Immigration Raids: HSA Run Amok

I have an op-ed today on Tuesday's immigration raids in the Washington Examiner.

I cannot accept a government that rounds people up on buses and takes them to undisclosed locations. Who is a winner here? With the exception of companies like Halliburton with federal contracts to build detention centers, I can’t think of any.

Update: Pachacutec at Firedoglake writes more about what will happen to the children of those arrested.

Update: the oped is currently #38 of 14,864 articles. I hope you all read it so it gets bumped into the top ten. The Examiner is viewed as a conservative paper, so this is a chance to speak to those not in the choir.

< Top Ten Drug Law Stories of 2006 | 2007 Golden Globe Nominations Announced >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Our nation, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    like all nations, is sovereign.

    I am all for a guest worker program.

    But the idea that foreign nationals should be able to illegally cross our borders - or any nation's borders - with impunity is naive, imo.

    The idea that foreign nationals who have crossed our borders - or any nation's borders - illegally should then be able to illegally use forged or stolen identities with impunity is naive, imo.

    Sovereignty doesn't always call for cruelty. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:20:26 PM EST
    Bill (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:23:27 PM EST
    I don't think it ever calls for cruelty.

    SUO, I respectfully disagree for this reason... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    ...when you begin "combatting" illegal immigration by rounding up people hard at work, placing them in prison camps (coming soon, if not here already), tearing them away from families who have American citizen children, and then think in terms of ridding ourselves of 11,000,000 people through deportation by making them FELONS is, IMO, cruel.

    Besides, the logistics of deporting that many people would be staggering: If you could arrest/convict/deport 1,000 people a day it would take a little over 30.1 YEARS to deport them all.

    Aside from the cruelties such actions would levy on illegal immigrants, there would be several hundreds of thousands of differing relationships with American citizens that would suffer as well.

    And as rife as illegal police actions have become I cannot help but believe that any agency running this program would soon find itself embroiled in endless lawsuits over endless complaints of unnecessary cruelty.

    So, while I recognize and respect your opinion, for these reasons above (among others) I respectfully disagree.


    Bill (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    You make good points, this is not an easy subject.

    The argument can probably be made that anything like incarceration, fines, community service, etc., for criminal activity is "cruel" in some way to someone.

    The consequences for stealing one time are not the same as those for someone who's caught stealing 20 times. Should the consequences be different for someone who's been here illegally for 20 years in contrast to someone who just snuck in last night?

    No easy answers.


    Agreed. There must be a better way... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    ...we just can't seem to find it.

    Packing it in for the day, folks, too much pain to keep typing (or sitting up, or walking, etc.).

    G'night SUO, aw, edger, squeaky, everybody, I look forward to tomorrow and more debate.


    Better way..... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    Tell me about it...I've been thinking about it for the last two days and I'm stumped.  All I know for sure is mass arrest and deportation is not something I wanna be party to.  No way, no how.

    Feel better Bill....and keep on posting, I'm a big fan.  Props respect sir.


    Don't you al think it odd? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jakebnto on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:42:28 PM EST
    Skilling spends his months waiting for his punishment lavishing in a 9000 sq ft house.  Yet, POTENTIAL illegal immigrants are rounded up, trucked to sites where they have no access to anything, including a simple phone call to make sure their children are cared for.  Tell me, who was it who harmed the sytem more?

    I don't think it's illegal alien meatpackers.

    They need to go, but they also must be treated as human beings.


    what part of illegal (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jen M on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    don't you understand.

    Yeah sure, people throw that one around until we start advocationg throwing ceo's in jail for hiring illegal aliens, then suddenly we see the light compassionwise.

    That is ridiculous (none / 0) (#71)
    by Pancho on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 11:02:44 PM EST
    I have never heard anyone object to punishing CEOs for hiring illegals.

    A country of illegal immigrants (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by koshembos on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    Don't recall that we got permission from American Indians to come to what is now the legal US of A.

    People coming to the US to find work and support their families are neither illegal nor aliens. They are very much the current generation of new comers succeeding our parents and grandparents' generations. (Except Congressman Tancredo whose family landed here from the moon.)

    To the law abiding citizens commenting above, all I have to say is that the immigration laws are morally illegal and alien to any decent tradition.

    koshembos (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    To the law abiding citizens commenting above, all I have to say is that the immigration laws are morally illegal and alien to any decent tradition.

    How so? Would you mind expanding this statement with some examples or background or something?


    listen to what you are saying (2.33 / 3) (#21)
    by ENFORCE R LAWS on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    I cannot beleive I am hearing some of this BS from some of you people.

    These people are in our country illeagly.  The real truth is they have broken the law.  

    They do not have rights.  the rights cover citzens and people here legaly.


    The fact they have family here is their problem.

    If all of you feel sorry for them let them use your SS# or identity.  Wait till they get amotor vehicle violation and ignor it.  The next thing is you have a warrent out for you in another state you know nothing about.

    They get a loan default on it and your credit is wrecked.

    Wrong.... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    They do not have rights

    Couldn't disagree more...every human being has rights.  Inalienable rights.  I hold this truth to be self evident.


    I'll take TV trivia... (none / 0) (#40)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:22:54 PM EST

    What is Baretta (1975), Alex?


    Still so very baffled (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    Since jarober hasn't said it, I will: Jeralyn continues to be baffled by the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. She goes even further, suggesting something approaching open borders and an automatic citizenship program (see the quote from the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which I assume she agrees with).

    As for the children of these illegal aliens, I have little doubt that those arrested were asked if they had children and what their status was, and I have little doubt that those children were taken care of in accordance with our laws.

    Complaining about the children is like pickpockets bringing their kids along while committing crimes and then complaining about being separated from them.

    What kind of parent would bring their kids along while committing crimes?

    (For those who are unclear on basic concept, think through all the steps you'd need to take in order to enter Mexico illegally and find a job there. Would you at any point in time not realize that your various actions were illegal?)

    Baffled, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jakebnto on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    What if those children were born here?  Our laws say they are Americans.  As for your surety about how they are being treated, apparently the press has pretty well debunked your naivete.  There were ABANDONED in this process, baffled, not cared for.

    Also it seems clear that legal aliens, perhaps even citizens, were rounded up and trucked to holding pens.  Is that ok with you as well?

    Jeralyn's point does appear to escape you - these immigrants are contributors to our society, not just drains on the system.  Many of them have been here for years, perhaps decades, working and providing a living for their family.  Your comparison to pickpockets completely misses it's mark.

    As for taking jobs from Americans, that might be so.  I can't say for sure one way or another, and neither can you.  In any case, we have shipped tons of jobs to China, and I don't see anyone complaining that the price of Walmart's goods is too low.  At least low paying jobs here in the good ole USA contribute directly to the community in which that illegal alien lives, unlike jobs shipped out of country.

    Maybe you'd prefer that all our meat products also be from some other country?  I suspect that the producers in this country might disagree with you.  I don't see us shipping beef animals, porkers and chickens to some other country in order to get frozen parts back.



    What were they thinking? (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:40:37 PM EST
    Those illegal aliens weren't kidnapped and brought to the U.S. In the vast majority of cases, they came here willingly and fully aware that what they were doing is contrary to our laws. Then, they have children.

    Shouldn't they bear some responsibility in this matter? Should they have put their children in such a situation? What would you think of yourself if you did such a thing? Do you perhaps have a lower opinion of them than of Americans, thinking somehow they're not so bright or something? Should we hold them to a lower standard? Should we encourage future cases of people coming here and expecting to stay as long as they have U.S. citizen children? Perhaps the Democratic Party could make that a plank in their next platform.

    As for the rest of your comment, it could have been written by one of those companies that profits from illegal labor (not that you are one of those of course). They frequently hide behind poor, oppressed illegal aliens as a cynical way to make money. I'd suggest doing a bit more research into who exactly is making money off massive illegal immigration.


    Lone, I am not approving of illegal immigration. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jakebnto on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 01:10:39 PM EST
    I am disapproving of "rounding" up suspects based up skin color and their place of work.  I am against tearing families apart without any warning or care whatsover, and especially so where children are involved.

    The putative reason for this roundup was identity theft, but the outcome, and apparently the planned outcome, was the capture of hundreds or thousands of illegal immigrants.  Were I a judge granting the search warrant to conduct such a roundup, I'd be a little po'd about that kind of scam.  Unless, of course, I were in on it, and then I'd have cause to question my ethics and suitability for the bench.

    As for responsiblity, getting their children born as US citizens seems the epitome of responsibility - to those children.  I think them quite energetic and clearly focused on what is important - escaping poverty and giving their children a shot at a freer, safer and longer life.  I'd do the same.

    The companies should suffer.  But they don't - you can thank our Congress for that.  As ever, they have the needs of the monied elite first in their hearts.



    Not everything illegal (none / 0) (#25)
    by aw on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    is, or should be, a "crime".  

    A recession?? ;-) (1.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:12:02 AM EST
    LP - Good point, except how are we supposed to fix the problem? Giving amensty to 12 million onky tells the millions of others that we are not serious, and they'll keep flooding in.

    As for your perceived recession, maybe. But that assumes that globalization won't continue and that the international manufacturing base won't keep downward pressure on wages down in the US.

    And even if we go into a mild recession, tax cuts will stimulate the economy...

    Besides, the Left has been screaming that country must scarifice to pay for the war. Now's the chance for that to happen.



    it seems (none / 0) (#52)
    by sparky on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    that it's impossible to discuss this topic without dragging in all kinds of unrelated items. makes me think that most people treat this issue as an emotional one (lawbreakers v. children, for example) rather than what IMO it looks like: the long-delayed consequence of looking the other way about cheap labor. i don't pretend to have a solution, but i do want to suggest that we start from the facts that we have:
    1. there are upwards of 10 million people in the US illegally.
    2. some of those people have legal relatives in the US.
    3. many of these people work in jobs that Americans are unwilling or unable to perform, either because the Americans will not do the job or cannot live on the wage offered.
    4. we have arrived at this situation in no small part through our willful failure (avoidance?) of immigration laws in favor of cheap labor.

    i'm sure someone else can add to this list. my point is that when you look at these items, at least for me the first thing that jumps out at me is that there is no easy solution. forget the hypotheticals about economic effects; we just are not going to deport 10M people. nor are we going to put them in camps.

    the questions i think we should be asking are more along the lines of: do we want this situation to continue? if not, then what should we do to stop it from continuing to grow? this is a wholly distinct question from what to do about the people who are already here. perhaps a guest worker program is the answer, though i am skeptical that we can design a workable one.

    then and only then should we tackle the question of what to do about the people who are in the US now. of course, in the real world any solution would probably require a global solution, but i do think that we need to break the problem apart first to think about it more constructively.

    ps: it appears that the USG ID theft rationale was either bogus or didn't pan out. i should have been more skeptical of that justification.


    USG ID theft rationale (none / 0) (#56)
    by Horace on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    The judge that issued the search warrant was given evidence that ID theft had taken place, and they did encounter illegal aliens with false documents.  Be it ID theft, use of the SSN of  dead people or that of children, it's all the same as far as I'm concerned.  Illegal aliens can only obtain jobs by telling lies backed up by false documents of one kind or another.

    The government only need raid and prosecute a fraction of the firms complicit in hiring illegal aliens and the rest will reconsider their policies and these people will find themselves unemployed with nowhere to go but back to Mexico, or other parts of Latin America or Canada.  I hear the argument "can't deport X million illegal aliens" all the time.  It's nonsense because illegal aliens crossed the border in small groups over time and they can use the same procedure when going home, only this time they can afford to buy a bus ticket.


    Stick it to the Left (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    Heaven forbid! All I suggest is that since the Left claims that we must sacrifice for the War On Terror, then they shouldn't mind the sacrifice of a little recession to stop the illegal alien problem...

    What you show, of course, is a selective willingness to sacrifice..

    Now that is news.

    So, along with not caring (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:06:40 PM EST
    about the damage done to the American citizen by the illegal aliens we can put you down for not caring about how they are effected by recession.

    Why am I not surprised?

    I see that you (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:07:48 PM EST
    put hating Bush ahead of everything.

    On the bright (none / 0) (#1)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    side, we probably will never have to read a over-population posting here on TL.

    workers (none / 0) (#2)
    by HeadScratcher on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    workers will benefit because companies won't be able to 'import' cheap labor from abroad. this suppresses wages and weakens working conditions.

    now, if we can get the corporations to be held responsible also then we'll be on to something.

    "You build 'em, we'll fill 'em"... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    ...said bush to Halliburton.
    We can round them up by the thousands, of that you may be certain.
    But let's make on thing absolutely very clear,
    We're taking away rights based on your fear,
    And before long we will be closing the [new Iron] curtain.

    Sadness.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    I can't get over how sad it is that such an op-ed needs to be written.  Sad that Americans must be reminded that is not acceptable to round people up like cattle into holding pens.

    I too am ashamed.  

    One of my theories....the govt. is slowly getting us used to 1000 man teams of armed govt agents piling people into holding pens a thousand at a time to see if we blink.  We are blinking...and losing the power that belongs to the people to govern ourselves as we see fit.

    It may be a tired cliche, but is most apt...I hope there is someone left to speak out when they come for me or you.

    kdog - Your argument would (4.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    have more force if you would express concern for those Americans that are loosing jobs, benefits, loosing homes, etc., because of the illegal aliens.

    What you are really saying is that you want no borders, no preferences for your fellow citizens. What this protends is that living standard of those in the US will fall to those in Mexico and other countries, not to even consider the change in the culture.

    The lack of enforcement is wrong, and has been wrong. As they try to play catch up, how else would you do it??

    The lack of enforcement on the companies is wrong and has been long.

    Let's get both groups.


    Alternatives (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the folks who were taken into custody this week were rounded up "like cattle into holding pens."

    What alternative do you suggest, aside from declaring that they shouldn't be taken into custody until such time as better facilities are available for them (which would lead to a de facto result of never taking people into custody since I doubt very much you or the rest of the taxpayers would support legislation providing for furry hand-cuffs and resort-level detainment facilities)?

    We've got competing interests here:
    (1) We want to capture and process criminals.
    (2) We want to afford those who are detained some basic protections as to process and treatment.
    (3) We want to be efficient about it as possible (and this includes some calculation as to financial costs).

    Given that many of the commenters around here (and Jeralyn) disagree with the first interest I've identified, I suspect that a claim which amounts to "Well, we shouldn't detain these folks if we treat them like this" really is just a heart-strings-pulling proxy for "Well, we shouldn't detain these folks."


    kdog, some people will never get it. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:11:30 PM EST
    Thanks Bill (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    It's good to have friends on this issue, I know I'm vastly outnumbered.

    Call me what you will...an open-borders advocate, naive, a moron...I don't care. I've been called worse.

    I will never ever in a million years condone, quietly accept, or ignore my govt. rounding people up a thousand at a time, placing them in chains, and busing them to a prison for the crime of packing our meat without the proper paperwork.  It goes against everything I stand for...basic human dignity for starters.

    And Jim...want to raise wages for workers?  Me too.  Hopefully Congress can get the ball rolling with a well past due min. wage increase.

    If a million illegals are here, and the vast majority are presumably employed...obviously we need to streamline and overhaul the immigration process to let more people in.  The current system isn't letting enough immigrants in to fill our labor demands.  


    kdog - The minimum wage (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:04:38 PM EST
    is not part of this issue.

    The wage issue is simple. The illegals are willing to work for much less and they can't complain when treated poorly.

    We can agree on the employer, why can't you see the harm the illegals do??


    Twisted Logic ala ppj (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    Is this the line your right wing echo chamber is spewing.
    The illegals are willing to work for much less and they can't complain when treated poorly.

    How bout this: The illegals are willing to work for much more and they can't complain when treated poorly.


    No soap radio.

    A "social liberal", not.


    The harm.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:48:16 PM EST
    Tell me a way to deal with it that doesn't involve mass arrests and deportation and I'll listen, Jim.  This one has got me stumped.

    I see your point, the American worker loses, what else is new.  If it isn't employers hiring illegal immigrants on the cheap, its union-busting, or the spread of the Wal-mart business model.  The American worker prospered for only 20-30 years or so...due to the blood, sweat, and tears of the labor movement in the early 20th century.  But sadly those days are over....the times are changing back.  Blame the guys with all the money and politicians in their pockets...not the guys who have nothing.

    BTW...I don't see how rasing the minimum wage can hurt, the ripple effect on wages across the board may lead to more American citizens taking the jobs currently being filled by illegal immigrants.  If the jobs aren't here, less people will sneak in looking for a job, no?  Worth a shot.


    So do you believe in truly open borders or no? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Pancho on Tue Dec 19, 2006 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    If you don't believe in borders then you don't believe in countries.

    It's about ID theft. (none / 0) (#11)
    by beefeater on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    Don't be so paranoid about the supposed "holding pens". This whole operation is about ID theft.
    My 10 year old son has gotten notice from the IRS about thousands of dollars in unreported income based on his SS number. The number has been "borrowed" and was being used by one of these people. Of course the number comes back as valid when checked. This is going to cost me a lot of time and money to straighten out. Have you ever dealt with SS or the IRS? Lots of luck.

    beneficiaries? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jarober on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    How about low income workers who cannot compete (on wages) with illegals - who will willingly take low wages rather than complain and risk being found out?

    Being in favor of illegal aliens is being opposed to low income and poor Americans.  Sadly, the rhetoric of "discrimination" seems to trump the status of actual citizens.

    Never forget the liberal totem pole. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    Robbie at the Malcontent has written about it before. He writes in the context of gay rights being treated as secondary to other groups:

    This follows with my personal theorem there exists within left-wing identity politics a totem of victimization with gays always on the bottom. Racism --- Islam --- Feminism --- Homosexuality. Live it, love it, learn it.

    In terms of identity politics, liberals have minorities (which really could be broken up into plenty of groups, were anyone so inclined), Muslims, women, gays, and the poor. Without a doubt ethnic and racial minorities get the top spot. I'm having trouble deciding if the poor come before women or after them. You decide.


    In identity politics (none / 0) (#24)
    by aw on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    there is a group which is almost never identified as such:  white men.  Which spot do they go in?

    In favor.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    I'm not in favor of illegal aliens per se...I'm in favor of basic human dignity for all the inhabitants of planet earth.  It just so happens that illegal aliens ( and legal ones mistaken for illegals) were the ones whose basic human dignity was assaulted the other day.

    Excellent post, but please, so that... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    ...Jeralyn's site doesn't get bumped from law offices by censoring software would you please edit a sentence like this:

    Bush and boys don't give a sh*t...we are all lumped into the same pool!

    We're all adults here, we'll know what you mean, but the site won't be banned by censorship software.

    Again, excellent post. Cases such as this are indeed tragic.

    Rounding Up Illegal Aliens (none / 0) (#28)
    by Horace on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    What moral rule says that it isn't right to arrest people in mass if there is justification?  There was probable cause to arrest each and every illegal alien in ICE custody.  Does anyone have a suggestion for an efficient or better alternative?  Some fool would suggest that ICE drive up to each investigated alien's abode and arrest each individually.  ICE had no choice, as they are vastly outnumbered by their quarry, and they couldn't accomplish their duties otherwise.  No doubt some of you would prefer that none of these people be arrested, and I suggest that you are using the specious argument against mass arrests and vilification of ICE to further your own agendas.  Any comparisons of these mass arrests to past historical injustices is unwarranted, as the difference is that these  arrests were just and in accordance with Constitutionally enacted law.

    Workplace arrests will not only serve to nab those involved in identity theft, and who are illegal aliens, it will also serve notice to employers that they are subject to the same treatment.  Eventually, we can hope that illegal aliens will be fired and go home to Latin America on their own accord.  It certainly won't be necessary to round up every last one.  


    I can't be sure (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jakebnto on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    but doesn't being sought for a crime mean there has to be some suspicion that the specific "you" is guilty of something?  In this case, everyone was detained and then the some released.  I don't think that meets the smell test.  They found 65 (so far) identity theft suspects.  The remaining THOUSANDS were simply coralled and then examined at leisure.

    That's a particularly vicious kind of profiling, don't you think?  If your skin is brown and you work at a meat packing plant, then you can be detained with no more sufficient reason required.

    ICE - America's very own brownshirts.



    Jake (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:09:21 PM EST
    Being in the country illegally is a crime itself.

    We just haven't been enforcing it.


    It's not a crime (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 07:28:35 PM EST
    to be in the country without proper documentation. It's a civil violation.

    Unlawful entry (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Pancho on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:32:00 PM EST
    IS a crime and it has been since 1929.

    My daughter can't go to the school next door, because we don't speak Spanish at home. THAT should be a crime. I'm not even in a Hispanic neighborhood, but they have twisted the district around so much to accomodate a MASSIVE influx of illegals that neighborhood schools don't work anymore.


    Yes it is (none / 0) (#69)
    by Pancho on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 12:34:15 AM EST
    8 U.S.C. § 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure to Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud

    Are you going to rate this a "1" also? Aren't you a lawyer?


    Being in the country illegally is a crime itself. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    You're absolutely right. I'm happy to see you've come to your senses, finally.

    I agree completely, and I'll support you 110% on this, Jim.

    I'm sure many others here will as well.

    Time to get the hell out of Iraq.


    Troll (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:03:25 PM EST
    Nice troll comment, edger.

    Even agreeing with you... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:17:56 PM EST
    ...isn't good enough for you? You're killing me here.

    What is it that will make you happy, Jim?


    how many light skinned (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jen M on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    illegals were given blue wrist bands?

    I wish..... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    a spaceship from another galaxy would land already, so we can ask the being for its travel visa and remind it not to get a job during its stay.

    And if it stayed to long take it straight to jail...deportation might be tough though.

    What part of illeagal do you not understand? (none / 0) (#45)
    by cybershane on Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 11:19:10 PM EST
    This may seem insensitive... and believe me, I do care about the families... but for heaven's sake... If you are here illeagally, what is the justification for NOT enforcing laws???

    I have 2 kids at home... but one time, I got 2 months behind on child support because of a slow season... I went to jail. They didn't give 2 shakes about my kids at home. I broke the law!

    If someone comes into my house when I am not home... and perhaps while they are there they cleaned it... and maybe even did all the laundry, who knows... but the fact is, they were in my house ILLEAGALLY! At that point, considering all the good they did (and by they way, they brought their little baby boy with them), should they NOT be prosecuted?

    If you have a problem with the law, attack the law makers! Don't attack those who enforce the law.

    exactly (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jen M on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:09:28 AM EST
    what part of illegal do you not understand. Put the CEOs of the companies that employ illegal immigrants in jail!

    Immigration Raids (none / 0) (#47)
    by liberalpatriot on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:47:12 AM EST
    As an attorney I have designed audit programs to assist  some of the largest American corporations  and/or its subcontractors and/or labor suppliers in order to prevent them from unwittingly hiring illegal aliens. The possibilty that the employee presents a false i.d. has to be  built in to the hiring process in order to detect the problem, although in the short run there is always the possibity of the employee passing off a false i.d. However in the long run the false i.d. will be detected. I can not believe that SWIFT could have that many employees with a false i.d. if it was monitoring the employment process.
    That being said, my clients and their sub contractors do not pay a minimum wage as contended by many but pay at or beyond the prevailing wages. They or their subcontractors had been hiring the illegals but now face competitors who still hire illegals. This unfair competition distorts many business operating and investment decisions. Unfortunately there is a true shortage of certain skills in America and/or people who will move to take undesirable jobs and the shortages are filled by illegals.
    The assertion that employers exploit illegals or illegals drive down wages is simply inconsistent with the experience of my clients. My clients are delaying capital expansion or moving jobs out of America.
    As for SWIFT and the meat packing industry, the jobs pay very good wages but no Americans will move to the towns where the meat packing plants are located and/or work in the meat packing plants. ( Meatpacking plants in Canada are scouring the world for workers).In the short run, the loss of the illegal workers will prompt SWIFT to close operations resulting in a smaller demand for livestock resulting in lower prices for farmers. The farmers will be forced to seek government subsidies. Meanwhile the prices of slaughtered and packaged beef products will rise for the consumer. The long run solution will be that the slaughterhouses will be located in Mexico. The farmer will have to pay the cost of transporting the livestock to Mexico lowering his income, the slaughterhouse workers will be paid the lower Mecxican wages and the consumer will pay the cost of transporting the finished slaughtered meat back from Mexico. American vegetable and fruit farmers are already facing competition from Chinese and Mexican vegetable and fruit farming operations who have a ready supply of cheap local labor. The loss of the farm industry has a ripple effect throughout the economy from lower land prices, fewer dollars spent in local farm communities and the destruction of the American source of its food supply and control over its quality.
    If America had a proper guest worker program the whole issue would not arise. Currently employers can not effectively import workers to fill the shortages and those that do obey the law can not compete.
    My clients are public companies that need to obey the laws due to possible damaging shareholder litigation and/or lawsuits for unfair competition. The small private companies seem to escape enforcement actions.
    However, I am sympathetic to those arrested and their families as in many instances it hurts their spouse and children whether American born or not. I am appalled at those who believe that innocent children should be punished for the acts of the parents. I am also appalled at the thoughtless inhumanity of the U.S. law enforcement officials in what can best be described as a public relations stunt. There are other effective law enforcement measures to capture the illegals and in this instance SWIFT presented the governnment with the alternatives. The U.S. government has now shifted a large problem onto the welfare organizations in the cities, counties and states where the stunt was carried out.
    Jeralyn overly simplifies the issues, or fuzzies it, by blaming the U.S. officials for enforcing an immigration polcy that is not in our best economic interest with enforcement tactics that are cruel and self destructive.
    The President and the Democrats are on the right track in wanting to change the laws in oder to protect the integrity of the border, preserve American wages and legitimise the illegal aliens that are here. In the meantime the U.S. officials can and should still enforce the law without these idiot raids.
    As an aside. and to demonstrate how this issue can have significant financial consequences to the innocent much like what will happen to the farmers who can not sell livestock for slaughter to SWIFT, if illegal workers are displaced en masse (like in the millions), wages will rise beyond what is considered the prevailing wage. The U.S. Federal Reserve will then see consumer prices pushed up by higher wages to a point above an acceptable threshhold for inflation, and it will raise interest rates to cut consumer demand. However higher interest rates will cut the price of housing and everyone will suffer a loss of equity in their house. This is over and above the fact that the consumer purchasing power of about 11 million people will leave America. America could get caught in a self induced recession.
    We need enforceable immigration laws but we need compassion and common sense.

    Omits a Solution (none / 0) (#51)
    by Horace on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    What Liberalpatriot fails to address is that our agricultural industry and other industries have depended upon cheap manual labor when automation has long been the solution for labor shortages or high labor expense.  Before the invention of the reaper by McCormick and the cotton gin by Whitney, wheat and cotton were processed by hand.  Faced with low cost competitors, inventors met the challenge, and they can do so once again.  

    This continued dependency on cheap foreign labor by industries has atrophied innovation.  Bio-engineering and mechanical engineers all over the world, except the U.S. have been developing machines to do the tasks he refers to, reducing the need for man to be involved in the backbraking and life shortening processes.  Let the market do its job.  Dry up the excess unskilled labor force by preventing illegal immigration, wages will rise and American inventors will meet the needs of the farmer and manufacturers by providing them with the tools that they need.  The need for dependence on foreign labor, labor that will ultimately give us the same problems as Europe today with their guest worker program, must be done away with completely.  


    Well said. (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:40:29 PM EST
    Meat by-products... (none / 0) (#54)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:59:03 AM EST
    LP makes a point about the price of meat products.

    Gotta have it..... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    I gotta have my beef and pork...these are my staples.  I'll gladly pay a little more if it means the packers get a better wage.

    But if I can't get my bacon in the next few weeks, or the price triples due to the feds meddling...that might be the straw that breaks this camel's back.  Then its pitchfork time...freedom and bacon are two things I will not live without.  


    Question (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    Will they let you on the subway with a pitchfork and  burning torch??



    Jim Ol' Buddy.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 04:24:19 PM EST
    One way to find out....

    Go kdog! (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    I'll come to your beheading..

    Ooops... since you're not in the ME, that won't happen.


    You right... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 08:46:05 AM EST
    I'll end up in the cell next to Padilla....stripped of my rights, chained to the floor, sleep deprived with a fried mind.

    All for following Jefferson's orders.


    The Left is under his bed. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    Is someone "screaming" that we dont have to sacrifice to pay for these things?

    Under my bed? (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 05:04:29 PM EST
    So that is what the smell is..