Deportation without chance to plead case in court

[SensualMale]

...

I am so glad that the borders will NEVER be opened to the illegals ...

The borders are NEVER open. If they are, then there aren't any illegals

 

[Guest]

Going along with the first article in this thread....

I guess Bent won't be too pleased to know that this isn't going to be focusing on Mexicans (presumably).

So... abuse of authority anyone? If agents working in AIRPORTS are mistreating those who come seeking asylum, and do things like fail to provide translators, or humiliate them and make racial slurs, or cuff and chain them, then I can only wonder what will happen along our borders once the border patrol agents are entrusted with much more power while the people have no one to review their cases. So far, there doesn't seem to be any news of plans/procedures that would act as a safe guard against patrol agents' abuse of authority. Can you imagine having one giant jackass of a patrol agent, or perhaps a highly racist patrol agent who beats up people, or who deports because he doesn't like how someone looks, etc? It could easily happen without anything in place to prevent that. Just imagine someone with Bent's attitude (a proponent of shooting foreigners) working in that position without anyone monitoring her, just as one example.

U.N. Report Cites Harassment at American Airports of Asylum Seekers

August 13, 2004
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Aug. 12 - A confidential report conducted by the United Nations in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security has found that airport inspectors with the power to summarily deport illegal immigrants have sometimes intimidated and handcuffed travelers fleeing persecution, discouraged some from seeking political asylum and often lacked an understanding of asylum law.

Homeland Security officials say they have responded to the problems identified in the report, which was completed late last year and obtained this week by The New York Times. But the study highlights the challenges facing the department as it grants Border Patrol agents sweeping new powers to deport illegal immigrants from the borders with Mexico and Canada without providing them the opportunity to make their case before an immigration judge.

Until now, Border Patrol agents typically delivered illegal immigrants to the custody of the immigration courts, where judges determined whether they should be deported or remain in the United States. Homeland Security officials, who announced the policy shift this week, said border agents would be trained before deporting illegal immigrants to ensure that asylum seekers and legitimate travelers were not mistakenly sent home.

In its report, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees commended the department for working to safeguard people fleeing persecution, noting that most airport inspectors properly identified asylum seekers and correctly referred them for further interviews to ensure that their cases would be heard by an immigration judge. But the United Nations noted that problems remained at American airports - where summary deportations have occurred since 1997 - even after inspectors received training about the importance of protecting asylum seekers.

The report found that inspectors at airports often failed to provide certified translators for asylum seekers who did not speak English, improperly notified consulates about the identity and detention of immigrants seeking asylum, and in 14 cases mistakenly concluded that travelers who expressed a credible fear of persecution were not entitled to apply for asylum.

Joung-ah Ghedini, a spokeswoman for the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, expressed concern about the expansion of summary deportations to the nation's borders. Ms. Ghedini said the United Nations wanted to know more about the training of border agents to ensure that asylum seekers were protected.

"What we're concerned about is that we don't know many of the details of what will happen when the expansion of expedited removal is implemented at the borders,'' said Ms. Ghedini, who declined to discuss the details of the report.

Commissioner Robert C. Bonner, who heads the customs and border protection unit at the Department of Homeland Security, said the training for Border Patrol agents would protect asylum seekers, who are entitled to have their cases reviewed by an immigration judge if they express a credible fear of persecution.

Mr. Bonner said the training curriculum had been approved by the department's civil rights office and would begin next week in Tucson and the following week in Laredo, Tex., the first places along the border where summary deportations are expected to begin. Supervisors will receive two days of training and Border Patrol agents will each typically receive a one-day, eight-hour training session over the next few weeks, officials said.

"We want to make sure we roll this out and do this right and appropriately,'' Mr. Bonner said in an interview. "It's our responsibility to make sure that there's adequate training, including any refresher training that might be necessary, so that persons that do potentially have asylum claims are appropriately referred. It's certainly something we take very seriously.''

In conducting its study, United Nations officials reviewed more than 300 case files; interviewed dozens of inspectors, supervisors and asylum officers; and sat in on more than 100 interviews with asylum seekers at airports in New York, Newark, Miami and Los Angeles.

The Department of Homeland Security granted the United Nations access to internal documents, staff members and asylum seekers on the condition that the report NOT be released to the public after it was completed in late October. The study was provided to The New York Times by a person unaffiliated with the United Nations who was concerned about the government's plan to expand summary deportations to the country's land borders.

In its report, the United Nations discovered that many inspectors held negative views of asylum seekers, viewing them as frauds trying to enter the United States under false pretenses. Such attitudes, the report concluded, resulted in instances where inspectors intimidated asylum seekers or treated them with derision.

At Kennedy International Airport in New York, asylum seekers were routinely handcuffed and restrained with belly chains and leg restraints. In one instance there, a Liberian asylum seeker was ordered to strip naked to determine whether he had scars consistent with torture. The inspectors then allegedly ridiculed him, using racial and sexual taunts.

"With regard to treatment of asylum-seekers, the overuse of restraints, such as at J.F.K., and the frequency of negative, and at times hostile, attitudes towards asylum-seekers is of significant concern,'' the report said.

The study also described two instances in which inspectors encouraged asylum seekers not to pursue asylum claims. "These incidents, even if isolated, are extremely troubling given the risks of returning someone to a country of possible persecution,'' it said.

Ms. Ghedini said Homeland Security officials had addressed some issues in the report, including making efforts to improve training. "Generally speaking, we have seen positive cooperation and collaboration,'' she said. But she said some problems remained and were the subject of continuing discussions. She said her agency had also requested a meeting with the department to discuss the plan to expand summary deportations - a process known as expedited removal - to the land borders.

Under the new policy, border agents will summarily deport illegal immigrants caught within 100 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders who have spent up to 14 days within the United States.

Officials said the agents would not focus on deporting Mexicans and Canadians, who will still, for the most part, have their cases heard in immigration court. The agents will concentrate instead on immigrants from other countries. Senior officials said they planned to evaluate the process in Tucson and Laredo before expanding it to other sections of the border.

 

[Bent]

Nope. A lot of you all are narrowing it down to that, based on your past and present opinion of her

You are VERY incorrect on that part. I actually liked Xtabaay, up until now. She is behaving like LT at this point. Stick to the issues or don't discuss things with me. Period. I and several others have tried discussing this with her. She has no intention whatsoever to even try to comprehend what I'm saying, or in fact what others have said...we are either racists or money brubbing murderers. Forget it, she's a moron at this point. Pretty sad too because she was actually posting some intelligent stuff back there, now it's all lost in her stupidity. *shrug*

As for Afghanistan, again, we are discussing Mexico...don't try to bring anyone into the mix because you and I both know, those are two completely separate issues.

She believes that Mexicans are the end all be all for the States, then again, for the thousandth time...she can go live over there.

The borders are open to those that choose to come over legally...to say 'let everyone through', would be opening the doors to those that have been coming over illegally.

In any case, I'm done with this argument, because as I said, I don't discuss things with people who behave like tempermental children, so you have yourself a good day.

 

[Don K Dyck]

In any case, I'm done with this argument, because as I said, I don't discuss things with people who behave like tempermental children, so you have yourself a good day.

Uhmmmmm . . . this sounds like "I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home because you won't let me win the argument".

Maybe Owera would do better to bang her head against a brick wall . . .

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Owera lost her arguement the moment she started ranting about the corporate boogeymen.

 

[Guest]

Uhmmmmm . . . this sounds like "I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home because you won't let me win the argument".

Maybe Owera would do better to bang her head against a brick wall . . .

Yeah... probably. But when people remain silent about this sort of thing then it opens more doors for it getting worse.

Staying silent makes it easier for certain groups to violate and exploit others.
I'll never go silent

It's just too bad that Bent keeps ignoring all the ways that illegal migrants benefit the U.S. I noticed that she repeatedly refuses to acknowledge any of that. She'd rather just open fire on people.

 

[Guest]

Owera lost her arguement the moment she started ranting about the corporate boogeymen.

So you don't think that produce companies knowingly hire thousands of illegal workers???? I'd go check on that, if I were you.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

So you don't think that produce companies knowingly hire thousands of illegal workers???? I'd go check on that, if I were you.

Oh I know they do but unlike you I also have a belief that people are responsible for their own actions. You'd rather just pass off the illegals coming here as some sort of pressure put on them by there big bad corporations instead of putting an equal share of blame on them for knowingly breaking and evading the law by coming into this country illegally.

Just as you say that the illegals are forced to come here for various reasons makes it excusable to do so illegally others are just as valid to overlook the produce companies taking advantage of cheap undocumented laborors because they are doing what is in their (the corporation's and shareholder's) best interests financially.

I gave a pretty viable solution to both problems on the previous page but you chose to overlook it because it didn't fit into your preconceived notions that it is only the corporations and the evil capitalistic societies fault for the illegal immigration problem. Instead your solution is to just open the borders up more making it easier for any Juan, Jose' and Jorge to pretty much automatically be allowed access into our country. As if this is some magical solution and would stop even half of the people who enter illegally from doing so.

 

[rjohns86us]

They have a choice...they can come here legally, or stay at home...there are requirements for entering the country legally, and if you don't meet them, don't enter....how hard is that to understand?

You cannot "make a choice not to use" legal ways to come here when you HAVE NO MEANS to use those legal ways.

That's like saying you have a choice to be admitted to the all white country club, but yet you really don't, because you happen to be black and poor.

The choice only exists if it is POSSIBLE. For the majority of migrant workers, it is not possible for them to furnish all the required elements in order to have visa applications approved.

 

[Guest]

Oh I know they do but unlike you I also have a belief that people are responsible for their own actions. You'd rather just pass off the illegals coming here as some sort of pressure put on them by there big bad corporations instead of putting an equal share of blame on them for knowingly breaking and evading the law by coming into this country illegally.

Just as you say that the illegals are forced to come here for various reasons makes it excusable to do so illegally others are just as valid to overlook the produce companies taking advantage of cheap undocumented laborors because they are doing what is in their (the corporation's and shareholder's) best interests financially.

I gave a pretty viable solution to both problems on the previous page but you chose to overlook it because it didn't fit into your preconceived notions that it is only the corporations and the evil capitalistic societies fault for the illegal immigration problem. Instead your solution is to just open the borders up more making it easier for any Juan, Jose' and Jorge to pretty much automatically be allowed access into our country. As if this is some magical solution and would stop even half of the people who enter illegally from doing so.

I read your suggested solution. And in case you didn't notice, I had also suggested that companies provide work visas to people before those people cross into the U.S. I suggested that more than once, and prior to that post of yours. So I wholeheartedly agree with that as being part of solution. What I find interesting is that it would be pretty easy for businesses to do that, since they send contractors all the way to the border. All they have to do is cross over it. But they purposefully don't. It wouldn't be hard to do. They wouldn't even need any special permission to do it. So of course there is a reason WHY they don't do it. And yet they still want the workers.

Um... hate to tell you this, but it IS capitalism that is causing illegal immigration here. Do you think people cross the border illegally for vacation or something? They come here to work, so that they can make money. What would you call that?
And why do you think things are so shitty for them in Mexico? Do you have any idea what the President of Mexico has been doing to rural people? And do you know how much of that has to do with deals he's made with U.S. businesses? It's all interconnected.

I don't blame poor people for being poor--especially when they're working so hard just to survive that they're willing to go to another country, whose culture, language, and way of life they know little to nothing about, and are willing to work under horrible conditions after risking their lives on the journey here. And then to live in constant fear while here... that takes an incredible amount of fortitude. If they could go to Guatemala, or stay in Mexico, or go to Beliz or wherever else to get employment I'm sure they would. But that's not viable for them. In fact, many Mexican migrant men I've talked to have told me they spent many months traveling all around the different states of Mexico doing agricultural labor, road construction, and anything else they could find and still couldn't make ends meet. But they tried that first anyway because they really didn't want to take the risk of coming to the U.S. unless they absolutely had to. Many of them expressed that coming here was a last resort.

We want the workers. The workers want the jobs. Why not make the workers legal while they are working here? So yes, I agree with that part of your solution, and I've already stated that a few times. It just seems like the logical thing to do. But sadly it's unlikely to happen because of the reasons I've stated in prior posts on this thread.

But getting back to the new procedures which give border patrol guards more power, and people picked up by them less power, I'm wondering how that is going to help anything. Seriously, what is the main purpose of doing that? What is it going to change? Does the gov't really think it's going to catch any terrorists that way? It's unlikely. Does it think it will catch any more illegal people than it already does? I doubt it--since it's only the procedure that has changed, without any sort of increase in patrolling. So what purpose could this possibly serve? I think that is the thing we shoudl be wondering about.

I don't see how it could lead to any sort of better protection for our country. That wouldn't make sense. I don't see how it benefits asylum seekers, residents, citizens, or illegal people. In fact, it will likely work to the detriment of all those groups. I don't see it making things easier or more beneficial for anyone except maybe judges (who will have less cases to review), jails (who will have less people with immigration cases pending to hold), and Homeland Security personel, who will have less paperwork to deal with--and that's not even certain. So.... what is the real purpose of doing this? What does it actually do? Think about this one.

 

[Guest]

They have a choice...they can come here legally, or stay at home...there are requirements for entering the country legally, and if you don't meet them, don't enter....how hard is that to understand?

How hard is it for you to understand that they do NOT have a choice when the way to gain legal entry is made impossible for the vast majority of them due to requirements that they can never meet?

I suppose if you were starving to death and someone said, "Hey, you can definitely get a job in Canada that will pay enough to feed you and your family, but you don't have any of the required articles to enter Canada legally so you'll have to come against the law" that you would just say, "Sorry. Can't break the law that way. I will just sit at home and watch me and my kids starve to death." ? Would you really do that? Do you think people would really do that?

 

[LadyG]

They have a choice...they can come here legally, or stay at home...there are requirements for entering the country legally, and if you don't meet them, don't enter....how hard is that to understand?

Bingo.

Again.

 

[Guest]

Bingo.

Again.

It's not that simple. But that's okay. Just keep ignoring my responses to why it doesn't (and can't) work that easily.

 

[Guest]

Some people seem to be under the impression that the U.S. is some sort of exclusive country club. It's not. In fact, the whole fucking country was established and augmented by people from other places (lest you all forget, in your zeal to be greedy and self-righteous little bastards).

 

[LadyG]

It's not that simple. But that's okay. Just keep ignoring my responses to why it doesn't (and can't) work that easily.

So just take all the laws and say fuck it, is that what you want?

Give it a rest already.

 

[Guest]

So just take all the laws and say fuck it, is that what you want?

Give it a rest already.

If you read my posts you'll know that's NOT what I want. I asked HOW this change of procedure could benefit anyone, and WHY this change of procedure was put into the works in the first place. I said it seems to be a change that will be much more detrimental to citizens, residents, illegal people and asylum seekers alike than good. So why have a change of procedure that will cause more harm than good?

If you don't want to hear me argue about this then you don't have to stick around on this thread.

I think it's important that we, as citizens, pay attention to procedural and legal changes of our country. If we see something that looks destructive, counterproductive, or just plain fucking bad then I think we ought to challenge it, and ask ourselves why it's being done in the first place. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you prefer to be of blind faith?

 

[LadyG]

In all the time you've spent posting about what you'd do and what you'd like, you could have been trying to do something about it, no?

I think 99% of everyone that's posted on this thread has said the same thing.

There are laws. They have to follow them. Simple.

No one else seems extremely bothered by the fact that illegals are being deported or held for deportation.

Could it be...because there are laws about it?

 

[Guest]

In all the time you've spent posting about what you'd do and what you'd like, you could have been trying to do something about it, no?

I think 99% of everyone that's posted on this thread has said the same thing.

There are laws. They have to follow them. Simple.

No one else seems extremely bothered by the fact that illegals are being deported or held for deportation.

Could it be...because there are laws about it?

Lots of people are extremely bothered by immigration laws-- ESPECIALLY many of the post 9/11 laws.

You just don't happen to be one of them.

Yeah, laws are supposed to be followed. But if they're bad laws?????
You seem to be of the opinion that all laws are unquestionably good. Ever bother to wonder what they're for, what they do, if they work, and who they work for?

What makes you think I'm not doing something about it????

You really have no idea the kind of stuff I've been doing and continue to do about it. But that's okay because it would probably just irritate you.


Again, if you don't like reading about this no one is forcing you to check this thread.

 

[LadyG]

I like reading it and seeing you post the same thing over and over, expecting us to see YOUR point, when you refuse to see anyone else's.

Anyhow, carry on, have a wonderful day!

 

[SensualMale]

You are VERY incorrect on that part. I actually liked Xtabaay, up until now.

...

As for Afghanistan, again, we are discussing Mexico...don't try to bring anyone into the mix because you and I both know, those are two completely separate issues.

She believes that Mexicans are the end all be all for the States, then again, for the thousandth time...she can go live over there.

...

It doesn't matter whether you like her or not. You are still narrowing it down to allowing Mexicans into the US! That's not the point of this new law, is it?

I know the issues of Mexican immigrants and terrorists are different. I've lived in places where terrorist threats are N-fold compared to the Orange alerts here; so I should be able to tell the difference. You didn't answer my other question re: defending the country? You did mean terrorists, didn't you? That's where Afghanistan and the US fuckup comes in. Also, re-read the first line of the first article on this thread - "Citing concerns about terrorists crossing the nation's borders ...". What are you talking about?

Thread title: Deportation without chance to plead case in court

Article title in the first post: U.S. to Give Border Patrol Agents the Power to Deport Illegal Aliens

What has arguing with a law got to do with living in Mexico or even Mexico itself? Doesn't the law apply to immigrants from all nations? You're narrowing it down to Mexicans again, starting with your first few posts on this thread. That's what I would call mixing up things, apart from having a very narrow perspective, just 'cause your SO had trouble getting his papers in good time.

Thanks, the day was not too bad I'm looking forward to the weekend.

 

[SensualMale]

Some people seem to be under the impression that the U.S. is some sort of exclusive country club. It's not. In fact, the whole fucking country was established and augmented by people from other places (lest you all forget, in your zeal to be greedy and self-righteous little bastards).

 

[Don K Dyck]

So you don't think that produce companies knowingly hire thousands of illegal workers???? I'd go check on that, if I were you.

WHY PR CHINA DOES NOT HAVE AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM

Economic development requires a large unskilled workforce willing to slave away for a pittance in the hope of achieving the American dream of luxury goods and fabulous lifestyle. In real life this dream is rarely fulfilled, and most people settle for much less.

The difficulty of the American Dream, taken over several generations, is that each parent generation works to improve the opportunities for their chlidren. So, after two or three generations there is a family expectation that having worked hard, the grandkids will all be corporate executives living off the fat of everybody else's sweated labour. In real life this rarely happens because the establishment keeps its wealth within itself, and rarely lets opportunities flow elsewhere in society.

Now how does this relate to economics?

Well, the growth of American manufacturing capacity required the importing of cheap labour, firstly, from Europe; secondly from the western hemisphere; thirdly from anywhere else.

Until 1922 the were unrestricted opportunities for these foreign workers, then immigration quotas were introduced. American industry then had to rely on rural America to provide cheap labour, which it did until about the 60s. Read John Steinbeck's accounts of how American farmers screwed itinerant American workers, or the history of such great projects as the Hoover Dam to see how workers were never considered as important as the bosses.

However, throughout the 20th century there had always been movement of foreign workers across the borders, both Mexico and Canada. A blind eye was turned to this because American agriculture was able to pay slave wages and WASP farmers were able to benefit economically.

So, American industry requires cheap labour but American school leavers have been educated to expect better than their parents and refuse to accept the slave pay rates. American industry has a problem.

The population of America is about 280 million, mainly educated people usually with high expectations in life. There are insufficient American workers willing to carry capitalism on their labour. The world markets are expanding, so profits are being lost for want of cheap slave labour.

The answer is:-- allow illegal immigrants from Western hemisphere countries where the economy has been depressed by decades of intervention by American corporations (often with military backing and CIA interference) to be that source of cheap labour, then use the immigration laws to control them.

Thus the cheap labour pool expands from continental America to about a billion potential wage slaves from economically depressed Western hemisphere countries.

If that doesn't work, then abandon the idea of the nation state and pride in your birthplace. Take the manufacturing factories to the Asian countries where unsafe working conditions and slave labour wage rates are the norm. The profits from these foreign enterprises will flow back to NY and other capitals labelled as "American profiits" to disguise the fact that working class jobs are being lost from continental America, and the national economy is in chaos because America has become a net borrower in world banking.

In PR China, one of the major beneficiaries of this American "exploitation" of Asian labour pools, there is an almost unlimited supply of very poor rural workers prepared to move to the cities and factories to seek the Lifestyle Dream.

It is estimated that there are over 800 million very poor rural workers in China who are available to move voluntarily into the cities and factories to provide the cheap slave pay rate labour required to let the bosses live off the sweat and backs of the workers.

Note the size of this labour pool, over 800 million or about three times the size of the whole American population.

Now with capitalism, today's poor cheap labour worker becomes tomorrow's market purchaser of goods. So, the size of the captive Chinese market is over 800 million, about three times the while population of America, and the Chinese government can exclude American goods at any time.

The future is PR China and also India, that multicultural Asian giant bursting at the seams with talented people and an almost unlimited workers pool eager to accept cheap slave pay rates.

The past was America, which showed the world how to optimise manufacturing. But America has been slipping since WWII and now is exporting working class jobs from continental America because Asian peasants will accept less money for doing the same work previously done by working class Americans.

Over 3.5 million jobs were exported to SE Asia between 2001- 2004, the years of the appointed Shrub regime in the White House.

Illegals from the Western hemisphere are required in fewer numbers, but continue to arrive believing that there are work opportunities available. Sadly, they become unemployed, visible and targets for racial hatred of narrow minded middle class American WASPs feeling threatened by anything that is different from themselves. <Ya gotta have hom-a-gen-a-iety . . . it makes people control much easier>

So the illegal workers seeking the American Dream too frequently find the American Nightmare because the bosses have exported the jobs to Asia. The jingoism of many posters here fails to recognise the reality of the shrinking manufacturing capacity of continental USA and the subsequent impact such shrinkage is having on the national economy.

And that is before the economic blood-letting that is the financial waste in Iraq.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

I read your suggested solution. And in case you didn't notice, I had also suggested that companies provide work visas to people before those people cross into the U.S. I suggested that more than once, and prior to that post of yours. So I wholeheartedly agree with that as being part of solution. What I find interesting is that it would be pretty easy for businesses to do that, since they send contractors all the way to the border. All they have to do is cross over it. But they purposefully don't. It wouldn't be hard to do. They wouldn't even need any special permission to do it. So of course there is a reason WHY they don't do it. And yet they still want the workers.

Um... hate to tell you this, but it IS capitalism that is causing illegal immigration here. Do you think people cross the border illegally for vacation or something? They come here to work, so that they can make money. What would you call that?
And why do you think things are so shitty for them in Mexico? Do you have any idea what the President of Mexico has been doing to rural people? And do you know how much of that has to do with deals he's made with U.S. businesses? It's all interconnected.

I don't blame poor people for being poor--especially when they're working so hard just to survive that they're willing to go to another country, whose culture, language, and way of life they know little to nothing about, and are willing to work under horrible conditions after risking their lives on the journey here. And then to live in constant fear while here... that takes an incredible amount of fortitude. If they could go to Guatemala, or stay in Mexico, or go to Beliz or wherever else to get employment I'm sure they would. But that's not viable for them. In fact, many Mexican migrant men I've talked to have told me they spent many months traveling all around the different states of Mexico doing agricultural labor, road construction, and anything else they could find and still couldn't make ends meet. But they tried that first anyway because they really didn't want to take the risk of coming to the U.S. unless they absolutely had to. Many of them expressed that coming here was a last resort.

We want the workers. The workers want the jobs. Why not make the workers legal while they are working here? So yes, I agree with that part of your solution, and I've already stated that a few times. It just seems like the logical thing to do. But sadly it's unlikely to happen because of the reasons I've stated in prior posts on this thread.

But getting back to the new procedures which give border patrol guards more power, and people picked up by them less power, I'm wondering how that is going to help anything. Seriously, what is the main purpose of doing that? What is it going to change? Does the gov't really think it's going to catch any terrorists that way? It's unlikely. Does it think it will catch any more illegal people than it already does? I doubt it--since it's only the procedure that has changed, without any sort of increase in patrolling. So what purpose could this possibly serve? I think that is the thing we shoudl be wondering about.

I don't see how it could lead to any sort of better protection for our country. That wouldn't make sense. I don't see how it benefits asylum seekers, residents, citizens, or illegal people. In fact, it will likely work to the detriment of all those groups. I don't see it making things easier or more beneficial for anyone except maybe judges (who will have less cases to review), jails (who will have less people with immigration cases pending to hold), and Homeland Security personel, who will have less paperwork to deal with--and that's not even certain. So.... what is the real purpose of doing this? What does it actually do? Think about this one.

Do you really think that illegal immigration would just stop because the companies go down and get people to work on legal visas and such? It would curtail the "official" lists of illegal immigrants per year but I have no doubt in my mind that those who still could not get work from the companies would still cross our borders illegally. Instead of closing off our borders and trying to persuade these people that crossing into our country illegally is a bad idea you and your type would rather make it easier for more people to come in and even help those illegally coming in by places water stops on well travelled routes so they can have a nice drink on their trek up.

And every country is like an "exclusive country club". There are set limits and laws regarding how many and whom can come into this country and it needs to be that way.

 

[SensualMale]

Uhmmmmm . . . this sounds like "I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home because you won't let me win the argument".

Maybe Owera would do better to bang her head against a brick wall . . .

Hey, you forgot the stumps and the mat. Ahem, wait. They can't play cricket here; too complex.

 

[rjohns86us]

What? You think you should just be able to ignore laws and do as you please? we are not talking about shoplifting, and business owners. We are talkng about law enforcement by sworn officers. Now take your shoplifting scenario and make it fit the circumstances of an illegal immigrant being caught by an INS agent..
A police officer has reason (in this case, the anti-theft sticker on the shoes....or the store pricing label still on shoes sold in that store) and after you can show no proof or purchase, arrests you...you would go to jail...and if you couldn't produce proof, you could well be convicted and spend some time in prison...not a likely scenario....but possible.

but in the case of the illegal immigrant, merely failing to carry the proper document or card with you is a violation of our laws...you don't need a judge and jury....send them back! This is not even remotely similar to a citizen being caught or suspected of committing a crime where they should have the benefit of a trial, and an attorney...

Those entering this country by any method other than the legal immigration process are not citizens...they are criminals the minute they cross that border...and we don't need more people in this country who have so little respect for our laws...

It's scarier than that. Not just judge and jury, but policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury all wrapped up in one poorly trained and relatively uneducated booth person.

If people like Lady G and RJohns86 think this is fine, I wonder if they would want to try this on for size: We will train business owners in commercial law. Then if they believe you owe them money and you don't have a credible complaint about their product, they can decide with no appeal to take the money you owe out of your bank account directly or sell your assets to get the money. No independent review.

Or how about this? We train store owners in shop lifting law. The following is a true story. You walk into the store wearing a pair of shoes you bought there last week. On the bottom of one of the shoes is the size tag glued on by the store. The store sees the size tag as you walk up some stairs and stops you for having shop lifted the shoes. They decide on their own that your story that you did not see the size tag pasted on the sole is not credible. And they decide that the soles of the shoes, although dirty, are only dirty enough to be consistent with walking around the store. That they did not see you take shoes or remove the price tags doesn't matter to them. They stop you, and arrest and take the $200 pair of shoes away.

In the real situation, the police came, they arrested the shoe wearer at the store's request, the shoes were impounded as evidence, and the alleged shoplifter was released the next day. He went home, and prepared his case by getting the purchase receipt for the shoes. He showed the receipt in court, and the case was dismissed. He got his shoes back the same day. He retained a lawyer to sue the department store for false arrest, and they settled, thereby compensating him for the damages the store caused.

In Bush's World, the store would be able to take the shoes on the spot, and then decide, without review, that you are guilty because they say so. They convict you, and sentence you on the spot to one year in jail for petit larceny. You have no chance to go home and get the receipt. The store owners decide that your claim to have a receipt is not credible for no partiuclar reason except they don't ever believe those they think are shoplifters.

IF you have someone at home to retrieve the receipt for you, and IF you have $5000 to hire a lawyer, you can perhaps start a court case on your own to allow you to be released from prison. But if you have no one at home to retrieve the receipt or you don't have the money for a lawyer to take a Writ of Habeas Corpus, you must sit in jail for the year. When you get out, the receipt is gone. In fact, the apartment you rented and all your belongings in it are gone. Even if you had the receipt, the store long ago disposed of the shoes so you could not match them to the receipt. You were held in jail for one year, with no appeal and no review on the say so of a store owner that was mistaken, and that ends it.

Lady G. would decide that is all not just fine but actually desirable. We need to stop shop lifters, she would argue, and therefore everyone should carry all the receipts for anything they wear or carry into any store at all times. She would see no problem. The fact that even if you carry all those receipts, the store could still invalidly decide that the receipt belonged to a different pair of shoes doesn't bother her one iota.

People like Lady G and RJohns86 are an object lesson in why police states and dictatorships are able to exist. Some people are simply not smart enough to prevent the taking of their own freedoms, and sometimes will, like Lady G and RJohns86, even argue in favor of the taking of those freedoms.

When the police officer is also the prosecutor, the finder of facts, and the person who metes out the sentence, that is, by definition, what is meant by the term "Police State."