Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been, an Illegal Immigrant?

Brian Doherty | April 12, 2007

From the LA Times:

Illegal immigration opponents have sued the Los Angeles Police Department, taking aim at its long-standing policy of ignoring most suspects' immigration status.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Superior Court seeks to force officers to inform federal immigration officials when illegal immigrants are arrested on drug charges.

The department prohibits officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects, a policy strongly supported by Police Chief William Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The policy makes sense for local cops, as I once argued while in the "hot seat" (as the Big O himself informed me) on the O'Reilly Factor once a couple of years back; in a community filled with immigrants of questionable legal status, it's generally better for cop-community relations if immigrants don't fear every interaction with a cop could end in potential deportation. (I can also support the policy on general federalism grounds--on issues like this, why not let local police decide what policy best serves their community, rather than becoming enforcers of federal policy?)

O'Reilly gave me in the earpiece just before the camera rolled wisdom I've kept in mind in many situations since then: "Don't give us any pie in the sky stuff, Doherty--stick to the facts!" As I recall from actually watching the show later, he showed B-roll footage of angry looking shirtless Hispanic youth waving their arms menacingly while I talked.

Comments

|4.12.07 @ 11:07PM|#

Did O'Riely point out that you're a shill for Big Immigration?

thoreau|4.12.07 @ 11:13PM|#

There's another issue with the LAPD:

Several years ago, when the Rampart scandal broke, some of the witnesses to crimes committed by the LAPD were illegal immigrants. The LAPD, in keeping with their long-standing committment to upholding the rule of law, had deported people who had witnessed crimes committed by cops.

Prosecutors had to fly to Central America to interview witnesses.

In light of this, you can see why some of us would prefer if the LAPD not be allowed to refer anybody for deportation.

|4.12.07 @ 11:38PM|#

Bill O'Schmuck telling you to stick to the facts: that's a funny one...

TLB|4.13.07 @ 12:02AM|#

The L.A. policy actually makes sense, and - counterintuitive as it may sound - it has not vastly increased the number of IllegalImmigrants living in L.A. Nor has it vastly increased the numbers of gang members.

Oh, did I mention that by "L.A." I meant the libertarian fantasy world version of the city?

Let's try some questions:

1. Can Reason enumerate some of the reasons why TonyVillar would support massive IllegalImmigration?

2. Should TonyVillar - former leader of a RacialSeparatist group - be allowed to increase his PoliticalPower by trying to subvert our laws?

3. Does Reason see the value in following laws, even if you disagree with them?

4. Would Reason like it if a non-libertarian subverted the laws established by a libertarian regime?

5. Spend some time thinking about what Reason is actually advocating, and what impact it will have. If Reason gets its way, no libertarian will ever be elected in anything besides a very small market. If a libertarian magazine advocates measures that would result in libertarianism basically ending, what are we missing? Are they just unable to figure things out, or are they not what they claim to be?

6. If you had to choose and you couldn't make up your own question or otherwise avoid the question in one way or another, would you prefer one million immigrants from India, or one million immigrants from Pakistan?

7. Since Reason favors open borders, how do they intend to keep Islamic Defenders Front members (mentioned in a recent Reason post) from coming here in droves?

|4.13.07 @ 12:33AM|#

Troll or not, TLB seems to have thrown down the gauntlet. In the interest of fairness, lets take turns picking it up.

1. Can Reason enumerate some of the reasons why TonyVillar would support massive IllegalImmigration?

As the duly appointed voice of Reason, I shall enumerate.

I'm sure the one you're thinking of is that AV wants to let a bunch 'o immigrants into the country, declare an amnesty, give them voting rights, consolidate his power, and ultimately reconquer California for Mexico.

But some other reasons might include:

2) There are jobs that need doing in Los Angeles, more so than can be filled by flag-wavin', Born-in-the-USA citizens.

3) The logistics involved in policing immigration are staggering.

4) AV might just have come from a family of immigrants (as did many of us), and may sympathize with the plight of people seeking a better life.

5) Supporting illegal immigration is not the same thing as acknowledging the reality of the situation.

6) The legal/illegal distinction is not the same as the right/wrong distinction.

|4.13.07 @ 12:35AM|#

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ee84cc80-e91e-11db-a162-000b5df10621.html

ktc2|4.13.07 @ 12:48AM|#

There can be no moral obligation to obey an immoral law.

|4.13.07 @ 1:06AM|#

Anybody who wants to RTFA without hopping through the LAT's ridiculously annoying registration process*, hit this link to the AP.

Kevin

*I told Welch's co-workers that I'm a female Manhattanite who was born in 1900. Hope that helps their demographics.

grylliade|4.13.07 @ 1:32AM|#

lonewacko, your mighty lack of spaces has defeated Reason's use of sanity!

1. Can Reason enumerate some of the reasons why TonyVillar would support massive IllegalImmigration?

Don't care. Hitler was a vegetarian. Doesn't mean that being a vegetarian is wrong. Just because someone who has bad motives advocates a policy for selfish reasons doesn't mean that the policy is wrong. Free(er) immigration to the United States is a good policy, because it is better than the present situation.

2. Should TonyVillar - former leader of a RacialSeparatist group - be allowed to increase his PoliticalPower by trying to subvert our laws?

Don't care. See above.

3. Does Reason see the value in following laws, even if you disagree with them?

I can't speak for Reason, but I personally can't see the value in following bad law. In this case, "following the law" for illegal immigrants means "staying in crushing poverty in Mexico," while "breaking the law" means "getting the chance at a better life for me and my children." I don't think there's much of a choice there.

I don't believe that breaking a bad law necessarily means avoiding the consequences. If I smoked pot, I wouldn't expect to avoid the consequences if I were caught. If I could, I certainly would, but if I couldn't avoid the consequences, then I would serve my time. It is an unjust law, but it is still the law. But I would feel no compunctions about breaking the law. Similarly, if immigrants are caught, I don't believe there's much recourse to avoid deportation. If the law changes, and/or amnesty is granted, then there's nothing wrong with avoiding the consequences.

4. Would Reason like it if a non-libertarian subverted the laws established by a libertarian regime?

See above comments about breaking the law and avoiding the consequences. Let them break the law; let them suffer the consequences if caught.

5. Spend some time thinking about what Reason is actually advocating, and what impact it will have. If Reason gets its way, no libertarian will ever be elected in anything besides a very small market.

Like that's not the case anyways.

If a libertarian magazine advocates measures that would result in libertarianism basically ending, what are we missing? Are they just unable to figure things out, or are they not what they claim to be?

You know, smoking crack is against the law, too. Seriously, what are you babbling about here?

6. If you had to choose and you couldn't make up your own question or otherwise avoid the question in one way or another, would you prefer one million immigrants from India, or one million immigrants from Pakistan?

Don't particularly care. If they care enough to come here, let them. Either way, they're enriching our economy with their labor.

7. Since Reason favors open borders, how do they intend to keep Islamic Defenders Front members (mentioned in a recent Reason post) from coming here in droves?

Many, many people have addressed this before. We had an open border with Canada, and there are still broad stretches of the Canadian border that are essentially unpatrolled. What keeps Islamic Defenders Front members from streaming across the Canadian border?

I (and many others) favor allowing immigrants to come across at border crossings freely, so long as they pass a simple check.

And besides, given an open border, you don't think that the immigrants themselves would pretty effectively provide a way to detect terrorists? "Hey, that guy doesn't speak Spanish, and he isn't Mexican; you might want to check it out." They'd be well aware that a terrorist attack from someone who crossed the open Mexican border would close that border, which they wouldn't want. They would probably screen out 99 % of possible terrorists. And they want to come to America; they don't hate America. They don't want to see America attacked, aside from ulterior motives.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

In the America I live in, those words mean something. They're not just a pretty decoration, written in a time where the people coming here were enough "like us" to not scare the nativist assholes. This is a land where an opportunity is given to those who want to work hard, to make their lives better. We're not some ancient nation, proud of our pure blood and pure culture. Nor are we some multicultural "mixing bowl," where everyone mixes together but maintains some kind of separate identity. We're Americans, and we're mongrels, by God. We take whatever is good, and incorporate it into our culture.

Let people come here intending to stay separate; in three generations they'll have assimilated. Hell, American culture is so attractive that people who stay in their countries want to participate in American culture. What makes you think that somehow this time there's an actual threat to America? You're peddling the same old nativist bullshit that's been going around since before the founding of the Republic. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Let them come; we can weather whatever troubles come, and we'll be the stronger and the wealthier for it. And so will they. Go sell your fear-mongering to those foolish enough to fall for it.

TLB|4.13.07 @ 2:34AM|#

HA1. "ultimately reconquer California for Mexico". Read the founding docs of what AV signed on to, around the time the group was formed (late 60s).

HA2) Where does Tony get his donations from? Hint: look at his LAUSD campaign.

HA3) That's not his concern; ICE has a cheap program he could use if he wanted. The two DAs are going over his head and working with ICE because they realize the problem.

HA4) Not exactly an answer to the statement, but AV seems to have mythologized his past.

HA5) AV "acknowledged the reality of the situation" by reiterating that L.A. was a SanctuaryCity to a MexicanNewspaper right after he was elected. At least he didn't buy ads in MexicanNewspapers, right?

HA6) If you don't like the laws, fight to change them rather than setting a bad precendent by subverting them. Or, openly ignore them and face the consequences.

Regarding the other comments, of course it's relevant why TonyVillar opposes ImmigrationEnforcement; vegetarianism isn't relevant.

Regarding the "simple check", what about those who avoid the "check"? Oops! I guess we're going to have to EnforceTheLaws after all.

Try to keep future replies shorter, and sans poetry.

Moonbrain|4.13.07 @ 4:02AM|#

I think it's funny how the news always uses the terms: "illegal immigrant" "illegal alien" "guest worker", but never "economic refugee".

Borders are stupid, that's what I think. Let's all be first-class citizens, no matter where on the globe your mom happened to squat you out.

|4.13.07 @ 4:05AM|#

Lonewacko promoting brevity? Now I've heard it all...

|4.13.07 @ 7:57AM|#

My Irish relatives[on my mothers side]came to this country under less than legal means.Today's Mexicans are yesterdays Irish and Chineese.My father's side were Cockney,from a line of miners,and came to do a job most Americans wouldn't at the time.Mining coal under horrible conditions in West Virgina and southern Ohio.I sugggest many of our desendents came here this way.

|4.13.07 @ 8:18AM|#

What? Sans poetry?
You, sir, are a Philistine.
Pooh to you, sir. Pooh.

|4.13.07 @ 8:21AM|#

Tony Villar breathes.
You are therefore anti-air?
See the problem here?

|4.13.07 @ 9:02AM|#

Looks like the anti-immigrant activists are giving away the game.

For all of their hand-waving about crime, they are making it clear with this lawsuit that the ability of the police to do an effective job is simply not important to them. At least, not as important as seeing the force of the state brought to bear on Mexicans.

Just another way that the prohibition of commonplace behavior increases crime and erodes the rule of law.

|4.13.07 @ 9:11AM|#

Why is a CertainCommenter randomly CombiningAndCapitalizing words?

|4.13.07 @ 9:15AM|#

Forcing local cops to enforce federal policy is no different than an unfunded mandate.

|4.13.07 @ 9:17AM|#

Let's file a lawsuit to require Alberto Gonzales to start pulling people over when he sees them driving over 65 on the Beltway.

It's not like he's got anything better to do.

|4.13.07 @ 9:32AM|#

My town was up until last year the mayor of a small town in western Kansas. Very frequently, like at least once a week, the police there pull over a car driven by an illegal immigrant. The immigrant has no liscense, no identification, no insurance and may or may not have a valid tag. Since local cops are not allowed to enforce immigration laws, the border patrol won't come pick them up and they can't just lock people up, the cops let them go. If that were a U.S. citizen they would be arrested and seriously fined, but illegals get to go. Unless and until you authorize local cops to arrest people for immigration laws, this kind of thing will continue. If people want to change the immigration laws and eliminate the border, then do so. Until that happens, the laws ought to be enforced.

As it stands right now, the police can arrest an illegal on a felony, send him to jail, the guy gets out and is deported, comes right back accross the border and the police see him and they can't do a damn thing about it. I dont' see any defense for that.

Russ 2000|4.13.07 @ 9:42AM|#

Does Reason see the value in following laws, even if you disagree with them?

No. Because it's basically the Eichmann defense: I didn't personally kill anyone, I was just following the law.

Following the law means never having to say you're sorry.

|4.13.07 @ 9:45AM|#

Russ 2000

Give me a fucking break. Enforcing immigration laws is not sending people death camps. That is just not even a serious comment. Either the laws mean something or they don't. If you don't like immigration laws and want to subvert them, what is to stop anyone from subverting whatever laws happen to be your sacred cow? Yeah, there is a limit to that at the extreme and some laws truly are so immoral that no one in good conscience should enforce them, but immigration laws don't even begin to get there.

SolitaryLunatic|4.13.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Since we have determined, by the same sound scientific principles that we used to establish the FACT that there are not enough jobs, there is not enough air for everyone to breathe we need to start issuing breathing permits. Anyone breathing without a permit wil be an ILLEGAL BREATHER.

By those same sound scientific principles we will set the number of new breathing permits to be issued at five thousand per year. Of course in order to ascertain whether applicants are truly entitled to breathe we will have to take months or even years to process the paperwork of new applicants.

Of course all you libertarians will be calling those of us who rightfully want to be enforced "anti-breathing". But of course we are only anti-ILLEGAL-breathing.

Bleeding heart liberals and libertaians will go on endlessly about "breathing rights" while ignoring the menace of brown skinned foreigners who have been wanting to take over OUR AIR for a century or more.

|4.13.07 @ 10:08AM|#

John,

You mean like FISA?

highnumber|4.13.07 @ 10:08AM|#

TLB,

I have visited your website and I find your arguments cogent and quite convincing.

I have started a website that all of you may find quite interesting.

|4.13.07 @ 10:13AM|#

If you don't like immigration laws and want to subvert them, what is to stop anyone from subverting whatever laws happen to be your sacred cow?

If illegal immigrants are ignored, pretty soon murder will be legal. These laws are being subverted for a reason: because they stand in opposition to a thriving market. No different than the war on drugs.

|4.13.07 @ 10:20AM|#

in a community filled with immigrants of questionable legal status, it's generally better for cop-community relations if immigrants don't fear every interaction with a cop could end in potential deportation.

In a community with lots of criminals it's good for the criminals if the police don't ask about crime or attempt to enforce any laws. The American version of France's 700+ "Sensitive Urban zones."

The LAPD, in keeping with their long-standing committment to upholding the rule of law, had deported people who had witnessed crimes committed by cops.

Nope. The LAPD didn't deport anybody because they're not able to do so. Insert $.25 to play again.

If that were a U.S. citizen they would be arrested and seriously fined, but illegals get to go.

I see that in the local rags when I accidently read them (and when they accidently provide the info) - drunk illegal alien kills some people and then it comes to light that he's been previously charged with DUI, no license, etc., and "charges were dropped."

|4.13.07 @ 10:22AM|#

I agree, highnumber, TLB has a high level of intelligence and sophistication, the likes of which have never been seen on teh web before. I so aspire to be just like TLB.

|4.13.07 @ 10:23AM|#

In a community with lots of criminals it's good for the criminals if the police don't ask about crime or attempt to enforce any laws.

When the crimes are victimless, I agree.

|4.13.07 @ 10:23AM|#

"In a community with lots of criminals it's good for the criminals if the police don't ask about crime or attempt to enforce any laws."

In a community endangered with crime, it's good for the community if the police can actually get answers when they ask about crime and attempt to enforce laws.

|4.13.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Unless and until you authorize local cops to arrest people for immigration laws, this kind of thing will continue.

John,

There appears to be a disconnect in your logic. You're saying that a US citizen, driving without license or insurance, would be arrested and fined for doing so. If, however, the driver is an illegal immigrant... the police are somehow powerless to arrest him?

I think you're confusing "illegal immigrant" with "UN delegate."

Also, this is a very strange statement:

My town was up until last year the mayor of a small town in western Kansas.

|4.13.07 @ 10:27AM|#

well, shit.

here i was just feeling better, and then i slipped on some mineragua that one of them damned mexicans spilled.

and who's this lady of guadalupe they keep talking about?

don't ask me how the lake looks, highnumber. i get the jibblies just thinking about water.

VM|4.13.07 @ 10:30AM|#

grylliade = teh MAN!
I nominate him to be
"Stevo of the Day"!

Highnumber - remember that Big Al has changed our times onstage tonight. You're doing the banjo rendition of "Yank My Doodle" while I get to do "Gadgets of the Bat Belt".

Jimmydageek. YOU OFFSPRING FAN!

|4.13.07 @ 10:30AM|#

Crap, I forgot what day it was. John, what I actually meant to say is that I completely agree with you, and your relentless logic has stymied all argument.

Also, I intend to vote for your town to become mayor of my town.

|4.13.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Villaraigosa is just a flunky for the Jewish Conspiracy*:
http://www.aztlan.net/tonykippah.htm
Villaraigosa was perceived as a candidate being shoved down our throats by principally Jewish interests from the westside of Los Angeles. He was not a candidate for La Raza. His rise to political prominence was orchestrated and began with his appointment to the presidency of the Jewish run American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California. He lost the backing of many Latino educators when he betrayed "Bilingual Education" on behalf of Jews like Ron Unz, the initiative's author. He also showed his true colors when he backed Richard Hertzberg, a Jew, to replace him as the California Speaker of the Assembly. This he did, like Judas, by betraying a Mexicano member of the Assembly. ... La Raza will eventually takeover the government of the City of Los Angeles.

*Since some people here are pretty dense, I'll add: I'm just kidding, but they're serious.

VM|4.13.07 @ 10:33AM|#

John - interesting argument!

Flemur - I'd like to invite you to join my BATIN club!

SolitaryLunatic|4.13.07 @ 10:42AM|#

"Villaraigosa is just a flunky for the Jewish Conspiracy*:"

I knew that. But what wll he do about those ILLEGAL BREATHERS tryng to take our AIR.

Jews take more air than they need with those big noses and everything.

|4.13.07 @ 10:44AM|#

Wow, actual anti-semitism.

With the word thrown around so much, it's good to point out the real thing.

There seems to be some confusion about what the term refers to.

"Jewish run ACLU"

"This he did, like Judas..."

Einsamer Irre|4.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#

"SolitaryLunatic "

ha ha.

|4.13.07 @ 11:14AM|#

John, I'm going to need some help here...

If that were a U.S. citizen they would be arrested and seriously fined, but illegals get to go.

Why? Every single punishment and process that can be performed on a legal resident can be performed on an illegal resident. As someone who watched his car get towed from the side of the freeway due to expired license and tags, I can assure you that legality of residence never came up.

As it stands right now, the police can arrest an illegal on a felony, send him to jail, the guy gets out and is deported, comes right back accross the border and the police see him and they can't do a damn thing about it.

Huh?

How does he get out of jail? Does he not have a court date? If he skips bail, he is committing a crime for which he can again be arrested. If he misses a court date, he is committing another offense for which he can again be arrested.

If the whine is that deportation gets him out of bail and punishment by government fiat, then make the trivial fix in the law or regulation so that he is a fugitive in exile rather than a forgotten felon.

I really don't understand what a person's residency status has to do with any unrelated criminal statute or enforcement at all.

And, by the way, welcome to the side of the debate that thinks a person's residency status should be utterly irrelevant to almost everything.

Russ 2000|4.13.07 @ 11:26AM|#

John,

Where in my post was the term "immigration" or any form thereof? Nowhere. Yes, the thread is about immigration, but it was lonewacko that expanded the point to the moral theory of law and that was what I was addressing.

Personally, I feel that most of our immigration law is immoral, so I have little difficulty with people subverting it. If the law told you to go jump in the lake....

|4.13.07 @ 11:30AM|#

"Let's all be first-class citizens, no matter where on the globe your mom happened to squat you out."

How many countries (besides the USA) are magnanamous enough to grant citizenship based on where "your mom happened to squat you out"? That's why all those pregnant Mexicans try to get across the border to USA emegency rooms - to squat out an anchor baby. It's not just to get good medical care that they don't pay for!

|4.13.07 @ 11:30AM|#

O'Reilly gave me in the earpiece just before the camera rolled wisdom I've kept in mind in many situations since then: "Don't give us any pie in the sky stuff, Doherty--stick to the facts!") As I recall from actually watching the show later, he showed B-roll footage of angry looking shirtless Hispanic youth waving their arms menacingly while I talked.

you made me laugh out loud, Doherty. hahah

|4.13.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Man, the bedwetting during those immigration protests was awesome.

They're marching down the street. Lot's of them. Why, that's the THREAT of FORCE!

|4.13.07 @ 11:38AM|#

"And, by the way, welcome to the side of the debate that thinks a person's residency status should be utterly irrelevant to almost everything."

So someone from Dubai or Germany on a trip here should be able to vote in an election? Maybe go to a town meeting to argue for or against some zoning laws.

|4.13.07 @ 11:43AM|#

So someone from Dubai or Germany on a trip here should be able to vote in an election? Maybe go to a town meeting to argue for or against some zoning laws.

No. Residency status is quite material to the privileges of citizenship.

The right to travel, reside, and work should not be restricted on the basis of citizenship, nationality, or residency status. But citizenship is, in effect, a club of people who have a special say in the political arenas of a particular territory. It should have some exclusivity and control over its membership.

|4.13.07 @ 11:46AM|#

"It should have some exclusivity and control over its membership."

So people can work and reside here but not participate in the political process?

|4.13.07 @ 11:52AM|#

So people can work and reside here but not participate in the political process?

Of course. That is the condition of millions of resident aliens, many of whom have absolutely no intention of becoming citizens.

|4.13.07 @ 11:58AM|#

So what are the large street protest if not participation in the political process? Are they not weeking to make changes in the laws? (assuming there were illegals in the protests).

b-psycho|4.13.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Y'know, some people are arrested for things and found innocent. Requiring the local cops to report the illegals assumes that they all did whatever they're being accused of, or at least something objectively "bad". Why should we assume guilt based on citizenship status?

The reasonable answer to illegal immigration is to make it much easier to enter legally. Do away with all the quotas & bureaucracy around it & have it so as long as you are not a known criminal (BTW: needless to say, consensual "crimes" don't count) you can come and go as you please, no strings attached. When the process is that easy, no one will attempt to subvert it unless they're some type of threat, then they can be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, this approach will never be taken up, because immigration as an issue has been hijacked by bigoted imbeciles who think the problem is "too many mexicans".

|4.13.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Weeking = seeking

|4.13.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Street protests are a form of political activism that is available to all persons, unlike voting, which is available only to adult citizens.

|4.13.07 @ 12:14PM|#

So what are the large street protest if not participation in the political process?

Apparently you missed the "special say" in my "special say in the political arenas". In particular, the special say citizens have in this country is voting and serving on juries.

To your point, I am not aware of the word "citizen" appearing in the First Amendment protections of either assembly or petitioning the government.

|4.13.07 @ 12:14PM|#

So what are the large street protest if not participation in the political process?

I though you were talking about voting, the only participation in the political process that the State has a right to control.

And what joe said.

I might add that IMO the prohibition on non-citizens donating to political campaigns is bogus as well.

|4.13.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Interesting that no one actually argues with LoneWacko or F. le Mur. They only hurl insults, despite the fact that these two guys are pretty cogent.

|4.13.07 @ 12:35PM|#

I have started a website that all of you may find quite interesting.

Very interesting, thank you.

|4.13.07 @ 12:40PM|#

"To your point, I am not aware of the word "citizen" appearing in the First Amendment protections of either assembly or petitioning the government."

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..."

This seems to refer to citizens of the US.

ktc2|4.13.07 @ 12:42PM|#

I still think the whole immigration thing is closet racism.

If all the illegals were blonde haired blue eyed sexy nurses from Europe nobody would be complaining. (Well, okay maybe the ugly amongst the native women would)

SolitaryLunatic|4.13.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Who's insuted LoneWacko or F. le Mur?

LoneWacko is worried about messie cans and F. le Mur makes jokes about the Jewish conspiracy WHICH IS NO JOKE.

What's to argue with?

The threat is from all those ILLEGAL BREATHERS.

THEYRE TAKING OUR AIR.

|4.13.07 @ 12:53PM|#

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..."

This seems to refer to citizens of the US.

The Preamble... People of the United States... Wow. That is weak.

I gather that, by your reasoning, noncitizens in the US have no government-protected rights to speech, press, religion, bearing arms, security in their homes and papers, due process, jury trials, uncruel and usual punishment, and -- just to pick one not in the Bill of Rights -- not being slaves?

Approximately 218 years of jurisprudence would universally disagree...

|4.13.07 @ 12:55PM|#

"I still think the whole immigration thing is closet racism."

Of course that way you don't have to address any arguments against illegal immigation- just yell "that's racist" and move on.

Isn't there a Godwin's like law for inserting racisim into a debate?

|4.13.07 @ 12:58PM|#

I was refering to right assembly. Why would a non-citizen wish to assemble in the US? Except to bring about political change- effecting the political process.

thoreau|4.13.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Did you know that my grandmother's parents moved back and forth across the border, looking for jobs, without ever seeking government permission?

Don't worry, though, they were Canadian. And white. So it's all good.

|4.13.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Why would a non-citizen wish to assemble in the US?

I don't know. To watch the Cricket World Cup?

Motivations with a more political angle for assembly might be the organization of a strike, or the discussion of legal issues pertinent to the assembled, or how the assembled can help the FBI and avoid being thrown into Guantanamo. As with most real freedoms, the possibilities are too many and too open to enumerate.

It is neither my business nor the government's why free people peaceably assemble. It is their right as individuals to do so.

|4.13.07 @ 1:09PM|#

The Constitution doesn't limit "effecting the political process" to adult citizens, just voting, officeholding, and serving on juries.

|4.13.07 @ 1:13PM|#

Why would a non-citizen wish to assemble in the US?

Perhaps she is religious and wants to go to church. Another may intend to become a citizen and go to political rallies and meetings to beome better educated in civic matters so that when he does become a citizen he will be able to make a well-informed choice.

Except to bring about political change- effecting the political process.

And this should be prohibited...why?

Oh, hell, just previewed. I think I'll just let MikeP and joe speak for me.

Oh, joe, this is the only issue you get to speak for me on. ;-)

|4.13.07 @ 1:19PM|#

"Except to bring about political change- effecting the political process.

And this should be prohibited...why?"


I didn't say it should be prohibited. You seemed to.

So people can work and reside here but not participate in the political process?

Of course. That is the condition of millions of resident aliens, many of whom have absolutely no intention of becoming citizens.

|4.13.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Isn't there a Godwin's like law for inserting racisim into a debate?

What I'd like to see is the ability to call Godwin on someone who brings up the "illegal means illegal" argument since, as we saw above, the blatantly obvious response to that claim opens the responder to having Godwin called on him.

In fact, while I'm thinking about it...

Enforcing immigration laws is not sending people death camps. That is just not even a serious comment.

It is not sending people to death camps. But it is kidnapping them, forceably transporting them hundreds of mile from their homes, families, and jobs, and trying to make it prohibitively dangerous and expensive to return to their homes, families, and jobs.

If Germany had simply used concentration camps as waystations for a trip to exile in Madagascar for 14 million people declared noncitizens by the government, would Godwin's Law not exist?

|4.13.07 @ 1:24PM|#

There's a big line to get into the USA legally. Why should Mexicans get to jump the line?

thoreau|4.13.07 @ 1:31PM|#

There's a big line to get into the USA legally.

That's a point worth noting.

Why should Mexicans get to jump the line?

Ah, but that's not the correct question to follow that point. The better question is "Why shouldn't we speed up the line so that anybody who wants to work hard and passes a background check can come in and work and build a better life for himself and his family?"

Cesar|4.13.07 @ 1:48PM|#

*Of course that way you don't have to address any arguments against illegal immigation- just yell "that's racist" and move on.*

Well, when I hear Lone Wacko say something like, "What if 1 million western Europeans tried to come into this country?" (instead of Pakistanis or Indians) It'll be easier to believe that race isn't involved.

|4.13.07 @ 2:23PM|#

"Well, when I hear Lone Wacko say something like, "What if 1 million western Europeans tried to come into this country?" (instead of Pakistanis or Indians) It'll be easier to believe that race isn't involved."

Who cares what you think of his motives. Since you can't be sure of them why discuss them at all. If you disagree with a point attack the idea not the person.

Of course I'm sure all of your ideas and beliefs are based on ethically unassailable logic.

Cesar|4.13.07 @ 2:46PM|#

*Who cares what you think of his motives. Since you can't be sure of them why discuss them at all. If you disagree with a point attack the idea not the person.*

Ok-

Lone Wacko seems to think that eventually the entire developing world is going to pack up and move to the United States. However, immigrants don't move somewhere unless there are jobs to be had. Once the demand is filled, the immigration stops. There aren't five billion jobs in this country, we don't have to worry about five billion immigrants.

I agree that illegal immigration causes all kinds of problems--problems that are usually also associated with other black markets. Therefore, the most sane thing to do would be to increase the number of visas until the demand for jobs is met.

After that happens, those who are still trying to cross illegally will obviously be criminals and drug dealers, not people looking to work on a farm. If it is easier to get a visa, theres no reason for any sane person to run through the desert.

And immigrants don't come here to go on welfare. First of all this isn't western Europe--American welfare isn't all that cushy and is even less so after welfare reform. Secondly, immigrants tend to use services at a lower rate than native born Americans.

As to the bogus "reconquista" argument, does Lone Wacko fear that every time someone in Virginia or South Carolina flies a Confederate flag, they are planning to secede from the union again?

|4.13.07 @ 3:04PM|#

There's a big line to get into the USA legally. Why should Mexicans get to jump the line?

There's a big line to work as a strawberry picker. Why should Americans get to jump the line?

|4.13.07 @ 3:18PM|#

"Once the demand is filled, the immigration stops."

I call BS on this one. How do the immigrants receive the info that there are no more jobs, RSS feed? Plus if somebody is in a bad situation it seems they're likely to try to go somewhere else. They get here- no jobs- no way to leave. Anyway it's certainly better to be poor in the US than south of the border or Russsia- at least at our present population. Yes things would probably level off but over decades. I'll say it again over decades.

TLB|4.13.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Michael Pack says: "Today's Mexicans are yesterdays Irish and Chineese."

Big differences: Mexico is right next door, and their "LostTerritories" are part of our country. They're currently resettling them, aided and abetted by fools and crooks.

Jake Boone says: "TonyVillar breathes. You are therefore anti-air?"

A better example would be TonyVillar buying a space suit, and then wondering what he's got planned. Because, if he buys that suit, what he's doing will have an impact. Do a bit more studying of GuiltByAssociation.

joe says: "the ability of the police to do an effective job"

Actually, I believe the rank-and-file cops chafe at the PC restrictions WilliamBratton and TonyVillar want, because they see PreviouslyDeported GangMembers who they can't touch until they commit another crime.

Russ 2000 says: "Following the law means never having to say you're sorry."

Well, then have the guts to go whole hog. There are plenty of federal felonies you can commit, such as TransportingIllegalAliens. If you think our ImmigrationLaws are bad, openly defy them and face the consequences.

Greg doesn't understand the difference between a free market and a crooked market. Violations of our ImmigrationLaws are also not "victimless". IllegalAliens are responsible for a large share of crime, they cost U.S. citizens money, they were indirectly involved in 911, and they make it more difficult for LegalImmigrants to come here.

Regarding CarTowing, GilCedillo tried to pass a law giving IllegalAliens a better break than citizens.

Regarding the ImmigrationMarches, they were a show of physical and political force by ForeignCitizens. And, several of them may have been organized by proxies of the MexicanGovernment.

Cesar doesn't understand issues that well. There are SouthernSecessionists. However, unlike AztlanExtremists, those in the South have no power and are disregarded. The political establishment, OTOH, ignores or supports AztlanExtremists like TonyVillar or GilCedillo, such as by covering up their pasts.

|4.13.07 @ 3:22PM|#

You know, I think it's funny LW is worried about Mexicans taking over the SW United States. He doesn't seem to be worried that the Socialists took over Vermont.

Cesar|4.13.07 @ 3:30PM|#

"I call BS on this one. How do the immigrants receive the info that there are no more jobs, RSS feed? "

Mostly from relatives and friends in the United States. There is data (I will try to find it) that shows Mexican immigration dropped off both during the recession of the early 1990s and that of the early 2000s.

|4.13.07 @ 3:33PM|#

StupendousMan

I guess you missed my comment at 12:14pm so I'l repeat it:

I though you were talking about voting, the only participation in the political process that the State has a right to control.

|4.13.07 @ 3:41PM|#

And to add a correction: As joe pointed out it also includes holding office and serving on a jury. Those are other things under government control.

|4.13.07 @ 8:07PM|#

U.S. citizens are responsible for a large share of crime, they cost U.S. citizens money, they were indirectly involved in 911, and they make it more difficult for LegalImmigrants to come here.

|4.14.07 @ 12:27AM|#

Just to clarify that last comment was in response to this:

Violations of our ImmigrationLaws are also not "victimless". IllegalAliens are responsible for a large share of crime, they cost U.S. citizens money, they were indirectly involved in 911, and they make it more difficult for LegalImmigrants to come here.

I realized it doesn't make a lot of sense out of context. :)

|4.14.07 @ 4:47AM|#

...kidnapping them, forceably transporting them hundreds of miles from their homes, families, and jobs, and trying to make it prohibitively dangerous and expensive to return to their homes, families, and jobs...

When I wrote that earlier today, I was just describing in the limit what enforcement of today's immigration law meant.

I didn't realize that tonight I would read a column about a case that proves the limit is not at all hypothetical.

|4.14.07 @ 1:14PM|#

I agree that's harsh but I wonder why the father didn't get the 1986 amnesty and the 2 following extensions. Maybe that's what the case was about.

I also noted that the mother needed an interpreter. So she's in the US 20 years and can't speak english? If true it seems to highlight the need for immigrants to learn. Could much of the legal issues they faced be due to confusion?

Why it doesn\'t make sense|4.14.07 @ 7:42PM|#

John Rhoads: your comment doesn't make a lot of sense even in the proper context.

Just yesterday I commented on a similar statement; why both that statement and yours are illogical at the link.

|4.15.07 @ 7:38PM|#

That's an inherently circular argument. You say that illegal immigrants commit crimes as a justification for them not being here, and then you say that those crimes are fundamentally different than those Americans commit because they're not supposed to be here. The nature of my argument here is that there is no legitimate justification for calling this immigration "illegal." Yes there are unjust laws that declare said immigration illegal, but I don't think that there is any ethical obligation to follow an unjust law. If you want to tell me that illegal immigrants are not part of our "natural order of things" you will have to give me a good reason why they shouldn't be. That they commit crimes is a terrible argument, so you'll have to come up with something else.