What???

This isn't what I read, I experienced it.
I just repeated what I was told about border hopping. In this case it was from residents of Peru. Get across and its a done deal. The roads are paived with gold and jobs abound. You'll get a GC as soon as you can show your working. All kinds of crazy rumors and ideas.

Oh, wow, triple question marks! Heard? Rumors? It doesn’t change anything. Still it’s hearsay. Triple hearsay. Inadmissible evidence.

quote:

What???

This isn't what I read, I experienced it.
I just repeated what I was told about border hopping. In this case it was from residents of Peru. Get across and its a done deal. The roads are paived with gold and jobs abound. You'll get a GC as soon as you can show your working. All kinds of crazy rumors and ideas. (davdah)

quote:

“… I personally believe that with or without any new legislation, with or without legalization pathway provisions attached to it, aliens will still come, work, join their families, and stay relentlessly and unabated, and yes, defying even the possibility of death.”(RN)

Once and for all, I think this settles the issue. Cheers, and let’s leave it there.

Not hearsay, Right from the mouth of one destitute, actually several. First hand testimony. If this were a trial would be good stuff.

You're on the witness stand. Hearsay still.

Perhaps its time for the doubting jurist to visit the crime scene. Go to Tijuana or further south to Lima and see what the people have to say.

Aha! The Star Witness is no star after all! It weakens the case - to divulge the "identity of the informer(s)" (one of the nine codified evidentiary privileges). This and hearsay, so, what more do you have left? I know, a "hung jury." Anyway, it has been so since 1790.

Ok,?? I'm not sure about your last response.

You said earlier you didn't believe people in other countries look at the dream act et al and assume more is to come. They do. I added, go ask them.

In this case I am the informer and witness. I offered something better. The ready and willing confession of the accused. It doesn't get any easier than that.

Haha! I’m telling you. I’m beginning to like this game. Okay, we now need some definition of terms to put things in their proper perspectives.

The case is GOP v. Illegal immigrants. You’re the witness for the Plaintiff; I’m the witness for the Defendant. I, with the help of my counsel, stand up consistently with my stories. You, on the other hand, are obviously insufficiently assisted by resorting to “hearsay” and uncovering the identities of your informants that you should otherwise protect, even if forced, to maintain your credibility. Afterall, they're your golden assets. They should be working for the accused, but instead, they "sold" their wealth of information to you, the accuser.

Remember, this trial is taking place in a “nation of laws,” of “due process,” and of “equal protection of the laws” of all “persons” within its ”jurisdiction.” Your people in Tijuana or Lima, prospective illegal immigrants they maybe that you want the jury to believe, are not subject to any of the above, nor to the jurisdiction of this court. Your informers, or future “illegal immigrants” into the US (where “prejudice” comes in), are not a party to the instant proceedings. They are presumed innocent, much more so, than the accused, hence, whatever they say is irrelevant.

Needless to say, their future actions or overpoweringly presumed intentions, “although relevant, … may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” (Federal Rules of Evidence # 403).

Moreover, the possibility of same exact infractions by the accused (who are already in the US) by “prospective offenders” is not within the purview of this Court to contain – but rather, it’s the responsibility of Law Enforcement Agencies concerned.

All rise! ... we find the accused, not guilty. Bang! Bang! Bang! Next case...

quote:

I have already explained that tps asylum have special exception. I feel the children of undocumented have already been excepted. we do not do anything with them and they enjoy the freedom of this country until they reach the age of accountability at 18/19. We do not put them in jail breaking and entering. instead out of the kindness we tell them they are free to return to their country of origin without facing prosecution for the deeds of their parents. this is generous and compassinate in itself of usa. Not necessary for usa to do anything more or spend money that could be used for programs for underpriviledged usa children. If usa monies are going to be spent on college education for these undoucumented,, let the governments from their origin country pay for it.

By criminalizing illegal entry, again making the first offense a felony, it will have a direct impact on TPS and other programs. It will increase the level of bar to prove they should belong in TPS as well as decrease the time frame for filing the petition. Not a good combination for those who want to seek refuge in the United States.

Although the voluntary departure is available to the children, they are also available to USC and LPR's. But I do not believe that is the intent of you wanting them to "volunteer" to go back home. What I do believe it that you have an ulterior motive behind the facade of "law and order." I could point out possibilities, but I do not think you will act like Abimael Guzmán.

Both children (USC or illegal) of illegal parents and children of USC parents face the same obstacles, hardships, and prejudices, both are innocent. Yet you want to create a class system based on the actions of the parents. This is not only unforgivable, but it also does not belong to hwat this country stands for. So much for the the "law and order" side of the argument.

quote:

First and foremost. They busted into the camp and killed them and to take their food because they were starving and hungry. Doesnt matter if it was legal term or not. Now because they were starving and hungry... would you say this was justifiable homicide? just curious.

I think you are confusing Thomas Hunt and Thanksgiving. What Thomas Hunt did was unforgivable. What happened at Plymouth Rock was unfortunate since they were several hundred miles north of the Jamestown colony, their original destination. And because of fear and ignorance on both sides, neither side completely trusted each other. But again, the Native Americans never believed in the concept of ownership the same way as Europeans did. And to some degree, they still do not in some resects, today. But then again, most of the settlers died because of "Indian fever" and the harsh winter, not because of Indians or their animosity toward whites. But humor me, prove a link that describes the incident you are describing.

quote:

the other undocumenteds coming out of desperation/starving...? what defines justified desperation for you Hudson? I am more inclined to say they come here for opportunity. Best way to describe opportunity is "The window is open... lets go inside and see whats there" Now a percentage of people would never trespass on someones property that wasnt theirs because the window was open. and a percentage of people would... because they are opportunists and would not give any thought to the aspect of violating someone elses property.

I understand why they are coming and why they are here. To put in into your perspective, can you place everything you onw or did own into a backpack while going into a region where the perception is that everyone hates you? You do not know who to trust or not trust? But you want to provide a future for your family instead of starvation, despair, and hopelessness. The answer is probably not. You will probably need a U-haul truck for your, as well as most Americans, including the poor.

The issue with illegal immigration is two fold: how to prevent future illegal immigration and what to do with the ones who are already here. The answer is complex and is not intended for the simplistic minded people. It will require everyone to help: individuals, businesses, NGO's and government on both sides of the fence. That is why I believe that increasing the economic opportunities on both sides will reduce illegal immigration. Building walls or closing the window will not work on a long term basis. It will also breed fear, ignorance, and racial/ethnic prejudice. Why don't you read, "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. It might make you understand something of what has happened in the US in t he 1930's.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Hudson,

I believe these 2 commentaries, one by Mary Sanchez K.C. Stat and the other by
A.Oppenheimer historian.


Wildfires stoked the flames of ethnic hatred
By MARY SANCHEZ

FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="

The Southern California wildfires were just too alluring for the wackos bent on demonizing Latinos.
All the elements for conspiracy were there — innocent victims, massive destruction and no clear culprit. Perfect.
So some jokester with a few computer skills jerry-rigged a bogus version of a news Web page and sent it off into the vast reaches of the Internet. The made-up headline — "Separatists claim responsibility for California Wildfires" — was posted on a site that looked seriously like CNN.com.
Listed in a "Story Highlights" sidebar were these items:
Mexican separatists claim California stolen from Mexico.
Blaze was started with simple "Molotov cocktails."
FBI, ATF, local fire and law officials investigating.
Gov. Schwarzenegger: This is "an unforgivable act of inhumanity."
The hoax spread quickly — a little like a wildfire, you might say. Somebody forwarded me an e-mail with an imbedded link to the fake news story. Blaring at the top of the e-mail was this message:
RACE WAR! HISPANICS CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR STARTING CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES TO BURN WHITE PEOPLE OUT!
It didn’t take much effort to figure out that the Web page was phony. The misspelled words were the first clue. CNN was alerted. The network traced the page to Nashville, Tenn., and forced the hosting Internet service provider to yank the page.
Even a few of the ultra-patriot blogs that fell for the hoax grudgingly acknowledged it as such — but not, however, until after their faithful readers were allowed their daily rant.
"If this story is correct, the cry ‘death to illegal aliens’ must be heard across America," someone wrote in one such blog.
See, that’s the thing about rumors, twisted facts and outright fabrications. Left unchallenged, they begin to pollute honest conversation and thought. Thanks to its sheer audacity, this particular hoax attracted attention and got debunked.
But it echoed a number of myths and fallacies held dear by the Minutemen and other groups opposed to sensible immigration reform. And when there isn’t a clever forgery to momentarily shine light on these falsehoods, they don’t get challenged but fester and propagate.
Foremost among these myths is the idea that Mexican immigrants arrive bent on destruction and "reconquest" of American territory. According to the hoax, the fires were set by the "radical Hispanic separatist organization" called MEChA. The story even quotes a purported manifesto claiming that the fires were part of the group’s campaign to reclaim "Aztlan," the mythical Aztec homeland held by some to incorporate California and other parts of the southwestern United States.
A group named MEChA does exist — the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan — and it is active at many high schools and colleges in the United States. It has some ’60s-era radical language about "liberation" in its charter, but MEChA chapters today focus on graduating Latinos from high school and getting them through college. They study for the ACT and SAT tests, not revolution.
Spend a few minutes surfing on right-wing Web sites and you will find numerous variations on a theme: that the influx of Mexican immigrants is an organized movement, an invasion to usurp the sovereignty of the United States. That groups like MEChA and the National Council of La Raza are the agents of this plot.
Some of these conspiracy theories would be comical if they weren’t so menacing.

Let’s be clear: It’s not hate to say you don’t want rampant illegal immigration. It’s not hate to say that you’re uncomfortable surrounded by people who don’t speak English. It’s not hate to fear your job being taken by somebody else who will work for less.
It is hate to stigmatize and demonize people who come to this country any way they can because they are so desperately poor. It is hate to call for violence, or to coyly suggest that violence might "happen," and if it does, "so be it," or to sow fear that certain ethnic groups are an internal enemy.
And to those who scrupulously avoid the appearance of hate, yet who encourage it and profit from it politically or financially, that doesn’t get you off the hook. You’re still trafficking in hate.
There are principled reasons to be upset about the presence of illegal immigrants in this country — and about the unwillingness or inability of Congress to do anything constructive about it. Yes, there are societal costs to having so many people hired off the books, not integrated into American society by Social Security cards, driver’s licenses, tax rolls.
Discussing the immigration issue — not to mention doing something to resolve it — is complicated. But apparently it is far easier for some to resort to an increasingly common tactic, promoting Latino immigrants as the ready scapegoats for anything that ails America. Even wildfires.

< Previous page
To reach Mary Sanchez, call 816-234-4752 or send e-mail to msanchez@kcstar.com.




PRESSURE ON IMMIGRANTS COULD ERUPT IN ANGER

mercurynews.com
By Andres Oppenheimer
Article Launched: 11/06/2007 01:33:44 AM PST

The rapid escalation of U.S. anti-immigration hysteria - fueled by ratings-hungry cable-television hotheads and leading Republican presidential hopefuls - is a dangerous trend: It may lead to a Latino intifada with the potential to rock this nation in the not-so-distant future.

Remember the Palestinian intifada of the early 1990s, when thousands of frustrated young Palestinians took to the streets and threw stones at Israeli troops? Remember the French intifada of the summer of 2005, in which disenfranchised Muslim youths burned cars and stores in the suburbs of Paris?

If we are not careful, we may see something similar coming from the estimated 13 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, most of them Latino, who are increasingly vilified in the media, forced further into the underground by spineless politicians and not given any chance to legalize their status by a pusillanimous U.S. Congress.

We are creating an underclass of people who won't leave this country and, realistically, can't be deported. They and their children are living with no prospect of earning a legal status, no matter how hard they work for it. Many of them will become increasingly frustrated, angry, and some of them eventually may turn violent.

I was thinking about all of this when I read about last week's U.S. Senate refusal to pass the DREAM Act, a bill that would offer a path to legalization to children of undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States at a very young age, and who get a college degree or serve in the military.

The bill would have regularized the status of youths like Juan and Alex Gomez, the two Colombian-born Miami brothers who were brought by their parents to this country as toddlers, graduated near the top of their high school classes, and now face deportation to a country they don't even remember.

There are an estimated 1.8 million children in the United States who are growing up like other American kids, often speak no language other than English, but don't have legal documents, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They are denied in-state college tuition fees or scholarships that are available to legal U.S. residents, and are eventually thrown into a labor market where they are barred from being employed.

Further, the Bush administration-backed escalation of raids against undocumented workers in factories, the increase of city ordinances prohibiting people from leasing apartments to undocumented immigrants, and the overt xenophobia spilling daily from Latino-phobic radio and cable-television shows will leave their mark on these and other children in immigrant communities.

A study released last week by the Urban Institute and the National Council of La Raza says there are about five million U.S. children with at least one undocumented parent.

"The recent intensification of immigration enforcement activities by the federal government has increasingly put these children at risk of family separation, economic hardship, and psychological trauma," the report says.

The study looked at the impact of recent U.S. immigration raids in Colorado, Nebraska and Massachusetts, where about 900 undocumented workers were arrested at their work sites, and their children - most often infants - were suddenly deprived of their fathers or mothers.

"The combination of fear, isolation, and economic hardship induced mental health problems such as depression, separation anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide thoughts," it said.

My opinion: We have to stop this xenophobic hysteria. And please, dear anti-immigration readers, don't tell me I'm being dishonest for failing to point out that you are not against legal immigration, but only against "illegals."

You are making a deceptive argument. Leaving aside the fact that nearly half of the undocumented immigrants came to this country legally, and overstayed their visas, their non-compliance with immigration rules should not stigmatize them with the label of "illegals."

You may have violated a rule, but that should not make you an "illegal" person. You may have gotten a ticket for speeding, but that doesn't make you an "illegal" human being, even if the potential harm of your reckless driving is much greater than anything done by most of the hard-working undocumented immigrants in this country.

Carrying out enforcement-only policies, labeling undocumented workers as "illegals" and depriving them of hope for upward mobility - rather than working toward greater economic cooperation with Latin America to reduce migration pressures - is not only wrong, but dangerous. The millions of undocumented among us will not leave. They will only get angrier.

quote:

We are creating an underclass of people who won't leave this country and, realistically, can't be deported. They and their children are living with no prospect of earning a legal status, no matter how hard they work for it. Many of them will become increasingly frustrated, angry, and some of them eventually may turn violent

What.... meaning they are going to force the usa to make them legal by blackmailing with violence and force.??????


illega Please

What do you think the usa will do when faced with that if it happens???? Do you think usa will bend over and take it there??

I think it will be the beginning of the end 4them. Government will turn on them and if not, the usa people will make sure govt will.

If we create an underclass as we seem to be doing. And if the end result is as 4now predicts--rebellion followed by the rebels being crushed by the USA, or maybe another lawless weekend like happened in Los Angeles, or even worse. Isn't there a more sane way, or hamanatarian way to deal with hard working families of undocumented immigrants who only came here to give a better life to their families. I just can't believe the people of better nature in this country won't find a way to "welcome the stranger" in our nation.

quote:

Needless to say, their future actions or overpoweringly presumed intentions, “although relevant, … may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” (Federal Rules of Evidence # 403).

Maybe, but not here. You see, the prior legal actions which granted amnesty are what continue to fuel the hopes and consequently the breaking of our laws. This is what brings them here. They have hopes they will someday be made legal. If they knew there was no chance then the desire to break our laws would be that much less. Why do people line up in front of dpt stores the day after Thanksgiving? Past history creates a pattern which is followed in the future. Break the history and you break the pattern. The glove fits.

Looks like all the judge will have to look at is my depositions. Credible, since my list of witnesses chose to obey our laws and stay on their side of the border. Yours,..looks like a no show. Oh, one other thing. I tipped off DOHS so they had one of their buses parked out side the court house. Picked up your people at the door. Default judgment time.

Davdah is wrong. Immigrants come here because the available employment in the USA allows them to make enough income to support their family. In Mexico for example the wages of $5/$10 per day is not sufficient. If they could make equal $ purchasing power in Mexico they would not come. Illigal immigration will only stop when their country of origen pays living wages. Walls and adding border police will slow the traffic but cannot stop it without useing methods unexceptable to civilized people.

Your comparing the minimum wage in mexico to a decent wage here. Can you live on a minimum wage job here? Probably not, just like anywhere else. Not everyone in Mexico is dirt poor. Anyone there that wants to get ahead can. One of my former wives was from there. All of her relatives who put some effort into their life are doing ok.

Your partially correct. The ones that do have a life stay put. That is why we get all the lettuce pickers. They have no education or much else to offer their own country so they come here.

No one is entitled to a living wage, what ever that is. Who's obligation is it to pay it? The place of employment? Ok then. If this living wage has to be paid it will come from raising the prices across the board to its customers. What happens next? The customers go elseware. The employer fires everyone due to lack of sales and now they are all on welfare. That is why walmart is doing so well. In the end the customer is going to shop for the best deal. They couldn't care less about the benefits or pay of the employees that work there. When was the last time anyone questioned an employer about fair wages ahead of their own shopping practices?

This is for RN. If we're going to play lawyer and quote the rules of evidence lets not forget rule 406. The one about habits and things like that. Or how about 608, a person's character and conduct. 613 may apply if any of yours overstayed a visa or otherwise deceived our border people.