobic flare-ups. Since the immigrants in my family are Muslim Egyptians and Catholic Latinos, I am intensly aware of the fact that these two ethnic groups are the current targets of immigrant fear and hatred. I hope some day we as a people grow beyond this xenophobia, and understand that at one time, all of us via our ancestors were strangers seeking safe harbor in this country.
Our country has always had xenophobic flare-ups. Since the immigrants in my family are Muslim Egyptians and Catholic Latinos, I am intensly aware of the fact that these two ethnic groups are the current targets of immigrant fear and hatred. I hope some day we as a people grow beyond this xenophobia, and understand that at one time, all of us via our ancestors were strangers seeking safe harbor in this country.
I believe that Canada has higher educational/skills standards for legal immigration than we do. Practically all of the USA's illegal immigrants would fall way below Canada's requirements and not be allowed to reside in the country. Is that simply a sign of Canadian xenophobia or is that condition uniquely American?
I believe that Canada has higher educational/skills standards for legal immigration than we do. Practically all of the USA's illegal immigrants would fall way below Canada's requirements and not be allowed to reside in the country. Is that simply a sign of Canadian xenophobia or is that condition uniquely American?
What an interesting question! Canadians - any reflections? And, I wonder what the differences in Canadian policies & cultural approaches is influenced by their different government structure?
Canadian weighing in. We have lots and lots of immigrants and only a small population. We may be a ginormous country physically, but people tend to live in the same areas near the border. So we have a fairly firm hand on immigration, but, believe me, there are glitches.
But we don't have this massive illegal immigrant situation. They are not an integral part of our society. Regular immigrants are, but not the great illegal working group. I think it works, more or less, for us.
ApatheticNoMore
8-19-11, 1:21pm
I believe that Canada has higher educational/skills standards for legal immigration than we do. Practically all of the USA's illegal immigrants would fall way below Canada's requirements and not be allowed to reside in the country.
If the point is that immigrants can further drag down the low wage market, yea I'd tend to agree, basically make it harder to get low wage jobs. This is not because immigrants are bad people, and these are immigrants who want to work and not criminals (I believe most immigrants want work, the criminals are the exception), it's just kinda what happens in a labor market.
But we import plenty of skilled labor too. I used to think the H1B stuff was mostly Information Technology. So does everyone, right? Well ... WRONG. That exists, but we're also importing things like accountants on H1Bs. Read that right: people in other countries are studying U.S. accounting standards in order to do U.S. accounting jobs.
Unsurprisingly, I'm a Dream Act supporter, and an Amnesty supporter. I have at least a dozen immediate family members who have immigrated in the last 20 years, and been born to those immigrants. All of the undocumented immigrants came here as children or young teens, and all have started their own businesses, which are thriving and employing people. Processing them through the court system would be ridiculously expensive, as well as disrupting many lives; those of their immediate families and those of their employees.
I also live in a neighborhood of immigrants, and amazingly enough, I've noticed that immigrants come with the same wide variety of human qualities that everyone else comes with: most are upstanding, kind, caring, etc. A few are not. The web of community is strong here. The nine +/- languages spoken on my block alone is the sound of America.
Every beat & traffic cop has the latitude to decide if and how to charge someone with an offense - I've been darn lucky to get away with warnings at traffic stops lately (I think it's the Grandma profile being applied to me...). The President recognizes the fact that immigrants are integral part of our communities regardless of their documentation, and a wholesale ripping away of these families, workers, and community members is destructive and unnecessary. Moving forward by processing those who are actually dangerous is logical and humane.
Our country has always had xenophobic flare-ups. Since the immigrants in my family are Muslim Egyptians and Catholic Latinos, I am intensly aware of the fact that these two ethnic groups are the current targets of immigrant fear and hatred. I hope some day we as a people grow beyond this xenophobia, and understand that at one time, all of us via our ancestors were strangers seeking safe harbor in this country.
We can hide behind euphemisms like “undocumented” for people whose presence here reflects contempt for our laws. We can speak warmly about diversity and community, and imply that those who disagree with us are racist xenophobes. We can argue that its too difficult or expensive to prosecute criminals. But there is no escaping that if we accede to our law enforcement officials arbitrarily deciding which laws they decide are congenial and which are not, we’ve taken another step on the road to serfdom.
We can hide behind euphemisms like “undocumented” for people whose presence here reflects contempt for our laws. We can speak warmly about diversity and community, and imply that those who disagree with us are racist xenophobes. We can argue that its too difficult or expensive to prosecute criminals. But there is no escaping that if we accede to our law enforcement officials arbitrarily deciding which laws they decide are congenial and which are not, we’ve taken another step on the road to serfdom.
Your "we" is clearly not me. Undocumented is descriptive & accurate - these individuals lack documentation. I choose to not judge the content of their character based upon their immigration status, country of origin, ethnicity, or color of their skin. My family & neighbors contribute every day to our community and general well-being.
Canadian weighing in. We have lots and lots of immigrants and only a small population. We may be a ginormous country physically, but people tend to live in the same areas near the border. So we have a fairly firm hand on immigration, but, believe me, there are glitches.
I think it's fair to say that the reason you have lots and lots of immigrants is the same reason we do, because we're are nations of immigrants. The question here is illegal immigration and how to respond to the problem.
It would seem that many in the USA are of the belief that there should be no restrictions on immigration, and if there are restrictions, no consequences. What I'm really interested in knowing is whether or not the enforcement of immigration law is seen by those people as simply xenophobic, or a necessary component of an orderly society.
Since many people also feel compelled to look past the obvious in order to explain something under their preferred terms when it comes to their country of origin, I am also curious to see if the same rationale applies when discussing other countries.
Of the illegal immigrants I have known I can not think of one who would not have been happy to become legal, work hard, pay taxes, etc. Most were family members of people that worked for our family business (the employees were all legal). It is difficult and very stressful to live you life looking back over your shoulder the whole time. Not a life style anyone really wants. Legal citizenship is a way to become part of the society, gain some kind of job security, some of the benefits and protections provided citizens of a society. There is an image of the illegal immigrant happily living in stealth mode, taking work from Americans, sending all their money back home, basically milking this country for all its worth before they split for home. My experience does not lend credibility to that image and as a result I am (with a few remaining reservations) a supporter of amnesty.
I think immigration law is poorly applied - people come looking for work because they know will be hired, even though it's illegal. But I never hear of employers breaking these laws referred to "illegal employers". And "the law is the law" argument never seems to make it to them. At worst, they get a fine and continue. It's like fighting illegal drugs by arresting the drug users but not the drug dealers.
There have been protests this last week in L.A. to continue the funding of undocumented (i.e. here in this country illegally) school children. There are approx. a half million children here who recieve full timne education benefits. Also illegal aliens who attend college are allowed to recieve the "in state" tuition rate (very low in Calif). According to some (will find the info) illegal aliens in Calif alone cost more than 10 billion per year of tax payer funds for everything to education to healthcare. Are they honorable, decent, hard working people? Yes. Do they contribute? Yes. Do they deserve to be in this country by illegally? No IMHO. As a foriegn born person of a foreign born parent who entered this country by legal means, and one who lives in an immigrant neighborhood, I do support LEGAL means of immigration but do not support funding for those here illegally. The money needed to support even a hard working, diligent illegal alien/immigrant population is large - that money should be used for citizens ho are in this country legally IMHO.
One:
"In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year."
Two:
"LOS ANGELES — In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that illegal immigrants can be eligible for the same reduced tuition at public colleges and universities as legal residents of the state. "
Three:
"Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America's largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost. Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich released new statistics this week showing social spending for those families in his county rose to $53 million in November, putting the county government on track to spend more than $600 million on related costs for the year -- up from $570 million in 2009. Antonovich arrived at the estimate by factoring in the cost of food stamps and welfare-style benefits through a state program known as CalWORKS. Combined with public safety costs and health care costs, the official claimed the "total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers" was more than $1.6 billion in 2010. "Not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education," he said in a statement."
I think it's fair to say that the reason you have lots and lots of immigrants is the same reason we do, because we're are nations of immigrants. The question here is illegal immigration and how to respond to the problem.
It would seem that many in the USA are of the belief that there should be no restrictions on immigration, and if there are restrictions, no consequences. What I'm really interested in knowing is whether or not the enforcement of immigration law is seen by those people as simply xenophobic, or a necessary component of an orderly society.
Should we enforce immigration law, absolutely. Should we enforce all laws, of course. Do we? Nope:laff:
Why not enforce immigration laws? Because we want immigration. In some cases it is because we Americans tend to have a decent streak (children, broken families, hard working people), in some cases employers want cheap labor that actually shows up and works.
I've heard landscapers, ranchers, construction companies, motels, etc. say many times, "we need Mexicans"! That’s why we don’t take the steps to control immigration (a thousand-dollar-a-day fine for hiring illegals, half to go anonymously to whoever informed on the employer).
Like most things in the US we have one group that wants troops on the border, another that is eager to learn Spanish just so they can capture the dollars that they somehow magically earn. But the truth is this - we are not going to round up millions of people and physically throw them back across the border. Whether we should doesn’t matter, it's not going to happen! Sounds good on TV and in political campaigns!
So what do we do? Probably try come up with some way to get ourselves out the corner that we have so gracefully put ourselves in.
I think most people refer to it as COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.
Peace
We can argue that its too difficult or expensive to prosecute criminals. But there is no escaping that if we accede to our law enforcement officials arbitrarily deciding which laws they decide are congenial and which are not, we’ve taken another step on the road to serfdom.
LDAHL-
A couple of thoughts.
First when you are discussing illegal immigration, for the most part you are not discussing criminals. Immigration removal proceedings are civil (not criminal) matters.
Your comment about "expensive" gets to the heart of the matter. I think it would probably cost trillions to round up and remove even a significant minority of the illegal aliens in the US. Considering the current fiscal position of the US where would that money come from?
LDAHL-
Your comment about "expensive" gets to the heart of the matter. I think it would probably cost trillions to round up and remove even a significant minority of the illegal aliens in the US. Considering the current fiscal position of the US where would that money come from?
How about allowing local law enforcement to enquire about immigration status for anyone suspected of being in the country illegally? That costs nothing extra.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Georgia-Immigration/2011/06/23/id/401166
Could be this is the reason states are finding themselves in a bit of a pickle. Especially the republican ones who scream about illegals sucking the life out of anything they happen to want to criticize. They got their base all whipped up over murderous rampaging illegals swarming over the border to murder you in your sleep, but..uh, first they need to stop and pick the blueberries.
I do believe folks should become citizens the legal way, and I believe we should help those who want to be citizens in a orderly and fast way. I also think business owners who hire illegals should be prosecuted. Zig is right. The politicians are talking out both sides of their mouths. If they are serious about this then they need to prove it by going after the business owners and farmers who hire them.
As far as the illegals themselves, yes they are breaking the law and the law is the law. However, I sympathize with them, knowing that the vast vast majority are just hard working people who just want a better life for their family. Believe you me, if I was sitting in poverty and crime ridden areas and saw a better life for my kids just over there, I'd do whatever it took to feed and protect my family. I'm pretty sure most people would.
How about allowing local law enforcement to enquire about immigration status for anyone suspected of being in the country illegally? That costs nothing extra.
this is definitely a slippery slope. How are they to suspect these people? By the color of their skin? Because they speak Spanish in public? And what about the blond haired blue eyed illegals? Do we all now need to carry "papers"? Isn't that dangerously close to making the police like the KGB? For someone who wants to get government out of our private lives, this seems awfully intrusive, governmentally speaking.
I think the police should stop anyone they 'suspect' of carrying a concealed weapon and do a pat down. And if they find anything, demand papers to prove they can carry.
One study by The Center for Immigration shows that legallizing currently illegal aliens will actually INCREASE the financial burden to taxpayers because they will then be eligible to apply for all social services available to legal immigrants. The current cost to help support legal immigrants is already huge and to allow more in will not only take more jobs, but more money from already ailing govmint coffers. I know it's heart breaking to watch thousands suffer in other countries but do we take in the millions as legal immigrants and soupport them as well as their off spring and relatives? Where do you draw the line? I personally worked on the entire Muriel Boatlift while in the CG and picked up thousands of Cubans heading to the US as well as many Cubans and other refugees who could not come into the country. Many were in EXTREMELY dire straights (Haitians) who were just deported back to their countries. Heart breaking to see but immigration to the USA, and placing a huge burden on the tax payers, isn't the answer IMHO. I also lived in a community that took in thousands Vietnamese refugees after the war. Those thousands have now grown to a couple hundred thousand in the county and a couple million nationwide (not counting illegal vietnamese aliens) and have put an huge burden on the city even though many are industrious, hardworking people who have been successful in business and contiributed. But it took many years on welfare and receiving social benefits to get to a point of greater prosperity.
Here's another article from FAIR:
"Economic and social costs of illegal immigration
The economic and social consequences of illegal immigration across the 1,940 mile long America-Mexico border are staggering. An average of 10,000 illegal aliens cross the border every day - over 3 million per year. A third will be caught and many of them immediately will try again. About half of those remaining will become permanent U.S. residents (3,500 per day).
Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S., double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.
FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year." The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000"
Here's an exerpt from the Center for Immigration Studies:
"This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion"
Enforcement and deportation of illegal immigrants may be less costly to the government then amnesty
One study by The Center for Immigration shows that legallizing currently illegal aliens will actually INCREASE the financial burden to taxpayers because they will then be eligible to apply for all social services available to legal immigrants.
I'm sure there are cases, but I'm not sure I ever met anyone who came to this country to be on welfare. Are there really so many who came here with the thought of not working and/or just to take advantage of various programs?
this is definitely a slippery slope.
No it's not. Everyone in the United States who is stopped by the police is subject to a check for wants and warrants. Tie that system into a few additional databases and it becomes automatic for everyone. No muss, no fuss, no profiling.
Spartana,
do those net cost figures include the Social Security monies paid and never collected?
http://www.globalaging.org/pension/us/socialsec/2005/illegal.htm
The summary of everything I've read says that there is a net cost to the individual border states like Calif and Arizona, but there is a net gain at the federal level of billions of dollars collected and never disbursed. One idea was for the Federal Gov't to use the monies in the Social Security Suspense File (the account where money goes when names and social security numbers don't match up) and give it to the border states to pay for the extra costs of the undocumented. If you do that, it's about a wash, financially.
Zigzagman
8-19-11, 10:20pm
No it's not. Everyone in the United States who is stopped by the police is subject to a check for wants and warrants. Tie that system into a few additional databases and it becomes automatic for everyone. No muss, no fuss, no profiling.
Alan you obviously have never been subjected to "the man"? What I mean by that is during the 60's and 70's it was quite common to be stopped as a lily white person simply because you had long hair, were driving a hippie van, or just not the typical WASP. Although I grew up in the South and saw on a regular basis the harassment, discrimination, and bigotry, I never fully appreciated it until I return from Vietnam, grew long hair, and began to enjoy the free spirit on the day.
And you wonder why most people people of color would not agree with racial or ethnic profiling? Get your butt kicked by some redneck cop simply because of the way you looked or thought. Watch the cops ignore those that looked like them and then harass those that were students or someone with greater than 8th grade mentality.
No - the idea of allowing the cops to stop and check someone based simply upon there looks is bean dip dumb.
Peace
No it's not. Everyone in the United States who is stopped by the police is subject to a check for wants and warrants. Tie that system into a few additional databases and it becomes automatic for everyone. No muss, no fuss, no profiling.
But they can do that already Alan. When ever the police stop you. legitimately, they can run you and your car and anyone else in your car through the data base. I think the real fear here is, police will feel free to stop anyone, anyone who they 'suspect' of being illegal and demand their papers. Again, what defines suspicion? The color of their skin? Can the police stop you because you are brown and speaking Spanish so they just demand your papers? If you run a red light, they can stop you. But if you and your family are simply driving down the street can they stop you because you 'look' illegal? That is the slippery slope. The police don't need special permission to do their job as already defined any more than a special level of 'badness' needs to be added to a crime because they 'hated' the guy they murdered.
No - the idea of allowing the cops to stop and check someone based simply upon there looks is bean dip dumb.
Peace
Of course, there's a difference between being stopped based upon looks and being stopped for some other reason and adding immigration status to the normal identity check process. You may remember that was a major point in the Arizona law, it specifically prohibited racial or ethnic profiling.
And, I spent a significant part of my life being "the man", so I've got a pretty good idea of what being "subjected" to me means.
But they can do that already Alan. When ever the police stop you. legitimately, they can run you and your car and anyone else in your car through the data base. I think the real fear here is, police will feel free to stop anyone, anyone who they 'suspect' of being illegal and demand their papers. Again, what defines suspicion? The color of their skin? Can the police stop you because you are brown and speaking Spanish so they just demand your papers? If you run a red light, they can stop you. But if you and your family are simply driving down the street can they stop you because you 'look' illegal? That is the slippery slope. The police don't need special permission to do their job as already defined any more than a special level of 'badness' needs to be added to a crime because they 'hated' the guy they murdered.
No they can't. They don't have access to a database detailing legal resident status. Your fear that police will simply stop anyone and "demand their papers" is unfounded.
How about allowing local law enforcement to enquire about immigration status for anyone suspected of being in the country illegally? That costs nothing extra.
Or get serious about making it difficult or impossible to get employed here if you're here illegally? If the government believes they'll be able to track down and fine people who don't sign up for health insurance, surely identifying illegal immigrants should be feasible.
LDAHL-
A couple of thoughts.
First when you are discussing illegal immigration, for the most part you are not discussing criminals. Immigration removal proceedings are civil (not criminal) matters.
Your comment about "expensive" gets to the heart of the matter. I think it would probably cost trillions to round up and remove even a significant minority of the illegal aliens in the US. Considering the current fiscal position of the US where would that money come from?
Fraud is a crime. How can someone live and work in a country for many years without committing fraud?
There are many cost-effective measures that could be taken. Make E-verify mandatory for employers, for instance.
Your "we" is clearly not me. Undocumented is descriptive & accurate - these individuals lack documentation. I choose to not judge the content of their character based upon their immigration status, country of origin, ethnicity, or color of their skin. My family & neighbors contribute every day to our community and general well-being.
So its really just a minor paperwork thing? Such legal pettifoggery shouldn't apply to the nice people you know? Which other laws should be optional?
Mangano's Gold
8-20-11, 11:41am
We can hide behind euphemisms like “undocumented” for people whose presence here reflects contempt for our laws. We can speak warmly about diversity and community, and imply that those who disagree with us are racist xenophobes. We can argue that its too difficult or expensive to prosecute criminals. But there is no escaping that if we accede to our law enforcement officials arbitrarily deciding which laws they decide are congenial and which are not, we’ve taken another step on the road to serfdom.
Oh, gawd. You sound like the kind of guy who turned in the other kids in the dorm from drinking, or drops a note in the suggestion box at work telling the boss that your two co-workers have a wager on the Super Bowl.
Immigration laws have historically been race/ethnic based. The embrace of multi-culturalism is a relatively new phenomena, and many (white) Americans and Europeans have buyer's remorse.
Here's how I'll frame it: How do you weigh the virtue of Tribalism against the virtues of indvidual liberty and free enterprise? Spoken in the parlance of modern American-style conservatism, is liberty granted by God, or is it granted by the government on the northern side of the Rio Bravo?
iris lily
8-20-11, 11:45am
Oh, gawd. You sound like the kind of guy who turned in the other kids in the dorm from drinking, or drops a note in the suggestion box at work telling the boss that your two co-workers have a wager on the Super Bowl...
Oh come on, MG, no need to make this personal.
I am enjoying the rest of your argument, interesting points, keep on in that direction.
Mangano's Gold
8-20-11, 12:01pm
Fair enough, apology to LDAHL. IMO, although I can see he was careful in how he worded it, describing undocumented workers as having "contempt" for our laws is over-the-top and inflammatory. Way worse than what I said, but there aren't likley any indocumentados here to defend themselves. Anyway, these are polite boards so I'll be polite. :-)
I think that if someone intentionally violates a nation's laws, it may fairly be said that they have "contempt" for them, or at least "willful disregard". Describing them with euphemisms such as "undocumented workers" rather than "illegal aliens" doesn't change that.
I think that if someone intentionally violates a nation's laws, it may fairly be said that they have "contempt" for them, or at least "willful disregard".
Like speeding.
What does it say for corporations that get fined left and right for this and that?
Well of course corporations are evil. Actually, anytime a group of two or more people join forces to accomplish a goal, they're likely to put the good of the group ahead of the good of greater society, and therefore, evil. For that matter, any individual who thinks more of his/her comfort/safety/security/overall wellbeing than he/she does for neighbors is likely to be evil as well. At least, if you're inclined to think that way.
Or, as P.J. O'Rourke says, "There’s only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
That's more in line with my way of thinking. What kind of society would we have without consequences?
Or, as P.J. O'Rourke says, "There’s only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
That's more in line with my way of thinking. What kind of society would we have without consequences?
Or as the Liberty Manifesto says - "Everyone has the right to be an asshole."
Well, that's all well and good for the asshole's, but not so great for those of us who have to put up with them. Laws are only good when people mutually agree to obey them. If something is wrong, no matter how many laws you have, it will not make it right. I think that is what the immigration debate is all about. How to deal with a reality (millions of illegals that have be lured and enticed to stay by employers) in a just even handed way without prejudice based upon race or ethnicity. If we had a immigration system that worked we would not be having these discussions.
Peace
Or as the Liberty Manifesto says - "Everyone has the right to be an asshole."
Well, that's all well and good for the asshole's, but not so great for those of us who have to put up with them. Laws are only good when people mutually agree to obey them. If something is wrong, no matter how many laws you have, it will not make it right. I think that is what the immigration debate is all about. How to deal with a reality (millions of illegals that have be lured and enticed to stay by employers) in a just even handed way without prejudice based upon race or ethnicity. If we had a immigration system that worked we would not be having these discussions.
Peace
So, are you using the "asshole" term to refer to those people who will-fully dis-regard the law, such as illegal immigrants? Or is it reserved for those who believe that there are consequences for illegal actions? Or both?
I like Dennis Leary's thoughts on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1joMXw--4
loosechickens
8-20-11, 2:58pm
And sometimes the laws are what is wrong. People who disobeyed the Jim Crow laws in the south were showing "contempt for the law" as well.
I get thoroughly sick and tired of the people who act as though people who cross the border to get jobs here are "criminals", and in real life, the folks I know who get all up in arms about that, themselves, show contempt for laws on a regular basis, whether it's speeding, driving after drinking, smoking marijuana (about 40 million of us here in the U.S. have shown "contempt" for those laws), cheating on their income tax, bringing home office supplies from the office, etc. One person's "contempt" is just another person's "pecadillo".......
One problem with Mexican immigration is that you could wait for DECADES to enter this country legally, and something like a million and a half Mexicans ARE trying to come legally, although only a few tens of thousands are actually allowed in each year. In the last year, only 26,000 were allowed in legally....of nearly a million and a half, waiting patiently, trying to work with the system and immigrate legally.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/07/14_million_mexicans_waiting_to.html
excerpt:
"Many of the complaints about illegal immigration in Alabama center on the unwillingness of millions of immigrants to obey U.S. rules and imigrate legally.
But for those aspiring to live and work in America, especially for families in Mexico, it's not a simple matter of waiting for the proper forms. Even for those with family here, it can take decades and may be near impossible to secure the paperwork to enter the United States legally.
Last year 1.38 million Mexican citizens were waiting in line for a United States work visa or an immigration visa through a family member. But there were only 26,000 visas made available for Mexico last year."
In this country, we have been very open to immigration of white, northern European folks, not so much to anyone who shows a shade of brown...........
Honestly, having had a LOT of experience with Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, and ALSO a lot of experience with the Minutemen and other folks determined to keep them out.....personally, I'll take the Mexicans....any day. JMHO
I get thoroughly sick and tired of the people who act as though people who cross the border to get jobs here are "criminals", and in real life, the folks I know who get all up in arms about that, themselves, show contempt for laws on a regular basis, whether it's speeding, driving after drinking, smoking marijuana (about 40 million of us here in the U.S. have shown "contempt" for those laws), cheating on their income tax, bringing home office supplies from the office, etc. One person's "contempt" is just another person's "pecadillo".......
So, there shouldn't be consequences for any of those actions?
One problem with Mexican immigration is that you could wait for DECADES to enter this country legally, and something like a million and a half Mexicans ARE trying to come legally, although only a few tens of thousands are actually allowed in each year. In the last year, only 26,000 were allowed in legally....of nearly a million and a half, waiting patiently, trying to work with the system and immigrate legally.
Doesn't that say more for Mexico than it does for the US? Would Canada or England or any other western country allow something like a million and a half immigrants move to their country at will, especially if there were no employment infrastracture to accommodate them?
loosechickens
8-20-11, 3:21pm
Ummmm...better brush up a bit, Alan....From Wikipedia:
"In 2001, 250,640 people immigrated to Canada, relative to a total population of 30,007,094 people per the 2001 Census. On a compounded basis, that immigration rate represents 8.7% population growth over 10 years, or 23.1% over 25 years (or 6.9 million people). Since 2001, immigration has ranged between 221,352 and 262,236 immigrants per annum.[3] According to Canada's Immigration Program (October 2004) Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada
Somehow, I think our 300,000,000 population could absorb a couple million more Mexicans without a problem. They are hard workers, family centered, upstanding folks. Heck, maybe we'd be better off taking THEM in and sending some of the Minutemen types I've known down there, and see how well THEY do........
not an argument I'm really interested in having. I get too emotional. have seen WAY too much racism involved in this question, up close and personal.
Yep, they are breaking our laws. And yep, it means that the laws should change. End of story as far as I am concerned.
Many immigrant families have traditional values and are drawn to Republican candidates.
But even then, I'm not in favor of softness with those who are here illegally. Get legal, vote Republican. yeah, that's the ticket.
Long term research regarding the social and economic forces that drive significant immigration - such as that we see from Central America and Mexico into the US states that this flow of humanity is due to significant disruption in home countries.
The US driven conflict in El Salvador and Guatemala drove desperate people north. NAFTA drove and still drives desperate people north. Large scale displacement is obvious and understandable. I too would take my chances and flee if I had been a Guatemalan in the 80's (I lived in Guate then and met many refugees fleeing civil war). I too would take my chances with La Migra if I thought I could feed my family. I don't believe any immigrant has contempt for our laws; I believe most immigrants from Latin America are taking huge risks to survive. Frankly, the very characteristics which drive many, many people to immigrate without documentation also makes them entrepenurial. I respect and admire anyone willing to risk their lives to leave their homeland in order to stay alive and feed their families.
The immigrants I know, from northern Africa, Latin America, SE Asia, and Russia are tough, stable, driven alpha types who fled horribly incomprehensible situations, and are making it work. Rather like my German forebearers from the 18th century, fleeing religious persecution in the Old world. The ones who made this country great, right?
Rather than freaking out about do they or don't they have papers, let's look at these workers and community members for the overwhelming contributions they bring to our country, as well as the horrible conditions they fled, and create a straightforward legal process to gain citizenship while they live their lives here. Yes, amnesty. Being a citizen of the US isn't a zero sum thing. It's a big country, filled with good people. Most of us are immigrants and descended from immigrants.
Ummmm...better brush up a bit, Alan....From Wikipedia:
While we're brushing up, what are the requirements in Canada to be approved as a legal immigrant? Are there very specific educational/skills based requirements? Would the average citizen of Mexico or other South American countries be approved?
In other words, are there any western countries that do not limit immigration to numbers that they can easily absorb and support?
And while we're brushing up and asking questions, if the United States adopted an immigration policy of "come one, come all", how many people do you think would appear at our southern borders and what effect would it have on our economy/standard of living/governance?
Honestly, I think everyone is in favor of helping a neighbor in need, but at what point does that willingness to help begin to negatively effect the rest of the population? Or, is that even worthy of consideration?
So, there shouldn't be consequences for any of those actions?
Doesn't that say more for Mexico than it does for the US? Would Canada or England or any other western country allow something like a million and a half immigrants move to their country at will, especially if there were no employment infrastracture to accommodate them?
A lot of US employment infrastructure is dependent on illegal labor. All those jobs "Americans aren't willing to do" (which is business speak for jobs that offer wages and benefits most US citizens would not accept).
I get annoyed with the whole thing because the illegal immigration issue, I think for many businesses and others in this country, has nothing to do with keeping illegals out. Many businesses would not survive that. It has to do with maintaining a subclass of workers in this country that flies under the reach of labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc, has little to no protection under the law, depresses wages for everyone and is unable to unionize. When the AZ immigration enforcement law was passed the first challenges were not from the feds, it was from employers. It's a way to "insource" large amounts of cheap labor and given the lack of enforcement of the employer side, it's practically legal. And why would corporations paying little to nothing in federal taxes care what costs this incurs on the government side?
I like Dennis Leary's thoughts on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1joMXw--4
That was funny and so appropriate!! :laff:
Peace
Mangano's Gold
8-20-11, 6:28pm
not an argument I'm really interested in having. I get too emotional. have seen WAY too much racism involved in this question, up close and personal.
It is probably even more emotional for the anti-immigrant types who feel that the country they love is losing its ethnic makeup.
Mangano's Gold
8-20-11, 6:36pm
Many immigrant families have traditional values and are drawn to Republican candidates.
But even then, I'm not in favor of softness with those who are here illegally. Get legal, vote Republican. yeah, that's the ticket.
If Republicans want to do better electorally with immigrants/future Americans, they need to tone down the rhetoric.
A lot of US employment infrastructure is dependent on illegal labor. All those jobs "Americans aren't willing to do" (which is business speak for jobs that offer wages and benefits most US citizens would not accept).
I get annoyed with the whole thing because the illegal immigration issue, I think for many businesses and others in this country, has nothing to do with keeping illegals out. Many businesses would not survive that. It has to do with maintaining a subclass of workers in this country that flies under the reach of labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc, has little to no protection under the law, depresses wages for everyone and is unable to unionize. When the AZ immigration enforcement law was passed the first challenges were not from the feds, it was from employers. It's a way to "insource" large amounts of cheap labor and given the lack of enforcement of the employer side, it's practically legal. And why would corporations paying little to nothing in federal taxes care what costs this incurs on the government side?
Boy you got that right! The farmers, and other businesses who use illegal labor, don't want to actually pay living wages, or health care of anything, so having an illegal work force, who have to accept low wages with no safety support structure is perfect for them. A serf class, if you will.
Personally I'm torn a bit on this. On the one hand, I do respect the laws of the country, but on the other hand, I am all for the immigrant society, which we are really, as all of us came from somewhere else unless we are native American, or Mexican in some cases, ironically enough. America was built on/with/for immigrants as our history. I say come one come all, but come willing to contribute and work. Isn't this the American Dream after all? This is the absolute beauty of our country.
Having traveled and lived around the world, I've see mono-ethnic cultures and I always marvel at the wonderful diversity that is America. America is different and only when you travel and come back can you really appreciate how diverse and wonderful it is.
I do not fear a brown hoard streaming from the south. I welcome them. I just wish our country had a more legal and swift way to integrate them.
I think I'm rambling. I'm hungry. Time to start the grill.
I'm sure there are cases, but I'm not sure I ever met anyone who came to this country to be on welfare. Are there really so many who came here with the thought of not working and/or just to take advantage of various programs?
I agree. I don't think people come here specifically to get social benefits. What the study was saying was that for people already living and working here illegally at low wage jobs (and I think we can all agree that most illegal immigrants are working at low wage jobs), that allowing amnesty to them and changing their status to legal immigrants would then allow them to apply for many social benefits that they were not previously allowed due to their illegal status. Many of the social benefits that are available require a person have a legal right to be in the country, so many people here illegally aren't using all the benefits they would be entitled too if they had amnesty.
I think immigration law is poorly applied - people come looking for work because they know will be hired, even though it's illegal. But I never hear of employers breaking these laws referred to "illegal employers". And "the law is the law" argument never seems to make it to them. At worst, they get a fine and continue. It's like fighting illegal drugs by arresting the drug users but not the drug dealers.
very very true!
I think it is a practical solution to the problem.
Long term research regarding the social and economic forces that drive significant immigration - such as that we see from Central America and Mexico into the US states that this flow of humanity is due to significant disruption in home countries.
In my way of thinking redfox cuts right to the chase with that line. If there was a reasonable way to help shore up Central American governments and increase stability and prosperity there, no one would need to come here. Repealing NAFTA, reducing our insatiable hunger for drugs, encouraging tourism related development there, etc. Not all easy things to do (especially curbing our drug habit), but it would work. No one WANTS to leave their home, they only do it when home has nothing to offer.
iris lily
8-22-11, 10:49am
I am humbled when I think about the strife in other countries, and what those citizens endure. And then, those people who stand up, take initiative, and travel to another country where they don't know the language, the culture, the food, and usually the weather is way different--that takes gumption. Often they do this knowing that their own lives will be topsy forever, but the lives of their children will be forever improved. I have huge respect for immigrants, most all of them have more get up and go than a lot of lazy ass, comfortable U.S. citizens. Must of us just have no concept of the horrific conditions that others in the world endure every day.
But that doesn't mean that the few who are here illegally get to stay. Sorry. No go.
My city has the 2nd largest Bosnian population in the world, outside of Bosnia. This has happened in the last 15 years. I love the influence of these hard working, culturally rich people. They've taken over a section of the city that was in a gentle decline, and they propped it up. Now when you go down the street in that section there are coffee houses and coffee houses and some more coffee houses, ethnic groceries and restaurants and knick-knack stores. Very cool There is a mosque with a minaret in an old strip mall, it's so funny to see that thing rise out of asphalt.
Now many of them are so successful that they are fleeing the city and moving to the 'burbs as did the WASPY city dwellers before them. They are unhappy with ghetto culture and are not very tolerant.
loosechickens
8-22-11, 3:21pm
The U.S. allows about one million legal immigrants per year. Of that number, about 25,000 are accepted from our southern neighbor, Mexico. Right there is the crux of our illegal immigration problem. It might be interesting, and instructive to do some research into which countries are favored and which are not, and why.
Even if a Mexican citizen is married to a U.S. citizen, they may wait years and years to come here legally. And, in general, the over one million people waiting for legal visas to the U.S. from Mexico, wait decades if not lifetimes.
NAFTA alone (and its provisions for large corporations like Cargill and ADM to flood Mexico with cheap corn and soybeans), disrupted almost 2 million subsistence farmers in southern Mexico, many of whom have joined the immigrant stream to survive.....
Lots more complexities than meet the eye........
Fraud is a crime. How can someone live and work in a country for many years without committing fraud?
Simple. Living and working in the U.S. without proper authorization simply is not fraud. There is no law on the books that I know of that defines such actions as fraud.
Of all the illegal (or undocumented for those that prefer that term) individuals that I have known, almost none of them have worked with false documentation. Their employers happily give them jobs while looking the other way because the employer saves a ton of money.
A lot of US employment infrastructure is dependent on illegal labor. All those jobs "Americans aren't willing to do" (which is business speak for jobs that offer wages and benefits most US citizens would not accept).
I get annoyed with the whole thing because the illegal immigration issue, I think for many businesses and others in this country, has nothing to do with keeping illegals out. Many businesses would not survive that. It has to do with maintaining a subclass of workers in this country that flies under the reach of labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc, has little to no protection under the law, depresses wages for everyone and is unable to unionize. When the AZ immigration enforcement law was passed the first challenges were not from the feds, it was from employers. It's a way to "insource" large amounts of cheap labor and given the lack of enforcement of the employer side, it's practically legal. And why would corporations paying little to nothing in federal taxes care what costs this incurs on the government side?
I agree with your statement but do not feel that it goes far enough. The ultimate cause lies with us. Everybody wants our immigration laws enforced but nobody wants to pay $6 for a cucumber. Everybody wants to do something about people who are here illegally but nobody wants to see their taxes shoot through the roof to achieve this goal.
How about allowing local law enforcement to enquire about immigration status for anyone suspected of being in the country illegally? That costs nothing extra.
Alan
Putting aside the whole issue of what could cause suspicion by local law enforcement that someone is in the country illegaly I can not understand how you think that such an approach would cost nothing extra. It will be just as expensive
Lets say that local enforcement does take over some portion of the Federal governments' responsibilities to enforce our immigration laws. Lets say that a local officer has some sort of lawful suspicion that someone is here illegally.
Do you think that the local law enforcement will incur the costs of arresting and detaining that individual without looking to the Feds for reimbursement?
And even if they did...
They arrest and detain that individual. Do they hold him through trial and appeals (feeding and housing him for a couple of years) without getting paid for it?
Or do they call ICE? ICE sends out 2 officers (costs). Detains the person for a year or two (assuming he doesn't qualify for bond). Feeds him, clothes him, educates him, gives him medical care (costs, costs, costs, costs) The Feds have to pay for the guards, pay for the prosecutor, pay for the Judge, pay for the court clerks, pay for the court interpreter (costs, costs, costs,costs...)
Where is the cost savings in what you propose?
The U.S. allows about one million legal immigrants per year. Of that number, about 25,000 are accepted from our southern neighbor, Mexico. Right there is the crux of our illegal immigration problem. It might be interesting, and instructive to do some research into which countries are favored and which are not, and why.
Even if a Mexican citizen is married to a U.S. citizen, they may wait years and years to come here legally. And, in general, the over one million people waiting for legal visas to the U.S. from Mexico, wait decades if not lifetimes.
NAFTA alone (and its provisions for large corporations like Cargill and ADM to flood Mexico with cheap corn and soybeans), disrupted almost 2 million subsistence farmers in southern Mexico, many of whom have joined the immigrant stream to survive.....
Lots more complexities than meet the eye........
If a Mexican is married to a US Citizen there is no reason why they would wait "years and years to come here legally" unless they previously violated the Immigration laws, have a criminal record or have committed some other sort of excludable offense. All foreign individuals who are married to US Citizens are under the "Immediate Relative" category and are allowed to immigrate without any quota. Most such cases can usually be resolved in 4 to 7 months.
I get thoroughly sick and tired of the people who act as though people who cross the border to get jobs here are "criminals", and in real life, the folks ......
loosechickens
While I agree with your position in principle I do have to point out that those individuals who cross the border without proper documentation are in fact committing a crime. It is very rarely prosecuted but it is a crime and has been on the books for many decades.
It has occurred to me that I have been presumptuous enough to post 5 times in a row disagreeing with various positions expressed on both sides of the argument.
It's just a topic I have dedicated most of my adult life to, and I feel very strongly that both sides of the debate often misstate (usually inadvertently) what the law really says.
Sorry for hogging the board.
I agree with your statement but do not feel that it goes far enough. The ultimate cause lies with us. Everybody wants our immigration laws enforced but nobody wants to pay $6 for a cucumber. Everybody wants to do something about people who are here illegally but nobody wants to see their taxes shoot through the roof to achieve this goal.
+1 - that's pretty much it.
loosechickens
8-23-11, 12:26am
"If a Mexican is married to a US Citizen there is no reason why they would wait "years and years to come here legally" unless they previously violated the Immigration laws, have a criminal record or have committed some other sort of excludable offense. All foreign individuals who are married to US Citizens are under the "Immediate Relative" category and are allowed to immigrate without any quota. Most such cases can usually be resolved in 4 to 7 months." (Weston)
------------------------------------------
In a perfect world, Weston.....in a perfect world......AND if one has lots of funds to pay attorneys, manages to walk through the process without obstacles......in real life, it often IS years. Although, NOT the decades that others may wait, for sure.
"While I agree with your position in principle I do have to point out that those individuals who cross the border without proper documentation are in fact committing a crime. It is very rarely prosecuted but it is a crime and has been on the books for many decades." (Weston)
-------------------------------------------------------------
actually, unless this has changed in recent years with the "immigration hysteria".....it isn't even a criminal offense, but a civil one.
and we tend to forget that we pretty much HAD an open border, and large numbers of Mexicans came and went, into this country, and returning to Mexico, for many, many years. Just as "illegally", but pretty much ignored by most everyone. It's only been in the last several decades that we've awoken to calling it a "problem". And, in the process, actually caused large numbers of the Mexicans who come across the border illegally to STAY, and to move their families here, too. It's just too expensive and dangerous to cross back and forth the way they used to do. Especially since 9/11........once they get here, anymore, they tend to stay, bring their families over and have kids here. In the old days, the men came, worked a season or a few years, took their money back to Mexico, built a house, started a little business, and the families seldom came. Or they came and did seasonal work and returned. It's different now. We've almost CREATED the problem, much as we've created a lot of our drug problems, such as with marijuana, which were not "problems" for the nearly two hundred years that marijuana was legal.
But.......with immigration, few really examine the facts, or the U.S. government actions that have exacerbated the problems (such as NAFTA). Nope, easier to blame some poor soul trying to make a living washing dishes in a restaurant, or killing chickens in a chicken processing plant, or taking it out on some poor kid, brought here illegally when they were two years old, and are completely "American" and have never even BEEN to Mexico, and denying them legal status, and even deporting them to Mexico, which leaves them in a not too different position as if one of our own kids were deported to Mexico, some not even speaking Spanish with any facility..........
AAAAARRRGGGHHHH....I keep telling myself I am NOT going to get into this....and then I catch my fingers typing, typing.....danged fingers......
loosechickens
8-23-11, 12:33am
Yep, it has changed:
"Living in the United States illegally — either by sneaking in or by overstaying a visa — is a violation under the civil code, not the criminal code. However, illegal immigrants can be incarcerated as part of the deportation process. Sneaking across the border is currently a criminal misdemeanor that can result in six months in prison. Immigration legislation passed by the U.S. House in December would make it a felony to live in the United States without authorization."
So.....it used to be a civil offense....is now considered a misdemeanor to sneak across the border (althogh it seems to still be a civil offense to actually BE here illegally......perhaps overstaying a visa, etc.), and of course, we are now ratcheting up and looking to make it a felony........
Gotta stay up to date......things are changing.........it was always my understanding that it was a civil matter....sorry. I should have known that with the political climate regarding illegal immigration these days, it would change.
Yeah......lots more profit for the private prison industry....they are making a killing on these folks already, and they are building and building in anticipation of even more of those big contracts.
Yep, it has changed:
"Living in the United States illegally — either by sneaking in or by overstaying a visa — is a violation under the civil code, not the criminal code. However, illegal immigrants can be incarcerated as part of the deportation process. Sneaking across the border is currently a criminal misdemeanor that can result in six months in prison. Immigration legislation passed by the U.S. House in December would make it a felony to live in the United States without authorization."
So.....it used to be a civil offense....is now considered a misdemeanor to sneak across the border (althogh it seems to still be a civil offense to actually BE here illegally......perhaps overstaying a visa, etc.), and of course, we are now ratcheting up and looking to make it a felony........
Gotta stay up to date......things are changing.........it was always my understanding that it was a civil matter....sorry. I should have known that with the political climate regarding illegal immigration these days, it would change.
Yeah......lots more profit for the private prison industry....they are making a killing on these folks already, and they are building and building in anticipation of even more of those big contracts.
Loosechickens
The criminal statute that I alluded to (and which you are apparently alluding to now) is Title 8 Section 1325. You are incorrect when you state that it "has changed". The criminal provisions contained in that section were in place back when I started doing Immigration advocacy 30 years ago. I believe those provisions date back to the 1950's
"If a Mexican is married to a US Citizen there is no reason why they would wait "years and years to come here legally" unless they previously violated the Immigration laws, have a criminal record or have committed some other sort of excludable offense. All foreign individuals who are married to US Citizens are under the "Immediate Relative" category and are allowed to immigrate without any quota. Most such cases can usually be resolved in 4 to 7 months." (Weston)
------------------------------------------
In a perfect world, Weston.....in a perfect world......AND if one has lots of funds to pay attorneys, manages to walk through the process without obstacles......in real life, it often IS years. Although, NOT the decades that others may wait, for sure.
..
Again. Absent someone being barred or delayed due to prior immigration violations, or criminal acts or other excludable offenses there is no reason that it should take years. Sure I suppose you could add to that list people that don't follow instructions, or don't timely fill out the necessary paperwork but that is a result of their own actions or inactions. I don't blame the government or the system for that.
Again. Absent someone being barred or delayed due to prior immigration violations, or criminal acts or other excludable offenses there is no reason that it should take years. Sure I suppose you could add to that list people that don't follow instructions, or don't timely fill out the necessary paperwork but that is a result of their own actions or inactions. I don't blame the government or the system for that.
I thought the bigger problem was generally on the other side - getting the necessary paperwork on the Mexican side of the border. I've heard that can take forever and there is a lot of graft in the system.
It's just a topic I have dedicated most of my adult life to, and I feel very strongly that both sides of the debate often misstate (usually inadvertently) what the law really says.
Weston
As someone that has experience with immigration issues, what is your opinion of the Immigration Case Review and also what would a Weston Immigration Reform Bill look like?
Living in Texas and really admiring the Mexican culture, food, and people in general I sometimes wonder if most of our problems regarding immigration have to do with the difficult job market that we now find ourselves. It seems that jobs at the minimum wage level or below were never considered anything other than for students or minorities and now that might not be the case.
Peace
Weston
As someone that has experience with immigration issues, what is your opinion of the Immigration Case Review and also what would a Weston Immigration Reform Bill look like?
Living in Texas and really admiring the Mexican culture, food, and people in general I sometimes wonder if most of our problems regarding immigration have to do with the difficult job market that we now find ourselves. It seems that jobs at the minimum wage level or below were never considered anything other than for students or minorities and now that might not be the case.
Peace
Regarding the case review. Although there is no question in my mind that a great deal of the impetus for this move is politically motivated I still believe the Obama administration is making the right move. Or at least as much of a right move as they can make without congressional approval.
The fact is that we do not have the resources or money to make an appreciable dent in the illegal population so it is important to prioritize. If ICE only has limited $ to spend I would prefer that they spend it on seeking the removal of those who are criminals or a security threat.
Regarding Immigration Reform. I really haven't given it a lot of thought because I have no power to effect it. I think the amnesty program of the 1980's worked pretty well (other than the farm worker provisions). I would however make it at least a little stricter by requiring much higher filing fees (even if it meant allowing the applicant to make a payment plan), earmark a significant portion of those fees to enforcement, and really get serious about employer sanctions and criminal prosecutions. I also believe that if the person remained in the US in violation of an outstanding order of removal they could not seek such relief from USCIS and would instead have to first reopen their removal order before the Immigration Courts.
Just some quick thoughts. As I said I don't give a lot of thought to things I can't control. I save my energies for when laws are actually passed.
I thought the bigger problem was generally on the other side - getting the necessary paperwork on the Mexican side of the border. I've heard that can take forever and there is a lot of graft in the system.
For the standard Immigrant visa case the only documents needed from the home country are birth certificate, passport and (sometimes) marriage certif, and (sometimes) proof of termination of prior marriages. I have found that most people (other than cubans) can get those pretty easily. That includes most of the Mexicans that I have dealt with.
From Boston.com:
"ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—The man who chased down a suspected child abductor and saved a 6-year-old girl from what could have been a horrible fate was honored as a hero Friday. But he is also gaining a new kind of celebrity: as a poster child of sorts for immigration rights in state and national immigration debates.
Antonio Diaz Chacon, 23, is married to an American and has been in the country for four years. But Chacon says he abandoned attempts to get legal residency because the process was difficult and expensive."
I'm hoping this guy gets some help pro bono from local immigration attorneys. Poster child, indeed.
This is probably a naive question, but why don't we have some kind of guest worker program with credit toward eventual citizenship? And I agree our quota for Mexican immigrants is scandalously low.
If a Mexican is married to a US Citizen there is no reason why they would wait "years and years to come here legally" unless they previously violated the Immigration laws, have a criminal record or have committed some other sort of excludable offense. All foreign individuals who are married to US Citizens are under the "Immediate Relative" category and are allowed to immigrate without any quota. Most such cases can usually be resolved in 4 to 7 months.
If only that were true. My son's friend (U.S. citizen) married a lovely young Mexican woman almost 5 years ago. She's in Mexico with their now 3 year old son, still trying to immigrate to the U.S. to be with her U.S. citizen husband. Neither husband nor wife have ever been involved in any criminal activities, and husband is employed and able to support all of them.
In contrast, a co-worker who married a woman from Canada was able to bring both her and her teenage daughter here to the U.S. in about 90 days.
Weston / Lainey. The timeframe depends on a number of factors including:
1. What visa you apply for
2. The caseload of your local processing office
3. The complexity of your case (criminal history, or even just being arrested)
4. Time to collect all the documents you require for each stage of the proceeding
5. Whether you've had difficulties at the border (i.e. been refused entry because the border official does not believe you really are just heading over to pick up your husband for work, for example - I came very close to this myself).
My own immigration history is a little involved but not terribly unusual. I can assure you though, Weston, that as someone married to a natural-born US citizen, it took almost two years from application (does not include gathering of documents) to getting my green card, and I was coming in from Canada. I had also previously held a green card (lost it when we moved out of the US for a few years). It took that long because the visa we had to apply for was for married couples and the backlog on those is pretty high. A fiance of a US citizen can indeed move to the US in (typically) 90-120 days from Canada.
If you're coming in from somewhere like the Phillipines, you're looking at probably a couple of years for a "fiance" visa, and perhaps as much as 5 years if you're married for the appropriate immigration visa. Current wait times for various visa types, processing offices, overseas consular offices, etc. are publicly available on USCIS's website. Just remember that typically your immigrant visa application will go through 2 or 3 of those offices for different steps in the process before being approved and that you may have a wait of a year, or two, or more, before getting to that first step where they actually start counting how long it takes.
I get to apply for citizenship next year. Only had to wait three years for that as I'm married to a US citizen.
Quotas, backlogs, outdated visa categories all contribute to the long wait times, and it's an extraordinarily difficult waiting game. Plus you can always get a cranky border guard who can bar you from entry if s/he suspects you might not return home (I came close a couple of times just picking DH up from work over the border). That can mean a 10 year ban on entry - of any kind - into the US.
Don't get me wrong - it's not exactly easy emigrating to any western country. But the US is harder than most, and has absurdly long wait times for most immigrant categories from most locations (and often a less than transparent process).
My SIl is married to my daughter, who is a citizen. He is undocumented, and has been for 20+ years, since he was a young teen. They are in the process of getting legal paperwork filed. She's diabetic, which the SUpreme Court declared a disability a few years back, so the fact that he's supporting a disabled wife will help. Nonetheless, they expect years of legal fees and hassles. Both of them are upstanding folks, with kids. It's ridiculous. Ironically, they recently went through child custody proceedings getting legal custody of his kids from an earlier marriage to a woman also undocumented. He got custody, and the issue of the parents' residential and legal status never came up.
My SIl is married to my daughter, who is a citizen. He is undocumented, and has been for 20+ years, since he was a young teen. They are in the process of getting legal paperwork filed. She's diabetic, which the SUpreme Court declared a disability a few years back, so the fact that he's supporting a disabled wife will help. Nonetheless, they expect years of legal fees and hassles. Both of them are upstanding folks, with kids. It's ridiculous. Ironically, they recently went through child custody proceedings getting legal custody of his kids from an earlier marriage to a woman also undocumented. He got custody, and the issue of the parents' residential and legal status never came up.
How does he get a job without a SS #? How does he get healthcare? It seams hard to function these day's without a SS#. How does he file taxes?
If only that were true. My son's friend (U.S. citizen) married a lovely young Mexican woman almost 5 years ago. She's in Mexico with their now 3 year old son, still trying to immigrate to the U.S. to be with her U.S. citizen husband. Neither husband nor wife have ever been involved in any criminal activities, and husband is employed and able to support all of them.
In contrast, a co-worker who married a woman from Canada was able to bring both her and her teenage daughter here to the U.S. in about 90 days.
Lainey
Since I don't know the specific facts of this case I can't respond with 100% certainty so from my experience I will state this with 99% certainty. There is something going on with this case that you don't know about. Most likely either a previous Immigration violation or criminal or security issue.
Weston / Lainey. The timeframe depends on a number of factors including:
1. What visa you apply for
2. The caseload of your local processing office
3. The complexity of your case (criminal history, or even just being arrested)
4. Time to collect all the documents you require for each stage of the proceeding
5. Whether you've had difficulties at the border (i.e. been refused entry because the border official does not believe you really are just heading over to pick up your husband for work, for example - I came very close to this myself).
My own immigration history is a little involved but not terribly unusual. I can assure you though, Weston, that as someone married to a natural-born US citizen, it took almost two years from application (does not include gathering of documents) to getting my green card, and I was coming in from Canada. I had also previously held a green card (lost it when we moved out of the US for a few years). It took that long because the visa we had to apply for was for married couples and the backlog on those is pretty high. A fiance of a US citizen can indeed move to the US in (typically) 90-120 days from Canada.
If you're coming in from somewhere like the Phillipines, you're looking at probably a couple of years for a "fiance" visa, and perhaps as much as 5 years if you're married for the appropriate immigration visa. Current wait times for various visa types, processing offices, overseas consular offices, etc. are publicly available on USCIS's website. Just remember that typically your immigrant visa application will go through 2 or 3 of those offices for different steps in the process before being approved and that you may have a wait of a year, or two, or more, before getting to that first step where they actually start counting how long it takes.
I get to apply for citizenship next year. Only had to wait three years for that as I'm married to a US citizen.
Quotas, backlogs, outdated visa categories all contribute to the long wait times, and it's an extraordinarily difficult waiting game. Plus you can always get a cranky border guard who can bar you from entry if s/he suspects you might not return home (I came close a couple of times just picking DH up from work over the border). That can mean a 10 year ban on entry - of any kind - into the US.
Don't get me wrong - it's not exactly easy emigrating to any western country. But the US is harder than most, and has absurdly long wait times for most immigrant categories from most locations (and often a less than transparent process).
SoSimple
Regarding #1. That is correct. I was responding to a specific statement about Immigrant visa processing for the spouse of a US citizen. If someone (for example) posted about getting residency for the brother of a US Citizen I would have to tell them it will probably take 14 to 20 years.
Not sure why your case took two years. I have helped literally hundreds of Canadian spouses of US Citizens. Over the last couple of years properly documented cases without any inadmissibility issues are routinely granted in the course of months not years.
loosechickens
8-24-11, 4:21pm
Remember back awhile, when AZ was suffering some huge forest fires...... when Republicans in Arizona, including most of the folks like the governor, state legislators, etc., and even their less than illustrious U.S. Senator, John McCain, fanned the flames of anti-immigrant feeling, by stating, or in some cases just insinuating that illegal immigrants had caused the fires? And the U.S. Forest Service stated that none of the recent fires in recent years that were mentioned had started from illegals, and that almost all of the forest fires were caused by campers leaving fires unattended, local people smoking and throwing out lit cigarette butts, or off road vehicles, operated by locals, whose exhausts sparked fires?
Well....... http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/08/24/20110824wallow-fire-cousins-charged.html#comments#ixzz1VyjNYKV6
what I found interesting about this was that these two men were suspected of starting the fire from the beginning......lots of people had to know that. Yet, lots of people in power positions used that fire to fan the flames of anti-immigrant feeling in AZ. Of which, there was plenty already.
Yep, a couple of good ole boys, just out having themselves a good time, on vacation. Not an illegal immigrant. As usual.
excerpt:
"The Malboeufs told investigators they were experienced campers who have made frequent trips to the Apache National Forest, and they chose their site because it looked well used, leaving them with the impression that they did not need to clear away flammable material, according to court documents.
They did not bring a shovel or bucket into the woods and had not used water or dirt to put out the campfires, according to the complaint."
I believe that McCain said that according to the U.S. Forestry Service, some of the fires may have been started by illegal aliens. If there were indeed multiple fires, does the arrest of these two men negate that supposition?
Not trying to be argumentative, but if the story you linked is correct, and his wording was "some of the fires may have", as reported, is the insinuation that he was purposely trying to pin the entire blame on the blameless?
Just curious.
loosechickens
8-24-11, 5:05pm
insinuate is the operative word, Alan......and if you were in or around Arizona at the time, you would be aware of how much hype there was, speculation, etc., fanning the anti-immigration flames, already burning at white hot temperatures. When Senator McCain MADE his statements, U.S. Forest Service spokesmen said that there was no indication that the fires had been started by illegals, and that, in fact, in recent years, the fires had all been started by local folks, from unattended campfires, atv vehicles, and careless smoking.
If you heard Senator McCain's comments in context, in the days in which he made them, together with inflammatory comments made by other Republican officials in the state, you would be well aware of his intent, and the insinuations he was making.
However.....YMMV. Suffice it to say that despite all the inflammatory comments by many, including Senator McCain, yet again, no illegals were involved, only the same folks who had started all the other fires.....good ole Amurricans......
"not trying to be argumentative"? You? exiting, while trying to stifle chortling........ ;-) nap time.......
"not trying to be argumentative"? You? exiting, while trying to stifle chortling........ ;-) nap time.......
Just trying to get a balanced view of the subject. I believe that there were three separate fires involved in the wildfire tragedy and I'm not sure how finding out how one of them started negates anything someone may have said at the time. Maybe I'm just being dense.
Suffice to say that sometimes ya gotta dig even if you already know how it's gonna be mis-characterized. >8)
How does he get a job without a SS #? How does he get healthcare? It seams hard to function these day's without a SS#. How does he file taxes?
He works as an independent contractor, getting work in the building trades & as a painter. Don't know about a SSN or taxes. He pays out-of-pocket for health care.
He works as an independent contractor, getting work in the building trades & as a painter. Don't know about a SSN or taxes. He pays out-of-pocket for health care.
From what I know that is a pretty common scenario. Not that many do, but it is possible, and very easy, to get an EIN. You could then pay taxes through that without ever getting a SSN.
And in fact if you don't get an EIN (if you are without a SSN), you are in violation of tax law. So even if you're undocumented, you still need to pay your taxes.
SoSimple
Regarding #1. That is correct. I was responding to a specific statement about Immigrant visa processing for the spouse of a US citizen. If someone (for example) posted about getting residency for the brother of a US Citizen I would have to tell them it will probably take 14 to 20 years.
Not sure why your case took two years. I have helped literally hundreds of Canadian spouses of US Citizens. Over the last couple of years properly documented cases without any inadmissibility issues are routinely granted in the course of months not years.
Perhaps they have cleared some of their backlog. My application went out January 2008 and my green card came November 2009. Processing time was typical for applications made around that time per various immigration forums, but seemed to speed up just after I got my interview. I do know the Montreal consulate had serious staffing issues during the spring/summer of 2009 (according to the person that did my interview), so perhaps that was a contributing factor. I certainly had no inadmissibility issues - I was scrupulously careful and kept very detailed records of all crossings, have not even a speeding ticket to my name, etc.
I believe that there were three separate fires involved in the wildfire tragedy and I'm not sure how finding out how one of them started negates anything someone may have said at the time.
I believe Alan is correct. Here's the link to the 3 different fires we've had this year: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/facts%3A-three-major-wildfires-around-arizona
The fire that McCain said was probably started by an illegal immigrant was the Monument Fire in southern Arizona. That area is very rugged terrain and is known to be used by drug smugglers and human smugglers. Although we'll never know for sure, it is more likely than not that whoever started the Monument Fire fit into one of those two categories.
As a practical matter, I think these 3 fires blend together in people's minds, and since the first accusation was about an unknown illegal immigrant, that's what sticks in our memories as causing all of it.
loosechickens
8-25-11, 11:02pm
If Senator McCain was speaking specifically of the Monument fire, I stand corrected.
the broader point I was trying to make, however, was that the Republican lawmakers in AZ jumped on the bandwagon of those fires to fan the flames of anti-immigration feeling, for their own purposes and their own political benefit.
Now one of those fires has been shown to have been caused, yet again, by good ole boys, who have caused most all of the fires in recent years. The U.S. Forest Service attempted to say at the time of the fires, that the huge majority were always caused by careless campfires by recreational users, atv vehicles whose exhaust sparks started fires, or careless smoking by hikers and campers.
I just Googled it. It doesn't look as though Senator McCain was talking specifically about the Monument fire in his comment.
From the Arizona Republic, 6-22-11:
"McCain has faced criticism from immigrant rights advocates for a statement he made after touring a massive wildfire in eastern Arizona last weekend saying there was "substantial evidence" border crossers were partly responsible for wildfires in the state.
McCain didn't specify whether he thought the Monument Fire was started by illegal immigrants."
Also this from www.christianpost.com http://www.christianpost.com/news/arizona-fires-cant-get-any-worse-as-mccain-blames-illegal-immigrants-51349/
"However, Arizona Sen. John McCain caused controversy over the weekend as he blamed illegal immigrants for starting fires in the region. McCain said, “There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally. The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border.”
McCain explained a number of reasons why illegal immigrants were setting fires; to send signals to one another, to keep warm, and to distract immigration and law enforcement officials.
According to CNN, Angelo Falcon, the president of the National Institute for Latino Policy, quickly criticized McCain saying: “The degree of irresponsible political pandering by Sen. McCain has no limit… With the lack of evidence, he might as well also blame aliens from outer space for the fires.”
McCain’s comments were also rebuked by Randy Perez, a civil rights advocate, who said the comments were “careless and reckless.” He said, “You have to have some sort of factual basis; John McCain should know better.” "
So, I guess I stand by what I said. Senator McCain does not seem to be specifically talking about the Monument fire, but “There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally. The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border.”
Actually, I believe that the point was that Republicans in general, and John McCain in particular are irresponsible racists who gleefully point their gnarled fingers at the weakest, most humble and pure among the worlds population to explain any/every thing bad that happens.
Perhaps Senator McCain had this future thread in mind when he said (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/20/mccain-blames-some-arizona-forest-fires-on-illegal-immigrants-smugglers/):
"While Arizonans continue to face the enormous challenges related to these
wildfires, it's unfortunate that some are inserting their political agenda into
this tragedy."
loosechickens
8-25-11, 11:30pm
Well, since Senator McCain, his allies and supporters and the rest of the Arizona Republican lawmakers and leaders have been armpit deep in inserting their political agenda into these fires, they are "hoist on their own petard", I would think. YMMV and I'd be flabbergasted if it didn't.
Actually, I believe that the point was that Republicans in general, and John McCain in particular are irresponsible racists who gleefully point their gnarled fingers at the weakest, most humble and pure among the worlds population to explain any/every thing bad that happens.
Perhaps Senator McCain had this future thread in mind when he said (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/20/mccain-blames-some-arizona-forest-fires-on-illegal-immigrants-smugglers/):
Didn't John Stewart have something to say about this "Special Victims Unit"?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop---special-victims-unit
You have elevated it to an art Alan.
Didn't John Stewart have something to say about this "Special Victims Unit"?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop---special-victims-unit
You have elevated it to an art Alan.
Jon Stewart is a funny guy isn't he?
But, I think you must admit, in this instance, this is not my thread and the mis-representation of the Arizona fires was not my doing. Someone took the conversation off course in order to present a preferred, un-flattering view of Republicans. That someone wasn't me and yet I'm the one who has elevated something to an art form?
Come to think of it Peggy, you're funny too. :~)
Jon Stewart is a funny guy isn't he?
But, I think you must admit, in this instance, this is not my thread and the mis-representation of the Arizona fires was not my doing. Someone took the conversation off course in order to present a preferred, un-flattering view of Republicans. That someone wasn't me and yet I'm the one who has elevated something to an art form?
Come to think of it Peggy, you're funny too. :~)
NO, the misrepresentation of the Arizona fires was John McCain's doing, and someone pointed that out to show how republicans (you know, the ones who are anti-Hispanic immigration) try to spin up their base into thinking Mexicans are swarming over the border to kill you and take your stuff. This thread is about immigration, after all. Not off topic at all.
John McCain had no evidence at all except that that stretch of Arizona is often used by illegals. I'm sure it is also used by hunters and campers and day hikers since it is a wilderness area, or even those citizen border patrols looking for the swarming hoard. All of these individuals could very logically build a fire, for their own purposes. For McCain to 'speculate' was a dog whistle to his base. Why didn't he speculate it might have been a citizen border patrol person, or a white christian camper, or a woodland tea party retreat?
Saying it probably started by a careless campfire is probably accurate and a pretty good guess, assuming there weren't any lightening storms in the area at the time. But speculating on the race and nationality is pretty careless of him, or rather calculating. I'm surprised he didn't go even further and say it was a man cause you know men like to build fires! Sure it could have been an illegal. But it could have been any of those others as well.
Instead of admitting McCain was out of line on his speculating, you deflected with the 'republican victim' card, which is why I added that link to John Stewart. And yes he is pretty funny..and pretty much spot on.
And you're funny too Alan, which is why I'd rather hear you than some regurgitated Rush Beck victim whine. ;)
NO, the misrepresentation of the Arizona fires was John McCain's doing, and someone pointed that out to show how republicans (you know, the ones who are anti-Hispanic immigration) try to spin up their base into thinking Mexicans are swarming over the border to kill you and take your stuff.
But that's not the whole truth, is it? The misrepresentation in this thread was that there was one source of the fire and that it turns out that only American citizens were to blame. Regardless of the fact that there were multiple fires and the origins of at least two are still undetermined.
Now, it seems that you've thrown another misrepresentation into the mix with the inference that Republicans are "anti-Hispanic immigration". It would be interesting to find a source to back up that claim. Sure, there are plenty of Republicans that are anti-illegal immigration, but that's a whole nother argument, isn't it?
And you're funny too Alan, which is why I'd rather hear you than some regurgitated Rush Beck victim whine. ;)
If pointing out logical fallacies and suggesting an ulterior motive for those fallacies is considered a "whine" then, strange as that reasoning may be, I'm guilty as charged.
But that's not the whole truth, is it? The misrepresentation in this thread was that there was one source of the fire and that it turns out that only American citizens were to blame. Regardless of the fact that there were multiple fires and the origins of at least two are still undetermined.
Now, it seems that you've thrown another misrepresentation into the mix with the inference that Republicans are "anti-Hispanic immigration". It would be interesting to find a source to back up that claim. Sure, there are plenty of Republicans that are anti-illegal immigration, but that's a whole nother argument, isn't it?
If pointing out logical fallacies and suggesting an ulterior motive for those fallacies is considered a "whine" then, strange as that reasoning may be, I'm guilty as charged.
Oh poo! There wasn't an ulterior motive. The topic is immigration, which of course morphs into illegals, and John McCain's speculation. The problem was we (most of us) thought of it as one fire as they were kind of lumped together by the media. An honest mistake. Yes, one was identified, not illegal, and John McCain speculated on the others. Is any of that not true? He still speculated on the race and/or origin of the starters of the other two without evidence. He did it as a political move.
Perhaps I should qualify it as Tea party types are anti-Hispanic immigration. Actually, they seem to be anti-any immigration. And since the tea party rules the republican party now, I morphed the two. Perhaps I shouldn't have. I think we all need to remember there still are 'real' republicans who are thinking, reasonable people who harbor no ill will against democrats/liberals, but only hold policy differences. I am certainly willing to discuss immigration with those republicans. John McCain was just pandering and can take a flying leap.
Perhaps I should qualify it as Tea party types are anti-Hispanic immigration.
Surprise, surprise, another misrepresentation. We're on a roll aren't we?
I think we all need to remember there still are 'real' republicans who are thinking, reasonable people who harbor no ill will against democrats/liberals, but only hold policy differences.
Do you mean the ones that liberals constantly referred to as racists during 2009 and 2010, because there couldn't possibly be any other reason to hold policy differences in the age of hope and change? Yeah, there's lots of them around.
Didn't John Stewart have something to say about this "Special Victims Unit"?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop---special-victims-unit
Peggy, that was hilarious.
Surprise, surprise, another misrepresentation. We're on a roll aren't we?
Do you mean the ones that liberals constantly referred to as racists during 2009 and 2010, because there couldn't possibly be any other reason to hold policy differences in the age of hope and change? Yeah, there's lots of them around.
NO, that would be the tea partiers, dear. They are raciest (do we need to trot out the signs yet again?) They are anti-immigration, anti-government, anti-multicultural, anti-education, and so much more. :0!
My my, you really do want to prove me right on the republican special victims unit don't you. Every time you try to 'prove' me wrong, you add the 'meanie awful liberals are attacking us again' spin.
Why are you so testy Alan? You've been in a bad mood for some time now. Is it your ribs? You really need to get yourself a tall drink, stroll outside and relax. Wait, I'll do it for you.:~)
NO, that would be the tea partiers, dear. They are raciest (do we need to trot out the signs yet again?) They are anti-immigration, anti-government, anti-multicultural, anti-education, and so much more. :0!
I see you've been listening to Nancy Pelosi, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garafalo, Ed Schultz, et.al., again huh?
My my, you really do want to prove me right on the republican special victims unit don't you. Every time you try to 'prove' me wrong, you add the 'meanie awful liberals are attacking us again' spin.
Not at all. It's not a victimization thing, it's pointing out all the goofy, mean-spirited and hyperbolic tripe so many liberals like to publicly espouse, see several of the previous posts for examples. It's like a hobby with me. If things like that aren't challanged, people just assume they're true.
Why are you so testy Alan? You've been in a bad mood for some time now. Is it your ribs? You really need to get yourself a tall drink, stroll outside and relax. Wait, I'll do it for you.:~)
Not testy, there hasn't even been much of interest going on here lately. You and loosechickens and Ziggy have been pretty tame the last few months. Things will probably heat up more as we get closer to the election next year. I'm sure I'll be labeled much worse than that when you guys get fully back into discredit the opposition mode.
My ribs are almost healed, finally, thanks for asking. I've even been able to sleep on my right side for the last week or so. It's been wonderful. We're even planning a long motorcycle ride tomorrow. It's been about 6 weeks since I've been on it.
Enjoy your beverage of choice, I may join you later.
Ah ha! so you are stirring up stuff out of boredom? I've always pegged you for a rabble rouser! ;):D
Glad your ribs are almost healed. Sleeping is the pits when your ribs or back or neck is compromised.
No, not out of boredom, and I consider it less rabble rousing than rabble responding, but, I've learned that some folks mileage definitely varies on that subject. ;)
Just got back from a 120 or so mile motorcycle ride to see the Great Serpent Mound (http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/places/sw16/index.shtml)in rural southern Ohio. I was a little concerned about wrestling a 900 pound motorcycle, complete with two adult riders, so soon after breaking a rib, but am now happy to report that it wasn't a problem. I think I'm well on my way to being completely mended.
http://www.lefttoright.net/images/serpent mound 003
It's too bad that this forum seems to often disintegrate into venal back-and-forth. I'm sorry our civil society is losing its civility.
I, for one, am glad when a little honest point/counterpoint discussion gets going. Even when party lines are fairly predictable there is still a chance to enlighten liberals...err...other posters a little bit. ;)
The one thing I do think is kind of fascinating is the speed at which conservatives in general and the Tea Party specifically are thrust into a single group. There are some pretty significant ideological differences that keep a lot of us from signing up with the Tea Party. Immigration reform is but one of them.
I, for one, am glad when a little honest point/counterpoint discussion gets going. Even when party lines are fairly predictable there is still a chance to enlighten liberals...err...other posters a little bit. ;)
The one thing I do think is kind of fascinating is the speed at which conservatives in general and the Tea Party specifically are thrust into a single group. There are some pretty significant ideological differences that keep a lot of us from signing up with the Tea Party. Immigration reform is but one of them.
Doesn't this last post kind of toss all liberals into a single group?
Doesn't this last post kind of toss all liberals into a single group?
With tongue held firmly in cheek all the way.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.