Crime Should be Illegal!

[hecter]

Yes but you have to be an idiot if you think that Russian or Canadian Illegals are the one's shutting down hospitals and schools in Arizona.
Case in point, A new school opened in 2009 that fit 1,000 students. In 2010, 1,180 students showed up, despite the city population officially staying flat.

Wow... That proves... nothing? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm sure Arizona has a large amount of illegal immigrants in the country, but saying that more kids show up for school than the school holds, well... That's a common problem. Here in my city as well, a lot of schools are over their limit, class rooms are generally filled (over filled) as the portables, and we sure as hell don't have an illegal immigrant problem.

Miss the point much? The school was apparently brand new, meaning they had most probably built the school to hold more people than were projected to be in the district the first year of being open. Even when the district's population stayed the same, the school was mysteriously 18% over capacity. That either meant poor planning or too many illegals showing up (and therefore never paid property taxes, which is how school's know how many people are in their district), and in this case, I'm guessing the latter is more likely.

It could have been poor planning, it could have been people moving around, it could have been a lack of budget, it could be a number of things. In my area, a high school was built to take off strain from mine (and a couple of nearby other schools) and yet my school is still over capacity. You say I missed the point, but you missed my point: That his figure alone proves nothing.

[PLAYER57832]

and the point spurgistan was making is that this law will inevitably lead to racial profiling and the unjust imprisonment of citizens on the basis of skin color

True, but the problem won't be limited to specific groups. Anybody who police wish to target can be targeted.

Yeah, but that's true of DUI check points and a lot of other things too..

Except there is a big difference between catching people who are driving drunk and "catching" people who just don't happen to have proof of citizenship on their person.

Not really, aside from the implications of your selective quoting

At a checkpoint, someone has to show evidence of insobriety before they can be held.

No they don't..

In fact they can actually hold you on the grounds that alcohol may still be being released into your blood stream. Also, if they ask you to take a sobriety test, you have to take it whatever the reason.

I see, so you think that demanding someone show they are physically able to drive .. a physical, immediate issue with potential immediate and serious harm to all others on the road is "equal" to stopping people who have violated no law, but simply are not able to produce proof of citizenship, proof that up until now is not required of people.

[

You can even demand a blood test in most states, meaning there has to be proof before you can be taken in jail.

I think you've got this backwards. They can demand that you submit to a blood test, but if you request a blood test after blowing positive and the blood test shows that you're under the limit, they can state that your body neutralized the alcohol in the duration between tests.

No. I don't have it backwards. However, the law is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, so the point is almost mute. The thing about saying your body neutralized the alchohol is just wrong, though. They can determine, within certain limits, how long it takes a body to process alchohol, so that if you test at point A, then you were at point B 1/2 hour earlier. The point is that if you are "borderline", some people will ask for a blood test, because it is more accurate than a breathalyzer, in the hopes that the intervening time will clear their blood a bit. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But again, I am not trying to argue sobriety tests here. I am saying that sobriety is something that A. provides and immediate and imminent danger to otheres and B.being able to prove you can operate a car safely is a condition of a license. It is a condition to which you agree when you go on the roadway with a car.

Currently, no one is required to carry ID that proves citizenship. Nor should they have to do so. This Arizona law changes that.

In this case, you have to prove you are a citizen. However, how many of us are really and able to do that when we are just driving or walking around? Take problems with the "no fly" list and magnify them.

I can prove my citizenship, or at least my residency much more easily than I can prove my sobriety as I always have at least to forms of state identification on me.. My drivers license and my license to carry.[/quote]
Your driver's license is not proof of citizenship. There was a move to try and make it a universal ID, to serve as such proof. It is not fully implemented yet. Furthermore, not everyone drives. I do drive, but I generally don't carry any ID. Not even all social security cards can be used as proof of ID. Some are stamped "not for proof of citizenship". I have no idea if your license to carry required a citizenship check. I know it requires a criminal check. At any rate, few people have an ID like that.

Again, while there are actually many laws requiring you to be fit to drive when you get on the road, there has never been a requirement that people have to carry proof of citizenship on their person. This goes beyond just carrying ID, because most ID won't show citizenship status.

The fact is, at least in PA, that if you are driving a car a police officer can detain you and force you to submit to a blood test. If you refuse, you're given the maximum penalty for DUI as you're assumed to be guilty..

I have a friend that was driving home in York and he got pulled over. The Police officer breathalised him through the window of his car and he blew under. The officer pulled him out and made him perform a number of sobriety tests, all of which he passed, before breathalising him again. He blew under again, the the officer forced him to come to a hospital and submit to a blood test.
The test revealed that he had smoked Marijuana at some point in the last month (he hadn't smoked that day) but because the metabolites? were in his system the officer issued a DUI on those grounds.. [/quote]

Actually, a case in point. Had your friend not partaken of any illegal substance, he would have no penalty.

Second, I can almost bet that the penalty was not incarceration for an extended period. In the case of citizenship, a person is essentially considered guilty until they can PROVE they are a citizen. Contrary to what you think, most people don't carry passports or other verified ID.

Furthermore, the person without ID can be encarcerated. Often times immigration violators are not given the same rights as others. So, there is no gaurantee they could call an attorney, or anyone else. Unlike the sobriety issue, bail is not usually an option.

Basically, illegal aliens are treated worse than most murderers in this country. Now just about anyone in Arizona can find themselves facing that same kind of penalty, simply because a cop did not like their looks. Someone like your friend is likely to be a prime target, for much the same reasons he was targeted for the insobriety issues. Likely he just did not fit the profile of how the cop thought all "upstanding citizens" should appear.

The bottom line is that as it stands, if you drive a car a police officer can detain you, transport you to a hospital, and force you to submit to a blood test. If that test reveals that you've consumed drugs which have not been prescribed to you at any point, you can and probably will receive a DUI.

DUI checks enable police to detain people without probable cause, and as it stands it is absolutely comparable to the proposed law in Arizona.

It's actually probably worse..

You obviously don't know what happens to people thought to be illegal aliens. Even people who might have arrived legally, but who might not have had entry papers because they are seeking asylum are often treated far worse than most criminals. Even children are held in jails with no schooling and little contact with any kind of attorney.

[PLAYER57832]

you missed the point. the schools can not even begin to plan on how many students will be arriving from one year to the next. I know this happens in districts all across the country. But we both know this is completely different.

You "know this happens in districts all across the country." Yet "this is completely different".

How?

[bedub1]

What happens to a 12 year old without identification that "appears" to be in the country illegally and can't prove otherwise?

[PLAYER57832]

What happens to a 12 year old without identification that "appears" to be in the country illegally and can't prove otherwise?

exactly....

and what if its a 15 year old, who "looks older"?

[jbrettlip]

I would guess he/she would contact his/hers parents and then they could prove citizenship? And why was this juvenile involved in a crime in the first place?

[PLAYER57832]

I would guess he/she would contact his/hers parents and then they could prove citizenship? And why was this juvenile involved in a crime in the first place?

They don't have to be involved in a crime.

Even "loitering" is, in this context, enough of a "crime" to warrent a cop asking for ID.

[jbrettlip]

Yes, I am sure the police will start harrassing 12 yr olds that are loitering. You are definitely on the winning side of this argument. OPEN THE BORDERS NOW!!!

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, I am sure the police will start harrassing 12 yr olds that are loitering. You are definitely on the winning side of this argument. OPEN THE BORDERS NOW!!!

How many 12 year olds have YOU been around lately. Unless you are one...

I am afraid there are a good many I might find "harassment worthy" if I were a cop. (the school is across the street from my house...).

One thing the police might very easily do is haul in a child who is afraid, then to call his/her parents because they are illegal. At first glance, that might seem to be "just desserts" or "just what the law intends". However, these kids are citizens, born here. The real impact is that many parents will now be afraid to send those perfectly legal kids, to school. So... we wind up with more uneducated citizens.

This just isn't the right way to deal with the problem. The right way is to target the employers who hire these people. Make the penalties for hiring people illegally high enough and Poof! there are no jobs. No jobs, no illegals!

However, I prefer making no restrictions. Just tax any non-citizen heavily AND tie this with heavy employer penalties for evading those taxes.

[72o]

Why is everyone so concerned about the police enforcing a law? I see this as no different than a curfew for teenagers, common in many cities. Individuals under 18 may not be out in public after 10 pm, say. The police can stop you and ask for ID to prove your age.

What if you are really 19, but you forget your wallet? Well, you're a dumbass. Carry some ID.

What is the big deal about stopping Hispanics and asking them if they are legally in this country? I for one would welcome this minor inconvenience to ensure that I don't have to pay for some illegal Messican to take advantage of services and privileges that are only intended for citizens or legal immigrants, who report their income, pay taxes, and otherwise follow the law.

I think it's pretty fucking ridiculous to believe that we should respect people's privacy to the extent that we cannot ask questions or otherwise validate that they are not breaking the law.

[jbrettlip]

Yes, I am sure the police will start harrassing 12 yr olds that are loitering. You are definitely on the winning side of this argument. OPEN THE BORDERS NOW!!!

How many 12 year olds have YOU been around lately. Unless you are one...

I am afraid there are a good many I might find "harassment worthy" if I were a cop. (the school is across the street from my house...).

One thing the police might very easily do is haul in a child who is afraid, then to call his/her parents because they are illegal. At first glance, that might seem to be "just desserts" or "just what the law intends". However, these kids are citizens, born here. The real impact is that many parents will now be afraid to send those perfectly legal kids, to school. So... we wind up with more uneducated citizens.

This just isn't the right way to deal with the problem. The right way is to target the employers who hire these people. Make the penalties for hiring people illegally high enough and Poof! there are no jobs. No jobs, no illegals!

However, I prefer making no restrictions. Just tax any non-citizen heavily AND tie this with heavy employer penalties for evading those taxes.

Well, making "anchor babies" non-citizens would be a good start. Let them have automatic citizenship at 18. But until then, they are not treated as citizens if both their parents are here illegally. (paternity would have to be proven, too).

I have agreed with you in every discussion about heavy penalties for hiring illegals. However, I don't think the fortune 500 companies (other than Tyson) are ever caught up in this. It is more of the small to medium businesses and subcontractor level. So by limiting th number of illegals, that would help employers NOT to hire them. Small companies do not have the resources to verify papers. If everyone was here legally, then no illegals could be hired.

And just targeting employers isn't enough. Babysitting can provide someone enough income to have a life here. Not to mention charity handouts, prostitution, handy man repairs, yard work etc.

[Nobunaga]

... Can you see it coming?

... An amnesty bill passed into law through Reconcilliation prior to the Mid-Terms?

... It's plain as day they will try. They (Dems) need the new votes if they have any chance in hell of surviving the mid-term more or less intact.

... Tell me I'm wrong and tell me why.

...

[72o]

Yes, I am sure the police will start harrassing 12 yr olds that are loitering. You are definitely on the winning side of this argument. OPEN THE BORDERS NOW!!!

How many 12 year olds have YOU been around lately. Unless you are one...

I am afraid there are a good many I might find "harassment worthy" if I were a cop. (the school is across the street from my house...).

One thing the police might very easily do is haul in a child who is afraid, then to call his/her parents because they are illegal. At first glance, that might seem to be "just desserts" or "just what the law intends". However, these kids are citizens, born here. The real impact is that many parents will now be afraid to send those perfectly legal kids, to school. So... we wind up with more uneducated citizens.

This just isn't the right way to deal with the problem. The right way is to target the employers who hire these people. Make the penalties for hiring people illegally high enough and Poof! there are no jobs. No jobs, no illegals!

However, I prefer making no restrictions. Just tax any non-citizen heavily AND tie this with heavy employer penalties for evading those taxes.

How can you tax a non-citizen? They are already breaking the law by being here. Do you think they're going to file a fucking tax return?

[PLAYER57832]

How can you tax a non-citizen? They are already breaking the law by being here. Do you think they're going to file a fucking tax return?

Read again. I said eliminate the illegal status. The only illegality would be if they don't file a return.

Non-citizens absolutely do pay taxes. Many non-citizens are here working or visiting perfectly legally. This includes a good many famous actors, among others. And many illegal aliens actually do pay taxes, because they use false social security cards.

Most illegal aliens (other than the criminals, of course), just want to work and would be more than happy to pay taxes, even extra taxes, if that would ensure their kid's educations, etc. They KNOW how great it is to live here!

The ones who have problems paying taxes are mostly CITIZENS. They are the ones "too good" for low wages and who expect the government to offer handouts without giving anything in return.

[jbrettlip]

How can you tax a non-citizen? They are already breaking the law by being here. Do you think they're going to file a fucking tax return?

Read again. I said eliminate the illegal status. The only illegality would be if they don't file a return.

Non-citizens absolutely do pay taxes. Many non-citizens are here working or visiting perfectly legally. This includes a good many famous actors, among others. And many illegal aliens actually do pay taxes, because they use false social security cards.

Most illegal aliens (other than the criminals, of course), just want to work and would be more than happy to pay taxes, even extra taxes, if that would ensure their kid's educations, etc. They KNOW how great it is to live here!

The ones who have problems paying taxes are mostly CITIZNES. They are the ones "too good" for low wages and who expect the government to offer handouts without giving anything in return.

I think instead of CITIZNES, you meant Obama supporters.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, making "anchor babies" non-citizens would be a good start. Let them have automatic citizenship at 18. But until then, they are not treated as citizens if both their parents are here illegally. (paternity would have to be proven, too).

So, let's see. You want these kids raised without proper nutrition, getting no education, and THEN, they will be allowed to come here as full citizens?
Seems like recipe for welfare dependence. The reason why schools and such have been encouraged to more or less look the other way on the immigration issue for many years is because, we benefit. We benefit if the kids go back home, but have a US education. We definitely benefit from having every citizen in this country well educated, well fed, until they get old enough to become tax-paying citizens themselves.

Now, I admit to being a bit of a "softy" when it comes to kids. However, what sense does it make to say a child who comes here at age 3 or 5, hardly of their own "free will", who has gone through our schools, done well, has to go back "home" to a place they cannot even remember. Sometimes they don't even speak the language.

This is complicated and, in truth, there are no real good answers when it comes to the children. I actually do think we should consider limitations to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. BUT, it has to be considered very, very, very carefully. This law doesn't even come close to looking at even the adult situations fully.

I have agreed with you in every discussion about heavy penalties for hiring illegals. However, I don't think the fortune 500 companies (other than Tyson) are ever caught up in this.

Walmart? Home Depot? ... etc.

It is more of the small to medium businesses and subcontractor level. So by limiting th number of illegals, that would help employers NOT to hire them. Small companies do not have the resources to verify papers. If everyone was here legally, then no illegals could be hired.

Not quite true. The problem is that you start with a few contractors who are willing to cut whatever corners. In a few cases, they might honestly have trouble hiring workers. Maybe they have trouble because they are jerks to work for, pay too little, etc. At any rate, illegals will work very well and for cheaper than most legals. So, it is tempting. Once a few bow to the pressure, they are able to keep their prices down and other contractors, etc, more or less have to follow suit. They either keep their businesses "family" or do things like hiring illegals. At any rate, this bit about "not being able to verify" citizenship, etc is pretty much just an excuse.

And locking down our borders is the most inefficient way to keep illegal workers out.

And just targeting employers isn't enough. Babysitting can provide someone enough income to have a life here. Not to mention charity handouts, prostitution, handy man repairs, yard work etc.

[/quote]
Babysitters don't escape immigration rules. And, unless you are running a business, taking in multiple children or working for someone wealthy (who often hire more "au pairs" and such) you really cannot make enough to support more than one person and often not even that, except that often housing is included. (but not housing for their kids or spouse, etc.)

[PLAYER57832]

I think instead of CITIZNES, you meant Obama supporters.

Well, at least I can spell "citizen".

Your comment is idiotic enough, without the added spelling error.

[Nobunaga]

Yes, I am sure the police will start harrassing 12 yr olds that are loitering. You are definitely on the winning side of this argument. OPEN THE BORDERS NOW!!!

How many 12 year olds have YOU been around lately. Unless you are one...

I am afraid there are a good many I might find "harassment worthy" if I were a cop. (the school is across the street from my house...).

One thing the police might very easily do is haul in a child who is afraid, then to call his/her parents because they are illegal. At first glance, that might seem to be "just desserts" or "just what the law intends". However, these kids are citizens, born here. The real impact is that many parents will now be afraid to send those perfectly legal kids, to school. So... we wind up with more uneducated citizens.

This just isn't the right way to deal with the problem. The right way is to target the employers who hire these people. Make the penalties for hiring people illegally high enough and Poof! there are no jobs. No jobs, no illegals!

However, I prefer making no restrictions. Just tax any non-citizen heavily AND tie this with heavy employer penalties for evading those taxes.

How can you tax a non-citizen? They are already breaking the law by being here. Do you think they're going to file a fucking tax return?

... They purchase social security numbers, under somebody else's name. This is the common practice. Thus they have taxes witheld and even pay social security.

... It's a point people don't discuss, but the unclaimed social security they pay into the system is a very substantial sum, a slush fund for our government (illegals rarely try to claim the benefits, as their names do not match up with their working "legal" names).

... That's not all illegals, of course. There are many who cross the border, work a day, or a month, then go home... come back a while later and do it again, without ever buying a social security number.

... If you have your SSN stolen, there is a very good chance, statistically, that an illegal will be using it, and paying benefits into your account. You cannot claim them later, though. Damn!

...

[72o]

I think instead of CITIZNES, you meant Obama supporters.

Well, at least I can spell "citizen".

Your comment is idiotic enough, without the added spelling error.

Look up. The error was yours. He was making fun of you.

[PLAYER57832]

Look up. The error was yours. He was making fun of you.

You are correct. HIs comment, though, was still stupid.

[PLAYER57832]

... It's a point people don't discuss, but the unclaimed social security they pay into the system is a very substantial sum, a slush fund for our government.

Ironically enough, I just listened to an interview where a quite conservative commentator (cannot remember the name, sorry, will post the link if I can track it down) stated that immigration may be the salvation for our social security system.

Though non-citizens get a bad rap regarding taxes, the truth is that they really DO pay many taxes. Sometimes those here legally can recoup a portion. (it gets complicated... talk to a lawyer or accountant if you want details), but more often they wind up paying taxes and Social Security that they never recoup.

The argument the commentator made was that we have 2 basic options. Increase population through a "baby boom", not terribly practical, OR encourage more immigrants to come here and work. (though not necessarily stay permanently) It is an interesting idea, anyway.

[jbrettlip]

Look up. The error was yours. He was making fun of you.

You are correct. HIs comment, though, was still stupid.

99% of your posts are stupid. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

[PLAYER57832]

Look up. The error was yours. He was making fun of you.

You are correct. HIs comment, though, was still stupid.

99% of your posts are stupid. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

At least I don't think "Nyah, nyah, nyah" is high rhetoric.

[jbrettlip]

... It's a point people don't discuss, but the unclaimed social security they pay into the system is a very substantial sum, a slush fund for our government.

Ironically enough, I just listened to an interview where a quite conservative commentator (cannot remember the name, sorry, will post the link if I can track it down) stated that immigration may be the salvation for our social security system.

Though non-citizens get a bad rap regarding taxes, the truth is that they really DO pay many taxes. Sometimes those here legally can recoup a portion. (it gets complicated... talk to a lawyer or accountant if you want details), but more often they wind up paying taxes and Social Security that they never recoup.

The argument the commentator made was that we have 2 basic options. Increase population through a "baby boom", not terribly practical, OR encourage more immigrants to come here and work. (though not necessarily stay permanently) It is an interesting idea, anyway.

that would not "fix" social security. That might delay its insolvency. The entitlement system (where you can get more than you pay in) is BAD MATH, that will never work. So anyone that said that, or agrees with it, is not very smart.

As to my idea of dealing with "anchor babies", it is simple math. Get rid of two uneducated, mal nutritioned illegals in return for possibly ONE. That is good math. And the child of illegal parents may never choose to come to this country. Yes the USA is a great place to live, but ever since SS, Medicare and other wasteful, irresponsible government programs, it is becoming much less likely.

And Player, didn't you state in the healthcare thread about not being able to pay a 3000 medical bill? Perhaps instead of trying to solve the US fiscal problems, you should worry about your own.

[PLAYER57832]

... It's a point people don't discuss, but the unclaimed social security they pay into the system is a very substantial sum, a slush fund for our government.

Ironically enough, I just listened to an interview where a quite conservative commentator (cannot remember the name, sorry, will post the link if I can track it down) stated that immigration may be the salvation for our social security system.

Though non-citizens get a bad rap regarding taxes, the truth is that they really DO pay many taxes. Sometimes those here legally can recoup a portion. (it gets complicated... talk to a lawyer or accountant if you want details), but more often they wind up paying taxes and Social Security that they never recoup.

The argument the commentator made was that we have 2 basic options. Increase population through a "baby boom", not terribly practical, OR encourage more immigrants to come here and work. (though not necessarily stay permanently) It is an interesting idea, anyway.

that would not "fix" social security. That might delay its insolvency. The entitlement system (where you can get more than you pay in) is BAD MATH, that will never work. So anyone that said that, or agrees with it, is not very smart.

#1 This isn't my idea. I find it "interesting", but I am not sold on it.
#2 The commentator did the math and that was why he came up with the idea. Social security is based on having more people pay in than out. Immigration is one way to get those extra people.
#3 yes, social security is currently asked to do too much. None-the-less, it is a much better idea than not having social security at all.

As to my idea of dealing with "anchor babies", it is simple math. Get rid of two uneducated, mal nutritioned illegals in return for possibly ONE. That is good math.

Not in the real world. One reason illegal workers are so prevalent is that they provide so much benefit to so many. Contrary to the rhetoric, they actually tend to contribute more than they take away. However, they also allow employers to pay low wages, which does hurt everyone. This is why legalizing them, taking the whole legal part out of the equation, is a good idea. It may not be as "macho" or "heroic" as posting border gaurds, but it would be more effective.

And the child of illegal parents may never choose to come to this country. Yes the USA is a great place to live, but ever since SS, Medicare and other wasteful, irresponsible government programs, it is becoming much less likely.

And yet, the country where people are the happiest is also one of the most socialistic countries on earth.

And Player, didn't you state in the healthcare thread about not being able to pay a 3000 medical bill? Perhaps instead of trying to solve the US fiscal problems, you should worry about your own.

No. I said we came close to bankruptcy paying it and my husband changed jobs as a result. But, of course, don't let truth poke a hole in your "democrats are the cause of all evil in this country" rhetoric.