Thread: Actual Discussion

Originally Posted by chicano

It is funny to see how you are trying to make me look. Kind to animals? This is exactly what I am talking about. You refuse to accept some of the facts that I have stated and instead try to refute it by making it seem like I am some idiot who has no idea what he is talking about. And what are you talking about when you say "nothing more racist than to forgive the crimes of others because they share one's race?" Aren't you, the moderator I assume, the one who is always reminding people that this issue is not about race but rather about legal status? C'mon. Help me out here. Or do you believe illegal immigrants should not be given a shot at citizenship because most are cruel to animals?

I want to have a DEBATE, and that means showing both sides. But it appears you are more interested at making corny jokes than to show actual relevance about this issue, which is all I am trying to do. If I have broken any rules let me know, but I have said nothing that is worse than what others have said.

Most Americans concerned about illegal immigration are not that concerned about race. Remember, America is the home of Civil Rights in the world and our nation has prized our advances in this culture.

The racism most of us see is in the ranks of our opposition. The pro-illegal alien groups want Latinos to unify behind the illegals because they share the same race.

That is why I point out that there is nothing more racist than to forgive the illegal actions of others because they share your race. That is what many of our opponents are doing. They say it is OK because illegals have North American indian blood lines and we are invaders from Europe and Africa. Now THAT is racism.

No joke about kindness to animals. I'm sure that illegal aliens like the taste of food, the smell of the morning air, work hard, sleep heavily, and enjoy a good movie. So do people that steal, assault, rape, and commit murder and I'm not going to forgo justice because we have commonality on some things.

If families are separated because our immigration laws are enforced then it is not my fault.

It is the fault of those that knowingly broke the law and now do not want to suffer the price of their lawlessness. They knew the dangers and the penalties before they came here.

I think that using children as political pawns is disgusting and any adult that wants to throw babies in my face to defend their support of criminal conduct deserves to be deported or exiled with the illegals.

W

Originally Posted by chicano

Sure CheyenneWoman, but first do you agree or disagree with what I said?

You are correct - I don't believe in any person in the US should be a hyphenated-American, including blacks. I am old enough to remember a lot of racial slurs about minorities, but I also remember the pride in the civil rights movement. I remember that black Americans were proud to be called Blacks. I don't know where this new phrase of "African-American" started, but I personally think it's rather silly. Most of these people who insist on being called that couldn't survive for 24 hours in Africa. But all of that aside - most immigrant families that I know celebrate their culture and their traditions in their home. They don't flaunt it by being hyphenated Americans.

It is good that you can identify with your parents as Mexican people. There is a lot of rich culture and tradition there. Just as there is in my culture.

You are right about the "racist" statement. That was not an issue.

Dixie, why do you insist on amnesty? Nobody is talking about amnesty. When a person breaks the law, especially if it is a misdemeanor, they are given the chance to make up for their mistakes rather it be by community service, fines, etc. What I am talking about is also about a chance to make it up. What you and others are talking about would be, in my opinion, be considered cruel and unusual punishment which is ILLEGAL. Do you really see it fair to punish the so called "anchor babies?" You, me, and an anchor baby all deserve the same rights because we are all americans. Look up American in the dictionary, and it will tell you that an American is one who is born in America. And one who is an American born in America is an American citizen.

Well, as you all must must imagine, it is really hard to debate when it is 1 vs 20. Im out for tonight. Have to wake up at 5:00 to go to work at my minimum wage job that offers no healthcare benifits, no pensions, and no overtime. But I am glad as hell to have it because it is a hell of a lot better than to be living in Mexico, so I thank my parents for risking their lives to give me the opportunities they never had.

Originally Posted by chicano

Dixie, why do you insist on amnesty? Nobody is talking about amnesty. When a person breaks the law, especially if it is a misdemeanor, they are given the chance to make up for their mistakes rather it be by community service, fines, etc. What I am talking about is also about a chance to make it up. What you and others are talking about would be, in my opinion, be considered cruel and unusual punishment which is ILLEGAL. Do you really see it fair to punish the so called "anchor babies?" You, me, and an anchor baby all deserve the same rights because we are all americans. Look up American in the dictionary, and it will tell you that an American is one who is born in America. And one who is an American born in America is an American citizen.

Well, as you all must must imagine, it is really hard to debate when it is 1 vs 20. Im out for tonight. Have to wake up at 5:00 to go to work at my minimum wage job that offers no healthcare benifits, no pensions, and no overtime. But I am glad as hell to have it because it is a hell of a lot better than to be living in Mexico, so I thank my parents for risking their lives to give me the opportunities they never had.

Because the only effective and humane punishment for illegally immigrating to America is deportation and a ban for 10 years as stated in our current laws. Do you think there is no wisdom in the existing laws?

If you just fine illegal aliens for breaking in to America then there is no incentive not to come. Why would they mind a thousand dollar fine after paying a smuggler a few grand?

We cannot imprison them and fines are just an annoyance.

They must be returned. When they are returned, they will tell others not to come.

Any fine or punishment that allows them to stay is AMNESTY. When a thief steals a car, you do not let him keep the car. Common sense.

No other punishment will work short of extremes.

W

But I am glad as hell to have it because it is a hell of a lot better than to be living in Mexico, so I thank my parents for risking their lives to give me the opportunities they never had.

Did they risk their lives by "running" from the problems in Mexico to America for the American people to deal with or by standing their ground in their country by remaining there out their love for it and on the principle that Mexico belongs to the people and that the people must not allow a corrupt government to take from them what SHOULD BE rightfully and lawfully theirs to cherish and be proud of and to pass on to their children ?

chicano,

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: am·nes·ty
Pronunciation: 'am-n&-stE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Greek amnEstia forgetfulness, from amnEstos forgotten, from a- + mnasthai to remember -- more at MIND
Date: 1580
: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals- amnesty transitive verb

1580 really predates all the American illegal immigration problems.

Amnesty is what you are advocating. A Pardon for the illegal aliens that broke the law of my government, when they entered the US without permission. Punishment for breaking our immigration laws is deportation and fines.

I know, the concept is Greek to you.

Let me say this about illegal immigration and comparison to cruelty. You really need a history lesson. Most ancient rulers sent the army upon invaders and migrants. Especially if they were carriers of disease or peasants. The method ancient rulers used was eradication. That I do consider cruel by modern standards. Expulsion, however is even Biblically acceptable.

I'll comment on the rest of you statements later.

Dixie

Well chicano - when you come back to read this posts -

When a person breaks the law, especially if it is a misdemeanor,

Check this out -- it is not a misdemeanor -

Reminder Regarding Employer Responsibilities Under U.S. Immigration Laws

By Elena L. Ostby of Briggs and Morgan, P.A.

Several years ago, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (the Act), representing the most comprehensive revision in U.S. immigration laws in 35 years. The Act prohibits the unlawful employment of aliens and establishes an employment eligibility verification system designed to prevent the employment of unauthorized aliens.

Employer sanctions are one of the cornerstones of the Act. The sanctions may be imposed on any employer, regardless of size, and include both civil and criminal penalties.

Recently, we have discovered that an increasing number of employers have inadvertently failed to comply with the Act. This article is intended as a reminder to our clients about their responsibilities under the Act. Specifically, it addresses the Act's application, verification, and recordkeeping requirements, employer sanctions, antidiscrimination provisions, and offers some tips for compliance.
Application Of The Act
The employment provisions of the Act apply to individuals hired after November 6, 1986. The general rule is that it is unlawful to:

1. knowingly hire unauthorized aliens;
2. hire employees without complying with the employment verification system established by the Act; or,
3. continue to employ an alien hired after November 6, 1986, knowing the alien is or has become illegal.

Under the Act, all employees hired after November 6, 1986, are subject to the verification procedures and employers may not hire aliens who do not have work authorization.

The regulations issued under the Act create limited exceptions. For example, the term "employee" does not include domestic servants in private homes, provided that the employment is "sporadic, irregular, or intermittent." In addition, independent contractors are not covered by the rules. The existence of independent contractor status must be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account several specific factors. An employer may not designate someone as an independent contractor just to avoid the verification requirements of the Act.
Verification and Recordkeeping Requirements
The Act requires employers to verify the employment authorization of employees hired after November 6, 1986 -- citizen or non-citizen. An Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) must be completed for nearly all new hires. The new employee must complete the first part of the form at the time of hire. The employer must examine documents establishing both identity and authorization to work, and must complete the second part of the form within three business days of the hire. The form must be signed by the employer, attesting under penalty of perjury that it has reviewed the documents identified on the Form I-9. Employers need not complete a Form I-9 for individuals hired on or before November 6, 1986.

The regulations specify which documents are acceptable for verification purposes. Certain documents will establish both identity and employment authorization. An employer need examine only one of these documents. Alternatively, the employee may instead present a combination of two documents to establish employment authorization and identity. Whatever documents are presented, employers must examine the documents to make sure they "reasonably appear on their face to be genuine."

The employer must retain the Form I-9 for a period of three years from the date of employment, or for a period of one year following the date of termination of employment, whichever is later. Form I-9 must also be made available for inspection by officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), or designees of the INS, including the Department of Labor (DOL), without subpoenas or warrants, upon three days' notice. Any refusal to present a Form I-9 is a violation of the Act.

The employer may make copies of any documents it examines, establishing both the identity and authorization to work, but is not required to do so. If a copy is made, however, the employer must attach the copy to the Form I-9.
Employer Sanctions
Violations of the Act's employment provisions may result in injunctions, civil, or criminal penalties. An employer found to have knowingly hired an unauthorized alien may be ordered to pay a civil fine for each unauthorized alien ranging from $250 to $10,000 depending on the number of previous violations.

Civil money penalties may also be issued for mere paperwork violations. Employers who fail to comply with the employment verification requirements of the Act will be subject to a civil penalty of between $100 and $1,000 for each violation.

Criminal penalties and injunctions may be issued where a pattern or practice of violations has occurred. The criminal penalties may include a fine of not more than $3,000 for each unauthorized alien, imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

I don't qualify this as a misdemeanor!!

This wimpy lady is off to bed. Have a good night folks.

Chicano, I went to Mexico a couple of times in my former job. The people I was with went to a restaurant to eat lunch. Outside of the restaurant was a little girl, not more than three, standing there with a cup in her hand.

I was shocked and I immediately opened my purse to take out some money to give to her so that the adult (wherever they were hiding and watching nearby) could go and buy some food .

Just as I was getting the money, one of my co-workers grabbed my arm out of my purse and said, "DON'T !!" I said "WHAT ?" How can you walk past her and not give her something ??

I was horrified and SHOCKED that none of the other co-workers had budged to give the little girl money.

When we went inside they explained to me that THIS was NOT the answer, and that the parents should be standing up to the corrupt government of Mexico and NOT placing a three year old out on the street to beg.

They helped me to understand that if I had put money in her cup, she would definitely be standing there again tomorrow. We had to stand strong and do what was right for that child which was NOT to put money in her cup.

I learned a HARD and PAINFUL lesson that day, and it's one I will never forget.

Do you really see it fair to punish the so called "anchor babies?" You, me, and an anchor baby all deserve the same rights because we are all americans. Look up American in the dictionary, and it will tell you that an American is one who is born in America. And one who is an American born in America is an American citizen.

Chicano, your ignorance just keeps shining away. If you really read the 14th Amendment, (which has been grossly interpreted)

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was passed by both houses on 8th June and the 13th June, 1866. The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see any statement in there where it says anything about illegal immigrants.
Clearly our forfathers never intended to "give" away citizenship.