Thread: Enforcing Current Immigration Laws Will Recover Eight Millio

...deporting ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS is not practicable.

After your finals, please explain what is not practicable or practical about deporting those here illegally. And what would be the criteria you would use to pick and choose who goes and who stays? I am sure the folks on this website have heard all the sob stories they can stomach, but if you have an innovative idea, besides anchor babies, family connections, just here to earn money to send home... let us know.

Judy, you have yet to correct your error on citing a part of the constitution that refers to slavery, not immigration.

I will address ratbstard's citation to Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada:

Here is the overview of the case, written by Lexisnexis, a research database:

"A police officer responded to a call reporting that a man assaulted a woman. The officer found defendant standing outside a parked truck with a woman inside the truck. The officer asked for defendant's identification 11 times and was refused each time. The officer arrested defendant. Defendant was convicted for obstructing the officer in carrying out his duties under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123, a "stop and identify" statute that required defendant only to disclose his name. The United States Supreme Court determined that the Terry stop, the request for identification, and the State's requirement of a response did not contravene the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, because the request for identity had an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of the Terry stop. Also, the request for identification was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the Terry stop. The Court also determined that defendant's conviction did not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on compelled self-incrimination, because disclosure of his name presented no reasonable danger of incrimination."

This is a case in which a violent crime was reported. Under the 4th amendment, police officers are allowed to "stop" and "frisk" an individual if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has taken place or is likely to imminently occur. Also note that the statute only called for the individual to report their name. A name is not enough to provide probable cause to know that individual is not in the country legally.

In this case, there was reasonable suspicion to make the stop. These "stop and identify" cases would not pass muster if there were no reasonable suspicion. An illegal immigrant walking down the street, or residing in their home, is generally, under the 4th amendment, not sufficient grounds for a "stop" and subsequent request for identification because in many cases THERE WILL BE NO REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR ANY CRIME.

"That should nip any concern with the 4th Amendment right in the bud for Lstudent."

It doesn't nip it in the bud; under the 4th amendment protections that our constitution provides, law enforcement agencies would be hard pressed to stop and ask for identification of all illegal immigrants.

Judy

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Haha. I had no trouble yesterday because I was neglecting my studies. Judy wrote: "Just get them out of there. Deport them all."

No, not if they have committed no other crime than the unlawful entry.

95% of them HAVE committed other crimes, namely document fraud, stealing social security numbers, false I-9 forms, working for cash thus not paying taxes, unlicensed driving, the list goes on.

Originally Posted by Lstudent

It doesn't nip it in the bud; under the 4th amendment protections that our constitution provides, law enforcement agencies would be hard pressed to stop and ask for identification of all illegal immigrants.

No one here suggests that any law authority unjustifiably seek out IAs.
We advocate that in the course of their duties when they reasonably come into contact with an IA that all applicable laws are enforced.

This is exactly what Sheriff Joe Arpio is doing in Maricopa County. He does not just stop anyone without reason.

Ratbstrd:



Much of this thread was between myself and NoBueno/Judy. Judy made it unequivocally clear that she wants to deport all illegal aliens. Problem is, she got the law wrong.

I'll start out with her main contention, which seems to contradict yours and No Buenos:

"Of course it's possible to deport 20 million illegal aliens. It's not only possible, it's actually required by the US Constitution"(not to mention citing to Article 1 Section 9 as support:
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.")The word "importation"; "tax"; and "duty" as a textual matter cannot be interpreted to mean "immigrants". Rtbastard, please tell your fellow ALIPACers not to ever mention this Constituional section in immigration debates.

Insofar as the 4th amendment protections are concerned, Judy believes that police can arrest and deport every illegal, as this following quote will show:

" We have 20 million or more illegal aliens in the United States which is an exigent circumstance unto itself, and all the cause any police officer needs to find them and remove them, by conducting research, fact-finding, check points, door to door investigations, record searches, tip hotlines, rewards, scouts, stings, moles, undercover operations, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. all the tools they use to seek out and hunt down any lawbreaker to gather enough information adequate to secure a search and/or an arrest warrant and make the arrests."

The arguments for complete deportation, as presented by Judy, still leave a lot of leeway for illegal immigrants to remain here.

So, Ratbstrd, do you believe that sporadic enforcement(which is what is happening now and what is likely to continue to happen barring a radical shift in the general public's opinion and activism) will lead to attrition and therefore all illegal aliens will be leave?

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Ratbstrd:

Much of this thread was between myself and NoBueno/Judy. Judy made it unequivocally clear that she wants to deport all illegal aliens. Problem is, she got the law wrong.

Exactly which law did she get wrong? Reading her posts I believe she merely advocates for enforcement of the laws currently on the books.

Originally Posted by Lstudent

I'll start out with her main contention, which seems to contradict yours and No Buenos:

"Of course it's possible to deport 20 million illegal aliens. It's not only possible, it's actually required by the US Constitution"?

I believe she is correct according to:

SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute"

So any state/city sanctuary law is unconstitutional. In fact the recent decision put forth by DHS secretary Janet Napalitano to limit the scope of the 287(g) program may be unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by Lstudent

(not to mention citing to Article 1 Section 9 as support:
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.")The word "importation"; "tax"; and "duty" as a textual matter cannot be interpreted to mean "immigrants".?

Rtbastard, please tell your fellow ALIPACers not to ever mention this Constitutional section in immigration debates.

Here I would agree with you but must say I believe Judy mentioned this as an example of the constitution's earliest address of immigration. The fact that it is mingled with slavery law is unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Lstudent

Insofar as the 4th amendment protections are concerned, Judy believes that police can arrest and deport every illegal, as this following quote will show:

" We have 20 million or more illegal aliens in the United States which is an exigent circumstance unto itself, and all the cause any police officer needs to find them and remove them, by conducting research, fact-finding, check points, door to door investigations, record searches, tip hotlines, rewards, scouts, stings, moles, undercover operations, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. all the tools they use to seek out and hunt down any lawbreaker to gather enough information adequate to secure a search and/or an arrest warrant and make the arrests."

Here I must disagree with your interpretation of Judys statement. It seems to me she is mentioning valid investigative procedures to stop and question a suspected IA.

Originally Posted by Lstudent

The arguments for complete deportation, as presented by Judy, still leave a lot of leeway for illegal immigrants to remain here.

So, Ratbstrd, do you believe that sporadic enforcement(which is what is happening now and what is likely to continue to happen barring a radical shift in the general public's opinion and activism) will lead to attrition and therefore all illegal aliens will be leave?

You are correct in the fact that an IA could evade contact with the law and thereby evade deportation. You are also correct that todays enforcement of federal immigration law is at best sporadic. I would beg to differ though about your assumption that a "radical shift in the general public's opinion and activism" hasn't already taken place. It seems to me that when 80% of the population continually oppose an amnesty we could not shift much more.

In conclusion let me say that I believe attrition along side enforcement will be very effective though never totally. We could never possibly be 100% free of IAs but we do not have to keep turning a blind eye to the problem.

I appreciate the response. I must note that opposition to amnesty does not equate to deportation. If I were to guess where most Americans stand on the issue, it is upholding the status quo.

One can say for sure that many businesses benefit directly from illegal, cheap labor. These businesses would not want deportation nor amnesty because either option would take away from their profits.

Well, actually there are many Americans, unfortunately, that do not care about issues that fall outside of MTV, Housewives of Orange County. In other words, many Americans probably don't have an opinion at all on immigration.

One can say for sure that many businesses benefit directly from illegal, cheap labor. These businesses would not want deportation nor amnesty because either option would take away from their profits.

Anyway, Ratbstard, since this is Americans for Legal Immigration, do you propose any reform to the the current Legal immigration law(?i.e. expand the options for foreigners to come here legally)

As to your defense of Judy, you are mostly right except for one crucial point: You concede that complete deportation is not possible; Judy says that it is.

Originally Posted by Lstudent

One can say for sure that many businesses benefit directly from illegal, cheap labor. These businesses would not want deportation nor amnesty because either option would take away from their profits.



One can say for sure that many businesses benefit directly from illegal, cheap labor. These businesses would not want deportation nor amnesty because either option would take away from their profits.

They are not part of the solution, they are the problem.

Those employers are the reason we have an illegal problem, Now.

The laws that are not enforced, are aimed at employers of illegals
If higher penalties and seizure of all illegally produced assets were enforced. You would not need any change in the laws that are already on the books.
Illegals would self deport, and we taxpayers would not need to spend but 1% of what is spent now, to deport the stragglers. That money saved, could be used to investigate and prosecute the employers that exploit them, along with fleecing the American taxpayers.

When you see a wrong you need to make it a right!! That means stop rewarding law breakers and remove them from the workplace... No citizenship no job. Can't stop it all but profiling would along with V-verify would have them self deporting by the millions.

Not saying that profiling is ethically right and I don't agree with discrimination but it gets crap done. And its only a matter of time before the American people will be so mad about it the gov. will no longer have a choice on how Illegals are treated and rewarded.

Who agrees with 93camaro's endorsement of racial profiling?

"Can't stop it all but profiling would along with V-verify would have them self deporting by the millions."