Sily Amy. Don't you know it's just racist to do anything that might hold anyone that's not whitey accountable. Protect ones borders? Pishaw! I mean, how else will their families get thier free ride if we don't actually enforce our immigration policies?

Effectively, this law will place burdens on latino citizens that are not placed on black or white citizens. Blacks and whites will not need to carry with them proof of citizenship, while latinos will be obliged to do so, or risk being hauled in any time they come in contact with law enforcement. A driver's license or a state ID card – which is all anyone else will be expected to carry – will be insufficient proof for latinos (these things can be issued prior to a permit to be in this country expires), who will also need to carry their birth certificates, social security cards, or other documentation.

I'm in favor of an enforcement approach to illegal immigration, but I'm concerned that going about it in this fashion provides police with additional power that they can employ without much of a check. A far superior, and more fair, approach would be to require that employers verify the immigration status of everyone they employ, with sanctions for those who fail to do so.

will require every business in the state to verify employees' immigration status using the federal E-Verify system

This is a bit of an issue. I've heard that E-Verify is a pain in the ass to use. I haven't the need for that, so I do not know if that's true. But the website seems to be very slow.

A driver's license or a state ID card – which is all anyone else will be expected to carry – will be insufficient proof for latinos

I don't know why that would be. Can you link to some proof of that?

And if not, that says more about the DL than this law.

When I've gotten a DL recently, I've had to prove citizenship and birth first, and it's been a pain. (in GA, not AL, admittedly.) But it was my understanding that was a federal rule.

I really think the only way we will get the politicians to look at the down side to this is by forcing them. All they ever see illegal immigration as is: ooh cheap housekeeper/gardener. Cheap labor in this my factory. Or uncountable future voters, if I bend over backwards enough for them.

They don't live in the places where MS13 kills and threatens people, they don't live in boarders where hoards go across your land and destroy, rape, and steal, they don't lose their jobs to cheaper labor. or live next door to a single family home which now holds 23 people and 9 cars, none of whom has a liscense or insurance, making it not worth the hastle when they hit other cars.

How do we get the lawmakers to experience this. Well my idea is simple, prisons are overcrowded, So any criminals with questionable immigration status, should be "jailed" on other government property. Most notably the governors mansion, or inside the legislature building of those who vote against these basic immigration laws. Just picture 3500 illegal immigrants being kept in a legislature. just like the teaches strike in Wisconsin. But keep them there until they are deported.

Can you link to some proof of that?

Sure can. You can get a DL in Alabama with a passport and a visa that allows you to be the country for 160 days:

http://dps.alabama.gov/Documents/Documents/DriverLicense-HowToObtain.pdf

Since lots of people do overstay their visas, a DL or ID card is insufficient proof of legal immigrant status.

As the husband of a legal immigrant, you might think that I would be the first to decry those in this country illegally. Yes, it is a violation of the law. But I have to take issue with a couple points in your post.

First of all you write: '"reasonable suspicion" that the person is an immigrant'

How can a police officer be expected to know that they reasonable suspect someone is an immigrant without racially profiling them? Are they going to stop people with Canadian accents to make sure they are not illegally here? See http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/01/canadians-other-illegal-immigrants.html

Second, as to depriving the children of illegal immigrants from going to school (unofficially through coercion), why punish them for the actions of their parents? Felons lose many of their civil rights and privileges following conviction, why not throw their children out of school as well?

Third: Immigration and regulating it is constitutionally in the purview of the federal government alone. It is not up to the states.

Finally, there is no law requiring US citizens to always carry ID with them wherever they go.

The Minuteman movement and those supporting laws in Arizona and Alabama will presumptively appear racist until they at the very least attempt to craft laws that do not focus suspicion on a person's color, accent, or nationality.

They are not legal citizens and therefore are not entitled to a taxpayer funded education.

If the children are born here, they are legal citizens.

It's very complicated issue. One obvious potential problem is that some fat redneck cop from 'Bama is going to use this type of law to harrass every hispanic person he sees... and being hispanic shouldn't be cause for reasonable suspicion. I don't know what the solution for that type of situation is. I think this sets the scene for massive law enforcent overreach.

We can't bitch about TSA being allowed to grope people in airports as a prerequisit for flying while we say it's fine for Deputy Cooter to demand Juan's papers just because he has an accent.

Should illegals receive state benefits? No. (Neither should recent legal immigrants, either, IMO.) I don't even think that automatic citizenship should be granted to people just 'cause they're born here, and I'm all for deportation of illegal immigrants. I just think that we have to be mindful of the rights of all of our citizens when we're passing immigration reform.

If we enforced our borders, we wouldn't have Alabama passing a law like this. There'd be no need.

A Federal law require that all employers verify the legal status of their employees would go a long way toward solving the problem, without granting police additional arbitrary authority.

Ok, I am going to do it. I am going to ask a question that is so non-PC that no one has yet dared.

Jonathan asks: "How can a police officer be expected to know that they reasonable suspect someone is an immigrant without racially profiling them?"

My non-PC question: What is wrong with profiling, when the people you are looking for fit a specific profile?

Nearly all illegal immigrants in the USA are of Mexican or Central American origin. Guess what, if you are seriously looking for illegal immigrants, you will primarily look for hispanics.

Does this mean that Americans and legal residents of hispanic descent will be hassled more than whites, asians and blacks? Yes, it does. Guess what: when the news goes out that a bunch of white guys just robbed the corner convenience store, the police are likely to look out white guys more than asian girls.

Life's a bitch - nobody ever said it was fair...

We need to change this.

The 14th Amendment, and its common law foundations are rather pesky.

What is wrong with profiling, when the people you are looking for fit a specific profile?

You're not wrong that profiling might work. But profiling, which you freely admit would negatively impact many legal residents, is pretty odious in a free society when there are effective options (that I've described above) that do not require it.

The 14th ammendment is passed it's time and needs to be repealed.

There is nothing wrong with racial profiling, as AHW just showed by assuming fat white country folk to be the ones likely to overreach on this law.

My husband is very brown. He hates being called a hispanic (what the fuck does that mean? is his response) and he isn't from Mexico- at least as far back as the current Mexico exists. He might not like having to show his ID but he'd do it to get rid of the illegals ruining our schools and neighborhoods here in TX. And yes, they are ruining them.

I'd say inability to speak english well enough to understand and be understood is a far more likely "reasonable suspicion" than mere skin color. But what do I know, I'm a redneck bubbette from the south.

How can a police officer be expected to know that they reasonabl[y] suspect someone is an immigrant without racially profiling them?

Cops get paid to reasonably suspect people the rest of us wouldn't even notice.

=========================

It's very complicated issue. One obvious potential problem is that some fat redneck cop from 'Bama is going to use this type of law to harrass every hispanic person he sees....

Way to racially profile cops in Alabama, there AHW. Good thing you're against that kind of behavior.

The 14th ammendment is passed it's time and needs to be repealed.

Yeah! It's past time for due process, and equal protection under the law? What do we care about those things?

Holy shit.

I didn't say all Alabama cops are rednecks. (My very well educated in-laws live in Huntsville.) I am saying that this is going to give every racist asshole with a badge license to harrass legal citizens.

"If we enforced our borders, we wouldn't have Alabama passing a law like this. There'd be no need." Yes. This.

Amy@ "We need to change this"

This is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment concerning Citizenship Rights:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The plain reading of this sentence contradicts the later, dumb-ass, court-created rule that anyone born here is a citizen: ONLY those born here who are also SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. should be citizens. People who are here illegally (as opposed to a valid visa, for instance) are by definition not subject to the U.S.'s jurisdiction, and neither are their children.

The Supreme Court needs to take another look at this, doncha' think? It will take a courageous legislative body to pass a law to serve as a test vehicle, though. Which is why it will never happen, of course.

Jay R: The plain reading of this sentence contradicts the later, dumb-ass, court-created rule that anyone born here is a citizen: ONLY those born here who are also SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. should be citizens. People who are here illegally (as opposed to a valid visa, for instance) are by definition not subject to the U.S.'s jurisdiction, and neither are their children.

Oh, so you're saying that if illegal aliens are in this country and go speeding, they can't get ticketed? If they murder someone, they won't be arrested. Illegals are still under the jurisdiction of the U.S., as the SCOTUS ruled in the 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision. And if two illegals have a child in this country, that child is a natural born citizen.

The only ones in this country not subject to the jurisdiction are foreign diplomats, who have immunity. Everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction.

And by the way, just got back from my doctor, she said everything is normal, and confirmed that I had Herpes Zoster 1 (shingles). Prostrate fine, no syphilis, no HIV. (I guess she was ruling out everything she could think of that would give me that rash).

People who are here illegally (as opposed to a valid visa, for instance) are by definition not subject to the U.S.'s jurisdiction, and neither are their children.

Jay R, that's a really odd interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" means, and certainly is not what was meant when the 14th amendment was ratified.

Here's a rebuttal to that point (in response to a bill proposed by Steve King that would do what you propose):

This is a really interesting interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court? Can they even be deported? What immigration judge has the right to hear their case? It's a Catch-22: if they're in the country legally, they can stay, yet if they're in the country illegally, the court has no jurisdiction over them. They can stay forever!...

...The intent of the 14th amendment is to prevent the creation of second-class citizens via legal obfuscations that pretend that some of the people in the United States are not the full kind of "person" who is entitled to the rights it guarantees. (We had some problems with that sort of thing for a century or so.) Babies brought into this world on American soil are exactly who this amendment is designed to protect.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/birthright_citizenship

The Supreme Court needs to take another look at this, doncha' think?

No. We have plenty of means of discouraging illegal immigration without ending birthright citizenship.

To those who disagree with my analysis, I note that it takes a lot of convoluted words (and thoughts) to do it. The 14th amendment could have simply said "except for those with diplomatic immunity", right?

And no, getting a speeding ticket or being prosecuted for murder is NOT being held subject to federal, U.S. jurisdiction -- those are matters of State law.

It would be "interesting" if anyone can point to anything written by the drafters of the 14th amendment which would indicate they intended the children of illegal immigrants to be citizens, as opposed to an intention to protect resident blacks, who certainly were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.

Regarding them being in school, Amy, the school board has no choice. In the 1982 decision of Plyler v. Doe, SCOTUS struck down the Texas law that was prohibiting illegal alien children from attending school unless they paid a 1000 dollar tuition. SCOTUS ruled that that was discriminatory. Texas officials countered the alien children were not "under the jurisdiction of the U.S." and not, therefore, entitled to 14th Amendment protections. SCOTUS said that they were as "no plausible distinction" exists between children whose entry into this country was legal vs. those whose entry was legal.

So, if you're going to object to illegal alien children attending school, direct your ire to the responsible party: SCOTUS.

And no, getting a speeding ticket or being prosecuted for murder is NOT being held subject to federal, U.S. jurisdiction -- those are matters of State law.

So they can commit Federal crimes with impunity. Got it.

Jay R, you need to get to a dictionary. Being subject to our laws, and penalized for violating them, does indeed place them under the jurisdiction of the U.S. In fact, it's the very definition of jurisdiction. And foreign diplomats aren't the only ones who aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S...merely one of the few groups that would apply today. Another possibility is "hostile invasion forces." If this country were at war and the fight was actually brought to U.S. soil, these would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. I'd have to check this, but I believe that those born to native Americans on reservations are also not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and hence aren't citizens.

It would be "interesting" if anyone can point to anything written by the drafters of the 14th amendment which would indicate they intended the children of illegal immigrants to be citizens.

While illegal immigration was not being considered at the time, the reasoning behind the birthright provision in the 14th Amendment was to eliminate the creation of multiple classes of citizens, which was what Dred Scott did.

Here's a quick summary. If you want original sources, you'll have to do the rest of the homework yourself (the page is carefully sourced, and your interpretation is the controversial one that flies in the face of all of our jurisprudence on the issue):

Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#t8

Hey, Christopher, don't you just love people who just make up bullshit as they go along? Not mentioning any names (koff J.R. koff). One of my favorite pastimes is debating birthers. You wouldn't believe the stuff that they just pull out of their ass...I once described Obama's short-form birth certificate as "self-authenticating and prima facie" (which it is), and someone countered with "LMAO no document is self-authenticating."

Oh, really? A thirty-second Google search for "self-authenticating documents" would have directed her to Cornell University's helpful information regarding self-authenticating documents.

This same poster gave me a huge laugh when she was discussing Joseph Farrar's threat to sue Esquire for their satirical remarks. She decided that had they not attributed complete quotes to Farrar, it would be fine. "Satire doesn't come with complete quotes," she insisted. I directed her to Andy Borowitz piece about Schwarzenegger, and concluded that Ahnuld really did say, "I am the sperminator."

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Let's keep in mind the environment in which the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

In Dredd Scott (1857), the Supreme Court ruled that blacks brought forcibly into the country to be slaves and their descendants were not citizens of the United States and were not subject to the provisions of the US Constitution.

Furthermore, many Southern states resisted the Reconstruction by pointing out that the protections of the US Constitution only constrained the federal government and did not bind the state or local governments.

Using these arguments, Southern governments tried to prevent the newly-freed slaves from voting, holding office, or participating in civic affairs.

The Republican-controlled Congress needed a cudgel to bludgeon recalcitrant Southern states into line.

With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, all persons born in the United States or naturalized as citizens were protected by the Constititution. And the protections of the Constitution were extended to the state and local levels as well. Southern governments could no longer argue that their former slaves were not citizens and their governments were not bound to provide Consitutional protections of individual rights and liberties.

In 1868, land was plentiful for new immigrants, immigration was still a trickle, costly taxpayer-funded social programs for the poor were practically non-existent, and immigrants from bordering countries made up a small portion of the overall US population (and were concentrated almost entirely in Texas, California, and the territories in between).

Today, the environment surrounding the citizenship issue is completely different.

So, do we deconstruct the interpretation of the "Citizenship Clause" because of the loophole it provides illegal immigrants? keeping in mind that there are often unforeseen consequences involved in arbitrarily making or changing laws to suit the moment.

Or do we adhere to the existing interpretation with its attendant issues for illegal immigration?

Does the United States have a right to control its borders and the flow of immigrants into the country? Does it have the right to evict illegal immigrants?

Is there a core American "culture?" If so, will heavy illegal immigration dilute it, or strengthen it, or have little effect on it?

And if it does not have these rights, does any other country?

The only ones in this country not subject to the jurisdiction are foreign diplomats, who have immunity. Everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction.

If we designated illegal aliens an invasion force, they wouldn't be subject to US legal jurisdiction, but to a US military response as enemy combatants or spies.

I'm not advocating this, just pointing out that "subject to" and "jurisdiction" are still open to some interpretation.

So they can commit Federal crimes with impunity. Got it.

By being illegal immigrants, aren't they already committing a federal crime?

*Time to throw the consistency flag again.*

Ladies and gentlemen: those of you who insist, nay, demand that no one be assessed for character by an officer of the law ("profiled" is an epithet now) are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE responsible for school no-tolerance policies and pat-downs by the TSA.

Damn you all.

We're just fine with painting all men as pedophiles and rapists. We're just one small step from forbidding any crime report from having details: "All units, BOLO for a person seen leaving he scene of the bank robbery at 1st and Main. The person was wearing jeans and a T-shirt." The BOLO would be forbidden to mention gender, race, hair color, anything, for fear of expressing an inequality. It might be prejudicial!

Yes, the valedictorian IS different from the thug. Yes, the only alternative to stupid rules is to give authority figures, you know, authority.

But that would make you get off your ass and actually pay attention to what that authority figure was doing, and I bet you'd rather sit and watch TV than do that.

Does the United States have a right to control its borders and the flow of immigrants into the country? Does it have the right to evict illegal immigrants?

Yes. Absolutely. But we don't need to overturn the idea of birthright citizenship (which has common law roots that precede the 14th Amendment) to do so.

The fastest and most effective way to make illegals go home is to make it very hard for them to work here. We have the means to do this (make E-verify mandatory for all employers, and sanction those who employ illegals), but there is little political will to do so in Congress.

Many Democrats are worried about the effects on latino voter support (even though their labor supporters would like this law) and Republicans are worried about losing the support of businesses that don't want the additional regulation (many of which also benefit from looking the other way on the issue, as well) even though much of their base would like such a law. As a result, there is currently little support for doing what would work among those who have the power to do something about it. But it isn't hard to imagine a populist campaign to push legislators to pass such a bill, which I imagine would be wildly popular with voters.

As you note, Conan, there are always unintended consequences to big changes in the law. I think we should be careful about reinterpreting things like birthright citizenship because we're likely to make bigger messes in doing so than the one we're trying to address. Creating a large group of stateless people, which revoking birthright citizenship for the children of illegals would do, strikes me as a bad idea. Especially when we can address the problem without taking such drastic steps. Border enforcement and employment enforcement would be plenty effective.

Ladies and gentlemen: those of you who insist, nay, demand that no one be assessed for character by an officer of the law...The BOLO would be forbidden to mention gender, race, hair color, anything, for fear of expressing an inequality.

Nonsense. I can't speak for others, but my argument here is that there is simply no need to use the police for enforcement on these issues, because there is a better way that doesn't involve them or profiling. I think freedom-loving people should look to avoid vesting ever more authority in law enforcement, who (while mostly good people) are just as capable of misdeeds and prejudice as anyone else – but whose misdeeds put others behind bars.

"so they can commit Federal crimes with impunity. Got it."

Or, like diplomats who commit crimes, we can just toss their asses out.

"The fastest and most effective way to make illegals go home is to make it very hard for them to work here."

You realize many if not most work totally off the books, for cash, paid by private citizens and not companies. How is your idea going to end this? Do we search everyone's bank records for cash withdrawals? Search every house on an unannouced and regular basis?

And Patrick and his birther obsession managed to amke yet another appearance in a completely unrelated post.

We can't bitch about TSA being allowed to grope people in airports as a prerequisit for flying while we say it's fine for Deputy Cooter to demand Juan's papers just because he has an accent.

Why not? What does one thing have to do with the other?

You're making up imaginary rules and pretending they're coherent.

Should illegals receive state benefits? No.

Do I hate it when people ask themselves questions, as if the rest of us were just guests on their psychologically tortuous talk show? Yes. Yes, I do.

You realize many if not most work totally off the books, for cash, paid by private citizens and not companies. How is your idea going to end this?

The Center for Immigration studies (which is strongly opposed to illegal immigration) has conducted research that supports my position.

This analysis shows that a strategy of attrition through enforcement, in combination with a stronger border security effort such as the administration's Secure Border Initiative (SBI), will significantly reduce the size of the illegal alien population at a reasonable cost...

If supplemented by attrition through enforcement, which encourages voluntary compliance with immigration laws rather than relying on forced removal, the illegal population could be nearly halved in five years...

Elements of the attrition through enforcement strategy include: mandatory workplace verification of immigration status; measures to curb misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers; partnerships with state and local law enforcement officials; expanded entry-exit recording under US-VISIT; increased non-criminal removals; and state and local laws to discourage illegal settlement.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back406.html

Stab me and sink me, what an ugly heart for such a pretty package.

"I can't speak for others, but my argument here is that there is simply no need to use the police for enforcement on these issues, because there is a better way that doesn't involve them or profiling."

Gee. In your world, crime doesn't require the action of police.

Being in the country illegally is illegal.

Get it? Apparently not.

The operative syllable in the term "law enforcement" is "force" - but you seem to have some other solution.

What's that?

By the way - there is no need to give "more authority" to law enforcement officers. They have enough already. But if you ask your houseplant, you'll hear that they are currently forbidden from doing their job now.

And I guess you're OK with that.

In your world, crime doesn't require the action of police.

Illegal immigration is not a violation of criminal statutes.

The operative syllable in the term "law enforcement" is "force" - but you seem to have some other solution.

If you'd read my comments in the thread, I've spelled out my solution.

I've also explained why I think that there are significant issues with empowering police officers to demand proof of legal status for people they encounter.

But if you ask your houseplant, you'll hear that they are currently forbidden from doing their job now.

wat? My houseplants are generally uncommunicative, only drooping slightly when they need to be watered.

Sorry - mistyped above:

I've also explained why I think that there are significant issues with mandating police officers demand proof of legal status for people they encounter.

"Illegal immigration is not a violation of criminal statutes."

And how fucking ridiculous if that? Name another country in the world where that is so.

LOT OF BULLSHIT ON THIS ISSUE AS USUAL.

Now that i got your attention, a preliminary statement, then just a few questions:

I do NOT endorse illegal immigration, but i do not think that refusing access to hospital or school is inhuman. The right thing to do is to put the convalescent in a plane after treatment, and for school to have the full family in a plane too, so the kids can get education in origin country, without being separated from parents.

Now a few question to the legit american here on this forum:

Do you really believe that this 2$ tomato from Cali hasn't been picked by an alien?

Do you really think that the food you order in your restaurant has been processed, and served by a l*****, and who's cleaning the dishes?

Do you check the id of the guy doing your backyard for cheap?

I am sure everybody here is either buying suspiciously cheap veggies, going to restaurant or having his garden trimmed. You are all profiteering of the illegal workforce. So before you speak, you should act and check on what you do.
Otherwise it is called hypocrisies...

Name another country in the world where that is so.

So demanding. But a quick Googling (you should try it some time!) provides many examples: Canada, the UK, Argentina, Brazil, etc. Most countries don't make it a crime, though they reserve the right to deport you. Making it a crime, of course, means you need to prosecute and incarcerate people, which is expensive and time consuming.

And really, do you want to advocate us following the lead of other countries in making our laws?

Legal immigrants (who deviously make used of local or foreign contacts or their university education to land them preferential entitlement to settle) are also a burden to the system as much as illegal immigrants and therefore getting tough on all types of migrants should be the strategy to tackle unwanted immigration and to prevent being overwhelmed by problems related to alien immigrants.

Furthermore,getting tough on illegal immigration without getting tough on legal immigration(who may have used illegal or devious means to legalise their stay) is not only unfair to innocent visitors but also brutal to innocent visitors.

Canada, ah yes americas hat - the land where a woman sued under 'human rights' violation stautes and won the RIGHT not to wash her hands before handling food in a resturant, and its too cold for people (even canadians) to want to live there

The UK, where government officals have proposed seperate faith based laws for muslims

Good list there

Legal immigrants (who deviously make used of local or foreign contacts or their university education to land them preferential entitlement to settle) are also a burden to the system as much as illegal immigrants....

I believe legal immigrants generally have to show they won't be a burden to the system in order to be admitted.

I happen to know and work with several legal immigrants and they're all hardworking and educated - anything but a "burden" to the system. In fact, most of them are now citizens. The rest are working on it.

My great-grandparents (on my mother's side) were immigrants. Through their own hard work and that of their descendants, they've definitely contributed more to the system than they took from it.

If every countries improve their system towards their own citizens, less people would migrate and less likelihood of migrant ghettoes appearing and legal and illegal alien migrants would be more effectively reduced.

I happen to know and work with several legal immigrants and they're all hardworking and educated - anything but a "burden" to the system. In fact, most of them are now citizens. The rest are working on it.

We should be working to encourage more such immigrants. Highly skilled immigrants are a big boost to the economy. If they've got jobs or a business plan and investors we should welcome them.

Conan wrote: My great-grandparents (on my mother's side) were immigrants. Through their own hard work and that of their descendants, they've definitely contributed more to the system than they took from it.

Exactly. WLIL's comment made me laugh. My boyfriend's family immigrated here legally. They run a business which, you know, employs people. My best friend's family immigrated here as well. Her sister is a pediatric oncologist -- you know, a doctor that treats kids with cancer. SUCH a burden!

Good list there

I'd say are more promising places to live than the one place (Mexico) we know does criminalize illegal immigration.

Conan the Grammarian, I have to disagree with you. Legal immigrants form asia, africa and middle east tend to be a burden, in the sense that they don't assimilate as much and they tend to take more then they give and also their endless demands for their alien religious or nonwhite or islamic political agenda usually cause more burden and more problems to the West. Most immigrants from third world end up being more of a burden because of the extra jobs nad facilities that need to be created for their community. Most nonwhites only migrated to the West after the West became prosperous and an advanced nation and therefore most nonwhites are just a burden in various ways to an already developed West.

sofar, of course doctors too would end up being a burden in a healthy society who don't need that many doctors. Even,if the business employ people, so what? Is it really self-supporting or just parasiting on the host country?

And by the way, sofar, you don't have to be so arrogant about your socalled legal immigrant success stories which it seems to be such a politically correct crap that is no longer admirable.

"And really, do you want to advocate us following the lead of other countries in making our laws?"

Yep. Or do you think we remade the wheel?

Personally-sofar- I'm tired of Drs I can't understand. Making oneself understood in english should be a prereq for practicing here. It's not as if I could move to India or Mexico and practice medicine, with my crappy foreign language skills and thick southern accent. Why should they be allowed to do so here?

I take it that in this Rand-ridden venue the general feeling supports the declaration of impunity to rape women here without documentation?

Yep. Or do you think we remade the wheel?

You, know what, I do too. However, the countries whose societies I think have admirable traits – a tradition of democracy, civil rights, respect for women – don't make it a habit of locking up people who don't have papers. (if you find a modern Western democracy that does this, let me know).

If you're looking for inspiration for governments that do criminalize illegal immigrants, then look to such bastions of democratic and enlightenment ideals as Iran, North Korea... and apparently, Mexico.

I take it that in this Rand-ridden venue the general feeling supports the declaration of impunity to rape women here without documentation?

To feed, or not to feed? That is the question.

Man alive, all the irrelevancies I see here...where, oh, where, to start?

For starters: For what it's worth, about anybody can tell if the person they're talking to has a foreign accent, and if you're a cop, you do have the right to ask for ID. This is not profiling, not that profiling was ever anything like as horrible as it's been made out to be. A lot of so-called profiling is more like asking "What's wrong with this picture?" If the cops saw my shiny white face in East St. Louis, IL, or Anacostia, DC...I'd get stopped almost for sure, since the only reason they would be likely to think of for me to be in that sort of ethnic neighborhood would be to buy drugs.

Someone in the US who looks pure-blood Mexican, but speaks fluent American English? Likely to be a citizen. Someone in the US who speaks with a thick Spanish accent, or can't speak English? Worth a look to see whether his immigration docs are in order.

If illegal immigrants were coming here to be Americans, I'd have a lot less trouble with them. As things stand, though, many or most of them are coming here to be (relatively-) rich Mexicans, and have no interest in learning to be American. This isn't the 1800s with a huge, people-absorbing frontier, and it's time to take Emma Lazarus' stupid bloody poem off the Statue of Liberty.

The heart of the issue is that speaking English fluently, is not a requirement of citizenship, and therefore cannot be used as an indicator of illegal status. There are no hard, accurate indicators for illegal status, despite tendencies for certain segments of the population to be more likely of that status then others. If one has to prove citizenship, then all must prove citizenship or stand against this law. And I say that from the perspective of one who believes that people here illegally have committed a crime,and should be treated accordingly - as criminals.

And to clarify, the only documentation of my citizenship that I carry with me when I drive is my driver's license. So that should be all that is required if you are pulled over while driving. Now, if you are doing anything illegal at that point, you can and should expect them to check out your status in detail, just like they do with everyone else, and me. I never met a cop yet who wouldn't bust everyone he could.

"Most countries don't make it a crime, though they reserve the right to deport you. Making it a crime, of course, means you need to prosecute and incarcerate people, which is expensive and time consuming."

Which is what Mexico does to illegal immigrants....not ironic at all is it?

I agree with Amy in theory. In practice, it is all but impossible to discern a legal from an illegal person by appearance or by ability to speak English. There are a great many legal Hispanic type persons, and no easy way to distinguish them (illegals) from us (legal citizens). Papers? For everyone? All the time? This is tough. Many of the steps apparently necessary to weed out illegals fly in the face of the freedoms this country were founded upon.

Momof4: "And Patrick and his birther obsession managed to amke yet another appearance in a completely unrelated post."

And we all know that Patrick is the only person who has ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, in the history of this blog made an off-topic post.

It wasn't totally off-topic. It had to do with people (such as Jay R.) who make up bullshit as they go along because they think it sounds good.

I'll have you know that my "birther obsession" is taking off for me. I'm being considered for an interview on the Terry Lakin Action Fund broadcast. (Terry Lakin, as you might know, is the Army doctor who refused to deploy because he didn't believe Obama was constitutionally eligible.)

It will be interesting, since participating on their forum, I've made no secret of my opinion of Terry Lakin's "cause." It might even lead to a book deal. I think I'll call it, "Jerome Corsi Is a Stinkin' Liar."

The simple fact of the matter is, I have a problem with the ease at which one can gain citizenry in this country, and birthers and Jay R. are both guilty of spreading misinformation.

Both have contended that a child born to illegal aliens is not a citizen. Well, that's wrong. Not only are they citizens, but they are natural born citizens, constitutionally eligible to be president at 35 years of age if they manage to stay in the country for 14 years. I have an issue with those who, out of ignorance or a political agenda, pretend this is not so. This needs to be addressed, and misinformation suggesting that this is not an issue at all is a problem.

Of course, the cause is all but lost, because the only way to define "natural born citizen" more strictly than it has been is a constitutional amendment. You have any idea how many constitutional amendments have been proposed and failed? It's nearly impossible.

The Goddess writes: And how dumb of us that we continue to reward parents for breaking the law by allowing them a pretty supreme prize like citizenship for their children. We need to change this.

And the only way, and I do mean the ONLY way, to do this is with a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

Conan, I esteem you wise, witty and wonderful, but in this issue, I have done my homework.

You wrote: If we designated illegal aliens an invasion force, they wouldn't be subject to US legal jurisdiction, but to a US military response as enemy combatants or spies.

And how will you do that? Federal law? Watch the courts deliver the smackdown and render it void, thanks to the power of judicial review. They've already done this, in fact, in the case I cited earlier: Plyler vs. Doe. Passing laws will just not do this.

The best solution: amend the constitution. (Yeah, right. Hold your breath and all that...) The most workable solution: have more states enact laws similar to the ones in Alabama and Arizona. Of course, those can also be struck down by SCOTUS, but good luck, Mr. President in policing all 50 states...or does he still think there are 57?

Amy, perhaps I should be more optimistic. Amendments pass when real issues need to be addressed, such as the emancipation and extension of rights to the slaves, suffrage for women...which I can't believe passed as late as 1920...it blows my mind that it took us that long to realize..."Hey, we're creating laws that affect all citizens, but not allowing women to vote, thus denying them a voice on the laws that affect them." How soon we forget. Wasn't the whole "taxation without representation" considered a big deal in this country, once upon a time?

"Personally-sofar- I'm tired of Drs I can't understand. Making oneself understood in english should be a prereq for practicing here. It's not as if I could move to India or Mexico and practice medicine, with my crappy foreign language skills and thick southern accent. Why should they be allowed to do so here?"

Right now with the restrictive policies and the cost of med school, I am not surprised that a lot of the doctors seem to be of foreign origin.
Unfortunately it is very frightening for the elderly and the hard of hearing to understand and communicate with these people.

I took my mother in to a non native English speaking Dr and it ended up being an exchange between him and me, with my mother a confused and frightened bystander.

If I hadn't been there it would have been a wasted appointment as she would have gotten nothing useful out of it.

I believe that cultural issues are even more of a problem.

Some of these Dr's seem to be Muslim and I don't think they have enough respect for women to actually communicate with them, as opposed to the patient's nearest male relative. :-)

You, know what, I do too. However, the countries whose societies I think have admirable traits – a tradition of democracy, civil rights, respect for women – don't make it a habit of locking up people who don't have papers.

Ah yes Erope, the land of american tax payer subsidized militaries and health care plans. Contries where if a condem breaks a man is now guilty of rape, where if a man urinates from a standing position it is considered spousal abuse, where governments kid nap children because their parents homeschool them

Thats freedom alright

The identification spoof:

You would be interested to know that in all European country I went (belgium, france, spain, italy, the netherland, czech republic, portugal) and japan, everybody carry an Id card, I carried mine as soon as I was 14 I believed (long time ago). The fact that there is no federal ID in the US is a screw-up by someone (who exactly, i wouldn't know, less I do care), but the "oh no it is not possible" is plain BS.

Of course counterfeiting it is always possible, but that's hold with everything (including your passport).

Nick

I'm glad I checked back.

"My houseplants are generally uncommunicative, only drooping slightly when they need to be watered."

And yet they know more about the real-world application of law and order than you, Christopher.

Because a system which can be and is being gamed will continue to be so long as enforcement of existing law is prohibited.

That you are apparently unaware of this should render you unfit to comment.

But it won't - it hasn't so far.

This isn't the 1800s with a huge, people-absorbing frontier, and it's time to take Emma Lazarus' stupid bloody poem off the Statue of Liberty.

Jerry Seinfeld's viewpoint:

I am for open immigration, but that sign we have in the front of the Statue of Liberty, "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses."

Can't we just say, "Hey, the door's open. We'll take whoever you got." Do we have to specify "The wretched refuse?"

Why not just say, "Give us the unhappy, the sad, the slow, the ugly, the people that can't drive, people that have trouble merging, if they can't stay in their lane, if they don't signal, they can't parallel park, if they're sneezing, if they're stuffed up, if they have bad penmanship, if they don't return calls, if they have dandruff, food between their teeth, if they have bad credit, if they have no credit, missed a spot shaving....

In other words, any dysfunctional, defective slob that you can somehow cattle prod onto a wagon, send them over. We want them."

nick - a national ID card is an identity thief's wet dream.

Bad enough that by grabbing a social security number they can destroy someone's credit. By being able to completely assume their identity, criminals can now get people put away for crimes that they didn't commit.

obtopic: I'm all for immigration. But you have to get in line. There's one thing that Americans will not tolerate above all else: line jumpers. And that's what illegal aliens are first and foremost. They jumped the turnstile because they couldn't bother to fork over the 2 bucks for a token.

How is it possible for a visitor or intruder or illegal alien to be a line jumper in anything,if they were deported almost straight away? It is usually legal immigrants from certain ethnicity who unreasonably seek excessive preferential treatment, that unfairly queue jump to a better life in the West, that cause the most problems with their excessive demands for preferential treatment or for their selfish personal gains or for their various political agenda.
That is why blaming those inconsiderate illegal aliens who have no rights in almost everything is unfair without blaming those equally inconsiderate legal immigrants

shoot a few of them, the rest will leave