Patterico's Pontifications

4/20/2008

Immigration Sweep Nets Identity Thieves

Filed under: Immigration — DRJ @ 8:31 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Stashiu is covering immigration stories so I don’t have to:

“A sweep covering five states netted almost 300 arrests of illegal aliens on charges of identity theft, document fraud, and being in the country illegally.”

The details are at the link.

— DRJ

106 Responses to “Immigration Sweep Nets Identity Thieves”

  1. And in other news, world class corrupt asshole Fabian Nunez has the gall to send a letter to Homeland Security’s Cherftof, demanding an end to all raids in California.

    gabriel (6d7447)

  2. 300 down; 19,999,700 to go!

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  3. We will continue to see a substantial increase in identity theft by illegal aliens as a direct result of crack-downs on employers who hire the illegal aliens. The employer’s ass is covered as long as he’s got a matching name and social security number for the hire. Thus, the employer response to the crack-down is to pay closer attention to the documentation required by the I-9 form, and to make sure there is an ID with a matching name and social security number.

    Before the crack-down, employers just didn’t scrutinize the documentation closely, so there was no need for the illegal aliens to incur the expense of getting (i.e., buying from an identity theft broker) a matching name and social security number. Now that the documents are more closely scrutinized, there is a much greater need for such stolen names and matching numbers, so naturally we will see a larger market in such.

    PatHMV (653160)

  4. Thank you again for the link DRJ. :)

    PatHMV, the harder we make it for illegals to get employed, the less they’ll try. They move to other areas or self-deport. Those who do use matching names with SSN are easier to catch because duplicate employment data shows up at the SSA office and the IRS.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  5. It’s a good thing we’re starting to pour more of our federal dollars into catching those nefarious illegal aliens as they use forgery and deception in order to further their conspiracy to . . . (wait for it) . . . earn a living through honest work.

    Thank god someone’s finally putting a stop to them!

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  6. It’s a good thing we’re starting to pour more of our federal dollars into catching those nefarious illegal aliens as they use forgery and deception in order to further their conspiracy to . . . (wait for it) . . . earn a living through honest work break the law by being here in the first place.

    Glad I could fix that for you Phil. It’s not honest work if they’re here illegally. There’s honest work where they’re from and the job would get done by somebody legally allowed to work if they weren’t doing it. Money well-spent in my opinion (and a super-majority of others in the country).

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  7. “It’s not honest work if they’re here illegally.”

    The immigration laws making them “illegal” are in fact what is “dishonest” here.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  8. The immigration laws making them “illegal” are in fact what is “dishonest” here.

    Wow, that’s some awesome reasoning there. Let’s see how this works… it’s the darn laws against murder that make murderers dishonest. Nope, still circular.

    Thanks for playing, feel free to try again.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  9. Stashiu3 – To save Phil and the rest all of the bloviating, you are an unrepentant racist, wetting your bedsheets in fear of the brown people.

    JD (75f5c3)

  10. “Pull-up Depends”… buy stock now. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  11. it’s the darn laws against murder that make murderers dishonest

    Sure, laws enforcing your right to be lazy and not have to compete are exactly like laws prohibiting murder.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  12. Sure, laws enforcing your right to be lazy and not have to compete are exactly like laws prohibiting murder.

    Since you apparently have trouble reading, that wasn’t a moral equivalence argument between immigration laws and murder laws, it was an example of circular reasoning to demonstrate how flawed your statement was. You don’t like the immigration laws as they currently stand, we get that. Work to get them changed then. Ignoring them because you don’t agree with them is not an option. Ask the IRS.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  13. Ignoring them because you don’t agree with them is not an option.

    Well, yes it is an option. It’s just not a legal option.

    You can be an honest person and still ignore the law. That’s why there are “crimes of dishonesty” and other crimes.

    Of course, by your logic, Ann Franke and the people who protected her were “dishonest.” So were the conductors of the underground railroad.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  14. Of course, by your logic, Ann Franke and the people who protected her were “dishonest.” So were the conductors of the underground railroad.

    Of course, both those examples no longer exist because people worked to change them. By your “logic” Jews would be exterminated by now and the United States would still have slavery in the South. If you’re keeping track, that was a moral equivalence argument you just made (ineptly, I might add).

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  15. Anyone here a cafeteria catholic? I’m guessing you didn’t take a cup of what the pope has to say on this.

    stef (84a199)

  16. stashiu3 – The sooner you accept your overt racism, and succumb to the will of your moral betters like Phil, the rosier the world will be. Puppies, kittens, and kites for all.

    JD (75f5c3)

  17. I’m guessing you didn’t take a cup of what the pope has to say on this.

    Which was what exactly? They didn’t interrupt the hockey games to give that information, so I missed it didn’t hear it.

    What? I earned my right to be lazy and not compete. That’s how I exercise it. 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  18. JD, between my sucking at the whole “succumbing” thing and being allergic to kittens, I guess I’m a lost cause. I’m not sure the word “rosier” is completely without racist connotations though, so I guess I’m in good company.

    😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  19. By your “logic” Jews would be exterminated by now and the United States would still have slavery in the South.

    Why don’t you just say “I know you are, but what am I”? It’s shorter.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  20. Why don’t you just say “I know you are, but what am I”? It’s shorter.

    It would be if I omitted the first part of the comment as you just did.

    Of course, both those examples no longer exist because people worked to change them.

    It makes a difference. I just took your “logic” to its conclusion if we ignored the laws against genocide and slavery, examples which you brought up. You’ve really got nothing if you can’t call someone a racist, do you?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  21. Of course, both those examples no longer exist because people worked to change them.

    Right, and other people ignored them because they thought the laws were unjust. By any modern measure, this point of view has prevailed.

    The only “moral equivalence” relevant here is that, yes, when you believe a law is unjust, you might be wrong — tax evaders, for example, are unlikely to be vindicated by future generations as modern-day Harriet Tubmans

    But that doesn’t make them dishonest, or their actions dishonest.

    As for the “racist” red herring . . . not gonna play. You always say I’m calling you a racist, and I always say I’m not. We might as well put that argument in our signature lines, because it’s all been done a million times before.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  22. It does not make their actions any less illegal, Phil. Odd that would endorse foreigners having the ability to determine, on an individual basis, which of the laws of the US are just, and which can be ignored.

    Racist.

    JD (75f5c3)

  23. But that doesn’t make them dishonest, or their actions dishonest.

    Yes, it does. Honest people don’t just ignore the law.

    You always say I’m calling you a racist, and I always say I’m not.

    So what does this mean?

    Sure, laws enforcing your right to be lazy and not have to compete are exactly like laws prohibiting murder.

    Along with this:

    Of course, by your logic, Ann Franke and the people who protected her were “dishonest.” So were the conductors of the underground railroad.

    My opposition to illegal immigration is not because I’m lazy and unwilling to compete, nor was I comparing illegal immigration to murder. It was an example in circular reasoning to highlight how your point was flawed. You’re the one who brought up not one, but two examples of racist behavior to inaccurately describe my comments. Just because you didn’t use the word doesn’t mean that we have to ignore the context. If you’re not calling people racist, why bring those examples up? You don’t even realize you’re doing it, do you?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  24. It does not make their actions any less illegal, Phil

    Right. Their actions are illegal. And the fact that they are illegal is stupid, which is the point I made in my very first post — that these laws and legal actions trying to stop people from working are a waste of goverment resources and time.

    And so we wandered through a long and meandering justification of said laws, only to come to the conclusion that “these laws are NOT a waste of government resources and time, because immigration is illegal!”

    Well played, sir. Yes, illegal actions are illegal. You have made your point.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  25. You’re the one who brought up not one, but two examples of racist behavior to inaccurately describe my comments.

    Do you really think that the most despicable thing about slave owners and nazis is that they were racists? Come on. What if Ann Frank had been a good german, who just happened to have offended the SS? What if someone started an underground railroad in, say Africa, to help slaves get free from the Africans who originally captured and sold them into slavery?

    Neither form of government/social oppression can be called “racist” but in my eyes, resistance to such government/social oppression is no less admirable than oppression with some boneheaded racist justification.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  26. Phil – It is stooopid. You convinced me. Freaking wonderful reasoning there.

    Stashiu3 – If they are not calling someone racist, they really have no argument to speak of.

    JD (75f5c3)

  27. Stasiu3, just to clarify, swap out my Ann Frank and underground railroad examples for someone hiding a “traitor” from the KGB in communist Russia and providing them with “papers”, or helping a family escape from East Germany under the Berlin wall. In both casees, breaking the law, based on a belief that the law is wrong. Nothign to do with “racism.”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  28. “Stashiu3 – If they are not calling someone racist, they really have no argument to speak of.”

    When the pope thinks you’re a racist, you’re doing something right!

    stef (87fe55)

  29. Put them all in prison and gave the illegal alein supporters and mexican goverment pay for their upkeep

    krazy kagu (a2e13d)

  30. Fuck off, stef. Your normal lies and distortions are bad enough. But putting words in the Popes mouth is noxious.

    JD (75f5c3)

  31. And the fact that they are illegal is stupid, which is the point I made in my very first post — that these laws and legal actions trying to stop people from working are a waste of goverment resources and time.

    A vast majority of the legal citizens in this country disagree with you. Also, even if you were right (you’re not), ignoring the law because you disagree with it is not an honest option. Otherwise, people would ignore any law they felt like disobeying because “it was stupid”. Again, ask the IRS how well that works.

    Do you really think that the most despicable thing about slave owners and nazis is that they were racists?

    Is that what I said? No, it wasn’t. But you see how the connection can be made from the context, can’t you? Btw, it’s “Anne Frank”… that’s the second time you got it wrong (you weren’t consistent in your mistakes there either).

    Neither form of government/social oppression can be called “racist” but in my eyes, resistance to such government/social oppression is no less admirable than oppression with some boneheaded racist justification.

    They can’t be called racist? What are you talking about? That should be the comment of the day right there. And again, your end statement could be taken as calling others racist. Government oppression based directly on race isn’t racist… that’s some great thinking there Phil.

    The United States government has the right to set immigration law (just as every other sovereign country does, including our neighbors in Mexico and Canada. Ever try to buy property in either? You can’t legally do it.) Illegal aliens and their employers have no more right to ignore those laws than you or I do to ignore any other laws we find inconvenient. If you don’t like it, work to get the law changed. Don’t expect everyone else to just ignore it.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  32. When the pope thinks you’re a racist, you’re doing something right!

    As I asked earlier, what remarks are you talking about? You brought it up to demonstrate a point (I assume)… what did the Pope say that makes your comment relevant? A link would be nice as well, since I’d like to compare what was reported in the media to what was actually said. Not that I don’t trust you or the MSM… wait, that’s exactly why I want it.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  33. In both casees, breaking the law, based on a belief that the law is wrong. Nothign to do with “racism.”

    So why not use those in the first place? And why the scare quotes around the word racism?

    I’ll tell you. It’s because you think it’s a racial issue and that’s always the first tool you lift out of the box. Deny it all you want. Nearly every comment you make on this topic puts the lie to your denial. It’s easy to call someone a racist, or imply it, instead of arguing honestly because many people will stop talking if you accuse them of being racist. You think you’ve won when all you’ve really done is stifle the debate. The debate you can’t argue effectively without being dishonest.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  34. Geeze Stasiu3, thanks for correcting my spelling. If I ever need a proofreader (as opposed to a serious debate) I’ll give you a called.

    And I expounded on my characterization of immigration laws as “stupid” by saying that “thes laws and legal actions trying to stop people from working are a waste of goverment resources and time.”

    Of course, you jumped on “stupid” and ignored “trying to stop people from working” and “a waste of government resources and time.” As you have this whole thread, you try to box me into a corner as someone who cries “racist” rather than actually explain why these programs aren’t a waste of government time and resources.

    In fact, you’re working so hard to avoid addressing head-on your reasons for being so concerned that immigration laws get enforced that, well . . . I could almost mistake you for an illegal alien myself (just kidding).

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  35. So why not use those in the first place?

    Um, because they aren’t the iconic American examples of the individual standing up to misuse of government power?

    It’s easy to call someone a racist, or imply it, instead of arguing honestly because many people will stop talking if you accuse them of being racist.

    Maybe the reason you keep thinking I’m calling you a racist is because I’m pointing out how irrational your positions appear to me. Irrationality comes in many forms. Among them is racism. Perhaps racism is a form of irrationality you recognize.

    I don’t care if your irrational positions are based on racism, sexism, or any other ism. Maybe you like the current immigration restrictions because you just really like having rules, whether the rules work or not. Doesn’t matter — for my purposes, what matters is that the laws are irrational and they are doing a lot more harm than good.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  36. “trying to stop people from working” Nice. How vague. Obama supporter?

    “a serious debate” is never going to occur until the inferences of racism are removed, as they simply act, as Stashiu3 pointed out, to stifle the debate. If control over the flow of non-citizens in and out of a nation is racist, can you please point to the nation that does not practice this?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  37. “As I asked earlier, what remarks are you talking about? You brought it up to demonstrate a point (I assume)… what did the Pope say that makes your comment relevant?”

    If you’re not familiar with the Catholic church’s stance on immigration, it probably means you don’t care about it. So you’re probably not going to be swayed by it. If you want to start learning about it, once place you can look is over at Michelle Malkin’s site:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/18/open-borders-and-the-catholic-elite/

    http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/22/catholic-church-lobbies-for-open-borders/

    stef (b39392)

  38. Phil should debate Levi (and we could just stand back and watch), they seem to think at the same intellectual level.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  39. Geeze Stasiu3, thanks for correcting my spelling. If I ever need a proofreader (as opposed to a serious debate) I’ll give you a called.

    Notice I didn’t say anything the first time. Forgive me for trying to help you avoid looking like more of an idiot than you already do.

    Of course, you jumped on “stupid” and ignored “trying to stop people from working” and “a waste of government resources and time.” As you have this whole thread, you try to box me into a corner as someone who cries “racist” rather than actually explain why these programs aren’t a waste of government time and resources.

    Because pointing out the vast majority of legal citizens disagree that it’s a waste, then explaining why ignoring laws we don’t agree with are not an honest option for dealing with them, are really attempts to focus your attention on calling people racist? How does that work exactly?

    In fact, you’re working so hard to avoid addressing head-on your reasons for being so concerned that immigration laws get enforced that, well . . . I could almost mistake you for an illegal alien myself (just kidding).

    If you’ve read what I’ve written here in this thread, on other threads, or anywhere else for that matter, you’d know why I believe the rule of law to be important. I’ve addressed it “head-on” many times and will continue to do so, no matter how many times you try to derail a thread, use poor reasoning, or just plain fail to make your point. (Really, you think your last line was humorous? Because illegal aliens always try to get immigration laws enforced… oh, maybe you were trying for cognitive dissonance. Still wasn’t funny.)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  40. If control over the flow of non-citizens in and out of a nation is racist, can you please point to the nation that does not practice this?

    Where to start . . . The U.S. immigration system is to “control over the flow of non-citizens in and out of a nation” as a Hummer is to “gasoline-driven automobile.”

    I can say “driving a Hummer in the city is a waste of gas.” A response of “everyone you know drives gasoline-driven automobiles” is not particularly useful.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  41. Stef,

    If you’re not familiar with the Catholic church’s stance on immigration, it probably means you don’t care about it.

    I asked what specific remarks you were talking about, not someone else’s take on them. If you can’t articulate your point, you haven’t made one.

    How can I care about the “Catholic church’s stance on immigration” unless I know what part you’re talking about? My understanding isn’t what matters until I know what your understanding entails. I’m not going to agree or disagree with your understanding until I know what that is. You made the comment, explain what you meant.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  42. Stef – I’m not Catholic, so I don’t listen to the Pope. If you agree with his views on open borders, however, you can certainly test their true practice by scaling the walls of the Vatican and see whether or not you get to “stay”.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  43. Stashiu3 – Pounding your head against a brick will is far more likely to elicit a coherent arguement that actually discussing this with Phil.

    Racist.

    JD (75f5c3)

  44. pointing out the vast majority of legal citizens disagree that it’s a waste, then explaining why ignoring laws we don’t agree with are not an honest option for dealing with them

    Ok, so you’ve been raising other red herrings besides claiming I’m calling you racist. I agree.

    Saying “lots of people think you’re wrong” and “you may think the law is wasteful, but its still the law” are also not responsive to my point, just as “you just think I’m a racist” is not responsive.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  45. I can say “driving a Hummer in the city is a waste of gas.” A response of “everyone you know drives gasoline-driven automobiles” is not particularly useful.

    Is the Hummer legally registered?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  46. Why is it that the Leftist always trot out the Pope when their views converge? Ever see a Leftist quote the Pope in an abortion debate?

    JD (75f5c3)

  47. And, for what it is worth, since stef seems to think that facts are not worth much, it was not the Pope’s position that opposition to illegal immigration is racist.

    JD (75f5c3)

  48. Ignore the law because Phil thinks it is stoopid and a waste of resources !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (75f5c3)

  49. This seems to be the appropriate portion of the Pope’s pronouncements

    Lombardi:: Thank you, Your Holiness. Another theme upon which we had many questions from our colleagues was that of immigration, reflecting the growing presence of Hispanics in the society of the United States. We’ll have a question from our colleague Andres Beltramo, from the Notimex agency in Mexico.

    Beltramo: I’ll ask the question in Italian, but we would love to have just a greeting in Spanish. With the enormous growth in the Hispanic presence, the Catholic church in the United States is becoming steadily more bilingual and bicultural. Yet there’s also a growing “anti-immigrant” movement in America. Do you intend to invite the United States to welcome immigrants well, many of whom are Catholic?

    Benedict XVI:
    Unfortunately I’m not ready to speak in Spanish, but I offer a greeting and blessing for all the Spanish-speakers! Certainly I’ll talk about this subject. I recent had the ad limina visit from the bishops of Central America, also South America. I saw the scope of this problem, above all the grave problem of the separation of families. This is truly dangerous for the social, human and moral fabric of these countries.
    It seems to me that we have to distinguish between measures to be taken immediately, and longer-term solutions. The fundamental solution [would be] that there is no longer any need to immigrate, that there are sufficient opportunities for work and a sufficient social fabric that no one any longer feels the need to immigrate. We all have to work for this objective, that social development is sufficient so that citizens are able to contribute to their own future.
    On this point, I want to speak with the President, because above all the United States must help countries develop themselves. Doing so is in the interests of everyone, not just this country but the whole world, including the United States.
    In the short term, it’s very important above all to help the families. This is the primary objective, to ensure that families are protected, not destroyed. Whatever can be done, must be done. Naturally, we have to do whatever’s possible against economic insecurity, against all the forms of violence, so that they can have a worthy life.
    I’d like also to say that although there are many problems, so much suffering, there’s also much hospitality [in America.] I know that the bishops’ conference in America collaborates a great deal with the Latin American bishops’ conference. Together they work to help priests, laity and so on. With so many painful things, it’s also important not to forget much good and many positive actions.

    Maybe I need new glasses but I don’t see anything about racism there. Which, frankly, I’d rather not see coming from a former memeber of the HitlerJugend.

    kishnevi (a117ab)

  50. So, everything you say is incisive and on-topic. Everything I say is a red-herring.

    Got it. One more thing Phil… Right out loud.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  51. “I asked what specific remarks you were talking about, not someone else’s take on them. ”

    I’m referring to the church’s stance. And the links I provided link you to sources which contain and explain that stance.

    “If you agree with his views on open borders, however, you can certainly test their true practice by scaling the walls of the Vatican and see whether or not you get to “stay”.”

    I’d bet that everyone in the Vatican is an immigrant to it. But I don’t think the Church’s stance is simply against the formalism of man made borders. Rather, I suspect it is based on it’s social justice and pro-family themes.

    “Is the Hummer legally registered?”

    And is the person speeding, or failing to signal a turn?

    stef (84a199)

  52. Hi kishnevi, we’re trying to teach stef to comment properly and make her own points instead of letting others read into them and then stab her own defenders in the back.

    Ask nk about that. She did it to him right after I warned him.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  53. I’m referring to the church’s stance. And the links I provided link you to sources which contain and explain that stance.

    And what is your understanding of that stance? Then I’ll have something to respond to.

    And is the person speeding, or failing to signal a turn?

    Now that’s funny! Take notes Phil.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  54. Stashiu3, why don’t you just tell me why enforcing immigration laws isn’t a waste of time and money, so we can get past this little hurdle and actually talk about real policy?

    That’d be a lot easier than trying to play logic and word games all day.

    I’ve made it pretty clear that I think heavy immigration restrictions are kinda like unions, except with mandatory membership/non-membership, and no bargaining. In other words, a lot worse. And you’re all gung-ho about enforcing these laws because . . . why?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  55. “Ask nk about that. She did it to him right after I warned him.”

    Stab in the back? Thats really odd formulation. NK said that Hamas couldn’t be considered a government. I don’t quite agree, given they’re the ruling party in Gaza and won elections in the Palestinian authority. So I mentioend that. This is a “stab in the back”? We’re here discussing things. Do you really silence yourself when people say things that you disagree with but that help your point so as to not “stab them in the back”? Thats really ridiculous.

    “And what is your understanding of that stance? Then I’ll have something to respond to.”

    My understanding of the stance is that we should work to keep families together and people working, that we should change our laws to help that happen, rather than tossing people out of the country and tearing families apart. In the political parlance of our time, its a stance of promoting pathways to citizenship rather than mass deportations. It’s a stance of making it more humane for people to be here, rather than making it miserable for people to be here, as in #4.

    And that JD will think this accuses him of being racist because he’s quite sensitive to that.

    stef (556e79)

  56. If I get Stef’s logic, it’s this: Malkin criticizes the Catholic hierarchy (not the Pope, by the way)on their immigration stance. Malkin is a racist, so if she criticizes them, it must be because they are criticizing anti-[illegal] immigration as racist.

    Which it is not, and they are not.

    And if Malkin has problems with people putting into action what they think the Sermon on the Mount demands of them, does not prove that they are right or ant-racist or anything. It only proves that Malkin is often a tone deaf extremist.

    Stash–don’t worry. I’ve got a hauberk to go with that Malayan cane I told you about.

    kishnevi (4fe729)

  57. Phil – Where to start indeed.

    You equate illegal immigration with people looking for work. Talk about red herrings…

    I think I’ll just reply to that one with a quote from Stef:
    I’d bet that everyone in the Vatican is an immigrant to it. But I don’t think the Church’s stance is simply against the formalism of man made borders. Rather, I suspect it is based on it’s social justice and pro-family themes.”

    No. The Church’s stance isn’t against the formalism of man made borders. But Phil’s is. Phil doesn’t believe that the US, or most likely the Vatican, has the right to determine who is present within it’s man-made borders. He feels that persons who think immigration laws are “stupid” should just ignore them. This is the central argument of illegal immigration, Phil and it has nothing to do with the immigrants, and everything to do with the rights of any nation to control its own borders.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  58. Actually, stef, if you read what the Pope said, it comes down to improving conditions in Mexico and other countries so families can stay together THERE.

    kishnevi (4fe729)

  59. “You equate illegal immigration with people looking for work. Talk about red herrings…”

    Indeed.

    “Actually, stef, if you read what the Pope said, it comes down to improving conditions in Mexico and other countries so families can stay together THERE.”

    It doesn’t really “come down” to that. It’s along with that. It doesn’t surprise me that the church sees immigration as causing a loss to the society that a person leaves. Previous popes have written on the right to leave and return in search of work. And on the cost this has to the society the immigrant leaves.

    stef (b7ee98)

  60. You equate illegal immigration with people looking for work. Talk about red herrings . . .

    I see. So I take it your answer is no.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  61. stef, I don’t agree that represents the Pope’s position on illegal aliens here in the United States. Which remarks give you that impression and which remarks talk about being racist if you don’t want illegal aliens coming here and working illegally? (your #28)

    It’s a stance of making it more humane for people to be here, rather than making it miserable for people to be here, as in #4.

    Making it miserable for people to be here illegally is different than making it miserable for people to be here. I’m very pro-immigration as my wife and both my daughters are immigrants. We worked very hard and spent lots of money to do it legally. Why should others not be required to do the same?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  62. Phil – What part of the central argument of illegal immigration, Phil … has nothing to do with the immigrants, and everything to do with the rights of any nation to control its own borders did you not understand?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  63. Stashiu3 – deliberately confusing illegal with legal immigration has been a constant ploy by those wishing to confuse the argument, making it nearly impossible for a “serious debate”.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  64. I would remind all as well that the title of this post is immigration-sweep-nets-identity-thieves. Just how can stealing someone’s identity can be justified, again, regardless of your views on illegal immigration?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  65. #16 JD:

    Puppies, kittens, and kites for all.

    Can I have a bunny? I wanna bunny. I never had a bunny before.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  66. “Which remarks give you that impression and which remarks talk about being racist if you don’t want illegal aliens coming here and working illegally? (your #28)”

    They don’t. JD will think they do. Because he’s so sensitive.

    “Making it miserable for people to be here illegally is different than making it miserable for people to be here.”

    I understand. It’s still about making it miserable for people who came here escaping misery. Specially when we’re talking about measures that make it difficult to work. Not very Churchy.

    “We worked very hard and spent lots of money to do it legally. Why should others not be required to do the same?”

    I think part of the problem is that for a lot of people there is no amount of work that will do it. You can apply all you want and get your application to the front of the line, but then you’ll just be rejected. How was your family eligible?

    I much prefer if all those people here illegally were instead here legally. It would make everything much more humane. That would be a good reform.

    stef (48e229)

  67. Apogee – All of it.

    stef – Feeling pretty mendoucheous today?

    JD (5f0e11)

  68. That’s why it’s amusing/stupid when they imply I’m a racist for opposing illegal immigration. I’m all for legal immigration, guest-worker permits, and keeping families together. If there is a job, let the foreign worker get a work-permit if they don’t want to immigrate. If deporting parents, deport the kids too. If legal immigration is too restrictive (an argument I would conditionally support), change the laws to make it easier while insisting that U.S. sovereignty be respected and the laws be enforced.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  69. I think part of the problem is that for a lot of people there is no amount of work that will do it. You can apply all you want and get your application to the front of the line, but then you’ll just be rejected.

    Any evidence to back that up? If an application is not approved, there’s a reason. I’ve never seen any evidence that certain applications are never going to be approved without cause. If you have some, please share.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  70. I much prefer if all those people here illegally were instead here legally. It would make everything much more humane. That would be a good reform.

    I completely agree. Deport everyone who is here illegally, starting with the criminals. Let them apply and immigrate legally. Very humane and “churchy”.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  71. Stashiu3 – Still a racist.
    stef – still mendoucheous.

    JD (5f0e11)

  72. But what about the “Separation of Church and State” meme? If government starts acting “churchy”, doesn’t that make us a fascist theocracy? Is that what you’re advocating? Or is it only ok when the church supports your position? Then it’s humane and a reform.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  73. Stashiu3 – Still a racist.

    Nuttin’ but love for ya JD. How’s the baby? :)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  74. EW1(SG) – 2 bunnies for you. May the multiply, exponentially.

    JD (5f0e11)

  75. Great, Stash. She is an angel, but I am no impartial judge.

    And she is the daughter of a legal immigrant. Why don’t we poll legal immigrants as to what they think of illegal immigration?

    JD (5f0e11)

  76. Off to Krav class. Later, racists.

    JD (5f0e11)

  77. Why don’t we poll legal immigrants as to what they think of illegal immigration?

    Wife — Illegal immigration sucks.
    Older daughter — Illegal immigration sucks.
    Younger daughter — Illegal immigration sucks.
    Grandfather (before he passed) — Illegal immigration sucks.
    Grandmother (before she passed) — Illegal immigration sucks.
    Every legal immigrant I’ve ever talked with — Illegal immigration sucks.

    I noticed a trend long ago on illegal immigrants by legal immigrants. Anecdotal to be sure, but I’m convinced.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  78. “If deporting parents, deport the kids too. ”

    Including American citizens?

    “Any evidence to back that up? ”

    Let me ask you this, when your family came, they were eligible under some criteria, right? Not everyone could have come in under the same criteria as your family. There is the basis of bringing a relative, the basis of asylum, etc… Not everyone is going to have one of these criteria. There isn’t really a general catch all “get in line.” You have to fit in to one of the criteria. And then you have to be eligible. In general this will require having a job or a family member, sponsorship and other criteria.

    “Deport everyone who is here illegally, starting with the criminals. Let them apply and immigrate legally. Very humane and “churchy”.”

    Cleansing 12 million-some people from this country is a lot of things, but humane ain’t gonna be one of them. It looks like we both want the same results — all those families here, legally and working — so the debate is just a matter of means. I’d say there are more economical and human ones than the one you propose. So I can’t really support it.

    “But what about the “Separation of Church and State” meme? If government starts acting “churchy”, doesn’t that make us a fascist theocracy? ”

    Seriously? This is as dumb as that ‘stab in the back’ crap which you kindly dropped.

    stef (394243)

  79. (wait for it) . . . earn a living through honest work.

    Thank god someone’s finally putting a stop to them!

    Comment by Phil — 4/21/2008 @ 10:05 am

    Isn’t “honest work” determined by the employer’s motives and not the employees’s motives? Were slaves doing “honest work”?

    j curtis (c84b9e)

  80. “I noticed a trend long ago on illegal immigrants by legal immigrants. ”

    I’ll bet illegal immigrants think illegal immigration sucks too.

    stef (b7ee98)

  81. Including American citizens?

    Yes. Don’t want to separate families, right?

    Seriously? This is as dumb as that ’stab in the back’ crap which you kindly dropped.

    It wasn’t kindly, just descriptive. Accurately descriptive. If discarding the rule of law in order to be “churchy” doesn’t describe a fascist theocracy, what does? If nk takes the time to try and figure out what you’re trying to say, you coming back contradicting him without acknowledging that he was trying to support your position can be considered a “stab in the back”. Don’t like it? Make your points up front and others won’t try to rescue you.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  82. — so the debate is just a matter of means.

    Yes stef, just a matter of means. Your way supports law-breakers, mine supports law-abiders.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  83. Come on, stashiu3 – OPEN BORDERS FOR EVERYONE is the only humane way to go about it.

    Wife – illegal immigration is teh suxxor. Mother in law – reaally doesn’t like it. Father in law – despises it.

    JD (5f0e11)

  84. ” Yes. Don’t want to separate families, right?”

    Of course not. I must admit it didn’t even cross my mind that people would consider kicking citizens out of the country. This issue really gets people eh?

    “f discarding the rule of law in order to be “churchy” doesn’t describe a fascist theocracy, what does?”

    I don’t want to discard rule of law. Thats the situation we have now, where we see hte pain that lawlessness causes. I’d like reform and legitimacy brought to the immigration system.

    “If nk takes the time to try and figure out what you’re trying to say, you coming back contradicting him without acknowledging that he was trying to support your position can be considered a “stab in the back”. ”

    Its not really ‘supporting my position’ to say something I don’t agree with. Its also not a ‘stab in the back’ for us all to be here discussing, agreeing and disagreeing. Just today we decided we agree on the same goal — all people here legally. But disagree on the means — you’d have american citizens and others all forced to leave and come back — while i think there are other more sensible ways to do this.

    stef (7eade3)

  85. I must admit it didn’t even cross my mind that people would consider kicking citizens out of the country.

    They can come back when they’re old enough to decide for themselves. Until then, they stay with the parents. No more anchor-babies.

    Its not really ’supporting my position’ to say something I don’t agree with.

    9 times out of 10 it’s someone trying to figure out what you would agree with that’s the problem. That’s why I told kishnevi not to bother trying to explain what you meant… it wouldn’t be appreciated and it wouldn’t be 100% accurate so the only thing he could expect from you is criticism.

    But disagree on the means — you’d have american citizens and others all forced to leave and come back — while i think there are other more sensible ways to do this.

    Again, your way supports law-breakers, mine supports law-abiders. There is absolutely nothing fair to people who are legal immigrants if things are done your way. Apparently, you’d say “So what? They got theirs, why should they complain?” and ignore those of us who say, “So what? They broke the law to come here and we just returned the situation back to where it started and things were legal. Why should they complain?”

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  86. “They can come back when they’re old enough to decide for themselves. Until then, they stay with the parents. No more anchor-babies.”

    Back when Israel started bombing Lebanon, I recall seeing former cheerleaders of the Cedar Revolution critiquing those Lebanese reformers for criticizing Israel. Critizing the lebanese reformers that were being driven from their homes in the middle of the Israel Hezbollah war. One liberal blogger commented that the common strain among most wingnuttia was basically a singular lack of empathy. I’m starting to see it, though I think it only comes up on some specific issues for some people. They go wingnutty on one thing — say immigration — and then rationalize rather ridiculous things. Like the idea that the US government would have the power to deport an American citizen. And if that wasn’t silly enough, deport them for having committed no wrong.

    “it wouldn’t be appreciated and it wouldn’t be 100% accurate so the only thing he could expect from you is criticism.”

    Maybe I’m not so thin skinned, but frankly disagreeing on whether Hamas counts as a government for Logan act purposes isn’t that much ‘criticism.’ Its plain old disagreement.

    “There is absolutely nothing fair to people who are legal immigrants if things are done your way.”

    There’s ways to make it fair. But your way even has citizens being expelled! Thats not fair to citizens. They get first dibs, above legal immigrants right? Just because they’re born here. Fair huh?

    stef (9006b6)

  87. OPEN BORDERS FOR EVERYONE !!!!!!!!!

    The end result of any liberal plan on immigration (75f5c3)

  88. So you’d rather keep kids here and deport their parents, separating the family? Pretty significant lack of empathy there stef.

    And since you’ve descended to wingnut comments, I think we’re done. Don’t complain when others call you names or give out insults… you wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite, right?

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  89. — and then rationalize rather ridiculous things. Like the idea that the US government would have the power to deport an American citizen. And if that wasn’t silly enough, deport them for having committed no wrong.

    Like Elian González?

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  90. “So you’d rather keep kids here and deport their parents, separating the family? Pretty significant lack of empathy there stef. ”

    Don’t be an idiot. You know what I’d rather do.

    “Like Elian González?”

    I don’t think he was an American citizen. Looked like a regular illegal alien to me.

    Even if he were an american citizen, if a non-citizen parent wants to take their American citizen kid out of the country, I don’t see why other people should get to prevent that — barring there being a legitimate custody battle.

    stef (87fe55)

  91. #90

    I don’t think he was an American citizen. Looked like a regular illegal alien to me.

    No, there’s a difference when you’re entitled to political asylum, as Elian was.

    if a non-citizen parent wants to take their American citizen kid out of the country

    Do you truly believe that that’s what Elian’s father wanted? (If you do, let me tell you about this great toll bridge opportunity I have for you…)

    I don’t see why other people should get to prevent that — barring there being a legitimate custody battle.

    So you see absolutely nothing wrong with remanding legitimate, minor asylum seekers to totalitarian dictatorships known for their harsh living conditions and crimes against humanity? And in fact, your statement would suggest that you see nothing wrong with allowing American children of Islamic men be taken to live in totalitarian theocracies where it’s not uncommon for maie children to be given into bondage and female children to routinely suffer barbarities like female genital mutilation?

    You have revealed your moral craveness for all to see. Your concerns are not driven by empathy or a genuine concern for others, for you it’s the party line ûber alles and be damned the real human suffering. You have all the moral fiber of an inkblot, and I am done with you.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  92. FWIW, children cannot sponsor their parents for visas until the children have reached the age of twenty-one. And I believe the parents would still be under the three-year/ten-year exclusion if they were here illegally for more than 180 days/one year. In other words, there is no such thing as “anchor babies”.

    We had a case in Chicago, before the fall of the Soviet Union, where family court decided that a thirteen-year old, born in Russia, was not obligated to return to Russia with his parents who had changed their minds about wanting to live free even though he wanted to. The Elian Gonzalez case was wrong in every way it could be. Janet Reno, ballsy broad that she admittedly is, violated the law. And it cost Al Gore the election. Which was a very good thing for America although not for Elian.

    nk (35ac33)

  93. #92 nk:

    a case in Chicago, before the fall of the Soviet Union, where family court decided that a thirteen-year old, born in Russia, was not obligated to return to Russia with his parents

    I remember that case, and was pleased that he won the right to stay.

    And even though I don’t think Elian was capable of making an informed decision about whether to stay or go, I think there is legitimate doubt that his father would have requested his return had he not been under pressure from the Castro régime. I do not believe the decision to remand anyone to the tender mercies of a totalitarian dictatorship should be undertaken lightly.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  94. “No, there’s a difference when you’re entitled to political asylum, as Elian was.”

    I’ve heard most asylees have to cross the border without permission. Sucks. Rule of law.

    “Do you truly believe that that’s what Elian’s father wanted? (If you do, let me tell you about this great toll bridge opportunity I have for you…)”

    What is it you think he wanted?

    “So you see absolutely nothing wrong with remanding legitimate, minor asylum seekers to totalitarian dictatorships known for their harsh living conditions and crimes against humanity?”

    The kid is was what? 7, 8. His asylum application is filed by who? We shouldn’t be stealing kids from Iraqi, cuban, soviet or iranian parents. Now, if we want to let refugee families into the country? That I accept. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees who have left their countries for other parts of the middle east that I think we should be accepting, without waiting for them to have to sneak in illegally. But not taking kids from their parents.

    And thats my moral fiber.

    stef (1730d4)

  95. I know I’m going to have to wash again after climbing back in the cesspit I’m about to, even after I said I wouldn’t.

    I’ve heard most asylees have to cross the border without permission.

    You need to find better sources for what you “hear” as you are greatly in error here.

    Sucks. Rule of law.

    You proclaimed your great esteem for the “rule of law” at comment #84, as well. Allow me to hoist you on your own petard.

    What is it you think he wanted?

    Apparently, his father had prior knowledege of Elian’s mother’s plan to seek asylum via a boat to Florida, and made no effort to interrupt that plan: even though it involved putting Elian himself at great risk. And his father’s “pleas” for Elian’s return weren’t immediately a result of his learning of Elian’s whereabouts, leading me to suspect that the father thought Elian might be sufficiently well cared for by his extended family in Florida.

    The kid is was what? 7, 8. His asylum application is filed by who?

    The “rule of law” is very specific on this point: Elian became an asylum candidate the moment he was able to stand on US soil: it is peculiarity in the law in that it treats Cuban asylum seekers differently than other candidates, but it is the law nonetheless.

    Again, you demonstrate that you only favor the “rule of law” when it suits your ends, even if suborning it can be reasonably believed to lead to human tragedy.

    We shouldn’t be stealing kids from Iraqi, cuban, soviet or iranian parents.

    We don’t, because we as a nation abide by the rule of law, even when dealing with others that don’t.

    And thats my moral fiber.

    Like I said, it matches that of an inkblot. And now I truly am done.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  96. “The “rule of law” is very specific on this point: Elian became an asylum candidate the moment he was able to stand on US soil”

    And the rule of law says his father has a say in this? Right. Elian is special, all other immigrants are sent away. nice rule of law we got. Nicely moral too.

    How many more asylees does your morality allow us to admit?

    stef (fd619e)

  97. OPEN BORDERS FOR EVERYONE ARTIFICIAL MANMADE BORDERS BE DAMNED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    JD (75f5c3)

  98. Jeez. One more time.
    The central argument of illegal immigration has nothing to do with the immigrants, and everything to do with the rights of any nation to control its own borders.

    The US did not steal Elian Gonzalez from Cuba. The US illegally stole Elian from his own relatives in Florida and shipped him back to an awful dictatorship from which his mother gave her life to escape.

    The father was not concerned before Elian left, but when it became a media sensation, you can bet Castro (that bastard) became embarrassed at the international attention paid to people willing to die to escape his “worker’s paradise”. Suddenly, a man with no political presence in the hierarchy, the father, comes center stage to demand his son back. Only those who knowingly support dictatorships would buy that media package. Apparently, that was ‘ol blood and guts’ Janet Reno, who viewed the top of her desk as the starting and ending point of absolute judicial power.

    Did she go to congress to ask permission to violate standing US legal precedent regarding Cuban refugees? No. She acted unilaterally – sending federal agents with automatic weapons (a recurring theme for her) to abduct the boy (they must have been worried he might be cranky).

    Thus, in one fell swoop, in perhaps the most embarrassing set of events in the Clinton administration (and that’s saying something), continued to prove that the left has no interest in the alleviation of suffering, nor the benefit of immigrants. It has a single allegiance, and that is to leftist ideals and the corresponding denigration of the US.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  99. Apogee

    The central argument of illegal immigration has nothing to do with the immigrants, and everything to do with the rights of any nation to control its own borders.

    Don’t go getting all fact-y on them. Sovereignty schmovereignty. They just want to be able to claim some kind of self-justified moral high ground, strip our ability to determine our own laws, and call people racists.

    JD (75f5c3)

  100. “The US illegally stole Elian from his own relatives in Florida and shipped him back to an awful dictatorship from which his mother gave her life to escape.”

    A court had ruled that the father had custody, no? But even if not, how did these relatives become the ones that could make decisions about the boy? Why, by the rule of law!

    “Did she go to congress to ask permission to violate standing US legal precedent regarding Cuban refugees?”

    Maybe the law for cubans is different, but from what I recall, asylum is still at the discretion of the Attorney General.

    “they must have been worried he might be cranky”

    According to wikipedia they were concerned about guns in the street, and in the house.

    “Thus, in one fell swoop, in perhaps the most embarrassing set of events in the Clinton administration (and that’s saying something),”

    The action was widely supported. I think you can find something clinton did that was more embarassing.

    But all that being said, I highly welcome the suggestion to allow many more refugees to enter our country.

    stef (5ef57e)

  101. stef wouldn’t know “moral high-ground” if she was staked-out upon an ant-hill on the Tibetan Plateau.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  102. A court had ruled that the father had custody, no? But even if not, how did these relatives become the ones that could make decisions about the boy? Why, by the rule of law!
    Absent from any discussion or ruling of “custody” is the relevance of the mother’s wishes for a better life for her child. That she died in transit attempting to secure that opportunity seems lost on those who prefer to see this as a simple custody battle. I would agree on the repatriation of the child had they simply been traveling from Switzerland.

    Maybe the law for cubans is different, but from what I recall, asylum is still at the discretion of the Attorney General.
    The law for Cubans is different “wet feet/dry feet” – Elian was politicized (from both sides) immediately, as other children have not been repatriated.

    The action was widely supported.
    Nope. The action was begrudgingly supported due to worries (not completely unfounded) about the ability to repatriate minor US citizens from other countries.

    I think you can find something clinton did that was more embarassing.
    I concede to your point on that one.

    But all that being said, I highly welcome the suggestion to allow many more refugees to enter our country.
    As do I, as long as the US is in control of the legal entrance of said refugees.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  103. The action was widely supported.

    Yup. By 800,000 Cuban voters in Miami who afterwards voted for Gore for President. Oh, wait! Don’t tell me that didn’t happen?

    Despite the best efforts of that house organ of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Time Magazine, who put a picture of a machine gun pointed at Elian’s head on its front cover. How could not all America fall in love with the Clinton administration when they see such a thing?

    nk (35ac33)

  104. NK–the action was widely supported, at least, by almost every nonCuban in South Florida–among whom the general consensus was along the lines of, Why did it take them so long to do what they should have done weeks/months ago? Why did they pander as long as they did to the Cuban exiles? Gore probably lost votes because of that among the Anglos.

    A lot of that attitude had to do with the attitude and tactics of el Exilio, who in a sense threw a collective temper tantrum that put off a lot of people who might have otherwise supported them. And it was perfectly in line with what how they conducted politics, both local and Cuban related, for years earlier–more or less importing Cuban style politics (and sometimes also Cuban style corruption) into the Miami political scene. And also more than a little violent than is normal for the US. Museum displays art by artists currently living in Cuba? Bomb it! Local politico shakes Castro’s hand and tells him she thinks he’s a great man? Other places would suggest she take a leave of absence while she consults a psychiatrist, or organize a recall campaign. In Miami, they assemble a mob to scream and throw things (don’t remember if they threw things at her, or just threw things at her car) until the woman not only resigns but leaves town for a while in fear of her life.

    Hence, when the government took Elian, it was seen here as a well deserved slap in the face. The Miami relatives tried to turn themselves into heroes of the resistance (and apparently took a salary from certain quarters as long as the affair went on) and trotted Elian before the cameras so many times it made many people think they wanted Elian only because he was a valuable propaganda tool against Castro–and not for his sake as a boy who needed protection and could be offered the propsects that come with living in the US. This of course had nothing to do with the legal issues, but it made most non Cubans rather unsympathetic to their claims to be acting in Elian’s best interest. (And then was St. Elian and the miracle of the dolphins…)

    If you have any interest in wacked out local politics, read up on Florida in the last two or three decades.

    kishnevi (973089)

  105. Interesting perspective, kishnevi. No doubt many in southern Florida have differing opinions of the Exile community. Relatives have been to Cuba, and the personal stories are shocking, so I can understand some extreme emotions.

    However, the fact is that Castro and his regime rarely take the full force of scrutiny for their actions. The fact that they can come here and be treated like rock stars points to a blatant double standard, as well as an insidious censorship of the problems of his “workers paradise”. He is a murderous tyrant, and the notion that some people are uncomfortable with that fact being publicized speaks volumes about their true beliefs.

    What were we all talking about again?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  106. Don’t be an idiot.
    Comment by stef — 4/22/2008 @ 6:25 am

    Sorry. It’s the only way to keep the conversation at your level. Maybe you should buy a vowel.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4284 secs.