- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes...and as long as those responsible for enforcing our laws allow employers to hire them, that won't change.
which is why they're in demand to fill unpleasant/difficult/poorly paying jobs like bringing in the harvests or making hotel beds.
What do you consider a basic human right?I believe all people everywhere are entitled to basic human rights unless convicted of a crime with a fair trial (or other process).
What do you consider a basic human right?
The judicial system is not robotic. Prosecutors are not robots, neither are judges, or juries. The circumstances surrounding a crime often come into play when determining the penalty for it.
In this case, one has to weigh the crime (coming and working here illegally), the costs to society for those individuals having done so, and the costs to the family should they be deported.
For example, if someone comes here illegally as a drug runner then there are additional costs to society in the actions they took then if they simply came here looking for work, thus you have a much lower odds of being able to stay here if you came here as a drug runner than if you just came here illegally.
Moreover, one has to look at the practical implications of doing something. We can certainly strengthen our border security and do a better job of prosecuting those that employ illegal immigrants.
However, deporting millions of illegal immigrants that have been here for a decade or more and have children and families here now is simply not practical. Its not going to happen. Even if we tried to do so it would take decades to get them all through the courts.
Point being the issue just isn't as black and white as you might would like it to be.
Sure. However, one of the circumstances that does not have impact on whether or not you enforce the law is whether or not the law-breaker has kids. What are you going to say to the brother of the dad in this scenario who is childless - sorry Jose, you should have gamed the system better by having an anchor baby or two, now off you go to Mexico?
The Judicial system isn't perfectly robotic. But it is supposed to be blind. Stripping as much emotionalism out of the process as possible is how we try to make sure that it is just. When emotions and sympathy make justice decisions, you get bias.
Sure, except that no one is willing to do so because people like you will insist that it's mean.
Agreed. We are also not going to be able to catch and prosecute all murders, all low-level identity thefts, all pyramid schemes, all of those who frequent underage prostitutes, or all of those who purchase and sell illegal narcotics. The inability to perfectly enforce the law does not justify the argument that one should not enforce it when you can.
This case isn't black and white. But the issue that you are trying to inject into it has and should have zero bearing in a legal proceeding.
What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
Illegal immigration is not a felony. No one goes to jail for being in the country illegally, not unless they've done something else too. Should we start jailing people for minor crimes now? We already have more prisoners per capita than anyone else.
No. We deport people for illegally entering our nation. That's the punishment ascribed by law. Just as we jail people for some crimes and fine them for others. You don't get to beg off on the consequences of your decisions simply because you have kids.
Depending on the crime prison sentences certainly are delayed in some cases if the individual found guilty has kids they are solely responsible for.
Why do you think at sentencing hearings the defense points out and calls witnesses pointing to the character of an individual, their family, role in the community and so on? The reason is because these are all factors in sentencing depending on the crime and whether that individual is a danger to society or not.
Not true at all. I am all for it, because stronger borders and strengthening penalties against those that employ illegal immigrants prevents these types of situations from developing in the first place.
Thats a far too simplistic argument. DHS estimates that they can at best deport approximately 400,000 people a year. If you were in the unfortunately position that you could only prosecute 20% of criminals in a given year, you would probably find it makes the most practical sense to prosecute those criminals that constituted the most danger to society and not just randomly go after them in a haphazard manner.
Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
I mostly agree with that.
I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.
The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.
As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.
So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
Would it be even possible?
Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.
The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.
IMO, that is.
If the law is the law, then let's pull over all of those drivers going 80 mph in the 70 zone. There are millions of them, too.
I mostly agree with that.
I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.
The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.
As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.
So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
Would it be even possible?
Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.
The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.
IMO, that is.
If the law is the law, then let's pull over all of those drivers going 80 mph in the 70 zone. There are millions of them, too.
Very well said. Unfortunately you are being pragmatic are you are arguing with people that strive to be dogmatic.
What is the rationale for that (bolded above) plan? The two parts are in direct conflict with each other. The "good" illegal aliens are to be made legal (based on them having jobs right?) but their "bad" employer is to be fined for having provided them the very job that made them "good" illegal aliens? That seems simply insane.
I see it basically like this:
1. We have a big problem with illegal immigration due to decades of poor border enforcement combined with poor enforcement against employers employing illegal immigrants.
2. Because of that we have families that came here illegally over a decade ago, have become part of their communities, have various family ties here, and in many cases have kids here.
We can deal with the original problem (number 1), while still being humane when dealing with the consequences (number 2) as justice is not simply supposed to be blind its also supposed to be humane. That said, if we strive to be humane in dealing with the consequences without addressing the cause (number 1), we will only make the problem worse.
Are you kidding me? What is pragmatic about saying that illegal aliens with jobs should be made legal (simply for having jobs?) but those that gave them those jobs should be fined?
I see it basically like this:
1. We have a big problem with illegal immigration due to decades of poor border enforcement combined with poor enforcement against employers employing illegal immigrants.
2. Because of that we have families that came here illegally over a decade ago, have become part of their communities, have various family ties here, and in many cases have kids here.
We can deal with the original problem (number 1), while still being humane when dealing with the consequences (number 2). That said, if we strive to be humane in dealing with the consequences without addressing the cause (number 1), we will only make the problem worse.
Now your shifting from the OP ("Could you enforce the law even if it involves making emotionally difficult decisions") towards something else entirely ("what should we do in term of immigration reform").
Justice being blind is what helps make it humane. It is when we let it be steered by our emotional desires that it quickly becomes arbitrary and abusive.
Who profits more from having such a job, the cheap labor being exploited, or the employer exploiting that cheap labor? People come here illegally largely because they are desperate and because they can find work. If you crack down on the employers exploiting cheap illegal immigrant labor, you remove the main incentive to come here illegally.
I agree with the need to enforce the law against employing illegal aliens but only because they are hiring fugitives. If you make the fugitives legal then WTF are you then fining the employer for? If illegal aliens did not profit more by "being exploited" the why are they coming here in droves? Why are you against sending fugitives that are being exploited back to their native lands?
1. I am not against deporting illegal immigrants. I only pointed out in the poll how messy it can be at the individual level. For example, I am against people being lazy freeloaders (welfare queens). I don't think public policy should support anyone being a lazy freeloader. However, I would not allow a lazy freeloader to starve to death in front of me because in the end I do have a conscience and would have to be able to still sleep at night and I could not do so if I let someone starve to death in front of me no matter how much of a deadbeat I thought they were.
2. People that come here are exploited as cheap illegal labor, come here despite that because the going rate for exploiting cheap labor here is still more than it is in their native country.
The only way for an illegal alien not to be a freeloader is to get a job (or to be self employed). If you wish not to deport those illegal aliens that work then why would you wish to punish those that hire them? As you said in #2 the illegal alien benefits from that job but is, none the less, breaking our law just as those that employ them are.
Assuming that the employer is committing he greater crime and is jailed then we are faced with what to do with their now unemployed workforce: The citizens can file for unemployment but the illegals must then be deported since they are unable to be legally employed ANYWHERE in the US and are not eligible for US public assistance.
No, actually they don't.Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings.
Dereliction of duty.What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
The freeloader analogy had nothing to do with immigration, I was just making a general point about what can seem like cognitive dissonance (being for something in general while seeing how difficult it can be sometimes in practice).
As to your other point, if you jail the employer that employees illegal labor, the illegal laborer that is now out of work cannot file for unemployment because he has no legal right to it. Thus if they could no longer find work here they would most likely leave and go to another country with better prospects for them, or he or she would just be deported anyway. That said, its much cheaper and easier for the country for them to all leave on their own then it is to go through deportation proceedings for millions of people.
Depending on the crime prison sentences certainly are delayed in some cases if the individual found guilty has kids they are solely responsible for.
Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?