Judge lets of 27 illegals guilty of identry theft go free

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by The_Neon_Cowboy, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Judge lets ofd 27 illegals guilty of identry theft go free

    This is verry upsetting:mad: .... Whats next? Setting killers, robbers, rapists and terriosts free becouse thier illegals? :sigh:

    What This judge did is total BS, these guys even pled guilty!
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2004
  2. mkk

    mkk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,334
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    73
    I saw this one coming just by reading the topic. Fox News use the label "identity theft" to push a story when all they are really interested in is to kick out these immigrants by any means possible. The so called identity theft that these people do in order to be able to put food on the table has nothing to do with killers, robbers, rapists and terriosts. It's just the reactionary right playing with words, lying even, to get the job done under a more appealing facade.
     
  3. ToshiroOC

    ToshiroOC Unbiased.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,812
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Massachusetts Supreme Court was not a very good example of an activist court; they may have allowed civil unions that the legislature had not explicitly allowed, but they allowed them on state consitutional grounds (if I recall correctly).
     
  4. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    FYI:

    When you are born here you are issued a birth certificate, later you apply for a social securty number that tied to you. It's also a form of indentifaction used to secure other forms of indentifaction... It also ties directly into your social securty goverment benifits when you retire... it's also used for jobs and the reporting of taxes, getting loans, etc etc etc

    with out one you can't do squat

    I'm sorry you wouldn't feel that way if some one got a job under your Social Scurity # and didn't you find out the IRS is look at you for no payement of taxes or have added a massive tax lean on you. Or that they have an credit card as you! or some one starts seeking payment on a massive deleqent account...of your denided credit becouse some prick masqerading as you toally screwed up your credit.. of find you self in a costly court battle...

    it's idenity theft clear and simple, they pretend to be you to get things , jobs, drivers licences, cash checks, vote, get credit cards,library card bank accounts, loans, etc ... all masquradeing as YOU....

    it's a little more personal when you who has had your ideanty stolen it real nasty ordeal... that you'll never forget to the day you die

    It's a fast growing crime in the US and there are been some large crack downs for him to let them walk on fellony offences is a smack in the face of the legal system and set president for it to happen again and again....

    So what about the victioms? yes victoms, it's not a victomless crime. People sufferd, lost time, money, it's a personal form of terroism you "feel" terroised.
    It's takes alot of time ( many trimes years) and money sometimes hundreds just to get everything fixed .... while you wait your denied credit etc...

    What I'm saying is heck they let you walk for that they might as well let
    killers, robbers, rapists and terriosts walk too.....long as thier illegals:dead:
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2004
  5. mkk

    mkk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,334
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Quite right, identity theft is a rising problem. But this is not something that these immigrant groups are the major reason for, as they typically do not steal the identity of some unknown person to get loans, cars and such. Large scale fradulent identity theft is carried out mostly by people who are already very well off compared to these poor people that Fox News likes to stomp whenever possible. The main problem for them and apparently a number of their viewers is not the identity theft but the fact that they are immigrants from down south.
     
  6. TJ-

    TJ- New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,679
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    only in america....
     
  7. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    ROFL OK SHIRLOCK PLEASE GO OUT AND GET A BANK ACCOUNT A CREDIT CARD AN CELL PHONE, POWER SERVICE , PHONE , CAR LOAN, Personal loan ,etc with out useing your SS# or your driver licence number becouse (you can't get one with out a SS#) (no green card your illegal)

    here in the USA

    YOU CAN'T!! they run credit checks now even when you sign up with utillies etc...to detemine weather to carge you a deposit If your name an SS# don't match your not going to last long so they have to also use the persons name... other wise they get a nice trip back to thie country of origin :D

    THey don't get your number on thier own they buy the information from the same kinda people thats smuggles them across the boarder. the information NAME and SS# and date of birth are commonly used by the illegal....

    useing some one elses SS# is identity theft and a crime, dosn't matter who does it... but to let them walk in it self is a crime agaist the laws the people the system is there to protect

    If these had been americans? they be enjoying years in jail/prision at the moment...

    what planet are you on only rich people do identy theft ROFL they don't need to... I know I'm a previous victom of it my self the person was DIRT POOR

    many people are only well off becouse of the idenity theft!!! lol
    Wouldn't you be well off if you got 5,000 limit credit cards and maxed them out in someone elses name you never have to pay, loans you neve have to pay back and get paid with out taxes .... etc :D ... screw it up ... just switch idenities... repeat,....

    your Credit is everything anymore and it's all tied to an thew your SS#
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2004
  8. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, this reads more like, "hey why don't we boot out those ditry spicks - look at what they are doing to us" than anything to do with any kind of genuine or wide scale problem. (Sorry not my natural choice of words - but how else are you supposed to read it)? I guess it helps that the judge just so happens to have a Mexican sounding name too. :rolleyes: My guess is that there's more to this than meets they eye - and that these guys got off on a genuine legal standpoint.

    The truth is much of the American economy couldn't operate without illegal imigrants. They have no rights, no unions, work for a pittance and do many jobs that a lot of Americans would never dream of doing. From a Republican perspective they must seem like the ideal workforce. What I wonder would happen if all the illegal immigrants in America really were deported? How soon would it be before the country collapsed to it's knees?

    In any case I think if anyone cared to dig a little deeper on this, I'm pretty certain that it wouldn't be as simple or as clear cut as neon or Fox News would have you believe.

    The interesting part of this I think, is really that this seems like a part of the new battle lines that are being drawn between the government and the courts. I sense a growing resentment in the American neo-conservative movement against the courts. This seems like an inevtiable next phase in Bush's plan. (Well not his plan - but anyway...). It is a plan that by now follows what is a very familiar and unsettling pattern.

    First you put out a lot of bad feeling, then start to spread rumours and untruths - and then you stir up a storm of fear and hatred - and then you instigate what is known as a moral panic by leaking negative propoganda to the media - and then you make demands for change.

    There is really a lot of resentment among the American right at this time against the courts due to decisions that have gone against them on matters such as gay rights, abortion, the constitution and the rights of the detainees at Guantanimo Bay. I think in the comming years you will see increasing pressure from the right to dispense with the independance of the American legal system and to politicise it so that it directly reflects the views and the will of the government.

    It is certainly a dangerous tactic - as generally an independand legal system is what many people would regard as the biggest factor in differentiating a dictatorship from a democracy.

    I wonder what kind of legal system would that be - where lawyers and judges were afraid of reaching descisions, simply because they were afraid that doing so might upset their government? It certainly wouldn't be anything that many countries would recognise as truly developed.

    That may indeed be where you are all going. It seems like America is beginning to look less and less like the land of the free.

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2004
  9. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    How could they get off on some legal standpoint they all
    Plead: GUILTY AS CHARGED to the charges brought against them.
    From the legal standpoint the should of done time then been deported

    What doesn't meet the eye it's clear cut. As clear as night and day I've even seen inteviews with the prosicuter in the case they wer shocked.
    Thosands of tax payer dallors and time wasted building thier case totally wasted. The judge was playing "politics" plain and simple...

    Letting guilty people walk, that even admit to thier guilt, and have a truck load of evidence to the same effect...:( insane :duh:

    Actually there are so many and yes they do alot of things underthe table burt then again they take money from everyone when they don't pay thier taxes and 90% of the money they make gets sent back to mexico. Meaning they arent buying good etc... thier actually hurting the economy in that aspect...
    other then they work for cash and useally don't pay any taxes. Yes they take alot of jobs that are hard work low pay, but so do they take jobs that have hard work and high pay. The key is they take up jobs that real americans could have done... and paid thier taxes, and spent thier money here not out of country....but we are getting off topic

    Yea, I guess you assume the prosocuter is lieing, the legal documents and eveidence are fake, the victoms lieing, the immigrents own plea of "GUILTY" must me fake too huh :D

    It's called an activist judge they do thing they arent supposed to do just like the one the illegally allowed gay marrage even though in thier state they had added it to the ballot initive long ago and marrage was defined as between a man and a woman but a massive magority of like 90+ %. The judge like this one is trying to act like a political catalist...


    [/QUOTE]The interesting part of this I think, is really that this seems like a part of the new battle lines that are being drawn between the government and the courts. I sense a growing resentment in the American neo-conservative movement against the courts. This seems like an inevtiable next phase in Bush's plan. (Well not his plan - but anyway...). It is a plan that by now follows what is a very familiar and unsettling pattern.

    First you put out a lot of bad feeling, then start to spread rumours and untruths - and then you stir up a storm of fear and hatred - and then you instigate what is known as a moral panic by leaking negative propoganda to the media - and then you make demands for change.
    [/QUOTE]
    bla bla bla

    Yea that just what we need thousands of judges, man or woman with the power of absoulte dictator makeing laws for all 50 states.... Despite the will of the people of the united states and the people thier own state.... the judge do as they please or is on thier personal agenda.....

    The few need to stop out weighing the many

    Judges often set presidents and even make and change laws! thats not the dammed role of the judical branch. thiers is only to strickly interpit and enforce. not make law thats what the senate and house is for.....

    how about fallowing the law thats and rules that are already written not produceing law from the judical system....What do you think we need to drop the legistlative branch... and just let the activist judges go at it....:rolleyes:

    legistlative branch has a function

    judical branch has a function but is abuseing it power to "play politics", userping the legistlative branch and the voice the people.....
     
  10. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lol, there are so many things wrong with that reply it's hard to know were to start. Let's just say that you think you know the facts neon...

    In any case you are exactly the sort of person a story like this is aimed at.

    It is simply interesting to note how effective it is in influencing your opinion.

    Now all you need is a few million more like you and you can close the courts down completely.

    I think it's safe to say that in this instance it is highly likely that this judge WAS interpreting the law - as the law currently stands.

    Anyway it might be worth noting that you were all illegal immigrants at one point. I'm sure the Indian nation who ran America before you all arrived weren't to keen on you lot either. So maybe you should all consider leaving?

    The point about immigrants not paying taxes is fairly moot. The real benefit comes to the employers, because they don't have to deal with a bunch of annoying paperwork, government regulations, health and safety rules, unions, or minimum, wage requirements (where any exist). Do you really think that there are hordes of ordinary Americans who are prepared to work under these conditions? The average American employee would no doubt expect several times the salary many of these people are paid, they would expect benefits packages, possibly a retirement plan - and they would no doubt expect that their working conditions were maintained at a decent standard too. All of this costs money. It is employers who are responsible for encouraging illegal immigration - simply because using an exclusively American workforce would in many instances prove extremely difficult if not impossible for them to sustain.

    I don't think that's strictly true. In large part the role of a modern judiciary is simply to interpret the law. It just so happens that in several instances the law is very much open to interpretation. That is the nature of the law. It is often a very complex and vague ideal. What judges will tend to do is based on other interpretations of that law (or other 'precedents') is to uncover a possibly new interpretation based on past interpretations. The law is not and was never intended to be a fixed and steadfast thing - it was meant to reflect the changing nature of society and the new realities that confront that society each and every day.

    The idea of having an independent judiciary is simply to ensure that a condition of dictatorship can never exist in a modern developed society. This means that decisions made by the courts cannot be influenced by government - because if they were it would be seen as government who was running the show and not the legal system. And of course a government who controls it's courts and who instructs them on what decisions to reach and when to reach them very much IS a dictatorship.

    I don't see how you can really get around it. Either you have an independent. judiciary - or you have 'rule from above'. And if it's the government who are always calling the shots, then this is no longer the principal of 'rule by the people on behalf of the people.' So you would have to throw that part of the constitution out.

    And if the government is to be allowed to direct the courts, then wouldn't this by definition place the government in a position where it is seen to be above the law?

    It seems to me that a dictatorship really would be your ideal scenario Neon. You would never have to deal with those nasty liberals again, the courts would be forced to comply with whatever the government's whim might be - and anyone who didn't meet your ideal of a good American (i.e. white and from the Mid West) could either be locked up or deported - which since the courts would be powerless to resist, could mean that virtually millions of Americans would loose their right to remain in the USA.

    Pretty soon you would end up with something that looked very much like Nazi Germany.

    Is this really where you want your country to go?

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2004
  11. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    What do you mean the openion was already there. This ruleing is just inflamitory.... you really only one sentance to understand the whole situation...It's pretty cut and dry

    this isn't the first or will it be the last time a judge has set clearly guilty (and proveable) men free. thier not all activists related just some bad judges

    No the judges just need to be tought or un can't find word i'll use self "policed" better . They know thier bounds and some commonly step out side those bounds...why? to further a agenda

    No ones advocating removeing the judical system.
    Just asking for judges to do thier job! enforceing the law....
    To serve and protect th people they serve...

    letting crimanals go with out punishment is not what he is supposed to do.
    I could understand if he only gave time to the ones useing liveing peoples social security and idenity. There are clear victoms..... justice was not served

    maybe let those useing the idenity of dead people / fake socials walk isn't as bad, No real victom (unless..... they have a widower and they are drawing on the death benifits... that could mess someone up)

    Yes, he looked at his / his parties politcal agenda and said hmmm what can I do to futher it. Not at the laws of his state and consitution.

    Nope sorry! the indians didn't have imigration laws in the tee-pees :D :rofl:
    Try again....

    You act as if it was a nation? a gorvernment?
    BWHAHAH a bunch of seprate savages and waring tribes....
    yea thats what you call an advanced and organised civilization :D

    Again dude geeze....

    They make good money.... alot of the ones that doo temp work and work on farms my makes less then minuim but you act as if they get payed a dallor an hour when it's more like $4 hour....

    many of them get paid as much if not more then thier legal counter parts
    no taxes thier paid stright and in cash... no Fedral tax, state tax, social securty tax, county tax, etc about 18-25% of a legal persons check goes away in taxes ... so even if you paid less your getting more becouse no tax!

    You havn't lived in the US have you? just wondering...

    For one here in my own town a devoplement got busted useing a buch of illegals. At the time I worked at a grocery store and they allways came in in small groups, bought alot, paid in cash all $100 bills in wads of about $5,000$8,000... couldn't speak a lick of english.. only spanish...the came in every week... about a mouth later they all got busted / deported i assume....

    off the wall comment:
    It's also interesting legal visitors tend to buy (some times alot of ) brand name clothes and ship / take them back home were they are many times more expenive thats not harmfull ;)

    But they change the law almost on a daily basis. the ones that are the ativist judges are the most extreme...

    again refuring to the openly and well known gay activst judge alwing the gay marrages to proseed insted of stopping them. Why to further his own groups personal agenda! THE LAW WAS CLEAR GAY MARRAGES WERE NOT LEGAL in thier state. all the marrages wer later over turned and nullified by the sepreme court...

    but you cant say that one judge didn't couse a massive upstir and problems theat lead to almost a dozen sates banning gay marrage and other states intwineds in legal battles on the dame topic

    if the one judge would have just DID HIS JOB AND ENFORCED THE LAW and not his agenda then they would never been the banning nor the attepts to define marrage in the US constition... The mayor and judge had a politcal and personal agenda they wanted to push and stir up.... seem it back fired...


    Dude the judiciary system IS part of the government :D

    yea thier instucted its on paper it's called the state and US consitution and fedral and state laws.

    no were is it written to set confessed crimals go free just becouse they aren't legal citizens... Identy theft is not a victomless crime.. it not like they jay walked or somthing...


    We ellect the judges, we ellect the government officals..
    of the people by the people....

    Bwhahaha your just now seeing that!!! the government is verry much above the law... pick a country any country :D it's "about" the same .... others in diffrent ways...

    dude a dictatorship is like 1 person that rules with absoulte power over everything... much like a king...

    No one want, would do or allow that but if those people illegally in the USA they should be kicked out ASAP... They can wait in line and come in the LEGAL way.

    Here you go again with your "Nazi's" comments :rolleyes: :sigh:

    some times it seems if they'd just gather up all the extreme left ists(democrats)/ right wingers and the librals and on a island and nuke it i'm sure the world could be a beter palce :D bwhahaha... j/k

    but these way out of main steam people do have thier places.... even though more of them should be in mental instutions :D acording to what I see on the liberal/democrat channel here.... people are free to belive what they want but man some are complete lunitics

    finding my own selff offtopic yet again
     
  12. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sometime neon you just do not help yourself. I could only read about 25% of that at best. What is your problem with using a spell checker? I do. It makes it easier for people to take you seriously.

    But anyway I am sticking to my guns - you cannot have government interfering in the independence of the judiciary - because no matter what your interpretation of it might be - that very much is the practice of a dictatorship.

    What else do you call it when you express a desire to expell all immigrants, dispense with (or bomb as you put it) all political dissenters (or liberals in this case), limit the independence of the courts and give all of the power they have to government?

    Still it's nice to see you picked up the ball and ran with it. I mean I wasn't quite sure where you stood on this whole immigrant thing. But I'm pretty damn sure now.

    I don't buy it that illegal immigrants are creaming it in, making every bit as much (indeed in your view perhaps even more) than ordinary Americans would. If that's the case why do you so often see them doing the lowest paid of low paid jobs? Not exactly easy to get rich on that kind of work anyway now is it?

    Nonetheless no doubt you are happy living in your nasty little bubble. I just hope there are enough people who do care about freedom and democracy to prevent these things from happening. I do know that the US will never stop illegal immigration - because quite simply it can't afford to. But I guess people like you can still make their lives as unpleasant as possible while they are here.

    But as I said I suspect you will hear a lot more from the right in coming months and years about the 'need' to bring the court system into line.

    The law has never been something that the Republican party has been all that comfortable with. What better ideal for them than than to instigate a campaign against it and have most of the authority it now exercises passed to the President?

    I don't pretend to understand why that doesn't make you afraid....

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2004
  13. OldBuzzard

    OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Raid, you are missing the point. In the last few years the Courts have started to become the very dictatorship that you are talking about. You have indivudal people, who are accountable to no one, making decisions that have the force of law, with no way to change/rescind those 'laws'.

    As for the immigration issue, you are conviently overlooking the work ILLEGAL. I have nothing against non-citizens working in this country, and it's not an issue of them 'taking our jobs away'. In many cases they are doing labor intensive jobs at a pay scale that many Americans seem to think is 'beneath them'. The problem is that ILLEGALS get all the benefits of our society: Education, healthcare, police/fire protection, etc, etc, but do not contribute their 'fair share' (a phrase that is near and dear to the hearts of liberals) for those services. The non-citizen workers do provide valuable services, but they also need to contribute (just as I do) to pay for government services.

    If I remember correctly, you live in the UK. What would you say if suddenly you had 1-2 million non-citizen workers that were paying no taxes, including the VAT, but still were getting all the benifits that YOUR tax money is paying for? I somehow think that you might just be singing a different tune at that point.
     
  14. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think that's true. I think that the courts have probably always been the same. Their job is to interpret the law. A law that is decided upon by the Senate and by Congress. Indeed their job is not simply to enforce but also to apply the law in circumstances where the letter of the law itself may not always be entirely clear cut. The law is a much more complex thing than you appear to imagine. It is not always about absolutes - it is not always black and white. If that were the case, there would never be a need for trials in the first place. Although perhaps this is ultimately the desired state of affairs for many within the current political establishment.

    I think what is true is that there is a new focus on the courts instigated in particular by a specific branch of the American Republican party. I don't think the courts themselves have changed - what I do think has changed is that there is a political agenda that finds the freedom and independence of the judiciary to be increasingly inconvenient. I have no doubt that many of them would like to see this freedom and independence removed. (Or at least severely restricted).

    Anyway I can't make you people care about your own constitution. Ultimately that's your affair. Although all I can say is that I wish you would. But if you want to allow your government to throw everything that the constitution stands for in the bin - then there's not an awful lot anyone can do to stop it.

    I wonder how much protection illegal immigrants do have in your society? I mean what genuine protection under the law do they have? Do they really have access to health care? How is that possible when millions of ordinary Americans do not because even they cannot afford it? What specific legislation is there that gives illegal immigrants preferential access to health services over ordinary Americans? Point me to a law that says illegal immigrants are entitled to medical and other services that the average poor American cannot afford to access themselves? Because if there is no law, then all it is is a bigoted opinion - an excuse used by the right to whip up hatred towards ethnic minorities.

    As for police and fire services - well I have heard many stories of illegal immigrants being victims of crime - but that they were afraid to approach the police for fear that they might be deported. Nonetheless I think basic police and fire cover are essential human rights - rather than just a matter of giving people something they are not entitled to. How else would you have it? If an illegal immigrant is raped, or murdered, or beaten or robbed by an American citizen, would you just say 'that's hard luck.' Would you say that it is the American citizen's right to treat them in any way they see fit? And if there was a fire where a few dozen illegal immigrants got trapped, what would you say then? That we should simply allow them to them burn?

    Don't forget that that is the situation that you are advocating. That illegal immigrants should be denied access to their basic human rights, that they should have no rights whatsoever under the law, that if they are injured or become seriously ill that they should just be left to die.

    Not altogether a very charitable perspective now is it?

    And in any case we do have a large community of illegal immigrants in the UK too (as do most developed societies in this modern world) and we hear the same arguments from the right that we hear coming from your country. But really our economy has hardly suffered because of it. They provide a pool of readily accessible cheap labour - doing jobs that are too low paid, too dangerous, too dirty or simply not interesting enough for a lot of people in this country to do. The result has been (although perhaps not solely because of this) that the UK economy is booming - even in the face of a major recession in Europe, Japan and the USA.

    Not that I personally am advocating this state of affairs be allowed to continue. I mean I know from what I have seen that a lot of illegal immigrants are really very poorly treated. But my solution is to give them more rights and protection under the law, not less. Sure try to stop them coming in in the first place. Make it as hard as possible for them to get here. But if they do get here then after a certain period of time they should be granted some form of legal status. After all if we grant them legal status, then they can be allowed to earn a decent wage - a wage that would be substantial enough to allow them to pay taxes. And if they were no longer illegal and were paying taxes, then presumably that would mean that your objections to them would disappear in a puff of your own logic?

    So in reality your position should be quite similar to mine. Instead of arguing that they should have less rights, you should be arguing that they be given more rights. Unless of course your only real objection to them is that they simply have a different colour of skin from you?

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2004
  15. OldBuzzard

    OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Nice job of twisting my words there Raid.

    No where...I repeat NO WHERE in my post did I advocate WITHHOLDING any health/fire/police or any other service/right to any one, illegal or not. Also nowhere in my post will you see the word PREFFERENCIAL. Get it right!

    What I am advocating is that they take the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with the RIGHTS, and that includes following the law.

    For your information, ANYONE, ANYTIME can go to any emergency room in any hospital in the US, and they ARE REQUIRED BY LAW to treat them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2004
  16. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well that still very much leaves open what you solution is. You sound very much as though you are not happy that they can have access to these basic services - which as you now admit are no more and no less than even the very poorest of Americans have a right to expect. In my view these rights are fundamental - that is they are above and beyond matters of race, legal status, taxation or any such issues, they are basic fundamental human rights.

    I mean what would you do? You shout plenty but you offer no solutions.

    You say that they should 'follow the law'? What does this mean? Are you implying that illegal immigrants are any more prone to breaking the law than any other group? My own impression is that this would be a highly counter productive state of affairs, as surely the best thing an illegal immigrant could do is keep their heads down and stay out of trouble? Or do you mean that they should pay taxes? Well how can they do that if they are illegal imigrants? Surely the only way that they can pay taxes is for the government to grant them some form of legal status? What would be your objection to this? I mean presumably since you say race isn't an issue, if they were granted some form of legal status, that this would eliminate the majority of your objections towards them?

    It seems like a fairly straightforward proposition.

    But the problem is that this will never happen - as as I said, having such a large pool of cheap labour is really rather convienient for a lot of American business'. Indeed it could be said that it is the employers who encourage illegal immigration - because quite simply if there were no jobs then there wouldn't be any imigrants. So rather than complain about the illegal imigrants - surely it would make more sense to pressure your government to force business' to stop employing illegal imigrants and to force your law makers to grant them some form of legal status - where paying taxes can become a practical possibility? Of course this will mean employers will have to consider offering benefits, health plans, pension plans, minimal work/health and safety conditions, minimum wage, fixed working hours, overtime rates - and all the other rights and benefits that people like you currently enjoy.

    So how happy do you imagine that America's employers would be with this scenario? How long I wonder would your government last if they even dared to consider intruducing any such new restrictions?

    The truth of the matter is that your country needs these people - there are large parts of your economy that are almost soley dependent on illegal imigration. It is a condition that has existed since white people first arrived in America - there has always been a demand for a pool of cheap low paid labour and there always will be. Remember that the slaves didn't pay taxes either - and the period when slavery was rife was a period in history when America grew most rapidly. A lot of people got rich then, just as they are getting rich now, by employing people for a whole lot less (or in the case of the slaves effectively for nothing) than it would cost to employ an average American citizen.

    Besides who else would you have to kick around when things got rough? I mean what happens when you boot all of the Mexicans and Asians out and then the next recession arrives? Who will you blame then? It might make a nice change if for once you opted to blame your government - but somehow I suspect that if you can't find someone or some group at home to pursue, you will simply opt to search abroad for some other poor unfortunate scapegoat.

    Oh well... On and on it goes I guess...

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2004
  17. OldBuzzard

    OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Why is it that you seem to think that I want to 'kick someone around'????

    Is it because I'm somewhat conservative, and in your view all conservatives are mean spirited, homophobic, racist bigots????

    I don't really care if 1 or 1 million non-citizens of any race/culture come into the US, as long as they follow the proper procedures, and pay the same sort of taxes that I do. No more, no less. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    To take your argument, then are we to allow the illegals to break other laws? If so, where do we draw the line? Tax evasion? Theft? Assault? Rape? Murder? I'm sure that you aren't in favor of that.

    The solution, as I see it, is to make it easier to get temperory work permits, that would give us the ability to properly identify the workers for tax purposes, and require employers to collect those taxes, just as they do for US citizens. At the same time the penalties for EMPLOYERS that would still hire illegal workers should be so stiff that it would be much more profitable to hire legal ones.
     
  18. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again you do tend to lump illegal imigrants in with other criminal elements. I am sure that illegal imigrants are no more prone to rape, murder, theft or any other cime than are the so called 'legal' citizens of your country.

    Where we differ is that you place the blame squarely at the feet of the imigrants - and not at the feet of the employers or the government who allow - and indeed often encourage these people to exist outside of the system.

    If you feel illegal imigrants are to blame for the current ills that you percieve (and that it isn't the responsibility of your government or of business') then I wish you would explain to me exactly in what way you feel they are to blame? Because that is the part I don't very easily get.

    The rest of it I could pretty much go along with - since this is what I have been advocating all along. However again I state that I doubt this will ever happen, because this will require employers to comply to all of the other conditions I listed above too. All of these things cost money. A lot of money. Would it still seem like such a good idea if forcing employers to hire them on a legal basis were to cause your country to dip into yet another period of recession? Who I wonder would you blame then?

    Still we are at a new and interesting position where we appear to agree that the best way to solve the problem of illegal immigration is to allow immigrants equal rights under the law and some form of legal status that would allow them full access to public services health care, pensions, taxation and so on. I get what I want these people are finaly recognised for their intrinsic human worth - and are granted access to the law and their human rights just as anyone else is - and you get what you want because you can't complain any more about them not paying taxes.

    Believe me, on these boards a consevative advocating increased rights and protection under the law for illegal immigrants is a relatively new phenomenon. Next thing you know you will be saying that protecting minority rights and preseving the independance of the judiciary are both good things too. :)

    Best regards,

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2004
  19. OldBuzzard

    OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Well, I see that you are getting close to 'seeing the light' :D

    You see, liberals and conservatives (at least here in the states) really don't disagree all that much on the final result. What we disagree on is the path to be taken in order to achieve that result. In it's most simple form, Liberals believe that it is the government's job to put things right, and that government needs to be as big as possible to do that, while conservatives believe that it is the individual's job, and the less government intrusion the better, and that government should be only as large as absolutely necessary.

    You are evidently unaware of that fact that if it wasn't for the Republicans in congress in the 60's that the first civil rights acts would NOT have been passed? That the 'leaders' of the segreganist in that era were almost 100% democrats? I do have to give the liberals credit for having managed to put together such a good 'propaganda machine' that most people, even here in the states, don't know the facts. All of that was common knowledge when I was growing up as it happened, but now with so much 'revisionist history' being taught, it is 'conviently' overlooked. To go back even farther, it was the Northern (historically conservative) states that pushed for the abolition, and finally the end of slavery in this country. Note: Abraham Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN.

    You ask about the crime rate among the illegals. In the strictest sence of the word their crime rate is 100%. They commited a crime by coming into the counrty illegally. However, I know that you were refering to 'other' crimes committed while they are here, and I'd hazard a guess that it is not substancially different than any other group with their ecomomic status. if anything, it may actually be lower, since there is always the fear of deportation if they are caught. I know that in my neighborhood that has an almost equal number of white's, blacks, and hispanics that the crime rate in the hispanic commuity is no better or worse that the blacks or whites.

    On the subject of employers having to offer 'benefits' to 'now legal' workers having a negative inpact on the economy, I think that it may have a slight impact in the short term, but in the long term it will all even out as the now 'illegals' contribute nothing, and the balance of the population are being forced to take up the slack. As the 'now-legals' start to contribute, the burden will less on the rest of the population, resulting in the having more disposable income, which will in turn drive the economy.
     
  20. raid517

    raid517 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mmm... I don't think there is such a vast difference on our opinions. Maybe there is still a difference on the relative facts of the matter - but no doubt we will get round to dealing with that too soon enough.

    Nonetheless I think it is misguided to say that protecting civil rights by definition means that liberals (or those on the left in general) have any increased desire for more government. It simply seems obvious to me to say that if it is not the role of government to protect the rights of minorities and oppressed people within society, then who's role exactly is it?

    It seems nonsensical to say that it is up to illegal immigrants and other minorities to protect their own rights. How can they do this if government refuse to listen?

    I am not sure about that one. Suffice to say that there may be some truth in it - in that I think both our societies can absorb illegal immigrants and can treat them much more fairly - but there is a perception among employers that it is often much cheaper to hire illegal workers than it is to hire 'legal' employees. Again I point you to the practice of slavery. If slavery was such an uneconomic practice, then why was there so many of them? Why did so many parts of the US prosper so quickly when slavery was in place? Again the answer is rather obvious - and that is that employee rates were really quite minimal. There was little or no government involvement in employee or civil rights, the 'employees' worked as many hours as the employers deemed fit, they worked for virtually no money (other than what it took to feed them) and the idea of providing them with any kind of benefits was simply a non starter.

    Nonetheless I personally am under no illusions about the various realities of history. I have a genuine admiration for Lincon and the men of his era (although there was a considerable disparity in their attitudes towards the slaves and those they held towards the native American Indians). I think this was a period in history when the Republican Party did look back to the ideals of the founding fathers of the US constitution. I think that it has only been in fairly recent times that there has been a quite disturbing lurch to the right.

    As I have said before I don't think there has been a truly decent US administration throughout this last 30 year period. I feel that perhaps the assassination of Kennedy ended an era of genuine idealism in American politics - and that since then the divisions in your society have become ever more pronounced.

    And I don't feel that it is strictly fair to paint the Democratic party as being in favour of slavery while the Republicans were against it. What you had was a genuine split - just like the whole of America was split at that time. The Southern states had certainly been seen as traditionally Democratic - but this was at a time in history where the Republican Party itself was still relatively new and only just gaining in popularity. Think of what would happen if a new political party were to be formed now - and how hard it would be for them to gain in popularity. In those days the Republican party was seen as very much representing the ideals of the new world, of progress, of industrialization (when the very idea of industry itself was regarded as very new) of rail roads and expansionism, where bankers, financiers and lawyers and all of the various associated service industries that came with them were needed to bank roll this new and exciting era of social development. In the South however it remained for a very long time a predominantly agricultural economy - which in large part tended to look towards the past, to what were seen as traditional values - and in this sense they viewed the North with a considerable degree of supspicion.

    However I don't think the real division was between Democrat and Republican - so much as it was between North and South. It is simply too simplistic to say that this was a struggle beteen left and right. What happened then caused divisions between Republican and Republican, democrat and Democrat, Father and son, brother and brother, mother and sister and so on. Attitudes in the South both on the left and right were traditionally in favour of slavery (and later segregation) while those in the more affluent North were traditionally against both of these principals. Moreover so pronounced was this division that there was even a breakaway faction within the Democratic party known as The Constitutional Union Party (just as the Republican Party had been formed sometime earlier by several breakway factions within the then named Democratic-Republican party) who are in the main a largely forgotten splinter group that pretty much carried the support of the South throughout the duration of the civil war.

    This was predominantly an argument between the farmers and agriculturists of the South V's the Industrialists and bankers of the North. The Southerners felt that it was uneconomic for them to produce food, cotton, tobacco and other goods for the consumers of the rich North at a reasonable price that would allow them to generate a profit - without them having access to a cheap pool of compliant and readily available labour. They resented the interference of the North in their affairs and believed that the North simply wished to keep the Southern states poor and to prevent them from prospering. After all for as long as they remained poor, they could not attempt to challenge the dominance of the North. And indeed this is an attitude that perpetuates to this day with the large scale deployment of illegal immigrants in many of the areas that the slaves may have traditionally occupied.

    But you are correct in that in days of old there was much less that divided the Republican and Democratic Party from each other. In many ways they share a common origin - and at one time or another they shared many similar ideals. Both pretty much view themselves as the natural inheritors of the policies and principals of Thomas Jefeson and the founding fathers of the USA - and in large part both of the parties are correct - because you can undoubtedly trace the origin of each party back to this period.

    My only objection has been the lurch of the Republican party towards the more right wing elements within it's ranks in more recent years. I think this lurch first started with Nixon and has continued inexorably ever since.

    I cannot help but feel that many of the men of 30, or 40 - or even 60 or 100 years ago - were cut from a different cloth than many of the people who claim to be our leaders today.

    I have many heros in my own estimation from the past, both from the left and right of the political spectrum - but sadly I have none at all from this modern era.

    And of all of the administrations and political figures that I do admire - I am sorry to say that this current administration comes lowest of all in my own humble opinion.

    I dislike them for many reasons that I have discussed at length here in the past. Predominantly, I cannot help but feel that this government has sought to directly appeal to the basest instincts within American society. I despise them for their blatant disregard for the constitution (which 200 years after it was written is still one of the most steadfast documents ever devised). I despise them for their disregard for civil liberties (which as you point out is in many ways a betrayal of their natural inheritance). I mistrust them for the way they seek routinely to impose the will of the state and the masses over the will and rights of the individual. I despise them for the way they appeal to the crass instincts of nationalism and fear, for their assault on the principals of freedom of speech and of religion and last but not least for their blatant cowardice in the face of adversity, where instead of seeking to defend the nations freedoms when such a defense was of genuine importance, they have instead opted to trade many of these freedoms in and effectively allow their enemy to win, simply so that they might have a little extra power and influence for themselves.

    I have no beef with the Republican Party of the past but I simply cannot come to terms with the direction that this party has taken in perhaps the last 30 or 40 years or so. Maybe you might find a way to square it - but I personally find it virtually impossible to come to terms with.

    Best regards,

    GJ
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2004

Share This Page

visited