# Illegal Aliens March In US--Fair/Unfair?



## LS400 (Sep 12, 2005)

Just wanted to get the national/international pulse on this. I live in South Texas and it's a pretty heated debate here. Also, I want to see how the media plays it overseas! Thank you in advance for your input.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

What do you mean by fair/unfair? Is it fair for them to march? Are our government's policies towards illegal aliens fair?


----------



## LS400 (Sep 12, 2005)

This is for you to tell me. I just opened it up to any and all views. A free for all, so to speak. I just want to see where the public stands on this here in the US as well as abroad. I may post a thread another time on my personal opinions. My opinions will be left out of this one. Just want to put a "finger to the wind" so to speak!

ciao


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, as far as whether it is fair for them to march, I would say, of course! This is America and people have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.

As far as our policies, well, I think that it's quite a pickle. I don't buy the whole "they are taking our jobs" thing because I don't believe that anyone is entitled to a job, so nobody is taking "our jobs" we are letting people have our jobs because we aren't willing to do them ourselves. In addition, I think that we've become reliant on a lot of the jobs that illegal aliens perform, and it would be catastrophic to our economy to deport everyone (which we obviously wouldn't do). On the other hand, giving amnesty kind of encourages unlawful behavior and makes it more difficult for people to come here from countries that aren't on our borders because of the way that immigration quotas work.

I think that we should give amnesty to people who have been here for a certain period of time (say, 5 - 10 years) and who have filed and paid taxes over that time period. I think we should issue temporary working permits for others whose labor we rely on. I also think that we need to tighten up the security at our borders, though I'm not sure that a huge fense will accomplish this.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I think they are hurting their cause, if they are now talking about "shutting down" cities as I've seen in some news stories today. 

I think that is going to alarm people, and strengthen the anti-immigration argument that the situation is out of control.

Yes, I think the situation is out of control. I don't have any bad feelings towards the immigrants, but I am angry at our government for letting this situation develop.

If we would (1) Build the Fence; (2) start heavily cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants, including sending a few business fat cats to jail; (3) come up with a fair way to let people come in to work legally, we could solve this problem.

Right now we have a situation where everyone is ignoring the law, and those who flaunt the law are hurting those who follow the law (this includes business owners and immigrants). And the irony is it is the illegal immigrants who are being abused, and the taxpayers that are having to foot the bill for the results.


----------



## LS400 (Sep 12, 2005)

Thanks for your input!


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by LS400_
> 
> Just wanted to get the national/international pulse on this.


We spend ten weeks in Belarus each year. In early June we will be back home in Southern California.

Belarus does not have an immigration problem!  People who know the Human Rights record of Belarus will understand.

Good luck on May 1st. If it weren't for Reuters playing the violin of sympathy for America's _*illegal*_ immigrants in the European publications, I would not see any reports at all during our annual stay in Minsk.

Sadly, I fear that what we are witnessing in France and Germany is a harbinger for the United States within twenty years unless the American people finally speak and let our elected officials hear that enough is enough.
____________________________________


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

What do you guys think about givin amnesty to people who have been here a long time and have filed and paid income taxes during their time here?


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> What do you guys think about givin amnesty to people who have been here a long time and have filed and paid income taxes during their time here?


You mean all the illegal aliens that are paying income taxes? I don't think those exist. Part of filing your income taxes involves a social security number, and I think the IRS gets kind of angry when you use a fake one. It probably takes them a while, but they catch it eventually.

I'd entertain the idea of amnesty to those with lapsed green cards or visas, but not people who completely bypass the legal immigration process.

I think that most people have no problem with legal immigration, but politicians and various "leaders" are trying to blur the line between legal and illegal immigration to get some political capital and TV time.

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Legal immigration is a good thing. Heck, most of us wouldn't be here otherwise. Personally, I think that the first five things that we should do are:

1) Start fining/jailing employers who hire illegals. Steep fines and serious time.
2) Instruct local and state law enforcement that they have to duty to question the immigration status of those arrested.
3) Have ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) start actually trying to catch these folks both at the border and in the interior.
4) No more deportation hearings unless the person claims political asylum or something. And if they do, they get held in a federal facility until the hearing happens. Everyone else just gets shipped back to their country of origin.
5) Constitutional amendment to say that you have to be born on US soil to _legal_ US residents in order to qualify for citizenship.

Numbers 1-5 will never happen. But otherwise I see Congress adopting all of the rest.

CT

PS Yes, I know there were only 5 to start with. Sarcasm.


----------



## Kai (Jul 30, 2003)

You should run for office. You would get my vote.



> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Legal immigration is a good thing. Heck, most of us wouldn't be here otherwise. Personally, I think that the first five things that we should do are:
> 
> ...


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm sitting here at IAH airport in the President's Club, waiting to catch my flight to West Africa.

What I would like to know is where have these politicians been over the last 30 years or so. How come all of a sudden this is an issue? Where have these guys been, and why weren't they doing their jobs all along? Now all of a sudden they are all worked up about the issue. Go figure.

M8

_...gone dark, on travel status, remote location, be in back in June '06..._


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kai_
> 
> You should run for office. You would get my vote.
> 
> ...


Though I agree with your thoughts and ideas, how much effort and time should law enforcement put into determining citizenship of a particular person and who should pay for this effort? Because most law enforcement agencies don't have the ability to run fingerprints in the field, this person would have to be detained and taken to the station to have their fingerprints checked. Now you get into 4th amendment issues and rights of freedom from illegal arrest and searches. It is a slippery slope to attempt to get up. Imagine the ramifications the first time a U.S. citizen is detained, the lawsuit potential is significant.

I'd also like to add this. Imagine a significant number if U.S. citizens, illegally in another country and trying to impact that country's immigration policies by staging marches and work stoppages. How would they be received and treated?

Just my 2 cents.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## LS400 (Sep 12, 2005)




----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 2) Instruct local and state law enforcement that they have to duty to question the immigration status of those arrested.


Again, it would not be possible for police to do this without serious violations of the rights of legal immigrants and citizens. Imagine you are a US citizen and you get pulled over by a cop, who then demands that you prove your citizenship to him. How would you do that? A driver's license doesn't prove citizenship, I know plenty of illegal immigrants with driver's licenses. Are we going to have to start carrying national ID cards like they did in the good old USSR?



> quote:
> 
> You mean all the illegal aliens that are paying income taxes? I don't think those exist. Part of filing your income taxes involves a social security number, and I think the IRS gets kind of angry when you use a fake one. It probably takes them a while, but they catch it eventually.


There are certainly illegal immigrants who pay income taxes, and again, I know this for a fact. The IRS doesn't care what kind of social security number you are using or where you got it from as long as you are paying. This is a common misconception among people who don't know much about what illegal immigration is or means. Of course, there are also a lot of illegal immigrants that don't pay taxes (but then again, their are a lot of American citizens that cheat on their taxes and don't pay them as well).


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

Illegal immigrants either don't pay income tax at all (those paid in cash by employers who know what is going on) or overpay their income taxes. The second happens because of payroll, they pay in under a false social security number and then aren't exactly going to claim a refund. Also, this practice helps out the solvency of social security a great deal as they pay into the system but never take out from it.

So really the only illegal immigrant problem as far as taxes is concerned is when employers are complicit and pay solely in cash. But then that sort of underreporting happens all the time when people receive a substantial portion of their income in cash, small business owners whose customers pay largely in cash (liquor stores, adult bookstores, etc.) or in service industries where tips are a large part of the pay.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

At this risk of taking this discussion off-topic, I would rather see us come up with a new policy of using workers from Mexico and other countries here in the U.S., and actually make things that Americans will use, and maybe even export goods, than continuing to buy everything from China.

Last Sunday I kept track by looking at all the labels, etc. when we were shopping. We bought new clothes for the kids. All made in China. My wife bought a new hat. Made in China. I looked at some walking shorts but didn't buy. Made in China. We bought a good old supposedly American iron from "Sunbeam." Got it home and opened it up. Made in China. 

I think if Americans really recognized what percentage of our goods are made in other countries, and especially China, they would be shocked. 

Wouldn't it make more sense to work out a fair way to deal with immigrants so that they could come here and we would again become a net producer, rather than a net consumer? Otherwise, sooner or later (and maybe sooner), countries like China are going to own us.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

Trenditional & odoreater - reread my comment. I specify those arrested, so they are already in police custody and are getting fingerprinted, etc. How it would work, I don't honestly know, but most places seem to have rules against the police notifying ICE even if they _know_ a particular individual is an illegal immigrant. I believe the justification for it is that "we're not here to enforce federal laws, just state/local ones." Total rubish. It's the law enforcement equivalent of of the Congress saying that they don't need pass laws that respect the Constitution because they're not the Supreme Court. BS.

Kai, I would, but I try to be honest, thoughtful, and intelligent. I may not succeed, but I think that even the attempt disqualifies me from public office. Bitter? Who, me?

CT

Rapidly becomming disenchanted with the GOP. Very rapidly. If the Libertarians would shake their stoner image, I might join. A pox on all their houses.


----------



## Kai (Jul 30, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Trenditional & odoreater - reread my comment. I specify those arrested, so they are already in police custody and are getting fingerprinted, etc. How it would work, I don't honestly know, but most places seem to have rules against the police notifying ICE even if they _know_ a particular individual is an illegal immigrant. I believe the justification for it is that "we're not here to enforce federal laws, just state/local ones." Total rubish. It's the law enforcement equivalent of of the Congress saying that they don't need pass laws that respect the Constitution because they're not the Supreme Court. BS.
> 
> ...


I have a good friend who works for a police department in Arizona. If they weren't prohibited from doing so, they could ship a busload of illegals every day to the INS for deportation just from the people they arrest (actually in custody, not stop.) What would be wrong with that? These are people who have been arrested for crimes. Why not deport them? He'd love to do it, particularly because many of them are "repeat customers." The police, however, aren't allowed to do it. That is similar to my experience here in Colorado. I was rear ended by a drunk Mexican illegal alien with no license or insurance who then fled the scene. I got the license plates, and the police tracked him down, but didn't/couldn't do anything because of his illegal status.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> I believe the justification for it is that "we're not here to enforce federal laws, just state/local ones." Total rubish.


Chubby, this may not be what you are saying, but I wouldn't call federalism rubbish. There's been cases where local law enforcement, who are already strapped for cash, have said to the federal government "we'll enforce your laws if you pay us" and the federal government has refused to do so. I wonder how expensive it would actually be for local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. You would have to train officers in proper methods to identify illegals (I'm a little hesitant to use the word "illegal" but I do it because it's a lot shorter than typing out "undocumented migrants") without infringing on the rights of legals and citizens, you would have to come up with methods of holding and transporting these people.

Look, I think the bottom line is that having illegal immigrants is a pretty big benefit to our society (Republicans like them because they hire them to work, Democrats like them because they're poor and down-trodden) so we just look the other way. The problem is that this might come bite us in the ass some day. Also, as others have stated, having so many illegals here makes it much harder for people to come here legally.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Before I run away to another (the last!) thesis defense, let me firmly state that I do NOT believe federalism to be rubish. I just find it ridiculous that local police are prohibited from contacting the federal government to inform them of a (potential) federal crime.

I don't really want the NYPD et al. to enforce the federal laws, I suppose. I just want them to alert the feds when they believe that a federal law has been broken. And there would be tons of logistical issues, but that's for the public administrators to work out. 

Finally, I don't believe that there is any benefit to having illegal immigrants here. (I'm loathe to use the term undocument migrants. Probably for the exact same reasons that you prefer it.) If we need unskilled labor in the US that badly, then I see nothing wrong with letting more _legal_ unskilled immigrants enter. But the entry should be through proper channels. I would like to add that I think it should be far easier for the unskilled to enter the US. I want them here and I want them to have the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families. I just want them to do it by the book.

And then they can unionize and demand decent working conditions and fair pay, etc., too.

CT


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Beresford_
> 
> At this risk of taking this discussion off-topic, I would rather see us come up with a new policy of using workers from Mexico and other countries here in the U.S., and actually make things that Americans will use, and maybe even export goods, than continuing to buy everything from China.
> 
> ...


I believe part of the problem is that many more items used to be made in South America, but the Chinese are cheaper labor, even with the cost of transporting goods.

There is no way to make many of these items in the US or South America, because either place pays workers more than 50 cents an hour.

That is, unless industries decide to make a smaller profit to do so. Not likely.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Fair, just as long as the border patrol is there arresting people.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Haha, I think they already unionize. Back in the day they used to do a full 8 hour day for about $60, now you can't find anyone who will work for less than $100 because they collaborate to drive up their wages.

Btw, don't ask how I know this - suffice it to say that I do not hire illegal aliens for anything.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> Well, as far as whether it is fair for them to march, I would say, of course! This is America and people have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.


No, "people" do not. "Citizens of the United States of America" have the right to peaceful assembly and petition THEIR government.

Your statement is only true if you are willing to overlook the part about these being ILLEGAL residents?

They have the basic human right to expression and to protest the USA while in Mexico. They have no legal right to assemble in the United States because they have no legal right to be here individually.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> What do you guys think about givin amnesty to people who have been here a long time and have filed and paid income taxes during their time here?


That'd be great, except there aren't any people like that. Only legal aliens FILE. The rest have taxes withheld on stolen SS#s. That's not paying taxes. Do two crimes make a legal citizen? no.

I do agree with the W's earned amnesty program where they are considering that if the people register and pay taxes for 10 years and stay on the right side of the law they earn citizenship. But, I disagree that any consideration should be given for 'time served' while illegal.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> I believe part of the problem is that many more items used to be made in South America, but the Chinese are cheaper labor, even with the cost of transporting goods.
> 
> There is no way to make many of these items in the US or South America, because either place pays workers more than 50 cents an hour.


Sounds like what we need to do is export labor unions and liberal Democrats to China. Place will be a shambles in 10 years.


----------



## LS400 (Sep 12, 2005)

I did promise not to include an opinionated response here and I will adhere to that statement. 

However, I just wish to say that I just came back from the dry cleaners and they told me that my cleaning would not be ready on time due to the "Mexicans at the plant taking the day off." Yep! You are not seeing things. What I am writing just happened about 20 minutes ago. I told the girl, "That's ok. Take a week on the clothes. I'm in no hurry!" 

Just thought I'd let you know.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Beresford_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OR we could start shipping the illegal Mexicans we round up to China. [}]


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LS400_
> 
> I did promise not to include an opinionated response here and I will adhere to that statement.
> 
> ...


You should call the INS for a SS# audit on them. Get your clothes out first.


----------



## LS400 (Sep 12, 2005)

Well done, old chap. I think I will do just that! [^]


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two things:

First: The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It does not specify "citizens," but refers to "the people". It's not clear that this means only citizens (though it very possibly could).

Second: Assuming arguendo that the First Amendment only applies to citizens, it's still true as I've stated in a number of my other posts, that it would be *impossible* for police to seperate the legal immigrants and citizens from the illegal aliens in any march without significantly burdening the speech and assembly rights of citizens and legal aliens and thereby violating the First Amendment. So, while illegals may not have the right to march, it would be *impossible* (read: unconstitutional) for the government to attempt to stop them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Yep, "the people" = citizens of the United States of America. 

I only disagree with you in that I think it is 'impractical' not 'impossible'.

For instance, we could mobilize the National Guard. I think it's interesting that most people that would complain have for the last few years claimed that is what the NG is for (and not to send them to Iraq).

I think we can all agree the issue is full of blatant inconsistencies once politics gets involved.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Yep, "the people" = citizens of the United States of America.
> 
> ...


I've got to agree with odereater on this one. It would be unconstitutional for the police (or Guard, etc.) to stop any march and try to determine the citizenship/immigration status of the marchers. Now, for those who get violent and arrested, I believe that it is not an unreasonable search to determine their status.

OTOH, I do believe that it is inappropriate to send Guard troops to Iraq. The Reserves are federal troops, the Guard are state troops and should not be subject to the dictates of the federal government (and I am inclined to think that the governors do not have the ability to give that authority to the president).

AFAIK, IIRC, IMHO, IANAL, YYMV.

CT


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Well, there are many things that are illegal that it is also illegal for the police to stop you just for it. That doesn't change the underlying illegality.

It's illegal to have a loaded gun laying on your car seat in my state, but it's also illegal for the cops to stop you just to search for it.

Seatbelt laws also work this way. You cannot be stopped for not wearing your seatbelt, but if you commit a moving violation and are stopped a cop is required to check and/or ticket you for a seatbelt violation.

Personally speaking, if I was on a jury, I would view marching and holding up a sign that says, "Being illegal doesn't make me a criminal!" probable cause for a cop to request ID. 

Also, a cop can request ID without probable cause in many situations where they can't search you. So ID requests have been proven compatible with 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights.

I do see your point on the Guard/Reserves distinction.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Well, there are many things that are illegal that it is also illegal for the police to stop you just for it. That doesn't change the underlying illegality.
> 
> ...


And the reason for this is because as a society we have done a balancing test and have determined that it is more valuable to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures and to prevent unreasonable burdens on speech than to catch people with guns and to deport illegal immigrants.

By the way, in my state, you can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. [xx(]


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

The logistical problems of federalism are numerous and not disappearing anytime soon. There was a movement to get rid of the more ridiculous barriers between state and federal, especially in law enforcement, but that was nipped in the bud by the more conservative members of the Supreme Court. 

Some recent examples include 9/11, when Guiliani wants to contact the president and the federal government to coordinate response, etc. but nobody knew how to do that. There was no number to call or point of contact. Then after 9/11 when they were controlling who could come and go around manhattan there were different standards being used at each of the checkpoints, because they were manned by a different agency. So savvy New Yorkers knew which check points weren't being as strict.

Or a more recent example with Katrina, no coordination or even communication between federal and state governments. Of course with Katrina there were about 50 serious failures and problems of which federalism was just one.

Ksinc, even mobilizing the national guard, succesfully pick out who is illegal and who is not and stopping whose who are illegal in the middle of a protest march would be impossible. Perhaps unconstitutional, although that would depend on the interest at stake and just how badly the job was botched. And of course Neil Young might write a song about it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, but as I said, those are largely based on cases of "individual rights" and "privacy" and/or "private property" (your house, your car, your person) not asking for ID among assembled groups on public property.

If cops went around knocking on people's doors demanding papers. I would agree with your point. But, either it's a lawful protest or it isn't. IMHO, it's not beyond the pale to require organizers to ensure their participants are legal residents or declare the protest unlawful. I think it's legally plausible as well, but I agree 'impractical' to implement.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by MER_
> Ksinc, even mobilizing the national guard, succesfully pick out who is illegal and who is not and stopping whose who are illegal in the middle of a protest march would be impossible. Perhaps unconstitutional, although that would depend on the interest at stake and just how badly the job was botched. And of course Neil Young might write a song about it.


I agree, but cops make random stops at roadblocks all the time for legal compliance. With both DUI and administrative requirements like insurance and registration. So, as long as you aren't profiling and don't do a "search" it's legal. You set up a barrier you require those passing through to show ID. It's different than 'hunting them down' or 'pulling them out of line'. You are right they would probably botch it making it a huge legal quandry and even more impractical. Still, my opinion the effort should be made. I think we all agree that a large percentage of the marchers will be illegals. Even if there are citizens mixed in among them.

BTW after Dana Carvey did that skit about "every Neil Young song ever written in one song" I have considered Neil irrelevant. Did you ever see that comedy routine? It's hilarious.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

Yes, I caught that Dana Carvey bit:

"Dead dog lying in the ditch,
cigarette smoker has an itch."

Almost as funny as the Ross Perot bit he did. "Can I finish, can i finish? It's just sad, can I finish?

Yes, Neil Young is just another old guy now a days. But "Heart of Gold" still rocks just as hard.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> Trenditional & odoreater - *reread my comment*.


C.T.,

I apologize for misreading your comment. As it is now, all arrested persons are checked for status. I have actually seen low grade arrests, forgone inlieu of deportation. So yes, to an extent that is happening.

As far as the ICE involvement, I have not heard of someone trying to notify ICE and being turned away. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I have a case I'm involved in right now, that I notified ICE and had a hold placed on the suspect.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Yep, "the people" = citizens of the United States of America.


No - "people" does not equal "citizens." That's why there are two different words for them. When the constitution means "citizen", it uses that word - i.e., Art. I, Sec. 3 "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a *citizen* of the United States...". Or Art. II, Sec. I "No person except a natural born *citizen*, or a *citizen* of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, and I tend to agree with you. Words mean things that's why they are there.

It only uses "the People" in the preamble and once in the Constitution. It does not set aside citizens and The People in the Constitution as you suggest. IE the doctrion of selective inclusion - it uses The People only in the Amendments. Which was the point of amdending the Constitution for ratification. Perhaps we're saying the same thing. People have natural rights, Citizens have civil rights.

The one reference to The People in the Constitution it clearly means citizens not the whole of the people including illegal aliens or at leat that's how it's interpreted by SCOTUS:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

Are you arguing that a non-citizen should be allowed to vote for Congress because he is part of the People?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> Are we going to have to start carrying national ID cards like they did in the good old USSR?


Do you mean that national ID cards are a sure sign of dictatorship? Because I don't really see why. Most European countries have one, and last I checked they were fairly easygoing democracies.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> No, "people" do not. "Citizens of the United States of America" have the right to peaceful assembly and petition THEIR government.


Let me get this straight. Citizens of the USA have the right to peaceful assembly but foreigners do not? And here I thought you guys respected human rights...

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :


> quote:Article 2.
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, *national or social origin*, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
> 
> Article 19.
> ...


(my emphasis)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apparently, you have not read the thead. There is a distinction between 'peaceful assembly' such as going to church on private property or attending a rally and 'marching in the streets'. There is also the point that they are not petitioning their government or any government. They are just marching to 'shut a city down'.

While all people should enjoy the natural right to peaceful assembly and/or protest, not all do. As noted by your own government's barbaric treatment of the un-employed Muslims that you treat as a second-tier race and have government sanctioned discrimination policies in hiring against.

What all people do not enjoy is an unlimited right to march down US city streets in what is for them a foreign country without meeting whatever requirements are equally applied through due process to all applicants for permits, particularly the citizens of that country. Peaceful also means not unlawful assembly. If someone doesn't have the right to be here, it follows they don't have the right to march here. Let them march IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. And yes, we love that right and would hope that Mexican government wouldn't shoot them simply because they are exercising the natural right to free assembly and to redress grievances with their government.

I realize France has a proud and distinguished history of letting illegal foreigners march through their city streets and shut their cities down, but that's really a different topic entirely. BTW Happy D-Day (one month early)


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

I think the march would be good, if only the government would use it as an opportunity to see where all of the illegals are and summarily deport them.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...


No, I wouldn't argue that...but I will note that the purpose of this provision is to permit everyone that a state allows to vote in certain state elections to also vote for candidates running for federal office, not to grant "the people" or "citizens" the right to vote. It was up to the state to establish who had the right to vote. Remember at this time that not all citizens were allowed to vote, either - women could not vote, and white men could only vote if they met certain property or wealth requirements. While the right of a state to limit who can vote is now severely restricted by the 14th Amendment (as well as the 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th (and probably a couple of other) Amendments), there is still some room for state discretion - felons in some states are denied the right to vote; felons in others are not.

But this is all sort of a digression. For the right to protest, etc., the relevant portion of the constitution is the bill of rights and the 14th amendment.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:


> quote:Section 1. All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are *citizens* of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of *citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This provision of the amendment distinguishes between "persons" and "citizens," and while some rights here only pertain to citizens, the the due process and equal protection clauses apply to persons and are not limited to citizens. The due process provision of the 14th amendment is particularly important, of course, because it is what makes the bill of rights apply (mostly) to the state.

And, realistically, it would be absurd for the BoR to only apply to citizens. It would mean, among other things, that aliens, even those here legally, could be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, would not be entitled to a jury trial, could be prohibited from having an attorney represent them at trial, and could be subject to double jeopardy. And of course the government would have the right to censor newspapers owned by a person who was not a citizen, even if the person was a legal residence of the US. The same would apply, of course, to any other exercise of free speech by the non-citizen. I just don't think that this is a plausible reading of the constitution at all.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So now you're saying "The People" and "any person" are the same and they are not. Any person means an individual. Legally and practically, the people are a collective group of citizens. Not a group of 'any persons'. If there was no difference (no selective inclusion doctrine) then there would be no benefit to citizenship would there?


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Even though illegal entry is a civil offense, almost all illegal aliens begin to commit criminal offenses as soon as they arrive. The first of which is submitting falsified W-4s with false SSNs. Somebody said illegals overpay. That's only true for FICA and Medicaid. They underpay federal withholding and stick somebody with the bill.

What happens is that the stolen SSN belongs to somebody. The illegal claims married with 10 children and takes the cash with no withholdings. 

At the end of the year, the W2 is sent to the IRS and the poor sucker whose SSN was stolen or guessed is not stuck trying to sort out the situation. Since illegals frequently "share" SSNs, he gets reported as making a lot of money and only has federal withholding from his real income. 

In my opinion, they should burn in hell for this alone. Fixing stuff with the IRS can be a nightmare.

My brother has a bunch of horror stories about this as he works in electrical contracting. They actually work pretty hard to make sure they don't hire illegals. All payroll is done through ADP who does a SSN database and they won't allow zero federal withholds.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This is a very problematic topic. First, I would like to go on record as being a *legal* immigrant to the US. It took me about three years to get into the US and I came over on an H1B visa (allowance for needed workers with a shortage in that field) and had my status switched to permanent through employer sponsorship. It took me a number of years, some dollars, some hassle, and it was all worth it. So off the bat, I am a tad put out at the thought of someone coming to the US without having to wait years, breaking the law to do so, and then getting a sure track to citizenship.

Also, I now live in southern Arizona. Forget principle, deal with the reality of this mass migration. Many rural property owners are having their places trashed by these people, are being scared, losing use of their lands due to safety and security issues. We have lost one of two Level I Trauma Centers due to monetary issues of illegal care. The leftist enviro-whackos seem to turn a blind eye to the destruction of sensitive environmental areas, areas that have been set aside for protection. The Border Patrol is everywhere down here, in fact you can be rest assured of having to pull through check points coming out of any city south of Tucson, i.e. Douglas, Sierra Vista, Tohono O'Odham land, etc. The barrio areas are full of cross border criminal activity, everything from drug running to prostitution. In Texas, there have even been multiple reports of outright border skirmishes between Mexican drug lords and local US police, Laredo vs. Neuvo Laredo comes to mind.

Also, unlike prior waves of immigration, this wave is not all about settling in the US and becoming American. Money sent back to Mexico is probably that country's biggest foriegn trade activity. Also, assimilation is an issue. Aided by political correctness, people are merely transplanting their culture; the melting pot has had its temperature turned down and is not working.

Take if from an ex-pat Canadian, the US needs to jump on the language issue ASAP. The country is already _de facto_ bi-lingual with Spanish as the 2nd national language. English needs to made the official national language or I give it about 20 years until you start to hear "distinct society" and succession talk, shorter if it becomes _de jeure_. La Rasa already has a name for its "distinct society", it is Atzlan and I believe it covers So-Cal, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Texas. Take this seriously folks, the voting in Montreal is the only thing that has defeated the French referendums to succeed from Canada.

On the flip side, we make welfare and social programs so attractive, instill "self esteem" so deeply into kids, there are jobs Americans do not want to take. The unskilled and teenagers are losing traditional entries into the labour market and this is hurting society. "Job skills" as a training course? People, when segments of society need instruction that to hold a job you must show up to work, show up on time, dressed appropriately, and not tell customers to f-off, there is a problem. So the illegal issue melds into some other social problems.

I see I have rambled forever, please forgive. I have no answers, just multiple observations.

Warmest regards


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OCtober 17, 1961 and this summers riots. While France may like to ride a high horse on many issues, this is not one where they are entitled to do so.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> So now you're saying "The People" and "any person" are the same and they are not. Any person means an individual. Legally and practically, the people are a collective group of citizens. Not a group of 'any persons'. If there was no difference (no selective inclusion doctrine) then there would be no benefit to citizenship would there?


Person is the singular of people, and quite distinct from citizen. The key advantage of citizenship is the right to vote and the right to live in the native country.

Do you believe that the bill of rights - including the right to trial by jury, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, etc. - only applies to citizens?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"people" vs. "the people" I thought we were both agreed words mean things? 

The Bill of Rights was written under the doctrine of selective inclusion and delineated natural rights vs. civil rights.

As 'odoreater' articulated previously the 14th and SCOTUS implementations have extended that doctrine to selective incorporation through due process and equal protection. However, it is not a wholesale exchange of civil for natural rights. For instance, the 2nd Amendment as referenced previously is not so incorporated even though both Madison and Jefferson wrote extensively about self-defence (and the necessary arms to do so) being a natural right of liberty and not a civil right. However, this is granted to 'the people' which you argued meant States, not 'any person'.

Specifically, cruel and unusual punishment applies now to any person. I think trial by jury is still up in the air. Aren't many illegals processed via administrative hearing? I know there is a huge debate ongoing and in SCOTUS about the status of resident, non-citizen, 'terrorists' and access to trial by jury vs tribunal. But, I would say 'yes' they are entitled to a trial by jury.

The issue comes down to does selective inclusion and selective incorporation change the meaning of the word 'the people'? The answer is no. It just extends some of the rights of 'the people' to 'any person' living under the jurisdiction of the government of 'the people'.

IMHO, of course. Even SCOTUS seems to go back and forth depending on political bent. Maybe the 2nd will be interpreted as incorporated now that 'neo-cons' are in power? [}]


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I'm not sure if the issue that concerns me most has been addressed yet or not. A fellow student of mine sent an e-mail request (with attached poster) to all MS1s to attend and support the organized extortion...I mean boycott...scheduled for tomorrow.

I see reasonable arguments on both sides of the immigration coin and am not opposed to a scenario where many years of legal residence without criminal incident can result in citizenship. However, there was a sentence on the poster that is truly frightening: "We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the millions of undocumented workers presently in the U.S." I will be very disappointed in any of my classmates and fellow citizens that choose to support a precedent of non-citizens making demands of the United States government by interrupting commerce and inciting chaos. What is your take on this aspect of the protests planned for tomorrow?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I'm not sure if the issue that concerns me most has been addressed yet or not. A fellow student of mine sent an e-mail request (with attached poster) to all MS1s to attend and support the organized extortion...I mean boycott...scheduled for tomorrow.
> 
> I see reasonable arguments on both sides of the immigration coin and am not opposed to a scenario where many years of legal residence without criminal incident can result in citizenship. However, there was a sentence on the poster that is truly frightening: "We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the millions of undocumented workers presently in the U.S." I will be very disappointed in any of my classmates and fellow citizens that choose to support a precedent of non-citizens making demands of the United States government by interrupting commerce and inciting chaos. What is your take on this aspect of the protests planned for tomorrow?


I think they're making a very big strategic mistake tomorrow by telling marchers to only bring Mexican flags and not American flags. While I vehemently support their right to speech and expression (which I believe is a natural right belonging to all people everywhere in addition to a Constitutional right belong to American citizens) and to protest through boycotting, I don't think that this is going to win them any friends. I think that when Americans see 500,000 Mexican flag-bearers marching down the streets they're going to see it as an invasion and there will be a backlash.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. I think they are making several big mistakes. It's becoming a choice like negotiating with terrorists once they do that. Another riot is not going to help their cause. Those marching and making demands are definitely un-sympathetic and un-welcome characters IMHO. I am glad to see that the more experienced leaders are trying to get them into rallies instead of marches. Perhaps there is one or two among them wise enough to utilize their right to free speech to say something intelligent and convincing instead of "we are mexicanos!", etc.. I noticed the Mayor found somewhere else he had to be. Smart guy.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

These protests are drawing needed attention to how large the illegal immigration problem actually is.

I also don't think most Americans will take kindly to immigrants attempting to use economic force against them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have a problem with using the term "immigrants" interchangably with "illegals". The "open borders" people have won on this tactic, I hear the terms used as statement equivalents constantly. Also, as an immigrant, I intend to work twice as hard today. Oh wait....I do not count...I am a) legal and b) not Mexican. I just found out today at my local coffee shop that when one says "immigrant" they mean "Mexican" also.

Warmest regards


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

see if this link works for you.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

People who break the law should go to jail. Martin Luther King stood up and took it like a man. Standing up for your principles has a price -- otherwise, everyone would do it.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> People who break the law should go to jail. Martin Luther King stood up and took it like a man. Standing up for your principles has a price -- otherwise, everyone would do it.


Well, that depends on what law you are breaking and what the codified legal punishment for that law is. _Nullum crimen, nullum poena sine lege._ You can't just throw people in jail if there is no law that proscribes jail time for that crime. This is America, not the former USSR where you can just throw people in jail whenever you feel like it.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

It's a communist plot. It's no coincidence this is happening on International Workers' Day. The photos I've seen from recent marches show demonstrators carrying banners with the names of socialist parties and pictures of Che Guevara.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> It's a communist plot. It's no coincidence this is happening on International Workers' Day. The photos I've seen from recent marches show demonstrators carrying banners with the names of socialist parties and pictures of Che Guevara.


I laughed out loud at this one.

Just which evil red mastermind do you think is coordinating this "plot"?

------------------


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Well, I'm glad you caught the humor. I used the word "plot" ironically.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Well, I'm glad you caught the humor. I used the word "plot" ironically.


When you compared them to terrorists a little while ago I presume you were being ironic there too?

------------------


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Sorry, where did I compare illegal immigrants to terrorists?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is g.m.a.c. a french acronym for 'open mouth, insert foot'?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Sorry, where did I compare illegal immigrants to terrorists?


You didn't. No one did. In the context of discussing the possible backlash of the amnesty demands, I said it's becoming a choice like negotiating with terrorists. Which we just don't do as policy. Those that might previously have considered an earned-amnesty (like myself) now won't simply as a matter of principle because I don't like their tactics. Just as we don't negotiate with terrorists based on the principle of not giving in whether some of us happen to agree with their objectives or not.

GMAC just can't read. Carry on!


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> Sorry, where did I compare illegal immigrants to terrorists?


My mistake, that was ksinc. My unreserved apology to you.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> It's becoming a choice like negotiating with terrorists once they do that.


Ho hum.

------------------


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. And that does not compare them to terrorists. It compares THE CHOICE of supporting amnesty to THE CHOICE of negotiating with terrorists. Things we simply can't do because we appear to be giving in and then it never stops.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Is g.m.a.c. a french acronym for 'open mouth, insert foot'?


I see your grasp of French equals your knowledge of current affairs.

------------------


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I tried to learn French, but all the books were written in German. [}]


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> People who break the law should go to jail. Martin Luther King stood up and took it like a man. Standing up for your principles has a price -- otherwise, everyone would do it.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


------------------

Why would that be?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Guess you didn't do too well in English either.....

------------------


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

The benefits of living on broadway - whenever someone marches they do it right outside my window. They're still out there right now. I thought I would see a lot of mexican and puerto rican flags, but they are almost all American. Very peaceful march, they are very orderly, under control, and look like they are having fun. Plus right now the part with the horn section is going by, those guys can blow. I especially enjoyed the guy on the rooftop dressed up in the captain america costume.

Although I thought it was in bad taste for the white kids to be wearing mexican flags like capes. I don't beleive in using a flag as an article of clothing. Oh but I did see a guy on a side street (not actually in the march) with his socialist sign talking on his cellphone. Probably some kid from NYU who wants attention.

Oh and in closing, WOW there are a TON of people. Even calling out the national guard there is no way they could arrest everyone or do a controlled search.


----------



## Fareau (Mar 8, 2004)

These protests are bewildering. A substantial number of people have entered into this country illegally, have coalesced into a quasi-constituency, and are now trying to affect political change of the goverance of our sovereign borders. I am dismayed that this is being covered with the level of equanimity it has been in the media; I am frankly outraged by the whole thing.

If it were simply a matter of illegal aliens marching to make the statement that they are a vital cog in the American machine and shouldn't be displaced from their new American home, I suppose I would have more stomach for it. But that is not what I am seeing or hearing, at least in Texas. There is a concerted effort to facilitate the ingress of more people from countries south of our border. This is not about "immigration", since the people marching are not interested in the potential tidal wave of immigrants that could come from India, Pakistan, China, Indonesia, and the whole of Africa if we were to make our borders uniformly porous and open. These protesters appear dedicated strictly to increasing the number of people that are coming from latin American countries, and I frankly wonder if this is to establish cultural hegemony.

I don't know if this qualifies as an invasion (that word seems a bit loaded), but it is certainly an intrusion. I am surprised that is hasn't drawn more of a backlash. I admire most of the hispanic people that I work with in this region but the people protesting, and their allegiance to something very separate and apart from American law, has me rather disconcerted.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

They've done a terrible job of trying to get their message across. But from what I've heard the march leaders saying, they feel threatened by this new current of anti-immigrant sentiment like those guys who sit in lawnchairs with assault rifles by the borders, and they want to demonstrate to america that they don't want to be taken for granted or walked over. They say they want to show they are a viable force in America and won't roll over. But I have to say it's not working. If anything it is just feeding in to the negative views toward immigrants and making things worse. Now everyone is starting to become afraid of them.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> Apparently, you have not read the thead. There is a distinction between 'peaceful assembly' such as going to church on private property or attending a rally and 'marching in the streets'.


Yes, I think I can concede that point.



> quote:As noted by your own government's barbaric treatment of the un-employed Muslims that you treat as a second-tier race and have government sanctioned discrimination policies in hiring against.


There is no "barbaric treatment" that I am aware of, and certainly no policies in hiring against citizens of muslim origin. I think you are quite mistaken here.



> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> OCtober 17, 1961 and this summers riots. While France may like to ride a high horse on many issues, this is not one where they are entitled to do so.


Yes, there have been problems in French history. So? What is your point?

Wait, is it that anything I say is instantly dismissed in your eyes because I happen to be French, and that France has made some bad things in tis history? Amazing... I would like to see one sinless nation in your eyes, and then I would like to see how something I (a private citizen entitled to his own opinions last time I checked) say has any relation with the history of France.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Something you said earlier about "fairly easygoing democracies" in Europe. I think that most immigrants, legal or not, would find that life as an immigrant in the EU, and France especially, would be a living hell compared to life as an immigrant in the US.

For the record, my family lives in France and I happen to love it there. I just think that its, and the rest of Europe's, treatment of immigrants and foreigners is appalling. I would not use their use of a national ID card as a model.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> Something you said earlier about "fairly easygoing democracies" in Europe. I think that most immigrants, legal or not, would find that life as an immigrant in the EU, and France especially, would be a living hell compared to life as an immigrant in the US.
> 
> For the record, my family lives in France and I happen to love it there. I just think that its, and the rest of Europe's, treatment of immigrants and foreigners is appalling. I would not use their use of a national ID card as a model.


Another change of subject here. Exactly how is the existence of national ID cards connected to the treatment of immigrants in European countries?

Let's get back to that point since you wish it. There was a mention in the thread that the USSR used to have ID cards, meant to convey the idea that only an apalling dictatorship would resort to that kind of policy. I merely stated that countries which are not, by any stretch of the word, dictatorships, use this kind of document. Exactly what are you debating there ?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I am, actually, It's rather fun to coordinate evil red plots. I organise all of these marches merely to provoke the usual suspects here on the Interchange. A lot of trouble, to be sure, but worth it for the comedy.

[rubs hands together] what shall be next? I think it's about time I gave China the thumbs-up to issue a press release saying they've worked out cold fusion. That will make an interesting thread...a two-pager, at least.

[}][:I][}]​
off to wag the dog...


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Ã‰tienne_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----Full Disclosure---

I just saw a movie last week called October 17, 1961 and I haven't been able to get it out of my mind since then.

I am not really debating anything I guess. I do not like the idea of a national ID card. I also am opposed to the idea of a national language for the US. We are a country that was built on immigration. It is our greatest strength. I do not think that France has a good way with immigrants, and the way that it connects to this subject is that I would not like to see us move closer to the policies of France in this area (ID cards aside).


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> I am not really debating anything I guess. I do not like the idea of a national ID card. I also am opposed to the idea of a national language for the US. We are a country that was built on immigration. It is our greatest strength. I do not think that France has a good way with immigrants, and the way that it connects to this subject is that I would not like to see us move closer to the policies of France in this area (ID cards aside).


 For once, at least, we agree. Why not skip the pretences of national ID cards and go directly to the barcodes on our foreheads?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not true. I absolutly believe in saying please. I just did not feel like entering the argument.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Has the vibe turned particularly nasty around here in recent days?

Not very sporting, what?

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> Something you said earlier about "fairly easygoing democracies" in Europe. I think that most immigrants, legal or not, would find that life as an immigrant in the EU, and France especially, would be a living hell compared to life as an immigrant in the US.


This is as stupid a comment as I have read here today. "Living hell"? Ha!

------------------


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I was wondering about that comment myself. France is a 'living Hell'? I was tempted to invoke my 'Is this satire, pray tell?' line, which seems to be increasingly warranted around here.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

As I posted elsewhere I am looking forward to joing my immigrant parents on the "living hell" of their terrace in Provence. If "hell" gets too hot maybe I'll take a dip in the pool.

------------------


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/05/02/ixopinion.html

Much oversimplification here too, of course.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps my words were ill chosen, but my point was regarding poor immigrants, legal or not, wanting to have a chance to improve their station in life. I believe that of all of the developed countries, the US is still the one where advancement is most probable. I do not think that in France it is quite as common.

Two more points:

1- My parents have also moved to France for large parts of the year. They are outside Bordeaux and quite happy.

2- This is my final post in the Interchange. People such as JLP are enjoyable to argue with and often quite interesting. GMAC is so incredibly rude that I would leave any gathering at which he was present. Therefore I do so now.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Is there no mechanism in place here to chastise or banish troublemakers? Though it's probably useful to simply utilize self-discipline and resist flamebait.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

iammatt,

Don't go! You are not the only one with Gmac trouble.

Karl


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by J. Homely_
> 
> Is there no mechanism in place here to chastise or banish troublemakers? Though it's probably useful to simply utilize self-discipline and resist flamebait.


Quite right.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 2- This is my final post in the Interchange. People such as JLP are enjoyable to argue with and often quite interesting. GMAC is so incredibly rude that I would leave any gathering at which he was present. Therefore I do so now.


We'll see......

If pointing out the stupidity of your comments is rude then so be it.

------------------


----------



## Fareau (Mar 8, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_


_I also am opposed to the idea of a national language for the US. We are a country that was built on immigration._

I patently disagree with this sentiment. There is no other cultural aspect that generates the same level of fraternity amongst people as a common spoken language (with the very possible exception of religion). The one thing that would truly sound the death knell for this country would be to legislate that civic and legal discourse be conducted in languages other than English. There are already pockets in this country where everything is in Spanish, and finding someone who speaks English fluently is a challenge. These areas are more like colonies than anything else. If you really want to fragment American society, then undermine the importance of a single national language...


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Fareau_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with you there, Fareau. A common language is essential for social cohesion and common cultural references (and indeed common myths - society's cement). However, large minority language groups, especially when concentrated geographically, form strong subcultures that, if and when they have the necessary political and economic punch, can sometimes successfully challenge their "host" nations. This has happened in Spain, with the Catalan language. It is happening in Romania, with Hungarian. In Algeria with the Berber language group. This cannot always be prevented, nor should it be if economic forces pull that way.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rich, do not forget Quebec in Canada. To this day, Quebec sends almost entirely seperatists to the Federal Parliment.

Warmest regards


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

Well I am not sure of the Magyar example in Romania. The unfortunate Treaty Of Trianon is to blame for stranding several million ethnic Hungarians in Romania. After the collapse of Communism in 1989 several Hungarian nationalists openly called for the "liberation" of Transylvania as well as parts of Yugoslavia, Ukraine and Slovakia(remember Bratislava had served as the capital of Hungary for over a hundred years during the Habsburgs.)But Transylvania was never majority Magyar as Saxon Germans and Romanians constituted the majority. Perhaps in Timosoara (Temesvar in Hungarian) and Cluj, Hungarian is a useful second language but Romanian seems in no danger of being displaced.

Besides Hungarian is too hard to learn and sounds clusmy next to the Latin Romanian.

Karl


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Rich, do not forget Quebec in Canada. To this day, Quebec sends almost entirely seperatists to the Federal Parliment.
> 
> Warmest regards


Shame on me. How could I have forgotten Quebec?


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Rich,
> 
> ...


I think you probably know more about this than I do, but according to a Romanian I spoke to recently the claims of the Hungarian minority are a political issue in Romania, especially as regards the status of their language in schools and higher education in the places where Hungarians are concentrated.

Interestingly, German was the "offical" language throughout the Austro-Hungarian Empire (at least it was the language of the administration and the elites), but as soon as the Empire broke up the national languages re-emerged - although even today German is a lingua franca right across central Europe.

As for Hungarian sounding clumsy... to a Romanian ear maybe.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rich,

I have a little Hungarian in me so I am not a Magyarphobe though to label me a Slavophile would be accurate. The Hungarian issue is one of some political importance in Romania but due to very static birth rates its not a problem that will escalate. Romania's membership in NATO, its EU entry next year and visa free regime for Romanian citizens have largely dampend the issue. Romania used to have a sizable ethnic German population but the Communist regime essentially sold a large percentage of them to freedom in West German as they also did with Jews to Israel.

German was indeed the lingua franca of the Habsburg Empire though the 1867 Augsleich with Hungary led to an attempt at Magyarization in the Hungarian controlled parts of the empire. The Austrian controlled parts were much more tolerant, for the time anyway, of expressions of ethnic identity and it really was a model for a multi-ethnic society. The raft of changes in the last hundred years have left many still searching for their true ethnic identity and a meaningful understanding of the concept of nation. The Italian city of Trieste provides an excellent case study as in the last 90 years it has been part of the Habsburg Empire, Italy, Germany (for a brief period during the end of World War Two), post war endured a British and Yugoslav occupation and finally was returned to Italy. In the past it was more of a Jewish and Slovenian city then it ever was Austrian or Italian. Trying to understand all this at times can be daunting and its why history and language are so fascinating.

Btw a great book on Trieste is Trieste and the Meaning of Nowhere  by Jan Morris.

Karl


----------

