The US constitution protects everyone, even undocumented aliens

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

After reading the post in LBN wherein people were applauding a guy who held 7 Mexican nationals at gunpoint, I felt it was time to explain a couple things.

The US constitution does not allow for people to be here illegally, but it also (in the matter of specifically the 5th and 14 amendments) makes NO DISTINCTION as to citizens...it states "persons"

Once people GET to this country, they ARE protected from discrimination and have a right to be treated equally under the law. This isn't just true in the US but in MOST countries with democratic systems of government.

[glitch]

1. The * admin and would like us all to forget this little tidbit.

Hence the patriot act, among other unconstitutional laws on the books right now.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Um, the * administration wants to keep undocumented

aliens in the U.S. because they are CHEAP LABOR -- the only thing ordinary people are good for in their view.

[glitch]

7. That doesn't mean they want them to have rights.

Hello, guantanamo?

[suigeneris]

45. That's why they use Guantanamo.

So they can claim the prisoners (they aren't detainees) aren't entitled to constitutional guarantees. Pricks.

[EVDebs]

8. Agreed. And illegal immigrants with fake SS# are paying into the system

but will not be allowed to legally collect. This is how Bush & co keep Social Security and Medicare flush with a few billion extra every year. I read the uncollectable fund is around $9 per year now.

[thecai]

42. Too Bad The Constitution No Longer Protects Americans

REPEAL The patriot acts, BTW!

[G_j]

2. thank you

that needed to be said.

I hate it when people start talking like skin-heads.
Look at the ant-immigrant factions in Europe. A gaggle of neo-nazis and racists in general. :puke:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Exactly..some people post here under the guise of economic issues

but their posts a reminiscent of a white power party

[Zorra]

80. Did it ever occur to you that some people who post here about economic

issues are not "white"?

How dare you make these blanket, name calling, bullying, unfounded statements which seem to insinuate that everyone that posts at DU and does not totally agree with you on this issue is a racist?

Has it ever occurred to you that some people who post here about economic issues may have actually dealt with the practical reality of ignorant grinning redneck foremen who refused them a job because he had picker cabins full of undocumented workers? Who have gone from orchard to orchard in a fruitless, discouraging search for employment because undocumented workers had most of the jobs? Who saw their wages stagnate due to unfair labor competition?

Or that some of these "racists" who post about "economic issues" have actually told their real life ex-drill sergeant alcoholic redneck boss from Mississippi to stick a job up his ass and quit their job when the redneck asshole wanted them to fire a 60 year old undocumented worker who was physically incapable of doing their job but desperately needed the money? Or these "racists" that yelled "La Migra!" to their undocumented co-worker friends because they saw that the Border Patrol was coming and did not want them to get caught?

Unlike many, probably most, of the people posting here at DU, I have actually had a good deal of genuine real life experience with agricultural work and labor competition from undocumented workers. And also with the people that own the fields and hire undocumented workers.

(BTW, I live in Mexico, and not in a tourist area. I speak Spanish, and a whole lot of my very good friends are Mexicans).

These repeated blanket insinuations that paint everyone who believes that undocumented workers that work in the US present competition to American labor as a racist are insulting and unreasonable.

Senate to vote on legal status for immigrant farmworkers
April 19, 2005

WASHINGTON – The Senate is scheduled to vote today on a proposal to grant legal status to at least 500,000 undocumented farmworkers, a plan that immigration advocates hope might set the stage for a broader program to legalize immigrants at work in all areas of the U.S. economy.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050419-9999-1n19agjobs.html

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

85. I've never made a blanket assertion about people who post

about economic issues associated with illegal immigration...the word SOME should have been your first clue.

As for bullying....better double check your own post in the matter.

I have no response concerning your anecdotal redneck boss from Mississippi...but not all people yelling "La Migre" were doing it to help undocumented workers from being caught...some of them were yelling it on PAYDAY to avoid paying their workers.

[hunter]

86. Here we go, the basic facts...

First you must ask yourself, "What makes me any different than the average undocumented worker?"

Answer: Your good fortune, nothing more. You were either born here, or you had the resources and the motivation to immigrate legally.

It is blatantly obvious that illegal immigration is the official policy of the United States. Many U.S. businesses use illegal immigration as a union-busting tool. Many U.S. businesses want their workers to be fearful -- to be too afraid to demand better working conditions or better wages.

Go to work and be afraid, be very afraid. Don't complain. You can always be replaced by someone who is worse off than you are.

Once we establish that illegal immigration is the official policy of the United States (if it wasn't, we'd be seeing the owners and executives of some very large corporations serving extended prison terms for hiring "illegal aliens") then we recognize that most political opposition to "illegal immigrants" arises from the seeds of racism.

It becomes an issue of "us versus them."

They are taking our jobs.

This feeds back into the use of illegal immigration as a tool to keep workers fearful, and thus such racism is encouraged by the political powers beholden to those businesses that employ illegal aliens.

It is entirely possible that you, Zorra, are not practicing some sort of racism when you oppose "illegal immigration" but you have been sucked into playing the games of people who most certainly are.

[Zorra]

87. I understand your points, and agree with you to some extent.

First of all, having spent a fair amount of time living in the "third world", I fully realize the economic advantages of being a US citizen.

And yes, I understand that a great deal of the opposition to "illegal immigration" is motivated by racism and/or xenophobia.

But I do not believe that I have been sucked into playing a game; I believe that my position stems from practical experience, logic, sensible projection, and a sincere desire to protect working American families from a very serious impending economic crisis.

The polarization of wealth in the US in accelerating at a very alarming rate. If you extrapolate on this phenomenon, it is clear that there is going to be a significantly larger number of poverty stricken, unemployed, and homeless people in the US in the not too distant future.

As a nation, we simply cannot afford to bring any more people into the US at this time. Our nation is, economically, very very sick and really needs to heal before we are once again strong enough to carry others. In a perfect world, there would be no borders, and everybody would be free to go wherever they chose and would have everything that they needed and lots of what they wanted.

But this is not a perfect world, and the people of the US that are on the lower end of the economic spectrum are soon going to find themselves in a (corporately controlled Bush government induced) state of severe personal economic crisis with no options. Part of this crisis will result from ever increasing workplace competition in an ever shrinking job market.

So, regardless of the fact that it is corporately controlled government policy to allow a continual flow of cheap labor into the country, and regardless of the fact that many people that oppose "illegal immigration" may be racists, it is still my opinion that undocumented, and even documented, labor from other countries threatens the well-being and economic security of a substantial number of Americans at this time. Just as the outsourcing of jobs is another, similar threat.

[hunter]

92. It's little different than the case of Chinese labor in 1800's California.

The "yellow menace" is now the "brown menace."

Nationalism (like religion) can become very toxic when it is corrupted as a tool of oppression.

Employers hire illegal aliens because they do not demand adequate wages or decent working conditions.

If we required employers to pay adequate wages and to provide decent working conditions, and we demanded the same of overseas businesses that manufacture the goods we import, then the illegal immigration problem would evaporate and the "economic security" of people everywhere, and not just in the United States, would increase.

We can build a society based on a strong middle class, or we can have a society with a very small upper class supported by slaves and people working in conditions very close to slavery.

If U.S. society fails because of illegal immigration then it is because we have chosen the wrong economic model -- a model that does not expand our middle class.

Most of all, even if you yourself are not racist, you must be careful with your language. To say, "a continual flow of cheap labor into the country" often evokes a very racist image. That "flow" of brown people is entirely anonymous, and menacing...

The reality is that people very much like yourself are coming to the United States to work. If you were not born in the United States, then you'd probably consider doing that too, especially if your family was hungry.

[EVDebs]

5. Alhazmi and Almihdhar shouldn't have been 'protected' and allowed in

Alhazmi and Almihdhar: The 9/11
Hijackers Who Should Have Been Caught

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaykhalidandnawaf.html

""During a stopover on Almihdhar's flight to Malaysia on January 5, an unnamed country secretly checked Almihdhar's passport on behalf of the CIA, discovering his full name, Saudi passport number, and a multiple-entry visa for the US issued on April 7, 1999 and good until April 6, 2000 (Alhazmi got the same kind of visa in the same month, but it isn't known when US intelligence learns this ). The intelligence agency also learned that Almihdhar "made his travel arrangements through a Yemeni organization that is well known to US intelligence as a 'logistical center' and 'base of support' for al-Qaeda." By the time of the meeting, the CIA was very aware of Almihdhar's ties to al-Qaeda, and knew that he had been to an al-Qaeda logistics facility in Yemen. ""

Obviously not all immigrants or visaholders are potential terrorists but because of the obvious failure of our own intelligence agencies immigrants are going to feel more scrutiny.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. OK and what's your excuse on Timothy McVeigh? he was here legally

So was Eric Rudolf?

For that matter so were a number of the hijackers...also...how many of the hijackers were Mexican and if you are going to use Debs as a handle, why bother honoring him when he would clearly disagree with your protectionist position?

[EVDebs]

17. Debs was against abusing labor.

The Race to the Bottom is perpetuated by labor coming to the United States in the guise of 'higher pay' when in fact it lowers pay world wide.

Globalization is the culprit here along with corporate greed. As someone with personal experience with 'outsourcing' and H1B visa and the accompanying fraud that the system accomodates :

""William Yates of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) stated that the INS did a study of 3,247 cases referred to an American Consulate in India. He said that "they were unable to verify the authenticity of close to 45% of the claims made on the petitions. Twenty-one percent of the work experience claims made to the INS were confirmed to be fraudulent in this investigation." (See, Yates testimony, below.)

Yates testified that "the INS must rely on the American Consulate personnel as the means of verification." However, Esposito of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that "we simply do not have the staff to conduct routine investigations for the INS." In addition to beneficiary fraud, there is requesting company fraud. Yates described this as follows:

"Examples of fraud associated with the requesting company include instances where: the company is non-existent and/or operating from a post office box, residence, apartment, or many companies are sharing one of the above. Often the requesting company acts as an employment agency, petitions for the foreign workers, but then attempts to find them other jobs, with associated additional fees, paid for by the intending company. In some cases, an existing company petitions for employees, but terminates them on arrival, enabling an otherwise ineligible person to enter into the U.S. These actions are accomplished both with and without the beneficiary's advance knowledge."" from http://www.techlawjournal.com/employ/19990506.htm
'House Immigration Subcommittee Holds Hearing on H1B Visa Fraud'

I can give you examples of foreigners being abused by coming here on these visas if you wish; I can also demonstrate how greedy corporations take their tax break money overseas and outsource jobs that aren't supposed to be outsourced if a US worker is displaced -- but the job is given to a foreign immigrant visaholder and the US worker is denied the right to dispute the matter.

In the long run wages overall in the US are then driven down, the temporary visaholding worker leaves the US eventually (if he's lucky he takes the US job with him).

Debs would tell other countries workers to elect anti-Bush politicians, like Cahuatemoc Cardenas in Mexico for example. That is the best 'protectionist' policy nowadays. As for workers HERE in the United States, Debs would fight for their rights. BTW, McVeigh was born in the US and was a US citizen. A predisposition to not want to harm the United States is why they don't want to let in certain immigrants; there is no excuse for a citizen acting illegally, the government CAN keep those predisposed to harming the US out of the US. Common sense.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. "those predisposed to harming the US"

There are no people "predisposed to harming the US". There are other nations that are pissed at the US but to treat everyone from those countries differently than you treat anyone else is a violation of their rights as a human. Humans make their own choices. They are no more predisposed to being terrorists than people from the US are predisposed to blowing up abortion clinics.

[EVDebs]

25. Read item #7 as part of immigrant requesting naturalization at

weblink http://www.visa2003.com/citizenship/naturalization.htm

"7. Favorable disposition towards the United States."

Don't get mad at me, it's THE LAW.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

73. That is supposed to apply to everyone, not just people with brown skin.

It still doesn't say people are "predisposed" to terrorist actions.

[EVDebs]

23. Thanks for making my point ! n/t

[G_j]

10. I don't get your point

they KNEW these people were here. They KNEW of a possible al-Qaeda connection. How does this relate?

[EVDebs]

19. Our visa program is still a mess and unlimited immigration

is bad for the US. Somehow we need to 'weed out' those who would do harm in the US and as far as I can see the INS, FBI, Homeland Security, etc., aren't up to the task.

From the FBI's standpoint, handwringing over immigrants rights kept them from looking into the MN '20th' hijacker's computer, kept other agents from looking into the flight training of other hijackers (profiling) etc.

For all I know the government LIHOPed 9-11, but the immigration policies are a joke. H1Bs are already, what, 10,000 cases past the 'cap' !

[Solly Mack]

6. People do tend to cast that little fact aside don't they?

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. Thank you nsma...I'm sickened by what I've seen here today.

:(

[sweetheart]

12. hear hear nothingshocksmeanymore!

Right on... there are no borders in the US constitution. ALL
people are created equal.

[GOPisEvil]

13. Let us not forget our Declaration of Independence.

All men are endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their rights are not conferred to them by any government, but by their creator.

How quickly some people forget their own history.

[understandinglife]

14. Thank you and...

.....www.missionnotaccomplished.us (a day to read the US Constitution and reflect on what it means and why it must be defended)

[ComerPerro]

15. The prevailing problem in that case seems to be

that it doesn't matter if these people have constitutional protection or not. These people are just that: people.

They haven't committed any crimes that would justify being held at gunpoint by some wannabe bigshot all hopped up on his first taste of "a-thor-a-tie"

[Walt Starr]

35. Walking across the border was a crime

Sorry, but that is the fact of the matter.

Setting foot on the private property was also a crime. It's called "trespassing".

[ComerPerro]

39. I never said it wasn't

but it doesn't give some pathetic, racist military wannabe a right to point guns in their faces.

Sorry, but these people aren't the law. They are just vigilantes, plain and simple.

If they are so concerned about protecting America, why don't I see them in the military? If they are too old for the military, why don't they sign up as a civilian contractor.

They're just lazy OReiley scyphants who want to push people around.

[Walt Starr]

47. Sorry, but you're wrong. On private property, you have every right

to wield a gun when you find a trespasser.

[ComerPerro]

63. Yeah but in many cases with the MinuteMen, its not private property issues

My main rejection to this comes not from an acceptance or approval of illegal immigration. Its a matter of absolute disrespect for the MinuteMen involved, and my concerns about what their next step might be with their little malitia. I just don't think its safe to give Joe Freeper that much power and authority. Especially people like this. I know I am generalizing, but usually when right wingers get a sniff of authority they just go crazy.

[tyedyeto]

49. The incident did NOT occur on private property...

It happened at a highway rest stop in central AZ and nowhere near the border.

[Walt Starr]

53. Got a link?

Thanks.

[tyedyeto]

55. Here are 2 links to the story...

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005041309330001581581&dt=20050413093300&w=APO&coview=

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=3202924

The stories do not say exactly where the rest stop in question is but, the man is (or was) being held in Maricopa County jail which is in central AZ.

[Walt Starr]

60. So this jerk is now in jail and faces charges

Shows the system worked.

[tyedyeto]

65. Yes, the system worked...

the man is facing charges and the illegals were deported. But you are right, the guy was a jerk to do what he did.

In neither article was it pointed out how he 'knew' they were illegals. Was it because they spoke Spanish? Or had brown skin? This was not a hundred yards from the border but many miles, perhaps over a hundred. Let's see, I live approx 35 miles from the border and the nearest rest stop to the north in Maricopa Co is another 70-80 north, so this was not a border stop.

Sorry, my added ramblings really didn't have anything to do with your reply, just wanted to point out that this was not part of the 'Minuteman' project.

[Walt Starr]

68. I'd say it was a lucky guess

and nothing more. Had they not been illegal aliens, he'd probably be facing a huge civil liability as well as jail time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

69. I love wrongness. Actually they CAN sure him even though they were NOT

here legally. Again the point of this thread is that these people have equal protection rights including the right to sue.

[Walt Starr]

75. Yes, but the likelihood of them suing him is dramatically reduced

because they have been deported.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. Again, not true. There are lawyers for other orgs down there

monitoring this situation...

I

[tyedyeto]

78. Who were the 'lucky' ones in this situation?

And now, on the Governor's desk is a bill to allow guns in bars.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/71109.php

Violence is on the rise here.

According to your sig line:
Republicans want to privatize everything but privacy

What about the privacy of those who were held at gunpoint?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

16. I don't see it in LBN.

Maybe it was shut down. :shrug: Anywho, you make a good point, and I do feel badly that those who are really worried about illegal immigration are letting themselves be used by racist bigots.

[Cuban_Liberal]

20. *applause*

Well said!

:thumbsup:

[B Calm]

21. Protects everyone but gays..

[EVDebs]

22. So if I'm a native born citizen I'm subject to citizen's arrest

but if I'm an illegal immigrant I'm not ? Sounds like those here illegally have more rights than those born here. Already splits are appearing in the Republican Party over immigration issues

Republicans sharply split over immigration
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0418/p03s01-usfp.html and also

Illegal Immigration Costs Texans $4.7 Billion a Year
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=19987

""The costs of other programs and services provided to illegal aliens, and the impact of mass illegal immigration on the jobs and wages of Texans who have been forced to compete against illegal immigrants are not included in FAIR’s study, and would probably result in still higher costs to the state and its residents.

“In Texas, as in many other states, the phenomenon of mass illegal immigration is draining public coffers and robbing local residents of access to essential public services,” observed Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “While every state and almost every community around the country is struggling to improve education and rein-in health care costs, our nation’s failure to address rampant illegal immigration is compounding the problems that state and local governments face.

“All across the country, people are waking up to the reality that illegal immigration has become an enormously expensive phenomenon paid for by workers, taxpayers and schoolchildren,” Stein continued. “If anyone would ask Texans if they want to subsidize more than a million illegal aliens to the tune of $4.65 billion a year, or see their public schools, hospitals and prisons overcrowded with illegal immigrants, the answer would be a resounding ‘no.’ Yet federal and state policies have failed to protect Texans from that burden and have forced them and other Americans to subsidize mass illegal immigration.”""

SUBSIDIZE is the key word here.

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. Do you know what a citizen's arrest actually is?

As a former police officer, I'm curious to hear what you think it is...

[EVDebs]

26. To deprive someone of liberty

"There are two situations where a citizen's arrest without warrant may be lawful: the arrestee has committed or is committing an arrestable offence, or the arrestee is `unlawfully at large'. Private citizens may also have the power to execute an arrest warrant in certain circumstances" http://www.kevinboone.com/citizens_arrest.html

Did AZ 'Minutemen' if they performed a 'citizen's arrest' by detaining a person(s) crossing the border illegally and notified the Border Patrol, act illegally ?

I do know that illegal border crossings have gone down by half since their actions started, embarassing the Border Patrol and federal government.

Now, back to subsidizing this situation....

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. Did they act legally?

In most states, the so-called 'Minutemen' would have been accused of aggravated assault. One is NOT permitted to use the threat of deadly force to detain someone who may have committed a non-violent misdemeanor and who represents no physical threat to the public at large.

[EVDebs]

32. So how will these illegal immigrants ever collect SS and Medicare ?

This is the biggest 'don't ask, don't tell' operation I've come across. Our jails are overflowing in LA and we can't protest because taxpayers MUST subsidize this situation without federal assistance. Arnold says he'll get more federal $ but Bush laughs and says 'vigilantes' are impeding the flow of illegal immigrants.

This is loony tunes !

The business owners who PERSONALLY hired the illegal immigrants should be made to pay, not the taxpayers. But you know WE will be forced to pay, don't you.

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. What does that have to do with whether their arrests were legal?

Do you want to talk apples, or oranges?

[mitchtv]

37. yeah I do. $2.00 for an orange

$3. for an apple, Grapes $6.75/lb, Lettuce $5.oo /head That's what these white boys will have us paying. If they indeed want that, a better idea is jail and confiscation od the businesses who hire illegals

[cajones_II]

99. A better use for the billions they spend "guarding" the border

Send that money straight to Chiapas and Baja, and spend those billions on education and antipoverty there.

I guaran-damn-tee you that anything we send would pay for itself twice over.

[SouthernDem2004]

56. As a current Police Officer I would...

have to disagree with you to a point. One can use a threat of force to detain someone and it would not be considered an assault. It is no different then Wal-Mart detaining a shoplifter by force. In theory these morons could stop anyone crossing the border and hold them for BP. Of course the BP would not tolerate this and would find some way to get rid of the morons.

On the other hand, The guy in the incident you are mentioning was extremely wrong and did not make a valid citizens arrest. The people he stopped were not at the border and he did not know if they were legal or not. This moron stopped people just because of the way they looked and held them at gunpoint. He had no probably cause to believe they committed any crime. I even seem to recall that they were legally here.

[EVDebs]

61. Please see Post #57

The AZ reservist was definitely in the wrong and is being charged with assault as you said.

My point in all of this is that there is a cost to illegal immigration and we've probably already past the ecological sustainability limits see http://www.carryingcapacity.org/04aa5.html

If I were in Mexico/LatinAmerica I would want to 'go to where the work is' too. But there are limits to everything and what was undetectable and easy to ignore in the '40s thru '80s is now out in the open.

By bringing up difficult points, like the isolated instance in AZ the original poster did, I'm hoping that Democrats/progressives don't go any further along with the economic forces that brought the current situation about.

Are the economies of LatinAmerica/Mexico capable of employing their own people ? If not, we're looking at even more illegal immigration, despite what the Dept of Homeland Security says about 'securing our borders'. It will be a joke.

[hack89]

27. The Constitution Society has a good article ...

on citizens arrest.

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. It's OK, but terribly generic.

State law governs what constitutes a lawful citizen's arrest.

[EVDebs]

31. Wow, I was wrong, it's only a misdemeanor according to this

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about49073-80.html

to enter the US illegally.

No wonder Mohammed Atta and the other hijackers were able to come into the US with such ease, anything preventing them was only a freaking MISDEMEANOR ! ROFLMAO.

"America, what a country" -- Jacov Shmirnov

[Cleita]

30. I think they deserve to be treated like human beings even

if the Constitution didn't say so.

[EVDebs]

34. I agree. But soon we will have 'Anchor Fetuses'

""Each year, thousands of women enter the United States illegally to give birth, knowing that their child will thus have U.S. citizenship. Their children immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state, and local benefit programs. In addition, when the children turn 21, they can sponsor the immigration of other relatives, becoming "anchor babies" for an entire clan....

The United States is unusual in its offer of citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S.-style policies in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today.1""

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=1190&c=13

Mexico should elect Cauhtemoc Cardenas, begin economic reforms to assist its people; Venezuela seems to have got the message (despite Bush's sabre rattling). Much of Latin America is now turning Left for the better. We can better help them by making it possible for them to stay in their own countries.

[G_j]

44. OK, OK

I've about had it!

I will follow this to where maybe it should logically go now.

Every person except Native Americans should get the fuck off this stolen land. It is not ours and come to think of it, the Constitution itself is an illegitimate document written by white, male "land owners" who conquered this land with genocide and lies.
Do any of us in the dominant culture really have a 'high horse' to get on and pontificate about who belongs here on this land that our 'ancesters' stole at point of a sword? not in my opinion

response?

[Charon]

50. Point of a sword

Name me one European Country that was not stolen at the point of a sword from its orginal inhabitants.

[EVDebs]

57. Not OK, Not OK-- Two wrongs don't make a right

Border Control by Cal Thomas, Feb 27, 2005
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20050226-101211-3749r.htm

""(Kerry Morales)A South Texas rancher, she says illegal immigrants have cut down her fences, stolen her pickup truck and broken into her home, once invading her bedroom and nearly strangling her. She says they fled after she reached for her gun.
Rather than complain to authorities, who seem unable or unwilling to stem the tide, Ms. Morales plans in April to join hundreds of other volunteers from across the country along a 20-mile stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border where they intend to help the Border Patrol spot and stop illegals.""

A previous posting by a former police officer implies that you cannot, as a US citizen, detain an illegal immigrant (or 'undocumented alien') even if they are committing a crime on your property--as was the case with Ms. Morales in TX--since YOU would be committing a crime against them--by 'assault' in trying to prevent a crime being committed, even on your property as in the Morales Ranch property.

This, my fellow DUers, is why Morales joined the Minuteman 'vigilantes' this past month in AZ. By 'reaching for her gun' Ms. Morales puts herself 'at risk' of lawsuit by our ACLU apparently so she did the only thing remaining to do...protesting by direct action along the AZ border once the project was announced. The Minutemen participants will NOT use citizen's arrest, as I earlier thought they might:

""The volunteers say they will use night vision binoculars and other high-tech devices to help spot border crossers. When they sight illegals, the volunteers say they will use cell phones and Walkie-Talkies to contact a command center, which will relay the information to U.S. Border Patrol agents. Mr. Gilchrist tells the Express-News that participants will not confront migrants, nor do they intend to behave like vigilantes and take the law into their own hands."" (from the Cal Thomas column).

So, then, our illustrious President is WRONG. The Minutemen are NOT acting as 'vigilantes'. Citizen's arrest will NOT be used; they will merely augment the existing Border Patrol and assist them in DOING THEIR LAWFUL DUTIES, much as existing 'ride-along' public participation programs every US law enforcement entity already has.

So, it seems like the fines and penalties for hiring an illegal immigrant are just more laws to ignore:

"American corporations that continually support illegal immigrates are supposed to be fined up to 10,000 dollars and serve prison time for hiring an illegal- it’s a federal crime…...The latest statistic’s show that from the month of October through August 25, 2004 55,890 illegal aliens were caught…these were not Mexican illegal’s. The people who were caught as they crossed the border were from Middle Eastern countries hostile to the USA and that number doesn’t represent all those who made it through undetected into your hometown. Moreover, Washington really wants us to believe that we are safer prior to the date of 9/11… explain to the American people President Bush- how are we safer? When you and President Fox want nothing more than to allow those who are breaking our laws an open invitation to continue the abuse…the wolf is in the hen house and the wolf is devouring our children’s future."
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/kmarsala_20050418.html

So, the guy with the gun holding the 7 Mexican illegal aliens could be charged with assualt just as the aliens could be charged with a misemeanor, entering the US illegally. Normally, a crime on your record precludes you from becoming a naturalized US citizen should you apply for it. Looks like we've got two wrongs here and 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

Army reservist accused of detaining 7 immigrants
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0413detain13.html

""What the man did certainly was wrong," said Jim Gilchrist, Minuteman Project organizer. "He should have called the Border Patrol. His weapon should have been his cellphone." Gilchrist, a Vietnam veteran, added that although he did not know Haab personally, he hoped the government would consider the circumstances related to his military service. "He didn't shoot anybody, but he did feel he had to protect his country. I hope the charges will get dropped. I think he's probably learned his lesson," Gilchrist said.
Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona, said she is concerned about private citizens acting as border agents.""

The reservist certainly went off half-cocked and wasn't following Minuteman Project protocols. So, why don't people south of the border simply apply to legally cross the borders, just like immigrants from everywhere else ?

[G_j]

59. Cal Thomas??

beyond that I have nothing more to say.

[EVDebs]

62. Kelly Morales of TX....you obviously didn't read the article n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Kelly Morales is the one with the anecdotal immigrant horror story

Cal Thomas is the author...Cal Thomas is a RW whore ...some of his stories have even been debunked in Snopes, such as IIRC a story about them liberal professors and a sticker on someone's office door at a university a few years back.

[G_j]

77. you are correct, I didn't

I don't read anything by Cal Thomas or Rush or Coulter or Hannity.............

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. "anchor babies for an entire clan"...love the bigoted phraseology

[EVDebs]

76. So you don't deny the real victim here is the US taxpayer ? LOL

Were they on her property looking for visas ? ROFLMAO !!!!!!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

82. You don't deny the language is bigoted?

[EVDebs]

88. You mean when I'm called 'white boy' as up above, right ? LOL !

The 'bring the family' language is accurate when used in the 'Anchor Babies' article. What other instances are you talking about as 'bigoted' ?

The racism charge is wearing thin when you aren't making sense. I'm in favor of Latinos getting a living wage. You won't get that progress by tearing down native born taxpayers. The economic system that perpetuates Latinos forced migration into the US needs to change.

California is an Agri-Business state. Mainly Republicans with Farm Bureau and the big corporate farmers (often oil companies exploiting their tax breaks) use the imported illegal immigrants.

The illegal immigrants should do as the Indians and Chinese and exploit the 'perfectly legal' H1B H2B L1 visa programs. They can then avoid the hassles of hide and seek with La Migra. DOL visa programs actively assist in importing laborers from overseas; Mexicans and Latin Americans crossing illegally are just too obvious.

The best way to get immigration reforms is counter-intuitive: Have the illegal immigrants snitch on their illegal employers, collect triple damages under the federal false claims act and watch the fur fly. The globalization multinational corporations promoting this unfair slave labor wage system need to be the true target rather than us DUers sniping at eachother.

[hunter]

93. NSMA can call me a "white boy" anytime she wants to!

But do you really believe "anchor baby" is a term that should ever be repeated in any context?

Most people have a very difficult time recognizing racism as it is entrenched in their language, or especially, as it is entrenched in their thoughts.

"illegal immigrants snitch" is a good one, the implication being that they crossed the border illegally, so what's a little snitching to them, especially if they can make a few buck doing it?

The native born taxpayer is a good one too... Are you an American Indian by any chance? (My wife has ancestors going back about ten thousand years here, so she can laugh at me whenever I proudly proclaim that my ancestors have been "Out West" since at least the 1870's. A real cowboy I must be!)

I am the last sort of person to enforce "political correctness" but I do expect people to trace the source of their words sometimes, especially in discussions such as this.

[EVDebs]

94. I'm just repeating the phase as presented on Lou Dobbs' show

and the weblink where I found it mentioned again. I find your language play interesting since "law abiding illegal immigrants"-- oops, 'Undocumented aliens'-- sounds a bit oxymoronic. My use of the 'illegal immigrants' whistleblowing on their employers who broke the law is maybe a more politically correct way of phasing or parsing it as the case may be.

I must appologize for being a native born citizen also ? Gee whiz, that's mighty big of you. It's no wonder why you 'enforcers of political correctness' allow Bush to win elections. So sad.

See http://www.answers.com/topic/anchor-baby

""An anchor baby is a child born in a country specifically to receive citizenship rights, and thereby 'anchor' the child's family to the country in which it was born. Immigration reductionists often cite this practice as a demonstration of a failure in a nation's immigration policy.""

If you can find it on an online dictionary I don't think I'll apologize for using that term either.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. Another term for "anchor baby" is US CITIZEN

Don't like the 14th amendment?

[EVDebs]

96. Why is it so hard for Latin Americans to get visas when everybody else is

getting them ? Indians, Chinese, Eastern Europeans....all are using H1Bs, L1s, H2Bs, student M1 visas...

Instead of illegally crossing the border, why not get a visa and do it legally ? Is it just out of habit ? I wonder.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

98. That's why it's so hard. Everyone else is getting them.

The US only allows approximately 700,000 legally per year. Most are family, and therefore those use up most available...the rest are refugees and asylees but interesting enough very few of those asylees are from Latin America.

Furthermore, it really bothers me that you have posted from primarily right wing sources and now after so many posts, you don't even know how many immigrants the US allows per year?

Frankly, those h1B's, h2's and L1's are the ones that are imported to bring your wages down such as those imported solely for the benefit of the tech industry.

I am glad you are wondering now...it would have been nice for you to wonder BEFORE you posted so many negative opinions.

Furthermore, many of the right wing sites you referenced referred to THIS STUDY by the Urban Institute...you might wish to read it since it doesn't back up the MAJORITY of their xenophobia...they cherry picked it.

http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?NavMenuID=24&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=5868#IV

<snip>

verall Picture: Limited Impact

There is no strong evidence that immigration reduces overall availability of jobs or wages. Immigrants may reduce the employment opportunities of low-skill workers, however, especially in areas where the local economy is weak and immigrants are concentrated. Immigration does not hurt the job prospects of African Americans as a whole, but it reduces their economic opportunities in areas of high immigration during recessionary periods. New immigrants appear to hurt the overall labor market chances of one population group—the immigrants who immediately preceded them. Immigration may also be altering the movement of native workers into and out of high-immigration areas.

Immigrants contribute substantially to the U.S. economy. They create more jobs than they themselves fill. They do so directly by starting new businesses and indirectly through their expenditures on U.S. goods and servic

<snip>

National Labor Market Impacts

Do Immigrants Displace Native Workers?

To the extent that any displacement of natives by immigrants can be detected for the nation as a whole, the effects are trivial (Table B-1). Increasing the immigrant share of a local labor market from 10 to 20 percent, for example, produces declines in native labor force participation of less than 1 percent.

What explains these results, which are so at odds with the tenor of much of the political debate today? First, aggregate studies take into account the employment-creating activity of immigrants, which is seldom noted in the debate. Second, recent immigrants may lack the English fluency, prior education, and work experience that are characteristic of U.S. workers. They may also need time to grasp the standards, discipline, and modes of production in a highly industrialized workplace. These patterns would tend to segment labor markets and insulate natives from direct competition with immigrants. There is also evidence, particularly in more recent work, that internal migration by natives to regions with high concentrations of immigrants is slower than outmigration from those regions, which may spread the effects of immigration and dampen direct competition (Walker, Ellis, and Barff 1992).

Do Immigrants Depress the Wages of Natives?

Immigration has no discernible effect on wages overall, as a number of recent studies agree (Table B-2). Wage growth and decline appear to be unrelated to immigration—a finding that holds for both unskilled and skilled workers (Butcher and Card 1991). And a study of state-level wage declines over a 13-year period finds no evidence that immigration is a factor (Vroman and Worden 1992). Indeed, wage growth is no slower and may be faster where immigration rates are high than where they are low (Enchautegui 1993).

What Impact Do Immigrants Have on Opportunities for Less-Skilled Workers?

Immigration has, on balance, contributed somewhat to the declining fortunes of low-skilled workers, according to the weight of the evidence (Table B-3), although the scale of the estimated effects varies from study to study. The largest estimates in the literature are not the effects of immigration alone, but of a combination of immigration and trade (Borjas, Katz, and Freeman 1991).

Immigration may contribute to growth in wage inequality. For example, the President's Council of Economic Advisers recently reported that "immigration has increased the relative supply of less educated labor and appears to have contributed to the increasing inequality of income, but the effect has been small" (Economic Report of the President 1994). The Council's report concludes that "it seems unlikely that immigration could explain more than a few percent of the total change" in the expanding college-high school wage gap. Note, however, that the studies in Table B-3 do not differentiate immigrants according to legal status.


now will you please dispense with the "wives tales" you've been posting on this thread and elsewhere on this subject. You referenced the Urban Institute's study, therefore you should not object when that study not only DOES not back your points up...it flat out NEGATES them

[EVDebs]

100. This study was done in 1994. Things have changed greatly since then

Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight
Author(s): Michael E. Fix, Jeffrey S. Passel
ublished: May 01, 1994
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=305184

More recent studies show that there IS an illegal immigration problem. I have no problem even with the H1B, H2B, L1 programs if they weren't being abused (again) by corporate interests that simply wish to lower wages in the US and simultaneously displace US workers (and strip them of health and pension benefits entirely).

You are well intentioned but by promoting the illegal immigration aspect of the "immigration" issue, you do a disservice. Illegal immigration is no 'wives tale' as you are well aware.

The H1B worker who displaced me (legally) is probably back in Bangalore right now. That's how the globalization system works. I was supposed to be able to protest this process but even that right was stripped in the Dept of Labor's process that actively displaces US workers and subsitutes foreign labor on visas. See the ETA Form 9035 for the H1B visa for instance at

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/foreign/preh1bform.asp

and see Item #3

""A number of statutory requirements and authorities under the INA, as amended by the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998, sunset on October 1, 2003. The specific program changes that occurred included:
A reduction in the cap on the number of available H-1B visas from 195,000 to 65,000 per fiscal year;
The elimination of the Recruitment and Hiring and the Displacement and Secondary Displacement attestations that previously applied to "H-1B dependent" employers and to employers found to have committed a willful violation or misrepresentation of a material fact on the application;
The elimination of authority granted to DOL to investigate H-1B employers if they have "specific, credible evidence" that a violation has occurred; and
The elimination of the $1,000 fee that is required to be paid by employers of H-1B nonimmigrants to support low-income scholarships and job training programs for workers.
The recruitment and displacement attestations noted above, and the instructions relating to them, were previously outlined in Subsections 1 and 2 of Section F. Due to the possibility that these attestations may be reenacted by the Congress, the Department has temporarily blanked out these portions of the application and instructions.

The previous edition of this application form, displaying an OMB Expiration Date in the upper-right-hand corner of 31 AUG 2003, should no longer be submitted by employers seeking to hire H-1B nonimmigrants. ""

Notice the attestations (made under penalty of perjury) were stripped along with the fines and investigation authority of the DOL's Inspector General. This makes it impossible for fraud investigations, the fining of companies promoting the frauds, and the ability of US workers to bring action against the companies and/or the DOL officials who perpetuate the system.

I'm sorry to hear that Latin Americans are slow on getting a program to abuse for themselves, as the Indians and others seem to have a good handle on abusing the H1B program along with L1s now.

A more up to date report on illegal immigration, which is what I'm concentrating on, can be found here using 2002 data:

The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget
Executive Summary
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html#Complex

The options it mentions to fixing the illegal immigration problem are as follows:

"One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration"

The report also states
"On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household."

And "Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change."

Finally
"Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers."

Don't shoot the messenger. Illegal immigration IS a problem. If the DOL could work out a way for Latin Americans, with another visa category, that would allow workers to come across the border with documentation that would satisfy Homeland Security, that would make me and you happy. But for too long entrenched networking of illegal smuggling have been allowed to establish themselves.

This is a system that is bad for all workers involved but a treasure trove for greedy interests.

One other thing, 'Mexico's energy problem - Oil, politics a difficult mix'
http://www.energybulletin.net/2882.html

shows that Mexico has potential to sell off or allow foreign investment in its oil reserves, especially Gulf of Mexico. With the price of oil only going UP in the future, Mexico could sell now while the price is good and team with the US in an energy future for both of us. Worth considering. The benefits of that kind of investment could turn out like the Alaska 'Permanent Fund' that Alaskans benefit greatly from through royalties each year.

[dsc]

36. The feds need to subsidize this or else all border states

are going to be copying this. The feds gain by immigration but the border states lose. It shouldn't be terribly surprising that the border states are starting to rebel over this. The feds need to pay their fair share of the increased education costs as a starter. This can't be justified, but it also won't be stopped until something is done.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. Are you sure the border states really DO have increased costs?

Between their state tax revenue and this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3490033

looks like the assetion about their costs is arguable

[dsc]

46. I think between increased education costs

and Medicaid costs (both for the documented children of the undocumented workers) it is likely the states have increased costs. Add in the detention costs when they are caught and it becomes more likely. Yes, states benefit as well but it is hard to see the benefits outweighing the cost. It should be noted your thread regards a business which was complaining. The government only benefits so much by that. If the feds simply picked up the extra education and Medicaid costs along with the detention costs it would help immensly.

[EVDebs]

67. Article on 'Costs of Illegal Immigration'... our congressmen need to read

The Costs of Illegal Immigration
Illegals Cost Feds $10 Billion a Year; Amnesty Would Nearly Triple Cost
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

But wait ! Bush is proposing AMNESTY ! As if the Red-Ink-Republicans can't bring our deficits any higher along comes Shrub with this brilliant amnesty for illegal immigrants idea: even fellow Republicans won't follow Shrub off the cliff this time around, to the tune of $30 billion !

"Bush's proposals have met stiff opposition from some Republicans, particularly in the House, who say the measures would amount to amnesty for the majority of the nation's illegal workforce."

From today's LATimes story
'Illegal Immigration Policy Is at Crossroads in Senate
One plan could legalize half a million workers, another would tighten border controls'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig19apr19,1,7711682.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Truly, nothing shocks me anymore.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. Myth: Immigrants Drain our Social Services

Fact: The Urban Institute has concluded that "immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services." This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits.

As a result, one commentator has pointed out, "a senior citizen on Social Security who lives in rural Kentucky is indirectly being subsidized by an immigrant who washes dishes in a chic restaurant in Santa Monica." Another commentator recently proposed that the best solution to the Social Security crisis caused by the aging of the baby boomers is to encourage immigration in order to create "instant adults" who will begin working immediately and paying into the Social Security system.

http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/ImmigrantsRights.cfm?ID=12413&c=22

[EVDebs]

89. Until the time when illegal immigrants begin to collect on SS/Medicare

Then you go back into the red ink again ! Mexico isn't going to pay for their SS/Medical care and neither is the ACLU.

[EVDebs]

90. Now you're mixing up legal immigrants with illegal immigrants

So I guess I can too now.

Look who's received most of the jobs since 2000:

NATION’S IMMIGRANTS ACCOUNT FOR BULK OF LABOR FORCE GROWTH SINCE 2000 WHILE NATIVE-BORN WORKERS EXPERIENCE HEAVY DECLINES

New study reveals that the nation’s foreign-born make up more than half of the
labor force growth between 2000 and 2003

REPORT REVEALS EXTRAORDINARY DEPENDENCE ON IMMIGRANTS IN LIGHT OF BUSH’S PROPOSAL TO OFFER 8 MILLION ILLEGALS AMNESTY

http://www.nupr.neu.edu/01-04/immigration_jan.html

As someone who was laid off from a job simply because the employer wanted to hire someone on an H1B visa, I can tell you that the DOL is bigotted against native-born workers. It's just the new reality in the US.

Now, if Bush does offer amnesty, those formerly illegal immigrants should immediately demand either back pay for their exploitation OR a living wage law. Does THAT sound like I'm bigotted ? I simply want the employers to pay for having shafted the displaced US workers.

[dsc]

97. Yes but all of that subsidizes the feds

who aren't paying the costs. That is why I believe the feds should be subsidizing border states for the extra cost.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. No disagreement there at all

[EVDebs]

64. Look at any census on poverty in the US and its border counties and

Appalachia along with scattered mid-west farming counties. But the largest populations are in those border counties.

CA is already a 'donor' state; and being anti-Bush leads to denial of funding.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. In large part, California contributes 60 billion dollars more to the

fed coffers than it gets back because of congress and their ABC spending policies (anywhere BUT California) Another reason they contribute more is BECAUSE undocumented workers pay fed taxes and social security that they don't claim or collect...btw...we also have high STATE sales and income taxes in California...so our undocumented population pays their way with everything they ear and everything they buy.

[EVDebs]

74. "$1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident." in CA

The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians: Executive Summary

http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=2570&c=13

""Analysis of the latest Census data indicates that California's illegal immigrant population is costing the state's taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden from those three areas of state expenditures amounts to about $1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident.

This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison ten years later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report."" Around $9 billion annually, net expense.

Some would say that continuing to subsidize illegal immigration DEMANDS compensation from Washington. This is what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneggar said he was going to get for us from his buddy Bush.
Bush supports more illegal immigration, so there you have it.

This will get more Democrats elected, but won't solve any problems. That's because nothing shocks me anymore.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. California is an agricultural state. There is nothing more uneven than

to calculate the COSTS of a group of people without calculating the benefits they contribute to our economy.

YOur analysis seems to be missing that point

[hunter]

38. Let me be very blunt.

In my daily life the bulk of DU members who are U.S. citizens are much less important to me than "illegal aliens" from Mexico and Central America.

That's just the way it is. Bang.

I do not hire illegal aliens, but I do understand very well how and why they are here. If I were to shovel out the blame, very little of it would land on them.

Being "an American" is not some special sort of humanity. (In fact it's very likely that bringing a U.S. passport to the pearly gates will tip God's scales the wrong way...)

I have seen a lot of overtly and covertly racist crap decorating these pages.

Go ahead folks, you tell us how "illegal aliens" are not the same sort of "person" you are. Go ahead.

If you were born a human being in the USA you should be thanking God, the Random Universe, or whatever fountain of spirituality you worship at that you could be so lucky. You should be examining the darkest corners of your heart, seeking to cast out whatever racism you find there.

[understandinglife]

41. BRAVO!! As well stated as it will ever need to be. Closure. Done. Thank ..

..you.

Peace.


www.missonnotaccomplished.us (a day to reflect on just how much we need to do for each and every person on this planet -- we are humanity, no more or no less, no matter where our moma happened to be when she delivered)

[Bridget Burke]

48. Thank you.

The people saying the Mexicans should just overthrow their government don't know history--or the realities of Mexican politics. We didn't prevent Bush's illegal presidency in 2000, did we?

The fight for justice is an international fight. The Minutemen need to protest the corporations. And this latest spate of postings claiming to represent "working men" has not fooled me. Odd how different (mostly new) posters suddenly begin using the same phrases.

[Pithlet]

91. Absolutely!

:applause:

[foreigncorrespondent]

43. Good onya, NSMA!

You go girl!

You have a lot of courage to continue with this, after all the flames you have faced during the last few weeks.

I for one stand and applaud you!:applause:

[H2O Man]

51. Sometimes it is important

to take a position to its logical consequence. I am amazed when I hear/read people complaining about "illegals" having babies that are entitled to "free" health care. When one of the foundations of a position is that babies are not entitled to health care, I don't need to hear any more to realize that position is morally bankrupt.

[G_j]

54. exactly

and to read further is about as productive as reading posts at FR.

..and bad for the blood pressure

[fujiyama]

52. It's certainly worth repeating

I get the impression many, including supposed liberals forget this fact.

[Cleita]

58. NSMA did you see this article?

This is courtesy of another DUer.

http://www.nyunews.com/news/campus/5842.html

<snip>
Immigrants question melting pot
Rally draws thousands to advocate workers’ rights

by Jennifer Smith
News Features Editor

Chicken skewers sizzled on the grill. Teenagers shimmied to salsa music. Merchants peddled DVDs.

The scene looked like a street fair, but for participants gathered there, the purpose was much more serious.

More than 20 NYU students joined tens of thousands of people in Flushing Meadows Corona Park in Queens on Saturday for the culmination of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride, a cross-country caravan of more than 900 immigrants crusading for workers' rights. Attendees at the rally said they hoped to persuade lawmakers to ease citizenship restrictions and support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"On a most basic level, are the worst-paid and worst-treated workers in the U.S.," said Sarah Wolf, a first-year student in the Graduate School of Arts and Science. "The majority of people in this country are doing horribly economically, and we're told to blame immigrant workers." <snip>

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. I did..thanks

[ProfessorGAC]

70. These Folks Don't Care About The Constitution, Teena!

I agree with your point, but you're preaching to the choir. People who think the Constitution doesn't apply to everyone, citizen or not, are people who don't really appreciate or understand the Constitution.

The thought process, in reply, to your question, would be "Then the Constitution should be changed so it ONLY applies to citizens."

I fear your point is lost on them.
The Professor