Why doesn't it surprise me

[The_Tick]

Opening the borders wouldn't have to be disorderly. In fact, we could seriously ramp up the punishment for illegal entry, especially if we were to have such a generous immigration policy.

But that part would never happen. Too many bleeding hearts.

Look...I am a realist. We have a system that is broken. I live 2 hours north of you. We have a pregnancy rate in Kern County that is out of control. A good number of the teenage pregnancies are teenage females of Mexican heritage that have been here for an extremely short amount of time.

I have a family that I home teach that are a doctor/nurse marraige. They work for a clinic that caters to predominatly immigrant patients. This is paid for by the State of California.

Most of the teenage pregnancies they see are girls that are around 8 months pregnant that have been in the country less than 5 months. The girls know that if they have the baby here there is ZERO chance the US will deport them because now the baby is automatically a US Citizen.

They recently had a girl come into the clinic that required a pregnancy test. When it came back negative they discussed with her various forms of birth control available to her. He was shocked when she said "No...I need something that will help me get pregnant so I don't get deported."

It is a system that is played to perfection.

If we got rid of the "citizen where you drop" policy...illegals wouldn't be as quick to come to the US.

[Moliere]

Opening the borders wouldn't have to be disorderly. In fact, we could seriously ramp up the punishment for illegal entry, especially if we were to have such a generous immigration policy.

I'm not sure I'd favor an open border per se, but I would favor a program where they can come into the US on a worker program. There would be no obstacle to them entering the country as long as they filled out the application form and paid a small fee. You would take biometrics to track those who cross and if they have a previous felony or record then you can deny them entrance. If they commit a crime in the US then you can deport them. If they are here without permission then deport them (not sure why they would be in the US illegally if they can cross without problem under the program).

They can stay for a number of years working. There would be a different tax rate for them. No tax returns would be required to be filed, instead you take X% of their wages and give it to the government to cover the expense of running the program. No exemptions and no reimbursable deductions. There would also be a portion fo the taxes to go to cover social programs they would use (i.e. health care) but they would not participate in Medicare or Social Security (and wouldn't pay those taxes) unless they became citizens.

This might incentivize many of them to work in the US for a number of years until they have the money to apply for citizenship. Obviously we need to reduce the wait time for citizenship to happen as well but that's antoher story.

Anyway, just some thoughts from someone who knows nothing about immigration laws. I do have a soft heart for people trying to make their life better and that is true with most of these people.

[ewth8tr]

What is the financial break-even point for letting an immigrant come in legally, where their tax contributions exceeds the local and federal benefits they receive?

5 years? 10? 20? 50? Never?

Why would you only look at their tax contibutions and not include thei impact to the economy?

For the US as a whole, the immediate negative effect of
eliminating the undocumented workforce would include an
estimated
o $1.757 trillion in annual lost spending,
o $651.511 billion in annual lost output, and
o 8.1 million lost jobs.

http://americansforimmigrationreform...rce.pdf#page=8

[Uncle Ted]

I think anarchy in the streets come before they accept losing their entitlements.

In Greece can you believe there are some, I believe labor unions, who are refusing to accept "cuts" in order to get the bail out for their country. Do these people really believe someone somewhere just wants to hand them money so they can continue their entitlements forever.

If you don't think that kind of thinking isn't starting to take hold here in the good ole USA, you just don't like to face reality.

Paul Krugman makes the argument that Greece and the USA are very different because the USA is in control of its own currency. I think one thing Krugman forgot to mention in this article was government (defense) spending significantly dropped off after WWII and what impact it had. If the USA's debt hits 100+% of GDP in 10-20 years about the only thing significant enough to be able to cut from the budget will be social programs.

[frank ryan]

I watched briefly channel 5 where a discussion was going on between the SLC Chief of Police and some politician, can't remember his name.

I think the chief said this type of Arizona thing is profiling and he doesn't want his policeman doing that. I will take his word for it, but police profile all the time. For instance, they will sit outside bars, follow a patron, pick them up on some false deal like, illegal turn, taillight, etc. and then make them take a breathalizer. I am OK with that, I don't drink, but don't go on TV and say you guys don't profile and think everyone out there is dumb enough to believe that.

Another thing the politician said was that some high percentage of illegals committed the murders in SLC. The chief basically called him a racist for saying that. If the fact is correct, why is it racist to state the that fact?

Now, if this is not a fact and the guy is making it up, I then can see how it is racist.

Believe chief Burbank over Carl Wimmer. Wimmer is one of Utah's worst and most power hungry legislators

I honestly don't know. I listen to people talk about it and the people I generally side with don't seem to think it is a terrible bill. People like Cris Matthews, whom I never agree with think it is terrible. I know that is a bad way to decide, but I haven't read it enough that if I say too much I could be out on a limb and get sawed off.

I was actually for Bush's proposal. I am actually Ok with anmnesty, if there was some way to assure me in the future the borders would be shut down. I am not for open immigration.

One reason I am not. I think most of the people who immigrate here from South America will end up voing for democrats. It is philosophical, not a condemnation. I think most people who come in are easily converted to hating rich people and having them pay for everything.

Your honesty regarding partisan concerns is refreshing. One thing to consider is latinos usuallt have had a large minority vote republican. This move will hurt your party's numbers overall I would guess.

[Indy Coug]

Why would you only look at their tax contibutions and not include thei impact to the economy?


http://americansforimmigrationreform...rce.pdf#page=8

I'm not talking about removal, I'm talking about the additional.

[RobinFinderson]

If we got rid of the "citizen where you drop" policy...illegals wouldn't be as quick to come to the US.

Too bad it is part of that pesky Constitution.

[The_Tick]

Too bad it is part of that pesky Constitution.

For now. It wasn't always and it doesn't always have to be.

I can tell you that it is one of the main reasons that pregnant illegals risk their lives coming here. They know if they have their kid here it is their GOOJFC. (Get out of jail free card)

[RobinFinderson]

For now. It wasn't always and it doesn't always have to be.

I can tell you that it is one of the main reasons that pregnant illegals risk their lives coming here. They know if they have their kid here it is their GOOJFC. (Get out of jail free card)

The political will to amend the constitutions in this regard will never materialize in our lifetime.

[byu71]

You have to start somewhere. So here is where I would start. If you are undocumented and can meet the following requirements, you get to stay. After 5 years, if you meet the same requirements and can speak reasonable English, you can apply for citizenship.

Everyone else, you are out of here. Sorry. We also pass really tough immigration laws for those who aren't here already. No 5 year cards would be passed out in the future.

Requirement 1)

Gainfully employed with your employer saying the prospects are good for you to continue to be so.

Requirement 2) You have a US husband, wife, father or mother or children who will sponsor you. They are responsible for your physical care. Food, shelter, etc.


Those two would do it. You can stay. 5 years from now if you still qualify and can speak reasonable English, congrats you are a citizen.

[UtahDan]

The political will to amend the constitutions in this regard will never materialize in our lifetime.

This is one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of judicial activism over the last century. The Constitution was made to be amended, not with easy of course, but is was intended to be doable. In modern practice it is far easier to get the Supreme Court to reinterpret the constitution that it is to amend it. This ought not be so, and the danger is that it is causing the constitution to calcify into something much less elastic as people begin to believe it shouldn't ever change much and as people become more and more unhappy with the judiciary and more and more cynical about how political it has become.

If you doubt which is harder to do, look at where all the advocacy and lobbying money gets put. Conversely, when constitutions are susceptible to reasonable amendment procedures (many states) it happens not infrequently, though California is an example of that idea taken to an unhealthy extreme.

[dabrockster]

I think anarchy in the streets come before they accept losing their entitlements.

In Greece can you believe there are some, I believe labor unions, who are refusing to accept "cuts" in order to get the bail out for their country. Do these people really believe someone somewhere just wants to hand them money so they can continue their entitlements forever.

If you don't think that kind of thinking isn't starting to take hold here in the good ole USA, you just don't like to face reality.

Groups that organized the protest this past weekend:

AFL CIO
Worker World Party
Socialist Party of USA
Worrd Socialist Website
Revolutionary Communist Party
SEIU
LAYouth


I would say your guess on the similarities and it taking hold here is fairly accurate..

[KillerDog]

What is informing your belief that a person can be stopped for "nothing?" ...
What I seem to be hearing, at bottom, from most people (not saying you) is that they don't want our immigration laws enforced. I really think the idea that brown skinned people are going to start getting randomly stopped and detained is not supported by the text of that statute. I think that a lot of sharp people (even sharp lawyers) are getting a little off on this because they don't understand Terry stops and temporary detentions as they exist under current law. I don't view this as being an extension, at all, of what current law already permits. It is just a new subject area.

Straighten me out if you think I missed your point.

My criminal procedure and law background consisted in a Criminal Law class in law school, a Crime Victim's Rights class in law school and a Criminal procedure class in law school. The Criminal Procedure class was taught by an admitted libertarian. That said, I recall one handout from the class where the professor had created a Terry Stop list which included all of the "reasonable suspicions" that had been allowed by courts for Terry Stops. I understand that legal contact occurs on any of those reasonable suspicions. Further, I understand that this same standard will be applied to the requirement that an officer check immigration status. That said, the list was intended as a criticism of the Terry Stop and its 4th Amendment abuse. It listed a bunch of opposite or nearly opposite rationales that had all been upheld like: walking too fast, walking too slow; meeting officer's eyes, avoiding officer's eyes; hands in pockets, hands out of pockets. The list went on and on with the conclusion that reasonable suspicion was a loose enough standard that it was no standard at all. This is coloring my view of the Arizona law. Their effort to mirror the Terry Standard is bad enough but to require that people show legal residency under those standards is too much imho.

[UtahDan]

My criminal procedure and law background consisted in a Criminal Law class in law school, a Crime Victim's Rights class in law school and a Criminal procedure class in law school. The Criminal Procedure class was taught by an admitted libertarian. That said, I recall one handout from the class where the professor had created a Terry Stop list which included all of the "reasonable suspicions" that had been allowed by courts for Terry Stops. I understand that legal contact occurs on any of those reasonable suspicions. Further, I understand that this same standard will be applied to the requirement that an officer check immigration status. That said, the list was intended as a criticism of the Terry Stop and its 4th Amendment abuse. It listed a bunch of opposite or nearly opposite rationales that had all been upheld like: walking too fast, walking too slow; meeting officer's eyes, avoiding officer's eyes; hands in pockets, hands out of pockets. The list went on and on with the conclusion that reasonable suspicion was a loose enough standard that it was no standard at all. This is coloring my view of the Arizona law. Their effort to mirror the Terry Standard is bad enough but to require that people show legal residency under those standards is too much imho.

You are preaching to the choir on Terry. It started as officer safety and never should have gone further. It has been extended too far. Still, a judge has to agree that the facts articulated reasonably lead to the suspicion that a crime has been committed. One of the most abused areas in in DUI law. What passes for reasonable suspicion is pretty normal driving behavior. Let me follow any vehicle for two minutes and in that time I can point out articulable facts that tend to show drunkenness. I can do this on police vehicles and have (don't worry, just in my own head, would never subject anyone in the car to that).

Some of the things you listed are the "guilty mind" sorts of actions. Furtive movements, running, acting nervous, mysterious bulge in their jacket that they try not to let the cops see. Those usually go to drug possession stops or weapon possession stops and involve things that can be pretty subjective (though of course they aren't supposed to be). I guess we will have to see how this evolves, but I don't really know what reasonable suspicion that a person is illegal will be outside of the concrete sorts of things I mentioned.

The practical: What will bring the police into contact with people will be the same thing it almost always is, a vehicle stop. Then they will be asked for an ID. When a fake one is produced or they don't have one and they provide a name and address that doesn't correspond to a license...now you have reasonable suspicion of being illegal. (This isn't going to be you and me without our licenses. When we give a name and address, it is going to come back to us. This has happened to me.) Then they are going to call ICE. That, in my mind, is the only thing that will in practice change. They will call ICE and then hold them if it is confirmed they are illegal.

The other practical change is they don't get bail. That seems appropriate to me, actually, because of the risk of flight.

[il Padrino Ute]

You have to start somewhere. So here is where I would start. If you are undocumented and can meet the following requirements, you get to stay. After 5 years, if you meet the same requirements and can speak reasonable English, you can apply for citizenship.

Everyone else, you are out of here. Sorry. We also pass really tough immigration laws for those who aren't here already. No 5 year cards would be passed out in the future.

Requirement 1)

Gainfully employed with your employer saying the prospects are good for you to continue to be so.

Requirement 2) You have a US husband, wife, father or mother or children who will sponsor you. They are responsible for your physical care. Food, shelter, etc.


Those two would do it. You can stay. 5 years from now if you still qualify and can speak reasonable English, congrats you are a citizen.

I agree with your requirement that speaking English is a factor. It's the language that is spoken here and in order to be successful, one must be able to speak it.