[divegeek]

I'm in strong agreement with bane, with one caveat that causes me to come to an opposite conclusion.

I am firmly of the opinion that people are people, and all of them have the full measure of natural, god-given rights regardless of where their parents happen to live. It doesn't matter if their own country doesn't properly guarantee those rights, our country was established for exactly that purpose. Early on in our country's history the Alien and Sedition Acts tested whether or not the founders applied the same freedoms to all men, citizen or alien, and they did, and so should we.

Now the caveat: If we assume that the way we handle concealed weapons carry for citizens is correct, then I don't think we can issue CFPs to aliens, whether legal or not. Our legislators apparently believe that only individuals who have demonstrated a certain level of trustworthiness should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and that trustworthiness is evaluated by a review of the applicant's history.

How do we check the history of even a legal immigrant, much less an illegal one? Can we get access to the police records of their nation of origin? Even if we can, do those records tell as much about their history as similar records in the USA tell?

IMO, if we assume that the background checks are important, and proper, then aliens can't be granted CFPs. Even naturalized citizens should probably be required to have a certain number of years residency to give them a chance to establish their trustworthiness.

 

[divegeek]

As I said before, illegals are criminals.

Only because we've chosen to call them criminals.

Good criminal law is based on the principle that behavior that damages others should be prohibited. Law that criminalizes reasonable, harmless behavior (e.g. owning a handgun in D.C.) is immoral, and while it certainly has legal force and often has significant real-world consequences, it has little to no moral force. I know that many here disagree with me, but I will never see a man looking for honest work to better feed his family as wrong, and I won't consider him a criminal even if the letter of the law says he is.

I'm neutral on whether or not background checks ought to be required for issuance of a CFP, but as long as that's the approach we're taking, then I think anyone who can pass the background check, showing they have no felonies, no evidence that they're a danger to others and no evidence of moral turpitude should be able to receive a CFP.

If the BCI can perform a background check by querying their country of origin, fine. If that sort of query costs more, then the applicant should bear that additional cost. If the BCI is unable to perform the background check, then the applicant should be denied.

Edited to fix typo.

 

[divegeek]

Over all I don't have a big problem with illegals until they use my tax money for benefits they have not earned

Just to play devil's advocate, what about illegals who pay more than their share in taxes because they work at jobs that withhold federal and state, but don't dare file a tax return to get the overpayment back? They paid, so should they be allowed the benefits?

(As an aside: Personally, I think the real problem in the whole "illegals using welfare" idea isn't the illegals, it's the welfare. I can think of very few services that illegals might abuse that isn't a bad idea in general and already far more abused by certain segments of the citizen population).

 

[divegeek]

Welfare and other social issues are just that social issues and should not be in the realm of govt control.

Yes, there plenty of illegals packaging food, working at BK and other low paying jobs. There are many working construction straight under the table. There are many in organized crime too.. The ones getting minimum wage and paying car insurance and bills I really care less about.

The uninsured should straight up forfeit their cars wen caught and the monies in a fund for their victims, along with a month in the county clink.

Absolutely agree, on every point, except that I think loss of the (probably destroyed) vehicle and a month in jail aren't enough. The month in jail is even counterproductive; the uninsured driver needs to be working so his wages can be garnished.