Enforcing Current Immigration Laws Will Recover Eight Millio

Enforcing Current Immigration Laws Will Recover Eight Million Jobs for Legal Workers

Targeted News Service
December 3, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Rep. Rodney M. Alexander, R-La. (5th CD), issued the following news release:

U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, today urged President Obama once again to aid American workers by recovering the eight million jobs held by illegal immigrants in the United States.

The White House Forum on Jobs and Economic Growth is scheduled to begin this afternoon, and so far, any discussion regarding the millions of jobs occupied by illegal immigrants is not on the agenda.

In response to the administration's oversight of this matter, especially after the unemployment rate has climbed above 10 percent, Alexander issued the following remarks:

"By simply enforcing immigration laws, eight million jobs could be created for American citizens and legal immigrants," said Alexander.

"Our nation continues to struggle during this tough economic climate, and 15.1 million Americans are now out of work. Any actions that will recover jobs for legal workers must be taken. Utilizing worksite enforcement is one way to get this done.

"For instance, each time the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducts a worksite enforcement action, an opportunity is produced for legal workers to gain jobs that are held by illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, statistics from ICE reveal significant drops in worksite enforcement activity in the past year.

"As American jobs continue to disappear at an alarming rate, the federal government must enforce current immigration laws to the best of its ability. We must do what we can to ensure America gets back to work."

Last month, Alexander and 21 other Members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama in response to his call for job-creation suggestions. In this letter, the members recommended the enforcement of current immigration laws to open up jobs for legal workers.

Alexander continued, "A dialogue of how to take back the eight million jobs currently held by illegal immigrants is pertinent to any meeting where job creation is the focus. The White House jobs summit must include this crucial debate so real recovery can finally begin."

Contact: Jamie Hanks, 202/225-8490

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/En ... 11&start=5

Well at least 22 members of Congress are smart enough to make the connection. That means only 513 should be convinced to see the light.

ACTION ALERT!: Please help Alexandar and these other 21 intelligent Representatives --

Send FREE FAXES directly to your Congressional representatives through the below two sites about the effects of immigration, both legal and illegal, on U.S. citizen workers and their families:

Tell Congress That Reduced Immigration Means Jobs for Americans
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-180090.html

Massive, Unchecked Immigration will DESTROY Our Future!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-180056.html

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-4751--0-0.html

Every Congressperson needs to support the Save Act and demand deportation of illegal aliens or be shown the door in 2010.

Is there a practical way to remove 8 million illegal immigrant workers from their current jobs? For example, say there are 10,000 ICE officers(I tried looking to see how many there are but was unsuccessful), and they need to get rid of 8 million individuals spread out all over the country. To me, it just doesn't seem logistically possible. Any thoughts?

Welcome, Lstudent.

Quote:

---

Is there a practical way to remove 8 million illegal immigrant workers from their current jobs?

---

Sure there is! With acts like 287(g), SAVE and E-Verify, ICE agents will be supplemented by local law enforcement and employers refusing to retain or hire illegals (if the employers have the backbone to put country before making a profit.) The American people need to stand up and make their preferences known to our Congresscritters, as the upcoming elections will ring as our acceptance or rejection of legislators' decisions.
There is very little that the American people have not been able to accomplish when they have the determination to do so. Eight million is not a big problem, as they and their families will cost us much, much more than just a deportation process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vortex

Welcome, Lstudent.

Quote:

---

Is there a practical way to remove 8 million illegal immigrant workers from their current jobs?

---

Sure there is! With acts like 287(g), SAVE and E-Verify, ICE agents will be supplemented by local law enforcement and employers refusing to retain or hire illegals (if the employers have the backbone to put country before making a profit.) The American people need to stand up and make their preferences known to our Congresscritters, as the upcoming elections will ring as our acceptance or rejection of legislators' decisions.
There is very little that the American people have not been able to accomplish when they have the determination to do so. Eight million is not a big problem, as they and their families will cost us much, much more than just a deportation process.

---

Exactly! And if we need more temporary manpower to get it done, then local law enforcement, especially the Sheriffs Departments, can deputize citizens to help out, for a small stipend if not for free as volunteers to do the leg work, research, fact-finding, handle tips and what not, for the warrants which are then served and handled by fully trained full time police officers with perhaps some trained Deputy Citizens assisting with the arrest, logistics and processing.

We can do this. It's not valid to claim or believe otherwise.

:)

Two of those methods listed, "Employers refusing to retain or hire illegals" and "local law enforcement" are not likely to be uniform in their actions. For example, I live in Nassau County, New York. Recently, the police commissioner stated that they do not participate in enforcing the immigration laws because, by doing so, it negatively impacts their ability to carry out effective law enforcement. Concretely, the Commissioner stated that if the local police force enforced the immigration laws, the whole immigrant community(legal and illegal) will not cooperate with Law Enforcement in criminal investigations. Therefore, the community would be put at risk because criminals(not the border-crossing types) will be more difficult to apprehend.

The employer part is difficult, because, as you said, profit very well may come before "country".

So, it is safe to assume that many local law enforcement agencies will not cooperate with federal ICE authorities. Do you suggest local law enforcement be mandated to comply?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Two of those methods listed, "Employers refusing to retain or hire illegals" and "local law enforcement" are not likely to be uniform in their actions. For example, I live in Nassau County, New York. Recently, the police commissioner stated that they do not participate in enforcing the immigration laws because, by doing so, it negatively impacts their ability to carry out effective law enforcement. Concretely, the Commissioner stated that if the local police force enforced the immigration laws, the whole immigrant community(legal and illegal) will not cooperate with Law Enforcement in criminal investigations. Therefore, the community would be put at risk because criminals(not the border-crossing types) will be more difficult to apprehend.

The employer part is difficult, because, as you said, profit very well may come before "country".

So, it is safe to assume that many local law enforcement agencies will not cooperate with federal ICE authorities. Do you suggest local law enforcement be mandated to comply?

---

Not if you're deporting them, Lstudent. if we're using our resources to deport them, crime will go down because they aren't here to commit them. If they're committing crimes against their own illegal alien community, well, that's a shame, but it's not our job to underwrite law enforcement protecting illegal aliens. We're supposed to use our funds to enforce US immigration law and deport illegal aliens.

We've heard all these phony reasons why law enforcement in some cities don't want to enforce US immigration law, these are "sanctuary cities" operating in direct violation of US immigration, US labor and US civil rights laws.

Our law enforcement has 1 primary jurisdiction with regards to illegal aliens and that is to deport them and then prosecute their citizen and immigrant aiders and abetters, smugglers and employers, advocates and promoters.

"If they're committing crimes against their own illegal alien community, well, that's a shame, but it's not our job to underwrite law enforcement protecting illegal aliens"

What about the following scenario: An illegal immigrant witnesses a murder involving an American citizen. He is afraid to tell the authorities because he will be deported. As a result, there is a murderer on the loose who, with that illegal immigrants testimony, would otherwise be detained and therefore make the community safer. Is the latter a phony concern for local law enforcement agencies?[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

"If they're committing crimes against their own illegal alien community, well, that's a shame, but it's not our job to underwrite law enforcement protecting illegal aliens"

What about the following scenario: An illegal immigrant witnesses a murder involving an American citizen. He is afraid to tell the authorities because he will be deported. As a result, there is a murderer on the loose who, with that illegal immigrants testimony, would otherwise be detained and therefore make the community safer. Is the latter a phony concern for local law enforcement agencies?

---

Yes, it is. Over 4,200 Americans are killed by Illegal Aliens every year. Half of those in traffic deaths and half of those in homicides. To believe that you need the testimony of illegal aliens to catch those criminals is not a valid argument not to deport illegal aliens. It is far better that the entire community of illegal aliens be deported, than it is to keep an entire community in the country that we know kills Americans. With the illegal alien community deported, you save the lives of over 4,000 Americans a year, you don't need the illegal aliens to squeal on each other, and law enforcement doesn't have to concern itself with the self-imposed dilemma of we a) do we deport potential witnesses or b) deport them all to c) catch a crook or killer.

Deport them all, then there is no dilemma. See how that works? We have thousands of unsolved murders in the US, and no one is laying down any other law to solve them, so it's completely il-logical and incongruous to lay down immigration law to solve those involving an illegal alien, when failing to enforce immigration law and deport illegal aliens is why these crimes occur in our country to begin with.

And 90% of the "crimes" local law enforcement is worried about are drug crimes to begin with. So we need to deport illegal aliens and legalize/regulate/tax under the FairTax the illegal drug trade and run it ourselves as a 100% owned and operated US citizen business. Doing the right things like enforcing US immigration law and ending the War on Drugs against US citizens solves all these contrived self-imposed dilemmas law enforcement in certain cities is fabricating to perpetuate both illegal immigration and an illegal drug trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Two of those methods listed, "Employers refusing to retain or hire illegals" and "local law enforcement" are not likely to be uniform in their actions. For example, I live in Nassau County, New York. Recently, the police commissioner stated that they do not participate in enforcing the immigration laws because, by doing so, it negatively impacts their ability to carry out effective law enforcement. Concretely, the Commissioner stated that if the local police force enforced the immigration laws, the whole immigrant community(legal and illegal) will not cooperate with Law Enforcement in criminal investigations. Therefore, the community would be put at risk because criminals(not the border-crossing types) will be more difficult to apprehend.

The employer part is difficult, because, as you said, profit very well may come before "country".

So, it is safe to assume that many local law enforcement agencies will not cooperate with federal ICE authorities. Do you suggest local law enforcement be mandated to comply?

---

I love this argument. The old standby, we should disregard our immigration laws so that in the event an illegal invader witnesses a crime, they will be more likely to come forth and report it.

This is a circular argument because there is a substantial likelihood there would be less crime to report if in fact our immigration laws were enforced. This is especially true since the majority of illegal invaders reside in their own ethnic enclaves, thereby making it likely the crime they are going to witness was in fact committed by another illegal invader.

And YES...I absolutely suggest that local law enforcement be mandated to comply with our immigration laws!

No Bueno:

Can you show me empirical evidence to show the correlation between increased crime and the presence of Illegal Immigrants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

No Bueno:

Can you show me empirical evidence to show the correlation between increased crime and the presence of Illegal Immigrants?

---

I don't have to show you any empircal evidence! Save that argument for your classroom! The fact of the matter is one crime committed by someone who is in this country illegally is a crime that should not have occured and could have been prevented!

Do you disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

No Bueno:

Can you show me empirical evidence to show the correlation between increased crime and the presence of Illegal Immigrants?

---

The more people, the more crime. It's one of the reasons we control our population by controlling immigration. That's not to say that illegal aliens commit more crimes at a higher rate than Americans. Whether they do or not is irrelevant. The fact is they do commit crimes, our jails and prisons full of them are proof of it. But even if they didn't ever commit any crimes beyond breaching US immigration law, they still need to be deported because they aren't suppose to be here taking up space, stealing jobs, reproducing, shoving their kids into our schools, themselves into our hospitals, marching in our streets, driving drunk on our streets and highways, running drugs, raping women and children or any of the other things some of them do including committing murder.

Removing illegal aliens will reduce crime by the simple measure of reducing the population. We don't need their population. We already have far more of our own population than we can sustain successfully which is why we have 62 million Americans on MediCaid and SCHIP programs, because we have more people than jobs and jobs that pay wages sufficient to support them and their families. So, it makes no sense for Americans to be on poverty programs while illegal aliens roam free stealing their jobs because law enforcement might need a "witness" to solve a pot crime.

These phony excuses are il-logical, incongruous and against our laws. Why don't we stop enforcing all laws against Americans on the basis that we all might be a "witness" to a crime and none of us will report it, because hey, we're afraid if we talk to cops, cuz we might go to jail for something we did wrong. I don't hear any law enforcement officers claiming they should stop enforcing laws against US citizens because citizens are afraid if they provide testimony, they might be arrested for something else they did wrong.

These double-standard nonsensical excuses from law enforcement to perpetuate illegal immigration because they claim they might need an illegal alien as a witness to a crime no longer fly, Lstudent.

Besides, all that testimony is suspect anyway because they've been given a plea deal not to be deported in exchange for their "testimony" by the time it gets to court anyway. Americans are more concerned about the problems and costs of illegal immigration than they are unsolved crimes.

Just get them out of there. Deport them all.

I will concede that if you deport them all, the local law enforcement will no longer have a use for illegal immigrant testimony.

That still leaves us with the solution that "No Bueno" brings up: "Mandating Local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws". Any ideas on whether the fed gov't mandating local law enforcement is practically or legally feasible? For example, I believe a mandate may run into Constitutional problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

I will concede that if you deport them all, the local law enforcement will no longer have a use for illegal immigrant testimony.

That still leaves us with the solution that "No Bueno" brings up: "Mandating Local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws". Any ideas on whether the fed gov't mandating local law enforcement is practically or legally feasible? For example, I believe a mandate may run into Constitutional problems.

---

I disagree. There are a whole host of federal laws that local law enforcement has jurisdicition over initially. For example, bank robbery is a federal crime and yet no one would ever expect local law enforcement to disregard those crimes because they are prosecuted under federal law.

Same with illegal immigration. If a local law enforcement officer, during thr course of his regular duties, has probable cause to believe that someone is in this country illegally, he has the right to detain that individual until the proper agencies can be notified.

What's unconstitutional about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

I will concede that if you deport them all, the local law enforcement will no longer have a use for illegal immigrant testimony.

That still leaves us with the solution that "No Bueno" brings up: "Mandating Local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws". Any ideas on whether the fed gov't mandating local law enforcement is practically or legally feasible? For example, I believe a mandate may run into Constitutional problems.

---

Thank you, Lstudent.

As to "mandating" ... no one on this board is "mandating" local law enforcement enforce immigration laws. We're asking local law enforcement to use their authority under both the 287 (g) program as well as under USC Title 8, Chapter 12 ... section 1324 to use their resources to stop illegal immigration. As local enforcement officers, it's their duty to enforce all criminal laws and that includes arresting, detaining and deporting illegal aliens. We urge them to do their duty.

The only Sheriff, Police Chief of State Trooper Patrol operation who wouldn't want to enforce US immigration law and arrest and deport illegal aliens are those who have their hands in the cookie jar and are getting paid bribes and kickbacks by smugglers and drug dealers not to enforce immigration law.

It's up to the people of the local municipalities and counties to determine if they're law enforcement officials are enforcing our laws to their satisfaction. And if they aren't, then they need to elect a new Sheriff, get a new Police Chief or a new head of their State Highway Patrol who will. For those areas, it's the responsibility of ICE and the feds to clean it out, and if this Administration won't do it as others before it have refused to do, then we need to elect a new Administration that will.

Empirical evidence is useful outside of the classroom, as well, because it is a careful analysis of data and facts upon which policy is to be made(for example, immigration policy).

I don't disagree with the following statement: "The fact of the matter is one crime committed by someone who is in this country illegally is a crime that should not have occured and could have been prevented!"

However, I still think it is helpful to carefully analyze any potential correlation between presence of illegal immigrants and crimes. The opposite, for example, could be true: the presence of illegal immigrants actually decreases the crime rate. I am not saying the latter is true, but one must carefully draw conclusions based upon carefully conducted studies, not conclusory statements on a micro-scale.

In Nassau County, New York, statistics show that : "In recent decades crime has been cut in half while the Latino population has doubled in Nassau County"

Judy: "That's not to say that illegal aliens commit more crimes at a higher rate than Americans. Whether they do or not is irrelevant." It may be irrelevant to what you said following that:

"they still need to be deported because they aren't suppose to be here taking up space, stealing jobs, reproducing, shoving their kids into our schools, themselves into our hospitals, marching in our streets, driving drunk on our streets and highways, running drugs, raping women and children or any of the other things some of them do"

But, I was responding to No Bueno's post which claimed that: "This is a circular argument because there is a substantial likelihood there would be less crime to report if in fact our immigration laws were enforced."

To say that there is a substantial likelihood there would be less crime if the immigration laws were enforced is a conclusory statement that requires empirical support. There are many factors that affect how many crimes are committed, and as such, an analysis of those factors is required to support NoBueno's claim of a circular argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

I will concede that if you deport them all, the local law enforcement will no longer have a use for illegal immigrant testimony.

That still leaves us with the solution that "No Bueno" brings up: "Mandating Local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws". Any ideas on whether the fed gov't mandating local law enforcement is practically or legally feasible? For example, I believe a mandate may run into Constitutional problems.

---

I disagree. There are a whole host of federal laws that local law enforcement has jurisdicition over initially. For example, bank robbery is a federal crime and yet no one would ever expect local law enforcement to disregard those crimes because they are prosecuted under federal law.

Same with illegal immigration. If a local law enforcement officer, during thr course of his regular duties, has probable cause to believe that someone is in this country illegally, he has the right to detain that individual until the proper agencies can be notified.

What's unconstitutional about that?

---

Not a thing. That's a police department or sheriff's organization doing the job they're paid to do.

:)

Oops, you brought out a central problem that I didn't think of:

"Same with illegal immigration. If a local law enforcement officer, during thr course of his regular duties, has probable cause to believe that someone is in this country illegally, he has the right to detain that individual until the proper agencies can be notified."

How can an officer have probable cause to know an individual is in the country illegally? Hispanic descent and inability to speak English cannot rise to probable cause because there are many individuals who are legally in the country who A)are of hispanic descent or B)don't speak english or C) are of hispanic descent AND don't speak English. Any other suggestions that may give rise to probable cause?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Empirical evidence is useful outside of the classroom, as well, because it is a careful analysis of data and facts upon which policy is to be made(for example, immigration policy).

I don't disagree with the following statement: "The fact of the matter is one crime committed by someone who is in this country illegally is a crime that should not have occured and could have been prevented!"

However, I still think it is helpful to carefully analyze any potential correlation between presence of illegal immigrants and crimes. The opposite, for example, could be true: the presence of illegal immigrants actually decreases the crime rate. I am not saying the latter is true, but one must carefully draw conclusions based upon carefully conducted studies, not conclusory statements on a micro-scale.

In Nassau County, New York, statistics show that : "In recent decades crime has been cut in half while the Latino population has doubled in Nassau County"

Judy: "That's not to say that illegal aliens commit more crimes at a higher rate than Americans. Whether they do or not is irrelevant." It may be irrelevant to what you said following that:

"they still need to be deported because they aren't suppose to be here taking up space, stealing jobs, reproducing, shoving their kids into our schools, themselves into our hospitals, marching in our streets, driving drunk on our streets and highways, running drugs, raping women and children or any of the other things some of them do"

But, I was responding to No Bueno's post which claimed that: "This is a circular argument because there is a substantial likelihood there would be less crime to report if in fact our immigration laws were enforced."

To say that there is a substantial likelihood there would be less crime if the immigration laws were enforced is a conclusory statement that requires empirical support. There are many factors that affect how many crimes are committed, and as such, an analysis of those factors is required to support NoBueno's claim of a circular argument.

---

No, NoBueno's claim doesn't require empirical support. You have to go back to the beginning of my argument. The less people, the less crime, which applies equally to both my statement and NoBueno's. And there is lots of empirical evidence about the crimes committed by illegal aliens, because there are police records of these crimes both in county and city governments as well as incarcerations records in state and federal prisons. 27% of the state prison population in the US is illegal aliens. Another 6% of our federal prison population is illegal aliens. So, by deporting illegal aliens, we'll reduce state crimes by 27% and reduce federal crimes by at least another 6%. These statistics are straight from the mouth of the Maria interviewer from Telemundo in the Lou Dobbs interview that terminated our support for him as a viable candidate for public office.

The crime rate of a Latino population in New York has nothing whatsoever to do with the crime statistics of illegal aliens. Why do you do that? Why would you try to link illegal aliens to the Latino population? Half of the Latino population in the United States are US citizens, many more are legal residents. Please avoid using the terms Latino and Illegal Alien interchangeably, because they are not interchangeable. The fact that some illegal aliens describe themselves as "Latino" has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of illegal immigration or the Latino community. Illegal immigration is blind to nationality and ethnic origin, at least on this board it is.

Thank you for your cooperation.

:)

Lstudent wrote:

Quote:

---

However, I still think it is helpful to carefully analyze any potential correlation between presence of illegal immigrants and crimes. The opposite, for example, could be true: the presence of illegal immigrants actually decreases the crime rate. I am not saying the latter is true, but one must carefully draw conclusions based upon carefully conducted studies, not conclusory statements on a micro-scale.

In Nassau County, New York, statistics show that : "In recent decades crime has been cut in half while the Latino population has doubled in Nassau County"

---

And was the increase in the Latino population in Nassau county the result of legal or illegal immigration? Are you assuming that just because there was an increase in the Latino population that it was the result of illegal immigration?

The issue is not Latinos. It's illegal immigration.

Those who immigrate in accordance to federal law would most likely be less likely to engage in criminal activity because they have already demonstrated a propensity to obey the law.

So unless you can make that distinction, the statistics are irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Oops, you brought out a central problem that I didn't think of:

"Same with illegal immigration. If a local law enforcement officer, during thr course of his regular duties, has probable cause to believe that someone is in this country illegally, he has the right to detain that individual until the proper agencies can be notified."

How can an officer have probable cause to know an individual is in the country illegally? Hispanic descent and inability to speak English cannot rise to probable cause because there are many individuals who are legally in the country who A)are of hispanic descent or B)don't speak english or C) are of hispanic descent AND don't speak English. Any other suggestions that may give rise to probable cause?

---

They do research, conduct fact-finding and investigations and take tips to establish a reasonable suspicion for a search/arrest warrant which then if successful provides the probable cause for the arrest.

Why do you keep trying to link nationality and ethnic origin with illegal immigration? What someone's nationality or ethnic origin may be is irrelevant to illegal immigration enforcement. Your effort to try and link Latino populations in New York and Hispanics to probable cause for arrests is improper and inappropriate. Please stop doing that. Illegal immigration is blind to nationality and ethnic origin, at least on this board it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Lstudent wrote:

Quote:

---

However, I still think it is helpful to carefully analyze any potential correlation between presence of illegal immigrants and crimes. The opposite, for example, could be true: the presence of illegal immigrants actually decreases the crime rate. I am not saying the latter is true, but one must carefully draw conclusions based upon carefully conducted studies, not conclusory statements on a micro-scale.

In Nassau County, New York, statistics show that : "In recent decades crime has been cut in half while the Latino population has doubled in Nassau County"

---

And was the increase in the Latino population in Nassau county the result of legal or illegal immigration? Are you assuming that just because there was an increase in the Latino population that it was the result of illegal immigration?

The issue is not Latinos. It's illegal immigration.

Those who immigrate in accordance to federal law would most likely be less likely to engage in criminal activity because they have already demonstrated a propensity to obey the law.

So unless you can make that distinction, the statistics are irrelevant.

---

Exactly! The nationality or ethnic origin of illegal aliens is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Oops, you brought out a central problem that I didn't think of:

"Same with illegal immigration. If a local law enforcement officer, during thr course of his regular duties, has probable cause to believe that someone is in this country illegally, he has the right to detain that individual until the proper agencies can be notified."

How can an officer have probable cause to know an individual is in the country illegally? Hispanic descent and inability to speak English cannot rise to probable cause because there are many individuals who are legally in the country who A)are of hispanic descent or B)don't speak english or C) are of hispanic descent AND don't speak English. Any other suggestions that may give rise to probable cause?

---

If you pull someone over and they cannot produce a drivers license or any other US goverment issued identification, probable cause would allow the officer to continue his line of questioning to include the reason they do not have a drivers license. If based upon this line of questioning the officer concludes there is a substantial likelihood they are in this country illegally, he has the right to detain them.

What if the person told the officer the reason they do not have a valid drivers license was because they are in this country illegally. Should the officer have the right to detain then?

Again, why do you continue to introduce the racial element to this argument? The questions would be the same for anyone who could not produce a valid license or other gov issued identification, irrespective of color, language or any other racial element you want to throw into the fact pattern!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Oops, you brought out a central problem that I didn't think of:

"Same with illegal immigration. If a local law enforcement officer, during thr course of his regular duties, has probable cause to believe that someone is in this country illegally, he has the right to detain that individual until the proper agencies can be notified."

How can an officer have probable cause to know an individual is in the country illegally? Hispanic descent and inability to speak English cannot rise to probable cause because there are many individuals who are legally in the country who A)are of hispanic descent or B)don't speak english or C) are of hispanic descent AND don't speak English. Any other suggestions that may give rise to probable cause?

---

If you pull someone over and they cannot produce a drivers license or any other US goverment issued identification, probable cause would allow the officer to continue his line of questioning to include the reason they do not have a drivers license. If based upon this line of questioning the officer concludes there is a substantial likelihood they are in this country illegally, he has the right to detain them.

Again, why do you continue to introduce the racial element to this argument? The questions would be the same for anyone who could not produce a valid license or other gov issued identification, irrespective of color, language or any other racial element you want to throw into the fact pattern!

---

Great question! I look forward to a reply to your question. Lstudent has done this twice on this one thread, even after a warning about it, once trying to link statistics on the Latino population in a county in New York and now using Hispanics as the backdrop for his discussion of probable cause for arrest warrants.

Befuddling.

For the Latino quote:

In Nassau County, Long Island(I go to school here), the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration. Still, it may not have been the best example. But let me get back at one of the central issues that began this discussion: the feasibility of deporting all Illegal Immigrants.

Judy, you wrote:

"We're asking local law enforcement to use their authority under both the 287 (g) program as well as under USC Title 8, Chapter 12 ... section 1324 to use their resources to stop illegal immigration"

Since you are asking, not mandating, local enforcement, you must depend upon local agency cooperation. Assuming that a significant percentage of local law enforcement agencies refuse to cooperate in deporting illegal immigrants, it is not feasible to deport all illegal aliens.

Do you agree with the last sentence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

For the Latino quote:

In Nassau County, Long Island(I go to school here), the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration. Still, it may not have been the best example. But let me get back at one of the central issues that began this discussion: the feasibility of deporting all Illegal Immigrants.

Judy, you wrote:

"We're asking local law enforcement to use their authority under both the 287 (g) program as well as under USC Title 8, Chapter 12 ... section 1324 to use their resources to stop illegal immigration"

Since you are asking, not mandating, local enforcement, you must depend upon local agency cooperation. Assuming that a significant percentage of local law enforcement agencies refuse to cooperate in deporting illegal immigrants, it is not feasible to deport all illegal aliens.

Do you agree with the last sentence?

---

So the fact that you go to school in In Nassau County, Long Island is the basis of your Empirical evidence the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration.

LOL... :lol: :lol:

If I use race, I do it to provide an example, not to make an authoritative statement.

NoBueno, the probable cause answer you came up with(pulling someone over) is valid, but it does not address the many illegals that do not drive. How would a police officer have probable cause to ascertain one's immigration status if that person was simply walking down the street, is at a restaurant, or is at home?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

For the Latino quote:

In Nassau County, Long Island(I go to school here), the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration. Still, it may not have been the best example. But let me get back at one of the central issues that began this discussion: the feasibility of deporting all Illegal Immigrants.

Judy, you wrote:

"We're asking local law enforcement to use their authority under both the 287 (g) program as well as under USC Title 8, Chapter 12 ... section 1324 to use their resources to stop illegal immigration"

Since you are asking, not mandating, local enforcement, you must depend upon local agency cooperation. Assuming that a significant percentage of local law enforcement agencies refuse to cooperate in deporting illegal immigrants, it is not feasible to deport all illegal aliens.

Do you agree with the last sentence?

---

No, I do not. States are taking up the issue on the state level and passing their own state immigration laws to which local law enforcement officials will need to abide as a matter of state law. If local law enforcement officials are on the take, which is the only reason they would refuse to enforce US immigration law, then state police investigations through State Bureaus of Investigations will occur to root out the corrupted police departments, Mayors who appointed them will be thrown out of office, and illegal aliens will be deported by their replacements.

In addition, citizens will begin to use their rights of citizen arrests either on their own or as Deputized agents of local law enforcement. Americans aren't going to allow this nonsense to continue at the expense of their jobs, their livelihoods, their taxes, their public debt or the lives of themselves or their families and friends.

Illegal aliens are going home, by all means necessary, so the sooner they gather, pack, gas up and leave on their own, which is their Most Wise Option, the better off they'll probably be, because when they're deported, they don't get to take anything with them, everything is confiscated to pay for the cost of their arrest, detainment and deportation.

:)

I think I understand your points. Thanks for taking the time to have a thorough discussion, No Bueno and Judy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

If I use race, I do it to provide an example, not to make an authoritative statement.

NoBueno, the probable cause answer you came up with(pulling someone over) is valid, but it does not address the many illegals that do not drive. How would a police officer have probable cause to ascertain one's immigration status if that person was simply walking down the street, is at a restaurant, or is at home?

---

Many illegals do not drive? I disagree with that as well, but that is besides the point.

I nor anyone else is suggesting that police officers act as defacto immigration officers. If during the course of the regular duties, they come in contact with an individual and have probable cause to believe they may be in this country illegally, that officer would have the right to detain that individual until such time as immigration authorities can be notified.

Generally, police officers do not have PC to stop and question people who are simply walking down the street or eating in a restaurant. But let me consult my Con Law Horn book to make sure...LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

For the Latino quote:

In Nassau County, Long Island(I go to school here), the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration. Still, it may not have been the best example. But let me get back at one of the central issues that began this discussion: the feasibility of deporting all Illegal Immigrants.

Judy, you wrote:

"We're asking local law enforcement to use their authority under both the 287 (g) program as well as under USC Title 8, Chapter 12 ... section 1324 to use their resources to stop illegal immigration"

Since you are asking, not mandating, local enforcement, you must depend upon local agency cooperation. Assuming that a significant percentage of local law enforcement agencies refuse to cooperate in deporting illegal immigrants, it is not feasible to deport all illegal aliens.

Do you agree with the last sentence?

---

So the fact that you go to school in In Nassau County, Long Island is the basis of your Empirical evidence the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration.

LOL... :lol: :lol:

---

:)

I wonder how he knows that if police officers don't know that without conducting research, fact-finding and investigations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

For the Latino quote:

In Nassau County, Long Island(I go to school here), the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration. Still, it may not have been the best example. But let me get back at one of the central issues that began this discussion: the feasibility of deporting all Illegal Immigrants.

Judy, you wrote:

"We're asking local law enforcement to use their authority under both the 287 (g) program as well as under USC Title 8, Chapter 12 ... section 1324 to use their resources to stop illegal immigration"

Since you are asking, not mandating, local enforcement, you must depend upon local agency cooperation. Assuming that a significant percentage of local law enforcement agencies refuse to cooperate in deporting illegal immigrants, it is not feasible to deport all illegal aliens.

Do you agree with the last sentence?

---

So the fact that you go to school in In Nassau County, Long Island is the basis of your Empirical evidence the much of the growth in Latino Population can be contributed to illegal immigration.

LOL... :lol: :lol:

---

:)

I wonder how he knows that if police officers don't know that without conducting research, fact-finding and investigations?

---

LOL..funny how that always works isn't it Judy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

I think I understand your points. Thanks for taking the time to have a thorough discussion, No Bueno and Judy!

---

Your welcome Lstudent... And welcome to ALIPAC!

Why would this be any different than the rest of his photo opportunities in the name of America. Just a bunch of people who agree with him that want to clean up on being around the president and selling us down the river.

So far I haven't seen him make even one effort to listen to the other side. Oh, wait, I forgot. He did have a beer with the white cop. There you go. Another photo opportunity.

Lstudent is right. From what I have heard recently is that Nassau County has turned into an illegal alien stronghold. My family has a long history there, and my grandmom served as county administrator for a few years. I found out the problems when I hired a young man that recently arrived to NC from Islip, and he had to leave, he said, as he only spoke English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lstudent

If I use race, I do it to provide an example, not to make an authoritative statement.

NoBueno, the probable cause answer you came up with(pulling someone over) is valid, but it does not address the many illegals that do not drive. How would a police officer have probable cause to ascertain one's immigration status if that person was simply walking down the street, is at a restaurant, or is at home?

---

An example of what?!

The same way they ascertain and arrest US citizens suspected of violating our laws. They either have an exigent circumstance, suspicious behavior, tip, investigation, a search warrant or an arrest warrant.