Advocating for Illegal immigrants is advocating for anarchy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy?wasRedirected=true

Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"No rulership or enforced authority."<1>
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."<2>
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."<3>
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."<4>
"Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this." <5>

-----

People wonder why an anarchist group would get involved in the immigration protests and the answer is pretty simple. Their interests in this matter are perfectly matched. Both would like non-enforcement and the flouting of federal authority.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/2/862771/-AZ-Republic-says-its-NOT-about-the-borders

So go ahead and make up another lie for us.

violating criminal laws in this country or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are in this country illegally. Our immigration laws do not have to be intended to keep out people who might commit crimes in order to be legitimate or rationally based.

and wants enforcement of immigration laws. You can't say you support both. In fact, I don't even know how someone can call themself a liberal and support illegal immigration. This doesn't mean you're for bad treatment of illegals. You treat them well as they're deported freeing up the jobs for American workers.

When he promised immigration reform which includes a path toward citizenship for the millions of undocumented workers currently in the nation.

Making more people legal citizens is a way to deal with the problems caused by classifying some humans as illegal beings.

But the post I was replying to talks about deporting these people, not making them citizens. That was never Obama's proposed "solution" to the problem.

Then there are no future illegal immigrants either.

"making all immigration legal."

It's the only consistent position.

The hypocrisy is in saying it was okay when it was illegal but after we pass reform it's not okay.

by repealing all criminal statutes...is that a good idea too?

Personally, the fact that I didn't think that he would turn Iran into glass was a big factor in my vote.

That and his superior environmental policies.

I expected to be deeply disappinted in his economic policies and I am, although "deeply disappointment" really doesn't come close to my views now. Apoplectic does.

I don't think that his immigration proposals are the right ones at this time.

We have too many unskilled and semi-skilled citizens and legal residents without jobs, and too many of them are minorities.

Bringing in more unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants to compete for those jobs makes no sense to me.

The pro-immigration hypothesis that legalizing undocuments immigrants will make the floor wage higher makes sense to me only when there are an abundance of jobs, like there were in the '90s when that theory first came out.

We need comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes the role of foreign workers in the US economy.

Why should we value people over others due to place of birth? It is astounding so many "liberals" are not in solidarity with labor from other countries, especially the poor.

The OP is trying to make immigration sound anti-labor which it is not.

sing from the same hymnal.

I'd be more interested in an anonymous poll of union households than what management says on this question.

Not with narrow economic nationalism.

The only way to help American labor is to equalize the playing field with others. If poor Mexicans were legal, they'd be no "better" to employers, because they could not be exploited.

And you forget the corn subsidies that lead to Mexican poor people migrating here.

Though I am not one to insist Americans are more deserving and better people just because of place of birth. I can feel for these illegal immigrants without having to denigrate Americans in some way. They are very poor people, involved in a migration that is just as dangerous as any 19th century migration, and added with the slap of "you're illegally here, too." At least my necessitous and poverty stricken ancestors did not have to put up with that in addition to everything else.

does. The Progressive Caucus also endorses Obama's framework for immigration reform.

The AFL-CIO supports comprehensive immigration reform to fix the problem of the exploitation of foreign illegal workers and to raise up all workers. When illegal aliens work for lower wages that hurts everyone, therefore the need for immigration reform.

They are the most backward and racist of union officials and members.

Fortunately, these white racist elements are a declining minority within organized labor.

otherwise you wouldn't accuse good union members of being white racists. You know nothing about organized labor.

Don't be in denial.

It is the cheap-labor conservatives and the people who brought us NAFTA. THAT is what caused a massive influx of illegal immigrants, because NAFTA caused a lot of cheap American corn to be dumped in Mexico, throwing millions of people out of work.

Blame massive food corporations who will not pay a living wage. Blame all of us because because we want things to b cheap and scream bloody murder if a head of lettuce costs more than a buck.

All you people on this thread are putting the blame in exactly the wrong place. You sound like a bunch of tea-baggers.

. . . 8 years before NAFTA "...caused a massive influx of illegal immigrants...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986



Your reply, however, very conveniently avoided answering my question.

:shrug:

but we do need border security and to decide what we are to do about this in the long run

are playing to residents' fears and frustrations by claiming--falsely--that border violence is increasing. In an excellent article, the Arizona Republic demonstrates that those inflammatory claims are contradicted by law enforcement officers on the border--and crime statistics back them up.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8258127

Just saying, that's what they say they want, a small weak government.

national mandatory id systems, other misguided 'crackdown on undocumented immigrants' policies, such as Arizona's new law, is advocating for fascism.

There's a very easy way to solve the problem for people who say the only oppose "illegal" immigration. Make all immigration legal. Problem solved.

the counter arguments to actual immigration reform all end up at 'too many brown people'.

And promotes those who understand the importance of following the law.

When we look at who we want to give these opportunities to wouldn't we rather have people who can follow and respect our laws? Yes we want hard workers and smart workers. We want people who have faced a very disadvantaged life to get this opportunity too.

But we should be fair about it.

After all Mexicans have a higher standard of living than a lot of countries. Mexico is very harsh against other Latin American immigrants who come to Mexico illegally.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"I want is people who respect our law..."

I imagine that also includes traffic laws (no speeding, now), or drug laws too (no Friday evening tokes), otherwise the word you keep using, 'hypocrisy' would too be applicable.

Unless of course you refer only to those laws you yourself think are good laws, and minimize the ones you don't...

our laws." And those are laws the breakage of which leads to far more dangerous consequences.

I find it funny that I'm so furious at lehman brothers execs who insist their repo bs securities were perfectly legal when they actually look like they were trying to follow the letter of the law and yet I'm supposed to defend people who we all know broke the law in every way possible.

pushed north by our corn subsidies is one thing - executives at Lehman brothers another.

Bomb-throwers! Free Love! Freethinkers!

Red Bait much?

Them. But that means applying from your home country so they would have to leave.

Frankly if a person leaves we don't know they broke the laws earlier. Then everyone has an equal chance to come here.

I don't see the purpose of allowing workers if we have any Americans unemployed. Then depending on our need for workers we would expand the percentages from all people across the board.

My great grandfather came here as a guest worker. Upon his retirement he went back home. All guests must come to this country prepared to do the same

Is it mean to expect people to pay their taxes too? Or mean to expect drug dealers to stop when it is the only means they have of making a decent amount of money? Or mean to think a homeless person should not steal from the grocers?

There are many laws that are "mean". But we still have them.

What is mean is depriving someone in Africa or Asia or the Americas a chance to come here because of all the line jumpers.

Another mean thing is depriving Americans of jobs that pay a living wage because some employers want to pay slave wages and not pay employment taxes and payroll taxes.

Wall street... the oil spill... the stated income mortgage.

Greece is all F'ed up because their citizens cheat on their taxes.

It's all part of the same syndrome. Cheaters liars stealers and irresponsible people. Argh.

I think giving anyone that came here illegally a second chance to 'do it right' is above what is called for. I'm sure some places would ban you permanently.

People from all over the world would love to come to the US. By providing a path to citizenship for people who sneak over our borders, what message do you send to the people who are waiting in line for legitimate family visas? Depending on the country, it can take 10-20 years before a US citizen can legally bring a sibling into the US to work. But if you happen to be from a country that shares a land border in the US and sneak across, we're going to fast track you to citizenship as long as you fill out some papers and make a trip home? How does that make any sense?

My partner is of Asian descent and I'm white. He's the natural born citizen; I'm the immigrant. Which of us do you think would be asked for papers in AZ?

I have to carry my "Green Card" permanently, he only has(?) to carry state ID or a drivers license (neither of which shows residency status).

I'd love to go to AZ and get him 'questioned', we need the damages he'd get from the violation of his rights.

That's because AZ requires proof of legal status before issuing a state ID or driver's license. Under the new law, AZ also will accept DL's of 44 other states that verify legal presence before issuance. The exceptions are HI, IL, NM, UT, and WA.

& claim that they were forged. It's up to the cop to accept the DL & if he/she is a racist bigot, they can easily get away with claiming they had "concerns" about identity theft.

Next.

dg

He or she had better be prepared to explain it to a judge. And, that potential for abuse applies to any law.

People who are likely to be profiled and targeted for abuse will need to understand what the law requires (should it ever take effect) and what their rights are.

(Ed. for typo)

so maybe that's why they only do it to people they figure can't afford a lawyer. if you're white & appear to be middle class or higher, you won't ever be treated like shit by the cops.

dg

IF the law goes into effect--and that's a big if--immigration lawyers and civil rights advocates will be monitoring to identify cases of abuse.

I'm not sure what you are advocating. That cops will abuse their authority and there's nothing anyone can do about it? Resistance is futile?

provides no details about that, which leaves it open to selective and arbitrary enforcement. If the Dems in Arizona had been smart, when they saw that this law was going to be forced down their throats no matter what they did, they should have inserted language about what forms of identification would be necessary and acceptable proof of citizenship. With that in black and white, people might not have been so enthusiastic about the law.

From the law:

A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.


http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
(Links to HTML version)


Under AZ driver licensing requirements, Arizona DOT, Motor Vehicle Division, identifies 5 states "that do not verify lawful presence" in the U.S.: HI, IL, NM, UT, and WA (WA verifies only for credentials labeled as "enhanced").

http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub/viewPDF.asp?lngProductKey=1410&lngFormInfoKey=1410
Arizona DOT, Motor Vehicle Division


The law is still draconian, and still has serious constitutional problems despite new amendments that were signed by the Gov. on Friday (HB 2162). Several lawsuits have already been filed, and the ACLU plans to spearhead another. One sheriff has said he will refuse to enforce the law in his county, both because it is unconstitutional and because it puts peace officers in the position of being sued both for enforcing the law, and for failing to enforce it aggressively enough (he said cops will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.) Another effort is underway to qualify for the ballot a referendum that would delay enforcement until 2012, and in other action, a boycott is being targeted at the state.

I think the courts will throw it out on constitutional grounds. However, after seeing my country adopt torture as national policy, and seeing George W. Bush in the Oval Office for two terms, I'm not so confident that I'm going to be right.

Here's a final link to the Arizona Republic's story on the new amendments:

Arizona governor signs bill
revising new immigration
law
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html

I was not aware that the law had been revised and a new version signed. I just came from a thread at Daily Kos trying to track down this very issue. Nice that they clarified, as it may prevent at least some abusive and selective enforcement of the law, but it still would have been better if the Dems had forced this language in from the beginning, instead of having it inserted later, under the radar.

Do not check which makes me very dismayed because now I have to travel with an extra ID.

I fully intend to start carrying my proof of birth card when I travel as it has a state seal on it. Maybe I should get a passport instead. I've been planning to get one but haven't gone down yet. I'm Asian so I figure I might as well. I don't mind.

he's not going to have problems in Arizona.

Nonetheless, I would advise anyone traveling there to bring extra documentation, like a passport or a copy of the birth certificate.

Mostly by large companies who treat them badly. But all the punishment and scorn goes to the undocumented workers, themselves, and none to large companies who hire them. Their employers get away with it, but the people are treated like criminals.

I hope you have some nice things, I could use the money.

That they be treated humanely?

that Chris Columbus and those who followed were illegal immigrants. Of course that's different, because the indigenous peoples had no power.

which sovereign nation(s) and in violation of what specific immigration laws of those nations?

a country doesn't exist unless it follows western definition

They had no idea what would happen I'm sure. If they did then they would have killed em on the spot which probably would have been legal.

The people of the wild places, indigenous people on every continent, are under relentless attack. They've pretty much been getting hosed since people discovered slavery and money.

Just because it's been like this for so long doesn't mean it can't be changed.

Have you ever dug in your yard without calling your water or power company? You're an anarchist
Fished without a license? Anarchist!
Let your plates expire for a few days before getting new tags? Anarchist!
Downloaded files from a file sharing program? Anarchist!
Smoked weed? Anarchist!
Had a drink before you were 21? Anarchist!
Loitered? Anarchist!
Spit your gum out? Anarchist!
"Forget" the pooper-scooper when you take the dog out? Anarchist!
Fudge the dependents on your W-2 form? Anarchist!
Recorded a rental tape or DVD? Anarchist!
Do the video games you play have any unofficial mods or patches? Anarchist!
Ever had a wild animal of any sort as a pet? Anarchist!
Cut through someone's yard? Anarchist!
Any posters here from Alabama, who have likened ANYONE to Hitler? You're an anarchist, then.
Ever taken pay without reporting it? Anarchist!
Played poker with actual money? Anarchist!

if these people weren't brown, you wouldn't give a shit, just like you don't give a shit about all the Russians in Alaska or the Irish in Boston or the Canadians in Vermont. Why? because "illegal immigration" is a fucking minor, piddling little "crime" that is illegal because some anal little bureaucrat decided it out to be. So spare me the "ZOMG ITS TEH ROOLZ!" spiel, that is very much NOT what this "debate" is about, and it never fucking has been.

:fistbump:

Also, re: the Alabama thing - really?

It is / was a crime to call someone "Adolf" or "Hitler" - but calling someone "Adolf Hitler" is okay.

Easily exposed this idiocy.

:applause:

:yourock:

:kick:

:hi:

It's just not the worst thing ever done by human beings, and isn't high up on the scale either.

If I u turned illegally I didn't notice the sign. I will absolutely drive for blocks to find a legal place to do it or I'll turn left and turn in a driveway.

Didn't drink til I was 21. Never did an illegal drug. Never even touched an illegal drug.

Sorry.

Well no wonder you champion other lawbreakers.

Which goes to my point that we are a nation that excuses law breakers.

Ah yes how stupid. Only schmucks follow the law. I'm beginning to realize that.

Seriously, you are up in arms, screaming and waving pitchforks over an offense that is as "bad" as jaywalking. Do you understand this? Crossing the border illegally is, in legalese, no worse than crossing the street illegally.

I guaran-fucking-tee you this. That they are not enforced on you does not mean you have not broken them. Odds are a majority of them are driving laws. Do you have ANY idea how absolutely convoluted our legal systems are? From the Federal all the way down to city level, there is a web of legalities for pretty much any god damned piddling thing someone could ever think up.

And you're on the wrong side of many of them, or have been at some point in your life, or you will be.

Illegal immigration is, at the very worst, a misdemeanor. It's a lesser charge than many other misdemeanors, including most of the laws you've broken without knowing. But! it's brown people who talk funny who do it, so it's suddenly a massive crisis that everyone needs to be armed for bear against

:thumbsup:

"that is very much NOT what this "debate" is about, and it never fucking has been"

right on! :thumbsup:

has a legitimate right to pass laws regarding who may enter their country, and from what other countries they may come, how many may enter legally, for what purposes and for how long? Are you saying our immigration laws (as distinct from their enforcement) are as morally repugnant as laws enshrining slavery and segregation?

Our immigration laws are bad. The whole designation of "illegal immigrant" reeks of crime-by-technicality of the sort you get when a young couple sleeps together to celebrate one of the two turning 18. The only thing making these people "illegal" is the fact that our immigration laws are specifically designed to exclude anyone over a certain skin tone or under a certain tax bracket.

Would those people be "illegal" if they were still in the country they came from? Would they be "illegal" if they had not crossed our borders in violation of laws that we have the right to set, and that were set BEFORE they came here? It was THEIR actions that made them illegal. It was their violation of our law that made them illegal.

And as far as skin tone, maybe you've missed a whole lot of (legal) immigrants from India in this country. How do they square with your theory? Or are they not "dark" enough? Perhaps you should check on how many legal immigrants from Mexico and other Latin American countries our laws allow to enter the country every year. Is it zero? Do we really exclude "everyone" with brown skin as you said, or was that a falsehood? Want to report back on that?

I don't think there is any issue discussed on this board that precipitates more silliness and irrationality...smh.

See, it's great to be an American. You and I, we can sit here at our computers, arguing about this. We have that kind of leisure time. We have that little to actually worry about. I can have my coffee haagen-daas, you can do whatever it is you're doing, and we can argue. You can labor under the presumption that everywhere in the world is as good as America, and anyone who tries to come here without Ze Paperz is a criminal asshole and should be persecuted like rats in a hospital.

That's where you and I differ.

Ever been to the places these people are from? You want to argue that they should stay there? Throw their life savings - more! - at the US Immigrations Department hoping for clearance to come in and not be eating grass stew with a side of nothing?

You want to talk about legal immigrants from India? yeah, there's half a continent, and an entire fucking ocean between here and there, options are limited. What do you think it'd look like if we shared a border? You want to go there and tell those people that they DESERVE to stay there and drink arsenic and shit because... because... because why, exactly?

because unlike you and I, they had the temerity to dare not work as hard as we did to be squeezed out of our mothers on American soil. That's where you're privilege comes from, Skepticscott; your mom's vagina just happened to dilate while she was in the United States. It's not as if you've done anything more than a Guatemalan or an Indian or a Botswanan or a German to live here. it's simply a matter of winning the uterus lottery.

to try to make your position appear more sensible and feed your righteous anger while at the same time ducking all of the direct points that I made.

I never said that everywhere in the world is as good as Americia.

I never said that the people who come here in violation of our laws (are you STILL claiming that we have no right to set them?) are criminals or should be treated like rats in a hospital.

I never said that people living in other countries in bad circumstances {i]deserve to live the way they do.

I said nothing about people in other countries not working hard enough to be born American.

And my comment about India was directed solely at your grossly dishonest statement that US immigration law was designed to exclude all brown people.

Do you have any more intellectual dishonesty to engage in? To do it as much as you already have makes me wonder how much actual substance there is in any of your arguments, as opposed to emotional ranting.

And yes, the world is divided up into different countries, and life in some is generally better than it is better than it is in others. Sorry if you find that unfair, but that's the way it is, and always has been.

So what's your solution? Specifically and concretely. Since you're so righteously indignant about US immigration policy, you must have the details of a better policy all mapped out. Let's have them. Without ducking, dodging and tap-dancing. And rants do not constitute sound policy, btw.

That Anarchist!

:sarcasm:

...the ones who respected the segregation laws. Yes, we want hard working blacks and smart blacks, but have you seen how their former countries in Africa treat their immigrants? Sheesh!

If the country doesn't want you, you don't get to emigrate. It's not a 'civil right'.

And, then tries to treat you like a criminal. That is an issue of civil rights.

Besides that, I believe civil rights cross borders.

There's a reason there are guards at every border and a reason they all have guns.

We are ineffective in our admittance system. You think that those who make it into this country have forfeited their civil rights?

It is not a criminal violation. It is an administrative violation.

They still have rights. And, should have more.

What part of that is confusing to you?

If someone violates our immigration process they have no business here. I'm all for treating them fairly and with dignity while deporting them on the spot.

They have the right to try. If they succeed, they have the right to stay. If they stay, they have the right to work. If they work, they are required to pay taxes. If they pay taxes, they have a right to access the products of those taxes. Including things like health care, education and the legal system.

Most have quite a bit of business here. They have lived here longer than others' entire lives. They have families, homes, jobs and communities. They have as much business here as those of us who came in via a birth canal.

I don't consider him a 'lefty' myself. Pretty much the entire 'pro-illegal immigration' argument is RW anti-labor garbage couched as 'social justice'. How pathetic.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I am a Ronald Raygun Anarchist!

They have to WAIT in LINE like everyone else

:silly:

then why are they arrested and deported?

Considering for example the 150 years or so of more or less uncontrolled border crossings in the southwest, the fact that we annexed northern Mexico by force of arms, dividing the people who happened to live there between two national jurisdictions, and the last 80 years or so of de facto guest worker status for huge numbers of the undocumented, vital for the agricultural economy of the region, 'their' right to be here is not quite as non-existent as you seem to think.

But never mind all that, within 50 years or so 'our' southwest will be more a part of Mexico that the US. The demographic pressure is not going to be diverted by racist idiocy, by fascist laws, by insane walls or by ad hoc posses.

It's a joke each and every time.

And now you are citing them as the chosen exemptees. Argh. So only Mexican illegal immigrants have a history that allows them to cross the border at will?

are not from the border region of the US and Mexico? Many are from much farther south than that. So you think they are justified in illegally immigrating here because we annexed northern Mexico by force of arms? How did Mexico obtain "northern Mexico"? Why, by force of arms of course! Hmmm. I mean, with that kind of logic, we have the "right" to take whatever we want by force of arms.

In 50 years, the American southwest will be just that. Why? Because the immigrants that came here will be thoroughly Americanized, and the reason they came here in the first place was because they don't want to live in Mexico (or wherever else) anymore.

It's funny, the US isn't more a part of England or Germany etc. etc. despite all the immigrants from those nations. Indeed, America is its own nation, otherwise those immigrants wouldn't want to come here.

Not being subject to torture is a human right unless someone calls you a terrorist, first?

Arbitrary distinction, and false, too.

Your other nonsense is completely unrelated.

doesn't make it so, without limits. Or perhaps you can cite the article of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states that international borders have no validity or that every person has the right to unrestricted movement across international boundaries.

There are always people who don't want more people, but migrations happen. Know Nothings didn't want more Catholic Immigrants. If a huge number migrates, then it's happening as a force of nature.

Few here wanted the Irish - too bad, they got them (and they would have come from famine Ireland even if there was a law on the books at the time against it). Same for every other huge migration.

Humans migrate. And just like caribou or birds or whatever, borders don't figure in. Laws don't really figure in. People move, and there's not much that can be done, and frankly it's rather silly to try.

Just imagine a "no caribou crossing" fence, with a team of Alaska State Troopers manning it.

And where, and why?

Do the Russians? do the Chinese? do the Indians?

Only people in the industrialized countries move around so much. Most people in this world never get more then 50 miles from where they were born.

Don't know if you noticed, but most countries plant crops, and made a thing called "civilization"

We don't follow caribou anymore.

Witness all the Europeans coming to America. All the Mexicans and other Latinos migrating north. Southern Africa was populated by migrating Bantu. The Pacific by the Polynesians - both the Bantu and Polynesians were civilized farmers. The Rroma were a large migration out of the India-Pakistan region. Large numbers of Southeast Asians are migrating to Australia, Japan, and the United States. Turks, Bulgarians, and Romanians have been migrating to western Europe in large numbers for twenty years or more.

Whenever conditions at home are sub-par, and conditions somewhere else look good, people move. Sometimes it's a trickle, other times it's a human wave.

The Chinese into India, the Egyptians into the middle east?

please, as a student of history, please expound on these other "huge" migrations.

:kick:

"illegal immigrants" are such a HUGE effing problem--they make the oil leakage look like a small blob of disappearing ink. They make climate change look like a change of seasons. They make war criminals look like jaywalkers. They make the rip-off artists on Wall St. look like St. Theresa.

by a racist bill in Arizona and any other state that may copy it?

Americans in general have a human empathy deficiency.

:P

We need education so we can compete. My husband is very highly skilled and we want to move to the UK in a few years. He and his prospective employer will most likely have to prove that the job my husband applies for cannot be filled by a native from the UK. Luckily my husband is highly skilled and is actually working on some pretty cutting edge technology so I think we will be able to immigrate but it is rediculous the way people are acting. It's like we want all global immigration to stop. People want to be able to get a job based on location and not on merit. Well the truth is we live in a global economy and you do have to prove that you have better skills than someone from around the corner or from around the world. What we need comprehensive immigration reform so people can come here legally and we need education so we can compete in the global economy. I think that comprehensive immigration reform needs to focus on the employers. Wages are decreasing when we need them to increase. We need living wages for all of our workers, documented or undocumented.

That difficulty is a FEATURE not a BUG. Every place worth living regulates who comes and lives there. The nicer places are more difficult.

You mean so the rich people can keep the poor out of their country? Do you think the people who came through Ellis Island were all rich? It's definitely true that rich people usually do feel threatened by mass immigration. Always have. That doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean mass immigration will stop either. It's not just the rich who feel threatened though. It's the other workers who feel that their job will be taken by an immigrant. That still doesn't stop mass immigration from happening. Mass immigration has happened throughout history and will continue to happen no matter if people feel threatened by it or not. And by the way, I am not anti-labor. I support unions. I only shop at stores that are unionized and I think that our country has done nothing but destroy unions for the past few decades. I just think that getting a job should be based on qualifications not on location.

If you flood the labor pool, you devalue the labor. Every place that gives a damn about the quality of their citizens lives regulates what trades and professions enter.

I disagree with your argument. Where do you think the labor forces come from? Most families who have deep working class roots can trace their roots back to immigrants.

That seems to be the big difference.

There was a lot of discrimination against immigrants that arrived later whether they were Irish or Italian or some other nationality by the already established "we were here before you, this country is ours" English immigrants.

Those mean Mexicans taking all of our jobs. :silly:

And there was no damn shortage of "illegal" whites coming over, either; the entire European side of my family is descended from ship-jumpers. Nobody threatened o murder them if they didn't go back to Wales.

In case you haven't noticed, unemployment is really high.

Both from there and from the Canadian equivalent in Halifax. Immigration policies for both countries while those two facilities were in operation could get pretty vile, despite the huge number of people who managed to get through them. Embarrassingly enough, Canada likely has the worse track record there, but both had pretty bad points.

My husband's side of the family has a strong German heritage. When they came over they actaully changed their name to make it sound more American. It's shameful that people had to change their family name just so they could be more American.

A does not equal B.

To emigrate to Australia, you need a bachelors degree and enough money to live on for a couple years.

And that would be wrong.

:eyes:

This is not the most important of all laws, ever. We still advocate enforcement of the criminal and traffic and other laws. This law is unworkable and is regulatory. Even open borders with no laws would not be "anarchy."

Why are some people so exercised over this issue? It's a minor problem in terms of law enforcement. The solution is to find a way for people to enter legally - if they could do that, they might leave for periods of time, too (added benefit to xenophobes). As it is now, the crossing is dangerous and hazardous due to being illegal. Once you get past the border, you're not likely to go home, due to the trouble and danger of returning.

Neither fit into the simplistic characterizations you assign to them.

businesses, once they hire someone, regardless of documentation, must pay them whatever the going rate is for that job. That would stop businesses from hiring people who are willing to work for practically nothing.

Then, you also allow even undocumented workers access to the law if a business owner doesn't pay them, something that happens often.

Allowing businesses to hire human beings and exploit them by not paying them properly or at all, using their legal status in the country to force them to accept those conditions, is helping to create a modern day slave trade.

The fact that people are here illegally should be dealt with separately. But there should be no tolerance for the exploitation of any human being.

Iow, if you hire someone to do a job, they must be paid what the going rate is for that job, regardless of their documentation or face serious penalties for the exploitation as well as for violating the existing laws.

And this government needs to stop propping up corrupt governments. NAFTA has contributed greatly to the immigration problem from Mexico. Millions of jobs have been lost in Mexico as a result of NAFTA. So, we owe these workers who are only trying to provide for their families.

Same thing happened in Haiti when the U.S. forced that government to accept rice at cheap prices putting their farmers out of work.

:eyes:

tell me the one about how you think it's reasonable to carry a birth certificate to travel in Arizona.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8235764&mesg_id=8236124

:banghead:

:crazy:

I want people to follow the law. If that means I need to flash my ID it's fine. It's the same thing as an audit or a DUI checkpoint. What's the difference?

and unprecedented to need to carry such a thing just to travel within another state.

and i got my driver's license without a birth certificate or proof of legal residence.

and I didn't have a Social Security card at the time I got my driver's license. (strike 2)

care to keep going?

don't make assumptions.

there's plenty of people here who report the same experience.

but how about owning the fact that you defended the idea of needing to carry a birth certificate when traveling in Arizona.

because you did.

If it's the law to provide that then I'll do it. I think I had to show a copy of my social security card when I got my job. What is the difference?

Oh and yes I'm okay with a national ID card. I'm more upset that my social security card is so flimsy and prone to being misused since there is no real protection on it. I am pissed at the idea of the government reading my personal email and looking through my texts though.

that's the point.

but the larger point is that the law MAY BE WRONG.

yeah, that happens.

until now.

you can't be subject to arrest simply for not carrying a birth certificate, but the Arizona law, though slightly amended now (they made a few changes) would have you vulnerable to arrest like nowhere else in the country.

i'm not bringing my birth certificate with me, no way...to travel to Phoenix? Have you lost your mind?

I live in Arizona and don't have a birth certificate(Lost it years ago). I won't get one either because I never need it.

Yeah I disagree too. No way am I ever going to carry around a birth certificate (if I had one) for the same reason I don't carry my Social Security Card with me where ever I go--because--I could lose it.

Arizonans aren't railing against illegal immigrants from Europe.

And audits and DUI checkpoints aren't enforced based on ethnicity.

Boy, sometimes I wonder about some of the people here.

Nobody seems to read.

which was about the OP's statement about carrying a birth certificate in Arizona.

Not my statement, hers.

How embarrassing for you. :rofl:

The OP was about anarchy, and said nothing about a birth certificate.

Either you didn't read, and responded in the wrong spot, or you didn't read, and brought up the birth certificate.

Which was it?

BTW, How embarrassing for you.

as well as defending SB1070 at every turn in recent days.

:puke:

I hope you get asked for your ID twenty times a day.

Advocating for illegal immigrants--their rights, their dignity, etc.--is not the same as advocating for the abandonment of immigration laws.

do not include the "right" to enter or remain in this country in violation of our laws. No such right exists, no matter how much you wish it did or think it should.

No matter how much you wish it happened or think it happened.

something that seems to never have crossed your mind.

where I ever said otherwise, or suck such an idiotic accusation back down your throat where it belongs.

Silly anarchists.

A Border protects the worker more then it does the rich.

The rich don't need or respect borders.

And it seems, neither do you.

and they pay off the politicians to make it that way.

i.e. the state of the American worker before NAFTA, before Globalization.

being against a law that violates the rights of others. I have posted several times here about what happened in Prince William County Va. and how that law they passed was changed because innocent people were being subjected to their rights being reduced. The bill in Prince William County is very similar to the one here in Arizona and I talked to several involved in it, finding out that both sides now see that. Of course I am sad to say that my topics on this aren't viewed by too many and quickly fade into the back pages, which may have to do in part with the time posted, but certainly I would venture to say that since I call for reasoning and not emotional reaction it is not as accepted as if it were flaming. I cite the 9500 Liberty movie and their encounter with almost the same bill they passed in 07 and how it played out, thinking I was giving some historical prospective on it as well as an update from those involved, but the threads that are more emotional seem to be the preference and therefore I fear we are in for a long national nightmare without a real solution or even reasonable and productive effort to fix the problem.

you're "legal," should we carry it to its ultimate extreme as the Germans did? The penalty for failure to carry the official "stamp" of their occupying army, which was issued to residents of the city (at least in the Russian city of Rostov) was death. Why not? That would solve the "problem," wouldn't it?

Why would you be "willing" to let some authoritarian law "enforcer" have that power that can be so easily abused? How do you know the "authorities" aren't going to say, oh BS, this birth certificate is forged? Gee, it can't be because you're lily white or anything, can it? Are you soooo sure of the decency of human nature that NO mean little frustrated bigoted sheriff is EVER going to abuse this power you're so willing to let him have? Or are only Mexicans dirty, mean criminals?

Your ignorance, lack of decency, lack of humanitarian instinct, and lack of respect for human rights is duly noted, as is your willingness to bend over for jackbooted thugs--just to "spare you" from some impoverished people who have zero opportunity at home and risk everything to try to better themselves.

Of course, you would never think to criticize the employers who exploit these poor souls.

Pffft. A million unrecs for this polished turd.

Many other creatures migrate and I see nothing to indicate humans don't as well. Citizenship and eligibility for employment and services may be looked at separately from keeping humans from moving from one place to the next.

One day conditions may require us to make a mass exodus southward and if that day comes in your time then more than likely you'll reconsider the importance of an imaginary line.

Still, on this my focus is on illegal hiring and the stupidity of vice laws. If you fix those two issues then the problems at the border will be considerably less.

I think my solutions are different than your's rather than some rejection of all order.

Are you going to bash them as well?

And before you jump on my screenname, I'm not an anarchist. It's based on an in-joke between a coworker and myself.

.

And drivers who do 66mph in a 65mph zone are anarchists too...

God-- the flouting of federal authority on the highway every morning appears to mean the Western Civ is descending into anarchy!

Advocating for illegal immigrants means seeking solutions to getting "illegals" LEGAL through a reformed immigration system, cracking down on employers who hire illegal labor, and pushing for change in Mexico so that more of their citizens have access to a living.

I'm getting tired of all the bullshit lies going on about immigration. Advocating for immigrants today is in FAVOR of the effectiveness of federal authority, regardless of whether a few bored anarchists want to jump on the ship.

Your post is 100 percent off the mark.