"Anchor Babies" and the 14th Amendment

[finnbow]

The issue of "anchor babies" and the citizenship conferred upon them by virtue of birth within the USA is getting a lot of exposure lately. I'm of mixed mind on this one. Most nations do not confer citizenship on the basis of birth location (jus soli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli)), but upon the nationality/citizenship of the parent (jus sanguinis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis)).

Our "jus soli" system, embodied within the 14th amendment, became law in 1868 during reconstruction and was largely a reaction to the Dred Scott decision (1857) in which the Supreme Court ruled that descendants of African slaves could never become citizens.

I understand the modern-day concerns about "anchor babies," but at the same time I have concerns about right-wing politicians stroking our darker xenophobic tendencies. Furthermore, revocation of the 14th Amendment might set a precedent for future revocation of citizenship based upon some sort of loyalty or patriotism test. As it is now, if you're born in the US, you are a American citizen and this cannot be revoked (unless you yourself choose to renounce it). In contrast, naturalization can be revoked if attained through fraud.

In that this would require a constitutional amendment (an arduous process indeed), I fear that the current GOP position on this issue is simply yet another cynical attempt to creat a wedge issue. What say you?

[merrylander]

Rather surprised that it is Lindsay Graham pushing it, I would expect it from Jug Ears.

[noonereal]

excellet post, it's ashame no politician arrives at their opinion in such a measured and considered manner

IMO the only reason we are even talking about this is for political reasons not because this is or has ever been a problem that needed addressing

as such I think discussion of repealing an amendment to the constitution for strictly political gain is not only ill advised but also unethical

[finnbow]

excellet post, it's ashame no politician arrives at their opinion in such a measured and considered manner

Thanks, noon. Nuanced thinking is so out of vogue, you see. Maybe because it confuses those looking for simple, red meat answers.:cool:

[noonereal]

Thanks, noon. Nuanced thinking is so out of vogue, you see. Maybe because it confuses those looking for simple, red meat answers.:cool:

I often think of it like this, all politicians work in a micro world and never consider the macro as it is to hard to translate to a constituency consisting of one issue voters.

[Charles]

The issue of "anchor babies" and the citizenship conferred upon them by virtue of birth within the USA is getting a lot of exposure lately. I'm of mixed mind on this one. Most nations do not confer citizenship on the basis of birth location (jus soli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli)), but upon the nationality/citizenship of the parent (jus sanguinis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis)).

Our "jus soli" system, embodied within the 14th amendment, became law in 1868 during reconstruction and was largely a reaction to the Dred Scott decision (1857) in which the Supreme Court ruled that descendants of African slaves could never become citizens.

I understand the modern-day concerns about "anchor babies," but at the same time I have concerns about right-wing politicians stroking our darker xenophobic tendencies. Furthermore, revocation of the 14th Amendment might set a precedent for future revocation of citizenship based upon some sort of loyalty or patriotism test. As it is now, if you're born in the US, you are a American citizen and this cannot be revoked (unless you yourself choose to renounce it). In contrast, naturalization can be revoked if attained through fraud.

In that this would require a constitutional amendment (an arduous process indeed), I fear that the current GOP position on this issue is simply yet another cynical attempt to creat a wedge issue to solidify/energize its base. What say you?

Well written.

And I would agree that this issue has been brought forth, at this time, to serve as a wedge issue. But it is an issue which needs to be addressed, IMHO.

Which means, it will be totally ignored as soon as the election is over.

Elections aren't about us, they're about them.

Chas

[Charles]

I often think of it like this, all politicians work in a micro world and never consider the macro as it is to hard to translate to a constituency consisting of one issue voters.

Their (politicians) idea of a macro world is not only getting elected, staying that way, but feathering their nests as well.

The micro world the voters see consists of a difference between the parties.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Well written.

And I would agree that this issue has been brought forth, at this time, to serve as a wedge issue. But it is an issue which needs to be addressed, IMHO.

Which means, it will be totally ignored as soon as the election is over.

Elections aren't about us, they're about them.

Chas

You and some of your reasonable responses look like you're trying to make those of us who are more comfortable with party lines (OK, partisan) look bad. However, I haven't really seen the Democrats using any particular wedge issue (except perhaps wealth). Are there any that you would identify?

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Their (politicians) idea of a macro world is not only getting elected, staying that way, but feathering their nests as well.

The micro world the voters see consists of a difference between the parties.

Chas

:rolleyes:

you are God damed right

[Charles]

You and some of your reasonable responses look like you're trying to make those of us who are more comfortable with party lines (OK, partisan) look bad. However, I haven't really seen the Democrats using any particular wedge issue (except perhaps wealth). Are there any that you would identify?

Regards,

D-Ray

Nothing new.

Race is going to be the hot ticket item this cycle. Remember Willie Horton? The Republicans were trying to show that Dukakis was soft on crime, and the Democrats turned it around and claimed that the Pubbies were trying to scare the white folks with a black man.

Now I realize that we view the world through a different prism, but the Democrats playing the race card is so blatantly obvious to me that I wonder how anyone else could not notice it. Just being honest here.

Actually, it's kind of like me going mushroom hunting. I can't find one to save my soul because I'm looking for the wrong thing. The picture in my mind is incorrect. I know what a mushroom looks like, but I don't know what one looks like in it's natural surroundings.

Then we have the old class warfare ploy. Somehow, the likes of a John Skerry on the bow of his yacht pointing out how the rich Republicans will screw me is a tough sell.

Not that the Pubbies are any better. They just tell me more lies I want to hear than the Donks do. And I only agree with them maybe 60% of the time.

Chas

[Charles]

:rolleyes:

you are God damed right

Thank you Noon.

I always feel better when my bat bites the leather.

Chas

[noonereal]

Thank you Noon.

I always feel better when my bat bites the leather.

Chas

I swear you have a monopoly on little known expressions. ;)

[d-ray657]

I guess I define a wedge issue a little differently. It's not an issue designed to stir up one party or another's natural constituency, but to drive a wedge between people who might otherwise be attracted to a party but for one issue that drives them away. For example the gift-wrapped issue for the GOP in 2000 was gay marriage. Many who might have otherwise voted democratic opposed gay marriage and saw the democrats as more likely to support it. The Willie Horton commercial obviously meant to scare white voters and make that concern more important than pocketbook issues. A classic wedge issue is gun control. Even a moderate view on gun control laws tags a party with the idea of gun confiscation and, for some people overcomes all other issues. I remember seeing bumper sticker: "Union Member and Gun Owner." That drives a wedge between Democrats and their natural constituency.

Actually, I guess the Iraq war did turn out to be a pretty good wedge issue for the Democrats beginning in '06. Even Republicans were fed up with it by then, and the GOP was painted with it.

Sorry for rambling. Too lazy to clean this post up.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Actually, I guess the Iraq war did turn out to be a pretty good wedge issue for the Democrats beginning in '06. Even Republicans were fed up with it by then, and the GOP was painted with it.

I pretty much share your understanding of the nature of wedge issues except when it comes to the above. I think of wedge issues as ones chosen primarily for the purpose of causing divisions between people who might otherwise form a "natural constituency" or keep an identifiable group, like blue collar workers, from gravitating toward the party or ideology which best speaks to their concerns.

The Iraq war fails that test for me. I think the anti-war people were motivated by moral considerations, understanding that the reasons we were given for invading Iraq were both insufficient to justify the proposed course of action and false on their face. In fact, at least initially, the identification of Democrats as anti-war actually cost them support. They (we) were seen as unpatriotic, disloyal and unconcerned with the welfare of our troops. Sort of a wedge issue in reverse.

John

[d-ray657]

Yeah, good point John. My comparison of the war to a wedge issue is that the war separated many republicans from their party at that time. However, that was the failure of the policy, not the creation of a false issue.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Per a couple of online dictionaries, a wedge issue is a "a sharply divisive political issue, especially one that is raised by a candidate or party in hopes of attracting or disaffecting a portion of an opponent's customary supporters."


This definition comports with what you were saying, Don. That said, the idea of illegals coming over here simply to hatch babies and take advantage of American largess is just that, IMHO. Accordingly, I fixed the last sentence in my OP.;)

[merrylander]

BTW, regarding Willie Horton the law by which he was let out was passed by the Republican governor who preceeded Dukakis.:rolleyes:

[finnbow]

Here's a well written editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06fri1.html?_r=1&hp)on the subject of "anchor babies."

[Charles]

BTW, regarding Willie Horton the law by which he was let out was passed by the Republican governor who preceeded Dukakis.:rolleyes:

That's true, But Dukakis had a hand in modifying it to where also applied to criminals with records like Horton.

Under the original Republican law, Horton would not have been released.

Of course, back when I was a screw, I used to release an inmate to go to Lincoln University every day. He was serving 4 life + 50's for 4 1st degree murders...and he never caused any trouble.

Left up to me, I would have locked him in a hole and pumped daylight to him, but it wasn't left up to me.

But I'm kinda funny about things like that.

Chas

[Charles]

Here's a well written editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06fri1.html?_r=1&hp)on the subject of "anchor babies."

Now my op ed piece states that if you are born in this country to parents who are here illegally, you don't get automatic citizenship, you don't pass go, you don't collect 200 bucks...what you get is you and your family shipped back across the border because all of you were here illegally in the first place.

I will admit, you op ed piece IS better written!!!

Chas

[Boreas]

I will admit, you op ed piece IS better written!!!

Chas

And accurate to boot!

The Right Wingers have been making noise about the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" stipulation and claiming that an undocumented alien isn't.

Subject, that is.

To US jurisdiction.

Of course, that's ridiculous. Aliens, undocumented and otherwise, are most definitely subject to our jurisdiction and laws.

This distinction was included in the amendment basically to distinguish between diplomats (protected from our jurisdiction by Diplomatic Immunity) and their offspring born here and everyone else.

John

[Charles]

And accurate to boot!

The Right Wingers have been making noise about the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" stipulation and claiming that an undocumented alien isn't.

Subject, that is.

To US jurisdiction.

Of course, that's ridiculous. Aliens, undocumented and otherwise, are most definitely subject to our jurisdiction and laws.

This distinction was included in the amendment basically to distinguish between diplomats (protected from our jurisdiction by Diplomatic Immunity) and their offspring born here and everyone else.

John

What can I say?

Yesterday I couldn't even spell xenophobe, and today I are one!!!

Chas

[Boreas]

What can I say?

Yesterday I couldn't even spell xenophobe, and today I are one!!!

Chas

Kungrajalashins!

Jnoh

[finnbow]

I'm pretty convinced this maroon cannot spell xenophobe, and he's a Congressman. OTOH, he is a Texas Republican.:rolleyes:

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

[Zeke]

Reality is this: via the most recent census, <5% of the population of the United States can trace their lineage back to something other than a parallel to "anchor baby" status. (I am one of them.)

Those who, now, oppose the broad 14th Amendment are just hypocrites.

Seriously. If direct ancestors did not meet the Mayflower from the shore, these folks need a warm glass of STFU.

[Boreas]

A gift (http://www.babykind.co.uk/images/inchblue/beachbabe/large/anchor_bb.jpg) for the newborn.

John

[merrylander]

Male chauvinist, no pink ones?:rolleyes:

[whell]

Reality is this: via the most recent census, <5% of the population of the United States can trace their lineage back to something other than a parallel to "anchor baby" status. (I am one of them.)

Those who, now, oppose the broad 14th Amendment are just hypocrites.

Seriously. If direct ancestors did not meet the Mayflower from the shore, these folks need a warm glass of STFU.

Count me as a hypocrite, I guess.

I know many folks frame the open borders argument in these terms. However, using the "we're all immigrants, so open the borders" argument, and the emotionalism attached to it, doesn't really withstand scrutiny.

None of my grandparents were born in the USA. They came to the US from Canada or Great Britain. However, there was a process then, as there is now, to apply for and be granted resident status or citizenship status.

A country has every right to control its borders. It is the first order of business for a government to protect and control its borders, and manage the influx of visitors, and potential short term or long term residents. Countries do this to protect the current population / citizenry, and well as manage the social and economic impact of immigration. The US currently does an inadequate job of managing immigration and managing ingress. This is central to the complaint of many current US citizens.

That said, I don't disagree that the fixing the lack of current border control should focus on the Anchor Baby issue. Frankly, I think it is a distraction to the real issue of border control.

[BlueStreak]

What can I say?

Yesterday I couldn't even spell xenophobe, and today I are one!!!

Chas

That's "is" one.:D

We citified sophisticates get so tired of correcting you cornpones..........:rolleyes:

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Just as a side note;

You do realize the slur "WOP", usually used against Italians, meant "WithOut Papers". That's right. Folks from Italy who snuck past immigration, and entered the country illegally. Some of them came here running from the law and set up powerful crime syndicates once they got here. Mafia families that we still fight to this very day.

So my point is; We've been here before. Maybe not on the same scale, but we've been here.

Oh, and as I recall, we had the same thing going on with Cubans in the 1980's. So, I guess this is all Reagans fault?

Dave

[Boreas]

Count me as a hypocrite, I guess.

I know many folks frame the open borders argument in these terms. However, using the "we're all immigrants, so open the borders" argument, and the emotionalism attached to it, doesn't really withstand scrutiny.

None of my grandparents were born in the USA. They came to the US from Canada or Great Britain. However, there was a process then, as there is now, to apply for and be granted resident status or citizenship status.

A country has every right to control its borders. It is the first order of business for a government to protect and control its borders, and manage the influx of visitors, and potential short term or long term residents. Countries do this to protect the current population / citizenry, and well as manage the social and economic impact of immigration. The US currently does an inadequate job of managing immigration and managing ingress. This is central to the complaint of many current US citizens.

That said, I don't disagree that the fixing the lack of current border control should focus on the Anchor Baby issue. Frankly, I think it is a distraction to the real issue of border control.

Welcome, Whell, but what has this to do with the 14th Amendment?

John

[finnbow]

You do realize the slur "WOP", usually used against Italians, meant "WithOut Papers". That's right. Folks from Italy who snuck past immigration, and entered the country illegally. Some of them came here running from the law and set up powerful crime syndicates once they got here. Mafia families that we still fight to this very day.

Although this provides interest historical context, it doesn't provide a particularly compelling argument in favor of relaxed immigration rules, paisan.;)

[Boreas]

Although this provides interest historical context, it doesn't provide a particularly compelling argument in favor of relaxed immigration rules, paisan.;)

Yes, but I don't recall hearing anyone on this board - or anywhere, really - arguing for relaxing immigration laws, capiche? ;)

John

[merrylander]

Which brings me to the point, what is it about the immigration laws that is supposed to be broken?

[Boreas]

Who says they're not great and true Americans?

http://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/malkin-eyes-2.jpg?w=460&h=345

http://images.politico.com/global/news/090220_jindal_burns.jpg

John

[merrylander]

No idea who the lady is but Jindal has turned out not to be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Boreas]

No idea who the lady is....

That's the lovely and talented Michelle Malkin.

[noonereal]

Michelle Malkin.

she's kinda attractive in a vulgar way, no? :rolleyes:

[Zeke]

Count me as a hypocrite, I guess.

Done. :rolleyes:

"We're" all immigrants?

Uh, no. Me, and ~1.5% of the U.S. population, have some roots.

The other model, not being uber-specific but it appears you are one of them, who now oppose the 14th Amendment?

They are immigrant-spawn who, now, have the elitist audacity to question the actions of others as part of the great, washed, protectorate.

It's incredibly hypocritical.

I guess my ancestors should have just tried harder to close the borders... :mad:

[d-ray657]

Who says they're not great and true Americans?

http://lynnrockets.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/malkin-eyes-2.jpg?w=460&h=345

http://images.politico.com/global/news/090220_jindal_burns.jpg

John

Geez John. Whoever caught that still of Michelle Malkin did a tremendous job of showing her personality.:eek: It's a shame that something so caustic comes wrapped in such a nice package.:cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Geez John. Whoever caught that still of Michelle Malkin did a tremendous job of showing her personality.:eek: It's a shame that something so caustic comes wrapped in such a nice package.:cool:

Regards,

D-Ray

And there are worse ones. She really isn't that bad looking but when she starts on the attack her inner demons take over even her looks. The same goes for Coulter and Ingram. Palin, on the other hand, maintains her looks no matter what's spewing forth from her mouth.

John

[d-ray657]

And there are worse ones. She really isn't that bad looking but when she starts on the attack her inner demons take over even her looks. The same goes for Coulter and Ingram. Palin, on the other hand, maintains her looks no matter what's spewing forth from her mouth.

John

Ever met a girl who is just a knockout, but when she opens her mouth her voice repulses you. Whatever might be attractive about SP, her voice is repulsive, and the content of what she says makes it worse. Makes one yearn to hear Barbara Jordan or Ann Richards, who were truly beautiful people.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Although this provides interest historical context, it doesn't provide a particularly compelling argument in favor of relaxed immigration rules, paisan.;)

I didn't post it as an argument for relaxed immigration. I was merely pointing out that this is not the first influx of illegals we've ever had. Nor is it the first time a wave of immigrants brought some unfortunate "baggage" with them. Not by a LOOOOOOONNNGGG shot. And you will also find that this is not the first time that immigrants have been villified and used as political pawns either.

That's why I find these emails I get from people, saying--"My grandmother came here from Upper Lutonia and she learned to speak----blah, blah, blah."
Whatever. When I was growing up my best friends Grandmother came to live with them after Grandpa died. The woman was Hungarian, 90 years old, had lived most of her life in Ohio and didn't speak a damn word of English. She was a mean, nasty old hag who didn't care for anyone who wasn't from the old country.

I just find it amazing the whitewashing that our history gets. We get a bunch of Mexicans streaming in, and suddenly "this has never happened before". Bullshit. "But Dave, some of them are criminals." Yeah, so what's new? We'll survive.

I'm not saying there aren't problems, because there are. But the only real difference I see is scale. What is the latest estimate? 12-13 million?

Buon notte, mi paisano!

Ciao,
Dave

[merrylander]

And there are worse ones. She really isn't that bad looking but when she starts on the attack her inner demons take over even her looks. The same goes for Coulter and Ingram. Palin, on the other hand, maintains her looks no matter what's spewing forth from her mouth.

John

If only she would have her adnoids removed, that nasal whine is like fingers down a chalkboard.

[whell]

Welcome, Whell, but what has this to do with the 14th Amendment?

John

My post was a response to a "red herring" argument earlier in the thread. The "Anchor Baby" discussion, to me, is a distraction from the true issue of border security.

[noonereal]

My post was a response to a "red herring" argument earlier in the thread. The "Anchor Baby" discussion, to me, is a distraction from the true issue of border security.

100% political

a non issue in practicality

[whell]

Done. :rolleyes:

"We're" all immigrants?

Uh, no. Me, and ~1.5% of the U.S. population, have some roots.

The other model, not being uber-specific but it appears you are one of them, who now oppose the 14th Amendment?

They are immigrant-spawn who, now, have the elitist audacity to question the actions of others as part of the great, washed, protectorate.

It's incredibly hypocritical.

I guess my ancestors should have just tried harder to close the borders... :mad:

The 14th Amendment was adopted in July of 1868, born out of the period of Reconstruction following the Civil War. It was specifically adopted to redefine citizenship and enfranchise freed slaves . It did not, at that time, provide for naturalization from birth of children born to non-citizen immigrants. That camel over 30 years later, as the result of a Supreme Court decision that many believe incorrectly interpreted the law. so, to your point, I don't "oppose the 14th Amendment". I reject the interpretation of it that has been cited by many to give blanket rights and protections to those who have not earned them or applied for them via the naturalization process, a process that has its history in the laws of this country and other countries around the world.

Your invective above not withstanding, which itself is prejudicial and exhibits the same hypocrisy you decry, there is room for debate about whether or not we have watered down application and enforcement of immigration law, of which the 14th Amendment has been dragged into, to the point where our sovereignty has become fluid. This is not hypocrisy. It is a desire to preserve the rights and benefits of individuals who children of US citizens, or who have earned the right to citizenship by engaging in the process of naturalization prescribed by law.

However, this issue, as you continue to raise it, is separate and distinct, and to me unrelated, to the issue of border security. It is a red herring issue raised by those who I believe wish to divert attention from the central issue of border security.

[finnbow]

The 14th Amendment was adopted in July of 1868, born out of the period of Reconstruction following the Civil War. It was specifically adopted to redefine citizenship and enfranchise freed slaves . It did not, at that time, provide for naturalization from birth of children born to non-citizen immigrants. That camel over 30 years later, as the result of a Supreme Court decision that many believe incorrectly interpreted the law. so, to your point, I don't "oppose the 14th Amendment". I reject the interpretation of it that has been cited by many to give blanket rights and protections to those who have not earned them or applied for them via the naturalization process, a process that has its history in the laws of this country and other countries around the world.

As stated in the OP, I'm of mixed mind on this issue. On its face, I think I mostly agree with your take on it. I guess my trouble with it are the red meat nativists favoring changing the 14th Amendment and their charged, hateful rhetoric (not you - your position is well reasoned and persuasive, IMHO). I think it's the messenger more than the message that has turned me off on supporting the change.

If such issues could be discussed rationally without all the invective and hyperbole, a rational public policy response could be developed. Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that the body politic isn't really interested in rational public policy in favor of scoring points against their adversaries and rewarding/stroking their constituents.

[Boreas]

My post was a response to a "red herring" argument earlier in the thread. The "Anchor Baby" discussion, to me, is a distraction from the true issue of border security.

I couldn't agree more. The whole issue of what the right wing is calling anchor babies is already covered under immigration law. The only way parents can obtain legal residency through their citizen children is through those citizens petitioning the government a: after they have attained the age of 21 and b: have lived in the US for a continuous period of 10 years.

This and the corollary issue of what I like to call "terror tots" is just more right wing bullshit to scare the unsophisticated and uninformed people they depend upon for votes.

John

[Boreas]

It is a red herring issue raised by those who I believe wish to divert attention from the central issue of border security.

Are those people an identifiable group? Who are they and what, to your mind, are their motivations?

John

[whell]

Are those people an identifiable group? Who are they and what, to your mind, are their motivations?

John

The current agitator on this issue is personified most recently by Senator Lindsay Graham. Its no secret that Graham is of like minds with Senator John McCain on the issue of Amnesty, ad well as a host of leaders in the Democratic Party including President Obama. Graham was recently forced to pull out of negotiations with senate democrats, under pressure from his South Carolina constituents and lead by SC Tea Party activists that would have given momentum to cap and trade and immigration reform, and it appears that the immigration legislation would have provided a "pathway to citizenship", AKA amnesty.

At its core, sadly, supporters of Amnesty are less about enforcing borders and appropriately managing immigration policy as they are chasing votes. How we ever got to the point of trading border security and managing immigration policy for political expediency and votes is something that should anger both sides of the political spectrum. Political pragmatism does not have any party affiliation, however.

There are those who would say that the opposition to amnesty and lax immigration enforcement is centered in the Tea Party movement. However, polling data (recent Zogby poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1887)) suggests that 74% of Americans believe that the Administration is doing a poor job managing immigration. I find it hard to believe that anywhere near 74% of Americans are Tea Party activists. I believe that this is truly an issue that resonates with the American people. Its also an issue that the current elected officials inside the "Beltway" seem to be fairly tone deaf about.

[JJIII]

Good post!

[Boreas]

The current agitator on this issue is personified most recently by Senator Lindsay Graham. Its no secret that Graham is of like minds with Senator John McCain on the issue of Amnesty, ad well as a host of leaders in the Democratic Party including President Obama. Graham was recently forced to pull out of negotiations with senate democrats, under pressure from his South Carolina constituents and lead by SC Tea Party activists that would have given momentum to cap and trade and immigration reform, and it appears that the immigration legislation would have provided a "pathway to citizenship", AKA amnesty.

I don't think it's quite fair to characterize as "Amnesty" a plan which offers some of the people here a pathway to citizenship, providing they meet some realistic criteria regarding their gainful employment and law abiding natures. That's a far cry from the true amnesty that occurred under Reagan. We will NEVER be able to move all of these people out of here. We would do better, IMO, to acknowledge that fact, offer the people who can benefit the country and the economy a means of gaining legal status and concentrate on getting rid of the "bad guys".

At its core, sadly, supporters of Amnesty are less about enforcing borders and appropriately managing immigration policy as they are chasing votes. How we ever got to the point of trading border security and managing immigration policy for political expediency and votes is something that should anger both sides of the political spectrum. Political pragmatism does not have any party affiliation, however.

No offense, but I think this is demonstrably false. The votes are to be had by adopting a hardline position regarding undocumented aliens. That's where public sentiment resides at the moment, both among the Democratic and Republican constituencies. On the other hand, supporting some form of amnesty - anything which will allow these people to stay and here and keep coming - has a strong appeal to many of the big contributors for both the Ds and the Rs. That's where the problem is.

There are those who would say that the opposition to amnesty and lax immigration enforcement is centered in the Tea Party movement. However, polling data (recent Zogby poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1887)) suggests that 74% of Americans believe that the Administration is doing a poor job managing immigration. I find it hard to believe that anywhere near 74% of Americans are Tea Party activists. I believe that this is truly an issue that resonates with the American people. Its also an issue that the current elected officials inside the "Beltway" seem to be fairly tone deaf about.

I think the TPs brought the issue front and center and then it was picked up by the network which owns the TP, and then by the media at large. As a result it's far from a fringe issue or even a partisan one. Sadly, the Right Wing, with the assistance of the corporate media, has done such a good job of bludgeoning the Obama Administration with this issue and sowing fear of head-lopping wetbacks and bomber babies that public perception, as revealed by the Zogby poll, is quite different from the reality.

The current administration is doing a far better job of deporting undocumented aliens than the previous one. We're tracking nearly a half million deportations this year, a figure that Bush's ICE never achieved. In fact, the number would be higher but for the limitations of the system. It's maxed out. It can't process deportees any faster. Supposedly, this is a problem that's being addressed. I suppose we'll see before long.

John

[noonereal]

I don't think it's quite fair to characterize as "Amnesty" a plan which offers some of the people here a pathway to citizenship,

I do.



No offense, but I think this is demonstrably false. The votes are to be had by adopting a hardline position regarding undocumented aliens. That's where public sentiment resides at the moment, both among the Democratic and Republican constituencies. On the other hand, supporting some form of amnesty - anything which will allow these people to stay and here and keep coming - has a strong appeal to many of the big contributors for both the Ds and the Rs. That's where the problem is.


That's about right.

I think the TPs brought the issue front and center and then it was picked up by the network which owns the TP, and then by the media at large. As a result it's far from a fringe issue or even a partisan one. Sadly, the Right Wing, with the assistance of the corporate media, has done such a good job of bludgeoning the Obama Administration with this issue and sowing fear of head-lopping wetbacks and bomber babies that public perception, as revealed by the Zogby poll, is quite different from the reality.

They are consistent.

The current administration is doing a far better job of deporting undocumented aliens than the previous one. We're tracking nearly a half million deportations this year, a figure that Bush's ICE never achieved. In fact, the number would be higher but for the limitations of the system. It's maxed out. It can't process deportees any faster. Supposedly, this is a problem that's being addressed. I suppose we'll see before long.




Good info, as usual. ;)

[whell]

I don't think it's quite fair to characterize as "Amnesty" a plan which offers some of the people here a pathway to citizenship, providing they meet some realistic criteria regarding their gainful employment and law abiding natures. That's a far cry from the true amnesty that occurred under Reagan. We will NEVER be able to move all of these people out of here. We would do better, IMO, to acknowledge that fact, offer the people who can benefit the country and the economy a means of gaining legal status and concentrate on getting rid of the "bad guys".

The political waters have changed. That which was passed under Reagan could never pass in today's political environment, so I don't know how useful it is to compare. However, definitions are important. Amnesty is simply the current label that is applied to the legislation under debate. I grant you its not a classic "absolution" or "forgiveness of a transgression" as the word Amnesty implies. However, it is not the process of naturalization either. And that is the heart of the issue: Why should those who entered the country illegally remain here under a process that gives them favorable more treatment than those who abided by the law and entered the country under the current, established and legal process, and have spend years and big money to do it?

No offense, but I think this is demonstrably false. The votes are to be had by adopting a hardline position regarding undocumented aliens. That's where public sentiment resides at the moment, both among the Democratic and Republican constituencies. On the other hand, supporting some form of amnesty - anything which will allow these people to stay and here and keep coming - has a strong appeal to many of the big contributors for both the Ds and the Rs. That's where the problem is.

While I don't disagree with the heart of your statement, it stands at odds with what the many of the politicos are actually doing. While you might contend that paid lobbies are forcing the issue, and you may be right, I think we can both agree that if the elected representatives remain on the current course, it could be political suicide. I don't think the politicos quite yet grasp the depth and breadth of voter sentiment on this, and some continue to support "amnesty" because they still believe the votes are on their side on the issue.


I think the TPs brought the issue front and center and then it was picked up by the network which owns the TP, and then by the media at large. As a result it's far from a fringe issue or even a partisan one. Sadly, the Right Wing, with the assistance of the corporate media, has done such a good job of bludgeoning the Obama Administration with this issue and sowing fear of head-lopping wetbacks and bomber babies that public perception, as revealed by the Zogby poll, is quite different from the reality.

The current administration is doing a far better job of deporting undocumented aliens than the previous one. We're tracking nearly a half million deportations this year, a figure that Bush's ICE never achieved. In fact, the number would be higher but for the limitations of the system. It's maxed out. It can't process deportees any faster. Supposedly, this is a problem that's being addressed. I suppose we'll see before long.

John

No, we'll depart on this one. There may be some on the fringe of the issue that are "sowing fear of head-lopping wetbacks and bomber babies", just like there are some who label as "hypocrites" those who simply are looking to have current immigration law enforced. No, I think this really is a "centrist" issue that resonates with voters across the political spectrum. You don't get to nearly 75% in any poll by mining the fringe.

Certainly enforcement actions do appear to be up. However, there is still issue of border control - controlling the points of entry - that appears to remain without a plan or a solution. Those who oppose "amnesty" do not want to "remove" the current population of illegals. The first priority is to control the points of entry, both the legal and illegal points of entry, to reduce the influx of illegal aliens. Once that it achieved, then the second priority is to deal with the current population of illegal aliens. This doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive, and enforcement need not be sacrificed for border control. Rather, it makes little sense to worry about controlling the size of the hose if your true goal should be shutting off the water.

[d-ray657]

I've made this point in this board before, so I won't belabor it. I see the best way to slow illegal immigration as removing the incentive to come here for work. If the government concentrated on enforcing the prohibitions against hiring undocumented workers, and created a likelihood of significant fine and penalties for offending employers, the people who exploit the cheap labor of illegal immigrants will find it unprofitable to take that risk. With fewer and fewer opportunities to find work, the incentive to enter illegally will dwindle, as should the number who attempt entry.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

I've made this point in this board before, so I won't belabor it. I see the best way to slow illegal immigration as removing the incentive to come here for work. If the government concentrated on enforcing the prohibitions against hiring undocumented workers, and created a likelihood of significant fine and penalties for offending employers,

aren't we all responsible for wanting cheap labor?

When I give a Mexican $50 bucks to clean the gutters I don't ask for id.

[JJIII]

aren't we all responsible for wanting cheap labor?

When I give a Mexican $50 bucks to clean the gutters I don't ask for id.


(A) No.

(B) Then it's possible you are part of the problem.

If the huge number of illegals had not been allowed entry in the first place the market would not have become distorted. Products may have become more expensive but the laborers would have had more income to put back into circulation. I believe that society tends to balance itself over a period of time if the market is not influenced by artificial means such as cheap illegal labor. In other words... we will always have people at both ends of the poverty/wealth curve. Controlled immigration and strict enforcement of labor laws on the employers would have kept us out of the mess we are in now. That leaves us with the question of how do we/ can we fix it? I kind of doubt it now.

[noonereal]

(A) No.

(B) Then it's possible you are part of the problem.

If the huge number of illegals had not been allowed entry in the first place the market would not have become distorted. Products may have become more expensive but the laborers would have had more income to put back into circulation. I believe that society tends to balance itself over a period of time if the market is not influenced by artificial means such as cheap illegal labor. In other words... we will always have people at both ends of the poverty/wealth curve. Controlled immigration and strict enforcement of labor laws on the employers would have kept us out of the mess we are in now. That leaves us with the question of how do we/ can we fix it? I kind of doubt it now.

well, I am not very liberal on this issue so I doubt we will disagree much on what needs to be done.
I want the boarders closed, hard closed and all illegals deported. Yep, no amnesty, no way to anything but home.
in the mean time I will be practical and I need my gutters cleaned.

[JJIII]

in the mean time I will be practical and I need my gutters cleaned.

May as well wait 'til Fall. You'll need to get the leaves out then.

[merrylander]

I've made this point in this board before, so I won't belabor it. I see the best way to slow illegal immigration as removing the incentive to come here for work. If the government concentrated on enforcing the prohibitions against hiring undocumented workers, and created a likelihood of significant fine and penalties for offending employers, the people who exploit the cheap labor of illegal immigrants will find it unprofitable to take that risk. With fewer and fewer opportunities to find work, the incentive to enter illegally will dwindle, as should the number who attempt entry.

Regards,

D-Ray

Apparently the problem is that ICE has a difficult time proving that the employers knew these people are illegal. Most offer up some SS identification or such. Until just recently MD would give drivers licenses to anyone who could pass the test, now they get a 'marked' license. Had everyone not gotten their knickers in a twist over the National ID card there would be no problem.

[d-ray657]

well, I am not very liberal on this issue so I doubt we will disagree much on what needs to be done.
I want the boarders closed, hard closed and all illegals deported. Yep, no amnesty, no way to anything but home.
in the mean time I will be practical and I need my gutters cleaned.

What is seems nobody is taking into account is the cost it would take to find all of the illegals and deport them. This administration has deported more this year than Bush did in any year. But, as John pointed out, the system is maxed out. The manpower cost to even attempt a nation-wide manhunt for undocumented residents would be enormous - in the field, in the administrative offices, in the adjudication offices, transportation. On top of that, add the additional manpower that would be needed to completely lock up the border. All of this in a time we are looking to make cuts because of the deficit.

In the existing structure, the administration has made the best choice to focus on the illegal immigrants who pose a danger to us - those with criminal records, and to increase audits of employers. Even with that focus, the system is running at the max. With all of the demands on the government now, does the cost to enter a full-scale war on illegal immigration out strip all other priorities?

EDIT: This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081203293.html) from today's Washington Post addresses the matter of enforcement.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

What is seems nobody is taking into account is the cost it would take to find all of the illegals and deport them.

I would not bother hunting them down but I would not overlook it either.


This administration has deported more this year than Bush did in any year.

Bush is the biggest single reason we have such a bad problem today.


On top of that, add the additional manpower that would be needed to completely lock up the border. All of this in a time we are looking to make cuts because of the deficit.

If we used the money to seal up the boarder than than fix the roads (as we are doing with the stimulus) it would have been just as stimulative and taken care of this problem.

In the existing structure, the administration has made the best choice to focus on the illegal immigrants who pose a danger to us -

yeah, Obie is perfect


Even with that focus, the system is running at the max. With all of the demands on the government now, does the cost to enter a full-scale war on illegal immigration out strip all other priorities?




not for me but making excuses does not cut it

[d-ray657]

Unfortunately, instead of having a real debate on the approach to take to the immigration issues, we see political grandstanding on changing the constitution to exclude a particular class of individuals born here from the benefits of U.S. citizenship.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Unfortunately, instead of having a real debate on the approach to take to the immigration issues, we see political grandstanding on changing the constitution to exclude a particular class of individuals born here from the benefits of U.S. citizenship.

Regards,

D-Ray

We don't need to change the Constitution. We don't need to re-define citizenship or gut the 14th amendment. The solution, I think, is comprised of some rather simple steps. These steps, however, would probably require reshuffling some of our national and political priorities, making it a hard sell.

DHS has taken some good steps to shore up border enforcement. But we need to create a disincentive to cross the border in the first place. We MUST have an aggressive program of workplace enforcement. We need to stop playing politics with the E-Verify program. We need to increase on-site workplace enforcement activities.

We have a national interest in a stable Mexico. We need to assist the Mexican government in crushing the drug cartels that are destabilizing the government.

We need to create more synergies between the Mexican and US economy. THis doesn't mean we need to export jobs to Mexico. It seems to me that it would make more sense to trade/import as aggressively with Mexico as we are currently trading/importing with China.

Increasing stability and economic opportunity in Mexico and Central America would do as much, if not more, that border enforcement to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. This strategy would not replace current border enforcement activities. It would, over time, reduce the need for the "full court press" that is required at the border now.

[noonereal]

We don't need to change the Constitution. We don't need to re-define citizenship or gut the 14th amendment. The solution, I think, is comprised of some rather simple steps. These steps, however, would probably require reshuffling some of our national and political priorities, making it a hard sell.

DHS has taken some good steps to shore up border enforcement. But we need to create a disincentive to cross the border in the first place. We MUST have an aggressive program of workplace enforcement. We need to stop playing politics with the E-Verify program. We need to increase on-site workplace enforcement activities.

We have a national interest in a stable Mexico. We need to assist the Mexican government in crushing the drug cartels that are destabilizing the government.

We need to create more synergies between the Mexican and US economy. THis doesn't mean we need to export jobs to Mexico. It seems to me that it would make more sense to trade/import as aggressively with Mexico as we are currently trading/importing with China.

Increasing stability and economic opportunity in Mexico and Central America would do as much, if not more, that border enforcement to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. This strategy would not replace current border enforcement activities. It would, over time, reduce the need for the "full court press" that is required at the border now.

Excellent post but remember crushing the drug cartels can only be done by legalizing drugs.

Do you have the stomach for that? Most people don't. They are incapable of making a rational decision and favor an emotional one.

[finnbow]

We have a national interest in a stable Mexico. We need to assist the Mexican government in crushing the drug cartels that are destabilizing the government.

We need to create more synergies between the Mexican and US economy. THis doesn't mean we need to export jobs to Mexico. It seems to me that it would make more sense to trade/import as aggressively with Mexico as we are currently trading/importing with China.

Crushing the drug cartels means one of two things; legalizing it as noone says or eliminating demand on our side of the border. The first is politically impossible, the second one simply impossible.

While increasing trade with Mexico (at China's expense) is truly a laudable goal, I'm not sure how we get there from here - both in a practical and a political sense. The only viable way is to somehow get Mexico to produce all the products we currently buy from China without impacting our own employment picture. China won't sit still for this and the multinational companies that manufacture in China aren't going to simply stop doing so and relocate to Mexico.

I think both end states you describe need to happen, but I'm uncertain as the means of achieving them.

[finnbow]

We don't need to change the Constitution. We don't need to re-define citizenship or gut the 14th amendment. The solution, I think, is comprised of some rather simple steps. These steps, however, would probably require reshuffling some of our national and political priorities, making it a hard sell.

DHS has taken some good steps to shore up border enforcement. But we need to create a disincentive to cross the border in the first place. We MUST have an aggressive program of workplace enforcement. We need to stop playing politics with the E-Verify program. We need to increase on-site workplace enforcement activities.

We have a national interest in a stable Mexico. We need to assist the Mexican government in crushing the drug cartels that are destabilizing the government.

We need to create more synergies between the Mexican and US economy. THis doesn't mean we need to export jobs to Mexico. It seems to me that it would make more sense to trade/import as aggressively with Mexico as we are currently trading/importing with China.

Increasing stability and economic opportunity in Mexico and Central America would do as much, if not more, that border enforcement to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. This strategy would not replace current border enforcement activities. It would, over time, reduce the need for the "full court press" that is required at the border now.

Have you been consulting with Bill Richardson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304982.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)?

[d-ray657]

If I hadn't said it before, welcome Whell. You have already produced some thought provoking - as opposed to provocative - posts. I for one, look forward to seeing more.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JJIII]

If I hadn't said it before, welcome Whell. You have already produced some thought provoking - as opposed to provocative - posts. I for one, look forward to seeing more.

Regards,

D-Ray

What he said.:)

[finnbow]

Me three.

[whell]

Have you been consulting with Bill Richardson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081304982.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)?

OH God, is that hilarious! Timing is everything.

[whell]

Excellent post but remember crushing the drug cartels can only be done by legalizing drugs.

Do you have the stomach for that? Most people don't. They are incapable of making a rational decision and favor an emotional one.

WARNING: the following is an editorial, opinion, stream of consciousness, etc. I think I'm right about this, but I also know that I may be a voice in the wilderness on this particular topic. So, here goes...

The idea of legalization of drugs, thought is may seem to magically sweep away the problems of drug violence, corruption, and uncontrolled addiction, is not without its fair share of ancillary issues. Some of these issues might overshadow the problems we face as a society where drugs are currently illegal. Before we're willing to entertain legalization of drugs, I think we need to ask ourselves some basic questions:

Do we, or do we not, want to become a society where drug use is acceptable? Most of us have been users of at least marijuana, but few of us would cheer our children on as they lit up - even if they were our adult children. Funny sometimes how we'll abuse ourselves, but wouldn't want our children mimicking some of our behaviors.

For whom do we make drug use acceptable? We've established a threshold for a legal intoxicant - alcohol - that bars individuals under 21 from drinking. However, teen alcohol abuse is quote common. Do we want to double down and make drugs as readily available as alcohol? And yes, of course most kids say they know how to get illegal drugs such as marijuana or cocaine. But the rates of alcohol use/abuse among teen is significantly higher than the use of illicit drugs.

We currently have laws that prohibit alcohol and drug use among pilots, truck drivers, public servants, etc. for safety reasons. Would it make use feel better about ourselves if we knew that the drivers ahead of us and behind us on the freeway might be heavy marijuana users - cannabinoids do tend to have a multiplier effect with more frequent use? How 'bout the guy running the construction crane? Or the person responsible for sanitation at our favorite restaurant? Or maybe the school crossing guard at our kid's grade school? And if we decide to enforce the safety aspects of all this, how much drug testing are we willing to require to assure that we're safe from the other guy?

There are a host of other such questions. I, for one, do not support drug legalization because there's nothing about it that makes us better as a society or a nation. Legalization is easy. But sometimes the right thing to do is hard.

[whell]

If I hadn't said it before, welcome Whell. You have already produced some thought provoking - as opposed to provocative - posts. I for one, look forward to seeing more.

Regards,

D-Ray

Thanks for the warm welcome, y'all!

[whell]

Crushing the drug cartels means one of two things; legalizing it as noone says or eliminating demand on our side of the border. The first is politically impossible, the second one simply impossible.

While increasing trade with Mexico (at China's expense) is truly a laudable goal, I'm not sure how we get there from here - both in a practical and a political sense. The only viable way is to somehow get Mexico to produce all the products we currently buy from China without impacting our own employment picture. China won't sit still for this and the multinational companies that manufacture in China aren't going to simply stop doing so and relocate to Mexico.

I think both end states you describe need to happen, but I'm uncertain as the means of achieving them.

See my earlier post about legalization of drugs. Is it impossible? With our current lack of willingness to appropriately deal with the issue, yes, I agree, it seems like an impossibility.

However, I think we define ourselves by how we live our lives, and the aspirations we have for our children. When we were in our youths, drugs were cool, drug use was celebrated, even encouraged. But then we grew up and had kids. I have daughters. I would prefer they not grow up in a society where drug use is tolerated or encouraged. I don't want them to see more and more of their friends, or God forbid one of them, lost to uncontrolled addiction.

I think the Mexican battle with the drug cartels is a war as much in the United State's national interests to help fight and win as it was to attack and oust the Taliban after 9/11. The flow of illegal drugs into this country should be minimized. The drug cartels also seem to have related businesses like human trafficking which should also be halted.

Destroying the cartels no only stabilizes the Mexican government, it give the Mexican people fighting chance to take back the streets and have some peace in their cities, towns and villages. That stability then would attract additional investment in the region. A stable and prosperous Mexico could also bring about an economic recovery and boom in Central America equivalent to the rise of the Chinese economy in the past 50 years.

You're right, it would be tough, and would not happen overnight. However, to continue to tolerate the status quo is not acceptable. To continue our current volume of trade with China that seems to grow more hostile to the West by the day is also not acceptable.

[noonereal]

WARNING: the following is an editorial, opinion, stream of consciousness, etc. I think I'm right about this, but I also know that I may be a voice in the wilderness on this particular topic. So, here goes...

The idea of legalization of drugs, thought is may seem to magically sweep away the problems of drug violence, corruption, and uncontrolled addiction, is not without its fair share of ancillary issues. Some of these issues might overshadow the problems we face as a society where drugs are currently illegal. Before we're willing to entertain legalization of drugs, I think we need to ask ourselves some basic questions:

Do we, or do we not, want to become a society where drug use is acceptable? Most of us have been users of at least marijuana, but few of us would cheer our children on as they lit up - even if they were our adult children. Funny sometimes how we'll abuse ourselves, but wouldn't want our children mimicking some of our behaviors.

For whom do we make drug use acceptable? We've established a threshold for a legal intoxicant - alcohol - that bars individuals under 21 from drinking. However, teen alcohol abuse is quote common. Do we want to double down and make drugs as readily available as alcohol? And yes, of course most kids say they know how to get illegal drugs such as marijuana or cocaine. But the rates of alcohol use/abuse among teen is significantly higher than the use of illicit drugs.

We currently have laws that prohibit alcohol and drug use among pilots, truck drivers, public servants, etc. for safety reasons. Would it make use feel better about ourselves if we knew that the drivers ahead of us and behind us on the freeway might be heavy marijuana users - cannabinoids do tend to have a multiplier effect with more frequent use? How 'bout the guy running the construction crane? Or the person responsible for sanitation at our favorite restaurant? Or maybe the school crossing guard at our kid's grade school? And if we decide to enforce the safety aspects of all this, how much drug testing are we willing to require to assure that we're safe from the other guy?

There are a host of other such questions. I, for one, do not support drug legalization because there's nothing about it that makes us better as a society or a nation. Legalization is easy. But sometimes the right thing to do is hard.

Thanks for the reply but your reply assumes allot. How did folks that don't use drugs now all of a sudden start using them? legalizing them and condoning them are very, very different and this is why they will indeed never be legalized. People struggle to see a difference. In NYC needles are given out to addicts. BUT, the addict has to have a addict card. So even though it is acknowledged it certainly is not condoned.

We have no driving and drinking laws why would we not have any driving and druging laws???

It would not be easy or perfect but it would certainty be better than it is now. Just look at prohibition, isn't it better now that it's legal? Do we condone drunkenness because it is legal? Heck no.

[noonereal]

oh yeah, welcome aboard!

[whell]

Thanks for the reply but your reply assumes allot. How did folks that don't use drugs now all of a sudden start using them? legalizing them and condoning them are very, very different and this is why they will indeed never be legalized. People struggle to see a difference. In NYC needles are given out to addicts. BUT, the addict has to have a addict card. So even though it is acknowledged it certainly is not condoned.

We have no driving and drinking laws why would we not have any driving and druging laws???

It would not be easy or perfect but it would certainty be better than it is now. Just look at prohibition, isn't it better now that it's legal? Do we condone drunkenness because it is legal? Heck no.


It doesn't assume much. Alcohol is a different ballgame than many drugs. The addictive effects are much more dramatic. Legalize much more highly addictive substances than alcohol and sprinkle them across society, and I suspect that the results won't be pretty.

[noonereal]

It doesn't assume much. Alcohol is a different ballgame than many drugs. The addictive effects are much more dramatic. Legalize much more highly addictive substances than alcohol and sprinkle them across society, and I suspect that the results won't be pretty.

Drug use as with alcohol use is a personality type.
Virtually all studies have indicated that your fears are unfounded.
But your fear is real and if this was ever seriously considered the misinformation would change no ones mind that currently believes this.

As with all social issues the US is no world leader and this is not changing anytime soon so let's spend the billions to seal the boarder. As it is now anything is better than inaction.

[merrylander]

Give me five Predators and pilots and a hundred or so Hellfire missiles then tell me where the drug lord's houses are - problem solved. When it becomes apparent that death is inevitable the attraction of all that ill-gotten wealth goes away.

[finnbow]

Drug use as with alcohol use is a personality type.
Virtually all studies have indicated that your fears are unfounded.

True enough. Every study I've ever read indicates that there is pretty much a fixed percentage of human beings with addictive personalities. Alcohol is certainly more addictive than weed and I have a full rack of wine, a case of beer on hand as well as a dozen bottles in my liquor cabinet and I rarely drink more than one drink a day, often nothing.

As far as the "message" we'd send to kids if drugs were legal, it wouldn't be much different than all the other mixed, hypocritical messages they get. To wit; underage drinking is bad, premarital sex is bad, marijuana is a gateway drug (if that were true, most of us would have become junkies 30 years ago). Our kids are acutely aware of our "do as I say, not as I did" message.

While I agree with Whell that I don't look fondly upon the idea of my three kids smoking dope, I do recognize the hypocrisy of this position. Way back when, I hardly knew anyone who didn't smoke dope (and virtually none do any more). This is yet another area where a mature, reasoned conversation would be beneficial, something our political class is unlikely to deliver.

[BlueStreak]

WARNING: the following is an editorial, opinion, stream of consciousness, etc. I think I'm right about this, but I also know that I may be a voice in the wilderness on this particular topic. So, here goes...

The idea of legalization of drugs, thought is may seem to magically sweep away the problems of drug violence, corruption, and uncontrolled addiction, is not without its fair share of ancillary issues. Some of these issues might overshadow the problems we face as a society where drugs are currently illegal. Before we're willing to entertain legalization of drugs, I think we need to ask ourselves some basic questions:

Do we, or do we not, want to become a society where drug use is acceptable? Most of us have been users of at least marijuana, but few of us would cheer our children on as they lit up - even if they were our adult children. Funny sometimes how we'll abuse ourselves, but wouldn't want our children mimicking some of our behaviors.

For whom do we make drug use acceptable? We've established a threshold for a legal intoxicant - alcohol - that bars individuals under 21 from drinking. However, teen alcohol abuse is quote common. Do we want to double down and make drugs as readily available as alcohol? And yes, of course most kids say they know how to get illegal drugs such as marijuana or cocaine. But the rates of alcohol use/abuse among teen is significantly higher than the use of illicit drugs.

We currently have laws that prohibit alcohol and drug use among pilots, truck drivers, public servants, etc. for safety reasons. Would it make use feel better about ourselves if we knew that the drivers ahead of us and behind us on the freeway might be heavy marijuana users - cannabinoids do tend to have a multiplier effect with more frequent use? How 'bout the guy running the construction crane? Or the person responsible for sanitation at our favorite restaurant? Or maybe the school crossing guard at our kid's grade school? And if we decide to enforce the safety aspects of all this, how much drug testing are we willing to require to assure that we're safe from the other guy?

There are a host of other such questions. I, for one, do not support drug legalization because there's nothing about it that makes us better as a society or a nation. Legalization is easy. But sometimes the right thing to do is hard.

Start another thread, this one is about immigration.

Dave

[whell]

While I agree with Whell that I don't look fondly upon the idea of my three kids smoking dope, I do recognize the hypocrisy of this position. Way back when, I hardly knew anyone who didn't smoke dope (and virtually none do any more). This is yet another area where a mature, reasoned conversation would be beneficial, something our political class is unlikely to deliver.

OK, the voices warning against thread hi-jacking should rightly prevail here.

However, one last comment: its hardly hypocritical to change your opinion or perspective based on life experience. For example, I was promiscuous in my younger days. But now having reflected on my behavior and how I may have hurt some women that I treated far too casually, and being now the father of 3 daughters, I could not countenance the same behavior today. That doesn't make me hypocritical. For me, its a sure sign that I matured, and changed my perspective based on life experience.

[noonereal]

Give me five Predators and pilots and a hundred or so Hellfire missiles then tell me where the drug lord's houses are - problem solved. When it becomes apparent that death is inevitable the attraction of all that ill-gotten wealth goes away.

it's not that easy rob

it would be a matter of days before a new group of poor hungry people took over

poor people take chances comfortable people will not

[noonereal]

True enough. Every study I've ever read indicates that there is pretty much a fixed percentage of human beings with addictive personalities. Alcohol is certainly more addictive than weed and I have a full rack of wine, a case of beer on hand as well as a dozen bottles in my liquor cabinet and I rarely drink more than one drink a day, often nothing.

.

:eek: that right there is ashame

[noonereal]

Start another thread, this one is about immigration.

Dave

ouch


..

[merrylander]

it's not that easy rob

it would be a matter of days before a new group of poor hungry people took over

poor people take chances comfortable people will not

Those people were never poor or hungry, nowt but simple vermin. If a poor person had the skills to set up a drug ring he would have gone into honest work.

[noonereal]

Those people were never poor or hungry, nowt but simple vermin. If a poor person had the skills to set up a drug ring he would have gone into honest work.

That is not what I have seen in my life Rob although in some cses I would imagine that would be true.

[JJIII]

Regarding immigration, here is something you may find interesting.

California Penal Code 834b:

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration Laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:


(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien Lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, Questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States , and demanding documentation to indicate His or her legal status.



(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of Federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any
criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status Or leave the United States .



(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information That may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, Administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally Authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or By a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation Required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Makes California's boycotts of Arizona kind of hypocritical doesn't it? Are the mayors of "Sanctuary Cities" breaking the law?

[Boreas]

Gotta be arrested for something else first, JJ.

John

[JJIII]

Gotta be arrested for something else first, JJ.

John

So in California if you are just questioned about a crime that has been committed, but not arrested, your immigration status doesn't matter? Oh yeah... makes perfect sense to me! I'm not arguing with your interpretation of the law, just the logic of the law itself. If a person is here illegally that seems to me to be a violation of the law.:confused:

[finnbow]

So in California if you are just questioned about a crime that has been committed, but not arrested, your immigration status doesn't matter? Oh yeah... makes perfect sense to me!

One of the arguments against the Arizona law (by the police themselves) is that it will make it more difficult to get witness statements if witnesses to crimes are illegal aliens because they will not want to have any contact with the police after this law is in place.


If a person is here illegally that seems to me to be a violation of the law.

True, but due process is due process. Consider for a moment the things you may do, may have done, or may sympathize with doing that are illegal (having an unregistered gun at home, serving your 20 year old son a beer, smoking a joint in the privacy of your home... whatever), should the police be able to bust down your door without a warrant because they suspect that someone is amiss (or not)? Not to mention that Arizona has huge numbers of legal Hispanic residents and citizens (many predate the Gringos considerably). Because they look like illegals (dark complected), is it OK to say that there is a decent likelihood that they're illegal, so lets demand they prove their citizenship/residency status on the spot?

These are the issues. Let's not oversimplify things just to ensure that we maintain a certain prescribed level of outrage.

[Boreas]

If a person is here illegally that seems to me to be a violation of the law.:confused:

Actually, being here "illegally" isn't a crime. That's one of the problems with the Arizona law in that it creates a new category of crime. Under Federal law one can't be criminally prosecuted and incarcerated for being an undocumented alien, just deported because their presence here is unauthorized.

John

[JJIII]

Thanks John. Interesting discussion.