www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:19:47 -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:What I mean is that often it is easy to find a law that is being violated so that you can ask for proper ID. For example, jaywalking.
I thought that law enforcement shouldn't "come up" with something, but only act when there actually _is_ something.It's prohibited by law, without probable cause (and having a face that looks like, say, Mexican does not constitute probable cause :).Probable cause is not that hard to come up with.
Lots of ways. They currently have measures for it.How would you measure efficiency of law enforcement?I agree that government in general is quite inefficient. How would you increase efficiency, without resorting to a dictatorship?By adopting efficeincy practices prevelent in business and dropping the "this is government not business" attitute. By holding people responsible and accountable for their production, etc. I could go on and on.
I'm not laughing and I do not consider it a laughing matter.That's a funny one :)I don't know why they didn't come. Lack of resources maybe?They said they forgot!
Well we definitely disagree here.Are you saying that you believe illegals should be able to just walk over the border, work, violate other laws with impunity, etc?!? I think not. Are you saying our current immigration laws should be relaxed or changed?I think our whole idea of independent nations has outlived its useful time.
What I don't understand is that especially the US governments seem not to understand the benefits this would bring for the USA.Or perhaps we just disagree with your idea...
In the aftermath of the fall of the USSR, there was a huge possibility for the USA to become the leader in democratization of the world.Ah... we are...
But instead, the USA proved to be one of the major obstacles to more democratization of the international sphere, together with China and a bunch of rogue states.Actually democracy in it's true form is a wolf and a rabbit deciding what to have for dinner! We are a representative rebpulic...
You may ask what that has to do with immigration. Well, just as with protection of the environment, these things don't know borders. Dirty air, just as the flows of people so poor the don't feel they have anything to lose, don't stop at borders. These are phenomena that are independent of national laws.But immigration is not a phenomena that is indepedent of national laws.
The logical consequence is that only international laws can help create peaceful harmony here.Nonsense.
For international laws, we need some kind of international government, for which (as I said above) I thinkI'm not a believer of the one world nation theory.
the USA provides a good model.
Some may think that this is none of our business. I think otherwise. I have lived in Brazil. One of the big problems of that country is that the elite class, over centuries, failed to provide conditions for the poor people to become anything but again poor (and I mean dirt poor) people.If you look at the American model it is not the responsibility of the rich to provide the poor anything, nor should it be.
No. please re-read. I said "You are in 'no rights' land when applying for visa." This should mean you have no night to anything. This paragraph was a response to you saying that the people here accept the inefficiencies of the immigration bureaucracy to easily. To which I responded with the above, saying taht since they don't have anyThe people I'm complaining about, who accept the inefficiences, are US citizens and people working in the INS as well as lawyers, etc, not the immigrants.
rights, they don't have any possibility besides accepting. There is not a single complaint in the whole paragraph.
I know -- or I figured so much. But you were talking about the people in this group, which are mostly not citizens.I'm not sure I would agree with that. This is an immigration group about family based visas. I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the poster is the citizen inquiring on behave of their foriegn spouse or spouse to be.
I also know that you are concerned, but you probably agree with me that you are not typical for the majority of US citizens in this.It need not be a majority. In any instance accepting the inefficient status quo and status quo and immovable is wrong, IMHO.
You seem to think that we should do more on provention, that we should shift resources there. It'd be more efficient. Currently enforcement (as I see it - the actual enforcing of the laws against current violators that is) is failing as more and more illegals come into the country. Seems to me that if you shift resources away from enforcing the law against current violators you will be allowing more people to be in violation of the law. In my book that means that you're taking a stance of more relaxed enforcement of current violators which I take to me that you don't think the current laws should be enforced. And your crack that you thought it was funny that the INS "forgot" to pick up a current violator says to me that you think it a joke to enforce the law against a current violator. No you didn't say it directly but you certainly are implying it.Sometimes I wonder why we are discussing things as much as we are. I am simply saying that current laws should be enforced and people argue with me about this.I don't, and if you go back and read what I wrote, you probably won't find a single place where I question that.
Then let's round up the current violators and prosecute them so that we can experience the strong detterent effect!I ask them do you think that the law should not be enforced and after much verbage they agree.I agreed to that from the beginning.
I say I think enforcement has a strong deterrent effect and after much verbage they agree.Never claimed that not.
Nor do you.If we agree then what's the point of further discussion?You question some of the things I say, and I respond. You don't have to, though :)
But it would be efficient! ;-)But that didn't answer the question. I asked should the business owner be compelled to turn in the illegal not whether or not it was up to the business owner.IMO as long as the business owner doesn't hire the guy, I don't think he should be compelled to turn that person in (and I believe I said so earlier). I don't even think he could, because he doesn't know whether that person is illegal. He just doesn't have proof that the person is legal (which is something different).
Nobody is required to get a DL.Yes, that's a slight problem in that DLs can be issued because aliens have legal status right now and they often last longer than the legal status does. Why not require that the issuance of a DL requires proof of citizenship or proper visa and if a visa is involved then the DL is made valid only for the duration of the visa?There are legal residents without a work permit. They are in most states not only entitled to one, they are required to get a DL.
They are not illegals, but they are not legal to work. So the DL was never a document that stated whether somebody is allowed to work (and that's what we were discussing here -- the WalMart etc situation of working illegally). It is a document that states whether somebody is allowed to _drive_.Ah but DLs can give about the appearance to most people that everything is legit.
I mean, that is in the name of the thing -- it is a Drivers License (issued by the state), not a federal ID. As such, it has nothing to do with the (federal) immigration status of a person, and was never meant to have anything to do with federal laws. That's part of the federalist structure.Technically yes. However you and I know this but not everybody else. There are many benefits to a DL in the US. I don't think illegals should be afforded any of those benefits including the right to drive.
(Which is not meant ot say that I think completely illegal immigrants should be allowed to get DLs.)Completely illegal immigrants?!? What are they? Is that anything like sorta pregnant! Either your an illegal immigratnt or your legal immigrant.
You get the SSN illegally. Or you get it legally then become an illegal immigrant (overstay, criminal conviction, etc...)How do illegal immigrants get a SSN?I agree about the CPA, though. If he asked the person for ID and SSN and submits tax reports properly under that SSN and the INS doesn't complain about a fake SSN, I think the CPA has done his due diligence.I submit to you that this probably happens a lot more than you think.
No you said they were ignorant of immigration law.Earlier you said that citizens are largely ignorant of immigration law and now you are trying to say that people hire illegals knowingly instead of assuming that the private citizen employer was simply ignorant of what was required by immigration law?!?I said they don't care, and they don't care about the details.
This doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't know that someone is illegal.How can they know that someone is illegal when they are ignorant of the law? Further you stated that employers should not be compelled to turn in illegals because have no way of knowing that they are indeed illegal. Here you stated that people knowingly hire illegal immigrants. How can both of these statements be considered a consistent viewpoint? They can't. And you're attempting to sing and dance your way out of this inconsistency.
If this is true, then the fact that there are so many is probably partly due to the fact that a majority of citizens simply doesn't care.Doesn't necessarily follow.
They could provide me with any piece of paper that looks like a business license. How do I know it's legit? Call the BBB and thoroughly check the background of this business? Yes that would work but how many people go to such troubles before hiring somebody to cut the grass!I'm not convinced. If I were going to hire say a gardener or a main chances are around here that they will all look alien. Many are legal, some are illegal. I have no idea how to verify they are legit (actually I have some ideas but this is only because I've been involved in immigration, hence my presence here, however the vast majority ofHow about a conversation? If you hire a gardener or other professional, you know (that's unrelated to immigration issues) that they usually have to have some kind of business license. You could ask for that.
citizens, as you say, are ignorant of immigration issues). But you say that such people "hire illegals on purpose" and that that is "easy to answer". Do I suspect that they are perhaps illegal? Yes I would suspect it but I do not know and I do not know how to prove it one way or another.
But I agree that this is quite a gray zone. That's why I think a federal ID that states the immigration status would be a helpful thing -- it would become as easy as looking at that ID to know about these things.A federal ID will be as forgable as any other document.
Then neither should Wal-Mart.So I go to an agency, say a maid agency, and trust, perhaps hope, that they being a business would not want to be caught hiring illegals so perhaps they've screened them and this provides me a little protection and assurance that I'm doing the right thing. It's not much but it's more than I can do myself. But the business failed to screen them so I'm also held accountable?I'm not sure. I don't think you are.
Of course, there will need to be reasonable suspicion that there is some cupability here. But going after them just because they have more $$$ is wrong. And it will cost them to defend themselves. Guess who's gonna pay that tab?It doesn't take much to continue this to the Wal-Mart case and yet people here attempt to condemn the businesses saying that they are outsourcing their intentional illegal activities.Of course, that's innocent until proven guilty. But if there is proof that this was intentional, why not go after them? Prosecution will have to show that there was at least unlawful negligence.
I submit than many (most) gun owners have multiple guns.private firearms:One difference is probably that everybody and his aunt has a gun here.I disagree. I've been here a lot longer than you and I can safely say that I do not know of a single person who owns a gun. My aunt(s) do not own guns. In fact nobody in my family owns a gun.
And people are used to doing everything with their guns.Huh? Who do you know owns a gun and what have they done with that gun? I get up, work, shop, etc all without the "benefits" of a gun. I've never been in a mall and seen a gun (expect on police) for that matter. What
are you talking about?!?
US: 200+ million, ~0.7 arms/person
Germany: ~20 million, ~0.2 arms/person
That's what I'm talking about. Pure numbers. I don't need to actually see them.
As a side note: it was here in the USA when I first saw a gun on the street, after 25 years in Germany without that experience. (And it was aimed at me, but that is a different story... :)Who was aiming it?
While we're at it, there's this:All gun homicides? You don't need a gun to kill somebody.
homicides per year per 100k habitants
US: approx 5
Germany: approx 1
prisoners per 100k habitants:Again, just because you own a gun does not mean that you committed a homicide and just because you're in prision does not mean that you used a gun in the commision of your crime.
US: about 600
Germany: about 100
That's not an argument for gun control (I know that the issue is morecomplex). But among the "developed countries", the US has the highest rates of gun ownership, of homicides, and of prison population.
Actually I believe more see it that way than do not.IOW if drugs were legalized a lot of the crime associated with them would go away - but not all of it. Would this be better? It's debatable."Debatable" is a good start. Unluckily not many see it that way -- even though the experience with the drug alcohol is pretty obvious.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
