I realize it has only been a few hours since the law went into effect, but I haven't seen any great disruption of city life yet. The way some people were talking, you couldn't get a roof fixed, a lawn mowed, or order a burrito after yesterday.
I plan to have a Mariachi band play at a party in a couple of weeks...my big worry is that it is going to be a couple of gringos named Murray and Archie.
Has anybody seen any effects yet?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I realize it has only been a few hours since the law went into effect, but I haven't seen any great disruption of city life yet. The way some people were talking, you couldn't get a roof fixed, a lawn mowed, or order a burrito after yesterday.
I plan to have a Mariachi band play at a party in a couple of weeks...my big worry is that it is going to be a couple of gringos named Murray and Archie.
Has anybody seen any effects yet?
It has to go through the state Senate and then to the Governers desk to sign first. You still have time to stock up on burritos.
Once it's signed, an army of lawyers with police scanners will descend on Oklahoma ready to file racial discrimination suits on anything that moves.
That's why I would like to propose the "spoonbill amendment" requiring illegals to wear this shirt.
(http://vivirlatino.com/i/2006/04/0305_immigrant_300x401.jpg)
The guys pouring concrete in front of the store were gringos; a painter reported that mudders and drywallers have disappeared; an apartment owner said in one of his complexes about ten units have gone vacant (he laughed, 'Thats about forty of them.'); last night only two hispanic families t&t'ed compared to about six or seven last year.
At the Alamo, one of the soldiers looks out at the 25K Mexicans: 'Who ordered concrete?'
As long as they still have the places I can get the cheap spices in the little bags. Stuff it, Spice Islands, these are much cheaper and you get more. Why do I gravitate threads towards food?[:P]
Apparently it's already affecting business that mainly cater to the Hispanic population:
'Jerald Almazan owns Las Juanas, a traditional Hispanic restaurant in east Tulsa. He says the new immigration law is affecting his food sales. "We're going to consume that cost. We're going to pray that it comes back."'
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=38a167b3-7c34-4f0a-aa8d-66bdda066ce0
quote:
Originally posted by patric
Apparently it's already affecting business that mainly cater to the Hispanic population:
'Jerald Almazan owns Las Juanas, a traditional Hispanic restaurant in east Tulsa. He says the new immigration law is affecting his food sales. "We're going to consume that cost. We're going to pray that it comes back."'
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=38a167b3-7c34-4f0a-aa8d-66bdda066ce0
Is the food there any good?
I lost some neighbors last month. They were good, respectful, hard-working folks. I shudder to think of who will replace them. I hate property management companies...
I head the the Dia De Los Muertos party last night at Living Arts was pretty short on Mexican folks, but I don't think there is much of a baseline to gage normal attendance
Don't you think that having the immigration law going into effect on the same day as the Hispanic "Day of the Dead" was an ironic twist?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Don't you think that having the immigration law going into effect on the same day as the Hispanic "Day of the Dead" was an ironic twist?
Ya think?!
#1804 Rocks Oklahoma and Tulsa rocks Oklahoma. I think 1804 is great I just hope they enforce it. We also need secure borders no nation can survive with open borders and letting anyone who wants to come here stroll right in. Driver licenses for illegal aliens is really nuts. giving illegal aliens legal ID with fake names on it scares me. Many of the terrorist hi-jackers on 09-11-01 had a few driver licenses. We need to seal the border and deport the illegals. I would favor the local cops to make immigration arrests.[}:)]
A friend of mine works in a local country club kitchen. He lost all of his dishwashers. His stories tend to be on the dramatic side, though.
My wife works at Skelly Elementary in the ELL program. Out of 600 kids, 20 have left. Don't know if that is indicative of any kinds of percentage, because I don't know how many of the 600 are Hispanic.
I used to live at 31st and Mingo (where the school is) and have personal ties with the Hispanic community, so I'm pretty sure there is a large percentage of Hispanics among those 400 kids.
I was a little suprised that only 20 kids had left. The way people were talking, I thought there would be a great exodus of Hispanics. Maybe "Dad" has already left and is saving up money elsewhere and will send for the wife and kids later. Maybe the exodus will be more gradual, if it happens at all.
EDIT: changed numbers from 400 to 600 after talking more with my wife.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Don't you think that having the immigration law going into effect on the same day as the Hispanic "Day of the Dead" was an ironic twist?
Poetic justice.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I realize it has only been a few hours since the law went into effect, but I haven't seen any great disruption of city life yet. The way some people were talking, you couldn't get a roof fixed, a lawn mowed, or order a burrito after yesterday.
I plan to have a Mariachi band play at a party in a couple of weeks...my big worry is that it is going to be a couple of gringos named Murray and Archie.
Has anybody seen any effects yet?
As you say.... It may be too early to tell....
I was reading an article today that made me feel somewhat closer to the images and thoughts that must be going through their minds as they make their way to Amarillo....
From the Manitoba Herald, Canada (a very underground paper):
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.
The actions of President Bush are prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray,
and agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.
"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken."
When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.
"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. "They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.
In recent days, liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s.
"If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.
Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies.
"I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
[}:)]
It looks to me like we are on a fast track headed towards a labor crisis in Oklahoma. The positive side of this is that major employers are going to be talking to the governor very soon. On the negative side, I'm not convinced that Oklahoma won't commit suicide to prove to a point. Unfortunately I own real estate here and have some money here and my fate is joined with Oklahoma's.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
It looks to me like we are on a fast track headed towards a labor crisis in Oklahoma. The positive side of this is that major employers are going to be talking to the governor very soon. On the negative side, I'm not convinced that Oklahoma won't commit suicide to prove to a point. Unfortunately I own real estate here and have some money here and my fate is joined with Oklahoma's.
Don't fret HT. The law is reality and other states are sure to follow. They have the public's approval after longstanding efforts to harden public attitudes with stories of wild in the streets aliens "takin' er jbs" and fathering babies to secure citizenship. Both of which are probably true.
The impact on real estate will be negligible unless you were one of the slumlords raking in undocumented cash and services in lieu. Rental rates may soften for apartments. Marginal attorneys may have leaner times. The days of cheap lawn care, roofing and driveway replacement are ending but that is no real trajedy. I believe that many of our infrastructure failures here are due to contractors who used extremely cheap laborers who learned on the job.
The trajedy is in the changed attitudes towards real salt of the earth laborers. These are people who work hard and cheap. Who are family oriented, religious and consumerist. In other words, the kind of labor that built Oklahoma and the Southwest. They don't (didn't) complain much about anything, prepared our food, cleaned our offices and acted pretty much like America circa the early 50's. They followed the capitalist philosophies of supply/demand and loophole exploitation. Hardly people worthy of the slurs and poisonous venom hurled at them. But nothing lasts forever, many of them are illegal and there will be an impact on all of us.
To an extent, there's a mis-conception on Mexican laborers. They don't just make good leaf rakers, roofers, dishwashers, and insulators. Most I've worked around are good at picking up advanced and more technical skills and virtually all have multiple skill sets. They are from a culture that is used to getting more out of less. If something breaks, you don't run out and buy a replacement, you try to fix it first. So you wind up with someone who not only can do construction or another specific trade, but also has a better understanding of electricity, metal repair, paint, electronics, etc. than the average American.
What a lot of companies, who are short of man-power that I've talked to, are hoping for is a managable guest worker program, a sort of temp agency if you will.
That was pretty much how it worked in agriculture back the middle of the 1900's. Mexicans would come here at harvest time, work for three months and go back to Mexico with full pockets until the next harvest season.
Aside from sealing the border, where our government has failed has been zero management of a willing labor pool from Mexico.
With all due respect Waterboy I think the situation is bit more complex and deeper and farther reaching than you are suggesting.
For example, Tulsa County is requiring proof of citizenship to issue a food handler's permit. Do some math on this one industry in Tulsa. I don't believe the citizens are there to fill these jobs.
Undocumented workers have bought homes in various neighborhoods, especially east Tulsa. If they have indeed supplied the bulk of Tulsa's growth since the 70s I would say they are crucial to holding up the lower and middle levels of real estate. The upper end sits on the lower end and a collapse in the lower end will result in an across the board decline. Add to that the auto purchases and their contributions to sales taxes.
You may recall that I left California two years ago because I was concerned about a collapse in real estate prices. Disbelievers would say things like, "real estate never goes down."
I absolutely understand the simple reading on this issue. But I think the level of risk has risen to the point where we better strive for an understanding of complexities because our financial well being is on the line.
I could probably survive a serious decade-long economic downturn in Oklahoma, but it would hurt. And most of the people I've been acquainted with here could not survive that kind of downturn.
Of the course our bigger sin is spiritual and we'll have to account to God for that.
Hey Conan, The growers have been pushing a guest worker program since before Reagan's amnesty. I think a guest worker program with a path to citizenship is the way to go. Yes we once had a large scale guest worker program.
Our real problem here is that Oklahomans are at the beginning of a very long learning curve and their knee jerk, simplistic reactions to the situation are understandable but will be almost immediately self-defeating.
I used to give all my change in December to the bell-ringers for Salvation Army.
Now the Oklahoma chapter won't give out presents to any child if there is a single undocumented worker living in the household. They make the families fill out extensive forms and prove citizenship.
I no longer give to the kettles.
Sorry, children. No christmas gifts for you because uncle Jose doesn't have his paperwork in order.
It was sketchy over the last month as we lost most of our immigrant labor in anticipation of the bill passing. We lost many of our legal immigrant labor too. I must admit, at first I thought it was going to be devastating, we do a lot of dirt-work, construction and landscaping, but we've actually had very little problem filling the positions.
One of the problems we had before (and didn't realize it) was that native workers were reluctant to take field jobs because the majority of our labor force spoke no english. We still have quite a few Hispanic foramen and workers, but they are legal, and all speak english. We've been able to replace most of the "questionable" workforce, contracted under these foremen, with legal workers, contracted directly.
True it has cost us a little more, but we anticipated that. We are starting to see significant increases in worker productivity, that we also did not anticipate. We are now able to engage in direct communications with all of our workers. Eliminating a significant language barrier. The decimation of information from the contractor to the, forman to the worker is much better.
If I have a guy grading a lot and I learn from my engineer that there is a mistake in the grading, I can call the forman or the guy running the equipment and explain everything in English. It's kinda nice. Just fixed a problem today in a 20 second phone call that would have taken a visit to the site, 20 minutes of head-scratching translation, and a new set of plans plotted.
I don't think it's going to be as bad as I anticipated. If anything I think it's getting better.
Welders and fitters were in short supply before there was even a whisper of HB-1804. In that sense, it hasn't affected us directly.
Where I'm seeing it more is at job sites where other subs are running short of help in concrete, steel work, or plumbing.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I used to give all my change in December to the bell-ringers for Salvation Army.
Now the Oklahoma chapter won't give out presents to any child if there is a single undocumented worker living in the household. They make the families fill out extensive forms and prove citizenship.
I no longer give to the kettles.
Sorry, children. No christmas gifts for you because uncle Jose doesn't have his paperwork in order.
Imagine that...the Salvation Army only giving gifts to needy, poor American children. Why should our own poor have to suffer with even less because Jose decided to come here illegally and have a family? Besides, I though Jose wasn't here to take from the system.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
With all due respect Waterboy I think the situation is bit more complex and deeper and farther reaching than you are suggesting.
For example, Tulsa County is requiring proof of citizenship to issue a food handler's permit. Do some math on this one industry in Tulsa. I don't believe the citizens are there to fill these jobs.
Undocumented workers have bought homes in various neighborhoods, especially east Tulsa. If they have indeed supplied the bulk of Tulsa's growth since the 70s I would say they are crucial to holding up the lower and middle levels of real estate. The upper end sits on the lower end and a collapse in the lower end will result in an across the board decline. Add to that the auto purchases and their contributions to sales taxes.
You may recall that I left California two years ago because I was concerned about a collapse in real estate prices. Disbelievers would say things like, "real estate never goes down."
I absolutely understand the simple reading on this issue. But I think the level of risk has risen to the point where we better strive for an understanding of complexities because our financial well being is on the line.
I could probably survive a serious decade-long economic downturn in Oklahoma, but it would hurt. And most of the people I've been acquainted with here could not survive that kind of downturn.
Of the course our bigger sin is spiritual and we'll have to account to God for that.
Hey Conan, The growers have been pushing a guest worker program since before Reagan's amnesty. I think a guest worker program with a path to citizenship is the way to go. Yes we once had a large scale guest worker program.
Our real problem here is that Oklahomans are at the beginning of a very long learning curve and their knee jerk, simplistic reactions to the situation are understandable but will be almost immediately self-defeating.
Hometown, not so much as you would think on home ownership, especially from illegal aliens, or undocumented workers as you prefer. There's always been a deep fear of having their names on too many legal documents, especially insurance or loan papers. It's easy to create a bogus SSN and get a job. However, it's a bit harder to trick the credit bureau and lenders with that. FHA loans? That takes a major anal probe to get even if you were born in the U.S.
If there is direct home ownership, then I'd be willing to bet it's contract for deed or cash. If an illegal has that much cash to pay for a house, likely you don't want them as a neighbor, nor do you want their line of work in your neighborhood.
Vehicles? Tote-a-note lot vehicles which are dregs from dealer trade-ins bought at auction. It's a secondary, usurious economy. If tote-a-note lots disappered from our landscape, I wouldn't shed a tear. That's a pretty cash-heavy business, that I'm betting skirts quite a bit of the IRS code and collections.
Finally, it's not a spiritual issue, it's a legal issue, but I'm sick and tired of beating that dead horse.
QuoteOriginally posted by iplaw
Imagine that...the Salvation Army only giving gifts to needy, poor American children. Why should our own poor have to suffer with even less because Jose decided to come here illegally and have a family? Besides, I though Jose wasn't here to take from the system./quote]
The Salvation Army can give to whomever they choose and I am sure some of their funders want this policy in place.
They can just do it without my assistance.
The local Catholics agree with me...
This from KRMG...
(Tulsa, Ok)--The Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa refuses to let a state law stop him from helping those in need. Law enforcement agencies have said they do not plan any raids on churches that deal with Hispanic immigrants. Bishop Edward Slattery feels that over time it will become evident that Oklahoma's tough new illegal immigration law is an "unwise" law. He rejects those portions of it that could lead to prosecution of anyone offering aid to illegals. The Bishop says he and the other priests of the diocese will not ask someone about their residency status before feeding or clothing them. He says he follows God's law. Bishop Slattery also says if standing up for those he helps means he must go to jail, then "so be it".
quote:
The local Catholics agree with me...
I don't know if I'd be proud to adopt any position they're beholden to...but in any event, that's the church's job, to feed the needy, it's not the Salvation Army's.
Anyways, I'm still trying to figure out why Jose needs assistance since I've been told over and over again that they're not a drain on the system.
Gee Iplaw...it is because sometimes people need assistance. It is not because his name is Jose. His name could be Joe.
We should help the needy. We are a rich society and yet we still have those among us who sometimes need a little help.
I don't care what color they are or if they speak the same language as me. I clearly would not need to make them prove that the entire family was completely legal for me to want to help. I don't care what country they are from, if they need help, I would try to help.
The Salvation Army feels differently than me. That is their right. They don't want to help the poor unless every single person living in the household passes their citizenship tests.
I know how close to this situation many of us could be if the wrong few things happened to us. I am blessed to be able to do a little and I am willing to try.
It is called compassion. You should try it.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I used to give all my change in December to the bell-ringers for Salvation Army.
Now the Oklahoma chapter won't give out presents to any child if there is a single undocumented worker living in the household. They make the families fill out extensive forms and prove citizenship.
I no longer give to the kettles.
Sorry, children. No christmas gifts for you because uncle Jose doesn't have his paperwork in order.
Don't worry children, I'll make up the difference so you can have Christmas (notice the capital "C") gifts.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Gee Iplaw...it is because sometimes people need assistance. It is not because his name is Jose. His name could be Joe.
We should help the needy. We are a rich society and yet we still have those among us who sometimes need a little help.
I don't care what color they are or if they speak the same language as me. I clearly would not need to make them prove that the entire family was completely legal for me to want to help. I don't care what country they are from, if they need help, I would try to help.
The Salvation Army feels differently than me. That is their right. They don't want to help the poor unless every single person living in the household passes their citizenship tests.
I know how close to this situation many of us could be if the wrong few things happened to us. I am blessed to be able to do a little and I am willing to try.
It is called compassion. You should try it.
As I stated in another thread, I will make up the loss of whatever loose change you plan on withholding from American children at Christmas time.
BTW, Compassion? Punishing all children that benefit from the Salvation Army sure sounds compassionate to me. Gee, how about this thought, if you are against the war in Iraq, protest by not participating in the Marine Corps' toys for tots program this Christmas as well. That'll teach ole GWB!
No, I am a big fan of toys for tots. They give to any needy child.
In fact, our Tulsa Packer Backers fan club has raised over $40,000 that we have given to Toys for Tots in the last few years.
The Marines are great and come out and eat bratwurst and watch the game with us. We sell bratwurst at our tailgate parties to raise money (Brats for Tots).
You see guido, there are lots of ways to help. The good thing is we get to choose. I choose to give through a group that doesn't punish because one family member doesn't have all their papers in order.
An Owassan friend reports that two Mexican families in his neighborhood have their homes ($200K+) for sale.
I fully believe that Mexican flight precipitated the mortgage meltdown.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Gee Iplaw...it is because sometimes people need assistance. It is not because his name is Jose. His name could be Joe.
We should help the needy. We are a rich society and yet we still have those among us who sometimes need a little help.
I don't care what color they are or if they speak the same language as me. I clearly would not need to make them prove that the entire family was completely legal for me to want to help. I don't care what country they are from, if they need help, I would try to help.
The Salvation Army feels differently than me. That is their right. They don't want to help the poor unless every single person living in the household passes their citizenship tests.
I know how close to this situation many of us could be if the wrong few things happened to us. I am blessed to be able to do a little and I am willing to try.
It is called compassion. You should try it.
As ususal, you're intermingling arguments, like how you interchange the terms "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" as if they are equal.
This is not a discussion about compassion for the poor and needy, and whether there need be any at all, that's an ignorant discussion, and I can bet that I gave more to charities in the last year than you have in the last five, so drop the self-righteous crap.
The issue is: Should we punish our poor by taking assistance from them by giving assistance to people who have no right to be here in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
...and I can bet that I gave more to charities in the last year than you have in the last five, so drop the self-righteous crap.
The issue is: Should we punish our poor by taking assistance from them by giving assistance to people who have no right to be here in the first place.
Piplaw:
You don't know anything about what I gave in both money and time in the last five years, but if you feel superior to me by believing that, so be it.
You are the one who is missing the points in this discussion. The children can be completely legal citizens, the parents can be completely legal, but if one person in the house isn't here legally, no one can receive assistance through this program.
The Hispanic culture traditionally has living arrangements that include other family members living in one residence. This policy discriminates against those legal children.
It is the right of the giving organization to decide who to give to, and my right to not support them.
quote:
You don't know anything about what I gave in both money and time in the last five years, but if you feel superior to me by believing that, so be it.
I believe you started the idiotic oneupsmanship business by saying, and I quote:
"You should try it."quote:
You are the one who is missing the points in this discussion. The children can be completely legal citizens, the parents can be completely legal, but if one person in the house isn't here legally, no one can receive assistance through this program.
This comes from the guy who can't parse the difference between an "immigrant" and an "illegal immigrant"...it's completely understandable to deny assistance to those who will in turn, provide assistance to people who have no right to be here in the first place. So whether illegals are receiving assistance directly, or they second-handedly doesn't matter, it's still wrong and stealing from our own poor.
quote:
The Hispanic culture traditionally has living arrangements that include other family members living in one residence. This policy discriminates against those legal children.
Even with that said, you're choosing to focus on one small subset of the illegal community. I can bet that rarely is Jose the only illegal in the house.
quote:
It is the right of the giving organization to decide who to give to, and my right to not support them.
Sure, and it's my right to call you on the carpet for encouraging not-for-profits to waste resources and further deprive our own poor.
Riplaw, believe it or not, these are our own poor. Most of these kids are legal US citizens, they just happen to have someone living with them who is not.
And your statement of "...it's completely understandable to deny assistance to those who will in turn, provide assistance to people who have no right to be here in the first place." is completely unbased.
This is a Christmas gift of toys and clothing. How is uncle Jose going to benefit from toys given to poor children in the home?
Why are you so concerned about who gets to enjoy Christmas? What part of the Christmas message tells you to pick and choose which poor people are going to be helped and which ones are not?
Proponents of the SB1804 said they did this because of jobs and assimilation and strain on government services...how did you go further and decide Christmas gifts should be related to citizenship?
And back to your large history of donating you claim...did you ever give to a group that does work outside of America? Do you demand that the blood the Red Cross gives out only goes to citizens of your country?
It's hard to argue with Scrooge.
I've noticed several vacant apts over the past few weeks, but am not sure how many hispanics have left. And, of course, I can't tell you how many of these folks are legal and how many aren't...
The fun part is watching when some young punk moves in... and I can tell you the likelyhood of one of my neighbors using and dealing drugs is now higher with the new people moving into my east/southeast Tulsa apt complex. I am now MORE WORRIED about gang activity here, not less... thank you, HB-1804. [B)]
It's just really ironic that the very same people who are demonized as "illegals" by folks on this board are actually LESS LIKELY to commit crimes and deal drugs compared to so-called lawful citizens who will commit illegal acts, including some of the "legal" hispanics.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Quote
Sure, and it's my right to call you on the carpet for encouraging not-for-profits to waste resources and further deprive our own poor.
Yikes! I can't even attempt to be witty -- I'm so appalled at this.
For some of us, feeding a hungry child -- or giving one a toy at Christmas -- isn't a wasted resource, no matter which of the many needy children in the world get it. I don't divide the world into "my poor" (=deserving) and the rest of them (apparently =undeserving?). If I am giving money or toys trying to bring a smile to a child's face Christmas morning, why in the world would I care if that child is an American, a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant?
Do you honestly believe that the child of an illegal immigrant shouldn't be the recipient of charitable aid? What about the child of an American felon -- on your "deserving" scale, do they fall above or below the child of a legal immigrant who lets his illegal sister visit? What about an American who is the third generation in her family to live on welfare vs. an illegal who works hard and pays taxes? Is there some sort of scoring system so we can keep track of just how much Christian charity is alloted to each individual? I want to make sure we don't accidentally waste a life-saving vaccination on one of those little kids who wasn't smart enough to be born to Americans!
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Cuban.jpg)
What we must keep in our minds are not the suffering of the few children....! We must stay on the path to the "Greater Good"....
Look as the work of our Countrymen becomes the Glory and Salvation of our Heritage..... We are American.... We are protecting ourselves from the onslaught of the terror and plague of the "anchor babies" using our resources..... Crippling our workforce.... If the Federals will not do their job we must take it upon ourselves to lead the way....
For far too long we have given to these leeches...... sucking the Life's blood from our Homeland.....Our Fatherland....
No More...!
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/berlin.jpg)
For all that come to join in our pursuit of the perfect civilization.... free of the monstrosities of the world... cleansed of all the burdens of the need nots....
We Salute You.........
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Welkoman_.gif)
quote:
Riplaw, believe it or not, these are our own poor. Most of these kids are legal US citizens, they just happen to have someone living with them who is not.
This entire rediculous discussion of yours is predicated upon the ignorant assumption that all these families being denied assistance are simply hiding one illegal. I can guarantee that this is the execption to the rule.
quote:
And your statement of "...it's completely understandable to deny assistance to those who will in turn, provide assistance to people who have no right to be here in the first place." is completely unbased.
This is a Christmas gift of toys and clothing. How is uncle Jose going to benefit from toys given to poor children in the home?
Call me cynical, but I bet Jose has kids too. The only one gullible enough here to believe that Jose is the only illegal in the house, who also happens to have no kids is you.
quote:
Why are you so concerned about who gets to enjoy Christmas? What part of the Christmas message tells you to pick and choose which poor people are going to be helped and which ones are not?
Why are you not concerned about depriving our own poor by giving assistance to people who have no right to be here? If you want to help poor Mexicans, drive your donkey down to Nuevo Laredo with a van full of toys and make it happen.
What part of the Christmas message tells you to deprive people by playing politics with a charity?
quote:
Proponents of the SB1804 said they did this because of jobs and assimilation and strain on government services...how did you go further and decide Christmas gifts should be related to citizenship?
What an ignorant argument. If they aren't entitled to be here they don't deserve anything, let alone a Christmas bonus paid for unkowingly by generous Americans trying to help other unfortunate Americans.
quote:
And back to your large history of donating you claim...did you ever give to a group that does work outside of America? Do you demand that the blood the Red Cross gives out only goes to citizens of your country?
I give to several charities who do work outside the US with explicit assumption that my money is being used to help the people it's being given for.
I understand the scope and goals of the Red Cross, as I understand the scope and goals of the Salvation Army.
It's too bad that you just can't be a man and say that your choice to deny giving money to a decent charity is a political move because you're pissed off about 1804. Instead of just pissing up a rope and complaining like most liberas, you're taking it out on the Salvation Army.
quote:
Yikes! I can't even attempt to be witty -- I'm so appalled at this.
I agree. It's best not to try.
quote:
For some of us, feeding a hungry child -- or giving one a toy at Christmas -- isn't a wasted resource, no matter which of the many needy children in the world get it.
That's fantastic. I don't feel the same way.
quote:
I don't divide the world into "my poor" (=deserving) and the rest of them (apparently =undeserving?). If I am giving money or toys trying to bring a smile to a child's face Christmas morning, why in the world would I care if that child is an American, a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant?
Because if it wasn't for that illegal child, another poor citizen of this country would be receiving that gift.
quote:
Do you honestly believe that the child of an illegal immigrant shouldn't be the recipient of charitable aid?
Short answer: yes. Long answer: I believe that you can do with your money, whatever you want.
quote:
What about the child of an American felon -- on your "deserving" scale, do they fall above or below the child of a legal immigrant who lets his illegal sister visit?
Non-sequitor and frankly a poor analogy.
quote:
What about an American who is the third generation in her family to live on welfare vs. an illegal who works hard and pays taxes?
I'll answer this question if you can explain to me how exactly an illegal pays anything other than consumptive taxes? It's like asking me "how about an illegal...except for he's not illegal."
quote:
Is there some sort of scoring system so we can keep track of just how much Christian charity is alloted to each individual? I want to make sure we don't accidentally waste a life-saving vaccination on one of those little kids who wasn't smart enough to be born to Americans!
Nice hyperbole. You're as good at obfuscating and intermingling issues as RM.
Again, you can choose to spend your money however you wish.
I really don't want to spend my life arguing with you, pooplaw.
And again, you are wrong. I didn't just stop to support the Salvation Army after HB1804. I wrote these same comments on this forum two years ago when I read in the Tulsa World of this policy change in the Salvation Army.
There is nothing overtly political in my motives, I just wrote about a charity that I no longer support and why. I guess I shouldn't have posted it in this thread because it caused you to babble nonsense my way.
I completely believe your Christmas charity is based on your nationalistic views. You are so wrapped up in your opinions and malcontent about Hispanic culture that you have missed the meaning of Christmas.
I am certain that the Salvation Army does wonderful work year-round in our community. I just choose to disagree with their policy on their Christmas Giving campaign.
My Christmas wish is to convince you and the Salvation Army that poor children are deserving of our help, regardless of their or their family's immigration status.
Now wait a second RM. You are homogenizing the sentiments of people who have a low tolerance for illegal immigrants as being anti-Hispanic. Other than pencil-neck KKK-types, I think you'll find that very few people who take a dim view of illegal immigration have a dislike for Mexicans. I appreciate Hispanic culture and especially their sense of family and work ethic.
I have a low tolerance for illegal aliens from Canada, China, Russia, Ireland, Poland, etc. ad nauseum.
I don't know one person with views similar to my own who is "anti-immigrant"- "anti-illegal immigrant" is more like it. Hell, unless someone is a native-American, they are here due to immigration in the first place.
Iplaw is the one who made this into a Mexican argument. I mentioned the policy and he started out by adding his views about Jose.
You are correct. The anti-illegal immigration feelings are not just anti-Mexican feelings, but be honest...no one brings up any other culture in this topic than Mexicans.
Here's a new challenge.
Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071110_1__OKLAH63781%22)
quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY -- An attorney for two men who were jailed when they told a judge they were not in the country legally says they should be freed because their constitutional rights were violated.
Attorney Joan Lopez asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals Friday to have the men released because the judge's questions about their immigration status violated the men's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Lopez said Oklahoma County District Judge Jerry Bass forced the men to incriminate themselves when he asked them if they were legal residents of the United States. Bass sent both men to jail when they acknowledged they were not in the country legally.
Bass does not have the authority to inquire about their immigration status under the new state law that went into effect Nov. 1, the attorney said.
Lopez also contends the new Oklahoma immigration law is not valid because it is pre-empted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1986.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
Here's a new challenge.
Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071110_1__OKLAH63781%22)
quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY -- An attorney for two men who were jailed when they told a judge they were not in the country legally says they should be freed because their constitutional rights were violated.
Attorney Joan Lopez asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals Friday to have the men released because the judge's questions about their immigration status violated the men's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Lopez said Oklahoma County District Judge Jerry Bass forced the men to incriminate themselves when he asked them if they were legal residents of the United States. Bass sent both men to jail when they acknowledged they were not in the country legally.
Bass does not have the authority to inquire about their immigration status under the new state law that went into effect Nov. 1, the attorney said.
Lopez also contends the new Oklahoma immigration law is not valid because it is pre-empted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1986.
Guess the police cannot ask anyone suspected of drinking and driving if they have been drinking or not. Oh, and if that suspect is believed to be under 21, then the police really better not ask any questions.
Of course they can, but if you get caught in a DUI, they can't ask you if were driving drunk three months ago, and if you say "yes", charge you with that one too.
Self-incrimination, that's an interesting challenge.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Iplaw is the one who made this into a Mexican argument. I mentioned the policy and he started out by adding his views about Jose.
You are correct. The anti-illegal immigration feelings are not just anti-Mexican feelings, but be honest...no one brings up any other culture in this topic than Mexicans.
Really RM? I'm the one who made this into a "Mexican" argument.
Who was it that said this:
"Sorry, children. No christmas gifts for you because uncle Jose doesn't have his paperwork in order."Care to take that foot back out of your mouth?
Steaming-Pile-of-Composting-Garbage-Michael:quote:
You are so wrapped up in your opinions and malcontent about Hispanic culture that you have missed the meaning of Christmas.
What exactly are my "opinions" about Hispanic culture? I believe that you're the one who attempted to lecture me by saying:
The Hispanic culture traditionally has living arrangements that include other family members living in one residence. I suppose it's okay for you to generalize about "hispanic culture" but it's not okay for me?
quote:
My Christmas wish is to convince you and the Salvation Army that poor children are deserving of our help, regardless of their or their family's immigration status.
And I continue to argue that you're supporting stealing from our own poor (all from families who actually DO pay taxes) and giving to people who have no right to be here.
Protest all you want, make absurd generalizations about how few illegals live together and call people racists...it's easier than logical discourse and gives you warm fuzzies for pretending to be compassionate all the while robbing our poor American children because you want our immigration policies dismantled.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Really RM? I'm the one who made this into a "Mexican" argument.
Who was it that said this:
"Sorry, children. No christmas gifts for you because uncle Jose doesn't have his paperwork in order."
Care to take that foot back out of your mouth?
You are right. It was the post before me that talked about Mexicans and was not you.
I never called you racist. I said you missed the real meaning of Christmas.
"...stealing from our own poor?" ...robbing poor American children?"
Wow.
How is my choice of picking a different charity to contribute to for Christmas campaigns stealing?
Your rhetoric reflects some real anger.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
Of course they can, but if you get caught in a DUI, they can't ask you if were driving drunk three months ago, and if you say "yes", charge you with that one too.
Self-incrimination, that's an interesting challenge.
Are you saying that entering this country illegally is only illegal at the moment of entry and that an immigrant's continued illegal presence has no consequence?
quote:
I never called you racist. I said you missed the real meaning of Christmas.
"...stealing from our own poor?" ...robbing poor American children?"
Wow.
How is my choice of picking a different charity to contribute to for Christmas campaigns stealing?
Again, you're confusing issues. Your choice of a charity is wholely yours. What I object to is your refusal to give to a charity because they won't waste (as I have defined the terms) resources because you feel obligated to give assistance to children who shouldn't be here to receive the assistance in the first place.
Pragmatically, for every illegal you extend assistance to, you deny it to another legal citizen. Unfortunately, resources for a charity ARE a zero-sum game, and are limited, which means that giving to one necessarily means denying another. I would prefer not to deny poor legal citizens.
The "right to bear Christmas presents" is not an inalienable one.
quote:
Your rhetoric reflects some real anger.
Get over yourself. Conversing with you is sometimes
frustrating because you constantly move the goalposts during a discussion and intermingle definitions, but angry...please.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Are you saying that entering this country illegally is only illegal at the moment of entry and that an immigrant's continued illegal presence has no consequence?
No. And if you were serious, or sane, you wouldn't bother asking that.
The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law. Period. Doesn't matter how much you hate Mexicans, doesn't matter if you think Jesus hates Mexicans, the State trumping Federal Law: that's exactly what this challenge is about.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Are you saying that entering this country illegally is only illegal at the moment of entry and that an immigrant's continued illegal presence has no consequence?
No. And if you were serious, or sane, you wouldn't bother asking that.
The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law. Period. Doesn't matter how much you hate Mexicans, doesn't matter if you think Jesus hates Mexicans, the State trumping Federal Law: that's exactly what this challenge is about.
Oh, excuse me, I did not realize you are a constitutional scholar. I never knew that "The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law." Also, clever use of the "change the subject" technique and resort to name-calling. I mean really, those 76% of Oklahomans who favor 1804 only do so because they hate Mexicans.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/11/survey-usa-of-oklahomans-on-immi.html
Idiot.
Iplaw...You are difficult to discuss things with because you treat many other posters with such disdain. I too am guilty of that.
I spoke of my Christmas giving. I know I should care about the needy this much all year, but I just feel stronger about helping during the holidays. Many of my family, my church and my co-workers are deeply involved in charity work for the poor year-round and I should do more. Christmas justs get to me. I am a big, tough guy most of the time, but have many Christmas helping memories that make me cry again and again.
I wrote about how I don't contribute to a charity I used to support and followed it with my decision to give during the holidays to a different group who has a very similar Christmas giving campaign for poor children.
I spoke of Christmas, you turned the argument in citizenship.
You dismissed arguments by declaring things a "Non-sequitor" or refused to answer by simply saying "poor analogy", acting as if this discussion was a courtroom.
You took my act of picking a charity because of my Christmas spirit and turned it into "stealing" and "robbing".
I just will always disagree with you on this. Everything I have ever discussed or thought about the Christmas spirit has been devoid of any discussion of proper documentation of citizenship until you. My feelings do not put the needy into various categories ranking them on where they, their parents or family were born.
I hope you get all the personal fulfillment I achieve doing what I can to help others during the Christmas season. It is probably all selfish of me to yearn for that personal warmth, but it just feels too good.
[EDIT]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh, excuse me, I did not realize you are a constitutional scholar. I never knew that "The State can't trump the US Constitution or Federal law." Also, clever use of the "change the subject" technique and resort to name-calling. I mean really, those 76% of Oklahomans who favor 1804 only do so because they hate Mexicans.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/11/survey-usa-of-oklahomans-on-immi.html
Idiot.
I hope your joking. If you seriously did not know that the State can't trump Federal Law, you really need a civics lesson.
76% support a law that may be unconstitutional. I don't care what their motives are. That's the bottom line. It'll be determined at a later date.
You can pass any ole law you want, doesn't mean it'll fly once it hits the courts. And I couldn't care less about the morality or legality issues around illegal immigrants, that's your field. I've said all along how to fix this, you guys went the opposite direction.
If 1804 goes down in flames, does that make 76% of people in Oklahoma morons? Just wondering.
[EDIT]
MichaelC:
FYI, States are allowed to promulgate laws which fall under Federal jurisdiction in many various areas: See for example Lanham Act and State Trademark law.
The training of State police to enforce immigration laws is more than likely a valid exercise of the police powers of the Executive Branch. The only difference is that the State, as opposed to ICE is making the arrest. The Executive can execute the laws as they see fit, whether the resources be State or Federal.
[EDIT]
[EDIT]
[EDIT]
[EDIT]
I would like to address two issues:
First, the issue of undocumented workers being illegal.
It has been a common practice over the past 100 years for the United States to rely on migrant labor from outside of our country. With the exception of the guest worker program during part of the last century, we have always winked at infractions of our immigration laws so that we could have the labor we need.
Today's undocumented worker is following what has become in practice a routine procedure. To suddenly brand these people as illegal when they have for generations enabled us to get the job done is disrespectful of their many contributions to our nation.
Second, Tulsa police are insisting that they are only deporting felons but we have heard several reports from friends that people who are guilty of nothing more than a minor traffic infraction are being deported.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
And if that's the argument you're hanging your hat on you can expect this law to go nowhere in a hurry.
By law, you mean 1804? That's always been part of the problem of this law. It's how do you implement it, without trumping Federal law.
There will be many challenges to this.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
And if that's the argument you're hanging your hat on you can expect this law to go nowhere in a hurry.
By law, you mean 1804? That's always been part of the problem of this law. It's how do you implement it, without trumping Federal law.
There will be many challenges to this.
I expect as much. Every immigration atty in Oklahoma wants to be know as the guy that kills 1804.
I don't see 1804 as violating any Federal law. What actions do you see violate Federal law and why?
quote:
First, the issue of undocumented workers being illegal.
Let's start here. Could you please cite me the statute or law that grants someone the status of "undocumented worker" apart from being illegal? IOW, how is one simultaneously illegal and legal at the same time?
Federal law is controlling. It is superior to state law. You know that Iplaw. Neptune is correct.
This is the first one I've seen. If the State asks about immigration status, does it violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination? It's probably the first serious challenge.
And then, what is the basis for asking in the first place? Is it purely race-based? That's more of a Civil Liberties question. That'll be later, there's not enough big cases yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Federal law is controlling. It is superior to state law. You know that Iplaw. Neptune is correct.
Speak of that which you know, whatever that is. Statements like the one above shows very little understanding of the doctrine of Federal preemption and current application.
Now go back and answer my question please.
quote:
This is the first one I've seen. If the State asks about immigration status, does it violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination?
It doesn't, as I understand it, violate the 5th Amendment (I.E. an employer). Compelling them to give their status is illegal, but detaining them until they can be questioned by ICE or, alternatively if the police are ICE certified, acting under ICE authority granted them by Federal executive is legal.
Even the 3rd circuit has even upheld deportation based partly upon illegals who plead the 5th amendment in an effort to avoid disclosing illegal status.
Persuasive case law doesn't bode well for the anti-1804 crowd on this issue.
Next up....
No, why bother?
Your argument is basically going to boil down to they aren't legally supposed to be here, so they have no constitutional rights. Which a civil court wouldn't know, unless they potentially violated the 5th Amendment.
How a civil or state court handles constitutional rights, and can it violate those rights in regards to illegal aliens, or do illegal aliens present an exception for civil courts? Can courts discriminate, asking questions of one ethnicity and not another? That's all to be determined.
Like I said, this is the first serious challenge I've seen. And it may not be all that serious, we'll see.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
No, why bother?
Your argument is basically going to boil down to they aren't legally supposed to be here, so they have no constitutional rights. Which a civil court wouldn't know, unless they potentially violated the 5th Amendment.
How a civil or state court handles constitutional rights, and can it violate those rights in regards to illegal aliens, or do illegal aliens present an exception for civil courts? Can courts discriminate, asking questions of one ethnicity and not another? That's all to be determined.
Like I said, this is the first serious challenge I've seen. And it may not be all that serious, we'll see.
Go back and re-read my post. I'm saying that there have been numerous challenges vis-a-vis the 5th amendment and illegal status, and ALL have resulted in a negative outcome for the illegal worker, from cases denying employment benefits to illegals, to cases involving deportation from refusal to admit illegal status.
I didn't want to type a 500 word post to get it across. Bottom line, this has been used numerous times in other Federal circuits with a ZERO rate of success.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Even the 3rd circuit has even upheld deportation based partly upon illegals who plead the 5th amendment in an effort to avoid disclosing illegal status.
Again, that's not the point.
If you plead the 5th, and you're found out to be illegal, you can still be deported. Wow, what a shocker.
Can a civil or state court force you to self-incriminate? That's the question.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Even the 3rd circuit has even upheld deportation based partly upon illegals who plead the 5th amendment in an effort to avoid disclosing illegal status.
Again, that's not the point.
If you plead the 5th, and you're found out to be illegal, you can still be deported. Wow, what a shocker.
Can a civil or state court force you to self-incriminate? That's the question.
First off, no one is FORCING anyone to self-incriminate. Pleading the 5th though will increase your chances of being scrutinized by the federales or state actors working under the authority of the Feds, which has already been held to be constitutional by the 3rd circuit.
State officials operating under mandates from federal agencies by the power of the Executive are NOT illegal. The Executive branch can enforce the laws as they see fit. In this case, they happen to be enforcing them via State actors trained by Federal agencies.
It doesn't matter. The question comes up in a similar context as being withheld your Miranda rights. If you're in front of a judge on a case, and you're asked a question about something completely unrelated, can you be charged with something based on that answer. It's simple.
And then, does the court even have a right to ask, and what's their justification?
You don't have the answers. The courts will decide this at a later date.
And no, I'm not saying I know what the conclusion will be, because I don't.
But it is a challenge. Every law is challenge-able, this one in particular because effects people. That makes it more of a target. It's only the beginning of the challenges to 1804.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
It doesn't matter. The question comes up in a similar context as being withheld your Miranda rights. If you're in front of a judge on a case, and you're asked a question about something completely unrelated, can you be charged with something based on that answer. It's simple.
You don't have the answers. The courts will decide this at a later date.
This really isn't that complicated. Who is FORCING someone to speak in volation of the 5th amendment?
NO ONE! Can you explain to me how they are being FORCED?
Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).
quote:
And then, does the court even have a right to ask, and what's their justification?
Title 8 of the Fed Reg grants the Feds the right to ask. This statute has been challenged constitutionally numerous times with ZERO success.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).
You're not even talking about the challenge. Not even in the neighborhood. So, since you're just plain off, I guess we'll move on.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).
You're not even talking about the challenge. Not even in the neighborhood. So, since you're just plain off, I guess we'll move on.
That's question two MichaelC, which has been answered already. You still haven't answered question one which is:
WHO IS FORCING THEM?
My point is that we will eventually end up arguing the fact pattern in the 3rd circuit case because no one will divulge their status.
Asking them is NOT illegal either because they are acting under the auspices of the exectuive power via ICE.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Refusing to speak gives them the right to inquire further and lastly to deport (3rd Circuit).
You're not even talking about the challenge. Not even in the neighborhood. So, since you're just plain off, I guess we'll move on.
Just like your post on College Football.....
This legal challenge is tantamount to saying that the police aren't allowed to ask a suspect if he comitted a crime because he might implicate himself. Sheer ignorance.
The suspect has a right not to speak, but the police have a right to further investigate.
This is no different.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
My point is that we will eventually end up arguing the fact pattern in the 3rd circuit case because no one will divulge their status.
No, you've ignored the entire challenge.
They were not suspects of being here "illegally", they were asked to incriminate themselves during an unrelated case, then charged for deportation. Everything Federal comes to bear on the Civil or State court. Can't pick and choose it, even if you want to.
It's a completely different set of scenarios from a Fed asking a known or suspected illegal, his/her immigration status.
If I were the State, I'd let them go, then have ICE pick them up for deportation on the courthouse lawn. That solves the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
This legal challenge is tantamount to saying that the police aren't allowed to ask a suspect if he comitted a crime because he might implicate himself. Sheer ignorance.
[EDIT]They were not "suspects" in an "illegal immigration" case. Yet, that's what they were charged with, after self-incrimination coaxed out of them by a judge.
In case anyone missed this:
It's been reported that only felons are being deported.
But I have first hand reports that people have been deported for simple traffic infractions.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
In case anyone missed this:
It's been reported that only felons are being deported.
But I have first hand reports that people have been deported for simple traffic infractions.
That's incorrect. They have been deported for being in this country illegally, not for traffic infractions.
quote:
You'd have to be the dumbest lawyer around to believe that. Or really even to say that.
They were not "suspects" in an "illegal immigration" case. Yet, that's what they were charged with, after self-incrimination coaxed out of them by a judge.
[EDIT] Who are the "they" you are referring to anyway?
To put it another way, the police suspecting someone of being illegal and asking them about their citizenship when being investigated for another crime is constitutional, just as it's permissible for a police officer to ask you if you've had a few to drink when you're pulled over for expired tags.
Especially when the driver lacks a license, or is in posession of a seemingly fake one.
Is it legal to pull people over just to question their legal status...no, but that's not what is being discussed here.
quote:
If I were the State, I'd let them go, then have ICE pick them up for deportation on the courthouse lawn. That solves the problem.
Other than the fact that ICE is unable, because of manpower to accomplish those goals. That's why the State is involved in the first place. Training local and state officers and making them proxies for ICE helps, but that's what you're arguing against.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
[EDIT] Who are the "they" you are referring to anyway?
To put it another way, the police suspecting someone of being illegal and asking them about their citizenship when being investigated for another crime is constitutional, just as it's permissible for a police officer to ask you if you've had a few to drink when you're pulled over for expired tags.
Yes I am.
[EDIT]. What about a judge in a courtroom?
You're equated things, that are inherently unequal. As if civil courts don't have rules to follow, or somehow civil courts are exactly like investigative agents, ICE agents, or police.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Other than the fact that ICE is unable, because of manpower to accomplish those goals. That's why the State is involved in the first place. Training local and state officers and making them proxies for ICE helps, but that's what you're arguing against.
No.
Listen up. It's not about agents, or police enforcement. And again your skirting the issue, just because in your fairy tale world all goes well as long as another immigrant is deported.
It's not about enforcement, as in law enforcement. This was a judicial technicality, that caused charges to be brought. It has nothing to do with enforcement. These are rights that every citizen has in court. Your only argument can possibly be, that they aren't citizens and the normal rules and procedures of a civil court don't apply.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
[EDIT] Who are the "they" you are referring to anyway?
To put it another way, the police suspecting someone of being illegal and asking them about their citizenship when being investigated for another crime is constitutional, just as it's permissible for a police officer to ask you if you've had a few to drink when you're pulled over for expired tags.
Yes I am. [EDIT] What about a judge in a courtroom?
You're equated things, that are inherently unequal. As if civil courts don't have rules to follow, or somehow civil courts are exactly like investigative agents, ICE agents, or police.
I don't think that judges are the ones asking the questions in our case, unless you're trying to prove a point that leads you nowhere.
If a judge needs to get a delcaratory judgment from a ALJ on the status of a suspect illegal, then so be it. Still doesn't make the law unconstitutional.
Either path leads to the deporation of illegals which is the goal in the first place. Whether you have to take steps 1 and 2 before you deport or 1, 2 and 3 is insignificant to me.
Lastly, YES, a judge may inquire according to current case law.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
This legal challenge is tantamount to saying that the police aren't allowed to ask a suspect if he comitted a crime because he might implicate himself. Sheer ignorance.
[EDIT]
They were not "suspects" in an "illegal immigration" case. Yet, that's what they were charged with, after self-incrimination coaxed out of them by a judge.
[EDIT] What IP is saying is absolutely correct.
Bottom line, your heros that are trying to kill 1804 are using recycled arguments that have been nuked in multiple courts around the nation, but you can keep hope alive!
And so, here it is again Ippy. That's what is being argued. Not sure how it will turn out.
[EDIT]Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071110_1__OKLAH63781%22)
quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY -- An attorney for two men who were jailed when they told a judge they were not in the country legally says they should be freed because their constitutional rights were violated.
Attorney Joan Lopez asked the state Court of Criminal Appeals Friday to have the men released because the judge's questions about their immigration status violated the men's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Lopez said Oklahoma County District Judge Jerry Bass forced the men to incriminate themselves when he asked them if they were legal residents of the United States. Bass sent both men to jail when they acknowledged they were not in the country legally.
Bass does not have the authority to inquire about their immigration status under the new state law that went into effect Nov. 1, the attorney said.
Lopez also contends the new Oklahoma immigration law is not valid because it is pre-empted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1986.
[EDIT]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Still doesn't make the law unconstitutional.
I said the law was possibly unconstitutional (that would be determined later, if it is). I never said this case would make the law unconstitutional. Never believed that. Depending on how technical it gets, and how far up it goes, it might change some things. Probably won't. Don't know.
Good lord gas bag. You do realize that ASKING the question is NOT illegal don't you? A judge may inquire as to anything they feel is relevant (relevant being defined roughly as having the potential to produce valuable evidence) in a case.
An illegal has the right to refuse to answer under the 5th amendment, not the right not to be ASKED a question.
If this is the best your side has, 1804 supporters need not worry.
[}:)]
[EDIT]
Not that I care much, I'm just interested in seeing the challenges. Seeing how it all turns out. 1804, it's a bit of yawner. But brings up some interesting questions.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
[EDIT]
It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that a judge asking a defendant a question in court isn't a violation of the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from being questioned.
Only you would categorize this is as a "technical issue." I suppose it's technical if you think 2+2 is a complicated arithmetical equation.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
Oh, little jack-off, I doubt it's the best they've got. But it does end up being highly technical, because of the nature of the law vs 5th Amendment vs Civil Rights. Which you would be able to recognize, if you were any kind of lawyer.
Not that I care much, I'm just interested in seeing the challenges. Seeing how it all turns out. 1804, it's a bit of yawner. But brings up some interesting questions.
Are you related to MichaelC and Aoxa/FOTD....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that a judge asking a defendant a question in court isn't a violation of the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from being questioned.
Only you would categorize this is as a "technical issue." I suppose it's technical if you think 2+2 is a complicated arithmetical equation.
Sure, as long as you leave out the third value in that equation.
And if it is anything like your other simplifications, where you just plain equated two inherently inequitable entities, just throwing out garbage for a defense, your crazy side is in trouble.
And it's not specifically about the question, it's about incrimination and prosecution under those circumstances. And it can be highly technical. We'll see.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
Oh, little jack-off, I doubt it's the best they've got. But it does end up being highly technical, because of the nature of the law vs 5th Amendment vs Civil Rights. Which you would be able to recognize, if you were any kind of lawyer.
Not that I care much, I'm just interested in seeing the challenges. Seeing how it all turns out. 1804, it's a bit of yawner. But brings up some interesting questions.
Are you related to MichaelC and Aoxa/FOTD....
What do you mean related? Neptune appears to be an alien hybrid.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
What do you mean related? Neptune appears to be an alien hybrid.
Over here.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8039
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that a judge asking a defendant a question in court isn't a violation of the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment doesn't protect you from being questioned.
Only you would categorize this is as a "technical issue." I suppose it's technical if you think 2+2 is a complicated arithmetical equation.
Sure, as long as you leave out the third value in that equation.
And if it is anything like your other simplifications, where you just plain equated two inherently inequitable entities, just throwing out garbage for a defense, your crazy side is in trouble.
And it's not specifically about the question, it's about incrimination and prosecution under those circumstances. And it can be highly technical. We'll see.
Please enlighten us all, oh brilliant one, as to how a judge may kept from asking that question. I noticed you didn't bother to mention this "third" value. I suspect this because: (1) you don't even know what it is; (2) you're embarassed to mention it. I'm guessing it's the latter.
When you can actually formulate the argument and provide us all with some solid reasoning why any of us should buy into it, I'll respond.
Flailing your arms and proclaiming victory doesn't buy you anything here.
[EDIT]
[EDIT]
While entertaining to watch, the discussion is going nowhere and I'm tired of deleting references to self gratification, children born out of wedlock, etc.
{END OF THREAD}