Posted on 02/21/2008 2:31:31 PM PST by Checkers
It's getting ugly out there for illegal immigrants. States and cities are cracking down with harsh new ordinances, and the courts are upholding them. Not only are deportations at record highs, but immigrants are being detained at places previously understood to be off-limits, such as schools. The debate about illegal immigration, labor, social justice and international trade has devolved into open season on illegal immigrants.
Arizona penalizes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, suspending their business license for 10 days for the first offense, revoking it permanently for the second. Valley Park in Missouri fines businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Oklahoma not only forbids their hiring and bars them from receiving tax-supported services -- except healthcare -- it also makes it a felony for anyone to transport, shelter or conceal illegal immigrants.
It's nothing new for states and municipalities to try to regulate immigration. California pioneered that trail in 1994 with the passage of Proposition 187, which sought to discourage illegal immigration by denying noncitizens a range of public services. Last year, Hazleton, Pa., caught the nation's attention when it tried to criminalize landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that hire them. Until recently, however, the courts stood as a bulwark against this spate of angry -- and often unconstitutional -- ordinances, ruling that immigration is federal territory.
Not anymore. In Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma, business groups or immigration advocates sued to block the new laws, and in each case federal judges upheld them. The Oklahoma ruling is particularly pernicious. With the spirit of Dred Scott hovering over his pen, Judge James H. Payne wrote that illegal immigrants do not have the right to sue: "An illegal alien, in willful violation of federal immigration law, is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I don't see the problem.
I’m not going to get into specifics, but that piece has me rolling with laughter. Anyone who reads it will know what I’m talking about.
I would agree to keep 1000 illegals here if we could deport everyone associated with the LA TIMES. That would be a good deal.
It’s illegal to impersonate an illegal alien.
I often had that reaction to LA Times editorials when I lived in LA.
The rule of law is such a bummer, man... </s>
Many immigrant families are blended, made up of legal immigrants, illegal ones and U.S.-
Well, UNBLEND them and get illegals out of here!
YEP
What do they mean “Not going anywhere”????
They’re going back to Mexico where they belong.
The L.A. Times has been carrying the illegals luggage for a long time now. They go into “poor illegal mode” in all their editorials on the subject.
Deportation to those who sneaked in (first offense). “General Population” for second offense and those who smuggle, harbor and hire them.
Sentence one - “illegal immigrants” morphs into sentence three - “immigrants”
Paragraph three, sentences one and four- “immigration” mixes in with other sentences with the all-important “illegal”.
Does the LA Times have doors and locks on their property? Do they like customers to pay up? Then why don’t they understand “illegal”?
That's because you're not a hate-America-at-all-costs loony leftist like the author of that tripe.
"It's getting ugly out there for burglars. More and more homeowners are installing security devices. Fences and walls are rising where once there was open access to homeowners' lawns. States and localities are passing tough, some would say harsh, new laws to punish burglars even more. Shockingly, a new form of vigilante violence is arising as more and more homeowners are arming themselves. These are the new realities many burglars face when seeking a fairer distribution of wealth in our tragically stratified society......"
You have nailed the L.A. Times as they continue to have layoffs and loose circulation.
Bull. Illegals may pay in about $440 million in various taxes, but they suck out over $11 BILLION a year from federal coffers, not counting the cost of identity theft and other crimes they commit.
Bullying them into leaving is counterproductive and downright mean.
Yeah, and I'm sure the moron who wrote this drek thinks it's "counterproductive" and "mean" to go after robbers, rapists and murderers, too.
Caught the first lie. Legal aliens may be noncitizens, but other than the right to vote, they have access to the same benefits as citizens.
LOL! Your modifications were just what I was thinking.
Liberals are so cute when they are whining and frothing (their usual state).
‘angry...ordinances’ Too funny!
‘satisfy the popular hunger for instantaneous immigration reform’. Please stop, you’re killing me!
ping
Judge Payne's logic is so full of common sense that he should be on the short list for the next SCOTUS vacancy. Abe Lincoln used to tell the story of a kid who murdered his parents in the home by setting it on fire and then threw himself at the mercy of the court because he was a homeless orphan.
An illegal alien is, at best, an undocumented tourist, and like any tourist who's overstayed his welcome,he must be sent home.
In that case the Supreme Court found that it was not legal for the City of New York to institute a defacto head tax for every immigrant that got off the boat in NYC. The precedence places the authority to regulate immigration with the federal government and not state and local governments.
The net effect is that when a municipality or state writes a law regarding illegal immigration they have to tread lightly around that legal precedent. When some of these laws are tossed by the court it might not be because the judge loves illegals. It might be that the law is poorly written.
The sad point is that these states and cities are forced into doing this because the federal government isn't doing its job. They have the legal authority to fix this issue, but they choose not to. Agencies like ICE and BP have wide ranging authority to ask just about anybody questions about their citizenship, but there simply aren't enough of those agents around. Even when we start tossing illegals out they run right back in across a porous and undermanned border.
“The debate about illegal immigration, labor, social justice”
if “social justice” were an attribute for which one could demand “legal” redress (which it is not), then that redress, for an illegal immigrant, can only be obtained where they have “legal” standing - in the nation they came from
if illegal immigrants want social justice then they should go home and demand it from the nation that dis-empowered them so much they left it
Well, it just so happens that the LA Times has a lot invested in Spanish speaking illegals because they own the La Opinion.
That is the primary problem they have, it's their wallet followed by the politics of those working there.
Actually, yeah they are going somewhere.
If this was really true it would be great!
I was about to post that very same line from the article. That attitude on their part has done more than anything to harden my own attitude. Let their “anguish and resentment” match my contempt.
BTTT
The liberals should be supporting these deportations; what better way to fight the dreaded "urban sprawl"?
If the L.A. Times dislikes it, it has to be a good thing.
“You have nailed the L.A. Times as they continue to have layoffs and loose circulation.”
Yes, but the paper’s new owners re-modeled the look of the rag so that it resembles the NY Times! That was supposed to improve things! /sarc
bump
“The Heartbreaking Plight of the Illegal Immigrant”
Story number 999,999 in a never ending special award-winning series...
Blah, blah, blah
Many native U.S. citizens' families contain criminals too. How come the LA Times doesn't call for turning those criminals loose on society too?
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
LA Times calls about once a month saying they’ll be delivering a FREE issue to our house on (usually) Thursday. I tell them that I see one of their rags in our driveway I’ll report them for littering. We’ve never received one yet.
To tough on illegals? Tell this to the paernts who lost children on that school bus in Minnisota or the thousands of other parents and family members that have lost loved ones to drunken illegal alien drivers! SICK,SICK,SICK! When, oh when, are we going to wake up!
We can either get tough or go bankrupt.
I think it is inhumane to expect Americans to pay the way for 30 million illegal aliens. They are handed schooling, food, help with rent, welfare benes, and everything else our country is so spineless to offer them.
If your own unlawful actions created the dilemma, and following the law removes the dilemma, then there is no dilemma. Seems obvious to me.
In Roswell, N.M., an 18-year-old pregnant student was turned in to immigration officials by her high school's security officer and ultimately deported. In East Oakland, Calif., a pregnant mother was arrested at her daughter's elementary school, even though immigration officials say schools should be off-limits and pregnant and nursing women should not be arrested.
Find those immigration officials and fire them. If we refuse to arrest or deport pregnant illegal aliens and allow them to have their children on US soil then their children are US citizens and the mothers are MUCH harder to deport. It rewards people for breaking the law.
That illegal immigrants living in the United States place an economic burden on schools, hospitals, prisons and other public services is undeniable, but it's also true that they contribute to our economy and our society in myriad ways.
Let the ones that wish to contribute enter the country legally and follow our laws. Illegal aliens contribute far less economically than the burden the place on our nation, and we do have LEGAL paths to immigration for those who wish to make a positive contribution.
Bullying them into leaving is counterproductive and downright mean. It's also shortsighted.
It is obviously not counterproductive. The author fails to provide any evidence that it is shortsighted. Their real argument is that it is mean.
Illegal aliens are knowingly in violation of the law. It is their own unlawful actions that have put them in their situation. Deporting them isn't mean, it's just.
The whole article is nothing but an illogical, emotional appeal for us to ignore our own laws despite the costs to ourselves, and without really making any argument that there are benefits.
It's not a news article, it's a editorial, and not a very well written one.
Maybe when the LA Times prints articles reporting on the Mexican Mafia’s activities, and complete takeovers of small California cities, town councils, I’ll consider their views.
I'm kind of sorry I even read the entire editorial. Just when I think the Times can't sink any lower they prove me wrong by printing hyperbole such as the following:
With the spirit of Dred Scott hovering over his pen, Judge James H. Payne wrote that illegal immigrants do not have the right to sue...
Payne's dehumanizing tone echoes the callous treatment that too often is accorded illegal immigrants...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.