The ACLU is now, apparently, trying to stop cities from enforcing US immigration laws.

Questions for the debate:

Do you believe that only the Federal Government has the right to enforce immigration laws or do cities have the right as well.

Why is the ACLU defending illegal aliens and the people who employ them form prosecution by cities and states? Is this what you would like this org. to do? Why?

Finally should cities/towns and states, faced with limited action from the Federal Government move forward to enforce immigration laws? What are the consequences of not doing so?

Do you believe that only the Federal Government has the right to enforce immigration laws or do cities have the right as well.

I don't really know. I'm not sure what the statutes are, perhaps someone will be able to enlighten us on the law. From the sound of this case, it sounds like there is some gray area about this, in which case a decision on this may help clarify later actions.

Why is the ACLU defending illegal aliens and the people who employ them form prosecution by cities and states? Is this what you would like this org. to do? Why?

The ACLU doesn't defend people for who they are, they defend Constitutional principles. They once defended Sean Hannity. Should I therefore use that case to post a thread asking whether the ACLU should defend conservatives? Is that what we would like the ACLU to do? The ACLU is all about the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Sometimes protecting freedom means defending people we personally do not like. Is Hannity worth defending? Nah. Neither is the KKK. Both have been defended by the ACLU - because the questions being raised were concerning civil liberties. The government should have to fight hard to prove the Constitutionality of everything they do. It is groups like the ACLU that take up this fight. More power to 'em.

Finally should cities/towns and states, faced with limited action from the Federal Government move forward to enforce immigration laws? What are the consequences of not doing so?

Not sure. I don't think it's terribly necessary, frankly. I think the whole issue has been inflated for the sake of scoring political points. I'm more concerned for the rights of all people than about some nebulous and supposed "threat" these people pose to our country.

Hey let's give it a try - if crime doesn't decrease and public schools aren't less burdened they can come back. Hopefully legally. Why is the illegal part of illegal immigration being ignored?

Take it from me, I lived in Farmingville, NY - illegal immigrants, nice as they are, cause problems. Just try to get into a 7 - 11 at 0630. Try it as a woman. You're just trying to get coffee before you go to work so you can PAY TAXES.

For them most part, I get it - these are people just trying to get work and lead better lives. However on the flip side. I was just a working guy PAYING TAXES who had to bail out of my house before they were on my block. Why is that an issue? I sold my house right before my block's resale value nose dived due to illegal immigrants - a YEAR before the housing market went soft. The people in Farmingville didn't doi anything wrong why are they being penalized? Farmingville was the subject of a docu-movie about illegal immigration it's that bad out there in the wilds of Long Island, NY.

Oh and I'm 100% for going after the employers of illegal immigrants. Make it so unattractive to hire these people and being legal will be the only sane choice.


As a State's Rights kind of guy I definitely think the answer to this is NO.

Well as much as I disagree with the ACLU this question is too loaded to answer. Suffice it to say I'd need to change this question so much people would complain before I could answer it. Also Ted, Sean Hannity is not a good source for your information regarding the ACLU.

I think that Cities and State should be tasked with dealing with illegal immigration. Who is more personally affected by illegal immigrants local populations or federal populaces?

Before I respond to the other aspects of the discussion, I first want to say this... AMEN (not in religious terms).
I live in Southern California... we're basically overrun by illegal immigrants, but still, everybody just sits by, lets them come in like nothings happening. Reality check: THERES 12 MILLION OF THEM!
Try going to school with them, I have to watch my back everyday through the halls.

Now the rest of the questions.
Do you believe that only the Federal Government has the right to enforce immigration laws or do cities have the right as well.
I believe that the federal government should be able to enforce laws, as it is their borders along with the states, but cities and states should have the ability to patrol and enforce immigration laws in their own individual states.

Why is the ACLU defending illegal aliens and the people who employ them form prosecution by cities and states? Is this what you would like this org. to do? Why?
Honestly, I don't know. They're protesting the law in the first place...

Finally should cities/towns and states, faced with limited action from the Federal Government move forward to enforce immigration laws? What are the consequences of not doing so?
Yes. Second answer is kind of duh, more people, more we pay.

I do want to address this, though I don't want to get off-topic. But it illustrates something that bothers me about this entire issue. What we have here is frankly, an appalling and prejudiced statement, a statement that, probably due to an inundation of propaganda, lumps all illegal immigrants into one solid mass, without distinction. The children of illegal immigrants are just that - children, who are - along with their parents - as varied and unique as any other human being on this planet.

Public city schools are places where you've had to "watch your back" for a lot longer than illegal immigration has been an issue. It is disturbing to me when you say "them" so callously. How can you even tell, when you walk through the school halls, that a kid is the child of illegal immigrants?

I'm not lumping them into one solid mass. just saying some of the teens.. alhough other race's teens are too to a degree, are one you wouldn't want to be alone with in a hall. I've had friends beaten up because we're "rich crackers" so with my experience I'm not too fond of illegal immigration. Some are great, I have some wonderful hispanic friends, but others....
Sorry for the prejudiced statement before I went farher than I meant to

I think Quarkheads question still stands...How can you tell any of those kids are children of illegal immigrants? "Some teens" might be violent and they might have beaten up your rich white cracker friends; however, how do you know their children of illegal immigrants? Did they say so while beating up your friends? Unless you have solid proof that everyone that hurt your friends are unauthorized, then making that kind of statement is only used as a means of spreading irrational hatred. And as for your "great hispanis friends"...Does being hispanic mean they're illegal immigrants? Do you know for sure those friends are unauthorized to be in the country?

I had to spend some time in projects as a youth, and being white it was not easy, I stood up though, so it was easier for me then other whites that would run. I had good friends, eventually was in a gang of sorts for a bit, though only social really. Knew good kids with bad parents, would leave for weeks on end and we would take care of him, me and that guy actually managed to meat later on, eventually he had to go live with his grandparents somewhere in the south, grade A student, was a super nice guy. Anyways it would be easy for labels to stick with people, such is garbage but people do feed on it, like rich white cracker friends for instance.

Honestly- you can tell. And all my Hispanic friends as I said, they're not afraid to say they're illegal.

So white people can't be illegal immigrants? You must be joking. Awhile back, the Rocky Mountain News wrote several articles about how immigration affects the state of Colorado and one of their reports focused primarily on an illegal British immigrant (who coincidentally was a violent criminal who just was never reported, even after multiple arrests). Guess what? He was white.

I still dont really know what youre trying to say. You dont like labelling people (maybe you just dont like labelling white people?), but have NO issue labelling Latinos as illegal immigrants. I also dont really know what your anecdote about your friend ("good kid with bad parents") has to do with anything, since you fail to mention if they were illegal immigrants, or anything else.

Do you believe that only the Federal Government has the right to enforce immigration laws or do cities have the right as well.

I have to take this question literally. Clearly, only the Feds have the right (and duty) to enforce federal immigration laws. These would be laws about who can come in and so on. Local governments can certainly have their own regulations about businesses employing illegal immigrants and such, and can enforce such laws.

Why is the ACLU defending illegal aliens and the people who employ them form prosecution by cities and states?

They clearly believe that this particular law is a bad one, and potentially discriminatory. In fact, the city has already made one subtle but very important change in the law which made it potentially discriminatory. I'm sorry, but I have lost the link that provided the exact wording of the law and its revision, so you will have to take my word for it. In essence, the law used to say that its enforcement could not be "primarily" based on race or ethnicity; now it says simply that it cannot be based on race or ethnicity. This is a vital correction, and it was only made because the ACLU put legal pressure on the city. Even if the ACLU does not "win" (and I don't think they will,) they have made a good change in the law.

Is this what you would like this org. to do? Why?

Nobody is in 100% agreement with every effort made by every organization, of course. If it were me, I would have probably backed down after the city made the important change in the law noted above. Overall, however, the ACLU is doing its usual good job of making all levels of government bend over backwards to make sure that they do not violate the rights of anyone.

Finally should cities/towns and states, faced with limited action from the Federal Government move forward to enforce immigration laws?

As I said, they cannot enforce federal laws. They can enforce their own laws, as long as those laws are appropriate, and as long as the enforcement is appropriate.

What are the consequences of not doing so?

A lot of businesses will continue to have an illegal source of cheap labor.

Do you believe that only the Federal Government has the right to enforce immigration laws or do cities have the right as well.
All cities and states have some rights to enforce immigration laws, in that they can apply penalties to their own citizens who employ illegals, provide housing to illegals and otherwise aid and abet illegals. They also have the ability to arrest illegals and turn them over to the Feds.

Why is the ACLU defending illegal aliens and the people who employ them form prosecution by cities and states? Is this what you would like this org. to do? Why?
The ACLU is defending illegals because the orginization is fundamentally an open borders group that is intrinsically anti-government. FWIW, the ACLU would be doing the same thing if the Dems held the White House and Congress.

Finally should cities/towns and states, faced with limited action from the Federal Government move forward to enforce immigration laws? What are the consequences of not doing so?
Yes, they should.

Do you believe that only the Federal Government has the right to enforce immigration laws or do cities have the right as well.

The long-standing laws are federal laws yet the U.S. Government will not close the borders and it refuses to round up and deport those who have crossed illegally. Cities and towns should not pass or try to enforce legislation that will invariably turn into a round up of anyone with darker brown skin (that is what the ACLU goes after) Cities instead should turn their righteous indignation toward BOTH parties but for two different reasons.

The Republicans want illegals to stay so corporate campaign donors can have an exploitable source of cheap labor.

Democrats want illegals to stay because the sons and daughters of these people that were born here can and will be of voting age and will traditionally vote Democratic.

Why is the ACLU defending illegal aliens and the people who employ them form prosecution by cities and states?

When the smaller municipalities begin making laws, it makes for a confusing array of different legislation in each city. I live in a sprawling metropolitan area where there are 164 different incorporated municipalities. The havoc that creates with all sorts of laws is astounding. The ACLU is there to defend the Constitution along with the rights that Constitution bestows upon its citizens. When you look closely at the objections of the ACLU, it is largely to defend the rights of those who would invariably suffer more 'hassles' because of their ethnic appearance. WE shouldn't ever forget the Indian convenience store owner who was killed shortly after 9/11 by some 'bubbas' in Texas. The dark skinned man looked to these 'Larry the Cable guy wannabes' like an AAAA Rabbb. I can see some small town constable or sheriff catching a bunch of them illegal tamale-eaters only to find out the were Argentinian exchange students studying ranch management at Texas A&M.

Is this what you would like this org. to do? Why?

OF COURSE they should be fighting discriminatory practices and laws!!!!! I hate pedophiles especially when the ACLU defends them but the thing most people forget is that they defended both the Ku Klux Klan's and the American Nazi Party's right to have a parade so before you call them liberal, read the constitution and see if they aren't more concerned with those rights than anything else. Remember, too, that they also defended a nurse's right to wear a cross at work the next time you think they are against Christmas or Christianity.

Finally should cities/towns and states, faced with limited action from the Federal Government move forward to enforce immigration laws?

No! They should hold referendum elections aimed at forcing the Federal Government to come up with a plan to stop illegal immigration at the border and to ship felons and scofflaws back to their respective countries while giving immigrant FAMILIES a chance to earn citizenship.

What are the consequences of not doing so?

Gee, I dunno. We continue to lower the median family income which has fallen $1200 since the year 2002 while the stock market continues to grow with only 2 quarters of less than double digit PROFITS since 2002 as corporations use cheaper and cheaper labor and import all their goods from elsewhere?

You lost me. Defending . Certainly the ACLU does some good but IMO this is not part of it. And how can anyone think a “state” does not have every right in the world to say they will not permit criminal aliens from living, working and using services? It seems ludicrous to imagine that any state should just sit back while they are flooded by criminals and try to get the Feds to “come up with a plan”. There is a PLAN – its call the LAW and if they cannot enforce it then states need to.







I hear what you are saying but please tell me WHY is the ACLU defending illegal aliens who are by definition criminals. And obviously PA has the laws to prosecute them as do many states. IMO they are criminals along with their children and do not deserve to be here – end of story.

Are you saying that if an entity (in this case the federal government) charged with enforcing a set of laws is not (or is perceived as not) enforcing them adequately, that some other entity has the legal right to step in and enforce them? As you yourself call on the LAW in your argument, I would think that you might want a LAW that would clarify this, rather than some entity willy-nilly deciding they have the right to enforce laws specifically granting enforcement to a specific group.

In this case however, you are not stating the case correctly. Hazleton is not being charged with deciding to enforce federal laws; they are charged with writing laws that are at odds with existing federal laws:




As I understand it, the children of undocumented immigrants who are born in the US are US citizens. Unless that law changes, your opinion that they are criminals "and do not deserve to be here" is a wrong opinion.

So, why is the ACLU defending people who are "by definition" criminals? To use your own tactic from earlier - it's called the LAW. Criminals deserve a defense. This is an intrinsic part of US law. Not just a 'part,' actually - it is perhaps the very bedrock of US criminal law.

Some more from the ACLU:


I don't get it. What's so hard to understand about a case like this? It makes perfect sense that these kind of legal tangles be examined in a court of law and with judicial scrutiny. I mean, maybe I do get it - the new Bush conservatives, unlike their statelier antecedents, oppose judicial scrutiny of anything they "like" - it's the new touchy-feely conservatism, I guess. And since they don't "like" undocumented immigrants, any measures taken against them certainly shouldn't be examined, scrutinized, or gods forbid, challenged!

Sorry, wrong direction. I am not talking about the legality of human occupying space in certain territories as much as I was simply talking on the emotion of an issue individuals might posses. I have had the wonderful ability to have experience really in the vastness of American cultures really as they currently stand, with the good, the bad and the ugly. Really talking in serious terms of emotional aspects is not going to help it I think, simply put I could really personally go in any direction with such issues.

Lets take illegal immigration then. Say you have immigrants that come to America, illegally, they have no rights, open to abuse from a multitude of angles. Such as employment, people don’t have to pay immigrants much anything, or give them any benefits, what are they going to do? Talk to the authorities, but no one will bring this point up its safer to simply allow them to come into the country on such a status because after all they are just people looking for a better life, and no mind any of the problems it does generate such is ok.

America already has millions of people in it, and of course this number will continue to grow. Not wanting to deal with the issue of illegal immigration is simply going to hurt everyone involved, not just the illegal immigrants, because basically it leads to situations like the one this thread is about. To say it should be my way, because of this, or another person saying it should be my way because of this, it could go on for a rather long time really.

Naturalized citizens of our country cant be illegal immigrants, this would cover just about anyone regardless of ethnic background. These people also get hurt by not wanting to deal with the issue of illegal immigration, but for the sack of the debate it reduces itself to whitey, or white men really for the most part are evil and basically want to rule the world, which is beyond silly but such emotions don’t help anyone involved. If evil white men are trying to rule the world, well bush is a prime example as to why that will fail, not to mention that we have a non white person with a really strong chance to win the presidential election.

I have looked at race relations in general in a fine detail attempting to understand it, and for the most part I could easily label people all around the board on the issue racist from my point of view, what does it help, i don’t know, but it is silly overall. People that live in America illegally are simply only going to be abused overall, the mass amounts of them looking for work of course take away from already existing naturalized citizens, such as what was the point for a person to naturalize when his or her job was giving away to someone that lives in America illegally anyways. As for in the long run, well what’s the point, why have borders like other counties do, being we will just support there populations and ours somehow on just what we have. I took the immigration test, and I failed, but not by much, and in reality to me such would be easy to pass in a few hours of study. I think its rather silly overall, this country is such a great place that people would come in troves, risk there lives even to come here illegally so they can be ill prepared to survive and basically be abused by say a company that really cares not for anyone save a profit, but on the other side of it to point out that such probably is not healthy at all for anyone involved, more so in the long run, well then its typically you are a racist or something, or blah. I don’t really care to debate at that point any more.

Its also hard being white, I mean being white means you are automatically born rich and the cause of all the worlds problems, but hey, its not racist or anything to say that, I mean it must be hard after all not to want to label white people because we are some vast gang with secret codes and plans to dominate the world! How about other anecdotes of dozen people in a one bedroom apartment that are drunk religiously, loud and violent.

No what I am saying is that the state (or city) has every right to have its own laws regarding illegal aliens. Most states actually do (as in Mass. where I live) and many chose not to enforce them – as in MA. In this case PA in enforcing its own law and the idiots at ACLU are disputing there right to do that!

As you quoted – the std groups who defend the criminal aliens - Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Community Justice Project. And the courts will decide but IMO it’s a no brainer. What ACLU is saying is that states cannot have these laws because they are in conflict with Federal laws – but this is not the case – there are state laws dealing with the same subject but at a state level. Nothing illegal there. This is equivalent to saying a state has no right to have a law against, or check for if they choose, spoiled food simply because the government has the same law. No this is an attempt by ACLU to tie up the state and “chill” others from doing the same thing thus allowing more criminal aliens into this country taking American jobs.


So to clarify the group that defends Constitutional Right” is now in the “law” business defending people who CLEARLY have NO “right” in the US. Try again. Maybe they should spend time dealing with the rights of “Americans” – last time I checked the illegal aliens were not Americans!



HUH? These people are criminals who entered the country illegally – they have no legal rights and I have no clue what they mean by “tradition of fairness and openness” – Is it fair that they cut the line? Is it “open” they use forged documents?




No I don’t get it. How can you defend the (non –existent ) “rights” of criminals who come to this country illegally? Are you or Dems in general really hoping for their votes later? Certainly you could care less about any “corporation” that might benefit from cheap labor. So please enlighten me quark.

You know, maybe I'll change my mind. Do you agree that cities and states should also be able to pass a statute saying that in their jurisdiction, the PATRIOT Act is not in effect? Perhaps Pleasantville could pass a law legalizing cocaine for kids over the age of 12.

Can you provide proof that the people who comprise the ACLU are "idiots?" What tests done on them have you been witness to?

The main reason that undocumented immigrant law is federal is because the law being broken is concerning a national boundary, not a state boundary. Immigration law was not broken when these people crossed over from Ohio to Pennsylvania, it was broken when they crossed over from Mexico or Canada to the US. And I'm not completely opposed to the idea of cities or states making laws about undocumented immigrants. I just think that these laws, like most laws, should be given judicial scrutiny. A city council, because of the nature of budgets and professional skills, is a lot more likely to create statutes that don't stand up to legal scrutiny, than the federal government is. That seems to be what happened here. Laws - particularly laws that are going to affect due process - must be examined to be sure they are on solid ground!



Perhaps the ACLU believes, as I do, that justice and due process are not arbitrary, but should be treated as universal. Do you really not believe this? Then it should make no difference to you if you get arrested in Germany or in Egypt or in Iran - right? Our founding documents make it clear that those men believed (aside from the inconsistencies of slavery etc) that rights were inalienable and endowed by the creator. What good is a democracy, in the long run, if they only proffer rights to the few who live within their walls? Due process should apply to all human beings who come into contact with our judicial system. And Ted - the ACLU spends almost all of its time dealing with the rights of "Americans." More so than any comparable conservative organization.

You keep saying these people have no rights. Apparently you do not believe in human rights. I suppose that's your prerogative. Since they have no rights, you should be allowed to shoot them with your concealed handgun, right? But wait, how can you tell if they are an illegal alien? I guess they need a hearing... so maybe they do have some rights after all. But as I said, if you don't believe in human rights, or in the idea of the US as a democratic model, that's your thing. But it sure ain't mine.

I agree with you and understand I think where you are coming from. To enter into the country illegally is not something though that is just a matter that the FBI or CIA will deal with, its also open to prosecution by local law which as you say shares in federal law. So is a city or a state being wrong by busting people that break the law, or are they above the law unlike other people. I mean if I illegally go into Mexico or Canada, Canada or say some local police on my apprehension should be able to say charge me with breaking a law right? I am also sure they would, more so in Mexico which has for some reason a much more intolerant immigration policy then the U.S currently holds.

The bottom line is it is a matter of equality, I mean its disgusting when say a rich person, like O.J for instance can get away with crime when a person in that situation that does not have the money for a Chewbacca defense cannot afford to break the law per say, people that break laws are doing something illegal, we have laws around immigration in this country, breaking them is illegal, regardless of your ethnic background. Its more prominent with say Mexico because they have the most immigrants I would say coming over on a continuous basis.

The other logic I can see in this is basically giving a green light to illegal immigration, and what in the heck would that lead to, and how would you even factor that into America. The scale of damage that would cause alone would be so large I doubt anyone can really put such into words. So often or not though its easy to pull this issue simply into a race one, well believe it or not down in California the local African American communities and the local Hispanic communities are having some tough times getting along really. So no, its not just a white guy conservative issue really. Illegal immigration is a problem, and for many the answer is to simply open the door up to everyone or be a racist, that’s no solution. Americas doors do happen to be open, far more then a great deal of others countries, but we do have some standards, and I would say for the most part adherence to is healthy not just for America, or white people, but for the immigrants also, I mean if you are not a legal citizen how do you get a car, or insurance, or a license legally? How do you pay taxes, what about public education, what if you want to attend college, I mean the list can go on and on, and lastly how do you being here illegally per say protect yourself from abuse by a company that hired you so they could fire another person simply because they can pay you less wages? I don’t know really how anyone can support this, and again the option that many seem to say is the good one is no real immigration laws, and again I would simply say that will only pull America into a fubar state of affairs for everyone involved and probably create much more tension then it will have absolved.

No but should we scrap all your food purity laws? Such as:

The Dairy and Food Inspection Division enforces state laws and regulations related to the production, processing and sale of milk and other dairy products, processed foods, meats, beverages, eggs, poultry and poultry products, and animal feed. The division enforces state laws designed to protect Minnesota’s food supply from accidental or intentional contamination. The division also investigates reports of food contamination, working in tandem with state and local health officials to determine the cause of outbreaks of food-borne illnesses in Minnesota citizens.
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/dairyfood/default.htm






Not sure I agree completely. Certainly states have the right to have labor laws etc.


http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:7BbzU...;cd=1&gl=us




Come on please sir. I know the ACLU loves to defend criminals but I expect them to keep it to American criminals. I don’t believe that illegal aliens have rights here – this is by definition. With our courts overloaded and our poor schools and overburdened healthcare system how the heck can anyone support illegal aliens. Lets have a tax – you want em you pay for em.




You know I am speaking of LEGAL rights – the ones the ACLU could defend under the Constitution – remember. Show me where they are covered there please.
And still no answer from you regarding why we should not enforce our laws at all levels? This is not about “human rights”. They have no “human right” to be here – period.

Do you believe that only the Federal Government has the right to enforce immigration laws or do cities have the right as well.
Actually they are a responsibility to enforce the laws. Title 8 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.

So if they know that there is illegal aliens in a building they must enforce the law since

Title 8 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.

Finally should cities/towns and states, faced with limited action from the Federal Government move forward to enforce immigration laws?
Absolutely since the main cost fars on their shoulders and the US government does not repay these communities for the cost of providing services.

Wrong analogy. Right analogy: Pleasantville passing a law increasing the penalty for selling cocaine to 12-year-olds beyond the penalty imposed by federal law. Or better yet, Pleasantville setting the minimum wage higher than the number set by Congress.

This is a very bizarre legal theory the ACLU is trying to push: that states, in their own jurisdictions, are prohibited from adding to laws passed by Congress, unless they're laws that the ACLU isn't opposed to for whatever reason.

QH, there is a STARK contrast between human rights and constitutional rights. Human rights violations, for instance, could be applied to the Iranian or Chinese government yet US constitutional rights violations cannot. Correct?

The real question at hand is whether an illegal immigrant, who's shown no alliance or loyalty to our country (nor are they required and rarely do they pay taxes, serve in the military, etc...things that Americans do for their nation).

The issue at hand between conservatives and liberals today generally centers around the idea that liberals believe that illegal immigrants should be treated with the same rights and legal grounds as a legal American citizen. Did Benjamin Franklin think that at some point the US would allow Mexicans to run around our nation with no obligation, with wanton abandonment? I'm not a gambling man... but I doubt that's what the founding fathers had in mind...

No, illegal immigrants should not be SHOT by Americans at random. However- no one is advocating this. However, if found in a free-clinic without "papeles", should we not deport them? We don't want anyone dying on US soil for treatable disease or injury, yet I see no reason for Parkland hospital to be overrun with people who've never paid a dime or drop of blood into our nation's well-being (not to mention that thousands of these people will find the means to protest at City Hall on a regular basis).

The ACLU, in my opinion, SHOULD PROTECT ALL AMERICANS, and this does not include MEXICAN NATIONALS. I can't imagine how you call yourself objective and make statements about Hannity and the Klan not being worthy of their defense.



I think this is the issue. Frankly, the ACLU shouldn't have a liberal or conservative agenda. I'm sure at some point in its career it simply wanted to protect AMERICANS and not the interests of those that lean to the left.

To me, defending illegal immigrants who have not been subjected to abuse or otherwise definitive human rights violations is appalling. I believe that we should put any illegal immigrant caught in a prison in the middle of the Louisiana swamp land farming rice until he/she repays the cost of apprehension, then put them on a bus back to Tiajuana AND/OR give them the option of staying and being naturalized... and require them to get jobs and be productive members of society.

So long as the southern poverty law center and ACLU protect the illegal actions of people like this, it will be very difficult to stop the attitude that immigrants need not be documented.

Yes, it is given in our Constitution and through the basic universal theory that man has certain unalienable rights. This may apply anywhere they go, but if they are not an official citizen, when the Mexican nationals or Canadians (even though the majority is Mexican), choose instead of getting in the country the legal way, as many other have done, they decide to break the law and the United State's sovereignty. These are our legal and official borders that they are crossing without permission and that is a crime. Democracy serves the interest of the citizens of the country, and luckily in this country if you're a citizen, we have universal suffrage. The illegal aliens work for cheap labor, use enough money to get by here, without having to pay any taxes that we citizens have to, and send the rest of their money down to Mexico or Canada. Mexican nationals sent $23 billion dollars to Mexico last year: that is $23 billion dollars lost from our economy. Citizens pay for when illegals need health care or emergency medical attention, we pay for them to use our public schools, roads, parks, etc. The illegal aliens have their certain unalienable rights, but when they are an illegal immigrant who has broken the law, they should be treated as criminals, not given the pity and money they are getting. Go back where they came from, apply to get naturalized, and come through the borders how they're supposed to and how people have done for countless years.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/...4000.shtml?s=lh