The Next Phase of Immigration Reform

[SoulBiter]

The feds will sooner or later step up because 41 states have now passed new laws to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs, housing and/or benefits in those states.

A few states have done the opposite. New York and Illinois are encouraging illegal aliens to come there. Because the governor says he's going to give them driver's licenses, and Illinois has never seen a piece of legislation for illegal aliens they didn't like.

[wayfriend]

Sarge, states have to work within the system, not defy the system. There are other means of solving the problem than preempting the Constitution.

SB: States strive to attract businesses to their state. "We have the most workers willing to work cheap and under the table!" doesn't surprise me. Basically, they're trying to compete with California.

[emotional leper]

And as long as it doesn't cross the line into immigration control, there's no issue there, I don't think.

what of the feds refusal to solve the problem? should the states pretend that the problem doesn't exist?

If the feds refuse to solve a problem, then that must mean they don't think it's a problem, which, therefore, makes it something that the States shouldn't worry about.

[SoulBiter]

Ahahahahahahahahahahah

If a neighboring country invades via an armed invasion and the feds dont send in the army then the states being invaded should just sit on their collective asses? Is that what Im hearing?

[Rawedge Rim]

Let me get this straight, 'cause I'm having some problems assimilating this:

It is illegal in all 50 states to enter into the USA without permission and proper documentation, regardless of economic or political hardship (exception is Cuba, and only then if they set foot on American Soil).

So if a municipality, county, state, or region decides to actively enforce immigration law, the courts then shoot this effort down as illegal?

Furthermore, since by Federal Law, every state within the USA is required to recognise a drivers license issued by another state to be as legal as that states, we have in effect allowed Illinois and New York, and California to hamstring law enforcement.

"scuse me Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do"

[sgt.null]

Sarge, states have to work within the system, not defy the system. There are other means of solving the problem than preempting the Constitution.

SB: States strive to attract businesses to their state. "We have the most workers willing to work cheap and under the table!" doesn't surprise me. Basically, they're trying to compete with California.

i will echo rawedge here...

let me get this straight. we are talking about illegal immigrants. the feds refuse to enforce the law because the federal goverment has become the lap dog of big business. states that want to enforce the laws on the books can't bacause it is up to the feds to enforce those laws. which the feds won't do.

so in fact by following the laws handed to them, the states would be breaking the law?

[Avatar]

I think (I think) that's the issue. Illegals' advocacy groups are calling these measures de facto immigration control.

They are de facto immigration control. And they're being used as it. But by the letter of the law, they're perfectly within their rights. Very sneaky. I'd like it, except it's not working.

The state has the right to decide who gets a drivers license. The fact that their conditions just happen to make it impossible for illegals to do so is technically niether here nor there. "Unintended consequence."

But by forbidding them, the government is put in a positon where it has to trample state rights. Or make a mockery of them. Or whatever.

--A

[sgt.null]

fence, fence, fence...

and screw the federal goverment. they show time and time that they care little for anything that is not revenue.

[Cail]

I think (I think) that's the issue. Illegals' advocacy groups are calling these measures de facto immigration control.

They are de facto immigration control. And they're being used as it. But by the letter of the law, they're perfectly within their rights. Very sneaky. I'd like it, except it's not working.

The state has the right to decide who gets a drivers license. The fact that their conditions just happen to make it impossible for illegals to do so is technically niether here nor there. "Unintended consequence."

But by forbidding them, the government is put in a positon where it has to trample state rights. Or make a mockery of them. Or whatever.

Why does the government have to trample states' rights?

Look, the argument has been made (and I agree with it) that one of the best ways of stemming the tide is to remove the incentives for crossing the border illegally. If you advocate punishing businesses for hiring illegals, why wouldn't you be for restricting drivers licenses and other incentives? If you don't, you're sticking your finger in the dike while ignoring where the tree came crashing through it.

[Avatar]

Oh, I'm not against it per se. I'm just pointing out that what they're doing is immigration control. They just can't 'fess up to it.

--A

[Cail]

What they're doing is their job; protecting their constituents.

[iQuestor]

Look, the argument has been made (and I agree with it) that one of the best ways of stemming the tide is to remove the incentives for crossing the border illegally. If you advocate punishing businesses for hiring illegals, why wouldn't you be for restricting drivers licenses and other incentives? If you don't, you're sticking your finger in the dike while ignoring where the tree came crashing through it.

absolutely -- why build a fence and beef up patrol to keep people out? isnt it easier, more cost effective and more efficient to take away the incentive to come -- ie, sure jobs, access to welfare, medical care, and making your baby a citizen?

Go after businesses and private citizens who hire illegals -- they are easier to find because they don't move around. Fine 'em $1000 per illegal per day worked. If theirs is a business that cant get by without cheap cheap 'undocumented' labor, then they need to change their business model, even if it costs the consumers more. We'd get our money back on the relief in our tax dollars that go to support non citizens.

[Avatar]

What they're doing is their job; protecting their constituents.

Because everybody knows those pesky aliens can't drive properly.

Seriously though, I sorta agree. I assume that legal aliens can get licenses?

--A

[emotional leper]

Yes.

[Avatar]

Then it's fine as far as I'm concerned. If you're not legally in a country, how can you be entitled to the benefits of its legal/whatever processes?

--A

[Cail]

That's the issue Av.

[wayfriend]

The answer lies in two things: non-citizens have rights and benefits in this, or any country; discrimination based on anything other than legal/illegal status is probably crossing the discrimination line, and discrimination based on legal/illegal status is outside of their jurisdiction. Is that three things?

There is also the argument that extending some rights and benefits protects the rest of the country. (Not saying I agree.) You don't want to deny medical treatent to someone with typhoid because he's illegal. Or, as they are saying in NY, granting drivers licenses to illegals keeps the roads safer for everyone.

However, what SHOULD be relatively unimportant grey areas in the law are being stretched into prominence because of the desire for cheap labor. When that happens, people will tend to blame the laws rather than blame the people who make cheap fruit possible.

[emotional leper]

Wayfriend, it's not discrimination. Being allowed to drive a car is not a RIGHT. It is a privellage. So many people forget that these days. And it is a privellage wholely dependant upon obeying the laws of the land. One of the requirements to be a licensed driver is that you enter the country legally. You don't have to be a citizen -- but you do have to obey the rules of the land. If you're going to ignore our rules for immigration, then why should we believe you will obey any of the other ones?

[Zahir]

Okay, I'll add my couple of pence.

A few thousand illegal aliens isn't much of a problem, not in terms of scale, anyway. Eleven million or more is--especially since they keep coming. Very many don't survive sneaking into this country. They know that. They come anyway.

Building and maintaining a three-thousand mile long Berlin Wall strikes me as unworkable. For one thing, the cost alone becomes a problem at least as big as that of illegal immigration--and I rather doubt will solve the original problem anyway. East Germany couldn't successfully maintain one of these in a single city. We're supposed to do it across the width of a continent? How?

Second, simply prosecuting every single illegal alien is also unworkable. There are just too many of them. Let us say we manage to prosecute/deport five million illegals. That is less than half. Assume we only spend an average of one thousand dollars each to do so (imo, a ridiculously low amount). We've just spent five billion dollars. And we've done nothing to address the source of the problem.

Prosecute everyone who hires illegal aliens. In the process we kick our economy in the crotch, really hard. That can't be a good idea, even if it were politically feasible (which it could easily not be, btw, because once voters start hurting due to such policies they're gonna complain at the ballot box).

So what is left?

Offer the most useful illegal aliens a means of earning amnesty. Go after the most problematic illegal aliens (who are running drugs, etc.) And institute some kind of Marshall Plan for Mexico--carefully targetted loans to improve the economy and stability of our nearest neighbor (which is overwhelmingly in our best interests anyway).

Oh, and stop subsidizing our corn growers so Mexico can compete.

And don't pretend this will make the problem go away overnight. Nothing will.

[wayfriend]

Wayfriend, it's not discrimination. Being allowed to drive a car is not a RIGHT. It is a privellage. So many people forget that these days. And it is a privellage wholely dependant upon obeying the laws of the land. One of the requirements to be a licensed driver is that you enter the country legally. You don't have to be a citizen -- but you do have to obey the rules of the land. If you're going to ignore our rules for immigration, then why should we believe you will obey any of the other ones?

Gosh, first of all, no one forgot. Second of all, no one said that was discrimintation. Third of all, it doesn't need to be a requirement that you enter the country legally if you don't want it to be. Fourth of all, despite your attempt to make it sound like people want to place laurels at the feet of illegal immigrants and strew rose petals across their way, that's just utter nonesense, and you can always spot someone who is out to be a nuisance factor by the fact that this is what they try to imply the other side wants to do. It's tiresome and its wrong and its a more than a bit insideous.

If you actually looked into the issue, you'd see that the proponents of the driver license thing are trying to make the roads safer. Because its actually a huge problem in road safety. Maybe they have a good assumption, maybe a stupid one. But here's the thing: no one's doing it to make life nice for illegals. They just don't believe that its worth going out of their way to make life hard for illegals at the expense of people dying.