Full Version: City takes steps against illegal immigrants
I'm kinda surprised this hasn't received more national attention. One of the Dallas suburb's, Farmer's Branch, has passed linitiatives aimed at eliminating illegal immigrants from their city.
The initiatives focus on 4 main programs:
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants
3. Making English the official language
4. Training police in checking residency
Groups protest Famer's Branch actions
One of the reasons the Farmer's Branch council had taken these steps is to force the issue through Congress. This seems to be having some effect: Senate passes Immigration Bill Overhaul
Here is an article on Tim O'Hare, who has been the primary driver for the legislation, going over his reasoning for it. Essentially, he feels that illegal immigrants drive down property values and cost the city money. This seems to be a microcosm of the national immigration debate, but having it at a local level might help focus on the issue. For example, FB has no control over border issues, only on the direct implications in their community.
Questions for debate (Let's exclude making English the primary language, as I think that is a side debate)
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
I think it’s a pretty pathetic comment about the people of Farmer’s Branch. I’m no fan of illegal immigration; I live in a state in which their impact is significant, but this smacks of petty meanness and Schadenfreude. I’m sure all the citizens of Farmer’s Branch enjoy having the cheap labor available so their yards are taken care of, their crops are picked, their houses are cleaned and their restaurant meals don’t cost too much. Maybe when all the cheap labor is gone and they have to do some of that icky stuff themselves, they’ll think twice about allowing “those” people to live in their community.
Nice.
Besides that, I don’t think this is legal. We have Fair Housing Laws that prevent this sort of nonsense.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
No. It’s not fair, for one thing. People have to live somewhere, and as long as they pay, why should landlords care? Landlords aren’t exactly principle-driven – collecting money is all they care about. As long as a person has the wherewithal to pay the rent, that should be all that matters. Plus, I don’t believe people should be lumped together in an arbitrary group and prejudged based on that. There are other ways to control illegal immigration. Would Farmer’s Branch prefer that we have thousands of indigent illegals?
I think it’s a pretty pathetic comment about the people of Farmer’s Branch. I’m no fan of illegal immigration; I live in a state in which their impact is significant, but this smacks of petty meanness and Schadenfreude. I’m sure all the citizens of Farmer’s Branch enjoy having the cheap labor available so their yards are taken care of, their crops are picked, their houses are cleaned and their restaurant meals don’t cost too much. Maybe when all the cheap labor is gone and they have to do some of that icky stuff themselves, they’ll think twice about allowing “those” people to live in their community.
QUOTE
"It won't hurt me because I check on that already," said Stewart, who lived in the city for three decades before moving out two years ago. He said he does not check immigration papers but requires that tenants speak English. Houston Chronicle
Nice.
Besides that, I don’t think this is legal. We have Fair Housing Laws that prevent this sort of nonsense.
QUOTE
In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:
Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing. Fair Housing
Refuse to rent or sell housing
Refuse to negotiate for housing
Make housing unavailable
Deny a dwelling
Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
Provide different housing services or facilities
Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental
For profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting) or
Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as a multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing. Fair Housing
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
No. It’s not fair, for one thing. People have to live somewhere, and as long as they pay, why should landlords care? Landlords aren’t exactly principle-driven – collecting money is all they care about. As long as a person has the wherewithal to pay the rent, that should be all that matters. Plus, I don’t believe people should be lumped together in an arbitrary group and prejudged based on that. There are other ways to control illegal immigration. Would Farmer’s Branch prefer that we have thousands of indigent illegals?
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Nov 15 2006, 02:24 PM) 
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
I think it’s a pretty pathetic comment about the people of Farmer’s Branch. I’m no fan of illegal immigration; I live in a state in which their impact is significant, but this smacks of petty meanness and Schadenfreude.
To me it smacks of entirely justifiable frustration at the unwillingness of anyone else in government to do their job. Far from being inappropriate, it's long overdue. If more towns throughout the country start doing this, it just might make this country less attractive to illegals.
And I for one am sick of seeing governments throughout the country constantly passing the buck on this issue. It's about time someone finally started to take action. It there are those who object that it's not the best way to deal with the problem, then let them come up with something better, but working against attempts to deal with the problem will only perpetuate it further and further, till something even more drastic becomes necessary (or inevitable).
QUOTE
I’m sure all the citizens of Farmer’s Branch enjoy having the cheap labor available so their yards are taken care of, their crops are picked, their houses are cleaned and their restaurant meals don’t cost too much. Maybe when all the cheap labor is gone and they have to do some of that icky stuff themselves, they’ll think twice about allowing “those” people to live in their community.
I'm not about to make assumptions about them, but I certainly hope they prove willing to stand up for principle over convenience.
QUOTE(Fair Housing link)
In the Sale and Rental of Housing: No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:
Nothing in there about legal status.
QUOTE(Daffygrl)
I’m sure all the citizens of Farmer’s Branch enjoy having the cheap labor available so their yards are taken care of, their crops are picked, their houses are cleaned and their restaurant meals don’t cost too much.
Somebody was doing this work ten-twenty-thirty years ago.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
They are fair, justified, and I’m sure legal. I would assume The Fair Housing Laws that DaffyGrl pointed out probably applies to citizens and individuals who are here legally (Visa’s, etc…) and I say that because they probably did their legal home work before passing the initiatives.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
It wouldn’t bother me one bit if my local community passed similar measures. I agree with Blackstones comments that it’s frustrating this issue gets passed around like a hot potato because the federal government is too afraid of the political fall to address this crisis.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
This past election voters in Arizona passed the English as official language ballot measure at nearly a 3-1 ratio. In the 2004 Presidential election, although Bush carried Texas the few red counties were those on the Mexican border. It’s painfully clear that our fellow citizens who have been dealing with this issue for some time are fed up and ready to make progress any way they can.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Illegal immigration is a national crisis and should be handled on a federal level. One of our new members, SecureTheBorder, mentioned MS-13 in their introduction post (everyone should familiarize themselves with this group), I can’t imagine the amount of federal resources this mostly illegal immigrant group is consuming.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
I think its a positive step. Illegal immigration is a problem on many levels. Not only do you not know say a persons criminal history, such as an immigrant like any other human is a person that is capable or may already have committed very heinous acts against his or her fellow human, you simply cant tell if you don’t care about his or her past. Another aspect of it is not caring about that persons identity or legality of living in our country is simply also saying hey come get us to the terrorists basically in my opinion. I don’t look at it as racial profiling or profiling period, the other option on illegal immigration really is just to leave it as its been running and having hundreds of thousands of Mr. and Ms. x living in the united states at large doing whatever simply because we don’t know or care to force them to live legally like Americans generally have to do, barring the super rich of course.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes. I think such acts need to occur in order to make the government do something.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
I think it will be a good thing, save for people that support illegal immigration will probably cry foul on it because you should be able to break the law.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
In the end I don’t think it will fix anything, the border needs to be fixed overall, and I guess if that means simply catching them after the fact of infiltration, that to is fine. The idea to me is these people made the choice to immigrate for the hopes of a better life, I will not say I blame them of course people are people. On that note though I will never support illegal immigration, even taking into account our countries past, I still don’t or ever will support it, I see it as nothing healthy or fit in the long run, even for the immigrants.
I think its a positive step. Illegal immigration is a problem on many levels. Not only do you not know say a persons criminal history, such as an immigrant like any other human is a person that is capable or may already have committed very heinous acts against his or her fellow human, you simply cant tell if you don’t care about his or her past. Another aspect of it is not caring about that persons identity or legality of living in our country is simply also saying hey come get us to the terrorists basically in my opinion. I don’t look at it as racial profiling or profiling period, the other option on illegal immigration really is just to leave it as its been running and having hundreds of thousands of Mr. and Ms. x living in the united states at large doing whatever simply because we don’t know or care to force them to live legally like Americans generally have to do, barring the super rich of course.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes. I think such acts need to occur in order to make the government do something.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
I think it will be a good thing, save for people that support illegal immigration will probably cry foul on it because you should be able to break the law.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
In the end I don’t think it will fix anything, the border needs to be fixed overall, and I guess if that means simply catching them after the fact of infiltration, that to is fine. The idea to me is these people made the choice to immigrate for the hopes of a better life, I will not say I blame them of course people are people. On that note though I will never support illegal immigration, even taking into account our countries past, I still don’t or ever will support it, I see it as nothing healthy or fit in the long run, even for the immigrants.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum)
This past election voters in Arizona passed the English as official language ballot measure at nearly a 3-1 ratio. In the 2004 Presidential election, although Bush carried Texas the few red counties were those on the Mexican border. It’s painfully clear that our fellow citizens who have been dealing with this issue for some time are fed up and ready to make progress any way they can.
And California passed the same measure many years ago...only to have it overturned. I'm pretty certain the same thing will happen to Arizona.
I can't say I'm surprised to see all the cheerleading for discriminatory housing, but I am somewhat disheartened by it. "National origin" is a protected category of the Fair Housing Act. I think any competent lawyer can make the case that Mexicans, Central Americans, and any other Spanish-speaking individuals are being discriminated against because of their country of origin.
QUOTE(gordo)
Not only do you not know say a persons criminal history, such as an immigrant like any other human is a person that is capable or may already have committed very heinous acts against his or her fellow human, you simply cant tell if you don’t care about his or her past.
And I suppose it's easier to tell if a white citizen has a record or is predisposed to violence? I suppose every criminal who is a citizen of the US has never rented or owned property here?
This ordinance has nothing to do with criminals and everything to do with discrimination.I wish other, more important immigration issues were being addressed, like enforcing the laws and prosecuting employers who hire illegals, quit passing out free medical care and other free federal program benefits at the expense of tax-paying citizens, ship convicted criminals back to their countries instead of sticking them in US prisons. And do something intelligent for a change to stem the tide of people streaming across our borders (a wall ain't the answer).
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Nov 15 2006, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE(gordo)
Not only do you not know say a persons criminal history, such as an immigrant like any other human is a person that is capable or may already have committed very heinous acts against his or her fellow human, you simply cant tell if you don’t care about his or her past.
And I suppose it's easier to tell if a white citizen has a record or is predisposed to violence? I suppose every criminal who is a citizen of the US has never rented or owned property here?
This ordinance has nothing to do with criminals and everything to do with discrimination.No, its easier to tell if they happen to have such records on file in the first place. If you don’t happen to have any legal identity because you are here illegally and we say this is ok, that means some rapist from say Canada could come and chill in the U.S and of course we would never know. Or say someone that wants to blow him or herself up for the glory of Allah. I think the desire to overcome discrimination in this instance overlooks some glaring problems with the issue is all.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
I'm not sure fairness is worth considering in this case. After all, is it fair that illegals come here and use valuable resources that they are not entitled to? I'm pretty liberal on most things but the attitude people are treating this illegal immigration problem with angers me deeply. Note to country: being anti-illegal immigration does not mean you are anti-immigration.
So, to actually answer the question, in this situation where the law is being thrown out in favor of feel-good socialism, I think the city's initiatives are perfectly fair and justified.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes. I'm in favor of the whole country doing this. Then said illegals will be pushed not only out of the city and its suburbs but out of the country.
<snip>
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Definitely on the federal level as this is a borders/security issue, in addition to being a social issue. But the federal govt will do nothing, or will grant amnesty because they are afraid of losing votes. It's disgusting.
I'm not sure fairness is worth considering in this case. After all, is it fair that illegals come here and use valuable resources that they are not entitled to? I'm pretty liberal on most things but the attitude people are treating this illegal immigration problem with angers me deeply. Note to country: being anti-illegal immigration does not mean you are anti-immigration.
So, to actually answer the question, in this situation where the law is being thrown out in favor of feel-good socialism, I think the city's initiatives are perfectly fair and justified.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes. I'm in favor of the whole country doing this. Then said illegals will be pushed not only out of the city and its suburbs but out of the country.
<snip>
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Definitely on the federal level as this is a borders/security issue, in addition to being a social issue. But the federal govt will do nothing, or will grant amnesty because they are afraid of losing votes. It's disgusting.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?Completely fair and completely legal--it is aimed at those who are here illegally and therefore criminally.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?Yes and we are. Here in AZ we are now deporting illegals caught during criminal activities, they are no longer allowed bail and can no longer receive in state tuition or funding. The supporters of deport them all were brought down this election but it was made clear here that there are lines that need to be drawn and upheld.
These initiatives passed by wide margins and i doubt they will be undone except by the courts and I have my doubts that will happens try as they may--and will.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?Yes and it would be a good thing. one some respect for laws needs to be upheld, but most importantly the fates of illegals will always be in limbo and they will always be left there by both sides of the issue if this is not forced to have resolutions. The next step is economic sanctions against mexico to make the changes to their poliitcs and economy that keeps mexico in this situation. this is now a decades long problem and it needs attention to the why's of how they are forced to flee illegally here to find work.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
It needs to be done locally because it will never be handled any higher.
A guest worker program will fix much of this and when Bush asks the Dems would be smart to get that passed.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?Yes and we are. Here in AZ we are now deporting illegals caught during criminal activities, they are no longer allowed bail and can no longer receive in state tuition or funding. The supporters of deport them all were brought down this election but it was made clear here that there are lines that need to be drawn and upheld.
These initiatives passed by wide margins and i doubt they will be undone except by the courts and I have my doubts that will happens try as they may--and will.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?Yes and it would be a good thing. one some respect for laws needs to be upheld, but most importantly the fates of illegals will always be in limbo and they will always be left there by both sides of the issue if this is not forced to have resolutions. The next step is economic sanctions against mexico to make the changes to their poliitcs and economy that keeps mexico in this situation. this is now a decades long problem and it needs attention to the why's of how they are forced to flee illegally here to find work.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
It needs to be done locally because it will never be handled any higher.
A guest worker program will fix much of this and when Bush asks the Dems would be smart to get that passed.
Why didn't you add about 10 more questions to your list? 
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
I think the people have a right to pass the laws necessary to protect their life, liberty and property. The trouble with liberals is that they look at every issue through a prism that sees Washington, DC as a national government, with unlimited power over all. They also seem to think the People were made for the Constitution, and not the Constitution for the People. The power belongs to the people, the citizens, not Washington. The laws are legal if they are passed through the proper process. Fair, well that's a matter of perspective isn't it? Justified? Obviously they think so.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
It's none of my business, it's in Texas.
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
Who can predict the future? Its goodness or badness would depend on the people and the circumstances at the time. Not enough information.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
The issue is only being handled locally because the Federal Government isn't providing for the common defence. Therefore I believe the people have a right to handle it locally when their representatives are not protecting their liberties.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
I think the people have a right to pass the laws necessary to protect their life, liberty and property. The trouble with liberals is that they look at every issue through a prism that sees Washington, DC as a national government, with unlimited power over all. They also seem to think the People were made for the Constitution, and not the Constitution for the People. The power belongs to the people, the citizens, not Washington. The laws are legal if they are passed through the proper process. Fair, well that's a matter of perspective isn't it? Justified? Obviously they think so.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
It's none of my business, it's in Texas.
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
Who can predict the future? Its goodness or badness would depend on the people and the circumstances at the time. Not enough information.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
The issue is only being handled locally because the Federal Government isn't providing for the common defence. Therefore I believe the people have a right to handle it locally when their representatives are not protecting their liberties.
Wow The Founders Intent you love belaming the Democrat's or Liberals for everything every chance you get, but if you looked thru the thread you would have seen only DaffyGrl was the only person against this so far and happens to be Liberal. While the others either Independent, Natural Law, Democrat - Slightly Conservative, and Slightly Liberal, and now to add mine Democrat - Progressive Moderate we are all in favor of this since the Federal Government hasn't been willing to be tough on illegal immigration. While I am in support of what the Senate and ugh the President immigration bill is cause its better than nothing I hope they enforce it , when it comes to both the illegals and the employers.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
Since the federal government is not stepping up to the plate I believe its justified and legal.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
I would say even if the federal government was doing their job all the states should actually pass something like this come to think of it, since it helps the communities in so many ways.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
The initiatives focus on 4 main programs:
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants
3. Making English the official language
4. Training police in checking residency
One can only hope I really don't see anything wrong with them, the only one that some would have a problem with is the English official language but when it comes to helping assimilate a newly legal immigrant to our society it is best to get them up and running as soon as possible on the right track for ours and their benefit.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Both, that might be part of the problem since the federal government has limited resources, but doesn't also have the resources to have people in the communities for the enforcement as much as they should. Which by sharing the responsiblities the local communities know their areas better but also lack resources but if they shared resources or information better and moved on it might help out.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
Since the federal government is not stepping up to the plate I believe its justified and legal.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
I would say even if the federal government was doing their job all the states should actually pass something like this come to think of it, since it helps the communities in so many ways.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
The initiatives focus on 4 main programs:
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants
3. Making English the official language
4. Training police in checking residency
One can only hope I really don't see anything wrong with them, the only one that some would have a problem with is the English official language but when it comes to helping assimilate a newly legal immigrant to our society it is best to get them up and running as soon as possible on the right track for ours and their benefit.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Both, that might be part of the problem since the federal government has limited resources, but doesn't also have the resources to have people in the communities for the enforcement as much as they should. Which by sharing the responsiblities the local communities know their areas better but also lack resources but if they shared resources or information better and moved on it might help out.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Nov 15 2006, 01:24 PM)
No. It’s not fair, for one thing. People have to live somewhere, and as long as they pay, why should landlords care?
Daffy, wouldn't the proper place for them to live be in a country they are legally allowed to be in? I think the word illegal immigrant gets taken out of context...people focus on the immigrant part, not on the illegal. However, you could substitute the word 'criminal'--which is after all what someone who is doing something illegal is--and I think the arguments go away. Would you argue against laws seeking to reduce known felons on the street? I doubt it. Yet, I fail to see the difference. I know many of the illegal immigrants that come over here are otherwise law abiding citizens, good people. However, as long as we continue to make it easy for them to come here...they will keep coming. It would seem that making it difficult to find a job or a place to stay would impede them from coming illegally in the first place. Is that really so bad? To look at it from another perspective...would you feel persecuted or mistreated if you were in another country illegally and found it difficult to get housing or a job?
QUOTE(christopher)
Here in AZ we are now deporting illegals caught during criminal activities, they are no longer allowed bail and can no longer receive in state tuition or funding.
I was completely baffled when I first discovered how many states actually require that illegal immigrants be granted in state tuition and funding. I mean, why don't we just put up a sign at the border that says "Free stuff this way ==>". It is looking at the problem from the wrong end, I think. If you accept that we are just going to keep having a stream of illegal immigrants that we have to deal with, then I guess it makes sense. But what about the fact that making such concessions just encourages more and more illegal immigrants to keep coming? I have no problem at all with immigrants...immigrants are what made, and make, this country great. But the degree to which we seem to accept illegal immigrants completely baffles me. If we are going to be so accepting of illegal immigrants, then why bother having either immigration laws or border security at all?
I totally agree Hobbes this is one of the issues where I part with most of the Democrats of my party although it seems they are coming around at least kicking and screamingly for the most part recently. 
That is why I said I was in support of senate bill because it recognizes we aren't going to be able to remove the people we have here already, but would make them pay fines, back taxes and get at the back of line for citizenship. While also going after employers which they should be doing right now under the law. Its not perfect but hopefully would reinvigorate the system to work much better then it is now. While I say that there is one part of the bill I do have a problem with and that is the social security part with them using the illegal number but able to get the money they put into the system upon retirement from the fradulent number.
Illegals granted Social Security
That is why I said I was in support of senate bill because it recognizes we aren't going to be able to remove the people we have here already, but would make them pay fines, back taxes and get at the back of line for citizenship. While also going after employers which they should be doing right now under the law. Its not perfect but hopefully would reinvigorate the system to work much better then it is now. While I say that there is one part of the bill I do have a problem with and that is the social security part with them using the illegal number but able to get the money they put into the system upon retirement from the fradulent number.Illegals granted Social Security
QUOTE
The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
Are they fair? We'll have to see what happens... if the people of Farmer's Branch are willing to deal with the consequences of passing the initiatives. Justified? Certainly. Illegal Immigration is a problem and this is certainly a way to approach it.
Even according to the fair housing laws posted by DaffyGirl, this isn't illegal. There is nothing in the law that says that you can't deny housing based on residency status.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes, actually, I would. I think this is a good way of dealing with illegal immigration.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
I think that it is good to start this on a local level. If it works, I think it will then spread to a national level.
Are they fair? We'll have to see what happens... if the people of Farmer's Branch are willing to deal with the consequences of passing the initiatives. Justified? Certainly. Illegal Immigration is a problem and this is certainly a way to approach it.
Even according to the fair housing laws posted by DaffyGirl, this isn't illegal. There is nothing in the law that says that you can't deny housing based on residency status.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes, actually, I would. I think this is a good way of dealing with illegal immigration.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
I think that it is good to start this on a local level. If it works, I think it will then spread to a national level.
QUOTE
TFI The trouble with liberals is that they look at every issue through a prism that sees Washington, DC as a national government, with unlimited…<snipped>
Y’know, this kind of generalized crap really tees me off. How about if I said “the trouble with conservatives is that they look through a ‘what’s in it for me’" prism, or "keep those brown people out of our town" prism?.
QUOTE(Cadman)
Wow The Founders Intent you love belaming the Democrat's or Liberals for everything every chance you get, but if you looked thru the thread you would have seen only DaffyGrl was the only person against this so far and happens to be Liberal. While the others either Independent, Natural Law, Democrat - Slightly Conservative, and Slightly Liberal, and now to add mine Democrat - Progressive Moderate we are all in favor of this since the Federal Government hasn't been willing to be tough on illegal immigration. While I am in support of what the Senate and ugh the President immigration bill is cause its better than nothing I hope they enforce it , when it comes to both the illegals and the employers.
Cadman, I may be against this particular ordinance (because I think it is illegal and racially motivated), but I’d like to make it clear that I don’t support illegal immigration. I just don’t believe laws like this are the answer. I’d like to clarify something else I said – California did pass its English-only law (I combined two different measures in my befuddled brain). The measure that has been bouncing around the courts for years is Prop 227, which passed by an overwhelming majority in 1998 and mandated that all students be taught in English.
But, what I did say, and was conveniently ignored was:
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
I wish other, more important immigration issues were being addressed, like enforcing the laws and prosecuting employers who hire illegals, quit passing out free medical care and other free federal program benefits at the expense of tax-paying citizens, ship convicted criminals back to their countries instead of sticking them in US prisons. And do something intelligent for a change to stem the tide of people streaming across our borders (a wall ain't the answer). Post link
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
Legal and long overdue. The reality is many cities and towns have the regulations against hiring illegal aliens and just don’t enforce them.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
Absolutely. If ALL communities did this we would be well on our way to getting what could be 20 million illegal aliens OUT of our country.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
Hopefully this will spread and it will be a good thing. As the illegal aliens go home we can give the jobs to Americans.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Both. Although Bush was not strong enough on the issue and now with the Dems in power in congress we are in trouble. They will do squat IMO.
Legal and long overdue. The reality is many cities and towns have the regulations against hiring illegal aliens and just don’t enforce them.
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
Absolutely. If ALL communities did this we would be well on our way to getting what could be 20 million illegal aliens OUT of our country.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
Hopefully this will spread and it will be a good thing. As the illegal aliens go home we can give the jobs to Americans.
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Both. Although Bush was not strong enough on the issue and now with the Dems in power in congress we are in trouble. They will do squat IMO.
QUOTE(Ted)
Legal and long overdue. The reality is many cities and towns have the regulations against hiring illegal aliens and just don’t enforce them.
This is very true, and not what the debate question refers to. The debate is about denying housing to illegals and requiring landlords to demand proof of citizenship before renting. I think this opens a Pandora's box of racial profiling (yeah, I know, overused term). There are many US citizens of Hispanic heritage who are going to get caught up in the net of "show me your papers". You don't think they might have a problem with that?
This isn't going to get them "out of our country", it is going to create a lot of improvised homeless shelters for the illegals that work in the area, or they'll just move on to other areas with less restrictive policies.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Nov 16 2006, 01:20 PM)
This isn't going to get them "out of our country", it is going to create a lot of improvised homeless shelters for the illegals that work in the area, or they'll just move on to other areas with less restrictive policies.
By itself, it probably won't get them out of the country. But it's more likely to contribute towards doing so than not doing anything. Just to reiterate what I said before, those who think this move would be insufficient would do their country a much bigger favor by putting their energy towards ways that would do it better, rather than by putting their energy towards getting in the way of those who are trying to do something about the problem.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Nov 16 2006, 12:20 PM)
QUOTE(Ted)
Legal and long overdue. The reality is many cities and towns have the regulations against hiring illegal aliens and just don’t enforce them.
This is very true, and not what the debate question refers to. The debate is about denying housing to illegals and requiring landlords to demand proof of citizenship before renting. I think this opens a Pandora's box of racial profiling (yeah, I know, overused term). There are many US citizens of Hispanic heritage who are going to get caught up in the net of "show me your papers". You don't think they might have a problem with that?
This isn't going to get them "out of our country", it is going to create a lot of improvised homeless shelters for the illegals that work in the area, or they'll just move on to other areas with less restrictive policies.
Just to clarify, the FB initiatives did include penalties against employers for hiring illegals--so that was meant to be included in the debate questions.
Also, I would probably agree that, given that, housing isn't necessarily the place to focus such efforts. I don't really have a problem with it, although it will only result, as you say, in those people just moving down the road to a locale that doesn't require documentation. The Hispanics in the area are concerned with the 'racial profiling' aspect, which I certainly understand. Many of those here legally indicated they would also move for that reason.
Groups protest Famer's Branch actions
Questions for debate (Let's exclude making English the primary language, as I think that is a side debate)
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment.-----Fair is only "equal for all before all the law", so not aiding and abetting an illegal is fair, is legal there, and is justified as a means for someone, doing something to have all the laws obeyed and respected by all, always.
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants.-----Not F,J or LA unless the words "knowingly hiring" are put in. I've heard the arguments about how much harder that is to get convictions then, etc.; but, difficult liberty comes before easy policing every time! Besides we are allowing illegality now: unconscionable!
3. Making English the official language.----Don't really know enuf of what that means there to say!
4. Training police in checking residency.-----Always train well all the police in all the laws all the time; otherwise, why bother at all!
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes, given our state of affairs of "no other real" immigration law enforcement effectiveness! The immigration codes smell of "special", not "general welfare" so are unconstitutional in my enforcing the Preamble to be a serious set of conditions to be met by all of us, gov't. included!
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?Yes, I think they'll spread. It's a voice for return to "all the laws obeyed by all all the time; and if we don't like it we change the law, but do it Constitutionally!"
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Given the present state of affairs of special interest "Power agendas", and our not enforcing our own laws, do both!
Comment: If you have a system and its mandates/design is not followed, and don't like the result, you know what to do about it. If you have a system and its mandates/design is not followed, and don't like the result, you know nothing at all about it, or what to do to get what you want
. Obeying the law is more than legal and ethical, etc., it's the only way you "know where you are with things,"
Questions for debate (Let's exclude making English the primary language, as I think that is a side debate)
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment.-----Fair is only "equal for all before all the law", so not aiding and abetting an illegal is fair, is legal there, and is justified as a means for someone, doing something to have all the laws obeyed and respected by all, always.
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants.-----Not F,J or LA unless the words "knowingly hiring" are put in. I've heard the arguments about how much harder that is to get convictions then, etc.; but, difficult liberty comes before easy policing every time! Besides we are allowing illegality now: unconscionable!
3. Making English the official language.----Don't really know enuf of what that means there to say!
4. Training police in checking residency.-----Always train well all the police in all the laws all the time; otherwise, why bother at all!
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
Yes, given our state of affairs of "no other real" immigration law enforcement effectiveness! The immigration codes smell of "special", not "general welfare" so are unconstitutional in my enforcing the Preamble to be a serious set of conditions to be met by all of us, gov't. included!
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?Yes, I think they'll spread. It's a voice for return to "all the laws obeyed by all all the time; and if we don't like it we change the law, but do it Constitutionally!"
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
Given the present state of affairs of special interest "Power agendas", and our not enforcing our own laws, do both!
Comment: If you have a system and its mandates/design is not followed, and don't like the result, you know what to do about it. If you have a system and its mandates/design is not followed, and don't like the result, you know nothing at all about it, or what to do to get what you want
. Obeying the law is more than legal and ethical, etc., it's the only way you "know where you are with things,"QUOTE(Lek @ Nov 16 2006, 06:48 PM)
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants.-----Not F,J or LA unless the words "knowingly hiring" are put in. I've heard the arguments about how much harder that is to get convictions then, etc.; but, difficult liberty comes before easy policing every time! Besides we are allowing illegality now: unconscionable!
I'll go along with that sentiment. The burden of the law should be mostly on the illegals themselves, since they were the ones who made the decision to come here illegally. I'd hate to see the laudable goal of preserving our culture and freedom turned into a war on American businessmen. Regulations should be reasonable, and not vindictive against them.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 17 2006, 02:26 PM)
QUOTE(Lek @ Nov 16 2006, 06:48 PM)
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants.-----Not F,J or LA unless the words "knowingly hiring" are put in. I've heard the arguments about how much harder that is to get convictions then, etc.; but, difficult liberty comes before easy policing every time! Besides we are allowing illegality now: unconscionable!
I'll go along with that sentiment. The burden of the law should be mostly on the illegals themselves, since they were the ones who made the decision to come here illegally. I'd hate to see the laudable goal of preserving our culture and freedom turned into a war on American businessmen. Regulations should be reasonable, and not vindictive against them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but I believe it is already illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. That's why so many jobs require proof of residency. I believe the problem is that too many businesses have been knowingly circumventing that law. So, I don't think this is onerous on business--merely cracking down on those knowingly violating the current law.
QUOTE
Daffy Grl
The debate is about denying housing to illegals and requiring landlords to demand proof of citizenship before renting. I think this opens a Pandora's box of racial profiling (yeah, I know, overused term). There are many US citizens of Hispanic heritage who are going to get caught up in the net of "show me your papers". You don't think they might have a problem with that?
This isn't going to get them "out of our country", it is going to create a lot of improvised homeless shelters for the illegals that work in the area, or they'll just move on to other areas with less restrictive policies.
The debate is about denying housing to illegals and requiring landlords to demand proof of citizenship before renting. I think this opens a Pandora's box of racial profiling (yeah, I know, overused term). There are many US citizens of Hispanic heritage who are going to get caught up in the net of "show me your papers". You don't think they might have a problem with that?
This isn't going to get them "out of our country", it is going to create a lot of improvised homeless shelters for the illegals that work in the area, or they'll just move on to other areas with less restrictive policies.
Racial what??? How about we ask everyone – that make you feel better – as opposed to the flood of illegal aliens here. How about we make it impossible to get a drivers license if you are a criminal illegal alien?? Then the landlords can ask for that. There are 20 ways to do it and we need to DO IT NOW.
And it WLL get them out of the country if they cannot work and live here. Remember they come here to earn money to send to Mexico (to the tune of 17 BILLION a year) and if they cannot do this they would go home as opposed to say sneaking in the wife/husband and kids.
Towns like Farmer's Branch, TX & Hazelton, PA NEED to pass initiatives like this!!!!! Illegal immigration is destroying America, & the federal government isn't interested in doing a thing about it (& it's the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws). Illegal aliens drain resources create more crime in our communities. Across the country, cities are simply being forced to do what the federal government won't do. Naturally, these laws are being challenged by the ACLU. Why didn't the ACLU go after that Texas town that passed an ordinance stating that all city business will be discussed in Spanish at council meetings???? Isn't that town discriminating against the English-speaking minority???? Not only are illegal aliens coming to America in large numbers, they're also coming with a sense of entitlement. The way they see it, America has to adjust to them, not the other way around. George Bush always talks about how his tax cuts have helped stimulate the economy. Well, imagine what the American taxpayers could do for the economy if they no longer had to provide services (i.e. free healthcare & education) to illegal aliens.
I live in White Plains, NY, which is about 15 miles north of New York City. I wish White Plains would have the courage to pass legislation like what we've seen from Farmer's Branch & Hazelton. If you walk around the streets of White Plains on a weekend, you're not going to hear a whole lot of English being spoken. About a month ago, a supermarket cashier said something to me in Spanish. I said, "What?," & then she repeated her comment in somewhat broken English. She then told me that I needed to learn Spanish. I don't need to learn Spanish!!!!! This is America!!!!! We speak English here!!!!
I'm kinda surprised this hasn't received more national attention. One of the Dallas suburb's, Farmer's Branch, has passed linitiatives aimed at eliminating illegal immigrants from their city.
The initiatives focus on 4 main programs:
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants
3. Making English the official language
4. Training police in checking residency
Groups protest Famer's Branch actions
One of the reasons the Farmer's Branch council had taken these steps is to force the issue through Congress. This seems to be having some effect: Senate passes Immigration Bill Overhaul
Here is an article on Tim O'Hare, who has been the primary driver for the legislation, going over his reasoning for it. Essentially, he feels that illegal immigrants drive down property values and cost the city money. This seems to be a microcosm of the national immigration debate, but having it at a local level might help focus on the issue. For example, FB has no control over border issues, only on the direct implications in their community.
Questions for debate (Let's exclude making English the primary language, as I think that is a side debate)
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
I live in White Plains, NY, which is about 15 miles north of New York City. I wish White Plains would have the courage to pass legislation like what we've seen from Farmer's Branch & Hazelton. If you walk around the streets of White Plains on a weekend, you're not going to hear a whole lot of English being spoken. About a month ago, a supermarket cashier said something to me in Spanish. I said, "What?," & then she repeated her comment in somewhat broken English. She then told me that I needed to learn Spanish. I don't need to learn Spanish!!!!! This is America!!!!! We speak English here!!!!
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 15 2006, 11:07 AM)
I'm kinda surprised this hasn't received more national attention. One of the Dallas suburb's, Farmer's Branch, has passed linitiatives aimed at eliminating illegal immigrants from their city.
The initiatives focus on 4 main programs:
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants
3. Making English the official language
4. Training police in checking residency
Groups protest Famer's Branch actions
One of the reasons the Farmer's Branch council had taken these steps is to force the issue through Congress. This seems to be having some effect: Senate passes Immigration Bill Overhaul
Here is an article on Tim O'Hare, who has been the primary driver for the legislation, going over his reasoning for it. Essentially, he feels that illegal immigrants drive down property values and cost the city money. This seems to be a microcosm of the national immigration debate, but having it at a local level might help focus on the issue. For example, FB has no control over border issues, only on the direct implications in their community.
Questions for debate (Let's exclude making English the primary language, as I think that is a side debate)
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 15 2006, 11:07 AM)
I'm kinda surprised this hasn't received more national attention. One of the Dallas suburb's, Farmer's Branch, has passed linitiatives aimed at eliminating illegal immigrants from their city.
The initiatives focus on 4 main programs:
1. Requiring proof of residency to rent an apartment
2. Punishing employers from hiring illegal immigrants
3. Making English the official language
4. Training police in checking residency
Groups protest Famer's Branch actions
One of the reasons the Farmer's Branch council had taken these steps is to force the issue through Congress. This seems to be having some effect: Senate passes Immigration Bill Overhaul
Here is an article on Tim O'Hare, who has been the primary driver for the legislation, going over his reasoning for it. Essentially, he feels that illegal immigrants drive down property values and cost the city money. This seems to be a microcosm of the national immigration debate, but having it at a local level might help focus on the issue. For example, FB has no control over border issues, only on the direct implications in their community.
Questions for debate (Let's exclude making English the primary language, as I think that is a side debate)
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
2. Would you favor your community passing such initiatives? Why or why not?
FB has already been contacted by 4 other communities regarding this, and they had based much of their work on what had recently been done in Haverton. One of the criticisms of the rental initiative is that it will push illegal immigrants out into surrounding communities.
3. Do you think such initiatives will spread? Would that be a good thing, or a bad thing, in your view? Why or why not?
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
I love it when some say that "enforcing the law" is unfair and "illegal". Orwell was right.... he was just a few decades off.
1. Yes, yes, Yes, yes.
2. Yes. Because illegal immigration is a problem that has to be addressed from top to bottom; local, state, and federal.
3. I sure hope so. It would be a good thing. I know people who have immigrated to this country after a long and tedious process and they are loyal Americans. It's unfair to them, and to American taxpayers to reward illegals who are unfairly gaming our system.
4. Yes. Yes. All of the above.
1. What do you think of the initiatives? Are they fair? Justified? Legal?
They are already a federal law. Title 8
4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
I think that all we need to for the government to enforce the laws that are on the books.
And it anybody thinks this is some sort of new law, it has been on the books since 1907.
They are already a federal law. Title 8
QUOTE
Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.
Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.
Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(
(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)((ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)((iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)((i) or ((ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.
Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Knowledge -- Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.
Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(
(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)((ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)((iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)((i) or ((ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses. 4. Should such issues be handled locally? Or should they be resolved on a national level?
I think that all we need to for the government to enforce the laws that are on the books.
And it anybody thinks this is some sort of new law, it has been on the books since 1907.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.