When people are caught breaking those laws they are given the prescribed penalty. For speeding it's a ticket. I never suggested that there be a secret police force seeking out illegals and throwing them out en masse without a hearing. When they are found through happenstance you follow the prescribed procedure. Our founding fathers set up a Legislature to enact laws and a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in light of changing societal circumstances. That is what happened here. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution at EVERY turn...from Roe v. Wade to the myriad of First Amendment cases. That is because the constitution was written VERY broadly...too broad for it to mean anything in a vaccuum.
I believe they are not enforced because the between the moderate to liberal leaning peoples and economic conservatives (who actually realize it is a big boon to them and their constituents) when push comes to shove there really isn't strong political support for it. Blaming illegals and immigrant in general has been a widely used and effective rhetorical tactic for over 150 years, but it almost always is "just talk" and no action because of the negative economic consequences it would have on the vast majority of peoples. There are always a few (or more than a few) that cry "but they are here illegally", "but they are destroying our culture", "but they are not adapting to American principals" (it used to also include reactions to Irish and Italian immigrants because the refrain was that they were not American [e.g., Protestant] enough), etc. It is the same old tired story that unfortunately isn't always bad politics even if no real actions are taken and whose lone effect it to fuel prejudice. As for Khan, I agree with you. Be in guest worker, amnesty for those with really good cases, or some combination of thereof, it would be better for all if was handled openly and legally.
Those things were the beginning of an armed insurrection. Certainly you can't be meaning that this issue will come to an armed insurrection. It is immigration policy, particularly Executive Orders that have brought the flux. The statutes have remained relatively stable. The Canadian government has told us that they believe terrorists may be coming through the Canadian border. The Rio Grande isn't the only border we have. If you make a law it must apply to BOTH borders. Agreed. I do not however want to see convicted felons coming into the country. While it is far from being the majority (in fact, likely a small %) it does happen and we need control. Oh here we go...stupid, moron...yadda yadda. And which laws are these? Hmmmm??? Oh sage genius? The criminal laws and immigration policy have no relation to my business. But I guess all attorneys live off other people's misery. Go ahead...keep getting personal considering you don't know me or what type of law I practice. Tell me...which laws are jailing the poor and the hungry so that the rich get richer? I'm not saying that a few don't exist...but make your point. It sounds like you already have disdain for laws. You sound as though you'd like to do away with them entirely. It's a pretty radical notion. What made this country great is the ability of the people to elect representatives who will utilize a process to change laws which are unjust. And if they don't do it then when presented with a case the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional. Dictators enact laws without any checks and balances...certainly not like we have in the US. But what would I know...I'm just another self-serving lawyer, right? You don't even know me but you just label me that, right? *******.
But some laws we don't even go about trying to catch people breaking them or citing poeple even if we know they are breaking it (e.g., sodomy laws). All I was pointing out is there was nothing I know of in our framers documents or our original constitution that would seem to support the teared system of rights based on citizenship documents. Some would argue that unless the Constitution specifically proscribed federal power over the citizenship documents and their impact on fundamental rights the federal government is overstepping its Constitutional power. Point is, all this is way open for legal debate, the teared system of rights is not slam dunk defensible by the Constitution like other federal powers are.
The real problem here is that illegals are not citizens. Citizenship is a legal classification...has been since the early days of the American republic. Most Constitutional protections apply via the 14th Amendment to CITIZENS of a state. That is the rationale for the tiered system. Now I say that if the illegals are here we need to make sure that they have basic human rights, and as much due process as a citizen in regards to criminal matters. The other rights and entitlements are a different story IMO.
That is a nonsensical answer. Your position is that we should follow all the laws BECAUSE they are laws. Accordingly, the 'founding fathers' certainly should not have destroyed property (dumping tea in the harbor) nor should they have committed treason (signing the Declaration of Independence). Slaves should never have tried to run away. Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus. SO, please explain again how this country is based on your interpretation of the 'Rule of Law.' Again, this is irrelevant to your claim that '9/11 proved this to be true.' The fact is that none of the 9/11 terrorists came in covertly. Who are you, Al Haig? Again your position has nothing to do with whether or not immigration is at the heart of American values. Well, we could start with the non-violent drug convictions. Possession. Sodomy laws. Three strikes. Tax law. When someone proposes that the law is absolute, and that (just coincidentally) happens to ensure their own employment and wealth creation possibilities, they are ensuring they get rich at the expense of whoever is getting screwed by a particular law. Or more appropriately, by a society with too many laws, written by too many lawyers to ensure thier own future. Oh, call me a 'radical.' That sure is discrediting. I don't remember advocacy of NO laws. But the stance you take that a law is justified BECAUSE it is a law is silly. I give an explanation of WHY you probably think this way, as in a court it is the letter of the law, rather than the truth, or justice, that is paramount. However, if society at large is to evolve, we must consider what is just, not just what is. THAT is the base ideal that got this country started. Historically you are just plain wrong. The original founders did not follow the rule of law as you advocate it. Many many examples prove your interpretation not only to be incorrect (look at the civil rights movement) but downright dangerous. When the laws become justified because they are laws the result is a vicious circle of repression. And the fact that laws are repealed and that they are overturned at a later point only goes to show that your interpretation is absurd. Ah yes. The Supreme Court always makes the correct decision. They are the 'supreme' court after all. Just ask Dred Scott, or the Japanese interned in the 40s. You are making a self serving argument. You are a lawyer. You are a self-serving lawyer. Your position is that LAWS are the paramount consideration. That is a self serving argument. And it has blinded you to the issue at hand. This discussion proves the point. Should illegal immigrants get benefits. You say NO, the law says they should be deported. No discussion of what is right, or just, or desirable, or beneficial. Just NO, the law says... That is a particularly small lens through which to decide every issue. And if it were the only lens we used, no undesirable laws would ever be changed, ignored, or overruled. It is a view that is antithetical to core American values.
Hayes-- It seems as though you are suggesting that if a certain segment of the population feels a law is unjust that they just should ignore it, and things will change. Rosa Parks defied the law KNOWING what the consequences were. She willingly accepted those consequences and through the consequences things changed. That is what made her a heroine. The law does not evolve merely through people ignoring the law. Law evolves through the application of the law...and people decide that it isn't right and just. But you are suggesting that we fail to apply the law. That way any unjust laws will never change. As for your assertions about me, I really don't care what you think. You don't know me and I'm sure it makes it easier for you to dismiss whatever I say by placing me in the box marked "self-serving." I'm sure that you've never had a self-serving thought in your Ivory Tower world. That's all I have to add to this thread...to continue would just continue to devolve into more severe personal insults. It's a waste of my time and yours.
I am suggesting that your response 'its the law' is grossly inadequate, more than likely irrelevant, and probably a dangerous worldview to advocate. If she thought 'its the law so no discussion needed,' as you do, she never would have sat in the front of the bus. No, I am suggesting your advocacy of 'its the law' is silly. I don't have to know you to point out that you are being self serving by advocating the 'law' as an absolute. After all, if the law is the paramount consideration in any discussion, who is more important to society than a lawyer? That is more poor argumentation of your part. Actually, I do it all the time. Much of the time its with my wife, who is a lawyer. Not sure why you think I live in an Ivory Tower. I've given multiple reasons why your analysis is wrong. That's hardly devolving. Its really more of insult to me that you act as if all I am doing is calling you names. But if you need an 'out' from your obviously flawed argumentation, be my guest.
hmmm, maybe it's not that "generally speaking" that "when you teach in both, students bcome proficient in neither", rather a how you make the system work better thing? BTW, plenty of international schools around the world teach in multiple languages. Students still speaks perfect English, hmm, at least better than a lot of English-only schools' students in the US.
I wish that were so. The Rand meta-analysis noted wide fluctuations: 'Overall, the net cost estimates range from a yearly "surplus" of $1,400 per immigrant to a "deficit" of $1,600.' http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR705.html Center for Immigration Studies: 'Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200.' (It doesn't sound like this analysis takes into account positive effects on the economy). http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/release.html They may be skewed, but I found these quickly. I bet that there are plenty more indications of a wide range of cost/benefit.
So, it's ok to employ someone illegally as long as it is good for business? In essence, it's ok to break the law if it makes you money? Nevermind that these are actual human beings without healthcare, with barely any means of support, probably with a family to feed...etc. I agree that we need a labor class to do the really tough jobs, but to suggest we compensate them for LESS just because we can was actually outlawed last century and for good reason.
Most of the ridiculously simplistic thoughts in this thread are beyond comment. But your hardcore rule following approach is so absurdly high handed, it's almost impossible for you to not be a hypocrite. It's a government of LAWS you say. So do you pay extra high prices for goods and services that are lower because of illegal immigration? Do you not go to restaurants that employ immigrant bus boys? I'm betting you probably don't. You are contributing to law-breaking, indeed, you are encouraging it. I'm also willing to bet that you have sped, illegaly parked, run red lights in your lifetime. Somehow I doubt that you wrote a check to the State of Texas because of your lawlessness. Why shouldn't you? You're not above the law. YOur hypocrisy is overwhelming. For a hardcore rule follower such as yourself, it must really be infuriating. How do you live with yourself? You know, somehow I bet that you didn't adopt this "laws-not men" extreme philosophy until the Clinton-Lewinsky debacle, just like you probably didn't think of invading Iraq until six months ago. But keep on drivin 55 there partner.
I was wondering what took you so long. I'm disappointed in your reaction time. No, what is okay is to provide employment and much needed money to a hard-working, competent individual who has a family to support. Would you prefer we ignore them completely and let them starve? Incorrect. They are not without healthcare. They have healthcare in Mexico. They choose to decline that healthcare for a chance to earn money in the U.S. Support? You want support? Work. That is what we are providing them the opportunity to do. No one is suggesting compensating them less. Quite the contrary. We are compensating them far more than they could earn in Mexico. Why come here otherwise? Want to earn the minimum wage, or a just wage? Become a citizen. And please, Jeff, the slavery demagoguery you use really is tiresome. You are smart. Pointed in the wrong direction, but smart. You can do better. CASE CLOSED.
If they got the proper paperwork they wouldn't have to sneak over. They could go right through the checkpoint in Brownsville.
