the stats presented by the CCSCE regarding crimes committed by illegal aliens are flawed. I will tell you why they are flawed and cannot be relied on.

We are not allowed to report on the immigration status of people that we prosecute. The courts are not allowed to report on the immigration status of the people who are processed thorugh the system and either plead guilty or are convicted. State and local law enforcement agencies are not allowed to report on the immigration status of people they arrest.

The only way we ever know of a person's immigration status is when there is an INS hold noted on their rap sheet OR when a defense attorney makes the outrageous claim that the case against his client should be dismissed because...GASP...they are here illegally and if convicted will be deported and will never be able to obtain legal immigration status.

So, the CCSCE cannot stay, with any certainty, that illegal alines commit less crimes because we have no way of knowing who is legal or not. And the defendants certainly will not provide that informaiton.

What was the methodology employed by the CCSCE for that little nugget of Orwellianism?

As far as whether illegal immigrants improve the community, I can offer you my own eyewitness account.

When my family moved to L.A., the San Fernando Valley (even the worst parts of it) was a plesant, suburban place to raise a family. Low crime was one of its main attractions. Nearly forty years later, parts of the San Fernando Valley (where illegal immigrants congregate) look like a thirld world nation. Streets are dirty, crime is high, houses and apartment buildings are not kept up like they used to. Gang fighting in those neighborhoods (where previoulsy typical crimes involved a bunch of kids stealing a six pack of beer) has gotten to the point where people are in constant fear for their lives.

I have seen the change with my own eyes. Anyone who has live din L.A. long enough will tell you the same.

You're fortunate that you live in Hawaii. While illegal immigrants have no problem crossing the Rio Grande, I am certain that they would have a much tougher time swimming 1/2 way across the Pacific.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

I grew up believing that the Constitution guaranteed that. However, the 14th Amendment qualifies the statement. It says "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."

If the framers of this amendment intended anybody to instantly become a citizen just by being born here, why the qualification? Obviously it was intended to exclude foreign nationals from the rule. And these border-jumping criminals are subject first and foremost to their original countries, not ours. Therefore their children should not be citizens. Q.E.D.

It's true that in the late 1890s "the Supreme Court ruled that a person born within the territorial boundaries of the United States is eligible for birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of his or her parents. The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes." (This is from the Wikipedia article; take it with whatever salt is needed. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

You could make out a case that these invaders are indeed enemy forces in hostile occupation of the U.S., couldn't you? But in any case, if the Supreme Court decided one way in the 19th Century, they might well reverse themselves, and should, in the 21st.
.

__________________
* *
-- Paul W. (The Benzadmiral)
('03 Buick Park Avenue, charcoal/cream)
Formerly:
'97 C230, smoke silver/parchment; '86 420SEL, anthracite/light grey; '84 280CE (W123), dark blue/palomino

Since I can go off-subject with the best of them...

When I first started with the Hartford Courant almost 11 years ago now, I was paid to pickup the bundles of papers in my truck and drop them off to 8-10 carriers (mostly kids) at their houses. Then deliver the Sunday inserts on Saturday (in my case I had to put a high-rise cap on and use the back seat of a crew cab-it was over a ton for the inserts) so that they could pre-assemble them. That really was stupid easy money, almost $1600/mo.

Then about 5 years ago (shortly after the Tribune bought them) due to cost cutting they went to a depot pickup where every carrier had to pick their papers up at a local depot (in my case Hartford) by 4-4:30 depending on the day thus eliminating my original job and the age of the paperboy and papergirl in CT. I picked up a nice route of 280 houses with about 170 being bag & toss in the driveway or the tubes at the driveways so I was able to bang out a lot in a hurry and still be done in time for breakfast and a break before getting to work at the real job at 7. It was still good money for a PT job that left your after work hours free for family stuff but nothing like it was when I started.

After I left they cut out good performance bonuses every 6 months (usually a few hundred bucks) and starting charging table rental fees to all of the carriers whether you use your tables or not. I got out just in time, although I have subbed for friends on a couple of occasions since then. Needless to say the quality and reliability of the carriers has suffered.

__________________

1980 300TD-China Blue/Blue MBTex-2nd Owner, 107K (Alt Blau) OBK #15
'06 Chevy Tahoe Z71 (for the wife & 4 kids, current mule) '03 Honda Odyssey (son #1's ride, reluctantly) '99 GMC Suburban (255K+ miles, semi-retired mule) 21' SeaRay Seville (summer escape pod)

You mean it's legal now for a non-citizen, someone who has no permission to enter this country, let alone work in it -- it's legal for him to be hired? If so, then yes, we do need some new laws, laws with teeth.

I agree that if the employer did everything according to the book, and the worker's papers turn out to be forgeries, the employer shouldn't be held accountable. Well, maybe a small fine, to make the employer very wary of hiring anybody who doesn't speak reasonable English in the first place.

As to rent, these people obviously find places to live. I don't think landlords accept cash for rent any more -- but the illegals can buy a money order on the first of the month. Landlords will rent to anybody with a pulse who can pay their extortion money every 30 days; I see it every day in my apartment complex. If the law came down on them -- strongly and consistently -- for renting to illegals, they'd change their ways. Not only should the landlord be fined, but the fine should include (but not be limited to) all the rent the illegal paid while he was living there illegally.

Their policy would change overnight to "No hablas ingles? No checking account to pay your deposit? Then no apartment. Lo siento."
.

__________________
* *
-- Paul W. (The Benzadmiral)
('03 Buick Park Avenue, charcoal/cream)
Formerly:
'97 C230, smoke silver/parchment; '86 420SEL, anthracite/light grey; '84 280CE (W123), dark blue/palomino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2uErWWwQTo

Nice to have a sense of humor about the whole thing....

I heard that *exact* same story also, except in the variation I heard, that the countries involved were the UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The destination was usually San Diego.

Disgusting.

"Anchor babies" they call it.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Anchors aweigh my friends....

For Asians, L.A. seems to be a more desired destination.

__________________
Current Benzes

1989 300TE "Alice"
1990 300CE "Sam Spade"
1991 300CE "Beowulf" RIP (06.1991 - 10.10.2007)
1998 E320 "Orson"
2002 C320 Wagon "Molly Fox"

Res non semper sunt quae esse videntur

My Gallery

Not in this weather!

I prefer "Anchors away" myself.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Don't anchors usually get dumped overboard for an extended period of time with a rope tied to it?

Not for this Asian. Probably other Asians like it because there are many other Asians there.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Read about that too . . . five years ago in 2003, resulting from a Homeland Security crackdown on those agencies and doctors.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be likewise in the interest of our "Big Government" else it would be acting upon it.

More so, it seems that there is a deliberate intention in the interest of "Corporate America" for this happen, for many profitable reasons, such as keeping labor costs and wages low, creating new consumers in an market over-saturated with useless goods and services ect. ect. ...

However, it is the same everywhere. Europe, America, it doesn't matter. The meltdown is escalating. Only a few will scoop the cream of the milk.

One of the finest agencies in the country. Thank the Lord!

A few more facts to clear up some misconceptions:

- Undocumented immigrants are not entitled to most health, social service, and economic benefits in programs such as MediCal, welfare, unemployment insurance,and disability payments. Some restrictions on these programs apply to legal immigrants as well.

Undocumented immigrants can recieve medical care, without insurance, via federal government mandated regulations

- The Pew Hispanic Center survey was conducted by telephone from October 3 through November 9, 2007 among a randomly-selected, nationally-representative sample of 2,003 Hispanic adults (with a margin of error of plus/minus 2.7 percentage points).

The survey finds that Hispanics oppose immigration enforcement measures, often by lopsided margins. Three quarters (75%) disapprove of workplace raids; some 79% prefer that local police not take an active role in identifying illegal immigrants; and some 55% disapprove of states checking for immigration status before issuing driver's licenses.

By contrast, non-Hispanics are much more supportive of all these policies, with a slight majority favoring workplace raids and a heavy majority favoring driver's license checks.

The survey finds less pronounced--but still significant--gaps within the Hispanic community on a range of matters, from perceptions about discrimination to attitudes about illegal immigration to support for tougher enforcement measures.

For example, on questions about enforcement policies, native-born Hispanics take positions that are closer to those of the rest of the U.S. population than do foreign-born Hispanics. Also, the native born are less likely than the foreign born to report a negative personal impact from the heightened attention to immigration issues.

Likewise, Hispanics who are not citizens feel much more vulnerable in the current environment than do Hispanics who are citizens. They are about twice as likely as Hispanic citizens to worry about deportation and to feel a specific negative personal impact from the heightened attention to illegal immigration. (Non-citizens account for 44% of the total adult Hispanic population. Of these non-citizen Latino adults, an estimated 55% are undocumented immigrants and the other 45% are legal aliens).

Whatever new vulnerability Hispanics feel in the present political and policy environment, the survey finds little evidence of a backlash against illegal immigration by Hispanics themselves. To the contrary, Hispanics generally see illegal immigrants as a plus – both for the Latino community itself and for the U.S. economy in general. Here, too, there are differences by nativity – with the foreign born significantly more positive than the native born in their views about the effects of illegal immigration. But even the native born are more positive than negative. And, as they assess the impact of illegal immigrants on the economy, native-born Latinos are more inclined to see a positive impact now (64%) than they were five years ago, when just 54% said the impact was positive.


.

So? They should not be entitled to ANYTHING at all

Again, why should we have these parasites here?

Nice wording calling them "undocumented immigrants". Why don't we call they what they are? ILLEGAL ALIENS? Or do you want to call the drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Aklim, I believe your POV is clear, but how about contributing some facts, research or other information to the "debate."

Clearly, there are multiple sides to this complex social and economic issue, however there is undoubtably an element of misinformation, mistruths and some outright racism in the national debate as well, from both sides.

American history, both recent and past, contains numerous episodes of the uglier side of our views on immigrants and immigration. Perhaps it's time we reject the legacies of the past and work on different solutions.