Sanctuary
 

Churches pushing sanctuary movement to help illegal immigrants Very simple;
1-Deport the illegal aliens.
2-Make them take their spawn with them unless they can provide a trust fund to provide for them until they are 18.
3-Jail ANYONE that interferes with the process.
4-Tax churches, Mosques and Synagogues that attempt to hide fugitives.

Yes, I am as serious as a heart attack.

I agree 100%. And the Demoncrat that wins the big chair in washington will pat the issue on the head for 2 years and promise them a guest worker program and fast track to citizenship.

I suppose it's very simple to for you to wish for, anyway. Reality is, this agenda would be too expensive to implement full-scale. There won't be any taxation of churches, etc. and even if there were, it wouldn't cover the cost.

Regarding "spawn"--whether you like it or not, those who are born here, are citizens. Anyone who has a problem with that is welcome to go back to their ancestors' country of origin.

Since the people (i.e. human beings) who'd seek sanctuary want to become citizens, what is your problem, exactly? Any other reason besides the petty and very often unrealistic, "they should have gone through the 'proper' channels from their countries of origin"?

Why is that petty and unrealistic?

What would it cost? It's easy for you to say we can't do it because it's too expensive, give me some numbers...and their source.

Yes, according to the supreme court they are. BUT, they are not obliged to stay here, so this bullshit about wrenching children from their parents is complete bullshit.
Also, why should I have to support the little bastards, why does their spawn become my problem? Why am I responsible for their housing, education and medical care.... as if I wasn't already.

Since the people (ie criminals openly flaunting the laws that everyone else abides by or pays a penalty) are here illegally, that is my problem exactly. Any other reasons besides they don't respect and obey our laws", break the welfare and health care systems and contribute mightily to the increased crime rate, are unnecessary.

America has an immigration problem. How is this helping anyone except the churches' publicty campaigns? There are regulations about entering the US when pregnant and about to drop to prevent people claiming residence on these grounds (US baby) (don't know if these are official or unoffical). People do this specifically to get a foothold. Offspring will be entitled to the nationality of their parents, it's not as if they have no-where to go. yes, they are American, they have a right to remain. They can be adopted by people who actually have the means to support them..... Just a thought :)

/legal immigrant rant ;)

You want numbers from me? How about give me some numbers showing how much you're supposedly supporting "the little bastards." How much are undocumented immigrants, specifically, breaking the welfare and healthcare systems? How mightily are they contributing to the crime rate?

For many new immigrants, it's often unrealistic because the waiting periods are too long to wait (currently at least 10 years) to just get a visa, when you need to support yourself and your family now.

For immigrants who are already here, particularly if they've lived in the U.S. most of their lives, the U.S. is their home. They've gone to school, established networks, and most likely are gainfully employed here. What is the point of forcing them to go back to a country they have little, if any, connection to, just to go through a bureaucratic process?

Yeah, you know, I have a cart full of groceries but I'm in big hurry so I use the express lane. Fuck everyone else, their life isn't neary as hectic as mine... [/sarcasm]

If they're not here legally they shouldn't be here at all, sob story or not.

They have all been posted over and over in every immigration thread we've had.
But I've never seen any one come up with costs of deporting them.
Certainly it's not the Immigration Service that we're paying anyway.
Court system? That can't be much, bring them before a Magistrate, no proof of citizenship, on the bus.
Although I hear they are now holding them until they can make as sure as they can, the criminals aren't wanted for something else also. That is a minor expense, even less if you just chain them up and don't feed them while they're being checked out.

Because you can't give an estimate on it.

Give an estimate on how much the "war on terror" or the "war on drugs" will cost? Then what are the chances it is even close. Zero.

It's hardly petty and unrealistic, but the real problem isn't that America has an immigration problem: it's that too many other countries have a severe middle-class problem. The problem being that they don't have one.

The example is particularly obvious in Latin America: rather than the North American legion of smallholders, some of whom became by their efforts, well, largeholders, Latin America was sparsely colonized by fairly well-fixed aristocratic types and warriors who became large landholders, and there was practically no population between these and the landless, penniless masses.

This has persisted for a very long time. Anyone there who's sick of being penniless has to look elsewhere. And here they are -- and doing well enough to send billions in remittances to their families still in Mexico, keeping that economy afloat, being third in that nation's income behind tourism and oil.

Where the other nations have erred, and consequently are suffering a brain drain and a loss of talent and energy, is in not establishing an American-type sociopolitical order: secure property rights, an absolute minimum of government regulation (that's where we started, anyway), economic liberty to move one's funds around however one thinks best, political liberty and freedom of association -- all these things and more work together, making America supremely wealthy per capita, and all other contenders into also-rans, and also-stumbleds.

Do you think this is relevant in some way or are you just trying to take a shot at the other team? :eyebrow:

That analogy does not even come close to what many of the actual situations are. Not sure if you're aware, but people die, are raped, maimed, and robbed of everything they own trying to get to the U.S. It's not a matter of convenience in these cases, it's desperation.

Are the ones who get in (illegally) more desperate than everyone else, or is it just more convenient/easier for them to sneak in? Some desperate people have entire oceans in their way...

Wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption to say that people that do enter countries illegally are by definition more desperate simply by demonstrating that they can't wait to go through the legal chanels?

Uh... no. No, I don't think it would.

Maybe it depends what your definition of desperate is.

I am just saying that it is impossible to give a cost estimate of these because they are on-going, we have no idea what and how much of whatever is out there, and the cost rises dramatically with how much effort you put into it.

Well hell, every other project, public and private, has an estimate before it starts. How can you budget/finance without that?
I refuse to believe they can't estimate the cost, even if they are wrong.

It could be, but I'm having a hard time believing that mexico is the most desperate place on earth, and that's where the majority of our illegal immigrants come from.

Yeah I guess that's true. I guess I"m looking at the kinds of illegal immigrants we get here, and I'd say that as a rule, their level of desperation is pretty well up there with the best of them. Most of them apply for visas with refugee status but not all are approved. I believe many are though.

I think it's safe to assume that the people who risk life and limb to get here illegally, are extremely desperate. In those cases, I don't think convenient or easy factor in.

A lot of illegal immigrants actually come through Mexico (if they can make it through, that is) from further points south. Although there are Mexicans who contend with very desperate conditions.

Mexico is the country of origin for 54% of illegal immigrants. 80% are from the western Hemisphere.

My point is, I don't think mexicans, canadians or peruvians have more of a right to be US citizens, just because its easier for them to sneak in, than people on the other side of the globe. I don't think "they're already here" is a good reason to let them stay.

The only reason they risk life and limb to get here is they are too lazy to fix their own country. It's easier to come here than put a stop to the corruption and mismanagement at home, that strangles their economy and keeps them poor. Where the hell is all the money from Mexico's oil fields? That sure didn't get spread around, but did they do anything about it? No, they came here instead.

Why didn't the Iraqis fix their own problem instead of allowing the US and friends to depose the dictator?

Allowing? I don't think anyone gave them the choice...

I was trying to be polite

The info seems to be a little old...1996? I wonder if the estimated percentages still apply.

I'll bite.

Wrong. Not SCOTUS, the Constitution we both revere. *Obligated* to stay here? Who is? You? Me? Only as much as the other citizens. Equally.

Not too long ago, you were part of this conversation:
Unless you're a citizen spawn. How can you square this circle, xoB? Only care for the convenient parts of the Constitution? That is unlike you. I agree our nation has a problem with illegal immigration. We probably don't agree on the severity of that problem, and, based on this recent thread, we damn sure don't agree about which citizens are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Purfuit of Happineff, and which are not.

OK, they're citizens. Leave them here to starve to death in the streets or be shot down, while running in packs and preying on people like Lord of the Flies. You happy now?

Or make 'em all scouts and let 'em live on cookies. Maybe we could put them in the zoos that are being emptied because we care more about animals than these kids.

You know that children don't have the same rights as adults. No, make their parents take care of them until they are 18, then if they want to come back, fine, we'll have a welcome back party.

Let us know what you find out.

It looks like the latest, official detailed estimates came out with the 2000 Census (pdf file).

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...eport_1211.pdf

They estimate the percentage of Mexicans are 69% of illegal immigrants. It could be close to the real number, or not...I wonder how many immigrants from Central and South America just say they're from Mexico, in case they're deported. Then, they're only taken across the border, instead of being flown all the way back to, say, Ecuador, Colombia or Brazil (countries of origin that are estimated to have large jumps in the number of immigrants in 2000) and having to start the journey all over again.

This article from NPR helps explain the estimate sources and methodology. I thought this was particularly interesting:

This could explain why, at least partly, the U.S. has been seeing such a huge increase in undocumented immigrants lately.

These people are stealing time, money and a place in this nation from those who are waiting in line legally to come here the way they should.
What is stopping the US from just going into those churches and arresting those illegals and deporting them like we should. A church is just a building.
I agree, if their nation is so bad, stay and fix it.

Why, only the same thing that is stopping the US from just going into your compound and arresting those illegals. A compound is just buildings. You cool with that too?

In the real world, there are children who have one legal immigrant/citizen parent, and one who may face deportation, so the kids end up losing a parent whether they stay or go. Usually, when both parents are deported, they do take their children with them; other times they are left with relatives. Sometimes, they have to go into foster care if their parent(s) can't take them. Ten years ago, this wasn't an issue--parents could stay in the U.S. with their kids. Then some idiotic bill was passed that has resulted in families and communities being uprooted and torn apart.

I can't say I'm the biggest fan of churches, etc. for my own purposes, but I'm glad that these institutions are here to take a strong stand on this issue. To me, it speaks a lot for their core purpose in our society.

"Our founding fathers" didn't do that. Even they got the hell out of dodge and moved here.

Or maybe someone can come along and help them fix it. Then we'll end up with a bigger Cuba right next door.

Wrong, they were in their nation, and decided to take it for their own.
Again and again, I have no issue with someone who immigrates legally.

We don't have illegals in our home.
A church is not a home, not the same thing at all.
What is your deal with my house V? You have issues man.

I don't have illegals in my church.

How is a church different than a home? You've held forth at great length and volume as to the separation of church and state, which makes it easy to conclude that the churches are not public property, but private property. Just like your house. The same thing after all.

My deal with your house is exactly the same as your deal with my church. Clearly we share the same issue.

Because a church is not a domicile, it is not private property. It is pretty simple actually.
A chuch is a business.

Doesn't matter if it's a business or domicile, if they know a fugitive from justice is hiding there they have every right to take them out and punish anyone who interferes.

The stupid policy of allowing the parents of children born here to stay is why we have so many families taxing social services, it was a bad policy that should have ended sooner.

Any citizen that marries a criminal should not be surprised if it bites them in the ass.

Mexico has a shitload of soldiers on their southern border to try and stem the flow of illegal aliens which them deem a serious problem. Ironic, ain't it.

Lots of business are private property.

Why does that make it ok for "the US [to]... just going into those churches and arresting those illegals and deporting them like we should." and not other private property?

Just so we're clear--private property, m'kay? Due process, warrants, you remember those? They're *ours*. Not "the US's". Not theirs to take and I'm damn sure not giving them away.

What the hell's wrong with you people?! First xoB says deport those citizens! Fuck! Deport them?! Where?!! This **IS** their country! And now you're saying private property be dammed. Warrants be dammed. Rule of law be dammed, just get those icky people out of here, they're clogging up my church!

I must have missed the Backwards-talking-like-a-Gooberment-Pirate-Day memo.

For the record, I don't really give a rip about your compound. But I'm pretty sure I don't want the free-for-all because-we-can search and destroy mission on it to set any precedent for my home or my church or my business. The government has a hard job, but it's rules, people, rules, that keep it from spinning apart.

We already have evil gremlins like AG Gonzales pulling the threads out of the seams as it is. Stop helping. Stop collaborating. Jay-sus!

Who said they didn't have to have a warrant? I'm saying there is no place to hide, if they know where you are they can come and get you. Churches don't have special dispensation in American law.

Bullshit, you know damn well children don't have full rights. They are not responsible or capable of caring for themselves in the eyes of the law.

If a parent is deemed not capable do they just throw the kid out on the street? Not hardy. Their parents are responsible for them until they are 18. If your profession forces you to change cities, states, are you going to leave your kids in Seattle because they don't want to move? No, where you go, they go, because they are your responsibility.

So those criminals being deported are relieved of their responsibility to their Kids? Those kids suddenly become my responsibility? Fuck that, I don't want 'em.

Children that are citizens have all the same rights granted by the Constitution that adults that are citizens are granted by the Constitution. Period. I've been unable to find anywhere that says, "under 18 must go!"

So, let me ask you this, what about a purely domestic case where the parent is taken out of the equation. Deportation, sudden death, imprisonment, abduction by aliens, whatEVER. What would you do with those children? Deport *them*? Why does the formerly present, but now absent, parent's status have fuck-all to do with whether or not this young American Citizen is permitted to stay in their country?

You're pretty clear on what the punishment should be here. What is the crime of the child?

cool! im gonna start the first official "Church of Nambla" and I'm gonna charge rich child molestors a million dollars a piece for "sanctuary" from chris hansen.

Sanctuary from what? From having their children deported for the crimes of the parents?

:scoff:

Would you leave your children behind V?

Who said anything about ignoring warrants?
If you don't care about my house, why do you keep bringing it up and implying that I have something illegal here?

If I died, yes.

If I went to prison, yes.

If I was being returned to a country where the life was **so awful** that I bribed coyotes, faced mortal danger in shipping containers or arid desert to knowingly face an army of immigration officials sworn to catch me not to mention an increasingly hostile population for the chance to work for below market wages in non-cushy jobs to get here in the first place, and I knew my children were *entitled to stay* because they were citizens, I would leave them behind. I would consider my odyssey a success. I would have gotten *my children* to a better place, even if I could not stay with them.

Good question.

Who said anything about ignoring warrants? Me?

I only used the same language you did, substituting locations. What a difference that made!

For that matter, who said anything about due process? obeying warrants? the presumption of innocence? *only me*

I'll start replying again when you start making sense.

I don't understand.... you didn't get your children here - they were born here. You chose to start a family here, knowing you could be jailed and/or kicked out for breaking the law, knowing you would either have to leave them or take them. How is that successful? Imagine being that kid...

Given their circumstances, they consider it worth the risk. There's a decent enough chance that they won't be jailed or deported, so it's not something they would "know" for sure.

Hopefully, the new immigration bill will pass, so a lot of this anxiety will be alleviated. Then they'll just have to worry about coming up with $5000 to pay the fine. :eek:

You tell me. I don't want them, so I guess they'll have to live at your houseI guess they'll have to live at your house.
I guess they'll have to live at your house.

When your neighbors dog comes over and shits in your yard, you chase him off, But the shit is now your problem because it's a citizen of your yard.

If you move the shit do you need to get a passport for it?

Pretty subjective. Ignorant people believing con men, does not have a prerequisite of living in a hell hole. BFD, you get a free bus ride back. and rightly so nobody is forcing them...or inviting them So you would rather have your kids begging in the streets, probably joining a gang for protection and selling drugs on the corner to earn their keep with the gang, than be in a nurturing family environment of poor people. You prick.

Surely there must be systems in place for the children of illegal immigrants who are deported. I can't believe American citizens would just leave a child in the street to fend for itself.

He can't move it, it has full rights as a citizen of Big V's yard. He'll just have to accept it and learn to get along. On the bright side, it'll probably fertilize his grass for substandard wage.

It'll probably do it for nothing if he leaves it to it's own devices.

See, shit does perform a valuable service to society. :)