patrick.net

rando says

Most of them did commit a crime

Depends on what you understand by crime - simply breaking the law, or also doing harm to others. I think most people think of the second. And obviously I do not think that a Mexican crossing the border to pick veggies on CA harms others.

rando says

FP says

In any case, all country borders are established by conquer and violence

Seems irrelevant.

If we admit that the land on which we live was taken by force by others, then excluding others from coming to live here does not seem that that justified, does it? Why should you have the right to claim a piece of the earth for yourself? You only have that right because you can enforce it. But there's nothing moral or just about it. In fact, by claiming a large piece of land for yourself (the US, Russia, Canada, Australia), you are harming the rest, those excluded. Shouldn't establishing borders be a crime then?

Who would declare borders to be a crime then? Laws come from governments of specific countries.

One world government sounds like a horrible idea. So we have borders.

If you're claiming that America has a moral obligation to provide jobs for foreigners, I disagree.

rando says

If you're claiming that America has a moral obligation to provide jobs for foreigners, I disagree.

Of course I don't. I only claim that equating to criminals those who cross the border illegally in search for livelihood for their families is not appropriate. We aren't better than them just because our ancestors conquered this land for us, or came here at a time when it was easy to do. Let's be honest, we got (not earned!) a nice chunk of the planet for ourselves and want to keep it for ourselves.

Didn't say we are better than they are, only that they do not have the right to break our laws and we have no moral obligation to provide them jobs.

The reason they want to cross the border has nothing to do with the nature of the land itself. It is entirely because their own government has failed them so completely.

So it's not that we "want to keep this land to ourselves" but rather that we want to keep our functional system going.

I think it has a lot to do with the land and who their former colonial masters were.

Patrick says

Technically I suppose that the virtue-signalling phrase that "No people are illegal" is correct. So should we admit that's right and be even more accurate, calling them what they really are: criminal immigrants?

IT's not virtue signalling. Unless we call your point of view shame signaling. .

You don't agree with the unstated policy of our country which has been to be somewhat supportive of whatever you want to call illegal immigrants. Those people who call them undocumented are only guilty of going along with or taking advantage of that policy.

You want to change that policy, and fanning the flames of hate against these people who are guilty of trying to get a better life for themselves, in a way that might be technically illegal, but for which the government has been looking the other way for decades.

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate for doing something that our policies have supported doesn't make sense. It's not virtue signalling, it's just going along with the policies. And when you get down to it, the cheap labor aspect of it is very complicated. IT's not a black and white situation, as much as I know you would like everything to be.

FP says

Shouldn't establishing borders be a crime then

Absolutely not, it should be encouraged. Like-minded people form a community, and those who like what they see in this community can apply to get in and if accepted become a part of it. Otherwise they can form their own.

FP says

think it has a lot to do with the land and who their former colonial masters were.

No, it has nothing to do with that at all. History is written by the winners, always have and always will be. If the Nazis had conquered the world you would likely be living in a totally different value system. Thankfully (and for the sacrifice of many American soldiers) they didn't. And the western countries, those that won and those that were allowed to rebuild are amongst the most welcoming countries on the earth, without them immigration wouldn't even exist. Mexico is much stricter in that respect (also with owning property, land etc.) and so are most other countries. You could go back indefinitely and always "return" the land to those before, it would solve nothing and instead cripple a mostly functioning world. Don't come here illegally, period.

marcus says

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate

Bullshit, enforcing the law has nothing to do with hate. Stop emotionalizing everything like a 2 year old. Countries around the world have much stricter immigration standards. Try immigrating into Japan or many other Asian countries (esp. without money), and good luck with that.

Patrick says

calling them what they really are: criminal immigrants?

I think illegal is the most accurate/acceptable term as long as they haven't committed any crimes (besides crossing the border illegally).

FortWayne says

There is financial incentive to have cheap labor and depress wages. Evil bastards they are!

Agreed except about the evil bastards part. Most of the labor being done by immigrants pays for things like landscaping, elderly care, child care, some construction, etc. EVen the crop picking example is one that simply raises prices to the rest of us, if it wasn't done by migrant workers.

mell says

Bullshit, enforcing the law has nothing to do with hate. Stop emotionalizing everything like a 2 year old.

I was trying to say it in a way you would understand. Allow me to elaborate. First understand, that I meant my overall point to be about policy. Policies often reflect what's popular, and what the people think.

Supporting(or at least not suppressing it more than we have) illegal immigration has been the policy for three main reasons. Because of people want those jobs done cheaply, becasue people empathize with immigrants and importantly becasue a lot of people understand the demographic benefit of having a lot of young people (relative to the future functioning of our economy). There has been a lot written about this, and frankly we are lucky we don't have to look to Islamic hellholes to get most of our our immigrants, as they do in France.

So since we have so many people supportive of immigrants, even illegal ones in some cases, it's going to take fanning the flames of hate among the idiots and the authoritarians, if you're going to get the policy changed. You need talk radio talking up the hate 24/7 if you're going to counter the objective reality that we should want those people here.

marcus says

Because of people want those jobs done cheaply, becasue people empathize with immigrants and importantly becasue a lot of people understand the demographic benefit of having a lot of young people. There has been a lot written about this, and frankly we are lucky we don't have to look to Islamic hellholes to get our immigrants.

Sure. But the US is not very dependent on youth at this point, even without immigrants and their higher birth-rates, let alone the fact that promoting more young people to pay for the old is nothing but promoting a ponzi scheme (you cannot grow the population forever). Look at the Japanese who are hardly letting anybody into their aging population, yet they are doing alright.

marcus says

So since we have so many people supporting of immigrants, even illegal ones in some cases, it's going to take fanning the flames of hate among the idiots and the authoritarians, if you're going to get the policy changed. You need talk radio talking up the hate 24/7 if you're going to counter the objective reality that we should want those people here.

Policy change is not necessary, just enforcement of existing laws (plus executive orders) as usual and different administrations have enforced differently. Hate talk radio is not necessary either, just a rational/logical conversation about this and the conclusion that the laws must be enforced and legal immigration become the only way to immigrate as it clearly works best and has never been questioned by anybody (aside from debating what the right number of total immigrants per year would be, an obviously fluctuating target).

mell says

enforcing the law has nothing to do with hate.

Montesquie spent significant effort describing having laws, and what happens when special interest groups try to "end run" the existing laws- he noted the consequences can be so significant?:

“...when the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can only come from the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost.”
― Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws

I think the day when a superior alien civilization arrives on earth, exterminates most of the human race, quarantines the survivors in several pockets of land ("countries"), and establishes their laws, will be a bright day in the history of the Universe.

marcus says

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate for doing something that our policies have supported doesn't make sense. It's not virtue signalling, it's just going along with the policies. And when you get down to it, the cheap labor aspect of it is very complicated. IT's not a black and white situation, as much as I know you would like everything to be.

Where did I brand them worthy of hate? I compared them to the Irish.

The cheap labor aspect of it is very simple. Not complicated in the least.

It is a black and white situation. They are here illegally. They should go back because they broke the law.

rando says

This is definitely an attempt to register mass numbers of illegals to vote:

Your comments are alarming - enough that I did a quick google search for more information. I'm no longer concerned, it seems like you're mistaken.

1st, your own links refer to 'eligable' voters being registered to vote when they get their license. That's different than saying everyone is registered to vote.

2nd, additional sources seem to suggest that there are measures in place already to prevent people from registering to vote if they're not citizens. This seems obvious, but your comments indicate that you are worried that this new registration process would bypass these safety measures, but that seems to not be the case.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html
http://www.snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

The only thing we can 'definitely' say is that there is a huge amount of misinformation being spread on all fronts. It feels like it's worse than ever before, but I don't have any evidence.

rando says

marcus says

Bllaming the immigrants and branding them worthy of hate for doing something that our policies have supported doesn't make sense. It's not virtue signalling, it's just going along with the policies. And when you get down to it, the cheap labor aspect of it is very complicated. IT's not a black and white situation, as much as I know you would like everything to be.

Where did I brand them worthy of hate? I compared them to the Irish.

The cheap labor aspect of it is very simple. Not complicated in the least.

It is a black and white situation. They are here illegally. They should go back because they broke the law.

This. If we get rid of all illegals, and first purge the welfare and disability roles of people who are more than capable of doing work(and in the process eliminate the minimum wage laws and let the market set wages while also ending all homeless support and laws creating homeless comfort), then we very well can consider a guest worker programs.

rando says

Please prove me wrong.

I want to believe California is not so corrupt that it is deliberately and illegally giving the mass vote to illegal immigrants.

This should help, from the DMV page:

"California Voter Registration Eligibility

Your CA driver's license or ID number.
Your Social Security number.
Your birth date."

Motor Voter may encourage eligible voters to register who might not otherwise go through the local registration process, but I haven't seen examples or other evidence suggesting the state might deliberately register illegal immigrants to vote. There may be some few examples of ID theft, but from the POV of a prospective voter, it's a big risk for a tiny reward. 40% of eligible voters don't even bother to vote. Democrats might expect that simplifying registration might register more Democrats, but even Republican Meg Whitman admitted while running for Governor that she "failed to register and vote on numerous occasions..."

curious2 says

You'll be asked to answer a series of questions and enter your personal information, including:

Your CA driver's license or ID number.

Your Social Security number.

Your birth date."

They just granted the driver's license, lol! So that one proves nothing.

Birth date also proves nothing.

SSNs are routinely stolen by illegal immigrants and not even the IRS checks that the name even matches the number:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/agency-encourages-illegal-immigrant-theft-of-ssns-irs-chief/article/2588288

rando says

SSNs are routinely stolen by illegal immigrants and not even the IRS checks that the name even matches the number:

You're right that significant numbers of illegal immigrants have used someone else's SSN for the purpose of working and getting paid, but their motive to do that is obvious: getting paid. TPTB have tended to look the other way in order to get cheap labor and exert downward pressure on wages. That doesn't add up to evidence of illegal voting though, much less a deliberate state plan to register illegal voters. Birth date and SSN enable exact matches to catch duplicates, and an illegal voter would face significant penalties with no clear reward.

San Francisco allows parents to vote in local school board elections, even if the parents are not citizens. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

Patrick, you seem to have a shorter comment limit for editing comments than for posting them. So, I'm moving this into a new comment.

The big issues in this field are:
(a) eligible voters not bothering to vote (40% in Presidential elections, an outright majority in midterm elections);
(b) suppression of otherwise eligible voters, e.g. via drug "war" convictions or other barriers to registration and voting;
(c) NPVIC, which would enable easily hacked machines to overwhelm human voters.
There have indeed been some few anecdotes of individual illegal aliens voting, and that's a good argument to ensure citizenship requirements are enforced, and that the DOB and SSN are being cross-checked to prevent duplicates. After the 2000 Bush v Gore debacle, I wish the Democrats had taken the lead in 2009-11 to improve elections nationally, but I guess the Chicago Democrats weren't keen on cleaning up elections. There's never been evidence of enough illegal voters to change an election result, so it's hard to see a motive to try that.

rando says

At least 600,000 illegal aliens were granted driver's licenses and automatically registered to vote unless they specifically opted out.

Pretty definitive statement. You really want to stand on this hand?

Here is what DMV says about AB60 licenses. http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/ab-60-drivers-license.php :
This is a special driver's license that:
May NOT be used for identification purposes.
MAY be used to drive anywhere throughout the state of California.
Has a distinguishing feature and notice on the front of the license indicating that it is for driving purposes only, per the AB-60 law (i.e. “DP" instead of “DL").

DP licenses are NOT automatically registered to vote and can't be used to register to vote. Here is ab1461 (voter registration DMV) . http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1461_cfa_20150629_091820_sen_comm.html

Because the AB60 licensing process was specifically established for individuals who are unable to submit satisfactory proof of legal presence in the United States, this bill expressly prohibits the DMV from transmitting information to the SOS about individuals who applied for or received a driver's license pursuant to AB 60.

Expressly prohibits transmitting information to california's secretary of state, which would include voter registrations. Pretty clear to me. Do you have some other understanding of expressly prohibits? How come I can look this up from 3000 miles away and you can't.

Sorry, the right wing echo chamber flat out lied to you. But that isn't fake news, it's alternative facts.

This is the point where normal reasonable people say I fucked up and blind ideologues double down with more BS. Which will it be?

Can we move onto the next boogeyman now?

So are we agreeing that there is no legal process in place that gives voter right to illegal immigrants?

And those illegal immigrants that do have the ability to vote must have committed identify fraud (SSN) first in some way?

This is a huge topic that people talk past eachother on all the time. I'd really like to get the truth in whether there are any loopholes in place that give illegal immigrants (who haven't committed identify fraud) the ability to vote in an election.

BayArea says

I'd really like to get the truth in whether there are any loopholes in place that give illegal immigrants (who haven't committed identify fraud) the ability to vote in an election.

Look up the "truth". The laws of the federal government and states are available on line. The only place aliens (legal or illegal) can vote is in special state or local elections where they are specifically allowed to vote on a local issue in that election.

18 USC 611 chapter 29.

§611. Voting by aliens
(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless-
(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.
(b) Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if-
(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);
(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16; and
(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.

Clear enough?

It looks like the law is clear, thanks for posting.

What's not clear is if there are any loopholes in place currently that would allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to vote for president of the United States without having commited identity fraud.

BayArea says

It looks like the law is clear, thanks for posting.

What's not clear is if there are any loopholes in place currently that would allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to vote for president of the United States without having commited identity fraud.

How can it not be clear? This is the law of the land. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY ALIEN TO VOTE ...... FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. I really thought that was about as unambiguous as it possibly can be. The only exceptions are right there in subsection (c). There is only 1 USC, there isn't some shadow set of rules tucked away somewhere.

I am constantly stunned by the number of people, including a large number on patnet, who live their lives under a set of laws that they have no idea in the world how they are formulated, what they mean, or even what they say. Simply amazing.

bob2356 says

BayArea says

It looks like the law is clear, thanks for posting.

What's not clear is if there are any loopholes in place currently that would allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to vote for president of the United States without having commited identity fraud.

How can it not be clear? This is the law of the land. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY ALIEN TO VOTE ...... FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. I really thought that was about as unambiguous as it possibly can be. The only exceptions are right there in subsection (c). There is only 1 USC, there isn't some shadow set of rules tucked away somewhere.

I am constantly stunned by the number of people, including a large number on patnet, who live their lives under a set of laws that they have no idea in the world how they are formulated, what they mean, or even what they say. Simply amazing.

What's so difficult to understand?

Just because it's law doesn't mean it's being followed. We constantly see headlines about as many as 7-figures of illegal immigrants casting votes during this election. Are these fake or is there some other vehicle enabling this beyond premeditated identity fraud?

BayArea says

Just because it's law doesn't mean it's being followed. We constantly see headlines about as many as 7-figures of illegal immigrants casting votes during this election. Are these fake or is there some other vehicle enabling this beyond premeditated identity fraud?

There are headlines that say Obama was born in Kenya and Clinton ran a paedophile ring out of a dc pizzeria.

So logically using your brain if 2 million plus illegals voted for democrats illegally why has the entire army of rabid right wingnuts and the 60% republican governors and the 70% republican state houses the republican house and the republican senate not come up with anything after 3 months? Do you suppose, just suppose, they might all have some tiny little interest politically in finding out if the law was followed? Yet nothing but crickets chirping.

Yes there could be some unknown vehicle for enabling this that has remained invisible and undetectable. There could be little green men living on mars. There could have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll. Sounding like tin foil hat time.

FP says

rando says

Most of them did commit a crime

Depends on what you understand by crime - simply breaking the law, or also doing harm to others. I think most people think of the second. And obviously I do not think that a Mexican crossing the border to pick veggies on CA harms others.

Neither is speeding on an empty freeway, jaywalking, or a million other things ... but guess what...

FortWayne says

Neither is speeding on an empty freeway, jaywalking, or a million other things ... but guess what...

Again, poor analogy. The examples you listed potentially do endanger others.

bob2356 says

DP licenses are NOT automatically registered to vote and can't be used to register to vote.

OK, but still, given that we know people are here illegally, why are they allowed to remain? They're not even hiding anymore:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/07/17/california-most-new-drivers-licenses-go-to-illegal-immigrants/

rando says

OK, but still, given that we know people are here illegally, why are they allowed to remain. They're not even hiding anymore:

Why aren't we throwing people that hire them in jail? If no one will hire them they will be gone fast. The right wing has been playing the let's get rid of the illegals card to their base for 40 years while blocking every single attempt to actually do something effective. There is no way the right wing politicos are going to cross the big bucks donors who hire millions of illegals. I don't believe trump is going to do anything either other than make a big show with no real action.

Bread and Circus.

bob2356 says

Why aren't we throwing people that hire them in jail? If no one will hire them they will be gone fast.

Yes, Bob, we agree on something!

The people who hire them should go to jail. No fines, which they can easily pay, but jail, say 30 days for each violation.

It's part of my platform: https://patrick.net/1303173/2017-02-19-patrick-net-platform

rando says

The people who hire them should go to jail. No fines, which they can easily pay, but jail, say 30 days for each violation.

Never going to happen. Too much money would be lost without the illegals. Too many corporations and ultra rich depend on profits from using illegals far too much. Even the principled republican politicos (yes there is such a thing) have to dance to the tune of big money. Any republican politician that actually would stand up and say the emperor has no clothes will find him/her self being buried by the dark money machine in a primary challenge. The number of moderate republicans knocked of by libertarian/tea party challengers since citizens united is way higher than any other period in history. They didn't get the money to do that out of a cookie jar.

bob2356 says

Never going to happen. Too much money would be lost without the illegals

bob2356 says

Any republican politician that actually would stand up and say the emperor has no clothes will find him/her self being buried by the dark money machine in a primary challenge.

Unfortunate, but true. The entire illegal immigration problem is wholly due to the desire for cheap labor so that the owner class can cut themselves a bigger slice of the pie by cutting the actual wealth producers a smaller part. The immigration problem is a fundamental consequence of capitalism, the economic system in which control of production and the resulting revenue is given to owners rather than wealth producers. The only way to solve the immigration problem is to stop using capitalism. By definition, that means the farm and factory owners cannot control wages. Wages must be determined by wealth production, not bargaining power.

Unfortunately, the people who complain the most about illegal immigration are usually brainwashed into the religion of capitalism that is entirely responsible for the illegal immigration. Since those people are not rational, we will probably never have the unified political will to fix this problem.

The only solution we may get is the complete replacement of manual labor with robots. Then the immigration problem will immediately cease.

bob2356 says

Why aren't we throwing people that hire them in jail? If no one will hire them they will be gone fast.

bob2356 says

Never going to happen. Too much money would be lost without the illegals.

bob2356 says

The right wing has been playing the let's get rid of the illegals card to their base for 40 years while blocking every single attempt to actually do something effective.

Just thought these deserved repeating. Various efforts are made to make politicians look tough on illegal immigration. But the fact that the easy solution is not used is proof that they don't actually want to stop it. The Republicans do want to make sure that immigrants here illegally do not vote. They exaggerate the problem of illegal voting for political purposes. Of course Democrats would be happy to have the extra votes, but they can't try to increase this for obvious reasons.

That's because once we are forced to accept illegal aliens into the country without any apparent repercussions for them BREAKING THE LAW to get in here, all laws on the books become fogbound.
Laws are not enacted so the citizenry can pick and choose which to follow. You either have a system of laws that are followed, or you don't.
Continuing to allow illegal aliens to get into the country, and stay, will only serve to decimate the moral obligation to enforce every other law.
Here's a clue for you.
If you don't like the fuckin law, then work to have it changed.
See how easy that is?

bob2356 says

I am constantly stunned by the number of people, including a large number on patnet, who live their lives under a set of laws that they have no idea in the world how they are formulated, what they mean, or even what they say. Simply amazing.