“It’s stupid”
“They would use it to get benefits” (not true)
“They would use it to get credit cards” (who cares)
“They’re here illegally” - no explanation
“Only 1% of them would get car insurance” (Ludicrously lowball estimate, but it’s still a 1% improvement, isn’t it?)
“It legitamizes them” - finally
No one brought it up until ElRavager.
I don’t think “the state can’t condone that because it’s related to something the state has already declared illegal” is a good argument in all cases, but you have a point on contract enforcement for drug dealers. In this specific case, though, what politically happens is:
GOP whips up anti-immigrant hysteria to get elected.
GOP immediately forgets about the entire thing, because changing immigration would lose their big donors money.
Nothing ever changes. Immigrants can’t be citizens, are constantly in fear of deportation, and we don’t even try to stop them from coming across the border.
Remember how Bush got smacked down by the party when he brought up immigration reform in 2001? There’s a virtual “slave economy” (using artificial means to hold down wages, rather than replace the low wages with industrialization) going on with fruit growers in CA. Other industries are bad about it (meatpacking especially), but not nearly as so. Seeing how there’s absolutely no chance of fixing immigration for the foreseeable future, I’ll take what I can get to make their lives slightly less miserable.
I’m not sure whether you can really say that the state helps ag corps break the law, but the state sure as hell doesn’t try to enforce the law. When they do, it’s mysteriously at the end of picking. Using the drug analogy, it’s the equivalent of cops ignoring the only place in town where they’re sold openly on the street.
Is it true that illegal immigrants can’t be citizens? I thought US citizenship would be granted automatically after some period of residence, 10 or 20 years or whatever. And what about the US-born children of illegal residents?
Illegal immigrants cannot be citizens. There are sometimes ‘amnesty’ offers, but there is no standing rule along the lines of becoming legal once you can prove X years of illegal residence.
US born children are, however, automatically US citizens. That is a strong motivator for many illegals. US hospitals are required to accept them and deliver the baby too, though only on an ‘emergency room’ basis during labor. In most cases the hospital will never get any money for this, and the mother & child will still get better medical care than they would have in her home country.
Is it true that illegal immigrants can’t be citizens? I thought US citizenship would be granted automatically after some period of residence, 10 or 20 years or whatever. And what about the US-born children of illegal residents?[/quote]
What Tim said. I think you’re thinking of “naturalization,” a process by which a legal immigrant can become a US citizen, after (IIRC) seven years (?). Illegals, however, cannot be naturalized AFAIK.
Jason, I’m all for relaxing the immigration laws. I think people should come and go for work either freely, or that visas should be ludicrously easy to obtain. That said, though, the law’s the law and the state has no business giving official IDs to illegals. You say there’s “no explanation” of that argument, but I just spent two giant paragraphs explaining it above. Like I said, I accept that not only do you disagree, you legitimately don’t get it (i.e., you don’t understand the connection there at all). But I see it, and I think you’re very much in the minority for not seeing it, for whatever that’s worth.
I welcome my new conservative friends! Let’s all go clean up a wildlife preserve this weekend and join a Heartwalk… wait a minute… uh… never mind! :lol:
I know that you are joking, but that’s a bizarre cognitive leap that a good number of liberals on this board really seem to believe–that people who oppose government-madated charity do so because they hate the idea of charity in general. That’s simply not true, and what’s more, it makes no sense. Sort of like saying that anyone who supports a seperation of church and state must therefor hate religion.
Also, there are those of us, to the consternation of some of our Scandanvian readers, who merely embrace ideas individually, rather than falling under “liberal” or “conservative” stereotypes. Though I tend to lean liberal on the majority of my beliefs, I also believe that if laws are codified, they should be enforced. Otherwise, change or remove the laws.
That’s my feeling with the CA thing – if they’re considered illegal immigrants, don’t then put in an infrastructure to support them. Either enforce the current immigration laws, or change the laws to create a new classification for “undocumented entrants” or something that provides a support infrastructure for them (drivers licenses and other basic societal needs within the bounds of the law. Saying “you can’t be here” and “since you’re here, get a license” makes no sense.
Wow. I’m amazed at the naivete. “If the laws say X, then either change the law or obey it.” If a law is wrong, then there’s nothing incorrect about disregarding it. Period. I’m not going to waste my time trying to change stupid and/or evil laws. I’ll just work around them. It’s difficult to change them, and for what? So that our law books are consistent with reality? It’ll take a lot more than a changed law to make official institutions coherent.
And as for the idea that the state itself shouldn’t disregard it’s own laws… who cares? The state is a multi-headed beast, and if one head ignores a law, while another religiously obeys it, we don’t erode respect for the laws, or any other BS like that. You just have a weakened law. And considering the idiot, knee-jerk laws this country has on immigration, that’s a good thing.
Actually, I take that back. The immigration laws aren’t really all that stupid. They’re a well thought out balance by various political and corporate parties. It’s when the common citizenry starts believing the anti-immigration rhetoric that things start getting really stupid.
Yeah, why have laws at all? Hey Anaxagoras, what’s your street address? I’ve decided the law that says you get to keep your stuff, instead of me keeping it, is wrong.
The problem here is one of Federalism. California would probably like nothing better than to properly document all foreign workers, whatever the INS thinks about it. But the state can only go so far in opposing the bit in the constitution where Congress gets to decide who stays and who goes.
Basically the same problem as marijuana legalization, except that it can be argued that legalization is not the feds’ business, while the immigration clearly is.
California can beg the INS to either change or enforce its rules, but until it does the state has to manage as best it can. Giving them drivers’ licences, though, is a Bad Thing.
Excuse me, I should have said “illegal aliens effectively can’t become citizens.” It’s hard enough for people legally here; it’s practically impossible when you’re illegal.
That said, though, the law’s the law and the state has no business giving official IDs to illegals. You say there’s “no explanation” of that argument,
I meant you were the first person to explain it. I do get it, but I honestly don’t care; the existing injustice is large enough I’m not worried about consistency. I don’t think “you shouldn’t obey unjust laws” is a completely crazy opinion, either; has a long history.
And I’m curious now - is there anyone here who a) thinks illegal immigrants should be deported but b) if they were born in Mexico, would have stayed there?
Federalism doesn’t have much to do with it. It’s perfectly constitutional for a state to give an illegal alien a driver’s license.
Denny, I agree with your opinion on what policy should be, but there’s no chance whatsoever of rational reform for the foreseeable future. If that was a possibility, I’d oppose the DL thing, but it’s not.
I’m not really sure how you get from “Mexico is a sucky place to live” to “our immigration laws are unjust.” You’ve been complaining about people presenting unexplained arguments, so care to explain that one?
You really think there are some Scandinavian posters on this forum that particularly generalise about opinions and politics in America, more so than other so-called groups?
You really think there are some Scandinavian posters on this forum that particularly generalise about opinions and politics in America, more so than other so-called groups?[/quote]
Of course he does. He is an American, you know.
You really think there are some Scandinavian posters on this forum that particularly generalise about opinions and politics in America, more so than other so-called groups?[/quote]
Of course he does. He is an American, you know.[/quote]
Oh yeah, I forgot they do believe in that kind of thing.
(before anyone says it: “oh, how witty you are”, said sarcastically)
I’m not really sure how you get from “Mexico is a sucky place to live” to “our immigration laws are unjust.” You’ve been complaining about people presenting unexplained arguments, so care to explain that one?[/quote]
Oh, sorry, I was assuming. The current “avert-your-eyes” system we have, where we don’t really enforce our immigration laws, results in both lower wages for untrained citizens, lower wages for legal immigrants, and lower wages for illegal immigrants, all to the benefit of low-wage employers. The only constraint on what employers pay illegal immigrants, really, is whatever conscience they have and occasional outrage by the public.
We’re also siphoning off a lot of Mexico’s “strivers”, slowing down their industrialization by taking their rural workers, etc., etc.
Yeah, why have laws at all? Hey Anaxagoras, what’s your street address? I’ve decided the law that says you get to keep your stuff, instead of me keeping it, is wrong.[/quote]
You want property laws weakened and/or eliminated? You’re a goddamn idiot, Rywill.
So you are angry that people don’t take immigration laws seriously, causing problems for everyone, but you are in favor of taking them even less seriously? Do you also try to put out fires by pouring kerosene on them? I still don’t get it, I guess. Why not argue for better enforcement? How are drivers licenses going to improve wages for illegal immigrants, anyway? Or anyone else?
So ignoring laws that you don’t like is okay, but only when you do it? Man, you should be in politics.
Interesting… I never thought that Mexico might be hurt by this whole thing. But isn’t is possible that instead of harming Mexico, we’re providing stimulus to their economy? I’m not stating an opinion here… I don’t feel that I know enough economics to really say in what way the immigration thing affects the nation losing all the people.
