Immigration explained

[Amazon]

Amazon, if you would be so kind as to PM me when I have permission to post my thoughts again I would be grateful.

I thnk that is a little uncalled for.

My apologies if you took offense to my request that the thread stay on topic. Your had made your point and it seemed that further digression would be leading away from the topic at hand, which would limit the productivity of the discussion at hand. If you would like to further discuss building codes vs. laws I would be happy to participate with you in a new thread for such. Although, I don't know how much company I would be able to keep you as I am not an expert on building codes - my specialty is corporate law.

 

[Ray]

Ray ... I don't disagree with you that we need to face facts as they are.

Honest, sometimes we do.

One fact is our immigration laws are ineffective and unenforcable

They are enforcable. The US just isn't enforcing them.

They don't work. They are counter productive. They create a tiered society. One of the things we moved away from when we broke with Europe.

Incorrect. We had rich and poor; powerful and powerless before the revolution and it continues today. It is part of our nature to have a "tiered society." Put 10 or 20 people together and see if they don't form their own heirarchy.

The facts are, until 1862, there were no laws against any person from any nationality entering the country. How one earth did our young nation survive those first 80 years. In 1862, the first immigration laws were enecated, restrictions were placed on those from China.

In the early years we needed an influx of people of all talents to build the country; from farmer to carpenter. Today we have plenty of people in the US. I'd like to see 100% employement of the people here.

Laws are written by people. And we can change them.

Only if you get enough support. You haven't been very successful at getting mine and it's very easy to sway my opinion.

 

[michaeledward]

I'd like to see 100% employement of the people here.

The current unemployment rate in the United States is about 4%. Economists tell us that this is just about as close to 'Full Employement' as any economy gets. Now, with an 'illegal immigrant' population of 12 million, lets assume half of those are working. What happens if you take 6 million workers out of the economy?

 

[Ray]

The current unemployment rate in the United States is about 4%. Economists tell us that this is just about as close to 'Full Employement' as any economy gets. Now, with an 'illegal immigrant' population of 12 million, lets assume half of those are working. What happens if you take 6 million workers out of the economy?

As of Feb 2, 2007 the unemployement rate for January 2007 was said to be 4.6% (according to the dept of labor). However, the picture is not so rosy for some minorities: Hispanics 5.7%, blacks 8.0%

While some people say that the jobs done by illegals are jobs that most Americans wouldn't want, it is my contention that by removing the illegals (and/or some guest workers) that the people wanting those jobs done will either have to pay enough to make it attractive to some Americans, or do without. If the economy can do without out that labor, then it must have been wasted dollars that can be put into investments and/or savings thus stimulating the economy. If the economy can not do without the tasks being done, then someone who is currently unemployed will do it at the higher pay rate (sure, the turn-over rate may be high; but it might give someone a chance to get back into the labor pool, etc).

 

[bydand]

I thnk that is a little uncalled for.

My apologies if you took offense to my request that the thread stay on topic. Your had made your point and it seemed that further digression would be leading away from the topic at hand, which would limit the productivity of the discussion at hand. If you would like to further discuss building codes vs. laws I would be happy to participate with you in a new thread for such. Although, I don't know how much company I would be able to keep you as I am not an expert on building codes - my specialty is corporate law.

Actually, it was still on topic. Someone had made a post that drew an anology between violating building codes and illigal immigration. I was responding to that post. If you were afraid of a further digression from the original thread topic, address the thread in general, don't quote a specific person then make your observations. As for building codes -vs- laws, naw I always found the law classes I took to be quite boorish. Although I did love all the Contract Law courses I took, the general tort ones about put me to sleep. (No, Law was not my major, just an interest)

If you are going to quote me, please do so in the context in which my original was posted. Twice now in this thread you have read meaning into my posts and responded in a manner that wasn't what I said, or implyed. (the last one you nailed dead-on, I was being sarcastic.)

Just to keep it on track though, let me reitterate my stand in immigration.
1) I feel we have an immigration poilicy that is too constrictive and demanding of those who would like to come into the US to work productivly and become a member of our Country and society.

2) I am against a totally open border.

3) I feel it should be mandatory for all who are coming into to the US for work or relocation to go through a screening process to check their background for criminal activity.

4) I agree that statistically someone with a criminal background is more likely to revisit that station in life, than those with no criminal background. Although that in and of itself is no sure indication of a persons true potential.

5) I am glad I am not the one to try and figure out the best course of action for the Country to take in this matter.

 

[shinbushi]

And, if "clinics" in California are performing organ transfers, there is something wrong with our medical system. Something in that anecdote doesn't sound right to me.

12 Emergency rooms closed within the last 2 years because Illegals do the medical equilivant of dine and dash. Or public schools system is probably on par with a 3rd world nation because a good chunk of the kids refuse to learn English.
Just as an FYI my wife came to the US LEGALY from Greece at age 11 with no English skills to speak of, and graduated with honors.

 

[Empty Hands]

Big difference between those two examples.

Comparing these types of codes and laws to immigration laws just don't work.

The point, my literal-minded friends, was not that building codes and immigration law are the same. Clearly they are not, since I haven't seen any sub-code houses being sent to Tijuana on buses.

The point was that there is a substantial body of "procedures, rules and laws" to quote my original interlocutor, the violation of which is not a criminal liability, and is adjudicated outside the criminal justice system. These include building codes (hah!), land-use laws, zoning restrictions, licensing and other business requirements, immigration rules, and the entire set of civil liabilities adjudicated in civil courts. Violation of these laws is not a criminal matter, and they can't send you to jail - which isn't to say that there aren't consequences. After all, OJ is on the hook for all future earnings for the verdict in his civil trial for the "wrongful death" of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown, but he will never spend a day in jail for it.

Why attach so much significance to the categorization of immigration violations as a criminal vs. non-criminal matter? Because the labeling of all illegal immigrants as "criminals" is not only inaccurate, but becomes a form of demonization. After all, what do most of us think we should do with criminals? Lock them up or punish them in some way. Well, by our own laws, that is not what illegal immigrants deserve, and this characterization obscures that fact and makes productive debate even more difficult.

 

[Cryozombie]

Now, with an 'illegal immigrant' population of 12 million, lets assume half of those are working. What happens if you take 6 million workers out of the economy?

*I* can find a job then.

 

[Cryozombie]

Because the labeling of all illegal immigrants as "criminals" is not only inaccurate,

Wrong.

Illegal immigration to the United States refers to the act of moving to or settling in the United States temporarily or permanently in violation of U.S. immigration and nationality law.

Bold Mine.

Last time I checked, the Definition of a CRIMINAL is somone who did somthing in vioilation of the law. So how is labeling them criminal inaccurate?

 

[Empty Hands]

Last time I checked, the Definition of a CRIMINAL is somone who did somthing in vioilation of the law. So how is labeling them criminal inaccurate?

I just spent a few paragraphs explaining this in post #67...you know, the one you quoted from? Not all law is criminal law.

 

[Cryozombie]

I just spent a few paragraphs explaining this in post #67...you know, the one you quoted from? Not all law is criminal law.

Yeah, the same one you "accidentally" called them Immigration "Rules" in.

 

[Flatlander]

12 Emergency rooms closed within the last 2 years because Illegals do the medical equilivant of dine and dash.

Do you have a source for this proposition?

Or public schools system is probably on par with a 3rd world nation because a good chunk of the kids refuse to learn English.

Refuse? Really.... I don't imagine that the "refusal" of students to learn English is a primary contributor to the current educational crisis in the US. If you can point me to a source that supports your theory, be my guest...

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Last time I checked, the Definition of a CRIMINAL is somone who did somthing in vioilation of the law. So how is labeling them criminal inaccurate?

that's probably webster's definition, but there's some shading.

when many people say 'criminal', they mean a career criminal -- somebody immoral and probably dangerous. they don't mean their uncle who smokes pot or their brother who hired a hooker for your bachelor party or their father in law who hires illegals to work on his retaining wall.

in that sense, very few illegal immigrants are 'criminals'. most of them, like our pot smoking uncle, are engaged in just a 'victimless' crime: violating immigration law. they are neither dangerous nor immoral.

and let's not start another semantic argument over 'victimless'. illegal immigration is as victimless as gambling and prostitution. that is to say nobody is hurt directly, but you can make a strong argument for harmful ripple effects in the economy and society in general.

 

[jetboatdeath]

But smoking a fattie is a crime, victimless or not.
Again why is it so hard for some people to realize that this is a crime?
OK maybe some immigration laws are dumb or out dated, I really don’t know.
But it is a law not a guideline or suggestion. Until the laws change they should be enforced.
I would like to know how these peoples minds might be changed by a simple car accident. Happens every day around here.
Get in a car crash the person at fault was an illegal with no insurance, no permanent address no traceable income and no license.
Your left holding the bag, my neighbor’s daughter got in an accident like this. They were left paying huge medical bills not to mention a new car. What happened to the driver of the other car? Who knows?
Was this victimless ?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

i don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't a crime.

a lot of people seem to be waking up to the fact that the law as it stands isn't serving the best interests of our society (in that way it is again very much like the legal status of marijuana).

in america, an important step in changing a law that's not working is often large scale breaking of that law. heck, it worked for civil rights.

 

[Empty Hands]

Yeah, the same one you "accidentally" called them Immigration "Rules" in.

Uhh, yeah...mind quoting that from the relevant post?

Even if that was true though, you are still avoiding the point that there is a sizable body of law in the US the breaking of which does not make you a "criminal".

 

[Cryozombie]

No problem, Friend. From Post #67... the one you specifically bought up...

The point was that there is a substantial body of "procedures, rules and laws" to quote my original interlocutor, the violation of which is not a criminal liability, and is adjudicated outside the criminal justice system. These include building codes (hah!), land-use laws, zoning restrictions, licensing and other business requirements, immigration rules, and the entire set of civil liabilities adjudicated in civil courts. Violation of these laws is not a criminal matter, and they can't send you to jail - which isn't to say that there aren't consequences. After all, OJ is on the hook for all future earnings for the verdict in his civil trial for the "wrongful death" of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown, but he will never spend a day in jail for it.

I bolded the part you asked me to quote.

 

[Cryozombie]

i don't think anybody is arguing that it isn't a crime.

No?

Originally Posted by Empty Hands
Violation of these laws is not a criminal matter, <snip>
the labeling of all illegal immigrants as "criminals" is not only inaccurate,

So if the argument is that it's not a criminal matter, and that labeling the people who violate it as criminals is wrong... well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.

 

[Don Roley]

Refuse? Really.... I don't imagine that the "refusal" of students to learn English is a primary contributor to the current educational crisis in the US. If you can point me to a source that supports your theory, be my guest...

I think I should point out that David Dow (Shinbushi) is from the LA area. I think he was talking about his state's educational system rather than the nation's.

You might remember a thread I started a long time ago about how I was making plans for moving back to the states and asking for help. You might also remember that I took California off the list right from the start. Part of that was due to stories I have heard from a couple of people that had kids while in Japan and moved back to California. The troubles they had with trying to get thier kids to be taught in a way they thought best convinced me to try some place with less non native speakers of English.

There are a few theories as to how children should be taught in schools if their first language is not English. Most of us here know them, but I will explain for the few that don't.

One idea is to immerse the kids in the language right from the start. Send them to regular classes for subjects like Math as well as special classes on the language.

The other is to teach the kids in their native language such skills as math while at the same time teach them the new language in special classes.

In the first case, many kids just can't learn much math and such until they get good at the language. So you have to sacrifice other skills to the new language.

But the problem with the second method is that you have entire communities where English is not spoken. The kids go to school and learn math in Spainish, go home and speak Spainish with their parents, watch TV in Spainish, go to the mall and shop in Spainish.... You get the picture.

And before I give the impression I am down on just one group- I have seen people who have lived in Japan for years and just refuse to learn the language. And there is a lot less safety net to help people that don't speak anything other than English in Japan than there is for people who only speak Spainish in California.

And I often rant about the idiots living in Japan that can't bother to even learn how to order a cup of coffee in Japanese. It gives me a sense of shame that people would come to live here and not make even a small effort to learn the language of the country they are living in.

But of course, there are sections of some major cities in America where as far as a lot of the people are concerned, they are not in America.

And as a teacher I can tell you that there is a huge percentage of students that unless they are convinced that either the teachers or their parents are going to beat them if they don't learn something, or if you can't convince them that learning the subject will someone help them with their social life in the next 15 minutes, that they will refuse to do anything more than go through the motions- if even that.

So you see how there are entire generations in some parts of the US that are not learning the language and tend to think of themselves as being citizens of a country that speaks their language rather than America. They are not being forced to assimilate into the mainstream culture and like most teenagers and kids they take the easy route every time.

Oh, and as an aside, if I can I will be moving back to a place where my kids will be treated as if knowing English is a given fact. If they have toruble with things like math I and my wife will tutor them at night as well as contiue to teach them English if they don't get lessons in school. Based on my experiences with teaching a language and learning another, I think that expecting them to learn in English if far better (with a lot of parential help) than actual language lessons in schools.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

No?So if the argument is that it's not a criminal matter, and that labeling the people who violate it as criminals is wrong... well, I dunno if it would stand the reasonable person test, but... that sounds a lot like someone arguing that it isn't a crime to me.

ya know, i missed that on my first trip through the thread. how about i amend?

nobody i agree with is arguing that it isn't a crime. i think it's a debate to wonder whether or not it should be a crime. also, it's important to consider whether or not illegal immigrants should be treated like dangerous criminals.

historically, people engaged in civil disobedience have had a rough time of it, but they've also enjoyed solid support from a portion of the populace. the parallels are fairly obvious here.