• Your cart is currently empty.
Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Palabra Final > Immigration > Congress can’t SAVE the nation or themselves with latest immigration reform

Congress can’t SAVE the nation or themselves with latest immigration reform

LatinaLista — When it comes to solving the issue of illegal immigration, people are being duped into thinking that all the fault lies with businesses.

After all, if jobs weren’t offered to undocumented immigrants they wouldn’t come, right?
Not exactly.
The vast majority of people who risk their lives and savings to enter the U.S. illegally come not knowing where or if they will find a job. The difference between them and the 7.381 million people who are officially unemployed in the nation is that undocumented immigrants have no pride but to survive and they will accept jobs that — yes, again with the cliche — most Americans won’t do.
However, it’s not a cliche. It’s a fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has documented in their Employment Situation summaries.


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

About 1.6 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached to the labor force in February. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
Among the marginally attached, there were 396,000 discouraged workers in February, about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them.

What’s obviously clear from this data is that #1. The “marginally attached” outnumber the official unemployed rate and #2. Both groups of marginally attached people are looking for specific jobs — something that fits their skills and provides the income for the quality of life they’ve become accustomed to.
Otherwise, what else could explain the difference in employment rates between undocumented immigrants and those considered “marginally attached” to the workforce?
At about this time, the tired argument due to surface is: The Marginally Attached aren’t working because they refuse to work for “immigrant wages.”
It’s a hollow argument at this stage of the game.

(Source: HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce)
Too many businesses know that there are heavy penalties on the horizon for employing undocumented immigrants. Campaigns, such as HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce are gearing up to educate businesses about the employment verification system that the government is poised to pass in Washington.
It’s known by its acronym SAVE and it stands for Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007.
Yet, the title of the bill is misleading. As is usual in Washington, the bill is tacked with numerous other provisions that have nothing to do with verification but everything to do with enforcement.
Is enforcement bad? Of course not, as long as it doesn’t create an environment that empowers one group over another.
Isn’t that why we have law enforcement? To be the middle-person, per se, for enforcing the law?
With SAVE, some of the expected provisions of the bill, that have surfaced before in other sad attempts at immigration reform are:

Sets forth border security and enforcement provisions, including provisions respecting: (1) increases in Border Patrol and investigative personnel; (2) recruitment of former military personnel; (3) use of Department of Defense (DOD) equipment; (4) infrastructure improvements; (5) aerial and other surveillance; (5) a national strategy to secure the borders; (6) emergency deployment of Border Patrol agents; and (7) expansion of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism along the northern and southern borders.
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act and specified maritime law sections to revise alien smuggling provisions.
Sets forth provisions respecting border security on certain federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior.
Border Law Enforcement Act – Authorizes a border relief grant program for a tribal, state, or local law enforcement agency in a county within 25 miles of the southern border of the United States.
Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to make the basic employment eligibility confirmation pilot program permanent.
Sets forth conditions for the mandatory use of the E-verify system.
Requires: (1) employer/employee notification of social security number mismatches and multiple uses, and related information sharing with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and (2) establishment of electronic birth and death registration systems.

But what is frightening, among other aspects of the bill, is that: it provides for “a media campaign to inform the public of changes made by this Act including a multilingual media campaign explaining noncompliance penalties.”
What’s so bad about this provision is that it’s not just innocently informing the public about this Act but, in a very subtle way, or not, is granting a certain type of authority to people who feel inclined to take the law into their own hands.
Sound ridiculous? Unfortunately, there are reports already surfacing of this kind of interpretation.
This month in Providence, Rhode Island, store owner David Richardson overhead two customers speaking Spanish. As he was ringing up their purchase, he demanded to see the men’s Social Security cards.
Taken aback by Richardson’s behavior, the men told him that he had no right to be asking such questions.

What followed was a telling encounter underscoring the tensions in this country over immigration and ethnicity.
When Genao told Richardson “he did not have the right to ask all those questions,” Richardson pulled out a membership card for Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, a group that seeks curbs on illegal immigration.
Then, he lifted the phone receiver and threatened to call immigration authorities, Genao said.
“He [Richardson] grabbed the phone and said, ‘I can call ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] anytime I see an illegal immigrant,’ ” said Genao. “He also said, ‘I can make a citizen’s arrest.’ ”

Unbeknownst to Richardson, both men were US citizens. But all Richardson saw were two guys who spoke Spanish and automatically surmised they were undocumented.
It’s a scenario that is bound to be played out more and more as Congress refuses to address the presence of undocumented immigrants and insists on passing legislation that discourages dialogue and seeking solutions and depends entirely on sanctioning intimidation and granting authority to a small group for whom taking the law into their own hands is what they perceive the government wants them to do.
A question that begs to be asked is: Where have our leaders disappeared to?

Related posts

Comment(33)

  • Avatar
    Horace
    March 12, 2008 at 8:51 pm

    “Is enforcement bad? Of course not, as long as it doesn’t create an environment that empowers one group over another.”
    Just what does this mean? If you mean that the rights of citizens to govern their own immigration policies needs to be balanced against those who have no standing as citizens, you are absolutely wrong. Citizens make the laws. They are the “We” in the preamble to the Constitution. They hold allegiance to their country and no other, so it is their country, not that of foreign national trespassers. Mexicans have a country and they should make it accountable for their welfare, as we make ours. If they do not, it is their fault, not ours.
    You are a scape goater, one who blames this country for the plight of foreigners, and one who rationalizes their illegal behavior based upon this blame. Citizens are rationalized as racist xenophobes, just because they stand on principle and their claims of a right to self determination that is inherent with their nationhood. You claim that somehow illegal aliens have a right to say in that self-determination, but your arguments have no basis in history, morality or international law. You would deny the right of nationhood to Americans that is considered sacred to every one of the countries that sends illegal alliens. I find this shameful for an American. You are plain wrong, Marisa.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 12, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    “The difference between them and the 7,381 people”
    Marisa, you need to correct your number of 7,381 people to read 7.381 Million people.

  • Avatar
    Marisa Treviño
    March 12, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    Liquidmicro – thanks for the catch.
    Frank – no one should feel that they can take the law into their own hands. Yet, that’s what I feel is being created with this rhetoric that is repeated without thought. It never was a criminal offense to be in this country illegally. Yet, because of what started as a racially motivated agenda, that has blossomed into a full scale attack under the belief that illegal immigration is a criminal offense, Congress is getting ready to do just that – criminalize 12 million people. In the process, by announcing the new ruling with its own media campaign – what other law has ever had such a campaign besides seat belts or drugs, and those campaigns never went into the detail this media campaign proposes to do — the intent is to target guys who feel undocumented immigrants are a threat to patriotism. The rest doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination.

  • Avatar
    laura
    March 12, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    Si, es exactamente como tu dices, Marisa.
    As a registered Democrat, I am ashamed that a Democrat, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, introduced this bill together with Tom Tancredo.
    We need to call our representatives and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, and briefly and politely tell the staffer who answers the phone that we want them to stop this bill. I did that today.
    The House leadership is actually against this bill. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I assume they are against it because they believe in fairness and decency. Our calls can support them in their willingness to stand up against Republicans on this issue, in order to do the right thing.
    I assume another reason the Democratic House leadership is against this bill is the election. For example, very recently, the Illinois House seat vacated by former Republican speaker Dennis Hastert was won by a Democrat – with a huge amount of help from Latino voters. The Republican in that race was spouting anti-immigrant rhetoric akin to that used to advocate the Shuler-Tancredo (so called “SAVE”) bill. Latino voters put the Democrat over the top, in a district that was called “solidly Republican.”
    Since this is an election year, it cannot hurt to remind Democrats that they can’t take us for granted.
    If we don’t stand up for the civil rights and human rights of all the residents in this country, undocumented and documented, no one will.

  • Avatar
    Frank
    March 12, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    This Richardson fellow had no right to ask any of his clientel for their SS numbers. Those two men were not employed by him. I wouldn’t produce mine under those same circumstances. For one thing you are setting yourself up for identity theft. Having said that it is a stretch to claim that an isolated incident like that has anything to do with what the SAVE ACT would entail. It is about employers checking the validity of their “employees” not buyers of their products.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 12, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Sorry Laura, not all Dem’s think like you. I too am a Reg. Dem., Blue Dog all the way, the Shuler Bill is just right in my eyes, something that was supposed to have happened and put in place many years ago.
    Now, its not whether you are a Dem. or a Repub., break those down further, into much smaller classifications, much like those of Europe’s political parties.:
    Leftist
    Green Left.
    Leftist
    Regional.
    Green Social Dem. Lib. Dem.
    Centre
    Centre Lib. Dem. EU-scept.
    Chr. Dem.
    Conserv.
    Rightist
    Nation.
    All Dem’s may be on the left of our scale, but that does not mean we all agree or think certain ways as my views are more central and right than your left and far left views.

  • Avatar
    Frank
    March 13, 2008 at 7:48 am

    Marisa, please see my post above. That was an isolated incident. It is my belief that entering our country illegally should be a felony first offense. I do not however condone Americans taking the law into their own hands.

  • Avatar
    EYES OF TEXAS
    March 13, 2008 at 8:26 am

    Americans will, and do, any job for fair wages. It is the greedy business owners that have created the illegal immigration problem with their need for cheap labor. The Save Act will hold every employer accountable for verifying the legal status of their employees. As the job market drys up for illegal aliens, they will leave by the thousands. They may not return to their country of origin, but they will not be able to remain here with no means of support. The vacated jobs will be filled by citizens and the unemployment rate will drop to the lowest level ever.
    The transition from illegal workers to legal citizen workers will cause a slight stumble in the economy, but in a very short time it will recover and exceed to new levels never witnessed before.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    March 13, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    Hispanic man attacked, spit on because of race
    Two 19-year-olds charged with bias-motivated assault
    by Eli Stokols, News2
    March 13, 2008
    BOULDER (KWGN) — Two 19-year-olds are behind bars after allegedly yelling racial slurs at and punching a Hispanic man who was leaving a convenience store Tuesday night.
    Josh Ruzek and Abraham Paquet are charged with bias-motivated assault. Police officers, who were quick to arrive on the scene, witnessed Paquet punching the victim, Ivan Ponce DeLeon, in the face.
    It started as DeLeon was walking away from the PDQ store at 5200 Manhattan Circle, just off South Boulder Road.
    “I walked by and heard them call me a Spic,” De Leon said. “They said, ‘Why are you stealing all our jobs?'”
    DeLeon thought about fighting back — “I wanted to,” he said — but held back and tried instead to go back inside the store and wait for police.
    “They blocked me from going back in and pushed me out into the parking lot,” DeLeon said. “Then one of them punched me, and the other spit on me.”
    According to police reports, Paquet stated he “hit the [sic] illegal alien because he shouldn’t even be here”; and he lashed out at police.
    “He called me and the other officers “pigs, just protecting the rights of the [sic] illegal aliens of this country,” one officer wrote in his report. “We were just [sic] and cowards for not being able to stick up for our own rights and so on.”
    DeLeon came to the United States from his native Mexico six years ago and is married to a U.S. citizen. In two weeks, he will also take the oath of citizenship. The father of a 14-month-old son, he hopes that his son never has to endure the same kind of demeaning racial slurs he did.
    DeLeon does plan to file charges against Ruzek and Paquet.
    “I don’t want this to happen to another guy,” DeLeon said. “These guys need to learn that this isn’t the way.”
    But, in DeLeon’s mind, it increasingly is the way. Over the last year, as the national debate over immigration has intensified, he has been the target of other abuses, including another hate-laced tirade at a bar a few months back.
    “It’s gotten worse,” he said.
    Ruzek and Paquet are also suspected in another misdemeanor theft reported just a few hours before the assault at the gas station. In that case, a 15-year-old boy alleges that Ruzek and Paquet attacked him on a city bus and stole his skateboard and cell phone.
    No charges are likely to be filed in connection with that report.
    Copyright © 2008, KWGN
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This is just another attack against Latinos because of hate. Just the thought that all of these attacks are happening, because of lies spewed by bigots about Latinos, is sickening.
    Congress should be making laws to make “HATE SPEECH” a crime. Instead of having ICE armed to bring down terrorists, chasing dishwashers. LOL!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sign The Petition
    End Immigrant Bashing
    http://www.boycottdobbs.us/

  • Avatar
    Marisa Treviño
    March 13, 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Evelyn, We’re on the same wavelength. Check out today’s post. Marisa

  • Avatar
    Frank
    March 13, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    There are hate crimes against all ethnicities in this country including whites. Maybe if there weren’t so many Latinos in this country illegally there wouldn’t be so many so-called hate crimes against them. Even those that are not here illegally are illegal supporters and call Americans who want our nation’s laws respected vile and hateful names aka hate speech. You reap what you sow.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    March 13, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    March 13, 2008
    Editorial
    The Road to Dystopia
    The search for a silver bullet to slay illegal immigration continues. Hard-liners are turning the country upside down looking for it.
    They are looking in Washington, where Senate Republicans last week offered more than a dozen bills to further enshrine mass deportation as the national immigration strategy. It is a grab bag of enforcement measures that will be useful for tough-talking campaign commercials, but will not actually solve anything.
    Republicans and some Democrats in the House are trying to force a vote on a bad bill called the SAVE Act, which among other things would force all workers, including citizens, to prove they have a right to earn a living — a bad idea compounded by the notoriously bad state of federal government records.
    The error rate in just one database, the Social Security Administration’s, is believed to be more than 4 percent, making it likely that many thousands of Americans would face unjust firings and discrimination, and waste a lot of time and effort trying to clear their names.
    The harsh-enforcement virus has spread far beyond the Capitol. In states like Oklahoma, laws have been enacted to force illegal immigrants further underground, off official registries and into anonymity, by denying them identification like driver’s licenses. In a growing number of states and counties, politicians are offering up police officers to the federal government for immigration posses. From Prince William County, Va., to Maricopa County, Ariz., officers who pull people over for minor traffic infractions are checking immigration papers, too.
    Many law-enforcement professionals say this is reckless and self-defeating, because it sends a deep, silencing chill into immigrant communities. Citizens and legal residents will inevitably be hassled for looking Latino. And it is expensive; Prince William’s new law is expected to cost $26 million over five years, plus a few million more to outfit police cars with cameras, as a hedge against lawsuits.
    Maybe some people do not mind that immigration zealotry is sending the country down a path of far greater intrusion into citizens’ lives, into a world of ingrained suspicion, routine discrimination and economic disruption. Is that what we want — to make the immigration system tougher without fixing it? To make illegal immigrants suffer without any hope of ever becoming legal, because that is amnesty?
    Could it be that tightening the screws relentlessly on illegal immigrants, even if some citizens suffer in the process, is all for the greater good?
    Which is — what exactly? To drive a large cohort of workers out of a sputtering economy? To take more people off the books? To prop up the under-the-table businesses that inevitably evade such crackdowns? To worsen wages and working conditions for all Americans, since nobody works more cheaply and takes more abuse than a terrified, desperate immigrant?
    This is a country that runs on routine amnesties. Where would the courts be without plea bargains, or state budgets without periodic tax forgiveness? Are illegal immigrants the one class of undesirables for whom common sense, proportionality, discernment, good judgment and compassion are unthinkable?
    It is frightening to think that this country’s answer could be an emphatic yes.

  • Avatar
    Frank
    March 14, 2008 at 7:34 am

    The U.S. takes in over a million legal immigrants per year. We are a nation of laws with sovereign borders. If your child keeps displaying the same negative behavior over and over you have to resort to “tough love” after awhile rather than constant forgiveness with rewards for such behavior. Enough said.

  • Avatar
    EYES OF TEXAS
    March 14, 2008 at 10:48 am

    Another cut and paste from a liberal website that is pro-illegal immigration and sympathetic to the plight of illegal aliens. The U.S. has every right to verify the status of anyone seeking employment in this country. Most countries have strict restrictions that do not allow foreigners to work in their country without work visas or permits. Why should the U.S. be any different? A good friend of mine is about to return to Aberdeen, Scotland since his work visa has expired and it will not be renewed until he returns home. No, he is not crazy about the idea, but it is the law and he is willing to respect it. Work visas protect the jobs of a nations citizens from being filled by non-citizens who end up sending money out of the country instead of putting the money back into the economy of the country in which they are employed.
    The Save Act, once passed into law, will open jobs for thousands of unemployed U.S. citizens. These citizens will be paid a fair wage and put their earnings back into the U.S. economy. The transition between illegal workers and legal citizen workers will happen gradually over a four year time frame, thus there will be little, if any, slump in the economy.

  • Avatar
    Texas Proud
    March 14, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Eyes of Texas, you keep saying that once all the illegals are gone that the unemployment will be at it’s lowest and the economy will be better then ever. With that said we all know that ICE has been making their rounds picking people up. That means that thousands of jobs are available, right now especially in Texas where a lot of them worked in Slaughterhouses. What I want to know is why can’t they fill these positions? They have work but they can’t keep employees longer then a day may two days. It’s work. It’s a paycheck that those “illegals” took from US Citizens, so why can’t they fill them. You also have tons of field work “migrant work” is what we call it. You know picking fruit or vegtables. Why couldn’t the farmers and ranchers fill those positions? It’s work, it’s a paycheck.
    I’m not just asking EOT I’m asking everyone who says that “illegals” take jobs from American’s why can’t these jobs be filled by Americans? Please, educate me on that I know one of you has to have an answer.

  • Avatar
    Publius
    March 14, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    TP, that may not be a bad idea, but there must be conditions imposed.
    1. The employer has to pay for their health care so the bill won’t be picked up by the taxpayer.
    2. The wages have to be high enough so as to not depress the local wage scale of ciitzens.
    3. Decent accommodations, IAW local zoning laws will be provided for each worker. This will likely preclude family members, as employers will not likely pay enough.
    4. Employer will assure that the employee will not become a burden on social services.
    5. No path to citizenship. Only persons who have at least a high school education and or special skills will qualify for a green card, and that will have to be applied for in their home country, as it is done for all other immigrant candidates from other nations.
    Some people would call this second class citizenship, but it should be noted that the people in question will have the special advantage of not having to qualify under the educational or skill requirement. Their presence in this country will be under a contract, just as is done with many of our own citizens who work for Raytheon and other companies in Saudi Arabia or other nations. Those workers are not considered immigrants either, and believe me when I say it, they don’t feel a burning need to apply.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Congress can’t SAVE the nation or themselves with latest immigration reform, and it seems the Congressional Hispanic Caucus can’t either.
    It seems that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and its allies have blocked voting on legislation that would allow employers to rehire foreign seasonal nonagricultural workers independent of a 1991 quota.
    As a result, the government is limited to issuing the 66,000 seasonal work visas set when the visa program, known as H-2B, became law — 33,000 for winter workers and 33,000 for summer workers. Last year, more than 120,000 foreign workers entered the country on H-2B visas.
    Returning workers became exempt from the cap in 2005, when Congress passed the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and President Bush signed it into law. The act expired in 2007, and Congress passed a one-year extension that was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act. The extension expired on Sept. 30, 2007, the end of the 2007 fiscal year.
    Quote in the article from a seasonal employer in Cape Cod, ““It’s just ruthless for the Hispanic caucus to do this, use it as a bargaining chip,” said Mr. Zammer.”
    NY Times: Businesses Face Cut in Immigrant Work Force

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    March 16, 2008 at 12:58 am

    The ignorant racists on this forum think Immigrants are not covered by the Constitution of the United States. LOL!
    Here is the proof you asked for.
    ~~~~
    Can human-rights law help to end U.S. mistreatment of noncitizens?
    By Alison Parker
    Published in American Prospect
    The United States, famous as a nation of immigrants, should also be infamous for its bouts of anti-immigrant sentiment. Often our intolerance has been fueled by national-security fears. At other times, Americans have made misguided assumptions about who immigrants are and the rights that protect them.
    On paper, constitutionally and internationally, Americans respect the rights of noncitizens. But inspiring words on a statue in New York Harbor notwithstanding, unadulterated welcome has never been our actual
    stance.
    Foreigners in the United States illegally get a lot of publicity, but a substantial majority of noncitizens in America are here legally. They include permanent residents; people legally admitted for work, education, or tourism; refugees; asylum seekers; and people with temporary protected status. All of these noncitizens—including those here illegally—are guaranteed almost all the same rights as citizens. In fact, only three constitutional rights—voting in elections, holding certain political offices, and the absolute ability to enter and remain in the country—are denied noncitizens outright. Otherwise, the Constitution grants to “the people” or “persons”—not just to citizens—the rights to due process and equal protection of the law, to freedom of speech and assembly, and to freedom from arbitrary detention or cruel and unusual punishments.
    International human-rights law uses much the same terminology to recognize these—and a few additional—rights of noncitizens. The parallels are no coincidence. When the nations of the world gathered together after the nightmare of Nazism to create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they looked to U.S. constitutional principles and the Bill of Rights for inspiration and guidance. The notion that all persons, whatever their legal status, have basic rights was then further elaborated in numerous international treaties.
    In other contexts, the United States has a practice of limiting its human-rights obligations in the treaties it ratifies. But there are no such limits on immigrants’ rights. None of the reservations and understandings the United States has entered for key treaties—including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, or the Convention Against Torture and Other, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—specifically limit noncitizens’ rights.
    On paper, constitutionally and internationally, Americans respect the rights of noncitizens. But inspiring words on a statue in New York Harbor notwithstanding, unadulterated welcome has never been our actual stance. From mid-19th-century attacks on Irish and German immigrant workers to legislated xenophobia in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to Japanese internment during World War II, the targets and expressions of hostility have shifted with the times. Since September 11, it is the 5.5 million persons of Arab or south Asian descent who are living under a pall of suspicion and resentment. Today the United States, which once motivated the world to take human rights seriously.
    Draconian deportations
    Well before 9-11, assumptions about immigrants tended to harm their rights. It was the 1995 bombing of the U.S. federal building in Oklahoma City—a crime committed by white U.S. citizens—that prompted Congress to pass anti-terrorism and death-penalty legislation in 1996, which also contained the most draconian immigration restrictions in our recent history.
    While U.S. citizens convicted of crimes pay their debts to society and then return to their lives, under the 1996 laws, noncitizens with identical criminal records are deported after serving their sentences. Previously, legal long-term residents had the chance to tell a judge why they believed deportation would unfairly harm them and their families. But under the 1996 law, it doesn’t matter how long noncitizens have lived in the United States, what their contributions to their community have been, or whether they have been rehabilitated. Legal permanent residents, U.S. military veterans, and adults who have been here since childhood and do not even remember their countries of origin have been treated as harshly under U.S. immigration law as undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes.
    For example, 8-year-old Brazilian Joso Herbert became the adopted son of an American family in 1987. Two months after his graduation from high school in 1997, he sold 7.5 ounces of marijuana to a police informant. Because he was a first-time offender, he was sentenced to probation and community service. But then he was deported to Brazil—a place where he knows no one and where he no longer understands the language.
    Despite their drastic nature, deportations can occur after proceedings in which immigrants have no lawyer to help them; because deportation is considered a civil matter, it does not trigger the Fourth Amendment right to counsel. This is particularly unfortunate because Congress decided to make the laws retroactive, and an immigrant may now face deportation for a crime he or she pleaded guilty to years ago when it carried no such consequence. Moreover, the new laws expanded the crimes that prompt deportation to include even minor misdemeanor offenses, e.g., violations of drug-paraphernalia laws. In the nine years the laws have been in place, 258,112 noncitizens have been deported for crimes.
    These deportations are ripping apart American families and violating the human right to family unity. About one in every 10 children in the United States lives in a family that includes citizen and noncitizen members. Today, if a noncitizen parent faces deportation for a crime, he or she may not even have a chance to argue before a judge that removal from the United States equals separation from a U.S. citizen child.
    Lost wages
    All of the immigrant workers in the United States, whether here legally or not, have the same international labor rights as U.S. citizens. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has noted, “If undocumented workers are contracted to work, they immediately are entitled to the same rights as all workers.” As workers, for example, they have the right to organize and to a remedy if illegally fired. U.S. state and federal courts confirmed this view of the rights of workers up until 2002.
    But in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board decision told undocumented workers that while their work is accepted, their basic human rights are not. The Hoffman decision stripped some 12 million undocumented workers of their ability to receive back pay for lost wages if they are illegally fired for organizing. The possibility of having to provide back pay has been a significant deterrent to employers seeking to squelch union organizing efforts by firing pro-union workers. But the Court said that immigration policy and labor law were in conflict, and that immigration law trumps laws intended to protect workers’ rights.
    Before Hoffman, unions could tell all workers that they need not fear employer retaliation for organizing because they would not lose wages due to them if they were illegally thrown off the job. Now, employers can take full advantage of the work of illegally present immigrants and then, if they stand up for their rights, fire them with impunity.
    However, other labor rights of noncitizens, such as the right to a safe workplace and to compensation for injuries, are recognized in both international and U.S. law. After Hoffman, these rights remain in force, and U.S. courts and administrative tribunals are open to protect them. The problem is that noncitizens are afraid to vindicate their rights because they fear the immigration consequences of complaining. Legal or illegal, they do not want to end up in an immigration court.
    Denied due process
    Immigrant workers, indeed all noncitizens, have cause to fear immigration courts. Well before September 11, throughout the 1980s and ’90s, U.S. immigration hearings were often marred by procedural failings that violated both constitutional and human-rights law. Immigrants weren’t informed of their right to hire an attorney, interpreters were badly prepared or nonexistent, and some noncitizens were never notified of the case or charges against them.
    Haitian asylum seekers have been interdicted at sea, where the United States claims it has fewer obligations, and denied their human right to fair and efficient asylum procedures. The Haitians were rushed through cursory hearings, if they received them at all, on board hot and overcrowded ships, without privacy, and with their testimony poorly translated.
    The 1996 laws brought a new onslaught of substantive due-process problems. Besides mandating deportation for even minor criminal convictions, they subjected newly arrived refugees fleeing persecution in their home countries to mandatory detention. Asylum seekers were previously granted parole, which made it easier for them to access a lawyer, adjust psychologically, and prepare their cases. Now refugees have a slim chance of leaving prison before their cases are finally decided. They can wait months, sometimes years, before they are released.
    A widening net
    Three years after al-Qaeda’s attacks, the United States is continuing to cast a wide and disparaging net over noncitizens, both at home and abroad. U.S. consular officials abroad have instituted elaborate screening procedures for visa applicants and refugees selected for resettlement in the United States. Instituting security checks on visa applicants may make sense for national security, but refugees who have already had their cases assessed and who are, by definition, fleeing for their lives should be placed in a speedier queue because the United States has a special international obligation to protect them.
    At home, the Department of Homeland Security has decided to subject every noncitizen within 160 miles of the Mexican or Canadian borders to “expedited procedures” (meaning less due process) to determine whether they are legally present. If not, they will be immediately deported without a hearing.
    The new policy raises questions about the training and capacity of border agents to assess the legal status of noncitizens and to effectively and fairly identify those who risk persecution in their home countries. A United Nations report leaked to The New York Times in August 2004 revealed that similar expedited procedures, in place at U.S. airports since 1997, have resulted in some asylum seekers being harassed and intimidated, discouraged from seeking asylum, and interviewed without translators by airport inspectors who lacked knowledge of asylum law.
    No right to enter
    All around the world, diverse factors, from conflict to international business, are prompting people to cross borders and start life anew in a country other than their own. As a result, governments are confronted each day with the question of what rights they must guarantee to noncitizens.
    As much as they’d rather not admit it, world leaders settled that question long ago. Governments realized early on that the best way to make sure that their citizens were treated well abroad was to sign reciprocal treaties with other governments promising to treat foreigners fairly. Emmerich de Vattel, the most influential international-law scholar in the early days of the United States, wrote that “denial of justice” to aliens would justify their home country’s decision to begin a war of reprisal against the United States. This is why international human-rights treaties are almost entirely blind to the citizenship status of the people they protect.
    Many politicians fear that respecting immigrants’ human rights will require granting them a broad or poorly policed “right to enter.” September 11 has only redoubled those fears. But an absolute right to enter is not what the international human rights of immigrants are about. Rather, they are about treating all human beings fairly and without discrimination. Americans in particular should look toward international human-rights laws because they compel us to strive toward becoming what, as a nation of immigrants united on behalf of freedom and democracy, we claim that we already are.
    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/01/usdom10493.htm
    ~~~~~~~~
    Federal court throws out limits on illegal immigrants Story Highlights
    Federal court throws out laws limiting where illegal immigrants can live, work
    Judge says ordinances conflict with supremacy clause of U.S. constitution
    ALLENTOWN, Pennsylvania (CNN) — A federal court Thursday struck down ordinances passed by Hazleton, Pennsylvania, that were intended to limit where illegal immigrants could live and work.
    Last year, Hazleton passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance, which would have fined landlords who rented to undocumented immigrants and would have penalized companies that employed them.
    Under another law, tenants would have had to prove they were citizens or lawful residents, register with the city and pay for a rental permit in order to receive an occupancy permit.
    The ordinances were copied by other cities.
    The court ruled that Hazleton cannot enact any ordinances dealing with illegal immigration because they conflict with the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution.
    “Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community. Since the United States Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced,” U.S. District Judge James M. Munley wrote in the 206-page opinion.
    Mayor Lou Barletta, who spearheaded the opposition, said he will appeal the ruling. “This fight is far from over,” he told reporters outside the courtroom. “Hazleton is not going to back down. … We will take it all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to.” Watch mayor decry “injustice” »
    Barletta drafted the act last year after “a high-profile murder, the discharge of a gun at a crowded city playground, and drug busts” allegedly involving illegal immigrants, he wrote on his Web site, http://www.smalltowndefenders.com.
    “Illegal aliens in our city create an economic burden that threatens our quality of life,” he wrote. “With a growing problem and a limited budget, I could not sit back any longer and allow this to happen. I needed to act!”
    Hazleton’s population was 23,000 in 2000. Since then, it has risen to an estimated 30,000 to 33,000, with many of the newcomers being Mexican immigrants, according to Munley.
    The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania was among several groups that filed the suit on behalf of Hazleton residents, landlords and business owners.
    The groups contended that only the federal government has the right to regulate immigration or to deprive residents of the rights to equal protection. In addition, they said, the ordinances violated state and federal housing laws.
    The ordinances, Munley said, “penalize landlords, tenants, employers and employees without providing them the procedural protections required by federal law, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
    Don’t Miss”Our analysis applies to illegal aliens as well as to legal residents and citizens. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES DUE PROCESS PROTECTION TO ALL PERSONS,” he wrote, emphasizing “ALL.”
    The city exceeded its police powers by enacting unconstitutional ordinances, wrote Munley, whom President Clinton appointed to the federal bench in 1998.
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/26/immigrants.ruling/index.html

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    March 16, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Well gee liquid, I wonder why those fools dont hire ALL the VERY WILLING AMERICAN WORKERS who claim the Mexicans are taking their God given right to a job they refuse to do. Do you think maby it’s because they dont exist?

  • Avatar
    EYES OF TEXAS
    March 17, 2008 at 9:42 am

    The business owners are going to have to start paying a fair wage to attract workers to positions vacated by illegal aliens. The creedy owners will have to set favorable working conditions and expect their profit levels to drop slightly. There is a minimum wage law in this country and employers will have to meet those standards. A fair days pay for a fair days work will attract workers.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 17, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    I’m wondering why the Hispanic Caucus chooses to deny more H-2B visas, reducing the number back down to only 66,000 instead of allowing it to be 120,000 by passing the bill? Why is the Hispanic Caucus ‘screwing’ the visa workers?
    I’m guessing the 2 articles you posted are trying to prove that “Illegal Aliens” are guaranteed “Rights” under our Constitution, although that was in another topic. Your first article talks about the UN Constitution of basic human rights for “Illegal Aliens”, and yes some of the UN’s rights are the same as ours, in fact they were taken directly from our Constitution, however, “OUR” Constitution does not give “rights” to the “Illegal Aliens”. As for Judge Munley, obviously he is incorrect in his statements as other cities, counties, and even states have passed mostly the same laws as Hazleton and they have withstood numerous attempts at overturning them.

  • Avatar
    Publius
    March 18, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    I believe that eventually this illegal immigrant issue will wind up in the Supreme Court, and it’ll find that illegal aliens have very limited rights, certainly far fewer than the ACLU would cede to them. Just as we would not give all the protections of the Constitution to an invading Russian Army, it is irrational to apply the 14th Amendment to an invading contingent of illegal aliens. Doing so results in ceding the sovereignty of our nation and the primacy of the citizen in the control of his destiny to the non-enfranchised.

  • Avatar
    Horace
    March 18, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    Evelyn, this is an example of the future of immigration reform in America. From the Quad Cities On-Line, Davenport, IA: http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display.php?id=379117
    20 illegals sentenced in Davenport
    March 18, 2008; 1:45 p.m.
    Comment on this story
    Related stories
    Press release submitted by U.S. Attorney’s office
    DAVENPORT, IA – United States Attorney Matthew G. Whitaker announced that today, the last of 20 former employees of Iowa Pre-Stressed Concrete (IPC), West Burlington, Iowa, all foreign nationals illegally in the United States, have been sentenced in the United States District Court in Davenport.
    The foreign nationals were indicted on May 16, 2007, on various charges of fraud and misuse of documents, false immigration identification documents, false statements in immigration documents, misuse of a Social Security number, unlawful entry after deportation, aggravated identify theft, and false claim of United States citizenship to obtain employment.
    In early 2007, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began an investigation of the use of bogus documents, such as social security cards and resident alien cards, and bogus identifiers, including names, social security numbers, and alien numbers, to gain employment at IPC. Agents identified 20 aliens who had used bogus documents and identifiers, including identifiers stolen from other actual persons.
    On April 19, 2007, ICE agents, with assistance from the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, Burlington Police Department, and West Burlington Police Department, executed 17 arrest warrants. Three other employees subsequently were arrested.
    United States District Court Judge John A. Jarvey has imposed the following sentences, terms of supervised release, and special assessments to the Crime Victims Fund:
    Eleuterio Garcia-Gil, age 46, pled guilty to misuse of an immigration document and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on March 17, 2008 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Victor Manuel Peregrino-Solis, age 35, pled guilty to false statement in an immigration document and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on March 17, 2008 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Sergio Guillen-Figueroa, age 35, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on January 28, 2008 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Juan Antonio Lopez-Martinez, age 28, pled guilty to misuse of an immigration document and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on January 28, 2008 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Eliazar Garcia-Vega, age 28, pled guilty to fraud and misuse of documents, unlawful entry after deportation, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on January 18, 2008 to 30 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $300 special assessment. Reinaldo Garcia-Munoz, age 21, pled guilty to fraud and misuse of documents, misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on January 18, 2008 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $300 special assessment. Carmelo Moreira-Martinez, age 20, pled guilty to false statements in an immigration document, false claim of U.S. citizenship for employment, misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on January 18, 2008 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $400 special assessment.
    Ezequiel Oronia-Vera, age 31, pled guilty to fraud and misuse of documents, and was found guilty of aggravated identity theft at a bench trial before U.S. District Court Judge John Jarvey. He was sentenced on January 18, 2008 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. Adalberto Ayala-Fuentes, age 23, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 17, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Jesus Quiroz-Lopez, age 24, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 17, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. Jose Javier Munoz-Camarillo, age 54, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 17, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Lorenzo Garcia-Ignocencio, age 47, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 17, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Jose Martinez-Hernandez, age 28, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 17, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Pablo Lopez-Martinez, age 20, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 17, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Juan Gabriel Garcia-Vasquez, age 23, pled guilty to misuse of a social security number, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 17, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment.
    Jesus Munoz-Lopez, age 33, pled guilty to fraud and misuse of documents, and aggravated identity theft, and was sentenced on December 10, 2007 to 24 months plus one day imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. Daniel Ayala, age 27, pled guilty to fraud and misuse of documents, and was sentenced on November 26, 2007 to time served, 3 years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Ayala was remanded to the custody of ICE for removal proceedings.
    Francisco Raul NaJera-Gonzalez, age 24, pled guilty to two counts of fraud and misuse of documents, and was sentenced on November 26, 2007 to time served, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. NaJera-Gonzalez was remanded to the custody of ICE for removal proceedings.
    Ruben Moncada-Munoz, age 28, pled guilty to fraud and misuse of documents, and was sentenced on November 26, 2007 to time served, 3 years supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Moncada-Munoz was remanded to the custody of ICE for removal proceedings.
    Adelino Nunez-Martinez, age 38, pled guilty to fraud and misuse of documents, and misuse of a Social Security number, and was sentenced on October 11, 2007 to time served, 3 years supervised release, and a $200 special assessment. Nunez-Martinez was remanded to the U.S. Marshals Service for delivery to ICE pending removal proceedings.
    These cases were prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Iowa. The investigation was conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, Burlington Police Department, and West Burlington Police Department.
    The lesson here is, if you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    March 21, 2008 at 4:27 am

    Eyes and liquid are just going to deny, all people within our borders are protected by our Constitution, even when presented with proof because …….ummmm they know more then judges do.
    Publius talks about some invented invasion by Hispanics and hopes the laws change to exclude immigrants especially Hispanics.
    Horace thinks that by ignoring I was right and posting something (I didnt even bother to read, when I realized it had nothing to do with Immigrants rights)his ignorance will be forgotten. LOL!
    Like true gentlemen that you are, you admitted I was right and you were wrong……….again. LOL!

  • Avatar
    Frank
    March 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    According our our government, illegal aliens do not have the same rights as citizens.
    I haven’t read any posts whereby anyone said that Hispanic immigrants should be excluded from this country. Of course there is a difference between immigrants and illegal aliens.
    There is an illegal invasion of this country and it includes aliens from different countries not just one.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 21, 2008 at 7:28 pm

    Evelyn says:
    “Eyes and liquid are just going to deny, all people within our borders are protected by our Constitution, even when presented with proof because …….ummmm they know more then judges do.”
    ummmmm, NO. You fail to distinguish or even cite a law case granting ‘Illegal Aliens’ rights according to our Constitution. “All persons” is construed to mean anybody within, up to and until found to be an “Illegal Alien”.
    This Court held, in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, that the right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent nation; that the power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, aliens or any class of aliens from the country may be exercised entirely through executive officers, and that the said sixth section of the Act of May 5, 1892, was constitutional and valid.
    Once determined by the decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officers, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury.
    “The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”
    Accordingly, the judgment of the court below denying the application for the writ of habeas corpus was affirmed. Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538.
    Thus, in the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 730, MR. JUSTICE GRAY used the following significant language:
    “The proceeding before a United States judge, as provided for in section 6 of the act of 1892, is in no proper sense a trial and sentence for a crime or offense. It is simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a ‘banishment,’ in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process or law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application.”
    No limits can be put by the courts upon the power of Congress to protect, by summary methods, the country from the advent of aliens whose race or habits render them undesirable as citizens, or to expel such if they have already found their way into our land, and unlawfully remain therein. But to declare unlawful residence within the country to be an infamous crime, punishable by deprivation of liberty and property, would be to pass out of the sphere of constitutional legislation unless provision were made that the fact of guilt should first be established by a judicial trial. It is not consistent with the theory of our government that the legislature should, after having defined an offense as an infamous crime, find the fact of guilt and adjudge the punishment by one of its own agents.
    Now, Evelyn, please show us where “Illegal Aliens” have rights from “OUR” Constitution.

  • Avatar
    Evelyn
    March 24, 2008 at 1:49 am

    False Claim: Undocumented Immigrants Have No Legal Rights
    March 19, 2008
    False Claim:
    Undocumented immigrants have no legal rights.
    BECK: Let me get something straight here for those illegal aliens that might be watching the program. You have human rights. You do not have legal rights. 1
    Truth: Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute.
    As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that:
    “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ’Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.’ These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” 2
    All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights. Among these are the right to equal protection of the law and the right to due process.
    Also, undocumented persons have a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to deny any officer from entering their residence without consent, absent a search warrant.
    Further, the Supreme Court has held that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to free public education, as required under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3
    Additionally, under federal law publicly funded hospitals must provide emergency medical services to all patients, regardless of their immigration status. 4 Immigrants are also protected from workplace discrimination under state and federal laws.
    Moreover, under federal law, a person may recover money damages for loss of property, personal injury or death where damages occurred as a result of the “negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 5
    These are just a few of the rights that our Constitution and federal laws grant to all persons living in the U.S. These rights are intended to protect all U.S. residents from discrimination and arbitrary government action. These rights are especially critical in times where hatred based on race, color, and national origin is on the rise.

  • Avatar
    Frank
    March 24, 2008 at 8:49 am

    Take it away, Liquid. Looks like you will have to dumb it down for her.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 24, 2008 at 10:35 am

    I was waiting for you to post this, so predictable. Now lets do a little investigation, shall we. Lets look at the citation #2 that your web site links to, the 14th amendment and the cases it points to. Oh, look, its the case of Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, in which the defendants try to use the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369, in which Yick Wo is a Legal Resident, if you will due to “Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.”
    Now, please show us where “Illegal Aliens” have this right. Your “Truth in Immigration” web site needs to do more research and verification before attempting to proclaim things that they do not know.
    I will discredit the others later, now its off to work for the day.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 24, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    “All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights. Among these are the right to equal protection of the law and the right to due process.”
    This is only from local police that do not have 287(g) status, as they have not been trained to be executive officers and/or immigration officers, thus they can not infringe into their identity unless it is given by the detained. Then the officer has legal right to inform ICE about the person, but he personally can not arrest that person unless the offense warrants arrest. Now, a federal officer, ICE officer, Executive officer, Immigration officer, can arrest and detain any person on suspicion of ‘Illegal Entry’ (usually prior deportation orders), can enter any building without warrant to apprehend any person of whom they know to be living there “Illegally”, and for such, any persons living there while questioned about their status, if “Illegal” can also be apprehended.
    Again, once they are verified to be “Illegal Aliens” they have no Rights, and can spend up to 364 days in detention as long as there is no “hard labor, compulsory and unpaid, as, in the strongest sense of the words, ‘involuntary servitude for crime'”. Thus, they can be legally held in detention centers for up to and not to exceed 1 year, before being repatriated to their countries of origin.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 24, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    “Further, the Supreme Court has held that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to free public education, as required under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    Nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents’ conduct nor their own undocumented status. [457 U.S. 202, 203] The deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.
    Basically, this doesn’t give the parents any Rights whatsoever, it only allows the children to not be held accountable for their parents conduct of being here “Illegally”.
    The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [457 U.S. 202, 220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their “parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms,” and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State’s jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases “can affect neither their parents’ conduct nor their own status.” Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent’s misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.
    If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed.
    Children under the age of 18 are considered just that, children. Once they turn 18 however, they are then considered adults, at which point, if they are found to be “Illegal Aliens” they are, and can be deported.

  • Avatar
    Liquidmicro
    March 24, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    Additionally, under federal law publicly funded hospitals must provide emergency medical services to all patients, regardless of their immigration status. 4 Immigrants are also protected from workplace discrimination under state and federal laws.
    Moreover, under federal law, a person may recover money damages for loss of property, personal injury or death where damages occurred as a result of the “negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 5
    These are not Rights granted by “our” Constitution, they are laws passed by our Government, for which I believe everybody agrees upon.

  • Avatar
    Horace
    March 25, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Plyler v. Doe, as referenced in the quote below, is one of the worst rulings of the Supreme Nine. It’s ripe for challenge and consequent reversal. I warn you, Evelyn, I’m not sure such depth of thought is within your capacity to absorb.
    “Further, the Supreme Court has held that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to free public education, as required under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    P.A, Madison recently issued a different perspective of Plyler v. Doe, one which is consonant with logic and the Constitution.
    This from his web site: http://federalistblog.us/2008/03/supreme_fraud_plyler_v_doe.html#more
    Supreme Fraud: Plyler v Doe
    By P.A. Madison on March 25, 2008
    I do not think there is any other single Supreme Court case in which I am asked to comment on more than Plyler v. Doe – especially now with more press attention being devoted to school overcrowding and the costs associated with teaching nonbona-fide resident children belonging to citizens of other nations. I haven’t devoted any lengthy commentary on this case for the simple reason the four dissenting justices (O’Conner, Burger, Rehnquist and White) thoroughly highlighted the majorities injustice – though they didn’t go as far as I am about to.
    For example, Chief Justice Burger writing for the minority pointed out:
    The Court’s holding today manifests the justly criticized judicial tendency to attempt speedy and wholesale formulation of “remedies” for the failures — or simply the laggard pace — of the political processes of our system of government. The Court employs, and, in my view, abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver. That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court distorts our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others.Burger’s view that the majority abused the Fourteenth Amendment is an understatement. The majority rested their ruling on the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause (EPC). According to the majority the “Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation.”
    While on its face this sounds to be true, however it is important to point out the clause reads “the equal protection of the laws,” not the equal enjoyment of any law.
    To give the opinion of the court some semblance validity, the majority had to first paint the EPC as having broad objectives far beyond the historical meaning and source of the text. Justice Brennan (of Roe v. Wade fame) wasted no time in doing just that by quoting Sen. Jacob Howard out of context in bolstering the courts claim the EPC was broad:
    The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another… Read out of context this would give the court all they needed in striking down a Texas statute that withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States. However, let us read the next sentence from Sen. Howard, which Justice Brennan conveniently omitted:
    It prohibits the hanging of a black man for a crime for which the white man is not to be hanged. It protects the black man in his fundamental rights as a citizen with the same shield which it throws over the white man. Ought not the time to be now passed when one measure of justice is to be meted out to a member of one caste while another and a different measure is meted out to the member of another caste, both castes being alike citizens of the United States, both bound to obey the same laws, to sustain the burdens of the same Government, and both equally responsible to justice and to God for the deeds done in the body?Over in the House of Representatives, Chairperson of the Reconstruction Committee, Rep. Thaddeus Stevens, explained the EPC in identical terms when introducing it before the House:
    Whatever law punishes a white man for a crime shall punish the black man precisely in the same way and to the same degree. Whatever law protects the white man shall afford “equal” protection to the black man… Now different degrees of punishment are inflicted, not on the magnitude of the crime, but according to the color of the skin. Now color disqualifies a man from testifying in courts, or being tried in the same way as white men.The man responsible for the EPC language found under the Fourteenth Amendments first section, Rep. John A. Bingham (OH), stated when he first introduced the words “equal protection” on February 28, 1866, said those words preexisted under the U.S. Constitution. Where?
    Bingham said because the Fifth Amendment adopted the words “any person” and not the Magna Charta’s “freemen,” the “people by their Constitution declared the equality of all men, and by the express limitation forbade the Government of the United States from making any discrimination.”
    Discrimination in what? Discrimination in the laws of due process, i.e., the administration of justice.
    In a speech in December of 1870, he said the EPC meant that no State “shall deny to the chiefest offender hitherto against the rights of the people the equal protection of the laws.”
    Three months later in a March 31, 1871 speech, Bingham pointed out the words “equal protection of the laws” were the words of the Magna Charta, “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or delay to any man right or justice.”
    Bingham of course, is reciting the Charta’s Article 40, where in another speech quotes Hallam as saying both Article 39 and 40 of the Magna Charta protected the “personal liberty and property of all freemen, by giving security from arbitrary imprisonment and arbitrary spoliation.”
    In 1875 when Congress was debating another Civil Rights Act, proponent of the proposed civil rights legislation, Rep. Robert B. Elliott, adopted the same meaning as the Supreme Court had recently given the clause: No state shall “deny equal justice in its courts.” No one objected.
    In other words, the EPC’s imported meaning from the Magna Charta means justice must not only be open at all times, but equally administered to all who seek redress for wrongs along with equal punishments before the courts of justice. This of course explains why both Sen. Howard and Rep. Stevens introduced the clause before Congress the way they had.
    In short, the Equal Protection Clause has nothing to do with State laws or policies involving education – or anything else for that matter outside of the administration of justice in State courts. If it had such application, then Bingham would not had approved of Ohio’s Supreme Court ruling that the EPC was not applicable to Ohio’s school segregation policies.
    Plyler v. Doe is pure judicial fraud perpetrated by Great Society regulatory-minded jurists who had ideologically abandoned the notion of a federal government based on limited powers and objectives. Limited and defined constitutional powers have now been replaced with “judicial precedent,” leaving States and communities to be ruled by judicial fiat.
    The Fourteenth Amendment’s first section did not alter or change the letter or spirit of the Federal Constitution as some like to believe because in the words of its author, was “written in the letter and spirit of the Constitution itself.”

Comments are closed.

33 Comments