Rancher sued, another killed. Can't we defend ourselves?
 

Just thought it would be interesting to juxtaposition all three of these articles. (I'll cut and paste them at the end of the post.) A few years back, a rancher was sued by people, shall we say, "not of this country" because he detained them. This article tells the story.

This past weekend, this occurred. Also about the murder and adding to it is this article from the area.

In my opinion, it appears that the real victims are the United States citizens that live along the border. Yes, some real tragedy occurs with the illegal aliens, but isn't it also tragic that people in this country have to be concerned whether or not they could lose their homes or even lives, by way of defending their property and persons, to someone who shouldn't even be here in the first place?

And what has to happen before something is finally done about this issue? Like a terrorist sneaking in a dirty bomb through the Mexican border perhaps? I mean, if large numbers of old men, women and children and insane quantities of drugs can sneak in, it wouldn't be too far a stretch for someone really motivated to do the same.

Just curious to everyone's take on this.....Yes, I posted anonymously, and no, I'm not going to dive into any flame wars. Say what you want, I'm only reading this thread (or not) once it's posted.

Rancher Killed....
Ranchers worried...
And finally, Rancher Sued.... (A few years old.)

We need to do something to stop the undocumented immigration. It might be to heavily fine anyone who hires them, it might be to put our national guard along the border, it might be to help Mexico with some of their problems to keep the people from coming here illegally. We've been talking about this for decades, we should have done something by now.

I support the ranchers rights to perform citizens arrests on trespassers or defend themselves from violent attacks.

I'm not sure about the relationship between the first and second issues. Yes, something needs to be done about illegal immigration. Part of it is making immigration easier, as there is a clear labor shortage in certain sectors. Yes, something needs to be done about the drug cartels, and I generally think that legalization of drugs would go a long way towards that.

But the idea that any of those things make Roger Barnett's actions justified is bullshit. He didn't stop drug lords or anything like that. And he didn't simply stop them and waited for the border patrol.

This guy is a douchebag who once held and threatened US-born Mexican-Americans and their three children. In this particular case, people like to say that he was sued simply because he stopped the immigrants. That is false. Most of the charges and lawsuits were dropped or dismissed. All of the charges related to the violation of civil rights were dismissed. He was found guilty of assault. And you know why? Because he kicked a woman while she was on the ground. Catching someone entering the country illegally is not a pass to treat them however you please.

If the government is serious about stopping illegal immigration they should just start carpet-bombing people as they cross the border in the desert. Just stop being nice about the whole thing. Everyone complains, but nothing ever gets done. Turn a few people into a fine red mist and things will change rather quickly.

Until this stuff starts to happen its just another talking point for politicians to get elected on. There's no point in discussing it. Businesses will continue to get their cheap labor and everyone will go on doing what they're doing.

The only right an illegal immigrant has is the right to be safely transported back to the border and be told not to come back until he has legal immigration papers.

As far as this rancher who is being sued for $32 million, if it can be proven he kicked one of the women he should be prosecuted for that. But the $32 million lawsuit is beyond absurd.

Property owners in that area have the right to defend themselves and protect their property. So as long as they aren't shooting illegal immigrants in the back, I have no problem with them being armed or detaining anyone they find on their property.

If it takes US military to protect our borders, so be it. That's one of the valid things the federal government should be spending our tax dollars on.

As far as making legal immigration easier, let's talk about that once we get unemployment back to the 5% or so range.

I married an illegal immigrant. Not all illegals are bad, there are many illegals who are good people and just want to make a better life for themselves. The problem with illegal immigration starts at our immigration laws. We need to have ways for honest hard working people to be able to come here with relative ease. It shouldn't be as difficult as it is for honest people. Once we open up our boarders to allow the good people in then I'm all for coming down with a hammer on people crossing illegally.

pure, unadulterated, bullshit. Unemployment is over 10%. there is no labor shortage anywhere. There's only wage issues.

The fact that there is 10% unemployment means jack shit for the specific sectors illegals work in.

There are simply no Americans willing to pick tomatoes for even minimum wage, nevermind the wages illegals make. Or busing tables. And we don't need to imagine "what if." We just need to look at tomato farms in states where there was a crack down on illegal immigration.

I don't think force is the proper method for dealing with illegal immigration. Once you confront the realities of the economic incentives between the two countries, then you see why so many undocumented migrants cross the Mexican-US border (dream of better wages, better working conditions, a real career, an education, etc.). Perhaps the best way would be to eliminate or align such economic incentives to decrease deaths and conflicts on the border.

With regards to violence from drug cartels and other violent illegal immigrants, well, I hope the national guard or some legal domestic law enforcement force can prevent needless deaths.

A colleague just walked in and said there was a call to arms in a Texas town because the Feds decided not to send any troops to defend their border. I am still trying to find a news source. Stand by...

...later...there was no official call to arms. Just a media recorded discussion where some people were being overly dramatic in their frustration to the government's response. (surprise, surprise)

so to make sense of the op i had to do a bit of research into the bizarre-o political world that appears to have taken shape on the arizona/mexico border, which seems to have benefited very few people outside some militia groups and the straighter politicos who attempt to benefit from their support and the hysteria machine that both rely on to keep the whole nativist/fascist thing from getting too far forward. in that peculiar world, the words "mexican" "illegal immigrant" and "drug smuggler" appear to be interchangeable, and this despite certain problems like...o i dunno....take for example the footprints that were tracked going away from the murder scene outlined in the first article toward mexico. like leaving. like...

well, this is the least of it, really. in the paranoid militia-space occupied by bloggers like those who write from the arizona sentinel

The Arizona Sentinel

there's some kind of invasion going on and it is only the heroic action of gun-toting army-playing militia vigilantes that gives nativist folk a fighting chance well hell the governments done let them down by not turning the border into a fortress and not mowing down these people who come streaming across looking for work (THE HORROR) or who move back and forth running contraband commodities (perhaps us drug laws are a Problem? )

and there have been certain...um...excesses as well carried out by these vigilantes, which explains why the minutemen dissolved themselves over the past days following on an ugly little dust-up involving the group's leaders and killing a 9 year old latina girl. but hey, as long as the ultra-right feel "safer.."

of course there's an ugly "legitimate" politics side to all this, the nativist-to-merely reactionary political and law enforcement types that you can read about here:

Phoenix News - Feathered Bastard - Phoenix New Times

now i do all this knowing that as a "pub discussion" there should be no real information. but the op is set up in a fundamentally misleading way, acting as though the information it uses is not problematic, as if the issues that information frames are not **really** particular, only resolvable as the op makes them out to be from a **Very** particular and ultra-rightwing viewpoint, as if the conclusions drawn make sense outside that context. because they don't. not really.

context matters.

it is not at all obvious that there is an "invasion" of the us of a by "illegals"----but it is politically expedient for alot of ultra-rightwing groups and politicos to act as though this is the case.

it is not at all obvious that the category of "immigrant" really makes sense when characterizing these informal transnational labor flows. in more documented flows, the outflow can be as high as 80%...so for every 100 people who enter, 80 leave. are they the same people? impossible to say. but there's very considerable fluidity---it's not a flow of people who are coming into the united states to stay in the main.

it is not obvious that drug trafficking and these labor flows have much to do with each other--but it sure makes for inflammatory copy and that helps ultra-rightwing politicians sell surreal pieces of legislation like you can read about in the weekly blog linked above.

it is not obvious that there's any rational link between individuals having and using guns and this ultra-rightwing non-issue. the details of the murder are not obvious at all. nothing about that case is obvious except that someone ended up killed. whether that death can be exploited to make some larger case of petit-bourgeois conservative victimization is not obvious.

what **is** obvious is that there are conservatives out there for whom the story of their own victimization never, ever gets tired. and that is amazing to me.


there's more that could be said about this.
and i don't live in arizona.
it'd be nice to have folk closer to that space speak to it/about it.

As a long-time Arizonan, I can tell you two things: illegal immigration is a problem; and it is blown out of proportion by every right wing racist here from Nogales to Page. Everything here is blamed on illegal immigration. The truth of the matter is, whenever these people say "illegal alien," they really mean "those damn brown people."

Whenever I get the chance, I tell them, "You'd have really hated living here 150 years ago - everybody was a Mexican."

Not that the killing of Rob Krentz isn't a tragedy - of course it is, and every indication shows he was killed by someone here illegally.

But 95% of illegal immigrants are peaceful people who only want to make a decent living. That doesn't justify them being here - they should wait their turn like legal immigrants, but to hear some people talk, you'd think they were responsible for all the crime in the U.S. They're not.

It's the drug trade that's fueling the violence, and there's a simple solution to that. Stop doing illegal drugs, and the bad guys who bring them here and fight over the right to sell them in your neighborhood will eventually go away if they're not making any money.

In the meantime, join and support an organization that's working to get them legalized.

My father in law married moved to Mexico. married someone from Mexico and completed the process for her to get legal immigration status. My brother in law married someone from the former USSR who also went thru the legal immigration process. Why should someone be able to jump ahead in line because the legal process is 'too difficult'? They should complete the legal immigration process just like the others did.

Nobody has the right to sneak across the border illegally because life is too hard in their own country.

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

So the unemployed American gets to collect unemployment for close to two years because unemployment is so high and he's too good for certain kinds of work.

The illegal immigrant now gets legal status.

Since the newly legal immigrant is most likely working a low paying job that no American would want, he now has to buy health insurance. But since his income is too low, he gets a government subsidy.

Unemployment remains around 10% and the unemployed guy gets his unemployment extended again because the job market is so bad.

And everybody lived happily ever after, except for the long suffering middle class taxpayer who sees his taxes go up again to pay for this nonsense.

Actually, the fastest way to immigrate is to marry a US citizen (no limit on immigrant visas for foreign nationals married to US citizens; other immigrant visas based on family, work, and the like are heavily limited ). For people who are not married to a US citizen, the wait time to become eligible to immigrate can be as long as 18 years. So, it's not really fair to compare those two anecdotal spouses to your average Mexican. (Source: Visa Bulletin: Visa Bulletin for March 2010)

IMHO, the immigrations system could use some reform.

Where do you get this info from? I have to date YET to see an illegal immigrant get status simply because he is in the United States, or has worked here for too long. The Gov't got rid of things like that in 1986. In contrast with many other modernized Western nation, American immigration law is actually harsher than your average industrialized nation...Please, for everyone's sake, try not to spread too much disinformation.

Dogzilla, I can assure you that illegals are not collecting Unemployment, nor will they be covered under the new health care bill. Whoever tells you different is lying.

And - Unemployment is not Welfare. I paid into the system for forty years; I'm not going to apologize for collecting for a year and a half.

Just to set the record straight, the piece in the OP is outdated. The case has already been tried. The suits regarding civil rights violations and so on were either dismissed or he was found not guilty. He was found guilty of kicking the woman.

What I wrote was that the illegal immigrant gets legal status because immigration rules are relaxed. Then he gets health care coverage at taxpayer expense.

---------- Post added at 05:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 AM ----------

That was in response to dippin's comment that immigration rules should be relaxed. At least until unemployment returns to the normal 5% range, there should be no relaxation of immigration rules, and people that are caught who are here illegally should be deported.

THIS

As an AZ resident this state is full of racists and teabaggers. Turn on the radio and they are always bitching about illegals.

well... it appears there's more than enough irrational bigotry to go around for everyone!

You sure have a sense of entitlement don't you? If they were legal they would be paying taxes and should be able to get health care. If they are illegal then they may be paying taxes but we don't cover their health care.

What sense of entitlement? In the 35 years I have been supporting myself, I've never qualified for any government program. The only deductions I claim are for state taxes and charitable deductions. I paid off my mortgage in half the time it written for since I saw no point to paying interest to a bank and getting a fraction of it back as a tax deduction. On the other hand, between income tax, Social Security tax and Medicare tax, the government takes a little more than 20% of my paycheck. Add in the money the government taxes my employer for Social Security and unemployment that could just as well be in my paycheck and it's closer to 30%? Do I get benefits from the feds equivalent to even 20% of my pay? Absolutely not. Then the state and local governments take theirs.

I did some quick calculations. If someone earns $10.00/hr full time, their gross income is $20K. If single, their taxes are $1724. If married, their taxes are $863. If their income is under $13,440(married) or $18440(single) they start to qualify for earned income credit.

2009 poverty thresholds are $10830 or $14570. So if they are paying anything for health care it's not much. I'm picking up the tab for the balance.

So no, I don't want any illegal immigrants to have an easier path to immigration, especially while unemployment is around 10% and I'm paying for people to be unemployed as well.

If an illegal immigrant is paying taxes, not my problem. Nobody made them come here and nobody is forcing them to stay.

Did you attend public school? Do you have children and do or did they ever attend public school?

Dogzilla, as someone who's been unemployed for 16 months now, and about to be forced from my home - I would gladly trade problems with you. I think, like a lot of people, you might be confusing good fortune with "hard work."

Don't worry - when you retire, you'll get your Social Security. When you turn 65, you'll get your Medicare. And if you're ever unfortunate enough to lose your job, your Unemployment will be there for you, too. In the meantime, don't bitch about being too young, too healthy, and too employed.

Sheesh - give some people a bucket of gold, and they'll bitch about how heavy it is.

I don't know what that has to do with any rights illegal immigrants might have, but yes, both me and one of my kids have attended public school. Also, just in local property taxes alone, I pay about 2% of my income in school tax even though neither me and my kid have been in school for more than 20 years.

The Social Security Administration estimates that about 2/3 of undocumented workers or illegal immigrants pay FICA taxes....to the tune of $billions/year.

Well I don't have any kids in public schools so why do I need to pay for your children to go to school?

---------- Post added at 12:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------


Yeah Illegals actually help SS because they pay in but are legally barred from pulling out.

I still don't see what that has to do with illegal immigrants, but if you're under 30, then I've probably helped pay for your education since I've been employed and paying taxes for the last 35 years.


From what I've read, the reason for this is that illegal immigrants don't have valid Social Security numbers, so when they apply for a job they make up a Social Security number or steal someone's, causing problems for that person. If they weren't here illegally, they wouldn't have that problem, would they?

The feds could fix that problem by a few more crackdowns on illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, but I don't see Obama doing a whole lot about that either.

Nope, I went to private school so you didn't pay for my education. This is relevant because you said you are against letting more legal immigrants in the country because they won't get paid enough thus you would subsidize their health care. So you are against giving help to others but you are perfectly fine receiving it for your own family. And that makes you a hypocrite. If you were truly against government subsidies you would put your own kids in private school.

Also illegal immigrants are propping up social security to the tune of $7 billion a year not to mention what they pay into medicare. Many of them also pay taxes but don't file for refunds giving another surplus of tax revenue. Cracking down on illegal immigration would actually hurt this country in the form of less tax revenue, more legal costs, less low paid workers (hence rising costs of goods).

I'll be the first to admit that there are portions of the economy that get hurt by illegal immigrants but I also know there are many parts the benefit. Will you admit the same?

Actually, no. Since there's no way I can get back every single penny of tax money that I pay into the public education system, there's no hypocrisy. If I sent my kid to a private school, not only would I be paying her tuition, but I would still be paying taxes for public schools. Now if the system actually supported a 100% exemption from public school taxes if your kid went to private school, I'd support that since that's yet another place I think the feds should be keeping their noses out.

Until some do-gooder files a lawsuit forcing the government to give these illegals their money.

Granted the illegals are holding down labor expenses. However, these illegals are also likely to be showing up in emergency rooms because their employers are unlikely to be covering their medical. They are also affecting unemployment to some extent. Stories about construction crews picking up day laborers off street corners in larger cities have been common for years. Also, there were US construction workers being displayed by illegal immigrant labor. So I'm in the camp that counts them as a net loss.

If you are worried about the costs of them showing up in emergency rooms perhaps the health care should cover them so they don't have to go to the emergency rooms.

I don't think there's any reason I should have to either pay for their ER visit or for them to be covered by the health care coverage. There is a third option. The government should uphold the law, penalize companies hiring illegal immigrants and deport anyone who is here illegally. Which brings us full circle back to the original post on this thread.

So you go into an emergency room with your appendix about to burst. If you do not get it removed soon you will die. The hospital then asks you to please produce a birth certificate, social security card and 2 forms of picture ID.

This sounds like a great idea! Hospitals should have to verify people are here legally before they treat them!

When someone goes to the ER, they aren't worrying about their immigration status.

Now, I would like to see us bill Mexico for this expense.

And you pay taxes for things you may never see, but has improved your life.

I wasn't suggesting verifying citizenship at the hospital. I was suggesting the government do the job it is supposed to and deport illegal immigrants when they are found. But what the heck, our nanny state has enough resources to sustain 10% unemployment and invite more people to come to this country illegally because there's some jobs that unemployed Americans are too good for, like construction.

In fact, more illegal immigrants were deported in Obama's first year in office than in any previous recent year.

I'm all for providing due process and deporting illegal immigrants, particularly those that pose a threat or committed a crime while in the US.

In the long run, it is far more cost effective to provide a path to citizenship (with a fine) for most of the millions already here; those working and contributing to the economy and the social fabric of the country.

And, I dont support sweeping raids on work places that round up some who are legal residents or citizens and hold them w/o cause, which was the more common practice in the recent past.

• illegal - contrary to law; unlawful.
• immigrant - A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.
• tresspassing - the criminal act of entering another person's land or property without the permission of the owner or lessee

It's really that simple.

Thanks, otto. I didnt know that.

Now how do you propose rounding up 12 million illegal immigrants w/o providing due process? Or perhaps, due process does not matter.

It's funny because I'm writing on that subject right now. Do you know that Miranda warnings and unreasonable search and seizure don't apply absent egregious circumstances? see Lopez-Mendoza; Navia-Duran v. INS. The rationale being that deportation is a 'civil administrative proceeding' and not criminal as you expect. Funny, because most defendants in civil cases aren't locked up and shipped around the country like cattle.

Nonetheless, due process in the immigration sense encompasses agencies following their own regulations, which, may or may not be in step with the constitution's requirement of due process.

I agree with you in terms of all Constitutional "due process" rights.

Poor choice of words on my part, but are not illegal immigrants facing deportation guaranteed certain rights....even after enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that made deportation easier?

The right to to a hearing before an administrative judge. The right to representation (but not paid by govt). The right to be presented with proof of the cause for deportation. The right to an interpreter (for non-English speaking) immigrants, the right to a "speedy" hearing (or at least not to be held indefinitely).....

And the question still remains to those who want to "round them up and throw them out".....how would you accomplish that w/o violating these rights?

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 AM ----------

Interesting report published last week on the impact of providing a path to citizenship for the 12+ million illegal immigrants:
If you thought the health reform debate was divisive and loaded with fear mongering, wait for the upcoming immigration reform debate in Congress.

I can't wait:rolleyes:. Working in immigration defense, yet being a firearms enthusiast allows me to see both sides of the picture. It's scary how easily people will jump to confirm their biases. One post on a right-leaning gun website spoke of how immigrants "get benefits, medical care, welfare etc. etc." when it is DECIDEDLY not so (unless you jump through a ton of hoops and are somehow eligible for some help--i.e. asylum).

Some of the undocument migrants I know are the hardest working, moral and upstanding people I know.

I wish this country wasn't so divisive and would actually collaborate to achieve greater ends.

Glorious.

Now see - there's the rub, highlighted above. It's mainly Republicans who bitch and moan that every problem in our country is the fault of some illegal alien; yet these same Republicans are the business owners who employ them in order to maximize their profit. Common sense tells us that if you go after the employers, the jobs will go away; but no Republican is ever going to suggest, let alone enforce a bill that will put business owners in jail.

Besides, to tell you the truth, if all the illegals at the car wash down the street got deported, I don't think, even in this economy, too many people will be in line fighting over those $3.50 an hour jobs

And what is the reaction going to be in our supermarkets when suppliers have to start paying minimum wage to have all our produce planted, collected, and transported? Are you going to smile every time you buy a $3 apple, knowing it wasn't picked by a brown person?

The rebublicans are hoping that the "tail is gonna wag the dog."

/At least in their scheme of closing our borders and doing racial profiling./

It's going to get real ugly and fast.

How so?

I won't touch this thread, but "Rebublicans" is definitely a useful term.

I would describe as more pandering to the base.

The constitutionality of the law is questionable at so many levels, most notable is the fact that legislating immigration/naturalization is a federal issue, not a state issue (the state can enforce the federal law).

Then you have 4th amendment issues, civil rights issues......

I would be surprised it if ever sees the light of day.

Rebublicans as in "Bubbas" or 'Bumblicans.

A useful term I learned of when I lived in northern California....somewhere, think it was born in a Zippy the Pinhead cartoon. :thumbsup:

When the federal government leaves border states vulnerable by failing to meaningfully address illegal immigration, does illegal immigration then become a state issue?

I would agree with you that the federal immigration laws have failed.

But that does not change the fact that it still remains a federal issue to legislate.

The authority starts here:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: Congress shall have the power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...

States do not have that power, even with the "failure" of the federal government.

And beyond that, there are the other issues....4th amendment rights, etc.

I can see where several provisions of the AZ on their own merit might have standing....like, picking up day workers on a public street could be legislated at the state level as a crime (?) of "impeding traffic"

But requiring immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and giving authority for local law enforcement to check "suspicious" people....no way.

I am strongly against giving law enforcement the authority to demand documents from anyone on the basis of their perceived citizenship. There has to be a better way of going about this without shitting on due process.

I'm not sure on where I stand regarding the requirement that aliens carry their registration documents at all times.

.....

From what I understand, Art 1, Sec 8 reserves the ability to grant US citizenship to the federal government. I don't see how this is applicable to AZ's attempt to counter illegal immigration.

It would seem to me that the Constitutional role of Congress to establish "uniform rules of naturalization" would prohibit a state from establishing their own rules, including a rule (law) requiring naturalized citizens (or those with green cards) to carry documentation of their status.

Beyond that there is the supremacy clause of the Constitution which makes federal laws the "supreme law of the land" and states cant legislation provisions that go beyond those federal laws.

And then you have members of Congress like Brian Bilbray (R-CA) who suggests that the AZ laws doesnt promote profiling but that police can spot illegal immigrants by the clothes they wear:

They will look at the kind of dress you wear, there’s different type of attire, there’s different type of…right down to the shoes, right down to the clothes.

Suspicion based on clothing?

The issue of illegal immigration has nothing to do with "offending" anyone. Everyone just loves their .99 cheeseburgers and their spotless lawns.

The hypocrisy on the issue of immigration in this country is astounding. "Yes, I'll make the life of an illegal immigrant living hell, but I'll hire them every chance I get."

The status quo is just too convenient. Everyone wants their cheap labor. Deporting them is costly and does away with the cheap labor. Giving them a path to citizenship means you can't blackmail them into lower wages anymore.

the issue is also misframed as an immigration matter. this is a labor flow. based on above-ground flows, for every 100 people who enter the united states, approximately 80 leave again. so the border is a space of labor flows and the people who come across are frequently undocumented. but its harder to imagine some "invasion" by undocumented workers than it is by "illegal immigrants."

As well as deporting illegal immigrants, I'm also in favor of fining businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

No, probably not when unemployment pays, at least around here, $10.00/hr (some $400.00/week) for up to 2 years now.

Why is this an issue? If illegal immigrants are given amnesty and legal immigrant status, then they will have to be paid minimum wage if they aren't already. So there's no savings by giving them legal status.

Obama says his plan is to have illegal immigrants pay a fine and go to the end of the line applying for legal status. As I wrote to Obama, that's fine as long as the back of the line is in the country where they came from.

Stupid brown people, amirite?

I was referring to the relationship between the feds and the state.

I want to write a skinny-puppy style song about relentlessly pestering a country until it gets so angry that it devours itself.

It would be great for a 3 or 4 minute long "America in 3 or 4 minutes" video that takes key elements from social programs ( i won't say "failed" social program, because social programs by their very nature are built to fail, thus failure is implicitly declared ), street violence, knee-jerk reactions that wax sociopathic, etc etc and chain these events together to illustrate the unsurprising result of widespread violence and outrage expressed by individuals the nation over.

Finally, with the chorus roaring, show the actual war footage from the ground, and end with the first dead baby in an American Flag T-shirt you come across.

When does a person become a criminal? When they commit a felony or only if they are caught and convicted?

US Code
title 8 section 1325

Arizona isn't doing anything other than giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law that is already on the books. title 8 section Sec. 1357

I would argue that it all depends on the people you're dealing with.

Some people will view you as a criminal just because you're in handcuffs.

Some will hesitate and think, "I wonder if that guy's civil rights are being violated..."

Some people will exercise restraint in forming an opinion without all the facts, and indeed wait until the court exposes the issues and allegations to starting thinking about it.

Though, I will also argue that if you live in the USA, and you leave your house from time to time, you've probably committed a few felonies you didn't even know about.

Or, in other words, you don't become a criminal when you do wrong, or you get caught doing wrong, you become a criminal as soon as that birth certificate is filled out.

In my case this has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnic background. No matter who you are, if you are here illegally, you should be deported and get to start over again at the end of the line of people applying for legal immigration status.

No matter who you are, if you are here legally, I have no problem with you being here.

How is the current situation even remotely fair to those who have gone thru the legal immigration process or are going thru that process?

Why is it unreasonable to expect the federal government to actually enforce immigration laws and control the border? I've read that Mexico has little or no tolerance for illegal immigration into Mexico.

With unemployment in the range of 10%, why should we be even considering granting any kind of amnesty or other consideration to those who can't follow the law?

is this a serious question?

in a system defined around due process, one "becomes" a felon when one is convicted by a court of law. until then you're, you know, a suspect. because of the whole due process thing.

in a system defined around vigilantism, it makes some sense that one "becomes" a "criminal" when one commits an act. or is seen, perhaps by some racist half-wit with a weapon, as having maybe done so.

blam blam blam.

doesn't really matter:
if it turns out the vigilante was wrong, it's just another brown person gunned down in the desert.
if it turns out the vigilante was right, it's just another brown person gunned down in the desert.

blam blam blam.

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

A path like this?

Those seeking legitimate employment are the only people illegally crossing the border? I think you're oversimplifying a bit.

Whats the difference between an undocumented worker and an illegal immigrant?

So you want me to prove a negative on the first post? Well, I would think that the fact that there are no Americans lining up in front of Home Depots in the places where crackdowns have made illegal immigrants move away is enough evidence.

In any case, there are plenty of evidence out there that doesn't rely on asking Americans if they'd work for the same salaries as illegal immigrants. All you have to do is look at what happened when the guest worker visa renewal was delayed. Now, that isn't illegal immigration per se, and those guest workers, though paid less than Americans, still make more money than actual illegals. In any case:

Immigration's Fallout: Fewer Fresh Tomatoes? : NPR

If you still don't buy it, polls have consistently shown that a majority Americans think illegal immigrants take jobs Americans don't want.
Immigration

There are other stories like it if you want.

As far as providing evidence that Americans prefer businesses that hire illegal immigrants due to lower cost, well, that one is nearly tautological, isn't it? After all, if hiring illegal immigrants wasn't giving them a boost, they wouldn't hire them, right?

In any case, the biggest companies to be busted for hiring illegal immigrants are walmart and mcdonalds. But if you still need citations and evidence:
"Cortes, Patricia. “The Effect of Low-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Prices: Evidence from
CPI Data.” Mimeo, MIT, November 2005"

In any case, I've yet to see any consumer survey where "company doesn't hire illegal aliens" has anything more than a negligible impact on buying decisions.




Now, regarding the "path to citizenship." The majority of people who become naturalized US citizen do it through family connections (i.e., they get married to American citizens, they are related to American citizens, etc.)

If that is not the case, the path to citizenship is first getting an employer to sponsor a H1B visa for you. After that, they have to apply for a PERM, which is a labor department certification that the company tried to hire an American to do that job but couldn't. With that in hand, they apply for the green card. After getting the green card, they can apply for citizenship after 5 years.

There is a 65000 cap per year for new H1bs. H1bs can be received relatively fast if one pays the premium fee. After that, the median processing time for the PERM is 7 months. For employment based green cards, unless the person has some outstanding abilities, the wait time is over 7 years for skilled workers, and 9 for non skilled workers.

Visa Bulletin April 2010

After that, the naturalization process takes about 1 and a half years.

So you are talking about a path to citizenship that, if it goes without a hitch, would take 14 years for a skilled worker doing a job his or her company couldn't find an American to do to become a citizen. 14 where this person would pay taxes, contribute to social security, medicare and medicaid but wouldn't be eligible for any of those programs, and could simply be forced to go back to their country is there is any significant lapse in employment before the green card is finalized.

All undocumented workers have jobs.
Not all illegal immigrants have jobs.


I'd also like to comment on Dippins comment, "If you still don't buy it, polls have consistently shown that a majority Americans think illegal immigrants take jobs Americans don't want."

Bollocks. American's don't have a choice in what jobs they do or don't want.

I'd slap whoever it is that said such things.

Maybe that may not be the case in whatever political philosophy you ascribe to. But it seems to me that in a very real, very concrete sense of the word, Americans do have a choice in the type of jobs they apply for and then get.

the difference between referring to this population as undocumented workers as over against illegal immigrants should be obvious.

if amongst documented migrant populations the reverse rates are around 80% (in the aggregate) then it follows that the people who are coming into the states aren't moving here permanently; they're coming here to work and leave again.
this is not at all what the term "illegal immigrant" implies.

in other countries, there have been considerable political conflicts over this sort of naming: in france in particular the question of how this largely imaginary category (not in the sense of having no empirical correlate but in the sense of being a relatively empty signifier which people fill in with projections) gets named is a pretty accurate indicator of where one falls on the left/right scale, with the discourse of "illegal immigration" being pretty firmly front national (neo-fascist) territory. and you can see how it plays out all over the place in writing that's either done by fn people or which is influenced by it (check out brigitte bardot's last autobiography so far with its hallucinations about france being invaded by mosques as if mosques are like kudzu)...groups like sos racisme have done enormous political work trying to shift the way in which undocumented folk are talked about over to the sans papiers (without papers) or a variant.

fact is that you can't really mobilize ultra-right folk on the basis of some nationalist paranoia if you're talking about transnational labor flows. it doesn't ring the same way.

that's a difference.

I'm confused. If you enter this country without a visa or you stay past the date of your visa - isn't that violating our laws?

Whether you want to call them immigrants or workers is not really the operative word.

right. because you think of everyone who breaks a law in the same way. so of course. and it's like that in general: when confronted with the relation of an adjective to a noun, emphasize the adjective.

Avoiding the question, are we? Is it or is in not violating our laws? Yes or no? I mean, if you can't even admit that, there really is no point discussing a solution to the problem with you.

P.S. Don't for one second assume you know how I consider people who break the law. You are not so familiar with me as to make such assumptions.

cimmaron, i made the case i set out to make as clearly as i can. if you want to do the move that you attempt above, which really is to swap out adjective for noun, that's your prerogative. i find it a strange move, but perhaps you have a rationale that's of interest. that i cannot imagine what it would be is maybe my limitation. so do tell, cimmaron, why the adjective "illegal" entirely supplants everything else. and then perhaps you can show how an "illegal" joint is the same as an "illegal" murder because that's where your fine argument appears to be heading. but perhaps i'm wrong. so do tell.

You are correct. By current law, those who are not US citizens and who are not complying with the terms of their immigration documents or do not have any immigration documents are breaking the law. The distinction between immigrant and worker is meaningless in this context. These people are here illegally and need to be sent home.

This 'undocumented worker' concept is nothing more than liberals trying to justify the presence of people who are here illegally.

If you can't conceptualize that "our" objection is that they are illegal, not that they are workers, non-workers, immigrants, students, tourists, etc. - then there is no point discussing it with you.

what you characterize as "our" objection is transparent. why this is such a *problem* for you remains a mystery.

but who knows? maybe you are absolutely scrupulous about not violating any laws, so you never speed, never drive after a few too many, never allow your inspections to lapse or license to expire, never jay-walk or pee in a public place no matter the situation. because this respect for Law thing operates at the micro-level just as much as it does at the macro.

but unless you're that kind of scrupulous absolutely law-abiding person yourself, i don't buy the claim that "our" objection rests on "illegality."

because you could simply be trying to dodge the problematic outcomes of placing the rhetorical emphasis on the adjective illegal and refusing to think that the noun you use "immigrant" might not only be false as a label (given reverse migration rates at the formal level of these flows) but could maybe---just maybe--be generating problems that have nothing to do with opposing transnational labor flows because they involve an informal sector and everything to do with reactionary-to-racist nationalism.

but hey, you're all about the Law, right?

The argument you pose is so idiotic I find it hard to even respond. As if the fact that they don't actually come here to live forever absolves them of the need to sign the guest book.

The problem that I have with "illegal workers" is and always will be the fact that their illegal act affords them the ability to avoid paying taxes on the wages that they earn. Furthermore, the companies that hire them do not pay taxes on the wages they pay them.

No amount of mean-spirited manipulation is going to morph my wish for a proper accounting of their income into your ignorant statement that we wish them to be executed on sight. Blam, blam, blam, indeed.

i don't recall making that statement.

i recall making a statement like that in response to what i took to be an argument against due process that departed from the question "when does a criminal become a criminal".

which if you bothered to actually read the sequence, you'd probably have known about.

context matters.


discussions work better if you bother to read what's posted rather that read isolated bits and then make stuff up.

just saying.

You mean the open ended question in this statement which sites the US statute?

Yeah, that statement DEFINITELY can be extrapolated by rational people to imply that he wants citizens to gun down brown people on sight. Yeah, right. Keep weaving, though.

o for fucks sake.

emphasis added for clarity.

edit: the argument was against vigilante action.
and it included what you might take as a speculation about why it's so easy seeming for folk who imagine the Motherland to be getting Invaded by waves of Illegal Immigrants to imagine playing the vigilante. because mistakes just don't matter that much.

o for DOUBLE fucks sake!

Your argument may be against vigilante action, but his post didn't suggest or encourage it. It was you who took it to that assumptive level because, in your narrow view, everyone who wants our immigration laws enforced also secretly wants to whack brown people from 500 meters with their Remington Model 700. Pant, pant, pant.

...and this is EXACTLY why I don't want to discuss politics with you. Because you don't want to have a discussion about real problems/solutions. As always, you want to make it all about bitter-clinger-teabagger-birther minutemen vs. your idea of how the world is or should be. Marginalizing to the extreme in order to maintain your concrete way of thinking.

I'm done, you can stop weaving now. You have a wonderful day.

I wanna frisk Eva Mendes.

Has anyone checked her papers?

Isn't this entire thread based precisely about vigilante action, and how the poor vigilante in question suffered oh so much for "defending" his country? Isn't the "when does a criminal become a criminal" discussion basically an attempt at justifying that?

I mean, it might not be what you, personally, want to see happen, or what you, personally, think.

But it seems to me that this particular discussion has been, from the start, about vigilante action and their supposed righteousness. The rancher in the OP not only kicked a woman when she was on the floor, but previously had held a family of American-born Hispanics at gun point when he saw them out in the open. This is the guy who's become a sort of hero for many. It might not be true for you, but there are a great number of people who want to "whack" illegal immigrants with their high powered rifles. Ask Brian James.

An estimated 60+ percent of illegal workers not only pay FICA taxes, to the tune of $billions/year, but federal/state income taxes as well.

In fact, AZ is doing more that simply giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law already on the books.

The state law goes beyond the existing federal law and allows law enforcement authority to apprehend and hold persons for no other cause other than "suspicion" of being here illegally.

There are constitutional questions at two levels.

First, whether the state can even enact laws that go beyond the federal law, given that immigration regulation is the responsibility of Congress.

And then, assuming the state can enact such a law, the way the law is written, does it infringe upon guaranteed 4th and 4th amendment rights?

"an estimated 60%", by whom? When it's 100%, the illegal worker problem is solved.

I haven't once in this thread debated the Arizona law. Why is this directed at me?

The FICA tax contributions of illegals comes from the Social Security Admin and I think it was more around 75%....$7 billion in the last year reported. The federal/state income taxes from a CBO report.

And I directed the AZ law question to you since you were the one who posted:

"Arizona isn't doing anything other than giving law enforcement authority to enforce a federal law that is already on the books. title 8 section Sec. 1357"

I have no problem with addressing the illegal worker issue, if it is done in a Constitutionally acceptable manner.

A fiscally acceptable manner makes sense to me as well.....providing a path to citizenship (not amnesty) makes far more sense, is cheaper, and generates more tax revenue that attempting to deport 12+ million people.

---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

Oh...as to the question of "When does a person become a criminal? When they commit a felony or only if they are caught and convicted?"

Entering the country illegally is a federal misdemeanor, not a felony.

Well, actually I was quoting someone else in that statement, but it is hard to follow.

The challenge in a non-deportation solution is that it is difficult to assess the penalty (both compensatory for lost tax revenues and punitive) on those for whom you have absolutely no records prior to their coming out of the woodworks.

As with all other licensing crimes, which is essentially what this is, you have to pay a penalty for not getting the correct permits plus unpaid taxes plus interest on unpaid taxes, etc. I don't know if the amount of bureaucracy surrounding those indeterminate numbers and the subsequent collections issues are cheaper than the "bygones and be gone" solution. ~shrug~ I don't know which is fiscally cheaper.

this is an interesting take.
it makes sense, given that it hinges on an older dimension of the populist conservative discourse of paranoia: the fear that somehow or another millions of "illegals" are being registered by the democrats and threatening the continued viability of the republican party, which is in this case sometimes the organizational expression of the "real" conservative movement and sometimes its lapdog.

of course, this particular canard hinges on the assertion, which is implicit in the fear above, that conservatives are the "real americans" who are being threatened by evil Others. and so it is that one of the core identity politics mobilizing tropes that's held together this newest incarnation of things poujadiste repeats. but read on:

Greg Palast Print Behind the Arizona Immigration Law:GOP Game to Swipe the November Election

personally, i find this interesting but not necessarily a single overarching explanation. but it's interesting, yes?

That sound you hear coming from Arizona? It's the wildfire of Hispanics across the country abandoning the Right for the Democrats.

For those who would argue they already voted that way, take a look at the actual numbers. There were huge sums who voted based on the Republican opposition to Gay Marriage.

This no Arizona law is really nothing new, as it completely mirrors the constitutional question raised in Hiibel v. Sixth Judiciary District court of Nevada. The Supreme Court upheld the right of law enforcement officials to arrest an individual who refuses to/or is unable to identify themselves. The SC also stated that there was no burden for "probable cause", only rather reasonable suspicion.

The Supreme Court held that the gentleman, Hiibel's, 4th & 5th amendment rights were not violated.

Also from the holding
Color me crazy, but I would imagine that illegal immigrants would be guilty to some degree of criminal activity.

HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.

"Reasonable suspicion" being "brown", of course.

I also have a question to pose to you DC_Dux. You state that immigration regulation is the responsibility of congress. How then can you explain the validity of sanctuary cities?

Here's a ducky example of an illegal immigrant, with a violent criminal record who was never deported as a result of San Fran's sanctuary laws. The long and short of it is that after a traffic dispute, This donkey Edwin Ramos mowed down a father and his two sons with an AK-47.

Slaying suspect once found sanctuary in S.F. - SFGate

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

I suppose the TSA should be hesitant to profile passengers of Arab decent for fear of offending people or being labeled racist....

The AZ law does something new.

It creates a new criminal activity, "trespassing by illegal aliens" that give police the power to apprehend any person on public or private property if the police have suspicion that the person is illegal.

40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Presently, the police can demand identification if they have apprehended a person as a result of being suspected of committing another crime or traffic violation....whiich was the case in Hibel, was it not?

The new law, in effect, expands the definition of "lawful" contact. Under the law, a cop in AZ could apprehend a person standing in a city park or a 7-11 based solely on suspicion that the person is illegal and in violation of the "trespassing by illegal alien" provision.

What is reasonable suspicion? That is whee the 4th amendment comes into play.


---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

I dont think the sanctuary city's ordinances could stand up to a constitutional test.

The Bush admin never pursued it and neither has Obama.

It is also a fact that immigration enforcement is NOT a local or state govt responsibility so a city could chose to simply do noting in regards to checking the legal status of individuals (w/o a sanctuary ordinance) and would probably be in compliance with the law.

There is, of course, a simple solution to it all. There are...what...31 states in Mexico? Just redesign the U.S. flag to accomodate 31 more stars and make 'em ALL citizens.

Phew!!! I almost, ALMOST, sat down and made a lengthy post, but I waited until the feeling went away.

Bottom line everyone....THERE IS A PROBLEM!!!!

You may love or hate Arizona for it, but you gotta admit, at least someone's FINALLY doing something about the two ton gorilla in the corner.

FWIW, I don't think a butterfly net is gonna work.

WOOT! More job opportunities in the DEA!

Don't forget all of the demolition opportunities when the companies currently manufacturing in Mexico move further South!

I thought I might post some numbers, since I am a big fan of them regarding to this debate. I already am aware that most (here) who will disagree with them will automatically discredit them; fair enough, I've never really found numbers on the subject, so I'm giving them ball park credibility.

Plus or minus time (I'm rounding down on the figures).
-Illegal immigrants in the US 22 million +/- (by my awesome math skills I concluded that is roughly 7% of the population.
-Non-Mexican illegals in US 550,000+/- (2% of illegals)

They post some cute numbers about money wired out from USA to Latin America/South America, really irrelevant.

-Cost of social services paid to illegal immigrants since 1996 just south off 400 billion.
-Number of illegal's children in America's public school system north of 5 million
-Cost of educating illegals since 1996, north of 160 billion dollars US.
-Number of illegals incarcerated in US +/- 420,000.
-Cost of alleged incarcerations is fairly low at a cool $24 billion since 1996

-Skilled jobs provided to illegals, which I don't know how to define, is listed at +/- 11 million.
-And Anchor babies, which I assume would be illegal's naturalizing kids in the US, is listed at +4 million.

Website is Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources, they post some interesting numbers. Like how Mexico has an unemployment rate of +/- 5% which later verified at Cia.gov, there poverty rate is at 18% which is only 6% higher than the US. Apparently they are also home to the Richest man on the planet. Oh and switching gears but hilarious none the less America's public debt is 52% of the GDP.

one of the basic problems with undocumented populations is counting them.
i haven't time to look into this at the moment, but how does your source do the counting, mojo?

The claim is a compilation of public research + government released numbers. Working retroactively they attempt to find trends and there predict certain figures. Most of the numbers I posted I didn't personally verify but a few of them I was able to at CIA's owrld factbook.

If even a fraction of what's claimed here is true, it makes the uproar over the Arizona law rather silly and Mexican president Calderon's outrage rather hypocritical. Maybe instead of being outraged at the Arizona law, President Calderon should get his own country in order, and not by exporting his problems to the US.

Michelle Malkin Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens

Anyone who thinks this article is bogus is welcome to try to sneak into Mexico and report back here about what happened to them.

So the goal is to have the second worst treatment of immigrants? As long as someone is worse it's ok?

And I think the issue is not so much how illegals are treated under the new law, but how the law treats everyone else. Short of seeing someone crossing the border, can anyone tell me, without using race or ethnicity, how to "reasonably suspect" anyone is an undocumented alien?

By the way, Mexico also has a national ID law. Every supporter of the Arizona law should also support a national ID. In fact, driver's licenses from states that don't check immigration status are not valid as proof of citizenship.


Wow, so out of the 22 million, 5 million are children, and 11 million are employed in skilled jobs? Another half a million are in jail? So unskilled illegal immigration workers is just 5.5 million? And illegal immigrants actually occupy skilled positions at a higher rate than most Americans?

And a full half of all Latinos in this country are illegal immigrants?


This is why I don't trust sources with an agenda. If you want non partisan data, try the DHS or PEW.

Regarding jobs, the number of actual jobs "lost" to illegal immigrants is much smaller than the actual number of jobs illegal immigrants have.

And regarding their costs, anything that ignores how much tax they pay is suspect. Even the ones that don't pay income taxes still pay sales/property/etc. taxes.