# Az. Gov And Immigration



## MJS (Aug 16, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...on-recipients-drivers-licenses-164837285.html



> A group of young illegal immigrants in Phoenix was preparing for a rally on Wednesday evening to celebrate the first day they were allowed to apply for relief from deportation and a two-year work permit under President Barack Obama's deferred action plan. But a half-hour before the 5 p.m. rally was to begin, a young member of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition started crying. "Guys, we have really bad news," she said, according to another activist, Erika Andiola, who was there.
> Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer had released a strongly worded executive order preventing deferred action recipients from obtaining driver's licenses or any other unspecified "public benefits" in her state, renewing her public spat with the White House over illegal immigration.
> The celebration stopped. Instead, Andiola and 100 other people turned their rally into a march to the Capitol to protest the move, and about 30 people stayed overnight.
> Brewer writes in the order that as many as 80,000 young people in Arizona could benefit from the new status, which gives young illegal immigrants under age 31 who came to the country as children relief from deportation and a two-year work permit. Brewer notes that the deferred action status does not make its recipients legal immigrants per se; it's more a limbo state where the immigrants are now not deportable and legally able to work but are not progressing toward a green card or other permanent legal status.



I'm far from an expert on immigration.  Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding a few things here, but some parts of this caught my eye.

"Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer had released a strongly worded executive order preventing deferred action recipients from obtaining driver's licenses or any other unspecified "public benefits" in her state, renewing her public spat with the White House over illegal immigration."

I am reading this correct, in that they're talking about a drivers license, and not a state ID.  Perhaps I'm missing something but how can you just hand out DL's without the person actually taking a driving exam, as well as a written test?  Now, its been quite some time since I took my exam, but I recall a computer generated test, as well as the behind the wheel exam, which of course also consisted of a set number of hours of drivers training.  

"Brewer writes in the order that as many as 80,000 young people in Arizona could benefit from the new status, which gives young illegal immigrants under age 31 who came to the country as children relief from deportation and a two-year work permit. Brewer notes that the deferred action status does not make its recipients legal immigrants per se; it's more a limbo state where the immigrants are now not deportable and legally able to work but are not progressing toward a green card or other permanent legal status."

Ok, so they get a 2-yr. work permit.  Fine.  What happens after the 2yrs?  It also says that this doesn't make them legal citizens, but they're in limbo.  So, what does that mean?  What happens after that?

Hey, like I've said, I'm all for someone coming to the US to better themselves, providing they do it by the book. Go thru the process.  But, and again, I may be misunderstanding, but it seems like there's some questionable things here.  Of course, the Gov. seems to be making quite a bit of waves as well.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 16, 2012)

A better question might be why hasn't the US Supreme Court addressed the blatant illegality of Obama's Royal Decree, er, executive order. 
In this country the President is NOT empowered to change laws at whim.


----------



## David43515 (Aug 17, 2012)

Was this done by executive order? I thought I recalled it being in congress. I could be wrong, I miss alo t of news over here. But being an immigrant myself, I think the most basic thing around is obeying the laws of the country you're entering from the get go. And if you're here illegaly because your parents brought you here that way....you're still here illeagaly. If you need to apply for a visa to stay, do so. If that means you have to go stay with relatives in another country while the paperwork goes through, do so. I've got no problem with the provision that allows them to obtaain US citizenship after serving time in the armed forces and being honorably discharged.

I think it's crazy that public universities ( ie: supported by the state's taxpayers) in many states give illegal aliens state discounts on tuition while citizens from out of state are charged extra.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 17, 2012)

If the children of immigrants (who arrived here through no fault or choice of their own) grow up and become the good citizens that we all expect from each other, then I have no problem with them getting a driver's license--provided they actually take the same tests as everyone else.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 17, 2012)

How about they take some citizenship tests, swear an oath, and become -legal- citizens?

You want to excuse them because they came here as children? Fine. They've been here long enough, give them the test, make them legal.

Until then, no. No license, no food stamps, no aid. Illegal means illegal.


----------



## Takai (Aug 17, 2012)

@David Nope, Obama did this all by himself by executive fiat.



Bob Hubbard said:


> How about they take some citizenship tests, swear an oath, and become -legal- citizens?
> 
> You want to excuse them because they came here as children? Fine. They've been here long enough, give them the test, make them legal.
> 
> Until then, no. No license, no food stamps, no aid. Illegal means illegal.



Well put. The company I work for has a lot of immigrants working for it. (The owners are from Spain and Brazil). The are all either legal citizens now or on a seasonal work visa. The owners are completely against illegal immigrants. The came over and did it the right way (it wasn't easy) but, they have absolutely no use for people that "work" the "system" to "help" them along and aren't even citizens.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 17, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> How about they take some citizenship tests, swear an oath, and become -legal- citizens?
> 
> You want to excuse them because they came here as children? Fine. They've been here long enough, give them the test, make them legal.
> 
> Until then, no. No license, no food stamps, no aid. Illegal means illegal.



Who says that most of those young people won't do those things?


----------



## cdunn (Aug 17, 2012)

Can't do that, Bob, they're statistically more likely to vote Democratic if they become citizens.  

We can, and should give them a legal path to residency, though citizenship may require some additional work on their part; after all, they didn't choose to come here in the first place. It's the right thing to do on a humanitarian basis, and it expands the tax base and possibly even the economy if they have access to legal ways to create business. Deferring their deportation is legal and practical; and we do have violent criminals and possible terrorists coming cross border, that's where the focus should be, not kids that mom dragged across the border ten years ago. 

This is basically the same as a plea bargain. Stand up, be registered, apply for a work permit, and we can still kick you out in two years if we decide we want to.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 17, 2012)

With this amnesty issued, has there been any movement on their parts towards seeking citizenship?


----------



## cdunn (Aug 17, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> With this amnesty issued, has there been any movement on their parts towards seeking citizenship?



Hard to say with the news articles that are out. But quotes seem to imply that they really, really want legal work.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 17, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Who says that most of those young people won't do those things?


Only logic and common sense, but, when have those mattered?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 17, 2012)

cdunn said:


> . But quotes seem to imply that they really, really want legal work.


So do millions of actual  American Citizens


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 17, 2012)

Takai said:


> @David Nope, Obama did this all by himself by executive fiat.
> 
> 
> 
> Well put. The company I work for has a lot of immigrants working for it. (The owners are from Spain and Brazil). The are all either legal citizens now or on a seasonal work visa. The owners are completely against illegal immigrants. *The came over and did it the right way* (it wasn't easy) but, they have absolutely no use for people that "work" the "system" to "help" them along and aren't even citizens.



What, exactly, is "the right way" emigrate and become a US citizen?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 17, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> What, exactly, is "the right way" emigrate and become a US citizen?



Legally. No, I'm not going to research exactly what it takes to emigrate legally for you. I will tell you I know a few people who have emigrated and gotten their US citizenship and it was neither as cheap nor as easy as sneaking across a border or overstaying a visa.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2012)

David43515 said:


> Was this done by executive order? I thought I recalled it being in congress. I could be wrong, I miss alo t of news over here. But being an immigrant myself, I think the most basic thing around is obeying the laws of the country you're entering from the get go. And if you're here illegaly because your parents brought you here that way....you're still here illeagaly. If you need to apply for a visa to stay, do so. If that means you have to go stay with relatives in another country while the paperwork goes through, do so. I've got no problem with the provision that allows them to obtaain US citizenship after serving time in the armed forces and being honorably discharged.
> 
> I think it's crazy that public universities ( ie: supported by the state's taxpayers) in many states give illegal aliens state discounts on tuition while citizens from out of state are charged extra.



Yeah, that's always been something that's been confusing to me.  If you're here illegally, yes, you're illegal.  OTOH, IMHO, if your parents are here illegally, and they have you here, how can you be a citizen?  Yeah, I know, you were born here, but I still can't wrap my head around that, and frankly, I don't think it makes sense.  IMO, you're illegal too.  

As for the rest of your post....yes, I agree.


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> If the children of immigrants (who arrived here through no fault or choice of their own) grow up and become the good citizens that we all expect from each other, then I have no problem with them getting a driver's license--provided they actually take the same tests as everyone else.



Neither do I, however, as I understand that article, I didn't see anything about a test.  That's what has be scratching my head.  How the hell can you give someone a DL without a test, both written and actual behind the wheel time?


----------



## MJS (Aug 17, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Who says that most of those young people won't do those things?



Perhaps they will, however, as I like to say....kids learn what they live.  If their parents aren't going to take the necessary steps, why would the kids?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 17, 2012)

MJS said:


> OTOH, IMHO, if your parents are here illegally, and they have you here, how can you be a citizen?



By the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside."  The only way that will change is by constitutional amendment.  The people we are talking about here came with their parents as children.  If they are born here, then they are citizens.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 17, 2012)

MJS said:


> Neither do I, however, as I understand that article, I didn't see anything about a test.  That's what has be scratching my head.  How the hell can you give someone a DL without a test, both written and actual behind the wheel time?



For actual driving knowledge and ability purposes, I'm with you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 17, 2012)

How to become a Legal US Citizen.
http://www.ehow.com/how_4423102_become-legal-citizen-u_s_.html

You'll note the absence of the phrases 'climb over a fence', 'sneak across the border', 'hide under the floor boards of a truck' etc.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 17, 2012)

Of course ... "the right way" is simply a matter of whatever the law says.  

If our U.S. legislature implemented a friendly _wet-foot-dry-foot_ policy as it relates to Mexico and Central America, would it still be "the right way"?


----------



## geezer (Aug 17, 2012)

Boy, there's a lot of mis-information being bandied about here, some of it by folks that are usually pretty much right on the mark. From what I'm hearing, I suspect that the national news media have _not_ been giving very thorough and accurate coverage of this story ...more likely misleading and sensationalized summaries. Well, nothing new about that. 

Anyway, this is still a pretty new development here. Our outspoken Gov. Brewer has stated that the young people (foreign born who were brought here illegally by their parents) who apply for and receive federal "deferred status" and temporarily receive legal residency and work visas under President Obama's recent executive order, will not be allowed to apply for and get driver's licenses, or any other Arizona state benefit _previously available to others with the same "deferred" status _granted for other reasons. 

Her reasoning behind denying these benefits and services to this particular group is that _she doesn't recognize the President's use of an executive order as legal and binding_. Her spokesman referred to the executive order as "illegal". On the other hand, immigrant advocacy groups insist that it is _the Governor's actions that are blatantly illegal_ and an attempt to pander to the most extreme elements of the anti-immigrant crowd in this election year. Naturally, they promise to take the matter to the courts if she doesn't back down.

As always, Arizona politics remain entertaining to say the least. I'll keep you guys posted.  :erg:


----------



## James Kovacich (Aug 18, 2012)

MJS said:


> Yeah, that's always been something that's been confusing to me.  If you're here illegally, yes, you're illegal.  OTOH, IMHO, if your parents are here illegally, and they have you here, how can you be a citizen?  Yeah, I know, you were born here, but I still can't wrap my head around that, and frankly, I don't think it makes sense.  IMO, you're illegal too.
> 
> As for the rest of your post....yes, I agree.



Anyone born here is a US Citizen. As far as I know its been that way all along.

Funny thing, my 4 grandparents came here at the turn of the 20th century. 2 came from Croatia and 2 came from Spain. I've been researching our families histories for about a decade and I haven't found any evidence that grandparents ever became citizens. My great uncles became citizens but nothing so far for my grandparents. Im sure they did. I know some of my family was in Hawaii and I think it was 1917 or around there they made everyone citizens in an attempt to do a US census.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 18, 2012)

The one thing that has me really confused: Can someone explain to me how anyone who arrived before their 31st Birthday is considered a child brought here by their parents?


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 18, 2012)

> Our outspoken Gov. Brewer has stated that the young people (foreign born who were brought here illegally by their parents) who apply for and receive federal "deferred status" and temporarily receive legal residency and work visas under President Obama's recent executive order, will not be allowed to apply for and get driver's licenses, or any other Arizona state benefit_previously available to others with the same "deferred" status granted for other reasons.
> 
> Her reasoning behind denying these benefits and services to this particular group is that she doesn't recognize the President's use of an executive order as legal and binding. Her spokesman referred to the executive order as "illegal". On the other hand, immigrant advocacy groups insist that it is the Governor's actions that are blatantly illegal and an attempt to pander to the most extreme elements of the anti-immigrant crowd in this election year. Naturally, they promise to take the matter to the courts if she doesn't back down._



Gov. Brewer reminds me more and more of governors like Lester Maddox or Orval Faubus or George Wallace.  The issues and the actions they took aren't exactly the same, but the sentiment seems to be.  Maddox, Faubus and Wallace all pandered to people whose views were extreme, un-American, or even contrary to federal law ... all under the guise of "states rights".   I can't say whether Brewer is violating any law or federal directive, but I can see that she has no intent of honoring the spirit of it.

As was the case with those Southern governors, maybe it's time the federal government weighed in on the issue of a "national" driver's license. That might solve a lot of problems.  Might create some, too, but these obstructionist governors need to be put in check.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 18, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Gov. Brewer reminds me more and more of governors like Lester Maddox or Orval Faubus or George Wallace.  The issues and the actio:ns they took aren't exactly the same, but the sentiment seems to be.  Maddox, Faubus and Wallace all pandered to people whose views were extreme, un-American, or even contrary to federal law ... all under the guise of "states rights".   I can't say whether Brewer is violating any law or federal directive, but I can see that she has no intent of honoring the spirit of it.
> 
> As was the case with those Southern governors, maybe it's time the federal government weighed in on the issue of a "national" driver's license. That might solve a lot of problems.  Might create some, too, but these obstructionist governors need to be put in check.



Or if you don't like it don't go to AZ.  The last thing we need is a federal drivers license


----------



## Big Don (Aug 18, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Gov. Brewer reminds me more and more of governors like Lester Maddox or Orval Faubus or George Wallace.  The issues and the actions they took aren't exactly the same, but the sentiment seems to be.  Maddox, Faubus and Wallace all pandered to people whose views were extreme, un-American, or even contrary to federal law ... all under the guise of "states rights".   I can't say whether Brewer is violating any law or federal directive, but I can see that she has no intent of honoring the spirit of it.
> 
> As was the case with those Southern governors, maybe it's time the federal government weighed in on the issue of a "national" driver's license. That might solve a lot of problems.  Might create some, too, but these obstructionist governors need to be put in check.



Yeah, because race based segregation is the same as demanding the federal government deal with illegal aliens...


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 18, 2012)

Big Don, when I said:



> _The issues and the actions they took aren't exactly the same_


_

_I was saying the same thing you're saying.  Perhaps I should have spelled it out a little more.

So, again ...

Not the same thing. Not related to ..., etc.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 18, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Or if you don't like it don't go to AZ.



... which ends up being a _de facto_ endorsement of exclusionary policy.   



> The last thing we need is a federal drivers license



Again, it wouldn't be without its problems.  But at least it wouldn't be left up to obstructionist, pandering governors to exclude people from a privilege that the federal government says to _include_.

If the fed said that 9mm pistols were legal to own, but Gov. Jerry Brown of California said "no", do we just let California have its way?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 18, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> ... which ends up being a _de facto_ endorsement of exclusionary policy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In my opinion yes.  I believe states are free to run its state however it wants.  California already bans many guns that are legal in other states.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 18, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> If the fed said that 9mm pistols were legal to own, but Gov. Jerry Brown of California said "no", do we just let California have its way?


Lots of things are illegal in CA that are legal in other states, .50 caliber rifles (which have never been used in any crime) just to name one...
If federal law says marijuana is illegal, for any use, can states "legalize" "medical marijuana"?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 18, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> ... which ends up being a _de facto_ endorsement of exclusionary policy.


 I'm sure if all the illegals currently in Arizona left, and no new illegals came to replace them, the people of Arizona would be fine with that


----------



## aedrasteia (Aug 18, 2012)

Big Don said:


> I'm sure if all the illegals currently in Arizona left, and no new illegals came to replace them, the people of Arizona would be fine with that



maybe, maybe not. 'nother POV

Tom Russell lives near the border (Texas, not Az): 




or this version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIQeG8izfBc&feature=related


----------



## geezer (Aug 18, 2012)

Big Don said:


> I'm sure if all the illegals currently in Arizona left, and no new illegals came to replace them, the people of Arizona would be fine with that




Actually a lot of us Arizonans, including a lot of conservative Republican businessmen, would regret it if that happened "for reals". The local economy would take a huge hit. Like most border states, Arizona has always benefited from a _limited number_ of illegals, in agricultural work, hard manual labor and the service industries, especially hotels and restaurants. That's why for decades folks here in the Sunbelt border states treated illegal immigration as no big deal ...until things started to get out of control in the '90s. Too many illegals came in, wages fell, resources got stretched thin, then the politicians started pumping the issue for their own benefit. You know... posturing, finger pointing, scape-goating, playing on peoples fears, trying to ride the wave of hysteria to certain re-election, _without ever solving the problem_. 

Personally, I'd like to see some real, long-term immigration reform that both controls the borders and gives illegals a realistic path to earn legal status. That's why I support the "Dream Act" in principle. As a high school teacher in a school with a large number of Latinos, I see these kids every day. I never know exactly who is legal and who isn't, and I don't ask. But often even the legal kids, mostly citizens born here have a sibling, parent, or close relative who is not legal. And _there is *no way* these folks can legalize their status.   
_
Rather than see families ripped apart or hiding in fear, I'd like to see a real path by which illegals could do "what's right" and earn a legal status. Everybody keeps saying that they have _"no objection to people coming here legally."_ So why are they against any reform that might make it possible for folks to legalize their status? After all, that's what the "Dream Act" is an attempt to do.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 18, 2012)

During the 08 primary season McCain said he'd pay anyone $50 an hour to pick lettuce for the season, I emailed his office a number of times to take him up on that, but, got no response. 
Would food become more expensive? Probably. Would that be better than paying for all the emergency room trips, etc that illegals use, damn straight, and a lot cheaper in the long run.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 19, 2012)

geezer said:


> Actually a lot of us Arizonans, including a lot of conservative Republican businessmen, would regret it if that happened "for reals". The local economy would take a huge hit. Like most border states, Arizona has always benefited from a _limited number_ of illegals, in agricultural work, hard manual labor and the service industries, especially hotels and restaurants.



I have a problem with this because it encourages us to look the other way twords illegals in exchange for paying slave-wage for labor in violation of our labor laws... everyone who seems to support illegal immigration cites this cheap labor helping to keep costs of Lettuce down, I say it's unfair to the workers, if they are legal or not.   



geezer said:


> Everybody keeps saying that they have _"no objection to people coming here legally."_ So why are they against any reform that might make it possible for folks to legalize their status? After all, that's what the "Dream Act" is an attempt to do.



I actually support reform and making it easier and more affordable to earn citizenship... My only issue with this particular act, which I asked about above but no one would answer for me, is how do you justify calling anyone who came here under 31 years old a child?  18 I can see.  31?  No ****ing way... its a sham.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 19, 2012)

> Everybody keeps saying that they have _"no objection to people coming here legally." So why are they against any reform that might make it possible for folks to legalize their status?_



It is an obvious dichotomy, isn't it.


----------



## geezer (Aug 19, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I actually support reform and making it easier and more affordable to earn citizenship... My only issue with this particular act, which I asked about above but no one would answer for me, is how do you justify calling anyone who came here under 31 years old a child?  18 I can see.  31?  No ****ing way... its a sham.



C'mon, _Cryo_ ...you know how to do a simple Google search. Get your facts straight.  While there are several different versions of the "Dream Act" being debated, the temporary "deferred action" established by the president's executive order specifies that the applicant be *under the age of 16* when originally brought to this country, and still under the age of 30 as of June 15, 2012 (or still under 31 today) to apply. 

In other words, we are talking about people brought here as kids who have grown up as "de-facto Americans". This is the only country they know, and in many cases, English is the only language they speak proficiently.But, obviously,_ if they've grown up here ...some are "grown-ups" (i.e. young adults) now! _


Here's one of a zillion FAQs on the web you might check:  http://www.nilc.org/FAQdeferredactionyouth.html


----------



## geezer (Aug 19, 2012)

Oh, just one more interesting note relating back to the OP. Our local paper, _The Arizona Republic  _--generally considered to be "sensibly conservative"--  weighed in on our governor's statements today on their editorial page. They slammed her for going way too far, coloring her remarks as being spiteful and inconsistent with both the law and previous policies regarding immigrants with the same "deferred status" (granted under other conditions). Check it out for yourselves:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...nor-jan-brewers-deferred-status-defiance.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> It is an obvious dichotomy, isn't it.



Because they broke the law to get here its not fair to all the millions of people that did cone here legally.  Reform the law for everyone in the future send the law breakers back and make them reapply the legal way and close the borders to make it harder for more illegals to enter


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 19, 2012)

geezer said:


> C'mon, _Cryo_ ...you know how to do a simple Google search. Get your facts straight.



Back your truck up man... not MY facts... this is what was posted HERE in THIS thread and no one denied it, thats why the **** I asked. TWICE.  I didn't go out looking for data... since no one challenged that statement, I took it as true.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 19, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Because they broke the law to get here its not fair to all the millions of people that did cone here legally.  Reform the law for everyone in the future send the law breakers back and make them reapply the legal way and close the borders to make it harder for more illegals to enter



If the 8 and 10 year-old's who came here with their parents 10 years ago broke the law, then fine them $100; reform "the law" so that they may formalize their U.S. citizenship; let them get on with their American lives; and move on.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> If the 8 and 10 year-old's who came here with their parents 10 years ago broke the law, then fine them $100; reform "the law" so that they may formalize their U.S. citizenship; let them get on with their American lives; and move on.


Why my mom came here legally when she was 3 her parents did it the right way.  If your here illegally go hone and reapply its simple it does not matter how or y you came here the why is irrelevant the fact your here is a crime


----------



## geezer (Aug 19, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Back your truck up man... not MY facts... this is what was posted HERE in THIS thread and no one denied it, thats why the **** I asked. TWICE.  I didn't go out looking for data... since no one challenged that statement, I took it as true.



Dear Lord! You accept what people post _here_ without question?!? ...Not such a good idea. I hope you don't accept what you hear on the news so readily ...even if it sounds good to you ...er, especially if it sounds good. :wink2:


BTW I'm not getting all high and mighty. I probably screw up my facts as much as anybody. So it pays to check things out.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 19, 2012)

geezer said:


> Dear Lord! You accept what people post _here_ without question?!? ...Not such a good idea. I hope you don't accept what you hear on the news so readily ...even if it sounds good to you ...er, especially if it sounds good. :wink2:
> 
> 
> BTW I'm not getting all high and mighty. I probably screw up my facts as much as anybody. So it pays to check things out.




Thats ok, I want to Apologise I went back and re-read the post and I misread it in the first place.  It said People 31 and younger WHO came here as children, I read it as People 31 and younger came here as children, implying to me that they were being excused as children as old as 31, because I missed the WHO.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Why my mom came here legally when she was 3 her parents did it the right way.  If your here illegally go hone and reapply its simple it does not matter how or y you came here the why is irrelevant the fact your here is a crime



_If your parents brought you to the U.S. as a child, and you were raised here; went to school here; lived your life from childhood to adult here; then this IS your home.  It is now YOUR America._


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> _If your parents brought you to the U.S. as a child, and you were raised here; went to school here; lived your life from childhood to adult here; then this IS your home.  It is now YOUR America._



Sorry but your not an American.  NOT until you follow the rules and become a citizen.  I dont care how heartwarming the story is illegal is illegal.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Sorry but your not an American. NOT until you follow the rules and become a citizen. I dont care how heartwarming the story is illegal is illegal.



Change the rules so they can become legal residents.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Change the rules so they can become legal residents.



Why how about we make them follow the rules we already have?  We dont change the laws because so many people are speeding.  We dont change the laws because every friday night there are millions of drunk drivers on the roads so lets make it legal.  We didnt change the laws for the already millions of legal immigrants that became citizens they figured out how to do it the right way.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 20, 2012)

A drunk-driving law is intended to reduce the fatality rate of going out for a drive on Friday night. More or less, they work, and you cannot be a drunken driver without deliverately choosing to drink and drive. Immigration law is supposed to keep people out of the country... for little explicable purpose. These people did not choose to come here and make this country their home, that choice was made for them. Then you expect them to throw themselves out - in a fashion that basically ensures they will never return. 

The rules are patently unjust, and not functioning to their purpose, whatever the hell that might be. (The only one I can think of is to keep people that haven't paid into the scraps of safety net from drawing from it.) Fix them so they serve a purpose, and fix them so they aren't used as a weapon against whatever group is the "Other" this week.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 20, 2012)

cdunn said:


> Change the rules so they can become legal residents.



It's not about the law with these people.  It's about keeping "Mexicans" marginalized and hoping that they'll go back to "Mexico" (I use quotes because these people could care less if the immigrants are Mexican or Salvadoreno).

While they say NO, leave the law as is ... they would dam sure welcome new laws that made it easier to obtain a CCW permit.


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> By the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the  jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the  State wherein they reside."  The only way that will change is by constitutional amendment.  The people we are talking about here came with their parents as children.  If they are born here, then they are citizens.



Yes, this has been pointed out to me in other threads as well.  Too bad when this was written, it didn't take into consideration illegal entry into a state.  *shrug*


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> For actual driving knowledge and ability purposes, I'm with you.



IMHO, a State ID would be a better choice, if they're just going to give hand outs.


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2012)

geezer said:


> Actually a lot of us Arizonans, including a lot of conservative Republican businessmen, would regret it if that happened "for reals". The local economy would take a huge hit. Like most border states, Arizona has always benefited from a _limited number_ of illegals, in agricultural work, hard manual labor and the service industries, especially hotels and restaurants. That's why for decades folks here in the Sunbelt border states treated illegal immigration as no big deal ...until things started to get out of control in the '90s. Too many illegals came in, wages fell, resources got stretched thin, then the politicians started pumping the issue for their own benefit. You know... posturing, finger pointing, scape-goating, playing on peoples fears, trying to ride the wave of hysteria to certain re-election, _without ever solving the problem_.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see some real, long-term immigration reform that both controls the borders and gives illegals a realistic path to earn legal status. That's why I support the "Dream Act" in principle. As a high school teacher in a school with a large number of Latinos, I see these kids every day. I never know exactly who is legal and who isn't, and I don't ask. But often even the legal kids, mostly citizens born here have a sibling, parent, or close relative who is not legal. And _there is *no way* these folks can legalize their status.
> _
> Rather than see families ripped apart or hiding in fear, I'd like to see a real path by which illegals could do "what's right" and earn a legal status. Everybody keeps saying that they have _"no objection to people coming here legally."_ So why are they against any reform that might make it possible for folks to legalize their status? After all, that's what the "Dream Act" is an attempt to do.



I agree.  I'm not against reform, though it may seem that way, as long as its done right.  No shady stuff, everything on the up and up.  Get 1 plan into play and everyone adheres to it...no exceptions.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 20, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> It's not about the law with these people.  It's about keeping "Mexicans" marginalized and hoping that they'll go back to "Mexico" (I use quotes because these people could care less if the immigrants are Mexican or Salvadoreno).
> .


Nice display of racism...
Although, you are correct in that we couldn't care less where the illegals came from, the fact that they are illegal is enough to want them gone.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 20, 2012)

MJS said:


> I agree.  I'm not against reform, though it may seem that way, as long as its done right.  No shady stuff, everything on the up and up.  Get 1 plan into play and everyone adheres to it...no exceptions.



Reform has to include repealing the inconsistent policies that allow Cubans to gain citizenship (without going through the current procedures), while Central Americans are determined "illegal".


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2012)

cdunn said:


> A drunk-driving law is intended to reduce the fatality rate of going out for a drive on Friday night. More or less, they work, and you cannot be a drunken driver without deliverately choosing to drink and drive. Immigration law is supposed to keep people out of the country... for little explicable purpose. These people did not choose to come here and make this country their home, that choice was made for them. Then you expect them to throw themselves out - in a fashion that basically ensures they will never return.
> 
> The rules are patently unjust, and not functioning to their purpose, whatever the hell that might be. (The only one I can think of is to keep people that haven't paid into the scraps of safety net from drawing from it.) Fix them so they serve a purpose, and fix them so they aren't used as a weapon against whatever group is the "Other" this week.



So we should only enforce laws that you like?


----------



## geezer (Aug 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So we should only enforce laws that you like?



I don't think he's saying that. More like: "fix an unworkable, unjust and inconsistently applied set of laws to make them more just, consistent and workable".

...Of course getting people to agree on how to do that is another matter.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2012)

geezer said:


> I don't think he's saying that. More like: "fix an unworkable, unjust and inconsistently applied set of laws to make them more just, consistent and workable".
> 
> ...Of course getting people to agree on how to do that is another matter.



We have millions of people that came here the legal way so how is it not workable?  Follow the rules just because your parents made you do it is no excuse once your 18 your an adult.  Take care of the problem the right way.  Go back to your native land and file paperwork to come back the legal way.  I could see changing the rules of nobody could figure out how to come here legally but thats not the case people do it every day.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> We have millions of people that came here the legal way so how is it not workable?  Follow the rules just because your parents made you do it is no excuse once your 18 your an adult.  Take care of the problem the right way.  Go back to your native land and file paperwork to come back the legal way.  I could see changing the rules of nobody could figure out how to come here legally but thats not the case people do it every day.



Let's, for the moment, assume that "millions ... came here the legal way".  In order for them to do so, they would have been adults who came to the U.S. under advice of and consent to our immigration laws.  

Please tell me how it is that *children* who came with their parents could possess such advice and consent with respect to our immigration laws?


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 20, 2012)

Going back to thier homeland for many is not an option.  Just imagine being 18, broke, know no one, no housing, and unable to speak the language of the "home country."  Also consider that the amount visas issued is far smaller than the amount applied for so the wait could be many, many years.  Sometimes compassion needs to be the first consideration.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Let's, for the moment, assume that "millions ... came here the legal way".  In order for them to do so, they would have been adults who came to the U.S. under advice of and consent to our immigration laws.
> 
> Please tell me how it is that *children* who came with their parents could possess such advice and consent with respect to our immigration laws?



It does not matter are they here legally or not?  The answer is no.  We don't need to adjust are laws to accommodate a bunch of people that didn't follow the rules.  There are plenty of people that want to come here that are willing to follow the rules.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Going back to thier homeland for many is not an option.  Just imagine being 18, broke, know no one, no housing, and unable to speak the language of the "home country."  Also consider that the amount visas issued is far smaller than the amount applied for so the wait could be many, many years.  Sometimes compassion needs to be the first consideration.



Heartbreaking but NOT our problem.  They are the law violators.  I've heard hundreds of sad heartbreaking stories on why someone has broken the law.  Rob a bank to feed kids steal a car to get home to see sick mother blah blah blah fact is they broke a law case closed


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 20, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> It does not matter are they here legally or not?  The answer is no.  We don't need to adjust are laws to accommodate a bunch of people that didn't follow the rules.  There are plenty of people that want to come here that are willing to follow the rules.


But we WILL adjust them.  And they will be enforced.  How ironic.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> But we WILL adjust them.  And they will be enforced.  How ironic.



Maybe maybe not why enforce these new rules we dont even enforce the current ones


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 21, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Maybe maybe not why enforce these new rules we dont even enforce the current ones



When we don't enforce rules, it's usually because it's too profitable to do so.

Illegal labor, employment and immigration was a key part of a "good" economy.


----------

