What Part of Illegal Don't You Understand?

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

The piece has no credibility as it seeks to stand on a foundation that doesn't even support itself.

Good thing I am not an illegal immigrant. There is no way out of that trap. It’s the crime you can’t make amends for. Nothing short of deportation will free you from it...

I said it earlier and I will say it again: There is a way out of that trap and it doesn't involve deportation. Just pack and go home. That's all it takes. That's how you make amends for this offense. You simply put it in reverse and you'll be home free.

Some people have been here for years. They have family here. Friends here. Work here. It's easy to say, "Go home." But 'home' is here.

No, it isn't and you know it. One cannot just take up residence in someone else's "dwelling" and call it home because one happens to like the furnishings of someone else's home better than what one has in one's own place. There's a difference with wishing this was hiome and it actually, legitimately being home.

And to pre-empt this bit: It matters little if that dwelling is one that someone else hasn't checked on regularly. No residence right is established by just managing to stay in some place long enough.

Excellent point. It goes to what I said earlier. You can't break the law a "little bit". You either do or don't. Jaywalking or murder, they are both laws and you can't do it a little bit!

How would you folks that defend this writer feel if these immigrants set up home on your lawn? Are they still welcome? It is OK as long as it is in someone else's yard, just not yours. Illegal is illegal. Law is law. If you cannot figure that out then there is little point in continuing the discussion because it has lost the foundation of creditbility. Legal v. illegal, good v. evil. There is no gray area. They either obey the laws or they break them.

You can call them illegal or whatever PC term suits you but the fact remains that the laws were broken. I will be the first to DEMAND that if amnesty is granted to someone who entered/remained in this country illegally that my fiancee, who was invited by a natural born citizen and veteran of 3 wars and a law biding residident of my community, be granted an immediate visa to enter this country and remain as my wife and I would also demand a refund of all fees charged for attempting to do navigate the immigration system legally.

I said the same thing for Mr. Zapeta. He broke the rules. Punish him IAW the laws of the State and and the Federal Government then send him on his way. It was humane and the right thing to do. But he too was here illegally and it is ridiculous to ask that he be granted any convenience or consideration not available to an upstanding citizen of this country.

And while some of this is my OPINION, most of it is LAW.

If the 'grown up' solution involves the present illegals to get some form of amnesty...then that's not creating a deterrent for future generations of illegals. Which cannot be ignored, or wished away.

As said before, amnesty didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

I'm going to go house hunting in the same fashion....enter without permission, then b!tch because I'm not asked to weigh in on what's for dinner.

you're a woman, it's whatever you are cooking.

*runs off and hides*

doesn't that club you're carrying get heavy after a while?

it's made outta titanium

[Fandango 1,439]

If the 'grown up' solution involves the present illegals to get some form of amnesty...then that's not creating a deterrent for future generations of illegals. Which cannot be ignored, or wished away.

As said before, amnesty didn't work then, and it's not going to work now.

An amnesty shouldn't happen in a vacuum. It's not a solution in and of itself. A guest worker program would deter many to come here illegally. Stronger-patrolled borders are a deterrent. The fact that firms would be punished legally & financially for employing illegal immigrants would lessen those numbers too. It's a combination drug. Gotta be taken together to be effective.

I agree that it's a multi-pronged approach, but none of my solutions that I see involve granting any illegal forgiveness.

I agree with the rest as well...stronger patrolled borders, and employers should be punished severely. I mean crushed.

[SteveLaura 0]

Excellent point. It goes to what I said earlier. You can't break the law a "little bit". You either do or don't. Jaywalking or murder, they are both laws and you can't do it a little bit!

Illegal is illegal. Law is law. If you cannot figure that out then there is little point in continuing the discussion because it has lost the foundation of creditbility. Legal v. illegal, good v. evil. There is no gray area. They either obey the laws or they break them.

You can call them illegal or whatever PC term suits you but the fact remains that the laws were broken.

Personally, I'm not arguing against the illegality of what has been done by coming here. To utilise your analogy a while, if the punishment for jaywalking was execution, I would suggest that most reasonable people would agree that it's excessive. Similarly, deportation (notwithstanding that it's impractical) is a punishment that does not fit the crime, in my opinion.

[NavarreMan 10]

If you believe that amnesty activists or the author are the ones that stereotype Hispanics as illegal, you'll apparently believe anything while your side goes on about mariachi bands, dope fiends, gatecrashers, and how they're all dirty HIV uneducated criminals. The author's accurately repeating a stereotype that shows up here daily. Surely you're smart enough to recognize this, so I'm going to have to assume you're playing around.

Immigration violations are not even considered crimes of moral turpitude when it comes to immigration. Immigration's a problem, but pretending it's equivalent with bank robbery is just plain old ignorant... or maybe even intentionally inflammatory.

It is equivalent only in the fact that it is also illegal. From a moral point of view (mine anyway) murder is far worse a crime than entering/remaining in our country illegally, but both are forms of illegal activity. On the right or wrong scale, wrong. On the good or evil scale, evil. On the legal or illegal scale, illegal.

I don't know where you came up with your first paragraph but it was nothing I said. I can assure you I am not playing around. The question was asked if we would support a guest worker program. My answer is yes, but it would have to be run correctly. The funny thing about this is that immigrant who come here under a guest worker program would be the first to copmplain about those who come here illegally to work. I have legally immigrated neighbors of both hispanic and asian origins who do not like illegals and do not agree with the amnesty program. What does that tell you about my so-called "side".

I did not write the law but I am expected to live by it and I have fought for it and I am not about to sell it out by making exceptions for habitual violators.

[NavarreMan 10]

Excellent point. It goes to what I said earlier. You can't break the law a "little bit". You either do or don't. Jaywalking or murder, they are both laws and you can't do it a little bit!

Illegal is illegal. Law is law. If you cannot figure that out then there is little point in continuing the discussion because it has lost the foundation of creditbility. Legal v. illegal, good v. evil. There is no gray area. They either obey the laws or they break them.

You can call them illegal or whatever PC term suits you but the fact remains that the laws were broken.

Personally, I'm not arguing against the illegality of what has been done by coming here. To utilise your analogy a while, if the punishment for jaywalking was execution, I would suggest that most reasonable people would agree that it's excessive. Similarly, deportation (notwithstanding that it's impractical) is a punishment that does not fit the crime, in my opinion.

What then would you suggest the punishment be for a person whose crime was to enter a country illegally? Again this is like shoplifting, steal a candy bar but we're not going to take it away, instead we let you keep it and then give you a job in the store you stole it from. Please help me see the light here.

[golias 0]

OPINION | October 28, 2007

Editorial Observer: What Part of 'Illegal' Don't You Understand?

By LAWRENCE DOWNES

America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” As a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/...70&emc=eta1

I'd love to see people here reconsider their use of this derogatory term on this forum. Something to think about.

"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."

Mark Twain

[SteveLaura 0]

Your home is here because you established residency here. My home is here because I did the same. To stay within my analogy, we both applied for a lease, were approved and entered into it. That lease is what makes this legitimately your home and mine. Had we not applied for and been granted the lease, such claim would be questionable. But don't take my word for it. Just move into the nicest house in your neighborhood without the landlord's approval and see what happens...

Well, for sake of the analogy, in the UK at least there is such a thing as 'squatter's rights'. But anyway. My argument is more emotional, I suppose. The legality of my move didn't make the US anymore my home. The fact that I have been and continue to set down roots did. Having a marriage certificate doesn't make me love my wife more.

[NavarreMan 10]

Excellent point. It goes to what I said earlier. You can't break the law a "little bit". You either do or don't. Jaywalking or murder, they are both laws and you can't do it a little bit!

Illegal is illegal. Law is law. If you cannot figure that out then there is little point in continuing the discussion because it has lost the foundation of creditbility. Legal v. illegal, good v. evil. There is no gray area. They either obey the laws or they break them.

You can call them illegal or whatever PC term suits you but the fact remains that the laws were broken.

Personally, I'm not arguing against the illegality of what has been done by coming here. To utilise your analogy a while, if the punishment for jaywalking was execution, I would suggest that most reasonable people would agree that it's excessive. Similarly, deportation (notwithstanding that it's impractical) is a punishment that does not fit the crime, in my opinion.

What then would you suggest the punishment be for a person whose crime was to enter a country illegally? Again this is like shoplifting, steal a candy bar but we're not going to take it away, instead we let you keep it and then give you a job in the store you stole it from. Please help me see the light here.

I contend that the punishment of deportation perfectly fits this crime and is far lesser a punishment and more practical than serving prison time. Are you

suggesting something like a small fine? That small fine had better add up to the sum total of all fees incurred by a lawbiding citizen trying to get a visa for a fiancee or other qualified person and also include the approval process we go through to get our loved ones here. But now you are right back to deporting them and letting them try and enter legally. You either follow the law or not. There is no in-between.

Edited October 29, 2007 by NavarreMan

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Personally, I'm not arguing against the illegality of what has been done by coming here. To utilise your analogy a while, if the punishment for jaywalking was execution, I would suggest that most reasonable people would agree that it's excessive. Similarly, deportation (notwithstanding that it's impractical) is a punishment that does not fit the crime, in my opinion.

Typically, if someone gained something illegally, the first step in the process of "making it right" is to return what has been illegally gained. Without equating the two offenses, a bank robber is typically not allowed to hang on to the loot. The deportation (or the voluntary departure) is really not so much the punishment as it is giving up what has been illegally gained - the very presence in this country. The actual punishment is a ban on re-entry which I think it fits the crime quite well.

[NavarreMan 10]

Personally, I'm not arguing against the illegality of what has been done by coming here. To utilise your analogy a while, if the punishment for jaywalking was execution, I would suggest that most reasonable people would agree that it's excessive. Similarly, deportation (notwithstanding that it's impractical) is a punishment that does not fit the crime, in my opinion.

Typically, if someone gained something illegally, the first step in the process of "making it right" is to return what has been illegally gained. Without equating the two offenses, a bank robber is typically not allowed to hang on to the loot. The deportation (or the voluntary departure) is really not so much the punishment as it is giving up what has been illegally gained - the very presence in this country. The actual punishment is a ban on re-entry which I think it fits the crime quite well.

Which implies that a deportation was also carried out.

[SteveLaura 0]

What then would you suggest the punishment be for a person whose crime was to enter a country illegally? Again this is like shoplifting, steal a candy bar but we're not going to take it away, instead we let you keep it and then give you a job in the store you stole it from. Please help me see the light here.

Well, I've laid out some ideas earlier, but I can go over them again for clarity. I would start afresh. Strengthen borders. Go after firms hiring illegal workers. Introduce a guest worker program. If you are caught after that, deportation. Why is it OK then? Because there are other options available, and the roots have not been laid down. For those already here, a fine. Is everyone gonna be covered in that scenario? Absolutely not. Like I said earlier, I don't have all the answers, more's the pity. But is it better than what exists currently? I'd say so.

Out of curiosity, what would you do?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

OK. But rounding up and deporting people isn't practical, cost-effective or, I would argue, justifiable in all cases. The punishment just doesn't fit the crime. Like it or not, illegal immigration is a result of poor management - or the border & firms who hire them. Closing both loopholes is a good start. A guest worker program makes sense. And for those already here, unfortunately that's a problem we just have to swallow, I'd suggest.

I had the opportunity to come here illegally. Who didn't? I could have overstayed my 3mth visit. I chose not to because the reasons I wanted to come here differed wildly from those crossing the border. I could wait. I could afford the costs. I had a visa option to utilise. No, it doesn't justify immigrants coming here illegally anyway. And justice still needs to be seen to be done, so that those of us who are paying fees and filling forms (albeit in different situations) don't feel duped. So, yes, a fine is reasonable. It's a punishment used for other instances where a law is broken. I fail to see why this shouldn't be one of them.

[sj5 4]

OPINION | October 28, 2007

Editorial Observer: What Part of 'Illegal' Don't You Understand?

By LAWRENCE DOWNES

America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word "illegal." As a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/...70&emc=eta1

I'd love to see people here reconsider their use of this derogatory term on this forum. Something to think about.

If I wasn't legit in USA...You gonna call me "illegal" nothing wrong 'bout it calling me "illegal" if I was. .. illegal is illegal

why not calling them "illicit" instead of illegal?

[Drew and Tik 0]

Excellent point. It goes to what I said earlier. You can't break the law a "little bit". You either do or don't. Jaywalking or murder, they are both laws and you can't do it a little bit!

Illegal is illegal. Law is law. If you cannot figure that out then there is little point in continuing the discussion because it has lost the foundation of creditbility. Legal v. illegal, good v. evil. There is no gray area. They either obey the laws or they break them.

You can call them illegal or whatever PC term suits you but the fact remains that the laws were broken.

Personally, I'm not arguing against the illegality of what has been done by coming here. To utilise your analogy a while, if the punishment for jaywalking was execution, I would suggest that most reasonable people would agree that it's excessive. Similarly, deportation (notwithstanding that it's impractical) is a punishment that does not fit the crime, in my opinion.

That's like saying if the punishment for jaywalking was making the person walk back across the street and cross in the legal, structured manner, it would be unreasonable.

[SteveLaura 0]

Are you suggesting something like a small fine? That small fine had better add up to the sum total of all fees incurred by a lawbiding citizen trying to get a visa for a fiancee or other qualified person and also include the approval process we go through to get our loved ones here. But now you are right back to deporting them and letting them try and enter legally. You either follow the law or not. There is no in-between.

Yeah, my boss (an Irish citizen) makes the same argument - if amnesty occurs, he's gonna write to the government and get his fees back. I see the logic, but I don't agree with the argument, unfortunately. Like him, I chose to do things by the book. But that option was open to me - to come over on a fiance visa.

If I spend $350 on the latest gadget, can I go back to the store years later when they're now selling it for $35? Yeah, it sucks. But you gotta eat it, alas.