? about immigration

[king donko of punchstania]

'Merica.

That is all.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by PETA

I think you're trying to suggest that one must be racist to make the economic argument that illegal labor influences the value of legal labor. That's silly. The ethnicity of the illegal laborer isn't what deflates the value of legal labor, it is their presence in the market. Supply and demand are in essence ammoral principles.



Political asylum is a slightly different issue.




They do pay excise (consumption taxes) and some even pay property, income and payroll taxes.

forget me suggesting it's racist. they're providing labor at the "purest" form of capitalism-whatever the market will pay. how can that be bad? (from an R/big business standpoint)

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

forget me suggesting it's racist. they're providing labor at the "purest" form of capitalism-whatever the market will pay. how can that be bad? (from an R/big business standpoint)

Because it is artificially depressing the market through an illicit process. That is economically inefficient.... see the Chicago School as well as thier School of Law and Ecomics (Epstein particularly*)

Advocates of the free market may wish a law changed in order to facilitate market function but criminals use it to facilitate their bottom line.

I've never advocated a market absolutely void of regulation. I've argued for the elimination of some regs and for the application of others with the goal of permitting the market to function more efficiently. Generally, but not specifically, that means keeping the gov't the fuck out of the way. At other times their intervention is critical.

Besides, the DNC is the party of big business now.


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Epstein that's a pretty superficial account but I suspect you'd find him very interesting.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by johnny861

subverting the system by how? advocating the changing of the immigration laws?

NO, advocating a change in the current immigration laws are 'exactly' the correct way to go about getting what you want.

Continually using 'non-threatening' word play (like un-documented workers), continually refusing to enforce immigration laws, prosecuting cities & towns for attempting to enforce immigration laws, etc. etc. is NOT the proper way to go about bringing a 'change' that the American people will go along with.

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by tricky

lolz. gitmo? rendition? blah blah

wow

that's lolz

Are you feeling OK? I think your dope has the text on the screen fading in and out on you.. Otherwise you would NOT have missed this part>>....

Originally Posted by FarangBa

I assume you mean 'beside' the fact that it is modern day slavery backed by liberals and progressives in the United States under the guise of 'equality'??

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

NO, advocating a change in the current immigration laws are 'exactly' the correct way to go about getting what you want.

Continually using 'non-threatening' word play (like un-documented workers), continually refusing to enforce immigration laws, prosecuting cities & towns for attempting to enforce immigration laws, etc. etc. is NOT the proper way to go about bringing a 'change' that the American people will go along with.

Well, it is a little more sugar coated than stinking wet backs lol, but yea, I get your point, it's the rhetoric game that politicians dig the most.

Wait, who is refusing to enforce immigration laws? The INS? or ICIS or whatever the fuck they are calling themselves these days?

Don't we have a shit load of border patrol? If these agencies are not enforcing the law, why are we even funding them?

or are you referring to things, such as amnesty?

Also, Interesting about the prosecution of cities/etc attempting to enforce immigration laws. I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide some sources, court cases, etc?

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by johnny861

or are you referring to things, such as amnesty?

Also, Interesting about the prosecution of cities/etc attempting to enforce immigration laws. I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide some sources, court cases, etc?

Yes, I'm talking about the steady drumbeat toward 'another' amnesty.

And.........Here's just one example.
Arizona Sheriff Vows to Continue Immigration Sweeps Despite Federal Downgrade


Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is dismissing a revised Department of Homeland Security policy that takes away his federal authority to make immigration arrests.

[FarangBa]

Also Here listed by the Congressional Research Service:

Read Page 8 of 31

Authorities to Enforce Immigration Law
The power to prescribe rules as to which aliens may enter the U.S. and which
aliens may be removed solely resides with the federal government,7 particularly with
the Congress. To implement its plenary power, Congress has enacted and amended
the INA — a comprehensive set of rules for legal immigration, naturalization,
deportation, and enforcement. Concomitant to its exclusive power to determine
which aliens may enter and which may stay, the federal government also has power to proscribe activities that subvert these rules (e.g., alien smuggling) and to set
criminal or civil penalties for those who undertake these activities.
In examining the INA, it is crucial to distinguish the civil from criminal
violations. For example, mere illegal presence in the U.S. is a civil, not criminal,
violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative
processes are civil proceedings.8 Criminal violations of the INA include, e.g., 8
U.S.C. §1324, which addresses the bringing in and harboring of certain
undocumented aliens; §1325(a), which addresses the illegal entry of aliens; and
§1326, which penalizes the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported.9
Congress also has exclusive authority to prescribe procedures for determining
who may enter or stay and the right of aliens in these proceedings, subject to the
individual rights all aliens in the U.S. enjoy under the Constitution. However,
exclusive authority to prescribe the rules on immigration10 does not necessarily imply
exclusive authority to enforce those rules. While enforcement standards and
procedures may differ between the criminal and civil aspects of immigration law,
Congress may authorize the states to assist in enforcing both, and state officers may
exercise this authority to the degree permitted under federal and state law. There is
a notion, however — one being more frequently articulated by the federal courts and
the Executive branch — that states have “inherent” authority to enforce at least the
federal criminal law related to immigration. This inherent authority position is now
apparently beginning to be expressed with regard to the enforcement of the civil
aspects of immigration law as well. State enforcement, nonetheless, must always be
consistent with federal authority.
Even assuming states have some inherent authority to enforce immigration law,
federal law preempts inconsistent state law where concurrent jurisdiction exists.
Congress’ power to preempt state law arises from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “the Laws of the United States ... shall be the
supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.”11 Congressional intent is paramount in preemption
analysis; accordingly, a court must determine whether Congress expressly or
implicitly intended to preempt state or local action.12 Generally, a court will
determine that Congress intended to preempt a state regulation or enforcement when
(1) Congress expresses preemptive intent in “explicit statutory language,” (2) whena state entity regulates “in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to
occupy exclusively,” or
(3) when a state entity’s activity “actually conflicts with
federal law.”13

Kind of clear as mud if you ask me.

[jaesun]

Originally Posted by johnny861

Also, Interesting about the prosecution of cities/etc attempting to enforce immigration laws. I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide some sources, court cases, etc?

Well, just locally try using your Google skills on cities like Irving and Farmers Branch.

[davinci]

i dont mind them working here, they just need to pay taxes, and have a real tx drivers license and carry car insurance... just play by the rules like everyone else does...

come work all you want!

[Nyteshade]

Originally Posted by davinci

i dont mind them working here, they just need to pay taxes, and have a real tx drivers license and carry car insurance... just play by the rules like everyone else does...

come work all you want!

Just to note, many of them are paying taxes as they use fake social security numbers to obtain employment. In fact, they often pay more taxes because they don't file their returns so they aren't getting their deductions.

[davinci]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Just to note, many of them are paying taxes as they use fake social security numbers to obtain employment. In fact, they often pay more taxes because they don't file their returns so they aren't getting their deductions.

ya i know they do, they do ss checks every 6 months at the company i used to work at... and trust me, everytime about 20 people would get let go b/c they where using fake ss

like i said play by all the rules.. just like we do. i dont mind them here. just b/c they are using ss from people who are dead or out of state and dont file for returns make it right...
..

like i said play by the rules that we have to play by...

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by Nyteshade

Just to note, many of them are paying taxes as they use fake social security numbers to obtain employment. In fact, they often pay more taxes because they don't file their returns so they aren't getting their deductions.

Agreed there are a number of those you speak of.

But that is not anywhere near the majority. It takes quite a bit of money to even obtain the fake SS#s etc. Either they had money beforehand or they save up the money for the SS#

[jaesun]

They sell them off Fitzhugh and 75. I used to work near there.

If you see a guy holding up a hand sign like the one below... he will sell you a fake ID.

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by FarangBa

Also Here listed by the Congressional Research Service:

Read Page 8 of 31

Kind of clear as mud if you ask me.

Here's what I got out of it:

Authorities to Enforce Immigration Law
The power to prescribe rules as to which aliens may enter the U.S. and which
aliens may be removed solely resides with the federal government,7 particularly with
the Congress. To implement its plenary power, Congress has enacted and amended
the INA — a comprehensive set of rules for legal immigration, naturalization,
deportation, and enforcement. Concomitant to its exclusive power to determine
which aliens may enter and which may stay, the federal government also has power to proscribe activities that subvert these rules (e.g., alien smuggling) and to set
criminal or civil penalties for those who undertake these activities.
In examining the INA, it is crucial to distinguish the civil from criminal
violations. For example, mere illegal presence in the U.S. is a civil, not criminal,
violation of the INA, and subsequent deportation and associated administrative
processes are civil proceedings.8 Criminal violations of the INA include, e.g., 8
U.S.C. §1324, which addresses the bringing in and harboring of certain
undocumented aliens; §1325(a), which addresses the illegal entry of aliens; and
§1326, which penalizes the reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported.9
Congress also has exclusive authority to prescribe procedures for determining
who may enter or stay and the right of aliens in these proceedings, subject to the
individual rights all aliens in the U.S. enjoy under the Constitution. However,
exclusive authority to prescribe the rules on immigration10 does not necessarily imply
exclusive authority to enforce those rules. While enforcement standards and
procedures may differ between the criminal and civil aspects of immigration law,
Congress may authorize the states to assist in enforcing both, and state officers may
exercise this authority to the degree permitted under federal and state law. There is
a notion, however — one being more frequently articulated by the federal courts and
the Executive branch — that states have “inherent” authority to enforce at least the
federal criminal law related to immigration. This inherent authority position is now
apparently beginning to be expressed with regard to the enforcement of the civil
aspects of immigration law as well. State enforcement, nonetheless, must always be
consistent with federal authority.
Even assuming states have some inherent authority to enforce immigration law,
federal law preempts inconsistent state law where concurrent jurisdiction exists.
Congress’ power to preempt state law arises from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which provides that “the Laws of the United States ... shall be the
supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.”11 Congressional intent is paramount in preemption
analysis; accordingly, a court must determine whether Congress expressly or
implicitly intended to preempt state or local action.12 Generally, a court will
determine that Congress intended to preempt a state regulation or enforcement when
(1) Congress expresses preemptive intent in “explicit statutory language,” (2) whena state entity regulates “in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to
occupy exclusively,” or
(3) when a state entity’s activity “actually conflicts with
federal law.”13

I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing distinguishing between civil violations and criminal violations, which local authorities still have the power over criminal violations.

Scenario 1 - Let's say Arizona is playing host to training Afghani police. They are training over a period of 8 months. Their visas are good for 6, which they will just need to renew their visa. One guy is late getting approval, a civil violation occurs. The local Sheriff's department, wary of their visitors, keeps an ongoing investigation on their legal status while in the States. They find this guy in violation, bust him and deport him using the methods they would use for criminal violations.

That's a lot of paperwork and overhead to fix that mistake.

In the cases involving civil cases, I think that should be left up to the federal agencies that handle civil immigration cases.

Scenario 2 - I know a Canadian that is working with an immigration lawyer to get naturalized. In order to work here legally, he has to drive back to the border and get a new work permit every few months for $50 bucks. Due to work demands, he was not able to make a trip to the border and now he's status is not valid. The guy has been here 5 years, has built up a career, a family and a life in Texas. His immigration lawyer has instructed him not to leave the country while he works out the situation with the Federal government. If he leaves now, he may not ever be allowed back in, losing his family, his career, his house. He's not conducted any criminal activity, but he's comitted a civil violation for not being able to get up to the border to renew his permit in time. If a police officer catches him for speeding, etc, and runs his immigration status, should he be busted and deported under criminal proceedings? Or should this civil matter be addressed by the courts, given his special circumstances?


I'm all for keeping out illegal aliens being smuggled in to this country, but for the ones that have come in legally and due to some circumstance, their status becomes in question, I think they should have the ability to work out the issue as opposed to being treated as a criminal and booted out.

I'm definitely not about destroying people's lives, over a civil violation.