Arizona style immigration law coming to Virginia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, we're all anonymous. For all we know you are the OP, so you can hardly claim we are discriminating against you, whoever you are. I say "we", but I'm not sure whether you are complaining about me, the other poster(s) who complained about your language, or both (all three?) of us.

BTW, how do you know OP is "he" unless you're him, since the default assumption around here is usually "she"? I think you're diddling us, you sly joker.

Um, what??? When did I claim I'm being discriminated again? I didn't. All I said was it's ridiculous to attack people for responding to a hyperbolic comment while ignoring the initial statement. Check your reading comprehension.

As for why I used "he", I usually use "he/she" but that can become cumbersome to type.

I ought to quit trying to be humorous; it seems to get lost in email. Other than pulling your leg, I was trying to make the point that for one anonymous person to take offense at a comment by another anonymous person is a waste of time. Even if readers were to accept nasty baseless criticism of you, what does it matter when they have no idea who you are.

Anyhow, even though I don't think any of my criticism was baseless, and I tried to keep it from being nasty, I apologize for any offense I caused and for any attempts at humor that fell flat. Once you raised the parsing issue, my wit, such as it is, was whetted.

No one claimed to be offended. People just disagreed. What board are you reading?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a she. I think securing our border is a great idea; hardly a novel one. You've said it costs too much. I say it's worth it. Now you are bringing up competing priorities etc. I actually think our great country can handle competing priorities and get a handle on immigration once and for all. You seem to think we can't.... OK. So that's where we stand. Blathering on about hyperbole (this is a comment board; surely you expect some?) seems a bit of a dead end, but have at it. I'm not playing that round of super-parsing people's speech. I'd prefer to think about your ideas and not expect you to spend hours crafting every phrase.

My apologies for the gender goof.

I'm not sure if you made the original comment, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to engage in hyperbole like that in an intelligent discussion. You leave the person on the other side in an impossible situation for response and, as such, render the conversation moot.

I don't think securing the borders should be a particularly high priority. Agree to disagree. I agree that we can handle multiple priorities all at once. If you think so to, then don't say things implying we should put all our eggs in one basket. To whomever said it, mean what you say and say what you mean. Otherwise we're just shouting past each other without actually engaging ideas.

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCMM01VX6rg

I love this woman for telling it like it is. She didn't make those signs. Jan Brewer for President!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Pol-Wants-Arizona-Illegal-Immigration-Law-for-Virginia-96596719.html

I would support this. Va has been overrun with illegal immigrants.

Over 60 percent of Americans nationwide are in favor of Arizona's soon to be enacted law, I hope it comes to VA because I am so damn sick and tired or paying for illlegals medical, food stamps, housing, and sending their kids to public schools. Charity begins at home, we should take of American citizens first, and those that are here legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Pol-Wants-Arizona-Illegal-Immigration-Law-for-Virginia-96596719.html

I would support this. Va has been overrun with illegal immigrants.

Over 60 percent of Americans nationwide are in favor of Arizona's soon to be enacted law, I hope it comes to VA because I am so damn sick and tired or paying for illlegals medical, food stamps, housing, and sending their kids to public schools. Charity begins at home, we should take of American citizens first, and those that are here legally.

First off, illegal immigrants aren't eligible for food stamps or public housing. They do frequent hospitals and the school system. But, ultimately, every study points to them contributing more economically than they take. So, I hope you are ready for all the economic ramifications if such policies spread nationwide. I bet you'll sing a different tone then.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to choose between two such ugly options: the current immigration situation or Arizona style law, but that's what we got right now.

[Anonymous]

By the way, there is nothing "illegal" about undocumented immigrants. It is not illegal to be here undocumented because there is no law prohibiting it. Rather, it is a violation of an administrative statute, with the only "penalty" being deportation. So for all the talk that simply be being here they are law breakers... um, they're not. And before you argue this is just semantics, it's not. If the legal system saw fit to criminalize this, they clearly would have. But no efforts (outside of Arizona's) have been made to do so. Which is what ultimately makes Arizona's efforts unconstitutional, in that they go beyond the scope of federal regulation on an issue that is solely the jurisdiction of the federal government. Massive fail on so many levels.

[Anonymous]

Is it illegal to enter illegally?

[Anonymous]

No. It is not against any actual law. It is simply in violation of an administrative statute, with the only penalty being deportation.

Try to find a federal law that makes unauthorized border crossing illegal. It is not. And rightly so.

Think about it. If it was illegal than the punishment would be jail time. And does it make sense to jail, and thus detain, people who we feel should not be here in the first place?

That is why the term "illegal immigrant" is a misnomer. There is nothing "illegal" about what they've done.

[Anonymous]

FAIR says such entry is a misdemeanor, that if repeated is punishable as a felony. How is that not an illegal act?

"Each year the Border Patrol makes more than a million apprehensions of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such entry is a misdemeanor, but, if repeated, becomes punishable as a felony.

In addition to sneaking into the country (referred to as "entry without inspection — EWI") in violation of the immigration law, others enter with legal documentation and then violate the terms on which they have been admitted. The immigration authorities currently estimate that about two-thirds of all illegal immigrants are EWIs and the remainder is overstayers. Both types of illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says: "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable."

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16663&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

[Anonymous]

Initial response:

A) FAIR is hardly unbiased or objective.

B) Even that quote acknowledges there isn't a specific law outlawing it. It is an Act, not legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... Even that quote acknowledges there isn't a specific law outlawing it. It is an Act, not legislation.

My understanding of the terminology is that legislation is a Bill until enacted, at which time it becomes an Act. Or am I wrong about that?

[Anonymous]

An ACT is a law, no? Why argue with FAIR? Argue with the facts. Your argument that entering without permission or overstaying is not an illegal activity is hokey. But I will agree that a person cannot be 'illegal' so I will now start calling illegal aliens "Criminal aliens' instead. Is that better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An ACT is a law, no? Why argue with FAIR? Argue with the facts. Your argument that entering without permission or overstaying is not an illegal activity is hokey. But I will agree that a person cannot be 'illegal' so I will now start calling illegal aliens "Criminal aliens' instead. Is that better?

But remember, although entering illegally is a criminal offense, being here illegally (for example, overstaying a visa) is a civil offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Pol-Wants-Arizona-Illegal-Immigration-Law-for-Virginia-96596719.html

I would support this. Va has been overrun with illegal immigrants.

Over 60 percent of Americans nationwide are in favor of Arizona's soon to be enacted law, I hope it comes to VA because I am so damn sick and tired or paying for illlegals medical, food stamps, housing, and sending their kids to public schools. Charity begins at home, we should take of American citizens first, and those that are here legally.

First off, illegal immigrants aren't eligible for food stamps or public housing. They do frequent hospitals and the school system. But, ultimately, every study points to them contributing more economically than they take. So, I hope you are ready for all the economic ramifications if such policies spread nationwide. I bet you'll sing a different tone then.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to choose between two such ugly options: the current immigration situation or Arizona style law, but that's what we got right now.

Then they are using someone else's documentation to get food stamps, and live inpublic housing with their hundreds of relatives andt heir jalopie taking up most of the on street parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Pol-Wants-Arizona-Illegal-Immigration-Law-for-Virginia-96596719.html

I would support this. Va has been overrun with illegal immigrants.

Over 60 percent of Americans nationwide are in favor of Arizona's soon to be enacted law, I hope it comes to VA because I am so damn sick and tired or paying for illlegals medical, food stamps, housing, and sending their kids to public schools. Charity begins at home, we should take of American citizens first, and those that are here legally.

First off, illegal immigrants aren't eligible for food stamps or public housing. They do frequent hospitals and the school system. But, ultimately, every study points to them contributing more economically than they take. So, I hope you are ready for all the economic ramifications if such policies spread nationwide. I bet you'll sing a different tone then.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to choose between two such ugly options: the current immigration situation or Arizona style law, but that's what we got right now.

Then they are using someone else's documentation to get food stamps, and live inpublic housing with their hundreds of relatives andt heir jalopie taking up most of the on street parking.

What evidence do you have that this is happening?

One of the major problems we have with this debate is conflating "illegal immigrants" with "immigrants". Many folks see immigrants who are here legally, documented, and paying taxes taking advantage of social services and are bothered by this. And there is certainly room to criticize the welfare state and a semi-open border policy. But just because someone has a Spanish accent and receives public assistance means they are an illegal immigrant cheating the system. Without evidence for your claims, they are baseless, wrong, and unfair.