Let's talk about illegal immigration (2 Viewers)

[Mario Kart]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

 

[Eminence]

We aren't Mexico junior. We're America!

 

[cubd8]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

 

[dparker713]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

The value an immigrant brings is not an argument in favor of illegal immigration.

 

[timschochet]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

The value an immigrant brings is not an argument in favor of illegal immigration.

It absolutely is. In terms of value, there is no distinction.

 

[dparker713]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

The value an immigrant brings is not an argument in favor of illegal immigration.

It absolutely is. In terms of value, there is no distinction.

Again, nation of laws.

 

[timschochet]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

The value an immigrant brings is not an argument in favor of illegal immigration.

It absolutely is. In terms of value, there is no distinction.

Again, nation of laws.

Yes, and I am proposing we change them.

 

[timschochet]

Jesus Tim, you dug up this crap again. Its not like you haven't posted this exact same crap before.

For your information, an illegal immigrant, by definition, is breaking the law every single day that they are here. Amnesty and clemency are not the same thing. Increasing our immigration numbers does not require us to allow for people to enter the country any way they choose. Every reasonable person realizes Ayn Rand was full of #### by the time they're 22. We are a nation of laws.

the charge made against illegals by Donald Trump, among others, is that they are violent felons. In fact every study done shows that the vast majority are among the most law abiding people we have in our society. That being said, you're correct that simply by being here they are, in fact, breaking the law. Since we're talking about 10-15 million people, that fact demonstrates the futility of the law in question rather than the criminality of those who break it. So fine them, give them a path to citizenship, and be done with it.

 

[dparker713]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

The value an immigrant brings is not an argument in favor of illegal immigration.

It absolutely is. In terms of value, there is no distinction.

Again, nation of laws.

Yes, and I am proposing we change them.

So we agree. The solution is in legal immigration.

 

[timschochet]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

The value an immigrant brings is not an argument in favor of illegal immigration.

It absolutely is. In terms of value, there is no distinction.

Again, nation of laws.

Yes, and I am proposing we change them.

So we agree. The solution is in legal immigration.

And a path to citizenship for those already here.

 

[dparker713]

Jesus Tim, you dug up this crap again. Its not like you haven't posted this exact same crap before.

For your information, an illegal immigrant, by definition, is breaking the law every single day that they are here. Amnesty and clemency are not the same thing. Increasing our immigration numbers does not require us to allow for people to enter the country any way they choose. Every reasonable person realizes Ayn Rand was full of #### by the time they're 22. We are a nation of laws.

the charge made against illegals by Donald Trump, among others, is that they are violent felons. In fact every study done shows that the vast majority are among the most law abiding people we have in our society. That being said, you're correct that simply by being here they are, in fact, breaking the law. Since we're talking about 10-15 million people, that fact demonstrates the futility of the law in question rather than the criminality of those who break it. So fine them, give them a path to citizenship, and be done with it.

Trump is a moron. This is not news.

 

[timschochet]

We aren't Mexico junior. We're America!

I mentioned there was an element of racism in some of the attitudes towards this issue, and I was attacked for it. Here it is. Can anyone deny that what Eminence is expressing here is a popular sentiment among many Trump supporters?

 

[timschochet]

Jesus Tim, you dug up this crap again. Its not like you haven't posted this exact same crap before.

For your information, an illegal immigrant, by definition, is breaking the law every single day that they are here. Amnesty and clemency are not the same thing. Increasing our immigration numbers does not require us to allow for people to enter the country any way they choose. Every reasonable person realizes Ayn Rand was full of #### by the time they're 22. We are a nation of laws.

the charge made against illegals by Donald Trump, among others, is that they are violent felons. In fact every study done shows that the vast majority are among the most law abiding people we have in our society. That being said, you're correct that simply by being here they are, in fact, breaking the law. Since we're talking about 10-15 million people, that fact demonstrates the futility of the law in question rather than the criminality of those who break it. So fine them, give them a path to citizenship, and be done with it.

Trump is a moron. This is not news.

His position on this issue is shared by millions of conservatives. It's the main reason he is currently the GOP frontrunner.

 

[dparker713]

We aren't Mexico junior. We're America!

I mentioned there was an element of racism in some of the attitudes towards this issue, and I was attacked for it. Here it is. Can anyone deny that what Eminence is expressing here is a popular sentiment among many Trump supporters?

Eminence and Trump. Step back and think on that.

 

[timschochet]

We aren't Mexico junior. We're America!

I mentioned there was an element of racism in some of the attitudes towards this issue, and I was attacked for it. Here it is. Can anyone deny that what Eminence is expressing here is a popular sentiment among many Trump supporters?

Eminence and Trump. Step back and think on that.

Youre talking about the likely GOP nominee for President. Step back and think on THAT.

 

[dparker713]

We aren't Mexico junior. We're America!

I mentioned there was an element of racism in some of the attitudes towards this issue, and I was attacked for it. Here it is. Can anyone deny that what Eminence is expressing here is a popular sentiment among many Trump supporters?

Eminence and Trump. Step back and think on that.

Youre talking about the likely GOP nominee for President. Step back and think on THAT.

You're ostensibly trying to debate these people on positions. It's a waste of time they're incapable of reason.

 

[Rich Conway]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

 

[Rich Conway]

And a path to citizenship for those already here.

This is where you really lose me. Why isn't simply legalizing their status enough? You say they come here for a better life, to work. Legalizing their status gives them exactly that.

And by the way, demanding blanket amnesty including citizenship is not compromise. It's exactly what you claim to hate about the Tea Party, demanding total capitulation from the other side.

 

[timschochet]

And a path to citizenship for those already here.

This is where you really lose me. Why isn't simply legalizing their status enough? You say they come here for a better life, to work. Legalizing their status gives them exactly that.

And by the way, demanding blanket amnesty including citizenship is not compromise. It's exactly what you claim to hate about the Tea Party, demanding total capitulation from the other side.

Its not blanket amnesty. It comes after a long time and paying a fine. If you commit a felony during the process it's no longer viable. And the reason legalizing their status is not enough is because a society with millions of second class citizens won't work in the long run. However, once again I am willing to compromise. No citizenship for them ever, so long as they get legal status and their children who are born here are citizens. And if they pay taxes they get the use of our social services as if citizens. But they don't get the right to vote for their lifetimes. I believe this is close to what Jeb Bush has proposed and less than what Hillary wants.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

Jesus Tim, you dug up this crap again. Its not like you haven't posted this exact same crap before.

For your information, an illegal immigrant, by definition, is breaking the law every single day that they are here. Amnesty and clemency are not the same thing. Increasing our immigration numbers does not require us to allow for people to enter the country any way they choose. Every reasonable person realizes Ayn Rand was full of #### by the time they're 22. We are a nation of laws.

the charge made against illegals by Donald Trump, among others, is that they are violent felons. In fact every study done shows that the vast majority are among the most law abiding people we have in our society. That being said, you're correct that simply by being here they are, in fact, breaking the law. Since we're talking about 10-15 million people, that fact demonstrates the futility of the law in question rather than the criminality of those who break it. So fine them, give them a path to citizenship, and be done with it.

Trump is a moron. This is not news.

His position on this issue is shared by millions of conservatives. It's the main reason he is currently the GOP frontrunner.

Do you have a link that shows immigration is the main reason?

 

[timschochet]

Jesus Tim, you dug up this crap again. Its not like you haven't posted this exact same crap before.

For your information, an illegal immigrant, by definition, is breaking the law every single day that they are here. Amnesty and clemency are not the same thing. Increasing our immigration numbers does not require us to allow for people to enter the country any way they choose. Every reasonable person realizes Ayn Rand was full of #### by the time they're 22. We are a nation of laws.

the charge made against illegals by Donald Trump, among others, is that they are violent felons. In fact every study done shows that the vast majority are among the most law abiding people we have in our society. That being said, you're correct that simply by being here they are, in fact, breaking the law. Since we're talking about 10-15 million people, that fact demonstrates the futility of the law in question rather than the criminality of those who break it. So fine them, give them a path to citizenship, and be done with it.

Trump is a moron. This is not news.

His position on this issue is shared by millions of conservatives. It's the main reason he is currently the GOP frontrunner.

Do you have a link that shows immigration is the main reason?

No. That's an assumption on my part based on what is now probably over 100 opinion articles I have read about the rise of Trump. Do you believe that it is not the main reason?

 

[Rich Conway]

And a path to citizenship for those already here.

This is where you really lose me. Why isn't simply legalizing their status enough? You say they come here for a better life, to work. Legalizing their status gives them exactly that.

And by the way, demanding blanket amnesty including citizenship is not compromise. It's exactly what you claim to hate about the Tea Party, demanding total capitulation from the other side.

Its not blanket amnesty. It comes after a long time and paying a fine. If you commit a felony during the process it's no longer viable.And the reason legalizing their status is not enough is because a society with millions of second class citizens won't work in the long run. However, once again I am willing to compromise. No citizenship for them ever, so long as they get legal status and their children who are born here are citizens. And if they pay taxes they get the use of our social services as if citizens. But they don't get the right to vote for their lifetimes. I believe this is close to what Jeb Bush has proposed and less than what Hillary wants.

You really don't understand what compromise means, do you?

Rich: I'll give you $50 for it.

timschochet: Sorry, but the price is $200.

Rich: Can't go that high, but I guess I could go as high as $75.

timschochet: Gotta be $200.

Rich: Look, I'd really love to get this done, but $125 is as high as I can go.

timschochet: Nope, price is $250 now.

Rich: Forget it. See you around.

timschochet: Why won't you compromise?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

Wanna guess what would happen to the construction & service industries if that came to fruition?

 

[Rich Conway]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

Wanna guess what would happen to the construction & service industries if that came to fruition?

Not much, IMO. Remember that part of the plan allows the illegals currently here to become legal guest workers.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

Wanna guess what would happen to the construction & service industries if that came to fruition?

Not much, IMO. Remember that part of the plan allows the illegals currently here to become legal guest workers.

I hear ya, but getting from Point A (which is where we are now) to Point B (where employers are punished) is tricksy, precious, and full of a lot of moving parts. This is one of those issues where dropping a hard deadline may not work (especially for business owners).

 

[Rich Conway]

Not sure I follow. Say the new policy allows current illegals six months to report and become legal guest workers. After that time, businesses have another three months to determine which of their employees are legal. The businesses should already know which are legal and which aren't, if they are obeying the law now. For businesses obeying our current laws, this shouldn't cause any hardship. For businesses that are actively breaking the law, I don't particularly care if they are caused a bit of hardship.

 

[timschochet]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Not sure I follow. Say the new policy allows current illegals six months to report and become legal guest workers. After that time, businesses have another three months to determine which of their employees are legal. The businesses should already know which are legal and which aren't, if they are obeying the law now. For businesses obeying our current laws, this shouldn't cause any hardship. For businesses that are actively breaking the law, I don't particularly care if they are caused a bit of hardship.

Many businesses don't want to get their employees legal, and many of those same business owners are part of powerful lobbies and/or politicians. That's why so many pro-business, anti-immigration politicians are such hypocrites. The way things are now, they can keep wages depressed (how many illegals are going to fight it?), plus the "legal" talent pool for labor absolutely sucks. Try getting one legal person out of ten to either pass a drug test or show up every day for two weeks.

Again, I like your idea in theory. I just don't know how we get there without pushing aside the net and giving amnesty.

Jake Layman is still on my #### list, by the way

 

[dparker713]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

Tell that to me the next time the US Men's Soccer team plays Mexico in LA.

 

[HellToupee]

Drunk Driving Illegal Alien who Crashed Car in Lexington Park was Deported in 2012

Jose Manuel Mendez-Ramos, 30 years old
On Saturday, December 12, 2015, Corporal E. O’Connor of the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office responded to the area 21135 Winding Way, in Lexington Park, for a reported car accident.

Upon arrival, Deputy O’Connor observed a black Honda sitting off the roadway, on the wrong side of the road, approximately 1 foot from two light poles.

An adult male was sleeping in the driver’s seat holding an open Modelo beer can. The vehicle was still running while overheating and the radio was playing loudly.

The driver, identified himself as Edgar Edward Aguilar, with a date of birth of 02/14/84

According to charging documents police described the driver as having glossy and bloodshot eyes, and smelling of a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage.

Department of Defense Officer Alfonso Ortiz, responded to the scene and the subject identified himself as the same Aguilar.

The St. Mary’s Communications center advised they had located the subject through the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and he was eligible, but had no license.

The subject did not perform any of the standardized field sobriety tests, and was placed under arrest for DWI.

After being taken to police headquarters the driver took an intoximeter test and had blood alcohol concentration of .18 (over twice the legal limit)

The driver was then transported to the detention center where he was processed for the DWI. While being processed, the subject’s fingerprints revealed his real name was Jose Manuel Mendez-Ramos, 30 years old.

Mendez-Ramos’s wife responded to the Detention Center admitted that Jose Manuel Mendez-Ramos was his correct name, and that he was deported from the United States in 2012.

The defendant also had two open warrants with the Maryland State Police under his correct name.

The defendant was charged with DUI, false statement to a peace officer and false statement to an officer.

 

[HellToupee]

Dec 28 http://13wham.com/news/top-stories/illegal-immigrant-charged-in-drunk-driving-crash-raises-questions-about-immigration-policy Illegal immigrant charged in drunk driving crash raises questions about immigration policy

Clarkson, N.Y. - The accusations against an illegal immigrant suspected in a drunken driving crash are raising some questions about immigration policies.

Gates Town Supervisor and Congressional candidate Mark Assini is expressing outrage over the fact that this man had been deported before, and was back in western New York.

Assini says there are a number of cases in our area involving illegal immigrants who have been arrested with prior criminal convictions.

He also has questions: Who was housing Efrain Lopez-Contreras? Where was he employed and how did he get a vehicle? Why was he deported previously?

"There's no doubt that, right now we have porous borders," Assini said. "Our federal government is inept in protecting us from people invading our country.

"Until those borders are protected, these types of tragedies are going to continue to occur and they need to stop. We have to identify how this is happening. We can't continue to allow dangerous criminals to continue to come back into the United States," he added.

Assini said the two-car crash along Redman Road on Christmas Eve was not an isolated incident, but an example that more work needs to be done by the federal government to protect U.S. borders.

Police said the previously-deported Lopez-Contreras was drunk when he allegedly veered into the southbound lane, smashing into another car, seriously injuring a pastor and his daughter.

13WHAM also spoke with the director of Greater Rochester Coalition for Immigration Justice. He said incidents like these might lead to a stigma when it comes to migrant workers.

"To use his legal status to expound on an entire population of people is just incorrect," said John Ghertner.

13WHAM reached out to Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's office for comment as well. That request has yet to be returned.

The two people hurt in the Redman Road crash, Pastor Tony Bartolucci and his 14-year old daughter Gianna, remain in guarded condition at Strong Memorial Hospital. A prayer gathering hosted by members of the Amadeus Chorale is set to support the teen on Tuesday evening. Gianna has been singing with the group for seven years.

The plans for the event include making prayer bead bracelets and signing a large board to take to Gianna in the hospital. There'll also be a donation basket to help the family.

"We're hoping that we can collectively show support by praying together, singer together," said Darla Bair, the artistic director of Amadeus Chorale. "Also allowing her friends the singers she's been with for 7 years to come together with each other and have to understand what they can do to help in the future because children and teens often find disturbing news difficult because they don't have the skills to deal with it."

 

[HellToupee]

WARNER TODD HUSTON15 Dec 2015Toms River, NJ92

Police in Toms River, New Jersey, have arrested a repeat offence illegal alien for attacking a police officer with his car by running him down and dragging him down the street.New Jersey officials say that Giomar Diaz, 33, was arrested and is being held in lieu of $500,000 bail on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault on a police officer, and resisting arrest.

Diaz is also being held on a no-bail detainer by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials for being in the country illegally, having previously been deported to the Dominican Republic on drug charges.

Toms River police charge that Diaz ran down officer Daniel Brennan, a 15-year veteran of the force, after the officer responded to the scene of an investigation.

Police were on hand investigating a case of document fraud and the use of a false identity.

Diaz reportedly ran from the scene chased by officer Brennan. The suspect then reportedly jumped into a car, started it, and began backing it up — all while leaving the driver’s door open. Officer Brennan was trapped by the open door and dragged for a distance of up to 25 yards.

Police say that Diaz struck two parked cars, then drove off in an attempt to escape.

The suspect was later apprehended, but a woman who was in the car with him is still being sought.

 

[cubd8]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

Wouldn't your plan be seen as insensitive, potentially even racist if you deny welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies and forcing businesses to stop paying these workers? Would you expect your plan to be supported by Republicans and Democrats?

What are the benefits of citizenship if they don't get any of the entitlements you would deny them AND not allow them to vote?

 

[Juxtatarot]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

A lot of the facts aren't only about illegal immigrants. It does mention that "more than half" of illegal immigrants work "on the books" from a 2005 study. If true, I'm assuming it's not much more than half. Although it's only my guess, I suspect that the net economic benefit of undocumented immigrants working off the books is negative to our nation. Have you seen studies specifically on this?

 

[HellToupee]

Gerardo Harquin, the man who was arrested for driving under the influence after a double-fatal DUI collision on the night of June 27, 2014, has been convicted of murder, according to the Concord Police Department.

The head-on collision occurred on Willow Pass Rd. at the Kinne Bridge. The collision resulted in the death of 23-year-old Lorena Dominguez, and her infant daughter, Khloe.

Harquin had prior DUI convictions and was on probation for DUI. In addition to the deaths of Lorena and Khloe, the collision caused severe injuries to Khloe’s father and several children in Harquin’s own vehicle.

Harquin was convicted of two counts of second degree murder, gross vehicular manslaughter, felony DUI with injury/death, and child endangerment, police said.

He was also found guilty of driving on a suspended license and providing a false identity to the police, according to police

Sentencing is scheduled for mid-February 2016.

 

[Rich Conway]

Not sure I follow. Say the new policy allows current illegals six months to report and become legal guest workers. After that time, businesses have another three months to determine which of their employees are legal. The businesses should already know which are legal and which aren't, if they are obeying the law now. For businesses obeying our current laws, this shouldn't cause any hardship. For businesses that are actively breaking the law, I don't particularly care if they are caused a bit of hardship.

Many businesses don't want to get their employees legal, and many of those same business owners are part of powerful lobbies and/or politicians. That's why so many pro-business, anti-immigration politicians are such hypocrites. The way things are now, they can keep wages depressed (how many illegals are going to fight it?), plus the "legal" talent pool for labor absolutely sucks. Try getting one legal person out of ten to either pass a drug test or show up every day for two weeks.

Again, I like your idea in theory. I just don't know how we get there without pushing aside the net and giving amnesty.

Jake Layman is still on my #### list, by the way

There's the rub, that businesses want to continue to break the law, and politicians want to continue to let them. Or, more accurately, rules don't apply to the politically connected. I'm suggesting that state of affairs isn't acceptable and needs to change. It's not acceptable for Wall Street, and it's not acceptable for Big Agriculture, or anywhere else.

 

[timschochet]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

A lot of the facts aren't only about illegal immigrants. It does mention that "more than half" of illegal immigrants work "on the books" from a 2005 study. If true, I'm assuming it's not much more than half. Although it's only my guess, I suspect that the net economic benefit of undocumented immigrants working off the books is negative to our nation. Have you seen studies specifically on this?

Yes. Most studies don't separate it out though. But logically if all immigration is an economic net positive then illegal immigration has to be even more so, since they use less social services.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This argument has gone on for the last 240 years since our country was founded. One of the principle reasons our country was founded was in part due to immigration and people coming here for something better than what they had before. That is what we recite and preach to the world, we are the land of opportunity. Let's demonstrate that a bit more with less fussing and less fear mongering. I'd bet if we did demonstrate us being the land of opportunity vs. the land of haves/have nots, our foreign policy would be a bit better as well.

The immigration "problem" people talk about is not a problem at all. It'd be interesting to see what a cost/benefit analysis would say as to how much value an immigrant brings into this country, with all things considered.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3z3356/serious_immigrants_to_america_what_was_the_most/

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States

Immigration is a founding principle of our nation.

The idea that we should not in anyway regulate that immigration is brand new.

 

[cubd8]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

A lot of the facts aren't only about illegal immigrants. It does mention that "more than half" of illegal immigrants work "on the books" from a 2005 study. If true, I'm assuming it's not much more than half. Although it's only my guess, I suspect that the net economic benefit of undocumented immigrants working off the books is negative to our nation. Have you seen studies specifically on this?

Yes. Most studies don't separate it out though.But logically if all immigration is an economic net positive then illegal immigration has to be even more so, since they use less social services.

If your original study from the ACLU doesn't break out the numbers solely on illegal immigrants (as has been mentioned in this thread), how do we know they use less social services, commit less cirime, are net positives to the economy, etc.?

 

[Rich Conway]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

Wouldn't your plan be seen as insensitive, potentially even racist if you deny welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies and forcing businesses to stop paying these workers? Would you expect your plan to be supported by Republicans and Democrats?

What are the benefits of citizenship if they don't get any of the entitlements you would deny them AND not allow them to vote?

Again, not sure I follow. What's the overarching goal here? Isn't the goal to allow those currently here illegally to remain here legally and work?

 

[timschochet]

Hell Toupee, statistical data consistently shows that illegal immigrants commit less violent crime by percentage than do legal residents of this country. Your anecdotes, awful

as they are, do nothing to disprove that fact.

 

[timschochet]

Tim- I might have missed it, but did you address the fact that the ACLU pamphlet is giving facts about "immigrants" and your thread refers to "illegal immigrants"?

I assume there would be a big difference in the percentage of illegal immigrants that get paid under the table compared to other immigrants. (For the record, I do not have an opinion on the net economic effect on our nation from illegal immigration.)

I covered it. If you read the ACLU stuff, most of it gives specific facts about illegal immigration. Turns out that just about every positive we have from new immigrants (greater tax base, less crime, less use of public services, economic boon) is increased when it comes to illegal immigrants. Hard to escape the conclusion that their presence here is almost wholly positive.

A lot of the facts aren't only about illegal immigrants. It does mention that "more than half" of illegal immigrants work "on the books" from a 2005 study. If true, I'm assuming it's not much more than half. Although it's only my guess, I suspect that the net economic benefit of undocumented immigrants working off the books is negative to our nation. Have you seen studies specifically on this?

Yes. Most studies don't separate it out though.But logically if all immigration is an economic net positive then illegal immigration has to be even more so, since they use less social services.

If your original study from the ACLU doesn't break out the numbers solely on illegal immigrants (as has been mentioned in this thread), how do we know they use less social services, commit less cirime, are net positives to the economy, etc.?

Because on the specific items you mention, it DOES separate the numbers.

 

[dparker713]

Anecdotal evidence is cute and all, but statistics actually prove points.

 

[cubd8]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

Wouldn't your plan be seen as insensitive, potentially even racist if you deny welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies and forcing businesses to stop paying these workers? Would you expect your plan to be supported by Republicans and Democrats?

What are the benefits of citizenship if they don't get any of the entitlements you would deny them AND not allow them to vote?

Again, not sure I follow. What's the overarching goal here? Isn't the goal to allow those currently here illegally to remain here legally and work?

I'm asking because Democrats will probably want to give these people all the benefits that US Citizens do (or most), and Republicans are still talking about deporting them.

I agree that the goal is to get people to self-identify themselves. What's wrong with them coming out of of the shadows, getting in line, but being allowed to work, pay taxes, and get the benefits (as needed) that you would deny? I'm on the fence regarding a fine since these people probably can't afford to pay a fine and that may keep people in the shadows.

 

[RBM]

Hell Toupee, statistical data consistently shows that illegal immigrants commit less violent crime by percentage than do legal residents of this country. Your anecdotes, awful

as they are, do nothing to disprove that fact.

The number should be zero because they shouldn't be here. Get them the F out.

It's almost as if you're excited they rape and murder less than the scumbags we have to deal with.

 

[Rich Conway]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

Should they be fined? Put back at the end of the line? Any other requirements for staying here?

Would you allow them to vote? Become citizens? If not, what motivates them to come out of the shadows?

No fine. Not eligible for any forms of welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies, etc. They would have to pay taxes, and abide by all labor laws, including minimum wage. No other particular requirements.

Yes, I would allow citizenship, but only through the standard channel available to every other immigrant. Obviously, they couldn't vote.

My plan would be to fine businesses who employ illegals immigrants $100K per incident. With no jobs and no access to the social safety net, the choice would be to leave or come out of the shadows.

Wouldn't your plan be seen as insensitive, potentially even racist if you deny welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Obamacare subsidies and forcing businesses to stop paying these workers? Would you expect your plan to be supported by Republicans and Democrats?

What are the benefits of citizenship if they don't get any of the entitlements you would deny them AND not allow them to vote?

Again, not sure I follow. What's the overarching goal here? Isn't the goal to allow those currently here illegally to remain here legally and work?

I'm asking because Democrats will probably want to give these people all the benefits that US Citizens do (or most), and Republicans are still talking about deporting them.

I agree that the goal is to get people to self-identify themselves. What's wrong with them coming out of of the shadows, getting in line, but being allowed to work, pay taxes, and get the benefits (as needed) that you would deny? I'm on the fence regarding a fine since these people probably can't afford to pay a fine and that may keep people in the shadows.

I think you misunderstand my proposal. Once someone is a citizen, they're a citizen, and would be entitled to whatever benefits citizens get. I'm proposing that legal guest workers, including ones "waiting in line" for citizenship, not be eligible for welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.

 

[Rich Conway]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

 

[timschochet]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated. What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

 

[dparker713]

Getting back to timschochet's claim that he's willing to compromise...

I'm starting from the premise that what you want is wide-open borders, with automatic and immediate citizenship for anyone and everyone, now and in the future. What exactly is the compromise to which you would agree?

this is misstated. What I want:

1. Open immigration for non-felons, excluding public health risks and suspected terrorists.

2. A path to citizenship for those already here who came here illegally. They pay a fine and get a green card and eventually become citizens.

What I will settle for:

1. Loosening of immigration laws that allows for poor people in Mexico and Latin Anerica to actually "get in line"- for most of them that want to come here there is no line now.

2. Legal status for those already here, if they pay a fine. No citizenship. Their children that are born here can be citizens. Deportation for those who commit felonies. But they have to have access to schools and public health benefits (this is for our well being as much as theirs) Theyll never be able to vote so Republicans can stop worrying that this is a scheme to increase Democratic numbers. Strict voter ID to enforce this.

3. Increased border control.

Everyone born in this country is already guaranteed citizenship and all children regardless of citizenship are guaranteed access to public schooling.