GeorgiaDon

Yep, the Border Patrol for example can, and do, set up checkpoints to check all vehicles for illegal immigrants. When I lived in Tucson and was doing research in the surrounding desert, I always carried my work authorization card as I frequently ran into checkpoints. No problem. The problem now that I am a citizen is just a practical one, in that the Federal Government does not provide any form of documentation that is intended to be put in your wallet and carried on your person. They do it for the green card, so it can be done, but they just don't for naturalized citizens. Imagine if your drivers license was a 11" x 9" unlaminated sheet of paper, and was invalidated if folded, and if damaged cost $400 and took up to 10 months to replace, and you couldn't legally drive during that time. I sure you'd wonder WTF were they thinking? The larger issue is that the drivers license sucks as proof of citizenship, for the reasons I gave before. The solution to the latter problem, which would also solve the first (more trivial) problem, is a form of government issued ID that specifically is designed as proof of citizenship or legal status and is designed to resist counterfeiting. It could logically be integrated with an effective E-Verify system so employers could easily check on the ID and avoid hiring illegals. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And is that how you think the US government should deal with each and every country where there is some disagreement? Is that how the government should deal with US citizens? For that matter, is that how you'd deal with neighbors over, say, a barking dog? If a foreign country were to invade US soil [or in your example breaks into your house and molests your daughter], of course we'd kick them out by force. No-one has suggested otherwise. That's quite different from suggesting that we ensure continued access to Middle East oil by making an example of some country in the region so the rest will understand the importance of being cooperative (as in the PNAC document that outlined years in advance the rationale for invading Iraq). Krauthhammer and other conservative commentators consistently disparage every attempt at a diplomatic solution to international issues. They usually don't say right out to go to war, but they exclude every other possible approach. If every attempt to talk, or to recruit other countries to our side of the dispute is ridiculed as weakness, what else is left except military action? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That has not been shown in the other thread. Whether or not you believe that the Arizona law will lead to profiling, it is clear that circumstances could occur at any time that could lead to contact with the police, and they can then legitimately ask for proof of citizenship. I could be driving, minding my own business, and another driver could run into me, for example. Davjohns (in another thread ) provided a list of acceptible forms of ID under the Arizona law: Ø A valid Arizona driver license. Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance. Only that last applies to an out-of-state resident. Of course I would have my Georgia driver's license with me, but it is not clear that Arizona police would accept that as proof of citizenship. Some states require proof of citizenship before issuing a license, others do not. Will all police officers have a list of acceptable/unacceptable licenses, will they just accept all out-of-state licenses at face value, or will they detain holders of out-of-state licenses until they can provide other evidence of legal status? Only time will tell. If a Georgia license is not deemed sufficient proof of citizenship, what else would do? According to the Federal government (from Bill von's post): From USGovInfo: ================== Documents serving as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship are: * Previously issued, undamaged US passport * Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state of birth * Consular Report of Birth (of U.S. citizen) Abroad or Certification of Birth * Naturalization Certificate * Certificate of Citizenship The Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth should be obtained by persons who were born abroad to U.S. citizens. For a naturalized citizen, only the Naturalization Certificate and a US passport are available as evidence of US citizenship. The naturalization certificate, as I explained in my earlier post, is not designed to be portable and is in any practical sense useless as ID (unless you expect citizens to carry an unfolded 11 inch by 9 inch document at all times). That leaves the US passport. I could take a chance that a Georgia driver's license would be sufficient, but I have no way of knowing in advance if that will be acceptable, and if it isn't I'm risking being detained until the Arizona police can verify my status from Federal sources. Unless and until the Feds set up an error-free rapid response system for checking on such requests, I could be looking at days to weeks in detention until local authorities hear back from the feds. The safer alternative is to carry a universally accepted form of ID, which is a passport, when visiting Arizona from another state. Get it now? If you had actually read my post, you would have understood that I was complaining about having to carry a naturalization certificate, which is not designed to be portable. For that matter, passports are also not designed to be stuck in your pocket and carried around day after day for years at a time. A drivers license is designed to fit in a wallet and be carried around, but it's intended function to prove the legal right to drive. A secondary function is to offer evidence of identity. It isn't designed to be evidence of citizenship, and it isn't very useful for that purpose because numerous types of non-citizens are legally able to (and in fact are required to) obtain a driver's license in order to drive in the US. Also, in those states that do attempt to link legal residency or citizenship to drivers licenses, the system is easily circumvented and depends totally on the honesty of the applicant. All you need to get an authentic Georgia license is a birth certificate (ridiculously easily faked) and a utility bill to prove residence. There is no system to cross-check birth certificates, and people would scream bloody murder if there was as it would take weeks or months to get a drivers license issued if DMV had to verify every birth certificate. There was an attempt to get states to do something like this, called the RealID program, and states refused to cooperate because of the expense and the program collapsed. My point (once again) is that, if the goal of the exercise to to have a document that actually provides proof of citizenship, it would have to involve something more-or-less identical to a national identity card. If just going through the motions, appearing to be doing something without actually accomplishing anything very rigorous, is good enough, then by all means stick with drivers licenses. But then, we should be honest about the fact that we aren't really very serious about illegal immigration, we just care about putting on a show not the results. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't have a problem with the idea that one should be able to verify identity and citizenship when one is arrested or otherwise legally detained for proper cause. But do you really think a "birth certificate" is adequate? If illegals are easily able to obtain realistic-looking driver's licenses and social security cards, how hard could it be to manufacture a birth certificate? There are web sites where you can print up an Obama birth certificate with any place of birth you want, and they look pretty good too. Demanding to see an easily faked certificate as "proof of citizenship" will be as successful a barrier to illegal immigration as is taking off your shoes while going through airport security. Something more rigorous will be needed, but the conservatives in this country are dead set against anything resembling a national identity card. Also in my case, as a naturalized citizen, my birth certificate would just show that I was born in Canada. My naturalization certificate is a 11" x 9" piece of paper with photos and embossed seals attached. The paperwork that came with it makes it clear that it is invalidated as proof of citizenship if it is folded or creased. It is also illegal to make copies, although curiously at the the naturalization ceremony we were advised to make copies and keep them in a safe place in case the original was damaged. Anyway my point is, how the hell am I supposed to carry around with me at all times an unfolded 11" x 9" sheet of paper, so that I can prove citizenship on the spot if required? By the way the government does not issue wallet-sized naturalization cards, unlike the "green cards". So in effect if I want to visit Arizona, for example, I am forced to obtain and carry in my pocket at all times a US passport, even though I am a US citizen and not planning on leaving the country. A national ID card, designed to resist counterfeiting, would be more secure and more convenient if we want to really be able to verify citizenship, IMHO. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think you miss the point completely. All these stories are merely testimonials to some people's remarkable ability to interpret any possible circumstance to fit their pre-existing belief system. If you already believe there is a "God with and inscrutable plan" anything can be rationalized, but it's just self-fulfilling circular "reasoning". Is there any possible event that would suffice to convince you that there is not a God directing everything according to His Will? I doubt it very much. If people can explain away innocent people suffering terrible diseases, or the Holocaust, or two unseatbelted girls killed because Dad ran a red light, as the "Will of God", then what would it take to raise doubt? This is why religion is so unappealing to me: it explains everything and nothing at the same time. Unlike empiricism (e.g. science), in religion nothing can be falsified with evidence (as there is no evidence other than personal "revelation"), and so nothing can be objectively known. That doesn't mean that there is no God, but if there is no physical evidence and the whole belief system is founded on Bronze Age mythologies there is (IMHO) no reason to reject empirical evidence of reality (i.e. materialism) and substitute invisible, undetectable supernatural entities. Your mileage obviously varies, and if that works for you then great, you're welcome to it. But Bolas is right, your anecdote is convincing only to the already convinced. To others, it smacks of post-hock rationalizing to help Dad escape his guilt. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder how many jumps $1,000,000 would buy? Surely dropzones would count as an eligible business? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sorry, but it's not nearly that simple. First you have to find an eligible US company that wants to hire you. Then they have to obtain a certification from the Department of Labor that there are no qualified US citizens available to fill the job. Usually this means they have had to have advertised the job for a period of time (I think a month) in trade publications and large-circulation newspapers, without finding any qualified US applicants. They can't exclude Americans by low-balling the salary either, they have to offer at least the prevailing wage for that type of employment. Once the employer obtains a labor certification, you can apply for a H1 visa, but there is a quota on those and most applicants have to wait a year or more. Once you're in the States, after a while (a few years) you can apply for permanent residency. This is the route most often taken. If you have extraordinary skills, and can prove that [generally by demonstrating that you are currently being paid significantly more than the industry standard because of your exceptional skill], your employer may be able to apply for permanent residency on your behalf. Details are here. So no, the US doesn't hand out green cards to anyone with a degree. That's just the minimum starting point for a long expensive process. The point of the thread is that without a degree you can't even get started, except in a few very unusual circumstances (world-class athlete or entertainer for example), Do that, you've nothing to lose and you might get lucky. Assuming you are from Northern Ireland, otherwise you're ineligible. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Because they want the ability to draw on skilled American and Canadian workers, and it is unlikely that Canada and the US would have agreed to a one-way street. Also the TN system already existed in the US/Canada treaty that preceded the current agreement, and it would (I imagine) have been difficult to adapt the expanded NAFTA to allow TN exchanges between the US and Canada but exclude Mexico. To return to your post that I was responding to before, the great majority of Mexicans who are here illegally are not eligible for TN visas as they are not appropriately skilled. Manual labor/carpentry/chicken processing are not professions that are TN eligible, so it's not accurate to say the Mexican government is encouraging illegal immigration when legal alternatives (such as the TN) are readily available. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The problem there is that TN visas are available only to skilled/educated people in a narrow range of industries, and those are the people the Mexican government would (logically) most want to have stay in Mexico to develop Mexican industries. It is to their advantage to encourage emigration of poor and less skilled workers, for all the reasons given in other posts (sending money to Mexico, political influence, etc). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If our "intelligence apparatus" had stayed the fuck out of Iran in 1953 that country would likely still be a thriving secularist West-leaning democracy. The "might is right" belligerence you seem fond of has created many of the tensions that plague the world today. The mullahs and political climate in Iran are creatures of our own making. Given our crappy track record at using intelligence agencies to create "friends" by installing dictatorial regimes, you'd think we would have learned a little humility. Apparently the lesson is lost on some, who still think we can bully the rest of the world into jumping to our every whim. Perhaps Mr. Krauthhammer should volunteer to go fight in one of the limitless wars he seems to think we should be fighting. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How long has your family been in the US? Why didn't they "stay in their own country"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Dang! Beat me to it! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yet another plagiarized piece of crap from off the internet. This has been floating around since the 1960's, and has been applied to about every prominent politician. Funny when told as a joke, less so when the gullible post it without attribution, as if it was their own writing. Hint: Snopes is your friend. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's not clear to me why rushmc should get to define the limits of the discussion any more than anyone else does. Skydekker's question was clearly not limited to the US, and it's much more interesting than rushmc's dubious math skills. Nevertheless, since Turtle has chimed in and clarified that he intended to refer to the US, I'll agree that the political situation here is FUBAR. As much as I'm enjoying bobbing for turds with you all, it's late so goodnight and stay safe. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks, that does help. I totally sympathize with the sentiment, but it would probably be impossible to enforce. How could we possibly force Mexico to keep violators of US law in prison there? How would we respond if Mexico were to demand that we imprison US citizens in the US for violation of Mexican law? Yeah, that has got to stop. Maybe we could close their consular offices until they cease and desist. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You may be speaking of the US, but there is nothing in the OP to restrict the discussion in that way. This is an international forum, not just one for Americans. Do try to keep up. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Maybe the US could print and distribute the pamphlets; if we told them when and where to cross, we could get them to walk right onto the Border Patrol vans, instead of having to search all over the desert for them. Seriously, I would hope Obama read Fox the riot act over blatantly encouraging violation of US law. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sorry to ask, but can you repeat that- in English? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

When the term "teabagger" can be associated with centuries of slavery, followed by another century of segregation, oppression, denial of basic civil liberties, and the risk of brutal death at the hands of a mob who assert their superiority based only on a deficiency of melanin-producing cells in their skin, only then will you have any justification for equating "teabagger" with "nigger". Name for me just one Tea Party member who has been kidnapped, forced into slavery, had their spouse and children sold off, or who has had the courts rule that they are another person's property. Stop the fake righteous indignation, "help help I'm being oppressed" crap and grow the fuck up. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, I stand corrected. Although I recall that tea bags have been used as a "prop", for example when urging disgruntled citizens to mail tea bags to their congressmen. At any rate, what would be a suitable name to call a tea party member, something in the vein of "republican" or "democrat"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You guys call yourself the "Tea Bag Party". "Teabagger" seems pretty euphonious, much more natural than "tea bag partier". Perhaps you guys should have given your party another name, one that doesn't lend itself so easily to an undesirable nickname. I'd bet you five dollars Obama, along with most non-skydivers over the age of forty, isn't even aware of the alternate meaning of "teabagger". Absolutely. Your appreciation of history seems to be as backward as your understanding of science. Since your country seems to be one where people are judged by the color of their skin, I can't say I'll mourn its passing. I guess I'm just a little "nigger-lover". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I understand your point, but I wonder if fines could be levied against individual company officers as well as against the corporation. It seems to me that fines against the corporation can be passed on to customers over time, and if no actual individuals experience any adverse repercussions from their reckless behavior there may not be much to deter such behavior in the future. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

My youngest daughter was born here, while my wife and I were legally in the country but not yet permanent residents. She is a US citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but it isn't obvious to me that there is any other compelling reason why she should be a citizen. I do appreciate the generosity of the US constitution in saving me the trouble of sponsoring her through the permanent resident/naturalization process, but I did it for the rest of the family and I could have done it for her too. I suppose there may be some situations where kids born here could find themselves without citizenship anywhere, if the home countries of the parents don't recognize children born abroad as citizens, but I can't think of any example countries. On the other hand, I know someone who was born in the States (=US citizen) to a Brazilian father (=Brazilian citizen) and French mother (=French citizen, = employment eligible anywhere in the EU). He had passports from all 3 countries too. So I suppose it could be changed with relatively little adverse effect, except that the reason for the change would be abundantly obvious and would send a negative (but probably fairly truthful) message about how America regards would-be immigrants. The question is, is the "damage" done by allowing citizenship as a birthright greater than the cost that would be incurred to police the new standard, not to mention the cost to the reputation of the US? In order to assert citizenship, under the change people would need to prove not only their place of birth but also the citizenship of their parents. Of course, if the parents were not "legitimate" citizens because their parents were not citizens, then the kid wouldn't be eligible either. So a few generations down the road, we'd have a situation where a prospective US citizen would have to prove the authentic citizenship of at least one parent, and the grandparents, and so on going back generations, in addition to proving their place of birth. Good business for genealogists I suppose, but potentially a nightmare for the rest of us. I say, leave things as they are. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I had a similar experience. Living in Tucson, it was a lot easier (and perfectly legal) to pop down to Nogales to renew the TN than it would have been to go back to Canada. Most years people were fine with it, but a couple of times I got to deal with uninformed pricks who thought that I could only renew at the Canadian border. Although I encountered a few friendly INS/USCIS agents, for the most part I felt the attitude ranged from "why the fuck are you bothering me" to outright hostility. One big advantage of becoming a US citizen is that I don't have to deal with those pricks again. Welcome to America? Not so much. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I suspect that if an option was even to mail in paperwork, pay a fee, and wait 30 days for your paperwork to arrive, almost everybody would take that over jumping a fence, swimming across a river and then hiking 30 miles through the desert while evading border patrol (not to mention paying lots of $$ to a coyote who may leave you stranded in a boxcar to die of heatstroke if things look like they might go south on them). There are many disadvantages to living here illegally, and the people we want to allow in would be willing to suffer some inconvenience and expense to be able to live openly and speak up against unsafe working conditions, being ripped off by employers, etc. Realistically, the "5 minute wait" isn't going to happen (and I'm sure you meant it figuratively). Allowing a reasonable time for a background check won't dissuade people, but leaving no option other than through the desert only guarantees an ongoing problem Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)