bagpiper wrote:It is certainly not a perfect comparison. But it really cuts to the core of the debate which is the question of whether our government can (or should be able to) impose restrictions on non-citizens that it cannot (or should not) properly impose on us (citizens).
bagpiper wrote:As for their motives, I don't assume. I am basing my belief on reported studies of illegal aliens (sorry no cites available right now). And when polled, most illegal aliens (especially those from Mexico) say they want to return home. They want to retain their culture. They are planning to be here temporarily to earn some money. They maintain their native language, they maintain strong ties to their homes, and they want to and plan to return some day. Certainly, many do return once they are facing serious criminal charges here.
bagpiper wrote:Illegal aliens are criminals.
bagpiper wrote:You cannot complain about me picking nits or arguing semantics and then turn around and attempt to make this semantic point important in our debate becase as I have noted a couple of times I am not basing my position relative to RKBA on the mere fact that a person has violated (but not yet been convicted) our immigration laws.
bagpiper wrote:While I understand and am symphatetic to and supportive of the view that RKBA is a natural, God given right independent of the US Constitution, I am forced to conclude that our federal government may not be required to allow all foreign nationals withn our borders to exercise that right on equal footing as I demand for citizens. My position does not hinge on whether an alien is here illegally or not, though I freely admit to being more predisposed to permit lawfully admitted aliens the privilege of owning and using guns while in our nation as invited guests than I am to extending the same courtesy to those who enter or remain illegally. In neither case do I feel compelled to respect any claimed "right" of aliens to be armed in my nation.
I'm sorry. But sometimes my desire for perfectly pure theory has to give way to certain unpleasant practicialities. I've explained those in some detail already.
bagpiper wrote:How does any illegal alien work here without violating additional laws?
bagpiper wrote:I have not assumed that any particular portion of illegal aliens would take up arms against us. Nor have I assumed that any particular number of them "hate" us or the US.
bagpiper wrote:What is it I read on this site recently: the plural of antedote is not "data." Every study I've seen of illegal aliens has returned results that say most illegal aliens do desire to return home. Have you seen large scale studies to the contrary? Or is your view based on close personal relationships with a statistically insignificant number of specific individuals who may or may not be very representative of the larger group we are discussing?
bagpiper wrote:Those who are here and wish to be here, need to pursue legal status, and I find it hard to believe that a Cuban refugee could not obtain legal status were he to seek it. It is a great waste for a trained doctor not to be using his skills to full benefit.
bagpiper wrote:It seems I wasn't clear. Self-deportation costs us nothing. We can encourage self-deportation simply by removing the incentives for being here illegally. That includes punishing employers who hire illegal aliens.
bagpiper wrote: But I expect in most cases, citizenship or other lawful presence in our nation is pretty easy to prove: you are either here lawfully are you are not. If you are not, you need to leave and get legal before returning. A few rare exceptions may be in order for those in real danger if they left the nation. But I must be clear that I do not accept amnesty for illegal aliens generally, nor in any large numbers.
bagpiper wrote:And I freely admit that my position on RKBA vis-a-vie aliens (legal or illegal) is in fact an attempt to control them to the safety and security of our nation as I've previously explained.
bagpiper wrote:I'm not much of a betting man, but will accept your wager of lunch on the outcome of this case if the SCOTUS accepts it. Frankly, it is a no lose for me. As much as I believe we can and in many cases should limit RKBA for aliens (legal and illegal), were the court to go the other way the odds are that the ruling would be such a huge boon to RKBA for citizens that I should consider it a major win.
B Cart wrote:This has got to be one of the most long winded threads I have ever seen on UCC
UnderratedF00l wrote:[I regularly pick up some Tamales from a very old lady that sells them out of a cooler on the side of the road here in Provo -- sometimes several times a week. Just a few days ago, there was a lineup of 6 or so people waiting... including a very young police officer. He was directly in front of me, and he purchased 8 of them (at $1.25 a piece), saying "all the guys love these, Mam" and was on his way.
The chances are good she's not here legally, or if she is, she's providing for someone who isn't. Is she violating any criminal laws? Probably not, but who cares? These Tamales are spectacularly good. The pork ones in particular.
UnderratedF00l wrote:B Cart wrote:This has got to be one of the most long winded threads I have ever seen on UCC
Clearly you haven't seen the Shaving thread.
UnderratedF00l wrote:UtahCFP wrote:I would prefer illegal immigrants to lose the ability to own firearms in the US because they have broken immigration law and are therefore disqualified.
Is breaking a law now a disqualifier?
Illegal immigration can be prosecuted as a felony. Felons can not own firearms... if they're actually convicted in a court of law. Simply breaking the law is not a disqualifier, nor should it be.
FRONTLINE > Race / Multicultural > Lost in Detention >
Record Number of Illegal Immigrants Deported in 2011
October 18, 2011, 5:09 pm ET by Gretchen Gavett
Email thisE-Mail This
Stay tuned for Lost in Detention, our upcoming film on the immigration debate. It airs tonight; check your local listings or watch it online.
Today, Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton announced that 396,906 people were deported during the 2011 fiscal year, the largest number in ICE’s history.
“These year-end totals indicate that we are making progress, with more convicted criminals, recent border crossers, egregious immigration law violators and immigration fugitives being removed from the country than ever before,” said Morton.
While the numbers are historic, they’re not dramatically larger than 2010 deportations, which were reported at “more than 392,000.”
As Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano alluded a few weeks ago, 55 percent of the deported immigrants — about 216,700 people — had criminal convictions (felonies or misdemeanors). Overall, the number of criminals deported has increased 89 percent since 2008.
This emphasis on criminal deportations is in line with changes the administration says it’s made in response to criticism (from social justice groups and state governors alike) that its Secure Communities program — a high-tech way of tracking immigration violators via fingerprint data — is sowing fear and deporting low-level offenders (or people without records at all).
But questions remain about what kind of criminals are being deported. ICE’s press release states that 87,547 had been convicted of either homicide, sexual offenses, drug-related crimes or driving under the influence. This is only about 40 percent of the total number of criminal deportations. But the release doesn’t indicate how many had low-level offenses on their record.
ICE says that 19.6 percent of detainees were repeat immigration violators, and 11.6 percent were border removals. Border Patrol apprehensions and prosecutions for illegal re-entry have dropped dramatically in the past five years, from 1,089,092 in 2006 to 463,382 in 2010. While not all Border Patrol apprehensions result in ICE removals, observers suggest that it’s fair to assume a corresponding decline. The increase in overall deportation numbers suggests that ICE is relying more on “interior” enforcement to meet its goal, mandated by Congress, of 400,000 deportations per year.
UtahCFP wrote:UnderratedF00l wrote:UtahCFP wrote:I would prefer illegal immigrants to lose the ability to own firearms in the US because they have broken immigration law and are therefore disqualified.
Is breaking a law now a disqualifier?
Illegal immigration can be prosecuted as a felony. Felons can not own firearms... if they're actually convicted in a court of law. Simply breaking the law is not a disqualifier, nor should it be.
Oops, forgot to use the "alleged", "suspect", "convicted" & etc. sort of language. On the other hand, the guy that stabs someone to death (not in necessary self-defense) but doesn't get caught -- I guess I'd say I'd like him to not have a firearm either.
divegeek wrote:You're as aware of them as I am. The majority of illegal aliens overstayed visas. The statistics are widely available, don't be disingenuous.
divegeek wrote:So, a person is a criminal even if there is NO criminal statute barring what they've done? We're way beyond just "not convicted" now.
divegeek wrote:It's a nonsensical argument. Government procedures and guidelines are very different from criminal statutes, and the only way you become a criminal is by committing a crime -- which means violating a criminal statute. There's no gray area here, no room for creative interpretation, no matter how much you'd like to twist definitions to couch the debate in emotionally-favorable terms.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on ....
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ...
divegeek wrote:Not only does the word "criminal" have a well-defined and specific meaning, it's also an emotionally-charged word.
suck it up like a man,
The Federal government is not able to abridge God-given rights. As a private property owner, you are. The two are not comparable.
If you can't provide citations, am I to take you at your word? That's not to say I don't trust you, but... well, I prefer a citation. Please provide one, and I'd be happy to dissect the crap out of it.
Still, available studies suggest that a high proportion of illegal immigrants are sojourners: they come to the United States for several years but eventually return to their home countries. According to studies by Douglas Massey and his colleagues (Massey et al., 1990), a high proportion of Mexican illegal immigrants return to their original villages after one or more prolonged periods of working in the United States.
These caveats aside, available estimates suggest that between roughly 35 and 45 percent of immigrants emigrate—either to return to their home country or to move to a third country (Jasso and Rosenzweig, 1990:124). Gross legal immigration numbers of about 800,000 per year, therefore, overstate the net effect of immigration.
Some are. Most are not. To generalize an entire group like this is despicable, in my (not so) humble opinion.
UnderratedF00l wrote:It's not a semantic debate point. It's completely black and white. Please review Divegeek's eloquent response.
UnderratedF00l wrote:This is the main point where we disagree. I believe the right to bear arms (among others) is a universal right, given to all men by something more powerful than the Constitution that protects it. You say that you believe that same thing, but you also believe the Government has the ability to abridge that right to certain subsets of people who fit your (somewhat ridiculous) criteria because of some kind of perceived "security".
UnderratedF00l wrote:If you think the Government has the ability to take away rights from any subset of individuals, doesn't that place the Government above the Constitution in the overall hierarchy? Or worse, even above the granter of those rights?
UnderratedF00l wrote:bagpiper wrote:I have not assumed that any particular portion of illegal aliens would take up arms against us. Nor have I assumed that any particular number of them "hate" us or the US.
Actually, you did say both of these things. Forgive me for assuming that because you said it you believed it. I guess I won't make that mistake again.
bagpiper wrote:It is rather a radical thing (like so much else of our federal constitution) to specifically protect, even encourage, the ability of the common citizens to hold a knife at the throat of their government. But the constitution is not a suicide pact and to allow any foreign national, anyone without presumed loyalties to this nation, to the ideals of the nation, to stand in that same spot of literally holding a knife to the throat of our--not his own, but OUR--government, is quite suicidal.
Finally, I go back to where I started. While self-defense and (to a much lesser degree), sport, collecting, and hunting are all fine benefits of the enumerated right to keep and bear arms, the raison d'etre for the enumeration of the RKBA in the 2nd amendment is the security of a free state (ie nation). This security is found in the militia standing ready to oppose foreign invasion as well as an armed populace with the means to oppose tyranny from their own government.
Neither of these purposes is necessarily furthered by requiring every foreign national within our borders be afforded the same RKBA as must our own citizens. This goes doubly so for those who are here illegally. Indeed, the efficacy of the citizen militia to repel foreign invasion could well be compromised best by large numbers of foreign nationals being armed in our midsts ready to wage guirilla warfare behind the lines. And while it is necessary for our own citizens to be masters of their government, it is suicide to allow foreign citizens to stand in that same position over our government.
Correction. I believe a person who owes alliegience and loyalty to another nation cannot possibly be expected to act in the best interest of this nation should we be invaded by their nation. Nor is it reasonable to expect that such a person will necessarily have the best interest of our nation and citizens in mind should the aweful question of whether force is required against our own government. This applies to both legal aliens as well as illegal aliens, though I freely admit that for those who have already demonstrated a willingness to violate our laws, my concerns go to the next level.
Legally, non-citizens hold alligience to their home nation. By definition a non-citizen cannot be convicted of treason against the USA. Only citizens can be convicted of treason. There is very sound logic to that. Individuals not yet naturalized may hold strong feelings for the USA as their adopted nation. But I can't look at tens of millions of individuals. I have to look at broad groups.
I have not assumed that any particular portion of illegal aliens would take up arms against us. Nor have I assumed that any particular number of them "hate" us or the US.
What I have stated is that as a matter of law and logic, I must assume that they are likely to have different loyalties than does a US Citizen. Do you hate the UK? I don't. I doubt either of us have any intention whatsoever to ever take up arms against our British cousins. But if by some stretch of the imagination we were wake up tomorrow to find ourselves at war with the UK, where do our loyalties lie? Is there one moment's question in your mind on which side your loyalties lie? Does that change if the war is with Germany, Poland, France, Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, or any other nation on the planet?
I assume, as does common and statutory law and centuries of history, that others are not very different than I am: they love their native country and are loyal citizens of same. It isn't a matter of them hating us or wanting to wage war on us (though one has to be entirely ignorant of the Atzlan movement to think there are not some significant numbers of persons in this nation who do hate the US and do want to wage war, in fact believe they are waging a war to reclaim their land). It is simply a matter of recognizing that "no man can server two masters" and so long as a person is a citizen of or has significant ties to a foreign land, I must assume he has some loyalties to that land and so is not devoted to this nation the way the typical US Citizen is.
UnderratedF00l wrote:This is what I'm talking about when I say I despise your tactics, Charles. Your use of the classic "water down the debate" as a matter of policy gets old very fast. Clearly my story was not "data", nor did I present it as such, but you chose to stimulate a discussion on it in a lame attempt to discredit the opinion. It was an anecdotal narration. I didn't present it as data, and it has no statistical value. Hence the term "anecdotal". I have very real education and experience in statistical analysis, and I'm well aware of standard statistical presentation in a cogent empirical setting.
The point of my anecdote was to illustrate that these are people we're talking about -- not statistics. Many of them are good, decent people. I'm sorry you missed that.
UnderratedF00l wrote:To clarify the process a little: To obtain the lauded "Green Card", the process can be 6 to 8 months long, with fees ranging up to $1,000 dollars for "premium processing" so an answer can be had in less than 15 days. The problem is, less than 1 in 20 HB-1 visas are actually granted, because INS (and now DHS) sets a "quota". Each application must be renewed and the fees paid for each attempt at a green card -- all applications not granted are considered void. The general feeling seems to be that unless you pay the $1000 dollar "premium processing" fee, you have little-to-no chance of even having your application looked at.
UnderratedF00l wrote:Here's why we disagree on this point: I don't think there's anything good about tearing apart families. Ever. The fact is, many illegal immigrants have children who are natural-born citizens, and many have very deep roots in their communities, churches, and businesses, because they've been here for dozens of years. What you're advocating is requiring those parents to abandon their children, return home, and wait in line? Considering that my Cuban refugee has been waiting over 20 years just for the chance to be here legally, how can you honestly believe that to be a good and just process?
UnderratedF00l wrote:Remember: We're not just talking about Mexican immigrants here. The United States has immigrants from Pakistan, Iraq, Cambodia, the Congo, and even China (among countless others). Many of these people could be detained or killed the second they step foot on their native country -- of course, many of their countries would deny harming these individuals, and we'll believe them. Some of them, such as those from Cambodia, haven't even lived in their home country since they were infants, when they fled the mass-genocide. Others, such as those returning to Mexico after living here for years, will return to nothing but abject poverty.
UnderratedF00l wrote:But since we have no vested interest in these people because they're not legal citizens and are nothing but criminals, what do we care what happens to them, right?
[/quote]bagpiper wrote:And I freely admit that my position on RKBA vis-a-vie aliens (legal or illegal) is in fact an attempt to control them to the safety and security of our nation as I've previously explained.
gobbly wrote:Though I understand them, I hate when arguments get bogged down in language. But it's also hard to have a discussion without being able to agree on what the language actually means. This is the foundation of communication, a shared interpretation of the medium. I don't really have an answer, other than to suggest that people make liberal use of dictionaries, and elaborate on topics for which a definition might not be recognized by both parties. I can't help but think that the distinction between undocumented aliens and illegal aliens would resolve this, and allow for a more productive debate
gobbly wrote:UtahCFP wrote:But how do you know without determining this through the courts?
bagpiper wrote:divegeek wrote:You're as aware of them as I am. The majority of illegal aliens overstayed visas. The statistics are widely available, don't be disingenuous.
I'm not being disingenuous. I was very open about my intended usage of the word "criminal". Why are you getting so bent out of shape on a semantics issues that is, at best, ancillary to my thesis?
bagpiper wrote:divegeek wrote:So, a person is a criminal even if there is NO criminal statute barring what they've done? We're way beyond just "not convicted" now.
As I used the term "criminal", a person who violates the law is a "criminal" even if the law doesn't impose criminal sanctions.
bagpiper wrote:Utah law requires BCI to issue concealed carry permits within a specific number of days. But the law provides no penalties. Would you object if I said that BCI was behaving "criminally" or were "criminals" if they were deliberately refusing to abide the requirements of the law? Even though the law imposes no criminal penalties on BCI or BCI employees/officers for refusing to abide the time limit?
bagpiper wrote:What about forcing old, poor people out of their homes for failure to pay ever rising property taxes? That is perfectly legal. In fact the law requires it in certain cases. If i were to say that doing so is "criminal" would you object to that vernacular usage of the word?
bagpiper wrote:Here, I'm trying to discuss whether the 2nd amendment protects the RKBA of foreign nationals. Whether they are legal, invited guests, or illegal aliens barely touches on my position of the topic at hand.
bagpiper wrote:Would you get upset if I set it is "unlawful" to overstay a visa?
bagpiper wrote:However, I will admit that the majority of illegal aliens have not commit a violation of criminal statute; they have merely overstayed a visa.
bagpiper wrote:And since, by your very emotional semantics
bagpiper wrote:a person cannot be a criminal if he faces no criminal sanctions and these people are not "criminals", then I must conclude that immigration and deportation hearings are not "criminal sanctions. As such, persons facing deportation hearings are NOT entitled to the protections of the 5th and 6th amendments pertaining to accused "criminals".
bagpiper wrote:In regard to your particular sensitivities to how I reference illegal aliens, I will henceforth refer to them as "criminals or scofflaws" so as to properly characterize both those who have violated criminal code (by entering this nation illegally, as well as those who have merely violated non-criminal immigration laws by overstaying visas. That should remove any legitimate concern you may have about technical word usage.
scoff·law (skflô, skôf-)
One who habitually violates the law or fails to answer court summonses.
Definition of SCOFFLAW
: a contemptuous law violator
bagpiper wrote:Or were you only interested in sticking up for those "criminals and scofflaws" who are in our nation in contradiction of our laws?
Users browsing this forum: Rik and 2 guests