NY Governor whines about criticism of his proposal to give licenses to illegals

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: brien This is true, but as I pointed out in two previous posts, the voting official in NY admitted they don't check the status of voters. If they have a valid license, they are permitted to vote. If there is a challenge, they are requested to sign an affidavit stating they are legal residents of NY. Then no one checks, according to the official I cited in those previous posts. This is an open door for potential voter fraud on a very large scale.

Then there is already voting fraud going on, and regardless of the outcome of this issue, our elections are void. There are thousands of people living in NY who have perfectly legitimate drivers licenses who cannot legally vote.

I doubt that there is no check whatsoever on the eligibility of people to vote, regardless of what one official said.

Spitzer also advocates issuing illegals Social Security numbers as well. This is nothing more than his and Hillary's plan to an open a back door for amnesty. Since they couldn't get it done in Congress, Spitzer and Clinton advocate getting it done on a state by state basis. What other conclusion can one draw?

I'm the wrong person to ask, as I favor unlimited immigration and amnesty.

However, I don't see this as a back door to amnesty. Immigration is still the purview of the federal government, which holds the power to grant amnesty. If the federal government doesn't think that a driver's license is credit towards someone getting amnesty, it won't be.

However, once Spitzer and Clinton open the door for illegals to gain Social Security identification, it would be likely they would qualify the same as citizens to own firearms.

Of course not. Have you read form 4473?
DRAFT ATF F 4473 (5300.9)

A person must be here legally and substantially in compliance with all of the laws of the land to get a firearm, period.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: Are you saying that illegal immigrants are not workers, or not men? Either is particularly troubling.

Well, obviously you don't read and comprehend well.

American citizens who work, are working men(or women).

Illegal aliens who work, are working ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Do you deny what I said about the effect this will have on commercial drivers?

Tivo said: There is already a system in place to ensure that people who cannot vote do not.

Yea, worked really good in 2000 and 2004.....

It works as well as the "broken system" the status quo champions adore.

Tivo said: Otherwise, why do you not also oppose driver's licenses for legal immigrants who are not yet citizens and (in NY at least) convicted felons, neither of whom can vote?

Convicted felons, if they have a license, SERVED THEIR TIME.

Legal Immigrants, I have no issue with.

Don't try to shift the point, which is that I am against ILLEGAL immigrants, whatever race, nationality, political outlook or "claimed necessity" they use to break the most basic law of nations, citizenship.

Tivo said: Ah, once again, people in favor of the free market for everything else are suddenly opposed to a free market in labor.

WOAH! I have corrected myself in the past, and if you didn't notice, I will do so for you now.

I am pro-free market. (inside the U.S.)
I am anti-free trade (foreign trade)

I have nothing against a free market in labor, as long as all of those in the market ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD OF LEGALITY, which obviously, illegal immigrants are not.

Nice try, but sorry.

Tivo said: How about it is protecting those workers, and millions of other workers who don't happen to have cushy jobs, by keeping prices low on goods sold in the United States...

You don't hear me bitching and crying about how high prices are, you hear me bitching about how the value of the dollar keeps dropping, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart. You have NEVER heard me praise trade with China, or trade with India, nor do I buy goods from either place unless American manufacturers have failed to produce a product of that type.

I'm NOT you're huckleberry.

Tivo said: sigh... do a five-minute google before you say things like this, will you? ATF form 4473, required for the purchase of a firearm at every licensed firearm dealer, specifically asks several questions which would disqualify illegal immigrants. In particular, questions 3, 9, 10, and 11 are directed in that area. But wait - it gets better. Question 12(d) asks "Are you a fugitive from justice?" Then, as if that weren't enough, question 12(k) comes right out and says it: "Are you an alien illegally in the United States?"

First of all, I have never had to fill one out to buy a firearm from a private sale, but I HAVE HAD to show my license. Are you saying private sales aren't put further at risk by this fake ID?

Secondly, you act as if "because there is a law on the books, it is being executed with equality and completeness", which we know is bullshit, DUE TO THE FACT IT IS ILLEGAL TO COME IN THIS NATION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A BORDER CROSSING LEGALLY, and, well, obviously we have a lot of illegal aliens.

Thirdly, who has not lied on a questionaire?

I have as much faith in one law being executed competently, as I do the other..... NONE!

Tivo said: Well, I can't disagree with that...

Glad to see we can agree on some things.

Tivo said: As I have shown before, this is circular reasoning - that illegal aliens are bad inherently because of their illegal entry. Nothing could be more malum prohibitum than calling someone a criminal because they violate a 100% arbitrary law that governs the way in which people are allowed to cross an imaginary line. In order to show that illegal aliens are somehow undesirable and should be removed, it needs to be shown that they are harmful in some other way than merely violating the statute.

#1 They are less willing to report job violations to authorities, jeapordizing working conditions for both legal AND illegal workers.

#2 They often work for less than legal citizens, directly lowering the wages of legal citizens.

That should do for now, let me know.

Tivo said: In other words, statutes are not justification for themselves.

I know this, but you think all laws are equal?

Obviously border security is the biggest problem facing a nation who has "enemies abroad" who are not uniformed soldiers, so border porosity is a NO BRAINER for national security.

Tivo said: (note: I'm not saying people haven't shown other reasons, etc. That is a topic for another debate.)

There are plenty of reasons in this debate.

[rmnunez]

The Social Security numbers issued to foreigners in the US are not the same as those issued to citizens of that country. The ones foreigners get are valid for tax compliance only, when these numbers are used to apply for unemployment or claim other government benefits they get rejected. A Social Security number is not proof of citizenship of, or lawful presence in the US.

[rmnunez]

Great news for ethnophobes:

"Since September 11, 2001, the US has experienced a 17% decline in overseas travel, costing America $94 billion in lost visitor spending, nearly 200,000 jobs and $16 billion in lost tax revenue," the Discover America advocacy campaign said in a statement. Chairman Stevan Porter lamented the "extraordinary decline" in the number of overseas visitors to the US, while the advocacy group's executive director, Geoff Freeman, blamed the slump on the shabby welcome many foreigners feel they get in the US. "It's clear what's keeping people away in the post-9/11 environment: it is the perception around the world that travelers aren't welcome," Freeman told AFP. "Travelers around the world feel the US entry experience is among the world's worst," Freeman said, calling on the US government to work with the private sector to make visa acquisition more efficient, the entry process traveler-friendly, and to improve communication. 'Unwelcoming' US sees sharp fall in visitors since 9/11

They are right, it is very unpleasant to travel to the US no matter how you go

[samsara15]

I'd rather illegals have licenses than not have them - what if one of them got into an accident with you? At least a license gives some method of tracking them and making them liable for damages. My wife, who doesn't drive, has a hard enough time keeping her photo ID up to date, since she works and it takes so much time going to the MVA.

Why don't you people get irritated at something worth being irritated about, like the slow, slow MVAs?

[Chancellor]

Hillary's brain Mark Pen wrote in his book Microtrends:

"Just look at what has happened in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. A few years ago, they were the forgotten Americans, hiding from daylight and the authorities. Today they are holding political rallies, and given where they and their legal, voting relatives live, they may turn out to be the new Soccer Moms. Militant immigrants fed up with a broken immigration system just may be the most important voters in the next presidential election, distributed in the key Southwest states that are becoming the new battleground areas."

Excuse me? Forgotten AMERICANS? They're not Americans, they're foreigners who are in this country - everyone say it with me - ILLEGALLY. What part of illegal do these people not understand?

[brien]

I doubt that there is no check whatsoever on the eligibility of people to vote, regardless of what one official said

I am certain some check, but given the sheer numbers of voters, it is true if you have a driver's license, you will be permitted to vote. Then, who has the time to check every voter's qualifications? There may be random checks, but if a half million illegals are given driver's licenses in NY State, then the stage has been set for potential massive voter fraud.

Spitzer and Clinton are spinning this as a safety issue. I say bullshit, they want those illegals to vote for the Democrats who gave them the priviledge to drive a motor vehicle legally. It is one step closer to amnesty.

I have no problem with amnesty b/c I don't think logistically we can deport upwards to 20 million people, but the amnesty should be executed carefully and on a national level, not by the states.

Amnesty needs to be phased in over a period of time that gradually extends the rights of American citizens to those who are here illegally so we can sort out criminals from workers and families with children from individuals who are merely working here illegally. We need to sort out every different nationality who are here illegally, not just target Mexicans.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Chancellor Excuse me? Forgotten AMERICANS? They're not Americans, they're foreigners who are in this country - everyone say it with me - ILLEGALLY. What part of illegal do these people not understand?

I don't understand what difference it makes.

All these racist xenophobes keep chanting "illegal!!! illegal!!!!" when, as I have explained before, it's nothing but circular reasoning.

If someone wants to come here that badly, let them come. Provide checkpoints at the border so that everyone coming in can get a registration card and permission to work legally.

People talk about "security" and "terrorism" like it's the issue, but it's not. Terrorists don't need to swim the Rio Grande, they are financed well enough to get a passport and fly here on a plane, and no amount of border security is going to stop that.

People talk about "jobs" but unemployment remains near historic lows and they dismiss the logic that any employer willing to break immigration laws would certainly be willing to hire an American under the table if one were available...

[rmnunez]

That if one were available is the rub, some think there are plenty of able-bodied united statians in need of work, that the unemployment figures are completely wrong. I think for US citizens to be available for seasonal farmwork and such stoop labour it would take a bit more money than what the undocumenteds are paid. I also expect US citizens, better aware of their rights and unimpeded by any need to work covertly, would demand safer and more healthy work conditions. They'd want a 40 hour workweek, 8 hour days, overtime, face masks and gloves when using pesticides. US citizens picking crops would expect certain amenities like breaks, drinking water, latrines, medical attention when injured and workers' compensation if this kept them from work. I'd expect they could form unions and if they did then there'd be other collective bargaining gains like optical and dental benefits, profit sharing, pension plans and other added expenses.

Otherwise how are you going to get about 2 million US citizens to join in 3 month-long harvesting caravans to stoop and fill crates with produce under the sun all day? They sleep in shacks at encampments, how would thse need to be improved to accomodate US citizens with their rights? Separate dorms for women, cafeteria, dressing rooms, daycare, other amenities?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rmnunez That if one were available is the rub, some think there are plenty of able-bodied united statians in need of work, that the unemployment figures are completely wrong.

Obviously there aren't, or the owners would hire them.

Again I ask: Why would any employer, especially given the current political climate, rather break SEVERAL rules then a FEW? Hire a poor American under the table, you break some tax laws. Hire an illegal immigrant, you break all of those PLUS immigration laws.

I think for US citizens to be available for seasonal farmwork and such stoop labour it would take a bit more money than what the undocumenteds are paid.

You'd be surprised, they are paid quite well and far above minimum wage, contrary to popular belief.

But it might take more money. That is because US citizens have decided they are too good to do that kind of work. It is also because of our comprehensive network of social services that, in effect, create a much higher minimum wage than the stated one. If a person can get their housing, food, and clothing paid for in welfare and housing assistance, and that allows them to lead a lifestyle equal to a certain wage, why break their backs for less? Getting rid of our bloated social services would do more to reduce illegal immigration than any stupid and unenforceable immigration laws.

I also expect US citizens, better aware of their rights and unimpeded by any need to work covertly, would demand safer and more healthy work conditions. They'd want a 40 hour workweek, 8 hour days, overtime, face masks and gloves when using pesticides. US citizens picking crops would expect certain amenities like breaks, drinking water, latrines, medical attention when injured and workers' compensation if this kept them from work. I'd expect they could form unions and if they did then there'd be other collective bargaining gains like optical and dental benefits, profit sharing, pension plans and other added expenses.

But as I explained above, if the choice was between starving and being homeless, or doing the work, most of them would do it. Our comprehensive system of social services has created the market for illegal immigration by pricing Americans right out of the market.

Many Americans currently work in jobs where they do not get a break, or get paid cash, or do not get overtime, etc.

They sleep in shacks at encampments, how would thse need to be improved to accomodate US citizens with their rights? Separate dorms for women, cafeteria, dressing rooms, daycare, other amenities?

Citizens wouldn't need these camps, because they have homes to go to and could get places where they need not hide from INS officials.

[rmnunez]

Seasonal farm workers move from field to field across the US at harvest time, they don't come from where the harvest is. There are hundreds of miles between jobs, farmworkers can't commute from home to the worksite.

Suggestions welfare recipients could do the job if denied benefits are senseless, the costs would be outrageous, most welfare recipients are female and have minor dependants, you'd need to provide housing, daycare, schooling and medical services, and plenty of welfare recipients would still be unemployable due to other handicaps. If you set off from the proposition to revoke any of their rights to public assistance there'd be savings since no housing, daycare, school or medical service would be required, but I suspect you'd have a revolution before they gave up these benefits.

[rmnunez]

Remittances reach almost 6% of Mexico’s households, and in fact the poorest of these in the most marginalized regions of the country. They are the real investment in those places and sustain the development of the poorest farming and indigenous families. MIGRACIÓN  EN MÉXICO- remesas

According to Elizabeth McQuerry, assistant vicepresident of the Office of Payments of the Federal Reserve, using the new “Directo a México” transfer procedure will save about 70%. For example, a $300 remittance normally costs $10, with “Directo a México” the charge would be $3. Atlanta Latino, Bilingual newspaper. web portal.

Remittances last year surpassed Direct Foreign Investment in Mexico. The International Agricultural Development Fund (IADF?), a UN agency based in Rome, in conjunction with the Interamerican Development Bank (IBD) have created the first global map of remittance flows to developing nations. Immigrants around the world sent $300,000 million home, which was more than the $104,000 million spent on development and assistance by all the OECD donor nations plus the $167,000 millions of direct foreign investment. Remittances are provided by about 150 million immigrants around the world who regularly send $100 to $300 home. By regions, Asia received the most with $114,000 million, Latin America and the Caribbean got $68,000 millions, next was Eastern Europe which took in $51,000 million, Africa gained $39,000 million and the Middle East was last with $29,000 million. By countries India was first with $24,500 million in remittances, followed closely by Mexico with $24,200 million, then the Philippines ($14,600 million) and Russia ($13,700 million).

So its a lot of money, but its well spread out:

Over a third of all remittances are sent to families in rural areas where poverty is greatest, said Kevin Cleaver from the UN agency, who said their priority was in “improving the possibilities for the poor to reduce transactional costs and to link remittances withother financial services like savings, investments and loans.” Although remittances are primarily spent on household basics like food, clothing and medicine, “about 10-20% is saved, though rarely in financial institutions deriving any interest”, Mr. Cleaver added. He held Mexico up as an example in Latin America for its policies to help invest remittances and noted a wide variation in charges between 2-8% from country to country, which was seen as a substantial improvement from the 20-25% rate charged 10 years ago. Pedro de Vasconcelos, area coordinator on remittance use for the UN agency refered to the Mexican “3 x 1 programme” whereby the Mexican government contributes a dollar and the state another for each dollar sent by an immigrant. “It’s a programme to incentivize immigrant investment at home” he said. Cleaver dismissed the notion organized crime or terrorists could use such remittances since the amounts were so small and this would require thousands of people to conduct the transactions, but noted this was his personal view as their study had not examined this possibility. The International Agricultural Development Fund is a specialized UN agency dedicated to the erradication of hunger and poverty in developing countries, which through low-interest loans and donations funds 191 programs to erradicate rural poverty with $6,000 millions. México, modelo en aprovechamiento de remesas

The volume of immigration to the US and its development of networks, makes it increasingly difficult and costly to regulate these flows. They produce a variety of complex transnational ties, relations and activities which contribute to perpetuate immigration.

Thus, immigrants and the relatives they leave behind are developing the transnational family capable of participating in two economies with strong ties to communities where they come from and go to.

Frequent contact by phone or online is a fundamental feature of their intense relationship, 54% of the Mexicans with family in the US speak to them at least once a week. Remittances are another feature of these families and inject substantial funds to the national economy directly through immigrant households at a rate of $63 million a day.

Due to the growth of remittances, recently federal and state governments have sought to encourage, ease and lower the costs to transfer funds, and use these as a tool for development. Some get carried away with their optimism these remittances can resolve structural problems in Mexico.

Without a doubt these funds have a positive impact on household economies. They represent about 40% of the recipient household’s income, are used for basic necessities and serve as a safety-net. "El Universal". MÉXICO: "Migración y remesas" :: Observatorio de Mugak

According to the IDB, about 17 million Mexicans receive remittances and these funds are increasingly being used to finance development. “Over 4 million Mexican families receive regular remitances and a third of them would be under the poverty line without this support” the report said. The Bank of Mexico reported remittances in 2006 reached $23,540 million, a 15.1% increase over the previous year. It was reported the total sent reached $25,000 million and that the difference results from not including the use of non-financial means like the mail or in person deliveries, he estimated by 2010 these remittances would reach $50,000 million. An important development has been the recent trend whereby $4 out of ever $10 received is being invested in education and small businesses rather than on basic necessities, he added, reporting that according to their survey 57% of remittances were for basic necessities, 14% was saved, 13% spent on education, 5% on a business, 2% to purchase real estate and 6% on “others”. In a prior poll basic necessities took up 78%, only 8% was saved and just 1% was spent on a business. ROES - Remesas financian el desarrollo de México: - Inmigración - Noticias

Its a lot of money, but there are lots of immigrants; 12.5% of the US population is immigrant (that would be 36,136,793) and 28.4% of them (10,118,302) are Mexican.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rmnunez Seasonal farm workers move from field to field across the US at harvest time, they don't come from where the harvest is. There are hundreds of miles between jobs, farmworkers can't commute from home to the worksite.

Maybe that's true in the west, but in the east where there are more native unemployed, workers stay in one area for an entire season.

Either way, moving from place to place is just another reason why Americans aren't doing the job. It's difficult work, and again, suggestions by others that immigrants are "taking" these jobs from Americans are just silly.

Suggestions welfare recipients could do the job if denied benefits are senseless, the costs would be outrageous, most welfare recipients are female and have minor dependants, you'd need to provide housing, daycare, schooling and medical services, and plenty of welfare recipients would still be unemployable due to other handicaps. If you set off from the proposition to revoke any of their rights to public assistance there'd be savings since no housing, daycare, school or medical service would be required, but I suspect you'd have a revolution before they gave up these benefits.

Very true. You're not arguing me here. I'm merely showing why a steady flow of hard working immigrants is necessary to the economy.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I don't understand what difference it makes.

You're going to be a lawyer and you don't understand the difference between illegal and legal????

Go back and ask some of your first-year law professors the difference between illegal and legal and then go back and read what I posted.

The entire issue is that these people are here illegally. Thus, they have no right to be here and have not been granted permission to be here.

[brien]

The entire issue is that these people are here illegally. Thus, they have no right to be here and have not been granted permission to be here

The issue in this thread, if I could redirect it back, is whether those in this country illegally should be granted a driver's license in NY.

Spitzer's program is nothing more than a back door approach for amnesty and the eventual legalization of those here illegally. Even Hillary has admitted this is the real agenda for the program.

Ergo, once these people are legalized, and in the case of issuing them a driver's license in NY, they will be able to vote. No one bothers to check the legality of a voter with a picture ID such as a driver's license. Does anyone really think NY State will check the legality of all voters with a NY driver's license? Please, there isn't the manpower to do the checks. They would still be checking by the next election.

Issue those driver's licenses in NY, and the illegals there will have the opportunity to vote with little or no regard as to whether anyone will check the legality of his or her franchisement.

As I initially wrote in my first post, it's all about votes folks.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: brien The issue in this thread, if I could redirect it back, is whether those in this country illegally should be granted a driver's license in NY. Spitzer's program is nothing more than a back door approach for amnesty and the eventual legalization of those here illegally. Even Hillary has admitted this is the real agenda for the program. Ergo, once these people are legalized, and in the case of issuing them a driver's license in NY, they will be able to vote. No one bothers to check the legality of a voter with a picture ID such as a driver's license. Does anyone really think NY State will check the legality of all voters with a NY driver's license? Please, there isn't the manpower to do the checks. They would still be checking by the next election. Issue those driver's licenses in NY, and the illegals there will have the opportunity to vote with little or no regard as to whether anyone will check the legality of his or her franchisement. As I initially wrote in my first post, it's all about votes folks.

But underneath the issue of driver's licenses is the fact that these people are here illegally and that's the thing supporters of this idiotic plan can't seem to get through their thick skulls. Even Hillary's brain (spokesman, advisor, whatever he is) refers to these illegals as "forgotten Americans."

I can see this as opening the door to a whole host of things that eventually lead to the Supreme Court deciding that the federal government must grant these people citizenship.

[brien]

But underneath the issue of driver's licenses is the fact that these people are here illegally

This is true but how does the US government round them up and deport them all? I think there is a bit of a logistical problem there.

So what is the alternative? The Federal Government should immediately seal the borders and institute a plan to bring these folks forward to identify them.

All illegals found the be criminals should be arrested and deported, even if they are held in special detention camps.

Those illegals who are here, and have families, should be given the opportunity to begin their citizenship application process behind those who are here legally(resident aliens) and be issued temporary visas until they become citizens.

Those who are here illegally w/no family should be issued a green card for work,(a temporary visa), and should be forced to return to their country of origin when their visa expires.

All people in this country on a visa should issued a temporary driver's license in the state where they reside that identifies them as resident aliens. However, this license should not convey any rights or privileges enjoyed by US citizens. It should be for means of identification and for automobile insurance purposes only.

There should be a law passed by Congress immediately that makes being in this country illegally a felony offense punishable by mandatory deportation. Congress should further approve a massive increase in the INS / ICE department personnel to accomodate the flood of new applications and should increase points of entry along some border areas in order to facilitate the increase of visa applications from foreign nationals.

It is perhaps a little late to put the toothpaste back into the tube, but we can throw out the rotten toothpaste and find a way to fairly use the rest of it.

This thread is NOT about people in this country illegally so I don't want to redirect the discussion. I have made clear what I believe issuing driver's licenses to undocumented people in NY is all about in politics. The reality of illegals being here, and what to do about them, is another matter. We could start with the simple recommendations I have made above.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: brien This is true but how does the US government round them up and deport them all? I think there is a bit of a logistical problem there.

Round them up one person at a time or one family at a time. Start by going to the employers that are known to hire illegals. Then, go to the hospitals and government agencies in states like California.

So what is the alternative? The Federal Government should immediately seal the borders and institute a plan to bring these folks forward to identify them.

No, the government needs to simply enforce existing laws and build a better border fence.

All illegals found the be criminals should be arrested and deported, even if they are held in special detention camps.

There's no need for special detention camps. Load them onto military cargo planes and drop them off in their country of origin.

Those illegals who are here, and have families, should be given the opportunity to begin their citizenship application process behind those who are here legally(resident aliens) and be issued temporary visas until they become citizens.

No, they shouldn't! They are criminals and should be treated as such. If they want to become citzens then they need to come here legally.

Those who are here illegally w/no family should be issued a green card for work,(a temporary visa), and should be forced to return to their country of origin when their visa expires.

No, they should be kicked out of the country.

All people in this country on a visa should issued a temporary driver's license in the state where they reside and identify them as resident aliens. However, this license should not convey any rights or privileges enjoyed by US citizens. It should be for means of identification and for automobile insurance purposes only.

People in this country on a visa are here legally (unless their visas have expired). This has nothing to do with people who are here legally.

There should be a law passed by Congress immediately that makes being in this country illegally a felony offense punishable by mandatory deportation.

We already have federal laws about being here illegally. The problem is that the laws aren't being enforced.

Congress should further approve a massive increase in the INS / ICE department personnel to accomodate the flood of new applications and should increase points of entry along some border areas in order to facilitate the increase of visa applications from foreign nationals.

No, we should pull all of our military out of foreign countries, bring them home and have them round up illegals.

It is perhaps a little late to p