Illegal Immigrants vs. Citizens' Arrest

[AZTOY]

So want has it been, 1 month from are last the illegal immigrants thread

Would probably have to bring up the minefield argument again if were are going to make the Korea comparison.

Korea comparison , YES

We need the fences , minifeilds , gun towers and arm guards. Also a maybe few tanks. This would help stop the illegal immigrants from crossing!!

 

[Waitone]

Illegal aliens enter the US for a variety of reasons the major one of which is to work. They go to fairly predictable places for fairly predictable reasons. They take fairly predictable jobs in fairly predictable locations. I'll even go so far as to say employers and service providers are fairly predictable. In other words, it is not a random event we have to anticipate.

If we were serious about greatly reducing the problem the list of actions would not be that hard. What would be hard is mustering the political will to stop the problem. We'd endure tear-jerking stories about the heartless Yanquis chasing down the pure and morally superior undocumented transient employees. Advocacy groups would file suits out the ying-yang. The hospitality industry and agriculture would go absolutely ape. Angry phone calls would go out to previously purchased politicians telling them to call the dogs off. Those previously purchased politicians would immediately propose legislation to protect their future voters from the heartless Yanqui immigration control ossifers.

No, militarizing the border will not in and of itself solve the problem. Arming the border is some small part of the problem. Much more effective and significantly more difficult is mustering the political will to stop the problem growth and gain control. Keyboard commando complain about a real problem caused and fertilized by corporate interests and spineless politicians. Meanwhile states like California are driven into fiscal meltdown because of those interests and politicians.

 

[longeyes]

"They just come here to work." So goes the mantra. Well, a lot do, but plenty don't. Some 28% of the inmates in Federal prisons are allegedly illegal aliens. I expect a similar stat for state prisons. These people may not necesarily arrive with criminal intent but the competition for work is tough and desperate people will commit desperate acts.

Even if all illegals came to work, we would still be wrestling with massive public expenditure costs for them and their families. More than one study has shown a significant net cost to the taxpayer. What gives them the right, for example, to virtually monopolize all ER services in a community? What about those of us who pay taxes? Are we to come last? We'll see.

I am looking at the situation in my home state (CA) with serious interest. It appears that the radical Latino elements here wish to make support for illegal aliens the litmus test for political viability. Schwarzenegger is being tired because he supported Prop. 187; fact is, so did 60% of the voters. If Latinos want public subsidization of illegal immigrants to be the issue they live and die on--and I have my doubts that the bulk of them do, that this isn't really the agenda of a hard-core minority--then I think we are headed for big trouble in California and perhaps the entire Southwest. This ways lies an "Intifada," because I believe lines are being drawn and taxpayers have now recognized that this is an expense they are unwilling to bear.

 

[longeyes]

"Illegal aliens enter the US for a variety of reasons the major one of which is to work. They go to fairly predictable places for fairly predictable reasons. They take fairly predictable jobs in fairly predictable locations. I'll even go so far as to say employers and service providers are fairly predictable. In other words, it is not a random event we have to anticipate."

We agree that something needs to be done and that it can be done effectively. I am also in agreement with you that the crux of the problem is the so far lack of political will, though I think that when that will has found its expression the conspiracy of power that backs unchecked immigration has worked to effectively quash that will (as in the Prop. 187 case, where for political reasons appeals were not filed).

I have to respectfully disagree, however, that we are still looking at a situation where illegals are working in obvious places. Not any longer. This is a much bigger and broader problem at this point. Unfortunately, we have allowed this problem in the last decade, with the active aiding and abetting by the Clinton Administration (and Doris Meisner), to become huge and unmanageable, now requiring dramatic actions to resolve. Still, it is going to have to be done. This issue goes beyond the economic; it also goes to the heart of our cultural and political identity. It is not for nothing that the California DMV is referred to by cynics as the Dept. of Mexican Voters. If we want the electoral process to retain any semblance of legitimacy, if we don't want conservative votes swamped for the foreseeable future, we will recognize that our sovereignty, culture, and the rule of law itself hang in the balance. The time to act decisively is NOW; we can no longer afford to be trusting or passive on this matter.

 

[Waitone]

My point is that while behavior patterns are predictable I do not believe the problem is small. It is a large and predictable situation.

You mentioned Cali DMV and illegals. You guys out there are discussing the problem. We here in NC have a major problem on our hands. Seems NC DMV is handing out DL's with minimal documentation included the Mexican visa. In fact if the illegal can't produce any documentation, the DMV will permit the applicant to sign an affidavit that he is who he says he is and that is sufficient documentation to be issued a NC DL.

The state legislature woke up and began an investigation as to why this is going on. What they determined was instructive. Seems the Chief of DL's in NC when challenged about wholesale distribution of DL's claimed his job was to distribute DL and he should not be stopped. Later it was determined he spent 2 weeks in Mexico on the tab of some philanthropic organization to become culturally sensitized to the needs of undocumented aliens. There are counties in NC that have no restrains on the issuance of DL to the extent that NC in general and some counties specifically are destinations for those on the east coast interested in establishing a new identity.

Now when legislation is proposed to fix obvous abuses it risks defeat because business interests fear damaging its workforce.

What we're dealing with is the sell out of US sovereignty to corporate, international and governmental greed. Meanwhile the taxpaying class is just beginning to wake up. Surveys which track the gap in concern between the ruling and ruled class see as much as a 70% gap in the level of concern. Revolutions get started when that occurs.

If political will was available, the problem could be effectively dealt with.

 

[wingman]

Personally I would be very happy to see everyone in the world who wants to work have a job and never have any kid hurt or hungry but the point is how many can America provide for, is there a set number that will end our quality of life. Right now the cost to the average taxpayer per illegal is high; the people who benefit are the rich/wealthy in this country and Mexico.

Immigration "is" an important topic and it will become even more so in the coming years, if limits are not set we "all" will pay.

As someone who has lived in the southwest most of there lives and seen the changes along the border the problems are much worse in many ways for all people, crime, corruption, etc., The state is becoming unable to pay for services, medical, schools, etc.

With manufacturing jobs leaving our country and at the same time poorly educated workers pouring in at some point the problem will become a large issue. If you believe now freedom is on the way out wait a few years as our population increases.. Not sure we can build enough prisons.

While the open "door" policy sounds great in truth we not living in the 1800's and in this modern world sad to say it will not work.

 

[longeyes]

"What we're dealing with is the sell out of US sovereignty to corporate,
international and governmental greed. Meanwhile the taxpaying class is just
beginning to wake up. Surveys which track the gap in concern between the ruling
and ruled class see as much as a 70% gap in the level of concern. Revolutions
get started when that occurs."

I agree completely. I think this is the Lull Before the Storm.

 

[Erik]

"Who is going to do the agricultural work?"

The "who will do these jobs argument" ignors the fact that there is an almost endless stream of legal immigrants and non-immigrants more than willing to make it is America by fallowing the rules and working hard, regardless of the type of work involved.

It comes down to money. Jail a few greedy American farmers and business owners, force them to hire legal workers, couple all of that with meaningful border security, and ta-da, while the problem might not be wholly solved, it sure as heck would be a lot more managable.

 

[Erik]

As for the case at hand, more information is needed to make a decision.

Though I too am puzzled at the apparent schism in logic between being allowed to arrest someone and not being allowed to detain them by force.

 

[Keith]

Fine each employer $100,000 for every illegal alien on the pay roll. Since the states are always complaining about being broke, let the states do the police work, collect the fines, and keep the money.

That's the cure, plain and simple - fine them so heavily that they are driven into bankruptcy and if they can't pay, then imprison them for about ten years.
If it is more expensive to hire illegals than to pay wages an American will work for, then things will change. And you can always implement a REAL guest worker program that can bring in and monitor seasonal workers if labor is in short supply - paid for by those who employ the workers.

And yes, we'll pay more for groceries - so what? We'll make it up in tax savings spent on law enforcement and social services. It is simply INSANE to spend billions along the border to catch 10% of the illegals, then ignore the employers who lure these people across in the first place.

Keith

 

[ahenry]

I can’t believe I’ve missed this thread…guess getting married can do that. HAHA

With my apologies for a late entry:

Longeyes,

Militarizing the border can't be ruled out but it isn't where we should
start.

Would this sort of be a meeting of the minds I detect?!

I prefer to apply the stick to employers doing the illegal hiring, then to remove the carrot of public benefits.

Why so? What in the world justifies somebody “getting†some of the money I work extremely hard for. I bust my rump day in and day out to bring home as good a paycheck as possible and I damn sure don’t appreciate somebody else enjoying the fruits of my labor, especially somebody that is in America illegally. So unless you can give me a real good reason why this “carrot†should continue to “dangle†I am going to have to disagree with you.

Nemesis,

Contrary to the wishful liberal notion of "simple people, improving their lives"; many are just criminal opportunists.

I haven’t taken the time to apply pencil to paper, but I think I am quite safe in saying that the vast majority of those crossing the border really are just trying to make a better life for themselves (note that I am not justifying, just explaining). Of course when you are referring to millions and millions of people trying to cross, even a tiny percentage is still a pretty huge number.

The head of the local Border Patrol sector recently made a presentation in which he estimated that they are apprehending 10% of the illegal crossers and fully 10% of those apprehended are known criminals.

Which sector was that?

Jimpeel,

The simple placement of the National Guard on the border would take care of the problem.

No it wouldn’t; not even close.

PeteyPete,

If we can prevent the North Koreans from sneaking into South Korea, we can stop a bunch of fence jumpers from crossing our border.

Korea is essentially a war zone. The last thing I want is some sort of “buffer zone†filled with mines and 19 year old Marines (God bless ‘em) requiring yet more land become "federal land". Besides, its always been my understanding (i.e. unconfirmed) that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo forbids military or anything like it on the US-Mexico border.

 

[AZRickD]

Is it my imagination or has this thread drifted without bothering to look up the law?

Here is the relevant law on the issue which the Yuma Sheriff must have missed...

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03884.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-3884. Arrest by private person

A private person may make an arrest:

1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.

2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.

And...

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03889.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-3889. Method of arrest by private person

A private person when making an arrest shall inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and the cause of the arrest, unless he is then engaged in the commission of an offense, or is pursued immediately after its commission or after an escape, or flees or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest.

 

[longeyes]

ahenry

Well, congratulations!

No, actually I said "remove the carrot," did I not? I am for fining
employers who hire illegals and ending public benefits to illegals.

It appears--mirabile dictu!--that we do indeed agree on this one.

 

[jimpeel]

ahenry

No it wouldn’t; not even close.

Actually, it would be a good start.

If one really wants to see a dustup in this nation, simply let the states that are being invaded -- at the behest of the federal government which tells them they have to accept and provide for them -- place all of their illegal aliens on aircraft with one way tickets to Dulles International Airport. They could also start a 24 hour constant parade of buses, filled with same, destined for Washington, DC. You would see some action then to take care of the illegal alien problem when DC started filling up with Mexican, Cuban, and Haitian illegals.

If they must be accepted and provided for, let those who insist they be accepted and provided for accept and provide for them.

 

[jimpeel]

There is one other Constitutional provision for this activity but it would take a couple of governors with big brass ones to do it.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3 Constitution of the United States

Can you just see it? California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona declaring war on Mexico? Ah, perchance to dream ...

 

[longeyes]

Jimpeel:

I've had similar thoughts. We talk constantly of being "invaded"
but, so far, not of "invading." It would not surprise me if a future
Adminstration, Karl Rove being long absent, adopted a more aggressive
posture toward Mexico. Far-fetched? Not really. And there's
precedent.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

I tend to think the stuff will hit the fan when the American public
starts hearing, after the next amnesty is floated, that they are also
going to be paying SS for Mexicans in Mexico.

 

[nemesis]

ahenry

Which sector was that?

McAllen Sector. Testimony at Sub-Committee immigration hearings in San Antonio.

 

[jimpeel]

longeyes

The section of the Constitution I cited is also the one that will prevent Cruz Bustamante from ceding California back to Mexico, as much as he would like to do so.

There are rumblings that Davis may abdicate the throne to thwart the recall and that would make Bustamante governor by fiat.

 

[0007]

jimpeel - you are forsure forsure burning up the key board today. Ha, ha, ha, ha; CA,TX, NM, NV declaring war on Mexico - soon to be joined by NC, SC and probably a few other overloaded states. The question is which side would the us gov come in on? And the answer is - as we all know from their present actions - the wrong side.
I really like the idea of buying the illegals one-way tickets to DC. It would certainly cost less then letting them stay in whatever state they dropped in on.

 

[longeyes]

0007

In the last analysis it all comes down to one thing: who's got the
military? You're right: the current crop of honchos, both parties,
are on "the wrong side." Stay tuned.

 

[jimpeel]

The federal government would surely come down on the wrong side because, in their continuing effort to please everyone while pleasing noone, they have this propensity to see nothing beyond the next election. They don't want to alienate an entire voting block.

The invasion continues and, for those who would deny there is one, the mantra of the invaders proves it. Their mantra is "Taking back California block by block". That mantra will soon change to "Taking back California hectare by hectare".

If Bustamante becomes governor ...

 

[telomerase]

I was raised in Ohio, but have lived in Texas for eleven years. Even in Texas, you have to be blind to be worrying about a few million people who are trying to come here and work... instead of worrying about the tens of millions who were born here but want to live off your labor. (Especially the rich ones like Archer-Daniels-Midland; their welfare checks are a lot bigger).

If you want to worry about evil foreigners, worry about the dictators that stay in power on US foreign aid...

 

[longeyes]

Telomerase:

The concern about illegal immigration is not about "evil foreigners."
It is about sovereignty, the rule of law, exploitation of labor, coerced wealth transfer, and voter fraud.

It is clear you are completely unaware of the direct and indirect cost
of public services to illegal aliens and their offspring. It is one
major component of the fiscal travails now faced by this State (CA). Given the pols in power it will no doubt get a lot worse before it gets better.
And it will spread, to your State of TX as well.

As for other forms of parasite, there is no doubt no lack of suspects
and no lack of Americans willing to aid and abet the invaders for their
own selfish and traitorous reasons.

 

[telomerase]

>It is clear you are completely unaware of the direct and indirect cost
of public services to illegal aliens

Are you suggesting that the immigrants created our welfare state? I agree with you completely that no one should you tax you to pay for Jose's education or health care, but that's between you and your political "owners". Jose had nothing to do with it. (And in my personal experience, most of the Mexicans work. It's the people who were born here who are the biggest per-capita welfare consumers.)

I'll concede that freedom and the welfare state are not compatible. Obviously we can't afford to have half of South America and all of Africa move here and live on welfare. But the solution is to abolish un-Constitutional programs, not "use nerve gas on Mexicans", as has been suggested here. It may be tempting to attack poor people rather than powerful politicians (who might attack you back), but it doesn't do anything to solve your problems.

 

[jimpeel]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030814-110345-7086r.htm

Arizona residents seek vote on illegals

By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Arizona residents are trying to put an initiative on next year's ballot to deny illegal immigrants access to state services and voting rights.

The initiative would require new voters to present positive proof of U.S. citizenship before registering, and would require state and local officials to verify U.S. citizenship before allowing someone to use state-funded health care or other state services. Education, police and fire services and other services mandated by federal law would not be affected.

Backers said state law already requires voters and users of state services be citizens, but the law isn't enforced seriously.

"It's an honor system. And the honor system isn't working," said Iris Lynch, the southern Arizona organizer for the petition drive. "So we've gone back and we've said in this initiative that when you're a first-time registrant, that you would need to prove you are a citizen."

Backers must obtain 122,612 signatures of registered voters by next July for the measure to go to voters on the November 2004 ballot.

Kathy McKee, one of the chief organizers, said they haven't begun to count how many signatures have been obtained, but she said the response has been strong.

"We ran out of petitions. We printed 2,000, we thought that would last a while, and we ran out in the first week," she said.

But Rep. Steve Gallardo, a Democrat who opposes the initiative, said it's based on a fallacy.

He said backers haven't produced any studies that show illegals are using the services, and he said the director of the state's Medicaid program, probably the biggest service that would be affected, has publicly said they require recipients to be citizens.

"This is purely some type of theory they pulled out with no proof and no documentation," Mr. Gallardo said. "This is purely an anti-immigrant initiative. There are no other reasons for it."

He said even though backers were aiming at welfare benefits, the initiative is written so broadly that it would apply to everything from public swimming pools to library access.

The measure is somewhat similar to California's Proposition 187, which passed with nearly 60 percent support in 1994, and which denied most government services to illegal immigrants.

A federal judge struck down most of the provisions, arguing that they conflicted with federal law and that denying children public education violated the Constitution. After he was elected in 1998, Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, dropped the pending appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Arizona state Rep. Randall Graf, a Republican leader in the Legislature who is supporting the initiative, said it only applies to services where federal law lets states determine eligibility.

He said opponents are overblowing things.

"That's the only way they can try to get any traction is to argue on emotional aspects of what the initiative tries to do," he said.

In June, the state Legislature passed a measure requiring stricter proof of identification for new voters to register, but Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed the measure.

Mr. Graf said that's why supporters had to turn to the initiative process.

He and other backers said it is indicative of a wide divide in attitudes between the general public, which wants a crackdown on illegal immigrants, and policy-makers, who seem indifferent.

"What disturbs me most of all about that is, I have a sinking feeling that the citizens of the United States have nobody on their side. It used to be we had the Republicans on our side, and I see that's slipped away," Mrs. Lynch said.

"The people are really disturbed about the citizens' lack of representation. The only alternative is the initiative route. [The governor] cannot veto that."

The League of United Latin American Citizens is opposing the initiative, as does Arizona's Republican delegation to Congress — both senators and six of the state's eight representatives.

The members of Congress said the burden for securing the border is a federal one. They also said because similar proposals in other states have been struck down.