Does illegal immigration upset you big time too?

[Udella&Wiz 325]

You can't edit your post after some one else has posted to the same topic. Before that you can and the button is at the bottom along with quote and reply. (not reply and fast reply)

Edited June 15, 2007 by Udella&Wiz

[Cassie 8]

I have special editing powers

[Lance27 19]

I feel like I have to say something here. When the white man came here, these lands were actually several countries. The dictionary (forget which one) defines a country as a state or nation. A country does not need any kind of official govt or social security system to exist. The native americans did have countries and that is actually a well established fact. They also had govt systems, at the local and national level. The white man did come over here and took those lands away. Were this done today it would be considered illegal. I suppose that there were no police here at the time or any form of law enforcement means it wasn't illegal immigration (at the time) but it certainly wasn't legal.

The compensation offered to the native americans is a joke. They were given a bit of land to live off of. The native americans lived off great expanses of lands, so to put them on such small pieces of land is more like putting them in jail. Sure they don't pay taxes (if they live on reservations) but is that really a big compensation? Native americans were not just removed off their land but their game has been overhunted and their fish have been overfished. Their trees have been clear cut and their way of life pretty much lost forever. Their spirituality is nearly all gone as well thanks to "missionaries" converting them to their way.

I think native americans have had it pretty crappy back then. But today you don't hear many complaining.

[Allie 5]

karen, you took that way personally. i did not mean to offend you, or anyone else. i was just stating facts. when the "white man" came here it was not a country, it was an unsettled territory. not a country w/ a gov't, social services, an economy etc.(a nation). sorry the "white man" took land from native american tribes. i believe they have been appoligized to & compensated. as well as benifited in many other ways from the "white mans" country they built here. we are talking about illegal immigration into a nation. not taking land from native tribes. noone said it was right for the "white man". to do what they did, but everyone here has benifited.

Firstly I wish to tell Bowflex I in no way am highkjacking your topic. But do feel compelled to answer to this reply and a previous one.

Mike:

You are absolutely correct there was no US in these lands until after the War of Independence. It was land inhabited by what we refer to as First Nations People. Those words first peoples mean just that first in these lands.

I prefer to use the term non-Native as to the words white man

Above you have stated it was not a country. it was an unsettled territory, no social structure, no economy

Unsettled territory only in the eyes of those that came here uninvited, stuck a flag in the ground and claimed these lands for the King of England as uninhabited lands not as unsettled as you state but uninhabited.

As for a Gov. there was a Gov appointed and run by a Tribal Chief with Social Service where everyone helped others in need out. Nobody was left to fend for themselves in hard times. Food was shared as a community need. As for an economy there was much trade beween Tribes

Yes land was taken and that's all a part of history and people live with what has happened in the past as with many other things that have taken place in time. Many live with it but that doesn't mean it should be washed from memory and the books completely

Do you honestly think that being stuck on reserves most with useless lands was compensation to Natives. Benefits what benefits did the non -native bring smallpox, disease and assimilation of people.

We are now an educated peoples we're lawyers, Doctors and many other occupations and now know what is right and what is wrong and through that education we have benfited ourselves. Yes we have Casino's and get medical aid and pay little taxes but I suppose that's the benefit of being first Nation Not a bad deal for the Gov when one considers all they have taken in return. I would say they're still coming out on top after all

When I first replied in this topic It was in no way in reference to taking lands from Natives Everyone who knows history is familiar with how that all went down

My reply was to show people have already come into these lands uninvited a long time ago. Not on the right and wrongs of Native history or treatment

Although Here's a site for you to brush up on history http://www.chaostan.com/why5.html

Wela'lin ( thank you ) Allie

[Caladan 19]

Where are you going to get the money to beggar 11 million people and deport them? It's not as though we're going to suspend due process and just run a truck around picking up everyone who looks Hispanic or suitably brown (plenty of illegal immigrants aren't Hispanic, yet oddly none of the rhetoric seems to worry about them.) As I'm sure you know from your wife's circumstances, people have a right to a hearing, they have a right to appeal the hearing, if they lose that, then there's a deportation order and until that time, we can't just throw people in jail. If you're advocating no due process, then the miscarriage of justice is likely to be far, far worse.

If we started deportation hearings for everyone tomorrow, it would be years upon years before the appeals wound their ways through the system.

People who entered the country illegally have absolutely NO right to due process, as they are not a citizen or a recognized member of our society. They should not be jailed or anything like that, they should be sent home, and the payment for these flights or transportation would be received by liquidating absolutely all of their assets that they accrued while being in the country illegally.

I am not going against just Mexicans or Hispanics at all. If someone illegally immigrated from Canada to the United States, my stance would be the exact same for them. My wife's folks had the right to appeals and hearings because they were legally involved with the process, and all of the work they did submitting forms and money entitles them to those rights.

The bottom line should be: "Did you enter the country illegally?" and if the answer is yes, you transport them immediately, then after they're out of the country, you go to their home, sell everything in it, sell the home, and recoup any such debts that were attained by sending them away.

Come on, think this through. Everyone has to have a right to due process or no one does. That's how it works. Think it through. The government doesn't have the resources to track all the illegal immigrants; so how are they going to tell the illegals from the non-illegals? How are they going to tell someone who is appealing a legitimate asylum case and has fuzzy status from someone with a 181-day overstay? Not everyone who is here illegally is illegal in the same way nor subject to the same penalties. It would be easier to talk about this issue if people realized that differences, say, in entry lead to different penalties. That has to wind its way through the courts.

I'm sorry, it's got to be more than 'Did you enter illegally?' and if the person is dumb enough to answer 'yes', out they go.

----

I live in an area with a relatively high Hispanic population. I assume, given the odds, that many of them are here illegally, whether it's an overstayed visa, or sneaking in with a relative. You know what? Neighborhood's not gone to hell. Honestly. No mariachi bands, either!

[bowflex 0]

Come on, think this through. Everyone has to have a right to due process or no one does. That's how it works. Think it through. The government doesn't have the resources to track all the illegal immigrants; so how are they going to tell the illegals from the non-illegals? How are they going to tell someone who is appealing a legitimate asylum case and has fuzzy status from someone with a 181-day overstay? Not everyone who is here illegally is illegal in the same way nor subject to the same penalties. It would be easier to talk about this issue if people realized that differences, say, in entry lead to different penalties. That has to wind its way through the courts.

I'm sorry, it's got to be more than 'Did you enter illegally?' and if the person is dumb enough to answer 'yes', out they go.

----

I live in an area with a relatively high Hispanic population. I assume, given the odds, that many of them are here illegally, whether it's an overstayed visa, or sneaking in with a relative. You know what? Neighborhood's not gone to hell. Honestly. No mariachi bands, either!

You might actually want to think this one through a little more. In case you haven't noticed, with supporters in high ranking places, many of the illegal immigrants are proud that they're here and have marched. Over ONE MILLION people across the country marched and wore shirts saying "I'm illegal, so what". They could've EASILY done a sweep of each of those protests and sent them away. That would've been around 1/12 of the entire illegal population in the country in one sweep. Employers that suspect fraudulent documents could forward them on to government agencies for an investigation. Whenever an overstay of a Visa happens, it could easily go across a national network to track any financial movements or such for that person. We already use this technology to track FBI's most wanted and APBs for the police, so it wouldn't be hard.

If someone is found to be illegal through this, they are NOT entitled to a court case or an appeal or such. They did not respect the system enough to enter it legally, so therefore they are not entitled to reap the benefits of that same system.

Once again, refer to the beginning of this post where I stated the article that upset me, which was ADMITTED illegal immigrants seeking asylum and sanctuary in churches. They have absolutely NO rights here and should be sent away, and any church getting involved in that practice should lose its tax exempt status, as they are involving themselves with politics instead of religion.

[misa 2]

I'm not even going to address any of the other issues in this post. I already said my opinion on the first page and I don't really care to elaborate. But I wanted to address the technology portion.

Whenever an overstay of a Visa happens, it could easily go across a national network to track any financial movements or such for that person. We already use this technology to track FBI's most wanted and APBs for the police, so it wouldn't be hard.

Different systems though. The systems in place currently in use for CBP/DHS/USCIS are completely outdated. They only *just* came out with AR-11 online last year and a lot of times, it doesn't do what it's supposed to do (update an alien's change of address). A friend of mine works for DHS as a programmer for border protection. Their systems, as she says, are "a joke".

The ability to create a centralised database exists of course, but the data mapping alone would be a nightmare and would take a long time to actually implement effectively. I don't really see this happening as there are too many agencies that would need to work together to make it work.

[Caladan 19]

Come on, think this through. Everyone has to have a right to due process or no one does. That's how it works. Think it through. The government doesn't have the resources to track all the illegal immigrants; so how are they going to tell the illegals from the non-illegals? How are they going to tell someone who is appealing a legitimate asylum case and has fuzzy status from someone with a 181-day overstay? Not everyone who is here illegally is illegal in the same way nor subject to the same penalties. It would be easier to talk about this issue if people realized that differences, say, in entry lead to different penalties. That has to wind its way through the courts.

I'm sorry, it's got to be more than 'Did you enter illegally?' and if the person is dumb enough to answer 'yes', out they go.

----

I live in an area with a relatively high Hispanic population. I assume, given the odds, that many of them are here illegally, whether it's an overstayed visa, or sneaking in with a relative. You know what? Neighborhood's not gone to hell. Honestly. No mariachi bands, either!

You might actually want to think this one through a little more. In case you haven't noticed, with supporters in high ranking places, many of the illegal immigrants are proud that they're here and have marched. Over ONE MILLION people across the country marched and wore shirts saying "I'm illegal, so what". They could've EASILY done a sweep of each of those protests and sent them away. That would've been around 1/12 of the entire illegal population in the country in one sweep. Employers that suspect fraudulent documents could forward them on to government agencies for an investigation. Whenever an overstay of a Visa happens, it could easily go across a national network to track any financial movements or such for that person. We already use this technology to track FBI's most wanted and APBs for the police, so it wouldn't be hard.

If someone is found to be illegal through this, they are NOT entitled to a court case or an appeal or such. They did not respect the system enough to enter it legally, so therefore they are not entitled to reap the benefits of that same system.

Once again, refer to the beginning of this post where I stated the article that upset me, which was ADMITTED illegal immigrants seeking asylum and sanctuary in churches. They have absolutely NO rights here and should be sent away, and any church getting involved in that practice should lose its tax exempt status, as they are involving themselves with politics instead of religion.

Wearing a shirt that says "I'm illegal, so what?" oddly enough isn't grounds for deportation. Just like wearing a shirt that says, "I did it legally" doesn't mean squat, either. Or wearing a shirt that says "we're legally married" means you get your green card. Or wearing a shirt with a Communist star on it means you're committing treason. It's a weird quirk of American law that people can't be arrested during a peaceful assembly for wearing a T-shirt. Take it up with the First Amendment.

You need proof, or else the government is going to be in the business of deporting people without actually determining whether they're illegal beyond whether they went to a rally, or look Hispanic. Due process is how you determine who needs to be deported, and what the penalty should be. "Illegal" covers everyone from the stereotypical EWI (with the fence-jumping mariachi band...?) to the former F-1 who is overstaying his expired student visa by 92 days and the family who was not granted asylum and dodged the deportation order to the spouse whose abuser hasn't filed for a greencard or a guy whose running drugs. The penalties for each of these vary. Some people who are deported are inadmissible. Some aren't. Some incur a ban. Some don't.

You can't just figure that out a priori. That's what due process is for. "If someone is found to be illegal then they're not entitled to a court case.".... look, you can't do that without a court case. That's what the court is for. That's why it's not feasible to just swoop in and arrest one million people (no matter where you'd put them while processing their deportation.) I get that it's Alanis-Morisette-style-ironic as hell that they are RIGHT there and that nothing can be done, but we're a nation of laws.

And the system you're proposing with all the information sharing is giving the government both way too much credit, in that they don't know nearly as much as you think, and way too much power, in that in your zeal to ensure that everyone illegal is punished, you're just tossing over the foundations of the American legal system.

You really want your financial information, as the spouse of a green card applicant, to be divulged to five different government agencies as soon as your sweetie's K-1 expires, just so they can track his or her movements just in case the green card is denied?

[udlike2no2 0]

Come on, think this through. Everyone has to have a right to due process or no one does. That's how it works. Think it through. The government doesn't have the resources to track all the illegal immigrants; so how are they going to tell the illegals from the non-illegals? How are they going to tell someone who is appealing a legitimate asylum case and has fuzzy status from someone with a 181-day overstay? Not everyone who is here illegally is illegal in the same way nor subject to the same penalties. It would be easier to talk about this issue if people realized that differences, say, in entry lead to different penalties. That has to wind its way through the courts.

I'm sorry, it's got to be more than 'Did you enter illegally?' and if the person is dumb enough to answer 'yes', out they go.

----

I live in an area with a relatively high Hispanic population. I assume, given the odds, that many of them are here illegally, whether it's an overstayed visa, or sneaking in with a relative. You know what? Neighborhood's not gone to hell. Honestly. No mariachi bands, either!

You might actually want to think this one through a little more. In case you haven't noticed, with supporters in high ranking places, many of the illegal immigrants are proud that they're here and have marched. Over ONE MILLION people across the country marched and wore shirts saying "I'm illegal, so what". They could've EASILY done a sweep of each of those protests and sent them away. That would've been around 1/12 of the entire illegal population in the country in one sweep. Employers that suspect fraudulent documents could forward them on to government agencies for an investigation. Whenever an overstay of a Visa happens, it could easily go across a national network to track any financial movements or such for that person. We already use this technology to track FBI's most wanted and APBs for the police, so it wouldn't be hard.

If someone is found to be illegal through this, they are NOT entitled to a court case or an appeal or such. They did not respect the system enough to enter it legally, so therefore they are not entitled to reap the benefits of that same system.

Once again, refer to the beginning of this post where I stated the article that upset me, which was ADMITTED illegal immigrants seeking asylum and sanctuary in churches. They have absolutely NO rights here and should be sent away, and any church getting involved in that practice should lose its tax exempt status, as they are involving themselves with politics instead of religion.

Wearing a shirt that says "I'm illegal, so what?" oddly enough isn't grounds for deportation. Just like wearing a shirt that says, "I did it legally" doesn't mean squat, either. Or wearing a shirt that says "we're legally married" means you get your green card. Or wearing a shirt with a Communist star on it means you're committing treason. It's a weird quirk of American law that people can't be arrested during a peaceful assembly for wearing a T-shirt. Take it up with the First Amendment.

You need proof, or else the government is going to be in the business of deporting people without actually determining whether they're illegal beyond whether they went to a rally, or look Hispanic. Due process is how you determine who needs to be deported, and what the penalty should be. "Illegal" covers everyone from the stereotypical EWI (with the fence-jumping mariachi band...?) to the former F-1 who is overstaying his expired student visa by 92 days and the family who was not granted asylum and dodged the deportation order to the spouse whose abuser hasn't filed for a greencard or a guy whose running drugs. The penalties for each of these vary. Some people who are deported are inadmissible. Some aren't. Some incur a ban. Some don't.

You can't just figure that out a priori. That's what due process is for. "If someone is found to be illegal then they're not entitled to a court case.".... look, you can't do that without a court case. That's what the court is for. That's why it's not feasible to just swoop in and arrest one million people (no matter where you'd put them while processing their deportation.) I get that it's Alanis-Morisette-style-ironic as hell that they are RIGHT there and that nothing can be done, but we're a nation of laws.

And the system you're proposing with all the information sharing is giving the government both way too much credit, in that they don't know nearly as much as you think, and way too much power, in that in your zeal to ensure that everyone illegal is punished, you're just tossing over the foundations of the American legal system.

You really want your financial information, as the spouse of a green card applicant, to be divulged to five different government agencies as soon as your sweetie's K-1 expires, just so they can track his or her movements just in case the green card is denied?

All that is well and good about your due possess but I was watching the house of rep’s the other day trying to get more funding for a new bill that would let ICE and local police work together to try and help this problem of illegal aliens. The one thing that they keep talking about was when an illegal alien is convicted of a crime he goes to jail and after he gets out they release him right back into the streets. So if we can’t even deport an illegal alien criminal all this talk seems useless and seems to me that the government turns a blind eye. Forget about the illegal aliens that are here working I would think we would want to send back the one’s we catch that are committing crimes and we don’t even do that. Dos that make sense to you? And who cares about a criminals due process especially if they are an illegal alien that the government knows they are here illegally!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chica Yeyé 41]

In respectful response to Original Poster: No, it does not "upset me big time".

Don't know about you all; but for me VJ is a safe place where I come for giving and receiving support, not for anything else. My politics are aside and no part of my role as a VJ member. If I have nothing nice to say, I say nothing. But that's me. B)

Question to moderators: what is this thread still doing on the Canada forum? Shouldn't it be moved?

Peace, L.

[Flames9_RN 358]

Probably had it in the canada section so it remained civil!!

[misa 2]

Yeah, I would like to see this in the offtopic forum rather than here.

[^KK^ 3]

Instead of breaking the law those people could work harder to improve the conditions in their country, as the forefathers did in the United States. I don't understand any opposing viewpoint for this one Lol.

easier said then done

[Autumnchik 6]

Yeah, I would like to see this in the offtopic forum rather than here.

Aww c'mon Misa, it is about time we got some controversy going in this branch

And my response to the OP:

No illegal immigration does not upset me big time.

[Tinker 0]

Probably had it in the canada section so it remained civil!!