Stopping ILLEGAL immigration... what would be YOUR plan?

[SpaceMonkeyMC]

Just a quick cite to some comments as to the application of the constitution that does not apply

So you seek to prove yourself wrong? Read the passage. Good lord, man.

"Finally, Verdugo-Urquidez found unpersuasive cases cited by the defendant in which aliens were recognized as enjoying certain constitutional rights. The Court found that these cases "establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country." n33 For instance, [**16] Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding n34 held that "the Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders." n35 Holdings such as these could not help Verdugo-Urquidez because he was "an alien who has had no previous significant voluntary connections with the United States." n36"

 

[CheshireVal]

Chesire, i think there is a difference in pulling 11 million or more people up and out of society, and sending them back to nothing. Especially when we have allowed them and encouraged their immigration for so long. It does not matter if they are legal or illegal. Our inaction is enough for me to say that they are invited in.

In the future, allow all people who want to come come, subject to health concerns, support concerns, etc.

But what about those support concerns? As it stands now, you have to be able to show some sort of financial support to immigrate here (either through marriage or work). I had to promise that I would be financially responsible for my DH for 10 years, even if we divorce. So how would your plan really be any different? Are you advocating keeping the application procedures the same but getting rid of the paperwork fees?

 

[FreshTressa]

From today's Chicago Tribune..........

Hehe, thanks for that, Dan!

 

[dennis99ss]

Oh I see, you mean to imply that the constitution does apply to non-us citizens? Thats certainly interesting. Granted there are cases of non-citizens being given constitutional protections in the form of judicial process, but that is a method of judicial integrity and does not mean that the rights given by the Constitution are extended to non-citizens.

I don't imply it at all. It is so. In what other way are constitutional protections upheld and enforced but in a judicial arena? It is not a question of judical integrity, it is a question of judicial interpretation, which of course, the judiciary has had since Marbury. The judiciary is responsible for the inmterpretation of the constitution. Their interpretation is that the protections of the constitution do apply to illegal aliens, subject, of course to exceptions and the like. But, for you to say the constitution does not apply to them is flat out wrong.

I must say you lost me when you say protections are set out by the judiciary but that they really do not exist. I never heard of a person's right to enforce the constitution. It is the government's right to enforce it, usually at the prodding of the citizens, etc.

 

[dennis99ss]

establish only that aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country

The right afforded by the constitution are not limited to citizens or legal aliens. They are afforded to all who can show a substantial connection to the community. i.e. living here.

The case was dealing with an alien who was stopped at the border, without that connection. The second phrase you highlight is addressing the facts of the case, as is mentioned, but does not serve to alter the comments about community above.

If you do a bit of research, I believe (just from memory though) it was Chief Justice Rehnquist who actually wrote the meaning of "The People" as being the community, and not the status.

 

[SpaceMonkeyMC]

I don't imply it at all. It is so. In what other way are constitutional protections upheld and enforced but in a judicial arena? It is not a question of judical integrity, it is a question of judicial interpretation, which of course, the judiciary has had since Marbury. The judiciary is responsible for the inmterpretation of the constitution. Their interpretation is that the protections of the constitution do apply to illegal aliens, subject, of course to exceptions and the like. But, for you to say the constitution does not apply to them is flat out wrong.

I must say you lost me when you say protections are set out by the judiciary but that they really do not exist. I never heard of a person's right to enforce the constitution. It is the government's right to enforce it, usually at the prodding of the citizens, etc.

It is not so. Look to your own passage which I bolded for you. I may have no stated it clearly enough. Constitutional protections are given to non-citizens when on trial in a judical form....IE due process, etc etc. However, the rights guaranteed citizens by the constitution are not extended to non-citizens. otherwise they would be allowed to legally vote, hold office, etc, etc.

You're right though in terms of interpretation. Some people interpret the constitution to apply to more people than others. Fortunately a lot of those people are correctly overruled by judicial precedent (see the passage you cited).

 

[FreshTressa]

Nowhere in my plan do I promote a fence...

Nor do I promote deporting people that are currently here...(except those that commit crimes)

I like immigration...it is good for the country. It just needs to be less geographically concentrated. Never before has our country had such a large number of illegal immigrants from one country that settled in limited geographic areas and are not assimilating after second generation.

And while I do care about the human beings that suffer in Mexico, my greater devotion is to the success of the United States. I don't want the country suffering because of a problem with illegals.

It also needs to be regulated and to be done legally.

The way it is now...it encourages people to behave illegally because it is easier to live here in some ways as an illegal than as a legal.

Here is a link to an article by Samuel Huntington http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.12114/article_detail.asp

He has been accused of being racist in this article, and I can see that, and I don't totally agree with him...but he makes some valid points.

I also worry that allowing unregulated illegal immigration to continue will increase racism and ill feelings towards Mexicans/Latinos.

 

[SpaceMonkeyMC]

Simply living here is usually not going to be held as a "substantial" connection. You would need to prove a lengthy time of living here, financial involvment in the community and or its businesses, and often times citizenship. Occasionally an illegal will be given protections, but it is not a sure thing. You will have to meet a lot of burdens to get it.

So no, constitutional protection is no flat out given to non-citizens just because they are within US Borders.

 

[dennis99ss]

You have absolutely no idea what you are saying. The initial issue based on your comments, was that the constitution did not apply to illegal aliens. The constitution does apply to illegal aliens. Are there things that only apply to citizens, sure. But that does not mean the constitution does not apply to them.

Plus, I would slow down a bit on qouting the citation I posted until you actually read it again.

 

[dennis99ss]

The distinction between an alien who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never entered runs throughout immigration law. It is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of the United States' geographic borders. But once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all "persons" within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence in the United States is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Whereas an alien within the country is entitled to the protection of the Due Process Clause, whatever process Congress has authorized will satisfy the Constitution with respect to an alien requesting admission.

 

[dennis99ss]

A fundamental distinction "runs throughout immigration law": "the distinction between an alien who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never entered." Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001); see also Barrera-Echavarria v. Rison, 44 F.3d 1441, 1448 (9th Cir. 1995) (en banc) ("The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that our immigration laws have long made a distinction [**8] between those aliens who have come to our shores seeking admission and those who are within [*1098] the United States after an entry, irrespective of its legality." (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citations omitted)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Guo XI v. INS, 298 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2002). This distinction is significant. HN7Aliens "standing on the threshold of entry" are "not entitled to the constitutional protections provided to those within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Ma v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693 ("It is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders.").

 

[Papa Deuce]

Why couldn't it be? Free for those who are here legally! Those who are considering coming here illegally? Shot on sight.

Open the gates to those in Africa who are trying to come here the legal way, the way Italians came through Ellis Island.

And I thought I was rough....

 

[FreshTressa]

Well...it would put a stop to illegal immigration, if that is your goal.

 

[Patch'sD]

Illegal immigration is no big deal. Tell that to my daughter who can't walk into town since she will have to walk through at least three groups of day laborers. Can't use the local park since it is used by the same people as a public toilet.

If you don't have a job then no access to the country. Have proof of employment with Tax Information, get A green card. Anyone caught hiring or renting to an Illegal Immigrant gets fined which is equal to the cost of sending them back to their home country.

 

[momof2inPA]

In an ideal world we would close the border, send back all the illegals and their children, and imprison the employers who gave them jobs. We have let this problem get so out of hand, that this isn't possible.

So, first we should seal the border and stop the flow of illegals, period, once and for all. Then, we should have a lottery where 5.5 million get to stay (that would be half of the estimated illegals here) and become instant citizens, but not have the ability to apply for welfare, medicaid, government housing or any other poor folk programs for 5-10 years. The remaining people would have to return to their countries and could apply for U.S. citizenship every year, where we would grant citizenship to a number of those. If those that didn't win the citizenship lottery didn't leave our country, they would be inelligible for U.S. citizenship. No one would be allowed to enter the U.S. without a proper travel visa, pending a hearing. The way it's done now, if you don't have the right documentation at the border, they schedule a hearing for you and let you in. They should keep you out until your hearing date. It only makes sense.

Employers and property owners should be immediately required to verify Social Security information of all current and prospective employees and renters against the already available government database. An employer hiring illegals would be guilty of a felony.

This is good for starters.

 

[Charade]

Especially when we have allowed them and encouraged their immigration for so long. It does not matter if they are legal or illegal. Our inaction is enough for me to say that they are invited in.

.

OMG! I can't believe you actually believe that nonsense.

Who's this "we" you speak of? I certainly didn't allow it. Did you?

 

[dennis99ss]

what have you done to stop it? Have you campaigned or made sure your elected officials did anything? Have you made this issue was out in front of every meeting you went to, etc.

 

[momof2inPA]

We shouldn't have to demand and that laws be enforced, but unfortunately you often have to. This includes labor laws, OSHA laws, etc. It doesn't mean the laws are bad and that it is o.k. to violate the laws or that violating those laws best serves our citizens, it just means the politicians have found it to their advantage to look the other way.

 

[Charade]

what have you done to stop it? Have you campaigned or made sure your elected officials did anything? Have you made this issue was out in front of every meeting you went to, etc.

Yes, I have. I've contacted my representatives expressing my concerns.

But I'm not at it 24/7.

So in essense, if I leave my front door unlocked and wide open and someone comes in and helps themselves to my TV, computers and whatever suites thier fancy, I'm somehow at fault because I didn't lock my front door? I encouraged the thief to take my stuff? Is that what you're implying by the argument you've made about our supposed inaction? Perhaps you should contact the border patrol and let them know that their inaction has caused this problem.

 

[SpaceMonkeyMC]

A fundamental distinction "runs throughout immigration law": "the distinction between an alien who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never entered." ........ ("It is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders.").

Isn't this just you agreeing with me that protections related to judicial procedure (due process, etc) are recognized, where as others aren't?

And on the flip side of the coin, isn't that me agreeing with you that the constitution does apply to non-citizens, albeit to a very small extent?

Good. I thought so, too.

Further, your paragraph that you say I should read more closely specificaly states protections are only given in cases of "substantial connections", and even more importantly "But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution"

If you lawfully enter and reside in the US then you're most likely a citizen and definately NOT an illegal immigrant. You seem to have a lot of legal research available to you, so can you help facilitate this duscussion and find precedent for "substantial connections"? That'd be a neat thing to know.

This topic is also merely one of the many subjects that have been broached.