In Alabama, a Harsh Bill for Residents Here Illegally

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Why don't you provide the quotes to the things you claimed I said?

Obviously because I never said them. While I provided the quotes to the things you said, that back up my points.

You have one long post of double speak nonsense. Who do you think you are fooling?

And you provide no evidence to back up the claims you make. You have been consistently wrong.

What is international revolution going to provide exactly?

reply to post by poet1b

Why don't you provide the quotes to the things you claimed I said?

Obviously because I never said them. While I provided the quotes to the things you said, that back up my points.

Forcing corporations to meet the legal requirements for public safety actually forces those companies to hire people,

I read that^ quote wrong, I apologize.

You have one long post of double speak nonsense. Who do you think you are fooling?

I'm not trying to fool anyone. I was just responding to your comment.

And you provide no evidence to back up the claims you make. You have been consistently wrong.

What's the point? You'd just call it``right wing`` propaganda.

reply to post by querious


Mississippi has started(2 years ago) to make the state an non-haven for illegals...they cant get social services,food stamps,etc...and a new bill will requireemployers to E Verify citizenship..Thats why its a green state on your map.I love it

I actually know a family who is purposely coming to the United States from Mexico so their child can be an America Citizen and receive free benefits. Infuriating isn't it? The mother has never worked a day in her life here in the United States and yet you and I will probably be paying to raise the baby with our hard earned tax dollars.

As an immigrant myself, I know it took my parents about ten years to get their green card to come here legally. IMO when you come to this country illegally you automatically know you are disadvantaged (bad jobs, no aid for education, etc etc.) Yet you come and for what? Im not sure what they get from the government but I'm sure it's something beneficial enough to make them want to keep coming.

As opposed to passing these laws that often leads to discrimination, wouldn't it be wiser to just get rid of benefits for illegals? Im sure once the benefits are gone (whatever they may be), illegals will be flocking off by the numbers.

reply to post by SophyC76


Yes,get rid of the jobs and freebies for illegals and they won't come. Those already here can self deport.
Most of the pro-illegal people have no idea how much welfare fraud there is, how many stolen identities there are, how easily and quickly illeglas manipulate and get what they want through deciet and thievery.

There is a wealth of information on these types of threads to prove how illegal immigration negatively affects the Country and its citizens. Common sense alone should tell them that we have laws for a reason.

reply to post by Homedawg


I noticed that... it took some pro-active measures and foresight on your leaders to protect the interests of the working class there.
You can see the explosion of illegal aliens in all the surrounding states, I wonder why they bypassed that one.

I can tell you why, the message gets spread fast, and they make a bee line to areas that are easy to exploit and exist. Where there is established businesses that hire illegals and turn a blind eye because the penalties are low or non-existent when discovered.

* I was asked in an email, and I agree, to not use the term 'illegal immigrant' anymore, because it is actually an adopted and incorrect term for their status -- the correct term is 'illegal ALIEN' so as not to be in any way confused with a legal immigrant.

So, 'good job' to your electorates for taking care of their people and being able to see beyond the short term gain, and the pressure from local business men that want to exploit them (illegal aliens)

Originally posted by querious
reply to post by Homedawg

 

* I was asked in an email, and I agree, to not use the term 'illegal immigrant' anymore, because it is actually an adopted and incorrect term for their status -- the correct term is 'ILLEGAL alien' so as not to be in any way confused with a legal immigrant.

Actually if you want to get technical the proper term isn't legal immigrant it's "legal alien" and if they have a green card it's "resident alien". In the end their just words but since you brought it up.

Originally posted by daskakik
Actually if you want to get technical the proper term isn't legal immigrant it's "legal alien" and if they have a green card it's "resident alien". In the end their just words but since you brought it up.

Umm, sorry, I know you are sensible on this issue, albeit resistant , but, in fact: link

An "immigrant" is an invited guest - a person who comes to a country where they are not a citizen in order to settle there. The term "immigrant" implies permanent, legal, residency. (Although because of amnesties and status adjustments, about 25% of currently legal immigrants first came here illegally).

The accurate description of a foreign national illegally residing in America is illegal alien. An illegal alien is a criminal subject to as much as six months in jail for first offense and subject to federal felony charges for subsequent entries after deportation.

A legal alien is a person who is in a country temporarily as a student or a tourist, or who has been granted permission to live in the country permanently without being a citizen. The latter kind of alien is called a resident alien.

An illegal alien is present in a country without the country’s authorization. If the person intends harm, the term enemy alien may apply.

reply to post by querious


Actually I'm not sensible on the issue. I don't even mind the terms "wet back" or "beaner".

Nice try but the law reads:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101
Definitions

(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

and

(15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens
(A)

(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;

(ii) upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials and employees who have been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, who are accepted by the Secretary of State, and the members of their immediate families; and

(iii) upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants, servants, personal employees, and members of their immediate families, of the officials and employees who have a nonimmigrant status under (i) and (ii) above;

Title 8 - Definitions

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by querious

 

Actually I'm not sensible on the issue. I don't even mind the terms "wet back" or "beaner".

Nice try but the law reads:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101
Definitions

(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

and

(15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens
(A)

(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;

(ii) upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials and employees who have been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, who are accepted by the Secretary of State, and the members of their immediate families; and

(iii) upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants, servants, personal employees, and members of their immediate families, of the officials and employees who have a nonimmigrant status under (i) and (ii) above;

Title 8 - Definitions

There is no *try*, what you quoted is great and is what we are all about:
you throw *ILLEGAL* into the mix and it no longer applies, those are definitions of people who comply with the law.

If you are ILLEGAL ===> illegal ALIEN

I applaud your research though! The more we research on this topic, the more the truth will be apparent.

Originally posted by querious
There is no *try*, what you quoted is great and is what we are all about:
you throw *ILLEGAL* into the mix and it no longer applies, those are definitions of people who comply with the law.

If you are ILLEGAL ===> illegal ALIEN

I applaud your research though! The more we research on this topic, the more the truth will be apparent.

What are you going on about. What I quoted is the law and it clearly states anyone not a citizen or national of the US is an alien.

Anyone means everyone legal or illegal. They are all aliens. They can also be referred to as immigrants unless they fall into one of the three catagories in which case they are still aliens but not immigrants.

So:
If you're ILLEGAL ===> illegal ALIEN
If you're LEGAL ===> legal ALIEN
If you have RESIDENT STATUS ===> Resident ALIEN

If you check the link I provided there are lots of examples where alien is used for legals like:

(6) The term “border crossing identification card” means a document of identity bearing that designation issued to an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence,

Here's what the old green cards used to look like. You'll notice the big blue "Resident Alien" written at the top. The new versions are PC and say "Permanent Resident Card"

Old School Green Card

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by querious
There is no *try*, what you quoted is great and is what we are all about:
you throw *ILLEGAL* into the mix and it no longer applies, those are definitions of people who comply with the law.

If you are ILLEGAL ===> illegal ALIEN

I applaud your research though! The more we research on this topic, the more the truth will be apparent.

What are you going on about. What I quoted is the law and it clearly states anyone not a citizen or national of the US is an alien.

Anyone means everyone legal or illegal. They are all aliens. They can also be referred to as immigrants unless they fall into one of the three catagories in which case they are still aliens but not immigrants.

So:
If you're ILLEGAL ===> illegal ALIEN
If you're LEGAL ===> legal ALIEN
If you have RESIDENT STATUS ===> Resident ALIEN

If you check the link I provided there are lots of examples where alien is used for legals like:

(6) The term “border crossing identification card” means a document of identity bearing that designation issued to an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence,

Here's what the old green cards used to look like. You'll notice the big blue "Resident Alien" written at the top. The new versions are PC and say "Permanent Resident Card"

Old School Green Card

edit on 8-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Seems like we are on same page.

Sounds like we agree here illegally ===> Illegal Alien


and I'm only making distinction at the request of a 'Legal immigrant' to totally remove any confusion; and 'illegal alien' is an accurate and appropriate designation.

I still don't get why people keep harping on discrimination. It's discrimination to try to weed out criminals? I'm sorry, it simply doesn't compute.

As for these farmers bemoaning where their help will come from that I saw on Yahoo the other day...really? Put an add on craigslist, and you'll have a hundred apps in no time. No, these folks won't be as good at first, but it's only because they don't have fifteen years worth of experience.

reply to post by querious


The problem I have is that it's presented as:

alien = bad
immigrant = good

This is not true. Also, they are not mutually exclusive.

If the argument is that the law calls illegals "illegal aliens" that's is fine but you should also use the legal terms for "legal aliens".

When you say legal immigrants you are using the dictionary definition of immigrants and the dictionary definition does not specify a legal/illegal component to the term, that is why legal has to be added but it is just as legit to add illegal.

What your doing is pointing the finger at those who use the dictionary definition instead of the legal definition because it sounds negative then turn around and do the same.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Forcing businesses to comply with laws that forces them to hire people is not forcing companies to just hire people. A company uses toxic chemicals that have to be handled in a specific way to keep those toxic chemicals from getting into the local water supply and giving people in the area cancer, so they must hire people to maintain those processes that keep the toxic chemicals from getting into the water supply. They aren't hiring the people to meet government requirements, they are hiring the people because they use toxic chemicals. There is a huge difference.

You didn't simply misunderstand, you choose to twist the reality to something that it is not. It is no different than having laws that require people to have a license to drive on public roads, pay insurance and all of that. I would rather people be allowed to drive without a license than big corporations being allowed to poison our water supply to save a few bucks.

The same is true for labor laws. There are companies that will hire someone who doesn't know any better, and send them into some hazardous environment with no safety, knowing full well that accidents will happen. They don't care if some kid gets killed, or mutilated, or exposed to some nasty substance that will kill them ten years later. Yet, the same people ready to put others in harms way, sure support laws that keep people off the road who might damage their precious automobiles.

As we speak, people in third world countries, and this includes Mexico, are working in production facilities that spew so much toxic chemicals, that after several years the land is so poisoned, no one can go there with out getting poisoned. The workers are treated worse than we treat our farm animals, all so someone can drive a fancy car and live in a big house.

The same people want to do the same thing here in the U.S., and are doing these things to illegal workers.

reply to post by poet1b


These people have the same opportunity to change their country the same as our forefathers did. But it takes some big nads to do it. It won't happen on it's own. If they don't change their country, then that is their fault, not mine. I have no sympathy for them, the same as I have no sympathy for those in our country who sit back and complain but do nothing. If these people wanted a better life they would change the status quot in their country. But no, it's much easier to exploit another nation.

reply to post by haarvik


Yepper, but I have to add, that bad people from U.S. corporations do work with the bad people from these third world nations (who have been exploiting their own people for centuries before the U.S. became such a dominant power in the world) to repress and exploit workers in third world nations.

The bigger problem is that the lack of civil rights in third world nations are being used to undermine our rights in first world nations. This is why there are always massive protests at the WTO meetings. Those are the people out to screw over everybody.

We should have trade laws that force third world nations to adopt to first world labor and environmental standards and improve civil rights. Of course the whole free market scam was used to prevent any such requirements in our trade treaties. Our tax dollars being used to support corporate rights over individuals once again.

reply to post by poet1b


I agree. I used to work for a company that sent our factory down there. Lost over 1,000 jobs. We had a couple people go down to help set up (before they knew it was THEIR job going!) and they said the area was a real slum. Drugs and thugs galore. The people make like $3/hr to the job we were paid $18/hr to do. So yes, corporations are as much to blame as their and our governments. Our government wants to foster and support overthrowing corrupt regimes in the middle east, how about our southern neighbors? And I don't just mean Mexico either. however I still don't think that gives their citizens the right to come here illegally. They have the power to change their country same as anyone else. Exploiting another nation instead of fixing yours doesn't sit well with me.

reply to post by poet1b

You didn't simply misunderstand, you choose to twist the reality to something that it is not.

Tbh, you didn't clarify what you meant, I never knew we were talking about ``toxic waste`` and ``hazardous chemicals``. I didn't understand your original post.