Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Securing the Border

12357

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Amerika wrote: »
    Now, would it be okay for all employers in the US to fire all illegal aliens in their "employment," stating that unless they can show proof that they can work in the US legitmately, they no longer have a job?

    They need to check before they are hired; the burden of proof is on the employer. If an illegal immigrant submits their tax paperwork using a false social security number, and it bounces back, then yes they can be fired: here the problem was with the worker, not with the employer. Although generally in the US, without a contract, it's pretty easy to fire people anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    English-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Protestant) culture. Spanish-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Catholic) culture. Political disagreements with the colonial powers were minor distinctions. CULTURE is the key. Its first building-block is language. Any native-speaker of a European language is culturally European.

    Last I checked, Spanish was a European language, as is English (and French and Portuguese, the other major languages of the Americas). Using your logic, all of the Americas are culturally European: so what is the issue then? :confused:

    (And extending this logic, does that mean that Malians (French), and Mozambicans (Portuguese) are also culturally European?)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭PopeUrbanII


    Last I checked, Spanish was a European language, as is English (and French and Portuguese, the other major languages of the Americas). Using your logic, all of the Americas are culturally European: so what is the issue then? :confused:

    (And extending this logic, does that mean that Malians (French), and Mozambicans (Portuguese) are also culturally European?)

    Exactly. The issue is that the Americas, over time, will unite, like it or not. There is no other future for this land. Efforts to close the U.S. southern border are made in vain. While I don't promote open borders, I see no point in losing sleep over the inevitable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭PopeUrbanII


    Denerick wrote: »
    Codswallop. Huge swathes of the American midwest spoke either German or Swedish for at 50/60 years in the 19th century. You could ride your horse for almost a thousand miles from Minnesota to Missouri and hear nothing but 'GUTEN TAG!'

    I fear your interpretation of your own history is horribly selective...

    Right.........but they were latter-day immigrants, not founding colonial powers. C'mon........keep up here. :P


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Right.........but they were latter-day immigrants, not founding colonial powers. C'mon........keep up here. :P

    The point is that the angst over foreign speaking immigrants is hardly new. It doesn't mean your nation is dying or under assault, if anything it will rejuvenate a self assured and complacent Empire. To put it frankly, America needs Mexican immigrants. Tens of millions of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭PopeUrbanII


    Denerick wrote: »
    The point is that the angst over foreign speaking immigrants is hardly new. It doesn't mean your nation is dying or under assault, if anything it will rejuvenate a self assured and complacent Empire. To put it frankly, America needs Mexican immigrants. Tens of millions of them.

    The U.S. needs Latin America's poor and uneducated as much as Europe needs more Muslims from the Middle East. When the outhouse goes up in flames, I'll at least know why. You, on the other hand, will go down in denial.

    P.S., I'm nearly fluent in Spanish, btw. That aspect of it doesn't bother me.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    The U.S. needs Latin America's poor and uneducated as much as Europe needs more Muslims from the Middle East. When the outhouse goes up in flames, I'll at least know why. You, on the other hand, will go down in denial.

    I read this recently:

    Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of you teamming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

    P.S- I'm in favour of massive immigration to the EU. Its the only way I can imagine the rescue of the Welfare State.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    FYI...

    The NY Times just ran an article that highlights new efforts to crack down on employers via tax forms (as opposed to massive raids in front of tv cameras).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    “Even if discovered, illegal aliens are allowed to walk free and seek employment elsewhere” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “This lax approach is particularly troubling,” he said, “at a time when so many American citizens are struggling to find jobs.”
    The lad definitely has a point, but its a good place to start. Going after the supply [of jobs] not the demand. Once you enforce against enough employers nobody is going to hire these illegals in their right mind even to make a quick buck. They'll have nothing left but to go back over the broder.
    In April, Michel Malecot, the chef of a popular bakery in San Diego, was indicted on 12 criminal counts of harboring illegal immigrants. The government is seeking to seize his bakery. He has pleaded not guilty. In Maryland, the owner of two restaurants, George Anagnostou, pleaded guilty last month to criminal charges of harboring at least 24 illegal immigrants. He agreed to forfeit more than $734,000.
    It's a shame he has just about lost his business, but then, he was part of the problem. And why should he not lose his business when countless small businesses that did play by the rules simply collapsed during the 08/09 recession.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/20/barack-obama-national-guard-mexico-border

    1200 National Guard troops are to be sent to the border.
    The violence occurring just across the border is unbelievable, latest stem of killings is like something out of the Godfather x 100.
    Seems like the fight against the Cartels is really not going well, government is struggling to cope big time.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Pop Science/Mechanics (? I sub to both) had an article about the tech we use at the border. Pretty interesting. Can probably find it in their online edition.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

    The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents – including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

    The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

    U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

    The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law at 12:01 a.m. Thursday and protesters were planning a large demonstrations to speak out against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them their immigration status.

    The volume of the protests will be likely be turned down a few notches because of the ruling by Bolton, a Clinton appointee who suddenly became a crucial figure in the immigration debate when she was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against the Arizona law.

    Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona – the busiest illegal gateway into the country – to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants.

    The opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced.

    "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."
    Story continues below

    The law was signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections.

    The law has inspired rallies in Arizona and elsewhere by advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Some opponents have advocated a tourism boycott of Arizona.

    It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries.

    Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

    Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants.


    Looks like this could drag on for a while, it is really interesting watching all this develop.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    So, now will Obama be presidential or just political? Will he also sue "sanctuary cities" for enacting local policies that also that goes against federal policy, and for obstruction of justice for not cooperating with the feds?

    (I think we all know the answer already. :mad:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    So, now will Obama be presidential or just political? Will he also sue "sanctuary cities" for enacting local policies that also that goes against federal policy
    Does Federal Policy control Municipal Funds?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I wouldn't read too much into the injunctions per se. It's pretty much standard practise for an order to maintain the status quo pending an actual analysis of the case.

    NTM


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    Does Federal Policy control Municipal Funds?

    Well, just look at San Francisco, CA for example... they receive many many millions of dollars from the Federal Gov't. I don't think the city could survive without the Federal Gov't dollars. That is Nancy Pelosi's area after all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I listen to Mark Levin about a half hour each day on my evening drive. You can’t listen to the show without getting schooled on aspects of the law, particularly dealing with constitutional law. Mark’s analysis on yesterday’s show regarding the activist judge’s decision regarding the Arizona law was particularly interesting. Anybody interested in reading some fascinating analysis from a real constitutional scholar, the link is below.
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjU3MDA5ZmU1NzAzZTJhNTIyYWQxZjEzMzdiMGE2Y2Y%3D
    Hard to disagree with his logic IMO.

    He also runs Landmark Legal Foundation, and has filed an amicus brief in this case. Those interested in the law can read it here. Though quite "legaleeze" it is still quite an interesting read. It continues to amaze me that in this country, a small firm of about 6 attorneys with limited funds still has the power to influence and affect change.
    http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/AZ%20Brief%20Only.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Well, just look at San Francisco, CA for example... they receive many many millions of dollars from the Federal Gov't. I don't think the city could survive without the Federal Gov't dollars. That is Nancy Pelosi's area after all.
    Quite.

    On June 16, 2007 the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo (Republican-Colorado) was the sponsor of this amendment. 50 Democrats joined Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass the United States Senate to become effective.[8] In 2007, Republican Congresspersons introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities.[9] Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Cal., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo, R-Colo introduced the bill. The legislation would make illegal immigrant status a felony, instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds from the cities.[10]
    On September 5, 2007 Department of Homeland SecurityMichael Chertoff told a House committee that "I certainly wouldn't tolerate interference" by sanctuary cities that would block his "Basic Pilot Program" that requires employers to validate the legal status of their workers. "We're exploring our legal options. I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference." [11] On May 5, 2009, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue[12]Secretary signed a bill into law that prohibited sanctuary city policies in the state of Georgia.On June 5, 2009 the Tennessee state House passed a bill banning the implementation of sanctuary city policies within the state of Tennessee.[13]


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Hard to disagree with his logic IMO.

    Except for one thing. The purpose of an injunction is to maintain the status quo pending an actual hearing. It's to reduce the potential for harm by the change in the interim. Given this, it is very unsurprising that the injunction was granted.

    I think Arizona's right. But I don't think granting the injunction pending the case was a travesty of justice.

    NTM


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    English-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Protestant) culture. Spanish-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Catholic) culture. Political disagreements with the colonial powers were minor distinctions. CULTURE is the key. Its first building-block is language. Any native-speaker of a European language is culturally European.

    Don't forget all the Irish, Polish, Italian and South-German immigrants in the 19th Century.
    And the efforts of groups like the Know Nothing Movement and the KKK to stamp out these Rome Rulers who were threatenign America's hallowed shores.
    Fun fact; the Irish Mob would bus down to the Southern States in the summers to rumble with the KKK, whereas the first Catholic presidential Candidate (Al Smith) used to be greeted with flaming crosses arrayed along the train tracks by the KKK.

    I remember reading one article which suggested that the Prohibition Movement was in ways an attack by the WASPS on the Catholic Immigrants for whom alcohol was a much more normal and accepted way of life.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    Quite...
    Thanks for that information, but what does it mean and how does it apply to the Federal government taking similar action as they have against Arizona?

    I see there is growing furor form the people (approximately 54% from the following article), with calls for the government to also take legal action against "sanctuary cities." Much of my point has to do with the question of hypocrisy of the Obama administration. They sued Arizona primarily because they contend the law goes against federal policy and jurisdiction. I would argue that sanctuary cities are more guilty of this form of logic IMO. Or is it, as I suspect, just the administration governing by progressive ideology?
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/27/voters-say-take-action-against-sanctuary-cities/
    … The purpose of an injunction is to maintain the status quo pending an actual hearing. It's to reduce the potential for harm by the change in the interim. Given this, it is very unsurprising that the injunction was granted.
    NTM
    I’m not an attorney, although I’ve spent a good portion of my time in courts fighting frivolous lawsuits. If it is only an injunction as you put it, why am I hearing that AZ governor Jan Brewer will file an emergency appeal by the end of the day? I hearing it will go to (the loony IMO) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will inevitably side with this activists judge’s decision, and ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Help me out here. Thanks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Thanks for that information, but what does it mean and how does it apply to the Federal government taking similar action as they have against Arizona?
    I have no idea :pac: I've been thoroughly stupored on this issue Im just sitting here watching the carnage unfold from a fence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 108 ✭✭PopeUrbanII


    America can't stop the flood of Latinos that's gradually drowning the nation. It's mission impossible. The Hispanic population has grown so much, the Hispanic vote is crucial to any aspiring politician, especially POTUS. To secure that vote, leaders must leave our southern border open to massive, illegal immigration. We're doomed.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    We're doomed.

    If we are doomed reason enough to used font size 4.

    Welcome back Pope.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Before I type this, I want you to know that I live in the midwestern United States, and although there are undocumented people here, it's not a large problem. I am 27 years old, from Italian and Irish descent, and I don't particularly care about the politics of illegal immigration - to me, it ranks with political "hot button" issues such as abortion and marriage of same-sex partners (all unimportant to the actual success of a country IMO).

    White people have controlled the United States since its inception. Whether French, British or Spanish, the rulers of this land have always been white, christian men. Gradually, minorities have gained more and more rights. An example would be that black people went from being slaves, to being couted as only 3/5 of a person, to full people, to having voting rights. We don't even give anyone of african descent the benefit of the boubt - Barack Obama is half white and was born in a state (Hawaii) that used to be it's own country with its own very disctint culture, however we still call him black...and a terrorist because of his middle name (Hussein).

    Now that a half-black man has been voted president, white people are realizing that we are very quickly becomming the minority. That is making a lot of people very afraid. White people have treated anyone else like dirt for thousands of years - hundreds of years in the US. We kicked native americans off their land and made them move to Oaklahoma. Then we discovered oil in Oaklahoma and made them move again - to New Mexico and Arizona, and other dessolate places (where immigration seems to be the issue now). We enslaved black people and owned them as possesions to do our work. Even Irish people were treated poorly to the point of revolt throughout American history.

    Now that minorities are becomming the majority, we whites are afraid that they are going to do the same thing to us. We think they are going to retaliate. If "retaliate" means that they make sure they are getting the same pay for doing the same job, then I hope they do. And I really don't think they are going to enslave anyone, make us move to certain states or pay us ridiculously low wages for doing manual work.

    Regarding language - although the US does not have an official language, most (more than half) states do have official language laws - and it's english in every state that has the law.
    Every employee hired at any company operating in the US is required by law to fill out an I-9 form, which is checked and kept by the employer along with a photo ID and proof of citizenship. The undocumented workers in this country are just that - undocumented. Are we really going to blame Mexicans for leaving their poor and crime-ridden country for a better life and an opportunity given to them by legitimate companies in the US? Isn't that what the US is about? Free markets and profit making and working hard for a better life all sound like the "American dream" to me.

    A lot of people complain that "illegals" are "stealing our jobs," but they make much less than minimum wage - white people and citizens are entitled and would report that company to the Department of Labor, which would close the company down and then everyone would lose their job.

    Also, although Hispanic people have a higher crime rate than white people acrosst he nation, undocumented workers (from any ethnicity, including Mexican) have one of the lowest crime rates in the US. They are afraid, and know that breaking a law will send them right back where they came from - they don't involve themselves with violent crime.

    I do not think anyone is right by going "under the radar" and evading legal paperwork (majority of undocumented workers pay income tax, BTW), but I think it would be much less of an issue if we just let workers come into the country, fill out the proper paperwork (whether it is a VISA or citizenship) and continue doing what they are already doing anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    MCMLXXXIII wrote: »
    Now that minorities are becomming the majority, we whites are afraid that they are going to do the same thing to us. We think they are going to retaliate.

    If that’s what you think, all well and good. I wouldn’t want to restrict your freedom of speech. But I do object to your use of "we." Especially when the supposed "we" you refer to, do not agree with you.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    MCMLXXXIII wrote: »
    Now that a half-black man has been voted president, white people are realizing that we are very quickly becomming the minority. That is making a lot of people very afraid.

    I'm in California. White non-Hispanic people hit 'minority' status here a few years ago, currently they're the third-largest group after Hispanics and Asians. Yet I don't think you're seeing the same effect on the white folk here.

    NTM


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    If it is only an injunction as you put it, why am I hearing that AZ governor Jan Brewer will file an emergency appeal by the end of the day

    I don't know, but the fact remains that it's a preliminary injunction.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html
    Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction against sections of the law

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/07/28/20100728arizona-immigration-law-court-ruling-brk28-ON.html
    Brewer has not yet spoken with her attorneys in detail, but said she "would assume" that their next step would be appealing the injunction to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "The fact of the matter is this is just an injunction," Brewer said. "We need to go through the court process so the merits of the bill can be debated. I am sure as we go through the process, we'll get a fair hearing."

    <snip>

    Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican and author of Senate Bill 1070, downplayed the significance of the judge's order Wednesday, noting that it was just a temporary injunction

    NTM


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I'm in California. White non-Hispanic people hit 'minority' status here a few years ago, currently they're the third-largest group after Hispanics and Asians. Yet I don't think you're seeing the same effect on the white folk here.

    NTM

    In fairness this is California not exactly Alabama.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭MCMLXXXIII


    Amerika wrote: »
    If that’s what you think, all well and good. I wouldn’t want to restrict your freedom of speech. But I do object to your use of "we." Especially when the supposed "we" you refer to, do not agree with you.
    I don't agree with it either, but I still think that's how a lot of people feel about the situation.
    jank wrote: »
    In fairness this is California not exactly Alabama.
    ^^^ I agree with jank - there are more educated people in places like California or larger sububan areas. I'm not saying that if you live in the middle of nowhere you are uneducated, but statistics show that the larger and wealthier the area - the more educated the population.


Advertisement