Should undocumented [[illegal) immigrants have drivers license privilege?

[archfan]

Taking your comment in the light of ironic humor, you rare probably correct.

Democrats + Chamber of Commerce Republicans = majority for open borders

Two points:
1. Yes, ironic and pointed, because a majority in this country should mean the will of the people.

2. Really, do you meet a lot of people who say yes, send the border patrol home and let everyone in? Because I haven't. Someone can want the US to have a controlled border while at the same time wanting to treat people humanely and to come up with solutions rather than using immigration as a way to stir up voters.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Yep... too often it is put forth that if you want a controlled border you're racist, xeno, etc.

Trumps comments and rhetoric have helped feed into that.

But he'll not be president forever and the edgy policies set forth now will be with us for a long time.

[oladub]

Two points:
1. Yes, ironic and pointed, because a majority in this country should mean the will of the people.

2. Really, do you meet a lot of people who say yes, send the border patrol home and let everyone in? Because I haven't. Someone can want the US to have a controlled border while at the same time wanting to treat people humanely and to come up with solutions rather than using immigration as a way to stir up voters.

I was hoping that the will of the people was at least represented in Congress and laws it passes. You might be confusing mob rule, plutocratic campaign funding and anarchy with Constitution law which says that Congress is delegated with establishing uniform naturalization laws. The Constitution also says that the federal government has a duty to defend our borders from invasion. If illegal non-citizens can ignore posted immigration signs, I want to at least be able to violate laws of my choosing; maybe go through red lights when I don't see anyone coming or pay all my taxes. Others might want to be vigilantes. That's worse.

In the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the Prince blames himself for letting things get out of hand "And I for winking at your discords too have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished".

Over 100,000 illegal non-citizens a month were being captured by the border patrol in recent months and the border patrol estimates it catches about 54% of illegal border crossers. An estimated 11M illegal non-citizens live and work in the U.S.. That number never seems to change even with 100,000 people sneaking across the border monthly. Policies that allow that do let that many people in. The solution is to enforce our laws, elect representatives who do so and stop incentivizing illegal non-citizens from coming here. This pandering, in turn, leads to incarcerations, drownings, and rapes along the journey. People who incentivize all this discord should accept more responsibility for things getting out of hand.

Caveat: There is a legal way of entering the U.S.. It is expensive, tricky, and time consuming but immigrants who matriculate are treated humanely or at least like other Americans.

[Wesley Mouch]

Two points:
1. Yes, ironic and pointed, because a majority in this country should mean the will of the people.

This is just wrong. Our constitution is designed to prevent simple majorities from making decisions. Its a simple idea. We elect and appoint people to power. They make decisions for us, to reflect our collective will. Protection of minority rights by specifically limiting popular votes is a feature, not a bug.

2. Really, do you meet a lot of people who say yes, send the border patrol home and let everyone in? Because I haven't. Someone can want the US to have a controlled border while at the same time wanting to treat people humanely and to come up with solutions rather than using immigration as a way to stir up voters.

Of course someone can desire controlled border and better execution of border security. However I don't think my ear deceived me that several of the top 20 candidates said clearly that they want to decriminalize border crossing. Is that not an uncontrolled border? Or what am I missing. How would the border patrol control the border if they don't have any legal authority to do so?

[Richard]

That is how they create open borders while avoiding the political minefield of openly calling for open borders.

Eliminate ICE
DeFund border Patrol in the budget.
Change legal terms
Encourage mass crossings in order to fire up the propaganda machine.
Encourage mass crossings in order to overwhelm and create processing delays in order to buy time for administration change.
Relax locally laws that we put in place in order to act as a deferent and provide sanctuary,in essence saying,if you can make it here we will protect you from the Feds and make it easy.

One of the main points of Brexit was the ability of a sovereign nation to have control over thier borders,you do not hear Canadian politicians calling for open borders.

[JonWylie]

Of course someone can desire controlled border and better execution of border security. However I don't think my ear deceived me that several of the top 20 candidates said clearly that they want to decriminalize border crossing. Is that not an uncontrolled border? Or what am I missing. How would the border patrol control the border if they don't have any legal authority to do so?

I don't mean to be rude but yes you are very wrong. If you actually listen to the stance about decriminalizing it's basis is that the fact that border crossing is a crime, it gives the US the power to treat people attempting to cross as criminals and thus instituting policies like we see now. Decriminalizing crossing the border does not mean everyone would be let in, because they still would not be a lawful resident of the country. Border patrol would still be in their full right to detain unlawful residents and potentially deport them, but not charging them with a crime, some would argue, would end family separations and some of the policies implemented. None of the candidates want open borders.

[Richard]

^ it still goes back on what grounds do they have to detain them if there are no laws to enforce?

That is hard to grasp?

The separation of families was actually created by a lawsuit against the federal government because they called it,housing minors with adults in a federal detention facility.

It was considered inhuman,but it is also not a practice that happens in the legal system as it is.

The separation happens because you can literally grab any child and say it is yours,if the child is to young to speak how are they supposed to determine if the parent is the real parent.

So they are separated until it can be proven who the parent is.

If the parent brings proof that the child is actually theirs then there is no reason for separation,and they are placed in a family pod.

You can bet if somebody kidnaps a child and comes across the border and it became public there would be an outcry.

Child trafficking is a big issue.

The simple solution would be for the parents to actually bring proof that it is thier child in the first place,it is not some big secret that if you do not you will be separated until it can be determined.

There are a lot of immigrant children in foster care in this country that were brought across the border by parents just handing them off to somebody that has no relations to them.

If they have a verifiable relative already in the states then they are passed into thier custody.

You did not hear about it before because it was working as designed before the lawsuit which actually created something that was not there.

Can we as Americans purchase an airline ticket and be accompanied by a minor without providing proof? Or can we as Americans cross the border with minors and supply no proof of relationship.

No country in the world allows border crossings with minors without providing proof of relationship.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't mean to be rude but yes you are very wrong. If you actually listen to the stance about decriminalizing it's basis is that the fact that border crossing is a crime, it gives the US the power to treat people attempting to cross as criminals and thus instituting policies like we see now. Decriminalizing crossing the border does not mean everyone would be let in, because they still would not be a lawful resident of the country. Border patrol would still be in their full right to detain unlawful residents and potentially deport them, but not charging them with a crime, some would argue, would end family separations and some of the policies implemented. None of the candidates want open borders.

It is never rude to make a polite correction. And I hear what you are saying here. But there is a contradiction between your words that I'd like to ask about -- without being rude!

You say they would still be 'unlawful' residents. But that they would not be charged with a crime. There's an inconsistency in your logic that I'd appreciate some clarification.

Perhaps you mean it would be legal to cross the border, but illegal be 'be' on the US side? Seems like pretty much the same thing.

I do think you are helping me understand the logic of the 'make border crossing legal' campaign pledge.

Yet, I see contradictions that perhaps are by design. We can eliminate family separations, but still 'detain' and 'deport' people? Who wouldn't like that.

[Wesley Mouch]

...
The separation happens because you can literally grab any child and say it is yours,if the child is to young to speak how are they supposed to determine if the parent is the real parent.

So they are separated until it can be proven who the parent is.
...

You can bet if somebody kidnaps a child and comes across the border and it became public there would be an outcry.

Child trafficking is a big issue.
...
If they have a verifiable relative already in the states then they are passed into thier custody.

Thanks, Richard. I learned something today.

So I'll file 'family separation' as a rhetorical device, not a valid concern until someone can argue this.

[JonWylie]

It is never rude to make a polite correction. And I hear what you are saying here. But there is a contradiction between your words that I'd like to ask about -- without being rude!

You say they would still be 'unlawful' residents. But that they would not be charged with a crime. There's an inconsistency in your logic that I'd appreciate some clarification.

Perhaps you mean it would be legal to cross the border, but illegal be 'be' on the US side? Seems like pretty much the same thing.

I do think you are helping me understand the logic of the 'make border crossing legal' campaign pledge.

Yet, I see contradictions that perhaps are by design. We can eliminate family separations, but still 'detain' and 'deport' people? Who wouldn't like that.

Yeah you're essentially right, and nobody knows exactly what the change would actually do. It would still be illegal to be in the country without proper documentation, and you would be subject to deportation. But it would not be a misdemeanor to cross the border, which means the potential jail time and some say aids in the family separation. Most immigrants are processed under civil deportation. I have no idea what the effect would be.

[Richard]

^ there are many tools to border control,one of those tools is called deterrents.

If it was not illegal and there were no ramifications of crossing illegally,it becomes a constant catch and release revolving door of the same people,each time it cost time and resources to the taxpayer.

For instance the recent number of 100,000,out of that at best 5% will actually receive asylum,the rest will go through up to a year with the denial process,then be loaded on a bus or plane and be returned to thier country of origin.

Then they will either make the trek again or give up.

It is not economically feasible to jail the other 95% for 5 years,so there is a law in order to provide teeth but it is not really enforced.

So changing the law as it is,spends time,effort and resources by pushing a point that really does not exist.

Somebody jumps border and kills a citizen,then yea they will most likely have the added charge of entering illegally.

Which is what we were pretty much practicing in the past,you see stories of how some committed crimes have already been deported 5 and 6 times before.

In comparison the United States is actually the more conservative one when it comes to incarceration of illegals for the actual crime of crossing,there are several countries that actually enforce the prison terms stated in thier immigration policies.

[Richard]

Thanks, Richard. I learned something today.

So I'll file 'family separation' as a rhetorical device, not a valid concern until someone can argue this.

The part of that which is completely overlooked is the ones placed into foster care are there until it is determined who they actually are.

That is the concept in theory,the problem is that because of the lack of man power once in foster care they are no longer tracked,thousands of children are lost in the system and nobody knows where they are now.

They will reappear years down the road in adulthood as “undocumented”,so what was really accomplished.

[archfan]

...
The separation happens because you can literally grab any child and say it is yours,if the child is to young to speak how are they supposed to determine if the parent is the real parent.

So they are separated until it can be proven who the parent is.
...

Oh, stop it. The government has said multiple times that the separation policy is being used as a deterrent. They know exactly who the kids belong to. If you're going to support the policy, own that you want to punish people for crossing the border illegally by separating parents from their kids, and jailing both.

[archfan]

This is just wrong. Our constitution is designed to prevent simple majorities from making decisions. Its a simple idea. We elect and appoint people to power. They make decisions for us, to reflect our collective will. Protection of minority rights by specifically limiting popular votes is a feature, not a bug.

Yes, you win the debate point. The US is a representational democracy. Nevertheless, if representatives go against the will of the majority of people [[the Democrats+Chamber of Commerce Republicans mentioned above), then the will no longer be the representative after the next election.

Of course someone can desire controlled border and better execution of border security. However I don't think my ear deceived me that several of the top 20 candidates said clearly that they want to decriminalize border crossing. Is that not an uncontrolled border? Or what am I missing. How would the border patrol control the border if they don't have any legal authority to do so?

I think your confusion is in decriminalize crossing vs. allow crossings. Illegal border crossing right now is both a civil offense and a misdemeanor. The civil offense means they can be deported. The misdemeanor means they can be punished.

Decriminalizing means removing the misdemeanor, which means removing the legal basis for punishment. If you believe the punishments have been too [[severe, expensive, inhumane, or whatever), then you support removing the misdemeanor, which means decriminalizing.

I haven't heard anyone advocating removing the civil aspect, which means CBP would have the legal authority to capture and deport people illegally crossing the border.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
I haven't heard anyone advocating removing the civil aspect, which means CBP would have the legal authority to capture and deport people illegally crossing the border.

I listened to the debates. What I heard was 'decriminalize'. That means 'no apprehensions' to me.

If the only concern was 'family separations', its easy enough to say that. But that's not what was said.

So I feel like this is a BS issue. Its just Orange Man bad. And the 'criminal vs. civil' argument is self-justification. The candidates want to 'resist' Trump. Obama was deporter-in-chief. That's all forgotten as long as we have an issue to beat up on President Trump. Family Separations on borders around the world will be forgotten the moment this isn't politically advantageous. [[Look at Canada for our future. Trudeau tweets 'welcome to Canada'. And then after the financial and political costs of waves of 'illegal' immigrants become an issue, he quietly tightened up the rules, and reminded everyone that most refugee claims are denied in the end. We'll see this issue disappear after Trump's second term.)

[Richard]

Oh, stop it. The government has said multiple times that the separation policy is being used as a deterrent. They know exactly who the kids belong to. If you're going to support the policy, own that you want to punish people for crossing the border illegally by separating parents from their kids, and jailing both.

The govenment also says voting is unfair in the US because those with out means cannot afford an ID.

Somrbody shows up at the border with no ID and no proof of who thier children are,how does the government know who exactly they are.

Maybe you just do not understand who is actually crossing the border illegally and why.

In the case of Latin America,you either have money or you do not,if you do not have some kind of marketable skill or means to make money,you are stuck.

If you do not have the funds in advance to go to the hospital for childbirth then the midwife comes in,or somebody else.

You are not seeing the upper classes jumping the border because they are comfortable where they are.

If the left is so adamant on the punishment aspect,why did they push the separation lawsuit that created the separation in the first place?

They ars are the ones that forced the separation and then stand up and soapbox evil separation.

In my view thier reason of pushing the suit was the thought that those with families would automatically be released into the country because there was no place to House them separately.

But by law that is not how it works and it is not up to border control to make up laws as they go along,it is thier job to enforce the laws created by others.

One really has to be some kind of stupid to sue the government for separation without having a plan in place to deal with it then get up and claim aghast at others for the very thing that you created.

There is a simple solution,change the lawsuit to create the ability to House children with thier parents in a federal detention facility,once they are determined legit.

But noooooo that would involve a segment of admitting they screwed up and it is just easier to blame others and use the children for thier agenda.

[Richard]

The deterrent is,do not grab a child and run to the border expecting to be released without proof that you have legal rights to that child.

It was a California judge that forced the release into the public of 1700 mothers with children that started the grab a child and head to the border chaos.

Have a child and receive a future hearing date and you are released,and never heard from again.

[archfan]

I listened to the debates. What I heard was 'decriminalize'. That means 'no apprehensions' to me.

If the only concern was 'family separations', its easy enough to say that. But that's not what was said.

So I feel like this is a BS issue. Its just Orange Man bad.

Then it sounds like you're engaging in 'Blue Candidates Bad' rather than listening to what they're saying.

The original Castro proposal was to repeal Title 8, Section 1325 of the federal code, section [[a) of which makes illegal border crossing a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail. That is the law used to jail people who illegally crossing the border, and was the law used to separate families. The Castro proposal leaves in place the civil penalties, under which people who illegally cross the border are deported.

And the 'criminal vs. civil' argument is self-justification. The candidates want to 'resist' Trump. Obama was deporter-in-chief. That's all forgotten as long as we have an issue to beat up on President Trump. Family Separations on borders around the world will be forgotten the moment this isn't politically advantageous.

I've read recently that some folks argue this way because they are cynically pushing immigration issues as a way to scare voters into supporting them. They therefore believe that the other side, equally cynical, doesn't really care about whether illegal immigrants are treated humanely - they're just arguing that way to take the opposite side. They don't leave open the possibility that they genuinely believe people should be treated humanely.

Note that I don't ascribe that attitude to to you, Wes, because you usually seem to want to think rationally about issues, and probably have other reasons for arguing that way.

[CassTechGrad]

The term "undocumented" is clearly the intentional use of a lie. Almost all illegal immigrants have documents. Some have documents that they brought from their home country which prove there are here illegally. The rest have completely fake or forged documents or stolen social security cards, all of which are illegal.

[Richard]

That is thinking logical,you are not allowed to think like that without expecting the anti immigrant label and a inhuman person.

Notice how the push is separation of families is a weapon against immigration.

There is zero logic involved or solutions,any federal building built to house people that break the law or is used to detain somebody while waiting for a status hearing is considered a dentition facility.

So lets make it so minors cannot be housed with adults in a detention facility,then call it inhuman when the law is being followed as forced.

Lets even set aside the concept of when American citizens are arrested or detained thier children are not allowed to accompany them to the holding facility.

Or the hundreds of thousands of military personnel that are separated from their children on deployment.

So take a group of people claiming that they are fleeing the threat of violence and death and give them an opportunity of a lifetime at a chance at something they would never have in thier country of birth and then bitch about a couple months of separation.

Enter the country illegally at any given second you are at risk of being caught and deported while being separated with your children at some point in the process.

There is zero claim of being inhuman or argument about the separation of families at the border without repealing the ability to house said families.

The bleeding hearts created this mess and instead of owning it they continue to look for reasons to blame everybody else for thier screw up.

Either they are totally stupid or are worse then they claim others are,either they fix thier screw up or have some consolation that 95% out of 100 will be reunited with thier families on the plane ride back to thier country of origin.

[One Shot]

When I break into your house can I...
Use your car?
Swim in your pool?
Drink your beer?
Turn up your A/C?
Sit in your Lazyboy?

This shouldn't be a question but yet its still being asked!

[Honky Tonk]

When I break into your house can I...
Use your car?
Swim in your pool?
Drink your beer?
Turn up your A/C?
Sit in your Lazyboy?

This shouldn't be a question but yet its still being asked!

But of course! If you're:
In need of going somewhere,
Could use a little exercise,
Thirsty after running errands and exercising,
Hot after running errands and exercising,
Tired after running errands and exercising, and inebriated.
After all, you have all that stuff, the person breaking in doesn't, it's only fair.

[Richard]

It is interesting how after the recent ice raid,the media is calling for the arrest of the buisness owners but not the city mayors and state governors for providing sanctuary for those in illegal status.

[Shelby_]

It is interesting how after the recent ice raid,the media is calling for the arrest of the buisness owners but not the city mayors and state governors for providing sanctuary for those in illegal status.

I have not heard media outlets calling for the arrest of business owners. I have heard some question why businesses who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants are not held accountable.

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no city in the state of Mississippi identifies as a "sanctuary city."

Regardless of public opinion, local governments do not have to enforce federal immigration policy. The 10th Amendment provides that the federal government cannot force state and local agents and resources to enforce federal laws.

[Richard]

I have not heard media outlets calling for the arrest of business owners. I have heard some question why businesses who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants are not held accountable.

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no city in the state of Mississippi identifies as a "sanctuary city."

Regardless of public opinion, local governments do not have to enforce federal immigration policy. The 10th Amendment provides that the federal government cannot force state and local agents and resources to enforce federal laws.

A search pulls up multiple cases of business owners charged with employment of illegals.


Where some confusion has existed in recent years is on the question of whether the same authority extends to arresting aliens who have violated civil provisions of the INA that render an alien deportable. This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel [[OLC) of the Department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC. However, the law on this question is quite clear: arresting aliens who have violated either criminal provisions of the INA or civil provisions that render an alien deportable "is within the inherent authority of the states."1 And such inherent arrest authority has never been preempted by Congress.

The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 [[9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 [[10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 [[10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 [[citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.

https://cis.org/State-and-Local-Auth...mmigration-Law


Granted states are not required to enforce federal law but they have a history of doing so.

The very aspect of choosing not to enforce federal law is in effect providing sanctuary to illegals just as providing them the tools to avoid the law by providing them drivers license for identification and preventing immigration from doing thier job by hiding arrest records from the federal government in essence offering protection.

What is the end result?

A Center for Immigration Studies review of these ICE records revealed that roughly 340 jurisdictions across the nation have some form of sanctuary policy [[i.e. refused to honor ICE detainer requests or otherwise obstructed federal immigration officials). The ICE data further revealed:

Similar trends are also found in state records. Data compiled by the Texas Department of Public Safety over recent years provides strong support for state cooperation with federal immigration officials. According to the Department’s statistics, 952 criminal aliens were arrested on homicide charges between June 2011 and November 2015.

In total, the 176,000 criminal aliens were booked into Texas jails in this time period were collectively responsible for the commission of 472,000 crimes. Many of these crimes could have been prevented had local law enforcement effectively transferred deportable criminal aliens to federal custody.

• Between January 1, 2014 and September 30, 2014, sanctuary jurisdictions released 9,295 aliens that ICE had sought to remove;
• Of those 9,295 aliens, nearly 6,000 had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns;
• Of those with a prior history of concern, 58 percent had prior felony charges or convictions; and
• 2,320 of the total number of released offenders were re-arrested within that 10 month period, and ICE has not been able to re-apprehend those individuals.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal...reasons-resist

Some states bear more of the weight than others, often due to sanctuary policies. For instance, California taxpayers spent more than $25 billion in 2014 to subsidize illegal immigration, and Texas taxpayers spent just over $12 billion. Such costs come in the form of education, health care, welfare, and law enforcement resources. Additionally, job displacement and wage depression caused by large populations of unauthorized workers inevitably add to taxpayer expenses as more citizens and legal residents require assistance from public services.

Note that California taxpayers alone spent 25 billion in support of illegals while thier cities maintain in excess of 60,000 us citizens homeless,sleeping in the streets.

No the federal government cannot force individual cities and states to enforce federal law just as cities and states should not have thier hand out for federal funds because it is apparent that they have no problem coming up with billions in order to not support the federal governments stance on illegal immigration.

Why is it acceptable for some cities and states to use local tax dollars in order to accommodate illegals but expect the rest of the country on the federal level to make up for the losses?