TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:Perhaps we could get back to the thread topic which was not illegal immigration per se but illegals crossing the border armed with weapons?

I would be happy to. I'm not the one who implied that we should overlook illegals who are economic immigrants.

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:The solution is to enforce penalties against knowingly hiring illegal aliens, and to require employers to verify a prospective employee's residency status.
Already the case. Employers must complete Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/[abbreviated profanity deleted] ... ility.html

Again, you quote out of context. This is what I said:

I have to ask.... As an American citizen, to whom do I owe more loyalty: my fellow citizens of color who have been hurt by illegal immigration, or the illegal immigrants who took their jobs? The answer is a no-brainer. The solution is to enforce penalties against knowingly hiring illegal aliens, and to require employers to verify a prospective employee's residency status.

I am a self-employed businessman, and I am generally against imposing additional burdens on capitalists. But it just isn't that hard to confirm whether or not a job applicant is a legal resident. You have the job opening. The applicant wants the job. Make them prove by verifiable means that they are eligible for the job. If they cannot do so, then hire the one who can. End of story. If enough jobs get filled by those who can prove their eligibility, then those that cannot prove it will go back to where they came from. If enough jobs go unfilled because not enough job applicants can prove their eligibility, then employers have to raise wages enough to attract those applicants who can prove it.

You don't get to misquote me without getting called on it. If you allow employers to place the burden of proof on job applicants - where it belongs - same as if an applicant has to prove that they can pass a urine drug test, or posses a valid driver's license, etc., etc., then the problem goes away.

The Annoyed Man

gwashorn wrote:TAM, that was great. Much appreciated in your building the logic and demeanor. May I pass this to some friends to read? I find your approach to provide insight very compelling. Thanks for a great write up.

Gary

Thank you, and feel free to use it. All I did was give articulation to some common sense ideas which are shared by a huge majority of Americans.

I remember talking to a co-worker who is a middle-aged black woman living in a pretty run-down area of Dallas, populated primarily by blacks. We got to talking about illegal immigration one day, and she was pretty angry about it. And according to her, what she felt was not at all uncommon in black communities, particularly those at the lower economic margins. Now, there are plenty of other social pressures affecting the quality of life in black ghettos, but one of them is undeniably chronic unemployment — which is also the root cause of some of those other pressures. And for better or for worse, those "jobs that Americans don't want to take" used to be filled primarily by black Americans who otherwise lacked the skills to raise themselves up financially. They weren't getting rich, and many were not even getting to the middle classes, but at least they had jobs, and they could count on a small modicum of financial stability.

When illegals really arrived in large numbers, they became available in large numbers, and at very low wages, to the labor pool — wages lower than even the pretty low wages being paid to black Americans who lived near or at the poverty level. The natural consequence of this is that lots of employers were willing to look the other way to hire illegals at lower wages than what they had been paying to black American citizens. Unemployment in black neighborhoods, which had always been higher to varying degrees than in their white counterparts, began to skyrocket. With vastly increased unemployment came an increase in other baggage. So that is at least one group of American citizens who have been measurably and negatively impacted by the influx of people who broke our laws to get here.

I have to ask.... As an American citizen, to whom do I owe more loyalty: my fellow citizens of color who have been hurt by illegal immigration, or the illegal immigrants who took their jobs? The answer is a no-brainer. The solution is to enforce penalties against knowingly hiring illegal aliens, and to require employers to verify a prospective employee's residency status.

I am a self-employed businessman, and I am generally against imposing additional burdens on capitalists. But it just isn't that hard to confirm whether or not a job applicant is a legal resident. You have the job opening. The applicant wants the job. Make them prove by verifiable means that they are eligible for the job. If they cannot do so, then hire the one who can. End of story. If enough jobs get filled by those who can prove their eligibility, then those that cannot prove it will go back to where they came from. If enough jobs go unfilled because not enough job applicants can prove their eligibility, then employers have to raise wages enough to attract those applicants who can prove it.

That is capitalism at its finest. But introducing illegal workers into the system to compete unfairly against those who have a right to be here pollutes that system and bogs it down. THAT is the one of the best answers one can give to the paltry argument that illegals are "merely" economic immigrants and that we should ignore our laws out of some kind of misguided sense of pity.

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:OK, I get it now. The issue is illegals coming in with weapons not illegal entry per se. My proposal to solve this problem is to create more and easier pathways to legal immigration so that the gun-toting illegals will not be able to slip over while the Border Patrol is grossly overburdened by their duty to apprehend economic migrants. This would free up the Border Patrol so that it can concentrate on the real threat.

Not for me. I do have a problem with illegals coming in with weapons (and other contraband), but that isn't my core issue. My core issue that illegal aliens flaunt our laws and violate them with impunity by, among other things, entering illegally. Our founding fathers created a system in which we are a nation of laws, not of men. When a nation is subject to the whims of men, it cannot last long. When it is subject to laws with which all are expected to comply, then We The People have order. When We The People have order, then We The People can govern ourselves. When We The People have chaos, we cannot. Afghanistan is, and has been for centuries, largely chaotic. It has also been during most of its history, ungovernable. Times may change, but standards must remain, else we become ungovernable.

Every single person who sneaks into the country illegally threatens that order, and therefore threatens our self-government. Again, we come down to who can vote, and who can't. As a voting citizen, I have a vested interest in maintaining that order. Every permanent alien resident who takes the path to citizenship also gains a vested interest in that order when they become voters.

I expect compliance with our laws — ALL of our laws — from you, me, my neighbors (regardless of where they are from), and as a condition of entry for anyone from outside this country who wants to enter it. As AndyC pointed out above, aliens do not have a God-given right to be here. Instead, what they have is permission (or not) to be here. Without permission, they are unwanted intruders — particularly when all they have to do to become wanted alien residents is to ask permission to enter and obey all of the laws — not just those laws that are convenient to them.

It is that fundamental. People who sneak in without asking permission disrespect me and my fellow citizens. They disrespect you and other alien residents who obeyed the laws to enter — whether or not you feel disrespected yourself. And, they disrespect those alien residents who have done all the necessary things and have become my fellow citizens. Try polling foreign born people who have earned their citizenship. You'll find a surprising commitment to the national integrity — in some cases, stronger than some who are fortunate enough to be born into American citizenship but do not cherish it as anything special. A person who would be so disrespectful of what all this means is not welcome to me in my country. If they want to be so disrespectful of the law, then let them do so in their own country.

The argument that we should ignore illegal immigration because we are a nation built by immigrants ignores the historically undeniable truth that the VAST majority of those immigrants that built this nation over the past 200 years came here legally; and some generations did so at times in our history when it was much, much harder to gain legal entry than it is now. And by the way, they were almost ALL economic immigrants, so that dog won't hunt either.

We can certainly explore methods of streamlining the immigration process. God knows, the federal government is not a model of efficiency. In fact, it performs far more functions today than the founders ever envisioned for it. In the beginning the role of the federal government was mostly limited to the making of treaties with foreign powers, regulating foreign trade, the national defense, the integrity of the national borders, protecting (without infringement) those enumerated rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and settling judicial disputes that could not be settled at the local or state level.

But addressing that efficiency doesn't fix the porous border because people of low character will still sneak in, like they always have done. It doesn't fix the problem of what to do with the 15-30 million (depending on whose figures you believe) illegals who are already here. And, it doesn't fix the problem of narco-terrorists gunning down American LEOs 90 miles inside our own borders.

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:I have never said you had no right to an opinion, nor a right to state said opinion - even if I think it is an incorrect one. ...
What I said was to please not try to change my country into something it was never intended to be until such time as you can vote in the matter.
I'm confused. Can I express my opinion or not?

Try reading.

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:
baldeagle wrote:Not true. You can be deported. A citizen cannot.
What's not true?

You said that there is only one difference between a permanent alien resident, and a citizen - the right to vote. That is wrong. There are at least two differences - the right to vote, and whether or not one can be deported. A resident alien, permanent or not, can be deported. A citizen cannot.

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:And mine stands - They don't put you in prison for civil matters. They do put you in prison for criminal matters.
That's speculation on your part. Let's wait till someone really knows.

No. It is not. But, you don't have to accept that. I don't care one way or the other whether you do or not.

duns wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Welcome to the U.S., by the way; and thank you for entering legally. But if you are here on a Green Card still, then you are still here as a guest. Please don't try to remake my country into something other than what it is supposed to be until you have the right to vote on these matters. It's kind of like being a guest in my home, and then rearranging the furniture without an invitation to do so.
Wow! Firstly, I think as a TX CHL holder, I am entitled to post in this forum irrespective of my immigration status. Secondly, as a Green Card holder I am here not as a "guest" but as a permanent resident. A guest usually means someone whose tenure is limited in time. A permanent resident has been given leave to live here permanently. I have all the rights of a US citizen except the right to vote. That is the one and only right I lack. YOU say I cannot express my opinions until I have the right to vote -- what gives you the right to make rules additional to those made by the US government? What a cheek!

Please. Do not change my words. I didn't even mention the CHL forum. You seem to have a habit of misdirection in debate. There actually is another critical difference between your Green Card status and my Citizenship status. Your status can be revoked, and you can be deported. I cannot. I'm not stating that as some kind of a threat, and I am not trying to be arrogant, so please do not misdirect again. It's just a statement of fact. Nothing more. But, even though you may be a permanent resident, it does make you a guest of this country, which is different from being a citizen in more than just the right to vote. And before you misdirect again and accuse me of saying that you're not a welcome guest, I've already welcomed you. I meant that. I sincerely hope you remain, and that you do become a citizen. It would just be my desire that you do not hold U.S. citizenship too cheaply, so that it has no more meaning to you than being a permanent (but guest) resident. If citizenship is your goal and it is a cherished one, then I'm satisfied.

I have never said you had no right to an opinion, nor a right to state said opinion - even if I think it is an incorrect one. Talk about cheek! What I said was to please not try to change my country into something it was never intended to be until such time as you can vote in the matter. That is all I said, and all I meant.

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:
jester wrote:Are you really suggesting they can imprison someone up to 2 years for a "civil offense"? That sounds a lot like the penalty for a felony.
IANAL so I could be wrong. But I understand that despite the severe potential penalty, illegal entry is still a civil offense. I understand that traffic infractions, while still civil offenses, carry a penalty of up to one year in jail. If anyone knows for sure that illegal entry is a crime, I would welcome hearing from them and will retract my statement. Till then, my statement stands.

And mine stands - They don't put you in prison for civil matters. They do put you in prison for criminal matters. You've just had the law, chapter and verse, quoted to you, in which it states that there is a criminal penalty for violation of the law.... ...and you're still insisting it is a civil matter? That's wishful thinking.

Welcome to the U.S., by the way; and thank you for entering legally. But if you are here on a Green Card still, then you are still here as a guest. Please don't try to remake my country into something other than what it is supposed to be until you have the right to vote on these matters. It's kind of like being a guest in my home, and then rearranging the furniture without an invitation to do so.

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:The percentage of illegal aliens who are otherwise not engaged in criminal behaviors is irrelevant, because they are still engaged in the law-breaking behavior of entering the country illegally.
It's law breaking, yes, but it is not actually a crime so it should not be equated with criminal behavior. You do know that illegal entry is merely a civil offense, like a traffic infraction?

And, you are aware, are you not, that traffic citations, despite being civil violations, are punishable by a fine; and if the fine goes uncollected, there is a warrant issued for your arrest?

The Annoyed Man

double post deleted

The Annoyed Man

duns wrote:You seem to be conflating immigrants with "non-productive people, criminals, drug addicts and similar". Most immigrants want to come to the USA because they subscribe to its principles of free enterprise. In other words, they just want a job in a better environment than they could have at home. And America needs their services. There is a shortage of people in the USA trained as engineers, doctors, scientists, etc. and a shortage of people to hang drywall, mow lawns, and clean houses. The number of people crossing the border who are criminals or terrorists is a tiny fraction of the total. That's why it doesn't make much sense to try to keep out the criminals and terrorists by closing the borders to everyone. Trying to shut all foreigners out, good and bad, is an impossible undertaking. Remember that all the 911 hijackers were here legally -- not one of them had to sneak in across the Rio Grande. If you are an Al Qaeda member not yet on the US watch list, you can fly in freely, with minimal formalities, as a tourist, a businessman, or a student. Or if you have a needed skill, you can obtain a work visa. Or if you have investments in the USA, you can obtain a visa to come here to manage your investments.

The percentage of illegal aliens who are otherwise not engaged in criminal behaviors is irrelevant, because they are still engaged in the law-breaking behavior of entering the country illegally. The charge that those of us who want to control the border are bigoted against immigrants is an insupportable charge, and it is a red herring argument because it has nothing to do with wanting to control the border. It is the intellectual brother of "playing the race card" whenever there exists no other substantive argument to offer, and I resent the heck out of it.

I love immigrants. My own mother is an immigrant. However, she came here legally. She is, by the way, a holder of a PhD, Summa Cum Laude, from the Sorbonne, and has published 14 books, and was a professor at Caltech until her retirement.... ....AND, she came here legally. And even so, she was nearly denied re-entry to the country once, and nearly deported another time — despite the fact that she had been married to an American citizen for years, had given birth to three American sons, and had never knowingly broken any laws. Fortunately for our family, the worst did not happen, and we remained united as a family. Even so, I bear no hard feelings about it because my government was doing its job!!!

Nobody denies the need for brick-layers and ditch-diggers anymore than they deny the need for chemical engineers and doctors (particularly now, since so many of our own doctors are being driven out of the medical profession by the communist occupying the White House, and his dogs in the Senate and House leadership). But you know as well as I do that the ditch-diggers and brick-layers could go through the legal process of entry just like anyone else, if they wanted to. They just don't want to, because it is "too hard." It requires some kind of accountability on their parts, and they don't want to have that burden. So, they break the law because it is inconvenient for them.

And by the way, the 19 hijackers may have entered legally (although it was later shown that they lied on their visa applications and to immigration interviewers about their purposes for entering the country), but they stayed here illegally after their entry visas had expired. They just hadn't been caught up with for several reasons, among which were a feckless disregard by the national government for enforcing existing laws.

I'm not one of those who says we have to round up everybody and put them in concentration camps until we deport them. But I do believe that the national authority has a moral responsibility to protect the integrity of its borders; and once that has been accomplished, then to account for and deal equitably with those who are already here. Some will have to be deported because they are by any rational measure undesirable. Others will have to be put on some kind of path to legal residency, and if they wish to earn it, citizenship. And this should not be without consequence, because there remains the fact that they broke the law to enter, and there should be, at the very least, a fine levied for doing so; and it should be paid before they can be allowed to get onto a path for legal residency.

And, by the way, this is a far more lenient approach than Mexico's own immigration policy.

The Annoyed Man

baldeagle wrote: This should put a crimp in the open borders crowd's arguments.

Why would it? They have no fear of being caught. Why? This is why....

Obama Orders Dance Classes, Movie Nights, and Bingo for Illegal Detainees
June 11, 2010
by Chris Banescu
American Thinker Blog

The Houston Chronicle reports that the Obama administration has ordered the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department to implement multiple modifications to their facilities to make life easier, more comfortable, and pleasant for the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants (approximately 400,000) it detains annually. An internal ICE email highlights 28 different changes the organization will have to make to soften the look of its facilities, present a friendlier environment, offer better entertainment, organize fun activities, and provide illegal immigrant detainees with free access to email and phone services, as well as better dining and training classes.

According to ICE officials all of these changes are part of broader efforts supported by Obama "to make the immigration detention system less penal and more humane." In reality, these changes are akin to "creating an all-inclusive resort for immigration detainees."

Some of the changes the White House is ordering include:

§ dance classes
§ movie nights
§ art classes
§ cooking classes
§ tutoring and computer training
§ free and unmonitored phone service
§ free email access
§ bingo
§ arts and crafts
§ more variety in dining options
§ self-serve beverage stations
§ fresh vegetable bars
§ fresh carrot sticks
§ hanging plants
§ recreation in natural setting
§ robust aerobic exercise
Also, ICE is expected to eliminate pat-down searches, lockdowns, and light-out for low-risk detainees, as well as provide vastly expanded visitation rights (up to 12 hours per visit) in its facilities.

The changes listed in the ICE e-mail are planned for nine different detention centers owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) across the country. According to the Chronicle, some of the changes "will be implemented within 30 days; others may take up to six months"

Illegal immigrant advocates are thrilled at the required changes. They have been advocating these transformations for years. Lory Rosenberg, policy and advocacy director for Refugee and Migrants' Rights for Amnesty International was delighted with the promised improvements: "Many of these points are very important to changing the system from a penal system, which is inappropriate in an immigration context, to a civil detention system."

However, ICE union leaders are appalled at the cavalier attitude towards the illegal immigrants they oversee and warn of the inherent dangers of such misguided policies. The officials are concerned the mandates will jeopardize the safety of their guards and agents, increase the potential for harm to other detainees, and cost the taxpayers more money in order to transform detention centers into an "all-inclusive resort" for immigration detainees.
"Our biggest concern is that someone is going to get hurt," he said, taking particular issue with plans to relax restrictions on the movement of low-risk detainees and efforts to reduce and eliminate pat-down searches.
ICE leadership also expressed concerns about safety issues inherent in lowering security standards for almost half million detainees, many of which are violent and have gang affiliations. Tre Rebstock, president for Local 3332, the ICE union in Houston explains:
some detainees may be classified as low-risk because they have no serious criminal history but still may be gang members that "haven't been caught doing anything wrong yet."

He also said eliminating lockdowns will make it more difficult to protect detainees from one another.

He said reducing or eliminating pat-down searches could allow contraband into the facilities, including weapons.
These concerns are justified. According to ICE's own report, as of September 9, 2009, 51% of the detained aliens were felons and 11% of the illegals had committed violent crimes. The report confirms that most common crimes committed by criminal aliens are those involving dangerous drugs, traffic offenses, simple assault, and larceny.

None of this matters to the ivory-tower elitist Obama. He condemned the people of Arizona for passing the SB1070 law that mirrors the US federal law on immigration calling it "misguided" and "irresponsible." He has refused to listen to the American people, 73% of whom agree with Arizona and its stance on illegal immigration. He stood beside Mexican president Felipe Calderon as he bashed Arizona and its people. He then applauded Calderon's defamation of America, while Democrats in Congress cheered and shouted their approval. He has refused to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders. He has continued to push for amnesty while a vast majority of the American people are against it.

President Obama wants millions more voters who support his radical leftist ideals. Pandering to illegal immigrants, blaming America, and continually playing the racist card is how he can get there. This is the Democrat's best chance to overwhelm the American electorate and they're going for it. Damn the American people, full amnesty ahead!

Chris Banescu is an attorney, entrepreneur, and university professor. He regularly blogs at chrisbanescu.com.

I read stuff like this, and it is difficult to believe that the Obama administration isn't deliberately, and with full knowledge, on a path to remaking the United States into something utterly different from what the founders intended.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 12 matches

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border

Re: Armed illegals brazenly crossing the border