Failing Families

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:24 am

So we have a new mantra by the Left. Enforcing immigration laws now seems to be a no no as explained by Ms Pelosi:

\"Raids that break up families in that way, just kick in the door in the middle of the night, taking [a] father, a parent away, that's just not the American way. It must stop,\" Pelosi added at a Capitol Hill conference on border issues sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.\"

So for all you pot heads out there, all you coke users, all you Meth addicts; take heart. No one will be arresting you any more because, well, it would be un-american to separate you from your families.
America, it would seem, will no longer label any act a crime if it involves cops coming to your home and dragging you away. Lord of the Flies here we come.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:49 am

That won't hold true if you're a US citizen Woodchip. Sorry, but you're a second class citizen if you were born here, or if you actually achieved citizenship via the legal methods.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:59 am

Pelosi should be tarred, feathered, and then run out on a rail. It's just that simple. I watched that video, and I can't believe someone in government can openly pander to groups like that, against the laws of the land, and get away with it. And the speaker of the House, no less!

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:13 am

Gawd she's an idiot!

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:30 am

Hold on...

I support enforcing our immigration laws, but as Americans we absolutely must be ethical about the way we do it.

My wife and I attended an open-discussion forum about immigration issues a while back, and were stunned at the apathy most people had about the ways our immigration laws are often enforced. We heard sentiments like, \"deport 'em all, doesn't matter if their family starves\" and \"they're all just criminals, we don't have any reason to care\". What was more amazing is that this forum was sponsored by a church! I'm not often more disappointed in people who call themselves Christ-followers.

--------------------

Back to the proposal,

Do you really believe Ms. Pelosi was saying that members of families should be untouchable? Or was it exactly what it seems to be: a statement about law enforcement needing to show more ethical judgement when dealing with families (especially children)?

--------------------

P.S. Woodchip, I'm going to need some explanation for your equation of immigration crimes to \"coke users\" and \"meth addicts\".

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:41 am

Foil wrote: Do you really believe Ms. Pelosi was saying that members of families should be untouchable?

Yes, I do. She's a whack job to the Nth degree. If you don't believe me, I suggest you read more of the speeches she has given on the floor of the house.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:53 am

How about this, arrest entire families for the once member's crimes and punish them equally!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:59 am

A few years ago a Friend of mine from Guatamala, was told by a fine upstanding government employee, that if appeared he was going to be shipped back to guatamala that he should get as many Credit cards as he could and max them out. and when he got shipped back just take the stuff with him and default. Thats our government in action. Pelosi and the democrats are just buying votes with your and my tax dollars.\"Minorities\" and Unions. Power corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutly right now the Democraps have absolute power in our government, the corruption has just begun.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:14 am

AlphaDoG wrote:
Foil wrote: Do you really believe Ms. Pelosi was saying that members of families should be untouchable?
Yes, I do.

If so (possible, she's said some wacky things), then I'd disagree with her - enforcement of laws can't just be ignored.

--------------

So let's take Ms. Pelosi and partisan politics out of the equation. All politicking aside, here's what I think the issue boils down to:

Would you agree that law enforcement needs to show some ethical judgement when dealing with family immigration issues?

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:21 am

Foil, I don't want to see families disrupted, but every family needs to be treated equally. The law doesn't take into consideration a coke dealer's family when they make a bust, and nor should they.

In fact, what usually happens is that the \"state\" confiscates the dealer's properties and possessions, and if they have children, they (usually) become a ward of the \"state.\"

Why should an \"illegal\" be afforded any more consideration than say a felonious drug dealer?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:40 am

CUDA wrote:Pelosi and the democrats are just buying votes with your and my tax dollars.

That is exactly what it amounts to.

Foil wrote:Hold on...

No, we don't need to hold on. Foil, maybe you need to look into this more. Maybe you should ask yourself what it would look like if we were dealing with this as we should, because you're really missing something here. If Pelosi were just an upstanding but compassionate public servant she would be trying to make progress concerning inhumane deportation within our government, not out among the people who are sympathetic toward illegal immigration. I'm sympathetic toward Mexican families, but they knew exactly what they were getting into when they came here illegally. When they're jerked out from among their loved ones it's no more than they knew they would get. Stupid liberals always fighting against law instead of alongside it. If America is doing something that is truly unethical, then it needs to be fixed... without undermining the laws of the land. Immigration needs to be made to work, and to work for us, it doesn't need to be compromised for the sake of illegal immigrants. Not because Pelosi feels sorry for them, and not because we might be getting a Hispanic majority in some places that is sympathetic to illegal immigration.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:51 am

Foil wrote:So let's take Ms. Pelosi and partisan politics out of the equation.

Maybe you should start a new topic on the ethical execution of law enforcement, instead of obfuscating the matter by coming to someone like Pelosi's defense, without knowing what you're talking about, just because you have an opinion on the issue that might sound similar.

I mean instead of coming in and assuming that we're being insensitive to the families of illegal immigrants just because we express indignation at immigration law being undermined for political gain...

If there's one safe assumption you can make, it's that liberals have their approach all wrong, even if they happen to be right in some areas now and again.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:29 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Foil wrote:So let's take Ms. Pelosi and partisan politics out of the equation.
Maybe you should start a new topic on the ethical execution of law enforcement...

That's reasonable (though I'm a bit hesitant, because threads in the past about illegal immigration issues have devolved pretty quickly).

Given woody's initial rant, I understood the subject to be immigration issues; but if this thread should focus on Pelosi's political motives, I can deal with that.

Just for the record, I was defending the concept of ethical immigration reform, not Pelosi herself. I tend to agree with you guys that her statements were a play for power/influence - after all, she's a party politician.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:03 pm

She should take that same argument to Central America. You won't get treated that nicely there if you're there illegally. In many cases, you'd be lucky not to be shot on the spot. We, as a country and our laws are much more lenient than most.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:48 pm

Ethical immigration reform Foil? How so? While people like Pelosi are saying law enforcement is racial profiling by arresting illegal immigrants, is there also not a reverse racial profiling of other countries immigrants like say Irans, as they would be arrested if they tried to sneak in?

The only \"ethical\" immigration is where all who want to enter this great country are required to abide by the laws there-in.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:48 pm

The problem is these families choose to break themselves up.

I wish some political party would start pandering to me…

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:11 pm

While I do feel bad about the families, they should of APPLIED FOR A VISA. If your doing illegal things in this country, and your here illegally, then it is solely your fault.

Now, if it was a raid only for catching illegals and deporting them, then they should all be deported together, and not separated.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:08 pm

Dakatsu wrote:While I do feel bad about the families, they should have APPLIED FOR A VISA. If you're doing illegal things in this country, and you're here illegally, then it is solely your fault.

Now, if it was a raid only for catching illegals and deporting them, then they should all be deported together, and not separated.

Corrected for you!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:12 pm

And therein lies the problem…Some of the family is here legally, and some not, and you “cannot” deport the legal ones.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:31 pm

The current laws are unethical.

Sure, they broke the law, but if I was born 100 miles south of where I was, I sure in hell would be trying to get here, and you would to! Especially if I had kids! I would do everything I could to make sure they were born here.

...is anyone here really going to argue that if the sherif's head was found in a ice chest in your town, that you would put yourself on the 18 year application?

It serves no one in society to take away a childs father, to take away a families bread winner. Pick your statistic: we removed the father and so the child is more likely to drop out of school, go to jail, commit violent crime, fill in the blank.

Or the child can go back to Mexico and have even less of a chance at success.

As a society we must be honest enough with ourselves to:
1. Remove the automatic citizenship for being born here.
2. Grant amnesty to those who make it with kids, and buff the hell out of our boarder.

But the status quo is pure evil.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:43 pm

I agree with Goob that the status quo sucks.

The status quo is, on the one hand, a series of laws that aren't terribly consistently enforced, and on the other hand a ton of people in this country who would like to be just normal hard-working people who have to avoid drawing legal attention to themselves.

What we need is a system that deals with the realities of the situation:

- people from Mexico want to come into this country to live and work
- most people here illegally are doing good things, and not breaking laws beyond immigration itself
- both the US and Mexico benefit from people being able to cross the border to find work
- we should do our best NOT to break up families for trivial reasons
- there are a few bad apples who want to cross the border to import drugs or violence into the US, and we need to crack down on such people
- the way the system is set up right now, people have incentives to cross the border just before giving birth in order to gain US citizenship for their children, and this allows them to go around the system as a whole

I don't pretend to have a good solution to this... but I do know the current system is awful.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:47 pm

“Remove the automatic citizenship for being born here.” And BINGO…we “all” become illegal. This little quirk of the constitution is being abused by them, it’s not “our” fault.

They know the risks….

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:00 pm

Sure Spidey, if you replaced it with nothing that would be a problem.

Why not just require having the parents be U.S. citizens?

As Lothar pointed out,

Lothar wrote:the way the system is set up right now, people have incentives to cross the border just before giving birth in order to gain US citizenship for their children, and this allows them to go around the system as a whole

and I disagree, the child who was born here, who now grows up without a father did not "know the risks," ironically, however, he is probably the only one who will ever fully understand them.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:17 pm

They don't have to be citizens to work but they need to be identified to enter.
They don't have to qualify for the whole spectrum of social services to work here but they should be able to earn that status by assimilating to our society, staying employed and out of jail over a period of time.
Since there is a high supply of people outside the country willing to enter under those terms why put up with anything less?

Of course to enjoy those conditions we need to control the border and severely punish employers, landlords, and service providers etc. who would exploit the immigrant workers using the fear of deportation as means to make them pay protection or work cheap/tax free or live in substandard conditions.

If the demand for the worker is here then give us the workers. You don't need to give them citizenship to contract for their work...unless you are really just trying to import voters to prop up your political party on election day....

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:22 pm

Well…Duh…The implication is that the parents know what they are doing, and how it might effect the children…doh.

And you do realize the “law” you want to change is how the constitution fundamentally deems one a citizen.

.......................

What a freakin joke, these people are abusing the system and breaking the law…and it’s OUR fault…lol

So now we should change the laws, so they won’t be breaking them anymore.

Give me a break!

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:56 pm

Spidey wrote:And you do realize the “law” you want to change is how the constitution fundamentally deems one a citizen.

Its been changed before. John McCain was not a legal citizen when he was born.

What a freakin joke, these people are abusing the system and breaking the law…and it’s OUR fault…lol

I think there is a significant difference between saying its our fault, and saying our reaction to them breaking the law is unethical. Taking a father from his child hurts him, hurts the child, and yes, hurts our society.

So now we should change the laws, so they won’t be breaking them anymore.

My first suggestion was sort of the opposite of that. We change the law so the child is also "breaking them" and must go back with his father.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:43 am

Gooberman wrote:
Spidey wrote:And you do realize the “law” you want to change is how the constitution fundamentally deems one a citizen.
Its been changed before. John McCain was not a legal citizen when he was born.

McCain WAS a legal citizen when he was born, his Father was in the Military when he was born over seas, that gives him automatic citizenship.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:08 am

So all the lefts hand wringing over the well being of the children and the family is really just so much soap bubble rhetoric. Remember this:

Care to remember who El Presidente was and his sweet heart Atty. General?

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:46 am

Too Easy! Clinton, Reno.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:10 am

CUDA wrote: McCain WAS a legal citizen when he was born, his Father was in the Military when he was born over seas, that gives him automatic citizenship.

John McCain was born in 1936, in the republic of Panama. At the time of McCain's birth, the relevent statute granted citizenship to any child of an American citizen (including military), within the United States and "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United states."

At that time Panama was a loop hole, in that it was not within the United States, but it was still under the jurisdiction of the United States at that time.

In order to fix this, congress passed, "section 203(b) NA and Section 2 of the Act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat. 558)."

(note: a year after John McCain's birth)

"...Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen ofthe Unied States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

....thus closing the inadvertant loop hole, and retroactivly declaring John McCain a Citizen.

/load(Paul_Harvey.wav)

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:12 am

So we're both right

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:54 am

1. As far as citizenship laws go, if you're born to a US citizen, you are born a US citizen. I was born outside of the US, to parents who weren't working for the government, and still have a US birth certificate/passport. As far as I know, I'm not considered naturalized- I'm considered born a US citizen.

2. Part of the problem is our super-strict immigration laws. We seriously make it too hard for people to legally enter & become naturalized.

3. If you're breaking the law, you're breaking the law. Here's my take on separating families: If you have a US citizen child, and you're an illegal, then you should have the option of taking your child with you upon deportation, still allowing them to retain their US citizenship. That way, you don't have a loophole where someone can avoid the punishment for breaking the law by having a child, but at the same time you're not forcing families to be separated. If the parent's government won't accept the child, then that's on the parent's government's head... but the US government should do what they can to take care of the child until he/she can be reunited to the parents.

4. I really have a problem with defending illegals. They're breaking the law. I realize that they're just trying to live a better life, and that they're trying to pass on something better to their children, but breaking the law isn't the way to do it. I think our end of helping is to address #2. I don't see any way to justify breaking the law. If the law sucks and is wrong, get it changed. Write your congressman. While it stands, respect it (and try to get it changed if you don't like it), or leave.

5. Part of the point to cracking down on illegal immigration is to make it suck more to get caught- because the more painful the punishment for breaking the law, the more people there will be out there that will decide that it's not worth it.

6. I think enablers should face stiffer punishments than they do at the moment. It should be just as much of a risk for landlords, employers, etc. to enable illegal immigration as it is to be the one immigrating illegally. Yes I realize that this means more hungry people out on the streets because people won't help them. We should set up places for illegals to eat & stay, with the understanding that they're going to be taken back across the border the next morning.

7. I've toyed with the idea of setting up policy to deport people to more physically removed place then a couple miles across the border... when you drop them off just on the other side, they just try the next night. If you dropped them off down in southern Mexico, it'd at least take them a while to get back up north to try again- the extra trip would be enough to deter some. This probably isn't really the solution- it'd take people from being away from home in a good place to being away from home in a really crappy place.

8. One of the biggest things I have an issue with are the illegals that come here just to work, and keep their families back home, and send most of what they make back home. I'd show more amnesty to people that come up to live, and essentially assimilate into US citizenship. I hate to see illegals getting paid under the table, only for 90% of it to flow straight out of the country. Part of that is #6. Part of that is maybe trying to deal with the exportation of cash- I don't really know what to try to do about making it more painful, but I think it should be.

TLDR: We can't be totally cold-hearted toward illegal immigrants, but neglecting to enforce the law isn't the solution. If the law sucks, get it changed. If not, then enforce the law, but have a heart when you're enforcing it- remembering the fact that these people know that they are assuming risk by choosing to break the law.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:52 pm

I don't know about your forefathers, but mine came over here legally. People have immigrated here from bigger sh!tholes than Mexico, have waited in longer queues, and they didn't decide to break our laws. What makes Mexicans so special that they get a free pass but no one else does?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:53 pm

ccb056 wrote: What makes Mexicans so special that they get a free pass but no one else does?

they vote Democrat

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:06 pm

While, thats true.

Hispanics are also the largest minority group, in both numbers and percentage, that votes for republicans. Many of them are catholic and abortion is the decision maker.

This is why so many republican politicians drag their feet on this issue as well.

Octopus · Post by **Octopus** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:19 pm

Mexico has an infrastructure crisis more than anything else. And that's a topic for another thread. But if you actually do care about people crossing over illegally into our country, then you have to look at the problems in Mexico. Solving the Mexican crisis is solving our illegal immigration crisis.

Edit:
Most people I speak with believe the Mexican mind is hardwired for corruption and is the reason Mexico can't be saved. If that's NOT the case (I'm sure it's not) then I think there's a solution out there...

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:39 pm

I agree with Snoopy in mostly everything.

May I still recommend my older immigration plan?
1. Allow amnesty for anyone who, after passing this bill, reports themselves to the police/government/whatever. They will get US citizenship, with all the benefits and problems (such as paying taxes).
2. Monitor the border with cameras/aircraft/radar, with humvees stationed in range of the camera. The \"build a wall\" BS is retarded, it doesn't work. The humvees can react to any sensed illegals, intercept them, and escort them to be deported.
3. After one month, any illegals found in the United States will be deported, no exceptions, and strict enforcement.

I think that is an all encompassing plan. Do you all agree?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:48 pm

I am sure they will

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:38 pm

Octopus wrote:Edit:
Most people I speak with believe the Mexican mind is hardwired for corruption ...

Yeah, I'll bet the WASP's in Boston were saying the same thing about the Irish and Italians, once upon a time.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:13 am

Octopus wrote:Most people I speak with believe the Mexican mind is hardwired for corruption and is the reason Mexico can't be saved. If that's NOT the case (I'm sure it's not) then I think there's a solution out there...

They aren't. I lived in Mexico for 5 years. The worse conditions get, the more desperate people get, and the more willing they are to ignore the law in order to better their lot. You'd be tempted, too, if you had to live with your whole family in a 1-room cardboard shack.

Failing Families

Failing Families

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: