View Full Version : Thoughts on new Immigration Law



Pages : [1] 2

tuck
11-01-2007, 05:32 AM
I would like to know how everyone feels about he new immigration law that has recently passed. How do you think this will effect our economy, local businesses, etc...? What are the pros and cons of the new law?

BailJumper
11-01-2007, 06:45 AM
I think it's about damn time! Hopefully Oklahoma will set an example for action across the country.

Misty
11-01-2007, 07:25 AM
I think we should take it one step further and require everyone in America to go back through their family history and have to prove they got here legally or we all have to be sent back to our respective countries. Maybe we should just get rid of everyone and let the Native American people have this country that we stole from them back. I like beer, I think I can handle Ireland.

Karried
11-01-2007, 09:09 AM
I don't know, I wish there was a fair way to legalize the hardworking people who only want a better life for themselves.

Criminals and gang members need not apply.

I would much rather pay a hard working immigrant employee reasonable going wages and get the job done correctly. ( I used to live near an area with seasonal migrant workers in the Bay Area - they were extremely hard working people). Most people I have experience with in this area also send their money home to relatives.

The alternative is paying Crackhead Bob more money per hour (because he thinks he is worth more since he was born here and who only shows up when he needs more cash for his meth lab supplies ..) and worry about him stealing the equipment.

(yeah, I'm speaking from experience).

I do wish they could find an alternative.

Misty
11-01-2007, 10:03 AM
In the words of the great Jack White:

White Americans, what?
Nothing better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
You're an immigrant, too.

Who's using who?
What should we do?
Well, you can't be a pimp
And a prostitute, too.

OU Adonis
11-01-2007, 01:55 PM
I find it funny that people are really upset that we are enforcing laws on the books. If I stole food from the neighbors for years and the neighbors had plenty of food and I was starving, it would still be a crime to do so. Yes there are illegal people in the USA trying to better themselves, but they are still breaking the law.

And there are companies profiting from this. We need to punish them. Why not a guest worker program?

I am all for a guest worker program. Why don’t we have guest workers pay a fee ($100?) for every 6 months. Issue them a tax card (not Social security card) and they will have to go through a background check and health check before they can get in the country. They will have to reapply every 6 months. If they fail to reapply and the company doesn't do anything about it, then they get busted for breaking the law. There will be no “Quota’s” so anyone who can pass the background check, can pay the fee, and is healthy can get in.

BricktownGuy
11-01-2007, 02:13 PM
Where can someone find a decent (but not a essay) on this new law?

Misty
11-01-2007, 02:16 PM
Well, I grew up on the Canadian border and really wish the focus would change from Mexicans to Canadians. I think we need to quit letting so many Canadians over here, particularly the ones I'm related to. Them....with their curling and Queen loving. Don't even get me started on FRENCH Canadians. You know what I'm talking aboot, eh? Mexico gave us Selma Hayak. Canada gave us Celine Dion.

OU Adonis
11-01-2007, 02:28 PM
Well, I grew up on the Canadian border and really wish the focus would change from Mexicans to Canadians. I think we need to quit letting so many Canadians over here, particularly the ones I'm related to. Them....with their curling and Queen loving. Don't even get me started on FRENCH Canadians. You know what I'm talking aboot, eh? Mexico gave us Selma Hayak. Canada gave us Celine Dion.

I am sorry Misty, I missed where the law mentioned any particular group?

hipsterdoofus
11-01-2007, 02:33 PM
I am sorry Misty, I missed where the law mentioned any particular group?


Haven't you been listening to the outrage OU? Its a racist law! pff I agree with you - it doesn't target anyone except the people breaking the law...if you are saying its against one race, I guess you are saying one race or group is breaking the law more...

Misty
11-01-2007, 02:40 PM
Well, maybe if 99% of the people I know of (only talking about my own experience) that want tougher immigration laws didn't feel the need to add in comments like "they're taking us over" or comments about "their language" or comments about "their culture" I would think differently.

CMSturgeon
11-01-2007, 02:44 PM
Well, I grew up on the Canadian border and really wish the focus would change from Mexicans to Canadians. I think we need to quit letting so many Canadians over here, particularly the ones I'm related to. Them....with their curling and Queen loving. Don't even get me started on FRENCH Canadians. You know what I'm talking aboot, eh? Mexico gave us Selma Hayak. Canada gave us Celine Dion.

Hah! You made me laugh out loud. I like you!

OU Adonis
11-01-2007, 02:47 PM
Well, maybe if 99% of the people I know of (only talking about my own experience) that want tougher immigration laws didn't feel the need to add in comments like "they're taking us over" or comments about "their language" or comments about "their culture" I would think differently.

That may be true that there is concerns about the loss of culture and language. But thats why LEGAL immigration has quotas. So the USA can retain its original culture and language and assimilate new groups.

If we gave carte blanche to anyone who wanted to live in this country (no immigration quota's whatsoever) you would see a radical change in the values of the country. And I don't think it would be one "group" that would change those values so much as the fact that the people who were born in this country would soon be outnumbered by immigrants who never had the chance to assimilate but assimiliated the current residents instead.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
11-01-2007, 02:51 PM
That may be true that there is concerns about the loss of culture and language. But thats why LEGAL immigration has quotas. So the USA can retain its original culture and language and assimilate new groups.

If we gave carte blanche to anyone who wanted to live in this country (no immigration quota's whatsoever) you would see a radical change in the values of the country. And I don't think it would be one "group" that would change those values so much as the fact that the people who were born in this country would soon be outnumbered by immigrants who never had the chance to assimilate but assimiliated the current residents instead.

The only "original" culture the US ever had was letting everybody in and being the great melting pot. That's our point as a country.

Misty
11-01-2007, 02:52 PM
That may be true that there is concerns about the loss of culture and language. But thats why LEGAL immigration has quotas. So the USA can retain its original culture and language and assimilate new groups.

If we gave carte blanche to anyone who wanted to live in this country (no immigration quota's whatsoever) you would see a radical change in the values of the country. And I don't think it would be one "group" that would change those values so much as the fact that the people who were born in this country would soon be outnumbered by immigrants who never had the chance to assimilate but assimiliated the current residents instead.

You mean kind of how that already happened once to the Native Americans? Kinda like that?

hipsterdoofus
11-01-2007, 02:53 PM
That may be true that there is concerns about the loss of culture and language. But thats why LEGAL immigration has quotas. So the USA can retain its original culture and language and assimilate new groups.

If we gave carte blanche to anyone who wanted to live in this country (no immigration quota's whatsoever) you would see a radical change in the values of the country. And I don't think it would be one "group" that would change those values so much as the fact that the people who were born in this country would soon be outnumbered by immigrants who never had the chance to assimilate but assimiliated the current residents instead.

Completely agree with you there...its not that I think everyone expects immigrants to completely change and "become Americans" ...I mean, simply put, that may be what is said, but what are Americans, other than people who have come from all different cultures....however, if you don't control the flow, you have one or two cultures overriding what is already here...not withstanding the fact that you have to worry about people not paying into the system but taking out of it.

OU Adonis
11-01-2007, 02:55 PM
You mean kind of how that already happened once to the Native Americans? Kinda like that?

The funny thing about wars is Misty is whoever wins gets to make the rules. You can say thats not fair, but unfortunately wars aren't based off fairness. Thats why they are so bloody. The Native Americans lost, so they lost the right to complain on who lives here and who makes the rules.

Misty
11-01-2007, 02:57 PM
Well, I hope the Mexicans rise up and kick our stupid white butts. I like the spanish language, love Mexican food & culture and Latin men are freakin hot.

hipsterdoofus
11-01-2007, 03:30 PM
Well, I hope the Mexicans rise up and kick our stupid white butts. I like the spanish language, love Mexican food & culture and Latin men are freakin hot.


Why the crap do you hate your country so much that you want people who are citizens of another country to come and "kick our butts"? Maybe your white butt is stupid, mine certainly is not. Nice to see you have not a shred of national pride.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
11-01-2007, 03:33 PM
Why the crap do you hate your country so much that you want people who are citizens of another country to come and "kick our butts"? Maybe your white butt is stupid, mine certainly is not. Nice to see you have not a shred of national pride.

First off, I think your sarcasm meter is broken, and second...Why the crap do people like to wrap their racism in my country's flag?

Misty
11-01-2007, 03:36 PM
One of the things I love about America is it's diversity. I love this country. I just don't like some of the intolerant people that reside here. Too many people in Oklahoma wrap their racism in a flag. I would gladly rid the land of racists and replace them with non-racists from anywhere in the Universe. Except Mars, I really hate the Martians.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
11-01-2007, 03:37 PM
One of the things I love about America is it's diversity. I love this country. I just don't like some of the intolerant people that reside here. Too many people in Oklahoma wrap their racism in a flag. I would gladly rid the land of racists and replace them with non-racists from anywhere in the Universe. Except Mars, I really hate the Martians.

Too funny.

jbrown84
11-01-2007, 03:54 PM
I'm all for immigration, but we need to figure out a way for it to be done legally with a certain level of ease. In other words, I'm in the middle on this issue.

BailJumper
11-01-2007, 03:58 PM
The only "original" culture the US ever had was letting everybody in and being the great melting pot. That's our point as a country.

Fine, but at that point in history we simply wrapped our arms around all those immigrants - we didn't pay their medical bills, college, welfare and social security.

PUGalicious
11-01-2007, 04:28 PM
Can't you just feel the "Christian" love of this "Christian" nation....

John
11-01-2007, 06:14 PM
There is nothing 'con' about HB 1804. It is ALL 'pro'.

SoonerDave
11-01-2007, 06:18 PM
*sigh*

I promised I wouldn't get into a debate on this. So here I am, getting into a debate on this.

Part of why I didn't want to engage in a debate has already been illustrated in this thread. If you defend the new immigration law, you're a racist. If you defend the notion of a nation of laws that includes laws governing immigration, you're accused of "wrapping your racism in a flag."

Sometimes I think the left works overtime on a pithy quote generator.

But here's my $0.02.

Despite the contemporary protestations to the contrary, our nation is one of laws, not of men. We do not, contrary to perception, operate on what feels right, what feels good, or in reponse to "hairs standing on the back of our neck." Right or wrong, we have laws to control the chaos, to bring some semblance of order to the operation of a nation of over a quarter-billion people. Those laws also include legislation about immigration.

For me, this debate is pretty simple. You are either here as a legal immigrant, as defined by the law right now, or you're not. All this ad-hominem nonsense about "your ancestors are foreigners too" is moot and irrelevant. Why? Because, legally, right now, I am a legal US citizen. It matters not one bit where my ancestors came from. Why? Because that's the law. Period.

We hear emotional pleadings from the left that try to pretend the law is this whimsical Disneyesque notion that we can merely suspend at a whim because "we just oughta," or because "it's compassionate." A nation with no laws, no willingness to enforce its own laws, invariably and inevitably disintegrates into chaos. And to their credit, the left has done a phenomenal job of inculcating this perpetual sense of entitlement not merely to a broad cross section of contemporary society, they're grafting it onto people who are not in the country legally, too.

I've heard that some Christian churches are opting to "resist" the newer immigration laws, and that's a fairly interesting concept. I remember quite some quite succicnt scripture that calls upon believers to be subject to the power over them. Being a Christian doesn't give you a "Disobey the law for free" card. I fully realize there is a grand opportunity for conflict between laws of man and the laws of God, and my faith in God compels me to yield to Him in those conflicts, but where the conflict is decidedly less intense, He's given me a template that says to be subject to the higher powers.

Arguments against strict encforcment of this or existing immigration laws on the basis of economic impact are non-starters for me. Is our current system of immigration flawed? Of course. Have we allowed these imperfections to persist to the detriment of certain sectors of our economy? Absolutely. Have we done a greater disservice to the greater "community of illegals" (of whatever ethnic origin they may be" by allowing our existing laws to remain unenforced? Absolutely.

None of these, however, presents sufficient justification for the carte blanche notion of abandoning the rule of law in the future becuase we've abandoned it in the past. If the American economy is going to be harmed because of the loss of a certain portion of the workforce that exists due to our own lax enforcement, that's a price we'd better be prepared to pay. Will it cause short- and longer-term harm? Probably. If anything, however, it should serve as a painful lesson that we shouldn't have been ignoring the laws in the first place. If you are not a legal citizen, you have no presumption of any of the rights afforded to them!

It isn't a matter of race, or sympathy, or compassion, or politics, or religion. It is a matter of law. No more and no less. In that vein, it is as simple and as plain as the nose on one's face - to debate the "rights" of an alien is to debate the rights of a mouse in a house of cats. There are none.

Its a curious analogy, but General Motors suffered for years under the union-mandated persistence of antiquated engine plants and manufacturing facilities. The unions would not permit GM to close the plants and modernize the equipment, and the end result - not felt for two decades - was a company incapable of competing, teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, and nearly fatally afflicted from an economic version of athrosclerosis. Now America realizes it needs to undo the damage brought by years of neglect of its immigration laws. That damage is going to be painful for everyone.

I firmly stand behind our new immigration laws, but stand equally irritated that such laws are even necessary. It is already illegal to facilitate illegal immigration. Let's enforce our existing laws. And if we find our existing laws inadequate, let us get our collective minds together and improve them. But don't trash our existing laws in the process!

The notion of "amnesty" has gained considerable traction, and I personally think it should be a great insult to each and every legal immigrant in this country. They worked to abide by the laws, to achieve what was necessary, and now there are those who actively desire to cheapen and nullify their effort. That's ludicrous.

The bottom line is that our nation has a structure of immigration laws, and there is not one valid reason for us to ignore those laws for the politically fastidious whimsy of the politically indignant.

-soonerdave

zuluwarrior0760
11-01-2007, 07:06 PM
No less than a year in prison and a thousand dollar fine
for transporting or harboring an illegal alien.

Does this mean that one cutting grass is being harbored in the
guy's yard, one seeking medical care is being harbored in the doctor's office?
one cleaning house being harbored in the house???

It's not a smartass question..........just wondering how far Johnny Law
will go to incarcerate Mr. White for gettin his grass cut cheap..........

okcitian
11-01-2007, 09:07 PM
Hello, I was just skimming through this post and I am glad to see postive comments regarding immigrants. My mother is from Mexico and father from Oklahoma. I would just hate to be pulled over and asked if I had legal documents to live in this country. I was obviously already born here and a third generation.

Please people, look up some scholarly journals and look at the evidence of how immigration benefits our country. DON't rely on 100 percent of your researched information from the media. Just look at the bigot O'Reily is. I am a college student and at various times in my academic career, have searched through scholarly journals for research. Hope all goes well with you all!

SoonerDave
11-01-2007, 09:10 PM
Hello, I was just skimming through this post and I am glad to see postive comments regarding immigrants. My mother is from Mexico and father from Oklahoma. I would just hate to be pulled over and asked if I had legal documents to live in this country. I was obviously already born here and a third generation.

Please people, look up some scholarly journals and look at the evidence of how immigration benefits our country. DON't rely on 100 percent of your researched information from the media. Just look at the bigot O'Reily is. I am a college student and at various times in my academic career, have searched through scholarly journals for research. Hope all goes well with you all!

I don't think the issue here is with the fundamental concept of immigration per se, despite the fact that those in opposition to enforcement of our existing immigration laws try to blur that important distinction. I certainly have no problem with immigration that is consistent with our laws. My opposition is to illegal immigration, and those who support it.

-soonerdave

hipsterdoofus
11-01-2007, 09:21 PM
I think its pretty hilarious how if you are for immigration reform, or for getting people who are here illegally actually in trouble for *gasp* breaking the law, then you are a racist.

I have been a minority before, so I speak with some experience as well. Of course America is a nation of immigrants, I simply agree with the poster above...how my family got here is not the point anymore.

I too think a guest worker program would probably be nice, but don't label me a racist for wanting to stop lawbreakers...If you're going down that road, lets just throw out all the laws.

dismayed
11-01-2007, 09:29 PM
The problem is that we have nut-jobs on the left that have completely unrealistic expectations for our immigration policy that will bankrupt our country, and we have nut-jobs on the right who are hell bent on keeping everyone out and/or requiring the people that are here to pay a fine to stay here so large that it is simply unrealistic. Meanwhile the rest of us in the middle want something that is common sense. Something that protects our borders and allows people to legally live here if they go through the correct hurdles.

Back in the old days, something called compromise would happen on The Hill and the watering down of both the left and the right's ridiculousness would give us something more in the middle, where the rest of us reside.

It's unfortunate that our government is so dysfunctional that either nothing happens or one side or the other's extreme views end up becoming law.

HOT ROD
11-01-2007, 11:24 PM
In all honesty, I think OK should not have taken the 'leadership' with this issue. It is a significant negative and will continue the perception of OK being a backwater and undesireable state.

Why do I say this? Well, its not because I support illegal immigrants - I dont. Not at all. But, I think we should have played second fiddle to - say Texas - who has a MUCH larger immigrant base.

Why. Because nobody really cares what TX does. They are such a large state - they can get away with just about anything. If OK followed TX, then so be it - no big deal. But to lead the way, now that puts the spotlight on OK and people immediately ask, why would a small state like OK jeopardize its populous and population???

Believe me, I think the intentions are good but the law will scare people away. Some of you conservatives might say, oh good - that's what the law intends. Well, were do you think they will go? TX. Once again, OK will lose out to TX.

And, Im not just talking about illegals either, Im talking about legal immigrants (of mexican descent as well), since MOST legal immigrants have family members who are not legal for whatever reason yet. If their family has to go, so will the LEGAL ones.

Plus, it potentially opens the door to racial profiling against latinos. I assume the intention of the law was to contribute to the illegal mexican issue mostly, and as such some jurisdictions will use that as a carte blanche to target them.

I applaud Oklahoma City's response, that they will not target any race and will not become immigration officers. OKC is too big of a city and has too large of an immigrant base (mexican, peruvian, brasillian, vietnamese, chinese, european, columbian, others...) for officers and the city to do this in its best interest. I like the city's position, as long as a crime has not been committed, then so be it.

And honestly, I think most people (including conservatives) intend to root out the illegal immigrants who commit crimes. But how the law reads (and probably might be enforced), is that all illegal immigrants (including those who do not commit crime but actually add to the state in a positive way), they and even LEGAL ones become targets. Like I said, I like that OKC does not see it this way and I am very disappointed that Tulsa is going to ENFORCE IT just as if it were eminent domain.

I guess tho, perhaps Tulsa will lose population significantly (since 20,000 immigrants have already left there) and OKC will either remain the same or continue to grow. That will be bad for Tulsa!!

I just hope it will not be bad for OK. I have my doubts about the good of the law, but if nothing else, it is nice to see the state's largest city and metropolitan area is INCLUSIVE of immigrants.

What the law should have (and I might mention this to the governor) is something like this: illegal immigrants shall not receive benefits or jobs BUT the state will take a proactive approach to assist those who are illegal become legal if they so desire!!!!!!

Now that would be a very proactive, positive, progressive approach that would be praised by everyone and actually would result in a significant population boost. You notice I keep mentioning population, IT DOES MATTER. Remember what happened in 2000, Oklahoma lost a legislative seat (not that it really mattered tho since OK politicians rarely vote for OK issues), due to population growth that was outshined by other states (and not big ones either).

Do we wnat to lose another legislator? Do we wnat to potentially lose MORE political clout?

Sometimes, it comes down to issues of population and I'd like to see OK be proactive toward illegals by helping those who want to be here become LEGAL!! Those illegals who are just here for a free ride, I agree - they need to go!

Thoughts?

tuck
11-02-2007, 05:34 AM
The problem is that we have nut-jobs on the left that have completely unrealistic expectations for our immigration policy that will bankrupt our country, and we have nut-jobs on the right who are hell bent on keeping everyone out and/or requiring the people that are here to pay a fine to stay here so large that it is simply unrealistic. Meanwhile the rest of us in the middle want something that is common sense. Something that protects our borders and allows people to legally live here if they go through the correct hurdles.

Back in the old days, something called compromise would happen on The Hill and the watering down of both the left and the right's ridiculousness would give us something more in the middle, where the rest of us reside.

It's unfortunate that our government is so dysfunctional that either nothing happens or one side or the other's extreme views end up becoming law.

I totally agree Dismay. after reading close to 25 responses, finally one that makes sense. The "nut-jobs" you refer to, both left and right, have all posted comments on this thread. I have not seen a comment before yours that raises the question of how the immigration law will effect local business and the trickle-down effect on everyone.

I am a local business owner that will be greatly effected by this decision. Its going to cost me and other business owners a ton of money over the next few months and years. Guess what, those costs will be passed down to all consumers. Have you all thought about that?

I just think there is a compromise somewhere in all of this. Oklahoma law makers wanted to be first out of the gate with their decision; however, I think being first this time is 100% a bad call.

tuck
11-02-2007, 05:36 AM
In all honesty, I think OK should not have taken the 'leadership' with this issue. It is a significant negative and will continue the perception of OK being a backwater and undesireable state.

Why do I say this? Well, its not because I support illegal immigrants - I dont. Not at all. But, I think we should have played second fiddle to - say Texas - who has a MUCH larger immigrant base.

Why. Because nobody really cares what TX does. They are such a large state - they can get away with just about anything. If OK followed TX, then so be it - no big deal. But to lead the way, now that puts the spotlight on OK and people immediately ask, why would a small state like OK jeopardize its populous and population???

Believe me, I think the intentions are good but the law will scare people away. Some of you conservatives might say, oh good - that's what the law intends. Well, were do you think they will go? TX. Once again, OK will lose out to TX.

And, Im not just talking about illegals either, Im talking about legal immigrants (of mexican descent as well), since MOST legal immigrants have family members who are not legal for whatever reason yet. If their family has to go, so will the LEGAL ones.

Plus, it potentially opens the door to racial profiling against latinos. I assume the intention of the law was to contribute to the illegal mexican issue mostly, and as such some jurisdictions will use that as a carte blanche to target them.

I applaud Oklahoma City's response, that they will not target any race and will not become immigration officers. OKC is too big of a city and has too large of an immigrant base (mexican, peruvian, brasillian, vietnamese, chinese, european, columbian, others...) for officers and the city to do this in its best interest. I like the city's position, as long as a crime has not been committed, then so be it.

And honestly, I think most people (including conservatives) intend to root out the illegal immigrants who commit crimes. But how the law reads (and probably might be enforced), is that all illegal immigrants (including those who do not commit crime but actually add to the state in a positive way), they and even LEGAL ones become targets. Like I said, I like that OKC does not see it this way and I am very disappointed that Tulsa is going to ENFORCE IT just as if it were eminent domain.

I guess tho, perhaps Tulsa will lose population significantly (since 20,000 immigrants have already left there) and OKC will either remain the same or continue to grow. That will be bad for Tulsa!!

I just hope it will not be bad for OK. I have my doubts about the good of the law, but if nothing else, it is nice to see the state's largest city and metropolitan area is INCLUSIVE of immigrants.

What the law should have (and I might mention this to the governor) is something like this: illegal immigrants shall not receive benefits or jobs BUT the state will take a proactive approach to assist those who are illegal become legal if they so desire!!!!!!

Now that would be a very proactive, positive, progressive approach that would be praised by everyone and actually would result in a significant population boost. You notice I keep mentioning population, IT DOES MATTER. Remember what happened in 2000, Oklahoma lost a legislative seat (not that it really mattered tho since OK politicians rarely vote for OK issues), due to population growth that was outshined by other states (and not big ones either).

Do we wnat to lose another legislator? Do we wnat to potentially lose MORE political clout?

Sometimes, it comes down to issues of population and I'd like to see OK be proactive toward illegals by helping those who want to be here become LEGAL!! Those illegals who are just here for a free ride, I agree - they need to go!

Thoughts?


AGREE!!!!

Karried
11-02-2007, 08:04 AM
Meanwhile the rest of us in the middle want something that is common sense. Something that protects our borders and allows people to legally live here if they go through the correct hurdles.


Yes, that's exactly it.

My problem with this law starts at the root of the issue.

The hurdles are too big for most people to do it legally. We need to make it more attainable if that is the goal...to have people come in legally.

And Mexico is a poverty stricken country. We need to find ways to help their economy.
We need to find ways to assist or encourage Mexico to make their country a more desirable place to reside. That would lessen the influx of immigrants wanting to come here for the wages.

Yes, the law should be obeyed as SoonerDave says.. I'm in complete agreement with that, but sometimes it's not an all Black and White issue.

First off, It is extremely difficult to come into the United States legally and it is very expensive. So, yes, you will have people trying to circumvent the law. Is it right? No.

But sometimes the hurdles are insurmountable and you have desperation calling for desperate actions. Maybe a sick child or starving family .. there are many reasons that compel people to try to better themselves.

But I guess I'm a nutjob in the way I view it.

It's easy to wrap all immigrants in one blanket and say 'they broke the law, they are criminals' and villify them in that way, but they are people first, moms and dads and kids who want a chance at a good life.

Of course, if someone is here and breaks the law, then I say send them home immediately.

I've been to Mexico many times and seeing the poverty and way of life in some areas explains completely to me why parents would want a better life for their children or themselves.

They just had the bad luck to be born there.

I think many of those against illegal immigration would still agree that there is nothing wrong in trying to better yourself and give your family a good life - right?

If you were born into a similar situation and wanted a way out of poverty, say a ghetto or mobile home park.. but no matter how hard you tried to move into a better situation, the process was so difficult and confusing and the cost was too high to ever attain .. you might find yourself looking for a way to get out no matter what it took. Again, it doesn't make it right but still, feeling a little empathy for people is where I'm coming from.

And then, you have the ' Not in my backyard' way of thinking. It seems as if everyone wants to maintain the status quo and surround themselves with what makes them comfortable. People that look, talk and think the same way make people comfortable.. people that don't, don't.

I agree with HotRod... this law does nothing for the image of Oklahoma.. nothing at all. I think it's very detrimental. I can hear it now..bigots, rednecks, backassward thinking, intolerant, racist on and on. Just go to any message board in the nation and search on the subject.. you'll see it all. Who would want to start a business or move here with that negative reputation?

And yes, it will affect our small businesses in a negative manner, more paperwork, affidavits, forms and fines if not done correctly I imagine, so I don't think this is a perfect solution.

I look at this law like a temporary bandaid... the problem is still there and we are just throwing a 'fix' at it that won't hold over time. The issues are all still there.

Pete
11-02-2007, 08:56 AM
I am a local business owner that will be greatly effected by this decision. Its going to cost me and other business owners a ton of money over the next few months and years. Guess what, those costs will be passed down to all consumers. Have you all thought about that?

In larger sense, this law will make it harder to lure businesses and industry to our state for the reasons you mentioned.

If the laws were national that would be one thing, but this puts businesses in OK at an disadvantage.

Misty
11-02-2007, 09:01 AM
So if (or should I say when) life on other planets is discovered what do you think Oklahoma's rules will be? Do we let the space aliens in or do they have to follow the same procedures as alien earthlings?

But on a serious note, it amazes me the OKLAHOMA of all places is doing this. After the dust bowl years and the way Okies were treating when they were trying to survive (HALTED at the Cali border) you'd think we'd be more understanding.

PUGalicious
11-02-2007, 09:03 AM
In larger sense, this law will make it harder to lure businesses and industry to our state for the reasons you mentioned.

If the laws were national that would be one thing, but this puts businesses in OK at an disadvantage.
Once again, we shoot ourselves in the foot ... one step forward in progress toward bringing more business here to OK ... two steps back in national perception with our laws and political agendas.

SoonerDave
11-02-2007, 09:21 AM
Yes, that's exactly it.

My problem with this law starts at the root of the issue.

The hurdles are too big for most people to do it legally. We need to make it more attainable if that is the goal...to have people come in legally.

And Mexico is a poverty stricken country. We need to find ways to help their economy.
We need to find ways to assist or encourage Mexico to make their country a more desirable place to reside. That would lessen the influx of immigrants wanting to come here for the wages.

Yes, the law should be obeyed as SoonerDave says.. I'm in complete agreement with that, but sometimes it's not an all Black and White issue.

First off, It is extremely difficult to come into the United States legally and it is very expensive. So, yes, you will have people trying to circumvent the law. Is it right? No.

But sometimes the hurdles are insurmountable and you have desperation calling for desperate actions. Maybe a sick child or starving family .. there are many reasons that compel people to try to better themselves.

But I guess I'm a nutjob in the way I view it.

It's easy to wrap all immigrants in one blanket and say 'they broke the law, they are criminals' and villify them in that way, but they are people first, moms and dads and kids who want a chance at a good life.

Of course, if someone is here and breaks the law, then I say send them home immediately.

I've been to Mexico many times and seeing the poverty and way of life in some areas explains completely to me why parents would want a better life for their children or themselves.

They just had the bad luck to be born there.

I think many of those against illegal immigration would still agree that there is nothing wrong in trying to better yourself and give your family a good life - right?

If you were born into a similar situation and wanted a way out of poverty, say a ghetto or mobile home park.. but no matter how hard you tried to move into a better situation, the process was so difficult and confusing and the cost was too high to ever attain .. you might find yourself looking for a way to get out no matter what it took. Again, it doesn't make it right but still, feeling a little empathy for people is where I'm coming from.

And then, you have the ' Not in my backyard' way of thinking. It seems as if everyone wants to maintain the status quo and surround themselves with what makes them comfortable. People that look, talk and think the same way make people comfortable.. people that don't, don't.

I agree with HotRod... this law does nothing for the image of Oklahoma.. nothing at all. I think it's very detrimental. I can hear it now..bigots, rednecks, backassward thinking, intolerant, racist on and on. Just go to any message board in the nation and search on the subject.. you'll see it all. Who would want to start a business or move here with that negative reputation?

And yes, it will affect our small businesses in a negative manner, more paperwork, affidavits, forms and fines if not done correctly I imagine, so I don't think this is a perfect solution.

I look at this law like a temporary bandaid... the problem is still there and we are just throwing a 'fix' at it that won't hold over time. The issues are all still there.


I understand where you're coming from, but it seems the desire on the part of those who oppose 1804 or any sort of immigration enforcement is to, essentially, throw the gates open. At least that's how it seems to me. *Anyone* who advocates limits and restrictions is immediately deemed an intolerant and a racist.

I understand the notion of someone living in poverty wanting a better life for their kids, but how far can we allow that justification to fly as an excuse for breaking the law? Should the homeless beggar at the corner be allowed to break into your home and steal your food? After all, he's just hungry. He just wants to eat. His family just wants to eat, right? Heck, that standard isn't even as high as that for the illegal immigrant; they want a better life, the beggar just wants food. Shouldn't he be allowed to homestead in your living room? He just wants a better place to live, doesn't he?

The point is that you can rationalize away any law. Somewhere, at some point, someone has to be willing to accept the inevitable criticism and say, "You know what? This is the law. We freely admit that we do follow it perfectly everywhere, but right here, right now, on this issue, we draw the line here."

Let's take a look at one proposed resolution. "We need to find ways to help their economy." That sounds find to me, but understand a bit of Mexico's national history. They have one of the most historically corrupt governments around. The corruption filters all the way down to the police forces in the individual neighborhoods. If we, in a benign sort of way, want to help, we invariably go down the path of financial aid. It all sounds good, makes us even feel good, but if we've been taught nothing about such benevolent ventures in corrupt countries (see the UN Oil for Food program), those monies rarely make it to those that need it. This isn't to say we give up trying, but we also have to recognize there is a limit to the amount of "reform" we can impose anywhere.

There is no question that there will be negative fallout from this law. Understand, however, that it is not this law that generates it; the fallout is a symptom of decades of unenforced, existing immigration law that has created this unlegislated wink-and-a-nod subculture. This law has merely brought the problem to the surface with in-your-face force, and in that vein, I believe the discussion will lead to some sort of true reform - simplification of the naturalization process, streamlining of the bureaucracy, you name it. But understand that this problem, decades in the making, and as such cannot be fixed overnight.

As far as Oklahoma's broader national perception goes, the stories I have read are very much sympathetic to Oklahoma, with the state being portrayed as a leader. Other legislatures are using Oklahoma's laws as a template. Groups who are already adverse to immigration enforcement will already perceive any similar efforts as racist and intolerant, so how does that national perception worsen in the eyes of anyone who isn't predisposed to believe it in the first place?

The broader issue to keep in mind is that, inevitably, someone will challenge the constitutionality of a state law dealing with immigration, which some argue is exclusively a federal issue. That remains to be seen.

-soonerdave

Midtowner
11-02-2007, 09:33 AM
In larger sense, this law will make it harder to lure businesses and industry to our state for the reasons you mentioned.

If the laws were national that would be one thing, but this puts businesses in OK at an disadvantage.

The sorts of businesses affected, however, aren't going anywhere. Construction, lawn services, kitchen staff, etc. will all continue to be in exactly the same demand. Oklahoma does not need to attract businesses who want to pay workers below minimum wage, skirt the law on worker's compensation, fail to pay social security, etc. These are bad businesses, in fact, they are by definition criminal enterprises.

We don't need those sorts of businesses, but that's not going to change anything. Houses will still get built, crops will still get picked, restaurants will still find a way to get their food cooked. The only difference is that there will be fewer illegals doing it, and now the workers will all have to be properly insured, documented and legal.

No one can make it on the sorts of wages being paid here without significant public assistance. These sorts of jobs might be very profitable for business owners to give out, but they cost society as a whole an arm and a leg.

This law is not a moratorium on immigrant labor -- just illegal immigrant labor. We don't need this sort of under-the-table business in Oklahoma or any other state.

Maybe business owners will be forced to pay a higher wage to attract employees? You'd think "progressives" would be behind a scheme which forced employers to pay a "living wage" because the market necessitated it? Nah.. they'd rather be on the side of lawlessness :)

Karried
11-02-2007, 09:41 AM
I don't think people want to have a largely illegal workforce.

I think the issue being opposed is that it's forcing employers to jump through even more hoops to prove that they are NOT hiring illegal immigrants.

But, you probably know much more about the law.. to be honest, I don't even know that much about it.

Pete
11-02-2007, 10:00 AM
The sorts of businesses affected, however, aren't going anywhere. Construction, lawn services, kitchen staff, etc. will all continue to be in exactly the same demand. Oklahoma does not need to attract businesses who want to pay workers below minimum wage, skirt the law on worker's compensation, fail to pay social security, etc. These are bad businesses, in fact, they are by definition criminal enterprises.

Every business is impacted by higher costs in these areas, not just those that employ large amounts of immigrant labor directly.

It's macroeconomics for the whole state in terms of higher prices and cost of doing business across the board. And when neighboring and competing states don't have such restrictions, Oklahoma is put in an a competitive disadvantage.

The bottom line is that without labor demand, immigrants wouldn't be coming in. Unemployment is already really low so where does the workforce come from to step in to do the jobs already filled by people many want forced out?

SoonerDave
11-02-2007, 10:01 AM
Karried,

As I understand it, the law says that you, as an employer, are accountable for employing someone that cannot prove or document their status as legally eligible to work in the U.S. You can't engage in the transport of individuals whose legal status cannot be established.

The frustrating thing for me is that a law like this is even necessary. Isn't it illegal right now to hire someone that is not a legal citizen? Doesn't every naturalized citizen, guest worker, or other "resident alien" (through whatever legal process) have a government issued document that you'd carry with you like an international traveler carries his visa and passport?

The INS "raids" that occur are hardly done in a vacuum. It isn't one or two guys that are getting hammered; it's people they're aware are hiring them as a matter of practice. That is, I'm not sure I see how a businessman is going to be able to claim plausible deniability under this law. You hire someone, you see their proper documentation, you note it in whatever records you'd keep for any other employee. Ahhh....there's the rub. No documentation. No records. And, possibly, pay significantly less than the minimum wage...?

What percentage (and let me point out I do NOT beleive it to be 100%) of businesses that oppose this legislation are actually dreading the exit of their cheap labor pool? If it is a substantial percentage at all, why on EARTH wouldn't those who champion the worker run to support immigration enforcement such that legal wages would be paid to legally employable citizens?

I fully recognize that not all businesses are hiring illegals, but we all know a significant number of them are. If that's their only basis of opposition, it comes pretty darned close to a non-starter for me. If one point in opposition is for businesses to tap a labor source that allows them to skirt the minimum wage laws, that's another good reason to support immigration enforcement. Now, minimum wage laws themselves are an entirely separate debate, but right now, they are the law...

-soonerdave

NE Oasis
11-02-2007, 11:19 AM
The law is fine, the biggest problem is the response of the local Hispanic community. There are Asians, Bosnians, and Nepalese that I interact with regulalrly, they are ALL impacted if they are here illegally. There are countless people in the country with expired student visas, some even look like WASP's because they are! If employers, landlords, and grantors of various benefits that require legal status all do thier jobs our tax dollars wil go farther.Hooray Oklahoma! Set the example. Like a pebble thrown into the middle of a pond, maybe this law can send riopples throughout the country.s

Midtowner
11-02-2007, 11:42 AM
The law is fine, the biggest problem is the response of the local Hispanic community. There are Asians, Bosnians, and Nepalese that I interact with regulalrly, they are ALL impacted if they are here illegally. There are countless people in the country with expired student visas, some even look like WASP's because they are! If employers, landlords, and grantors of various benefits that require legal status all do thier jobs our tax dollars wil go farther.Hooray Oklahoma! Set the example. Like a pebble thrown into the middle of a pond, maybe this law can send riopples throughout the country.s

Not going to happen.

This area of law has already been fully legislated by the federal government. Any laws pertaining to immigration fall squarely within the realm of what a federal government does. These laws, I think, are therefore preempted, null and void since there is already federal legislation covering this area.

The only possible winning argument for the state, one I don't think the current Supreme Court would be persuaded by, is that the Oklahoma law merely directs Oklahoma's executive to enforce the federal laws which are already in effect, and so long as none of the immigration directives aren't in conflict with the validly enacted federal immigration laws, they're not preempted.

I think that's really the only real argument the state can make. There have already been two cases thrown out on the standing issue, but since that will soon be overcome when the state actually tries for the first time to enforce the law.

At any rate, I don't think the state will be able to win here because what Oklahoma is trying to do is not only pretty clearly preempted, but Oklahoma is also attempting to meddle in foreign policy issues of the United States which is pretty clearly impermissible.

While I'm in favor of this sort of backbone being shown on a national level, I'm not optimistic at all about the state's chances in court.

bombermwc
11-02-2007, 12:49 PM
OK, this is a fire issue for sure and we all have our opinion.

I think there are people out there that are treating this as a racial issue because they are racist and want anyone that is different to be gone. They have their view on what they think the US should look like, and immigrants don't fit. That's a total **** thought process and I'd like to see that type of person kicked out.

That being said...
I do think that we need strong immigrantion laws that target both the immigrant and businesses that employ them. My personal opinion is that immigrantion is fine and great, but it HAS to be legal. Anyone that is an illegal immigrant should go. Either do the work to become a citizen, or don't be here. I've known plenty folks in my life that have become citizens legally, so don't say it's not reasonable. I think someone needs to grow some balls in Washington and just make it happen so we can try and patch up this messy situation.

Dark Jedi
11-02-2007, 02:49 PM
My mother is from Mexico and father from Oklahoma. I would just hate to be pulled over and asked if I had legal documents to live in this country. I was obviously already born here and a third generation.

Third? Wasn't your mother from Mexico? That would make you second generation.

Dark Jedi
11-02-2007, 02:52 PM
As for Mexico's economy, NAFTA was supposed to be the first stage of helping that. However, it met with so much opposition that industries abandoned it, for the most part.

kmf563
11-02-2007, 03:05 PM
I will never understand. This topic of conversation ranks right up there with equal rights in the work place. Or the definition of harrasment. Or how about women's duties.
My point is there are a lot of things in this world that are pretty f*d up. That doesn't make the laws any less important. They are still there and should be followed. Why do we need to make laws to enforce laws?
I really don't think it has anything to do with heritage or the foundation of this country. If YOU - not your grandfather, or his grandfather...YOU are born here, you are an american. If you are not...papers please.

u50254082
11-02-2007, 03:41 PM
I think I'm pretty much in agreement with SoonerDave.

:congrats:

Karried
11-02-2007, 03:48 PM
SoonerDave always presents a well thought out response.. he is a very smart person!

PennyQuilts
11-02-2007, 03:48 PM
Let me guess, Misty, you're what, 24? Maybe?

They just passed a law in my county back east to deny certain benefits to illegal aliens. The police are also being trained to work with ICE. You'd think someone was butchering babies. We had protest after protest with all kinds of billboards accusing anyone who supported the measures to be racist. It is insulting. After the measure passed, the courthouse where I work emptied. The illegals are no longer showing up for court. It is absolutely amazing the difference. A lot of them are heading for Maryland because Maryland has let it be known that they are a sanctuary state.

Misty
11-02-2007, 03:53 PM
Let me guess, Misty, you're what, 24? Maybe?



Even though that was meant to be insulting it actually made me feel really young and gave me a great big smile. Thanks man. I'm just really, really silly. You don't think I'm funny?? :( I thought the Canadian jokes were hilarious.

PennyQuilts
11-02-2007, 03:56 PM
The Canadian jokes were VERY funny!

Misty
11-02-2007, 03:59 PM
Thank you. FYI-I'm 33 but yes, I still act 20 and hope I always do. Today on our way back from lunch a friend and I were acting out the Mockingbird singing scene from Dumb and Dumber and we agreed that we would most likely still be like this when we're 60 and agreed when you don't have kids you can stay a kid yourself forever and we renewed the "no kids ever" pact. Good times man, good time.

Karried
11-02-2007, 05:12 PM
We're all over CNN today!

Oklahoma targets illegal immigrants with tough new law

<LI class=cnnhiliteheader>Story Highlights
Law goes into effect November 1
It stops illegal immigrants from obtaining government IDs
It also makes it illegal for U.S. citizens to house, employ illegals
Lawsuit challenging the new law is working though the federal courtsBy Ismael Estrada and Keith Oppenheim
CNN


TULSA, Oklahoma (CNN) -- Weeks of protests, rallies, lawsuits and candlelight vigils failed to stop a new state immigration bill -- HB 1804 -- from becoming the law in Oklahoma.

The law went into effect Thursday and is intended to make life difficult for illegal immigrants in Oklahoma.

Its authors say they're sending a very clear message: If you're an illegal immigrant, you are not welcome.

"I'm convinced illegal aliens will not come to Oklahoma, or any other state, if there are no jobs waiting for them." said state Rep. Randy Terrill, a Republican and the law's author.

"They will not stay here if there are not taxpayer subsidies and they certainly won't stay here if they ever encounter one of our fine state and local law enforcement officials," he added. "They'll be physically detained -- until they're deported."

The new law restricts the ability of illegal immigrants (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/immigration) to obtain government IDs or public assistance. It also gives police authority to check the immigration status of anyone arrested, which can lead to deportations.


It doesn't stop at illegal immigrants. The law also makes it a felony for U.S. citizens to knowingly provide shelter, transportation or employment to illegal immigrants.


The message has been received loud and clear. Many in Oklahoma's Latino community say people are staying home, fearful police will arrest and deport them.

"They're afraid they're going to get deported. They're just afraid," said Alex Yoguez, a juice store owner who relies on Latino customers for her business to survive.

Yoguez said her business is normally filled with customers. "We are down 50 percent just today," she said Thursday, the day the law went on the books.

Latino supporters are up in arms about the way the state now views illegal immigrants who have been here for many years.

"You are guilty of ethnic cleansing in this community! You are going against my community!" said the Rev. Miguel Rivera of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy.

The clergy group filed a federal lawsuit against the state saying the state has overstepped its bounds by enforcing immigration law, which is under federal jurisdiction. A hearing in the case is scheduled next week. An earlier attempt to get an injunction to prevent enforcement of the law was turned down by a judge.

It's not yet clear how the law will be enforced. Illegal immigrants in Oklahoma fear police will use the law for roundups of anyone working and living in the state illegally.

"I don't know if we're going to be actively looking for them," said Tulsa Police Capt. Steve Odom, who works in the Latino district of Tulsa. "If we come across them in the course of a call, or a course of an investigation, certainly we'll take the appropriate action."

The Tulsa Police Department said it has not received guidance from the district attorney's office on how to enforce the law. The department points out that suspicion of illegal activity is not enough, and proving the intent of U.S. citizens is a challenge.

Still, many in Oklahoma say Latinos have been leaving by the thousands since the law was passed in May.

"We are losing a lot of business, a lot of business," said Antonio Perez, who owns Mexican grocery stores. "I would say between the four stores we have lost about $300,000 a month in sales."

So far, the absence of the Latinos on the streets may be the only visible result of the law.

okcitian
11-02-2007, 06:55 PM
Third? Wasn't your mother from Mexico? That would make you second generation.

I wasn't exactly precise on what I was saying, I'm a first generation american on my mom's side and a 3rd generation american off my fathers side.

Regarding NAFTA, there are various facts surrounding if it helped the Mexican economy. It basically made the wealthy more wealthier and poverty has been reduced gradually after the 1994 Mexican Economic crisis.

Remember that Mexico is an upper-middle income country and an OECD member (an international organization that consists of 25 developed nations and 5 newly industrualized countries, Mexico being one of them)

dismayed
11-02-2007, 07:50 PM
Let me guess, Misty, you're what, 24? Maybe?

Self edited because what I had to say to this fine east coast gentleman wasn't very nice!

dismayed
11-02-2007, 07:53 PM
What do you all think of the federal immigration laws that went into effect yesterday? For as long as I can remember the federal government would never break up a family due to immigration issues (e.g. remember Elian Gonzales?). Now the law has changed, and if an illegal comes here and has a child, the government will deport the illegal and take custody of the child because s/he is an American citizen and promptly place the child in foster care.

That is so wrong on so many levels. I wonder if anyone plans to beef up the funding of our nation's foster care system?