Deportation without chance to plead case in court

[Guest]

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."

Yes, it most certainly is a police state. And it seems to be going more and more in that direction every day. I think the prevailing American attitude is "Fuck illegals--they don't have any rights", as if being illegal makes you non-human.

I like your examples of the dept. store. I think that's a pretty good way to explain it.

Editted to add: And it's scary that Americans don't see this increasing control and power as being dangerous when in fact, if allowed to continue, it will noticeably and actively impinge on American rights, too--although it's already starting to do so. See, for example, the attempt to violate freedom of assembly for protestors planning to be at the Republican convention.

 

[Guest]

*yawn*

Are you the energizer bunny??

http://www.adage.com/century/graphics/icon_bunny.jpg

Keep sniping. It weakens your argument.

 

[bg23]

And your views/opinions on Darwin and the application of laws of nature as they apply to society would be what?

I beleive in ensuring the basic needs are met of people in a society...what I don't believe in is in the taking from those who work harder/smarter/better/luckier (yes, chaos does have its place) to support those who don't. Key phrase up for debate is "basic needs". Less government is better. Regardless of which side of the political pendulum you reside.

Lets not resort to insults now, people. Keep those for the flame threads. Much more fun.

To throw the discussion in a completely different spin, I have a few points of my own to add. I do apologise if I bungle it up - this is written quite off the top of my head and I certainly cannot guarantee an ability to refute any arguments that might be made against what I say now. Anyway.

Who here believes that being born to privilege is fair? Eg - the case of a prince being born to riches and power, etc, without having had to work for it...in short, having nothing to do with it at all?

It seems to me that the concept of being born to privilege is a concept that is inherently unjust.

But then, take, for example, a world class athlete, who gains fame and fortune through his athletic talent and determination. Could it not be argued that this person, also, does not really deserve what he/she has, because he/she was born with the skill, the talent? How does being born to privilege differ from being born to intelligence, being born to determination, being born to athletic prowess?

But you can't be born to determination and strength of will, etc, you might say. This may certainly be true - but in any case, we develop these characteristics through adaptation of our environment, do we not? if not nature, it is most certainly nurture. And so once again, how one turns out is almost completely out of one's control.

In which case, in the same way that it is unfair for a prince to benefit from being born to princely power, it would be unfair for someone intelligent to benefit from being born to intelligence.

The moral of the story? No one's got anything to be proud, of really. We're all the product of someone else's choices...and as such, each and every single person is equal. This sense of superiourity that I can feel from a certain number of people seem wholely unwarranted... and the concept of "deserving" to live in a country or not appears quite invalid.

Now you may give me a crushing set down and chastise me for being ignorant and uninformed.

XXX
Ms. 23

 

[LadyG]

Let's make this simple:

There are laws regarding immigration and entry to the U.S.

Illegals are called Illegal because they break the said laws and enter the country without going through the proper channels, hence, their act is Illegal and they are punished.


How hard of a concept is that to grasp? Really?

 

[bg23]

Let's make this simple:

There are laws regarding immigration and entry to the U.S.

Illegals are called Illegal because they break the said laws and enter the country without going through the proper channels, hence, their act is Illegal and they are punished.


How hard of a concept is that to grasp? Really?

If something is not really your fault, should you be punished for it?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

If something is not really your fault, should you be punished for it?

So they just happened to what? Fall across the border on accident? Get dragged in at gunpoint?

 

[LadyG]

So they just happened to what? Fall across the border on accident? Get dragged in at gunpoint?

Apparently they are kidnapped, forced to illegally enter the country and forced to try and hide out

They really really don't want to do this, but they have no choice.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Apparently they are kidnapped, forced to illegally enter the country and forced to try and hide out

They really really don't want to do this, but they have no choice.

Must be so... and here I thought it was like spitting on the law of the country and then wrapping yourself in other laws to save their sorry ass.

 

[LadyG]

Must be so... and here I thought it was like spitting on the law of the country and then wrapping yourself in other laws to save their sorry ass.

Yeah, me too.

I guess we're just not up on how to commit illegal acts and justify them.

We need to study more!

 

[bg23]

Nahhhhhhhhhh...

Ever heard of the causal principle?

Determinism?

 

[SleepingWarrior]

I'm really hungry right now and have nothing good to eat. I think I'm just going to go break into my neighbors house and raid their refridgerator.

 

[LadyG]

I'm really hungry right now and have nothing good to eat. I think I'm just going to go break into my neighbors house and raid their refridgerator.

Yep and I need $, so instead of going to the bank and filling out a form to withdraw, I'll just walk into my neighbor's and take their money.

Then argue that I "NEED" it and it's my right to do so.

*nods*

 

[Guest]

Let's make this simple:

There are laws regarding immigration and entry to the U.S.

Illegals are called Illegal because they break the said laws and enter the country without going through the proper channels, hence, their act is Illegal and they are punished.


How hard of a concept is that to grasp? Really?

Let's make this clear:

The laws regarding treatment of illegal people are often broken, the U.S. makes money off of illegal migrants, the U.S. economy is dependent upon the cheap labor of illegal migrants, the U.S. uses illegal migrants as a source of gain, and THAT is why it won't give them access to work visas.

Simpifying:
1.The whole reason that there are borders is to exclude certain people and perpetuate inequality by laying claim to certain "resources". Borders make exploitation easier.

2. The U.S. hugely benefits off of its exploitation of illegal populations, and will therefore continue to keep those populations illegal for that reason.

3. Authorities often abuse their power and do things they aren't supposed to do. e.g. Cops have been known to beat the shit out of people for no justifiable reason. What makes you think border patrol, immigration personnel, etc don't also abuse their authority?

4. Taking away someone's right to have their case legally reviewed is dangerous because it sets the perfect stage for abuse of authority--whether the person in question is legal or illegal.

Summary:
Just because borders exist, and laws pertaining to those borders exist does not mean either of those things are just or good. Some laws exist or are manipulated for the purpose of exploitation and maintaining inequality. See for example U.S. history, in which for a long time one could not be a voting citizen unless one was white, male, and a property owner.

 

[bg23]

I don't think what you're referring to is what I'm referring to.

Unless the both of you are simply having a conversation about food?

Yup, that must be it.

 

[Guest]

So they just happened to what? Fall across the border on accident? Get dragged in at gunpoint?

As I've said in earlier posts on this thread, if they were able to come here legally they certainly would. It's safer that way. But the means for coming legally are not available to the majority of migrants, which is why they must come illegally. And when they take that risk it is because they are seeking employment for survival. It's not that they want to leave their country for employment. It's that they have to do so in order to survive. Most would prefer to stay home. So why not make temporary work visas available to such people? Answer: so that they can be exploited.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

As I've said in earlier posts on this thread, if they were able to come here legally they certainly would. It's safer that way. But the means for coming legally are not available to the majority of migrants, which is why they must come illegally. And when they take that risk it is because they are seeking employment for survival. It's not that they want to leave their country for employment. It's that they have to do so in order to survive. Most would prefer to stay home. So why not make temporary work visas available to such people? Answer: so that they can be exploited.

"Exploited" uh huh. If they would have come in legally they would have been protected under laws already in place. Its sad that they are too poor to afford to go through the process of coming in legally but that does not excuse the actions they take.

 

[Guest]

I should add to my above post that if you REALLY want them to stay out then you should look critically at the produce companies, which thrive on illegal labor, and think about ways to force them to hire U.S. workers. OF course, then you'd also have to make them enforce fair pay, safe working conditions, standard housing for workers in camps, etc. And you'd have to pay more for produce.

Illegal workers come here because they know they can get employment.

 

[LadyG]

Laws exist. Illegal immigrants break those laws. You can dress it up all you want, but the bottom line is..they are breaking the law and know they are.

 

[Guest]

"Exploited" uh huh. If they would have come in legally they would have been protected under laws already in place. Its sad that they are too poor to afford to go through the process of coming in legally but that does not excuse the actions they take.

Did you ever wonder WHY they come here? Do you think they come here just for the heck of it?

Do you think that the produce businesses are justified in making huge profits off of illegal workers? If the produce companies didn't break the laws (regarding hiring illegal workers) then people would have less incentive to come here. But hey, let's pin the blame on the illegal people.

That the gov't knows big agricultural businesses hire illegal workers almost exclusively is no secret. The jobs need to be filled. No one here is willing to do them. So.... why not offer temp. work visas? you keep dodging the U.S.'s role in this.

 

[Guest]

Laws exist. Illegal immigrants break those laws. You can dress it up all you want, but the bottom line is..they are breaking the law and know they are.

Produce companies break the laws all the time by hiring illegal workers. They know they are breaking the law. You can dress that up how you want.

The U.S. economy depends upon illegal workers. You can dress that up how you want, too.

Economically, we want them here. Big business wants them here. But we only want them here as long as we can exploit them and use them as an endless supply of cheap, disposable labor. Dress that up, too.

Again, they come here because they know they will be employed. Who is employing them, and why? Think about that.

 

[LadyG]

No one is dodging the issue.

The U.S. government does have agreements in place for migrant workers. They apply, they're allowed to cross back and forth.


It's the ones that DON'T bother to even try and just make a run for it, that is the problem.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Did you ever wonder WHY they come here? Do you think they come here just for the heck of it?

Do you think that the produce businesses are justified in making huge profits off of illegal workers? If the produce companies didn't break the laws (regarding hiring illegal workers) then people would have less incentive to come here. But hey, let's pin the blame on the illegal people.

That the gov't knows big agricultural businesses hire illegal workers almost exclusively is no secret. The jobs need to be filled. No one here is willing to do them. So.... why not offer temp. work visas? you keep dodging the U.S.'s role in this.

Maybe because I believe in personal responsibility first and government responsibility second. While I believe that the immigrants are just as much to blame for illegally entering the US as the corporations are for enticing them it seems you believe that the illegals have no blame at all. I could see if there was no legal way to get into this country and they had to come in to make money to provide for their family but there are legal ways to get in. They make a choice to not use them and break the law coming in so why should they expect the laws to protect them to still be in effect? You either obey the law or you don't.

 

[Guest]

No one is dodging the issue.

The U.S. government does have agreements in place for migrant workers. They apply, they're allowed to cross back and forth.


It's the ones that DON'T bother to even try and just make a run for it, that is the problem.

I explained, more than once now, why the majority of migrant workers cannot get temp. work visas. I won't rewrite it all again, except to say that the largest impediment to getting a work visa is not being provided with the job contract BEFORE crossing the border into the U.S. As long as produce companies are unwilling to send their job contractors across the borders to sign people up then the contracts with them are not legal, and don't qualify for worker visa applications.

Canada sends its contractors all the way to Mexico to sign up people legally and get them work visas.

And the U.S. produce companies can't send its contractors, who often wait just on the U.S. side of the border to sign up workers, a few yards across to the other side? Gee, I wonder why such companies might not want to do that.

 

[Guest]

Maybe because I believe in personal responsibility first and government responsibility second. While I believe that the immigrants are just as much to blame for illegally entering the US as the corporations are for enticing them it seems you believe that the illegals have no blame at all. I could see if there was no legal way to get into this country and they had to come in to make money to provide for their family but there are legal ways to get in. They make a choice to not use them and break the law coming in so why should they expect the laws to protect them to still be in effect? You either obey the law or you don't.

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.

 

[LadyG]

Canada sends its contractors all the way to Mexico to sign up people legally and get them work visas.

I know we do. We have that agreement with a lot other countries too. My boss is in Israel right now, doing just that.

I understand what you're trying to say Owera, BUT the bottom line is, regardless of what the Fruit Growers do or don't do, they come in illegally and therefore LEGALLY, they should be sent back.