Why do 3 King County Council members support illegal aliens?

mohawk001 said:

All this talk, and some of it two-faced in my opinion. You do know that we are denied the right to some parts of the US thanks to it being put off limits by the Feds due to how dangerous it is because of all the illegals some of you support coming through the area. So which is it? We should be able to travel, or they should be able to deprive us of our rights to our land by making it too dangerous for us? And how come I see northern states, who don't have the problems the lower ones do, trying to tell the lower ones to suck it up and enjoy their problems?

Click to expand...

Where do you get the idea I would support shutting those lands? Of course you have the right to travel there. You do realize, though, that the only reason it's dangerous is because we've made a system where it's profitable for coyotes to smuggle people, and those coyotes feel the need to protect their profits? Seems that if you want to solve that problem, you need to eliminate illegal immigration - that is, make all immigration legal.

As for northern states... I come from the Coachella Valley. I know what the southland is like.

Tawnos said:

Where do you get the idea I would support shutting those lands? Of course you have the right to travel there. You do realize, though, that the only reason it's dangerous is because we've made a system where it's profitable for coyotes to smuggle people, and those coyotes feel the need to protect their profits? Seems that if you want to solve that problem, you need to eliminate illegal immigration - that is, make all immigration legal.

As for northern states... I come from the Coachella Valley. I know what the southland is like.

Click to expand...

So to get rid of the drinking and driving problems, make it legal. To get rid of the murder problems, make killing people legal. To get rid of..........

And until you've seen the signs that the Feds have put up saying for U.S. citizens to stay out, how can you say it's ok to go in there? The right has been taken away.

Giving in to the problem is not the way to fix the problem. I still say it's obvious you have no clue about what it's like down here just literally a couple of miles from the border.

Here in Washington state, illegal immigration is a major ecological problem. Salal pickers will go into an area and absolutely devastate the area. They poach everything and sell birds of prey and rare species to the black market. They kill squirrels as vermin. Occasionally they start wild fires. In the process of picking, they tear up all the vegetation and damage trees. Unfortunately, they are doing this in every area that isn't regularly policed, including the state and national parks.

Much of the area's illegal drug traffic and distribution is done by illegal immigrants, both those who don't have other opportunities and those who come specifically for it.

Many companies in the area refuse to hire legal residents in favor or illegals to avoid paying taxes and benefits. Also, they start small labor based businesses that don't get licensing, don't follow code, and don't pay taxes.

All of these things involve extremely violent enforcers that lash out at anyone that poses a threat, including innocent people that accidentally stumble on their activities.

Overall, the illegal immigrant community involves itself in outlaw behavior. Aside from the illegal act of crossing the border, identity theft and fraud is done as a matter of course to maintain their presence. Petty theft is so frequent that security items like alarms and padlock sales run 30-50% higher in areas with high concentrations of illegal immigrants.

All of this leads to the security of LACs plummeting. Something needs to be done to address the problem.

1911er said:

The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the[ citizen] cannot be deprived.

not an illegal allien can not be deprived. the key word being citizen

Click to expand...

...and this "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id., at 197.

Would that then be "American citizen" ...in context?

jt59 said:

...and this "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id., at 197.

Would that then be "American citizen" ...in context?

Click to expand...

And which of the Chafee's do you quote? John, Lincoln, Edmond B. or Zechariah Chaffee, Jr.?

Speaking of Zechariah Jr. Here is one..
"The real value of freedom is not to the minority that wants to talk but to the majority that does not want to listen."

mohawk001 said:

So to get rid of the drinking and driving problems, make it legal. To get rid of the murder problems, make killing people legal. To get rid of..........

And until you've seen the signs that the Feds have put up saying for U.S. citizens to stay out, how can you say it's ok to go in there? The right has been taken away.

Giving in to the problem is not the way to fix the problem. I still say it's obvious you have no clue about what it's like down here just literally a couple of miles from the border.

Click to expand...

You're right, recognizing the freedom to travel is the same as legalizing directly harmful actions. I'm totally saying that. This paragraph isn't chock full of sarcasm at all. Really.

I'm not saying it is okay to go there, I'm saying it _should be_ okay to go there.

This isn't giving in to the problem, it's recognizing that the problem is constructed by the prohibition. Without the prohibition, the problem wouldn't occur. So in your examples, without the prohibition there would still be the same problems caused by drunken drivers and murderers. Therefore, to my analysis, such laws stand up to constructionism scrutiny (that is, an evaluative critique of whether the problem exists merely due to prohibition rather than due to intrinsic harm of the actions). On the contrary, the problems of immigration (as well as drugs, for example) are created by prohibition.

Tawnos said:

You're right, recognizing the freedom to travel is the same as legalizing directly harmful actions. I'm totally saying that. This paragraph isn't chock full of sarcasm at all. Really.

I'm not saying it is okay to go there, I'm saying it _should be_ okay to go there.

This isn't giving in to the problem, it's recognizing that the problem is constructed by the prohibition. Without the prohibition, the problem wouldn't occur. So in your examples, without the prohibition there would still be the same problems caused by drunken drivers and murderers. Therefore, to my analysis, such laws stand up to constructionism scrutiny (that is, an evaluative critique of whether the problem exists merely due to prohibition rather than due to intrinsic harm of the actions). On the contrary, the problems of immigration (as well as drugs, for example) are created by prohibition.

Click to expand...

The problem that exists is that Congress has established laws by which a person not born in the USA or of Citizens of the US (if born abroad) may become Citizens of the United States of America and there are thousands if not tens of thousands who are violating those laws by being here illegally, therefore are here criminally. And we have a multitude of Officials and Citizens who would simply pardon all the criminal behavior by allowing known criminals to become citizens without complying with the Laws as laid out by Congress.

A simple yet very true statement to come of this, is that those who are illegal aliens living in this country are criminals.
An equally true statement is:
Anyone who assists such criminals can either be considered as criminal friendly or are an accessory to that criminal act.

Tawnos said:

Are you incapable of reading? What part of "any person" is unclear in the 14th amendment? The part where scary brown people might come here and steal yer jerbs?

Click to expand...

I myself do not fear they will take my job, I do however think they are taxing our system adding to the welfare, on multiple social security cards. If we deported every one of the over 11 million Illegals, we could then put everone that is on welfare in one of their jobs and since this is the land of the free, if they dont like the job, they are free to go find different one. If they increased fines for those who enter into a contract with an illegal, than it would decrease the advantage of coming here. Besides, they will soon start returning on their own, alot of the factory jobs are going to Mexico.

sudden valley gunner said:

I understand why people get frustrated, I used to when trying to make a living and having to compete with others who don't have to follow the rules it had nothing to do with skin color. The more I thought about it though the more I realized it isn't the peoples fault, I would probably do the same thing if I was in their shoes. It is the governments (both ours and theirs regardless of which country they originate from) fault and like so many other laws, these laws do nothing to protect those it was supposed to protect but actually did more harm than good.

E.G. I have seen L&I fine a contractor who was licensed but not even go near the immigrant folks working a few houses down, they know they can track and get the extorted money from the "legal" contractor fairly easily, while they would fruitlessly spend countless hrs and wasted energy going after the "illegals". If FDR's packed SCOTUS court and threats to pack it more didn't happen we would have a court more in line with the Lochner era, where individuals had the right to contract without gov. influence contractors and employers could compete with "illegals" and the issue wouldn't be as skewed as they make it today.

Ludwig VonMises in his book Omnipotent Government, explains these things on a much more cerebral level than my oversimplification. One thing he does make real clear is how Gov. backed protectionism had a lot to do with and causes a lot of War.

Click to expand...

I would hope if I were in their shoes, There would be enough others that would be fed up and tired of their rights being taken away and we would stand up against the government. They took their guns away, this is what has happened.

Levi said:

Here in Washington state, illegal immigration is a major ecological problem. Salal pickers will go into an area and absolutely devastate the area. They poach everything and sell birds of prey and rare species to the black market. They kill squirrels as vermin. Occasionally they start wild fires. In the process of picking, they tear up all the vegetation and damage trees. Unfortunately, they are doing this in every area that isn't regularly policed, including the state and national parks.

Much of the area's illegal drug traffic and distribution is done by illegal immigrants, both those who don't have other opportunities and those who come specifically for it.

Many companies in the area refuse to hire legal residents in favor or illegals to avoid paying taxes and benefits. Also, they start small labor based businesses that don't get licensing, don't follow code, and don't pay taxes.

All of these things involve extremely violent enforcers that lash out at anyone that poses a threat, including innocent people that accidentally stumble on their activities.

Overall, the illegal immigrant community involves itself in outlaw behavior. Aside from the illegal act of crossing the border, identity theft and fraud is done as a matter of course to maintain their presence. Petty theft is so frequent that security items like alarms and padlock sales run 30-50% higher in areas with high concentrations of illegal immigrants.

All of this leads to the security of LACs plummeting. Something needs to be done to address the problem.

Click to expand...

thing is they dont care. If they get caught and deported, they will be back in 2 weeks, they have nothing to lose. They get an all expense paid trip to Mexico. Maybe a tatoo on their forhead saying "Deport Immediatly" would ease the process.

I get frustrated as I wait in line at Wal-Mart standing behind a family with two physically fit non-english speaking parents 3 kids, the Mother is young, Manicured nails, nice clothes, texting on her 4G Iphone, as her physically fit male counterpart is dressed in his leather jacket, aligator or snake boots, teeth grills, both wearing excessive gold jewelery, as they pay for their cart for groceries with an EBT card and use a credit card to pay for the beer and clothes. After checking out, I have the priveledge of passing them as they load their Cadillac Escalade with hand painted graphics, and 22" wheels, I have to wonder how they will fit all their stuff in the back around the huge speaker box that takes up almost the entire back end of their rig.

I can only hope my job will one day afford me such nice things in life.

tombrewster421 said:

You're going to have to loan me your book collection sometime.

Click to expand...

If you have a nook I can lend you a few, Omnipotent Government I got as a free book on my e-reader. I really like to read, right now reading Hazlit's Economics in one easy lesson, he puts things very succinctly and easy for a layman like myself to understand. The Austrian school of Economics helps us understand a lot more about human nature than just money.

amzbrady said:

I would hope if I were in their shoes, There would be enough others that would be fed up and tired of their rights being taken away and we would stand up against the government. They took their guns away, this is what has happened.

Click to expand...

Good point. But if you are faced with death, economic ruin, your family being wiped off the map, it might be easier to move to another place that tells the world they are the land of the free.
I think one thing that might help is that many of our southern neighbors are seriously looking at doing away with the loosing battle of drug wars.
And we are to look at the statistics, many folks lately are actually leaving U.S. for other countries that hassle their personal freedoms less.
I understand your frustration at what you see and experience, what I encourage people to do is look deeper into what is the actual cause of the problems we see. Sometimes this means coming to terms with things that make us personally uncomfortable.

LkWd_Don said:

The problem that exists is that Congress has established laws by which a person not born in the USA or of Citizens of the US (if born abroad) may become Citizens of the United States of America and there are thousands if not tens of thousands who are violating those laws by being here illegally, therefore are here criminally. And we have a multitude of Officials and Citizens who would simply pardon all the criminal behavior by allowing known criminals to become citizens without complying with the Laws as laid out by Congress.

Click to expand...

I'm not calling out being a citizen. Nor is everyone who is here and not a citizen here illegally. There's a difference between travel and naturalization, you should look it up some time.

A simple yet very true statement to come of this, is that those who are illegal aliens living in this country are criminals.
An equally true statement is:
Anyone who assists such criminals can either be considered as criminal friendly or are an accessory to that criminal act.

Click to expand...

That's also not true. Most people here "illegally" have committed civil offense, a tort, punishable by a fine. That is not a criminal act.

Tawnos said:

~~ snip ~~ There's a difference between travel and naturalization, you should look it up some time.

That's also not true. Most people here "illegally" have committed civil offense, a tort, punishable by a fine. That is not a criminal act.

Click to expand...

Yes there is a difference between those who are traveling and legally visiting the US and those who are living here without an official admittance into the United States (that are violating the Immigration Laws of the US).

Here is some info on how our Government sees it. Title 8 USC Is the Title that covers ALIENS AND NATIONALITY With Chapter 6 specifically covering - IMMIGRATION
However, when you get deep into the various sections such as § 1229a - Removal proceedings
(2) Burden on alien
In the proceeding the alien has the burden of establishing—
(A) if the alien is an applicant for admission, that the alien is clearly and beyond doubt entitled to be admitted and is not inadmissible under section 1182 of this title; or
(B) by clear and convincing evidence, that the alien is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to a prior admission.
In meeting the burden of proof under subparagraph (B), the alien shall have access to the alien’s visa or other entry document, if any, and any other records and documents, not considered by the Attorney General to be confidential, pertaining to the alien’s admission or presence in the United States.

In the above, we find that an Alien is not even afforded the "Innocent until Proven Guilty" protection that all American Citizens enjoy.

I do find where once an alien has been legally admitted to the US and commits or is involved in one of the listed actions, that they can simply be deported. Which is the "Tort" Law you are referring to.
(A) In general
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in—
(i) any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is deportable.

As most of the Immigration Laws I am finding are contained in US Code Title 18 I will show a couple of examples.
18 USC Part I - CRIMES Chapter 69 - NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP and seeing that most penalties for violations of Citizenship under the Naturalization statutes, state much to the effect of "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Such as this example http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1424 Penalty = "Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." It did not list the fine here so I would have to look deeper into the section to find the adopted fines schedule.

Here is an example of where failure to report to their admission hearing can result in http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1429 "Any person who has been subpenaed under the provisions of subsection (d) of section 336 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to appear at the final hearing of an application for naturalization, and who shall neglect or refuse to so appear and to testify, if in the power of such person to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

There are also Immigration Laws contained in 48 USC § 1806 - Immigration and transition which might also carry criminal penalties.

I would ask where you see No Criminal acts or penalties for illegal immigrants? And I did not even extend my search into the Customs or IRS Titles for additional crimes that they can be possibly be found guilty of.

You do realize you're arguing statutory points while I'd discussing the basis of constitutional ideas, right?

Tawnos said:

You do realize you're arguing statutory points while I'd discussing the basis of constitutional ideas, right?

Click to expand...

Let's look at something real quick..

Tawnos said:

That's also not true. Most people here "illegally" have committed civil offense, a tort, punishable by a fine. That is not a criminal act.

Click to expand...

LOL You are the one who told me that I was wrong, that what I was saying was not true! That most here illegally have committed no offense. That only "Tort" laws with fines were involved. I am sorry to say.. but if they are in this country without proper Immigration Documentation they have committed a criminal offense. If they had documentation that was forged or did not actually belong to them when they crossed the border to get here, then again they have committed a Criminal act. I will stand by my statement that if they are here illegally, they are criminals as for them to not be criminals.. they would be here legally. It really is a very simple concept and the Immigration Laws passed by our Congress spell it out and support that concept.

So twist as you wish.. it does not change Facts!

sudden valley gunner said:

If you have a nook I can lend you a few, Omnipotent Government I got as a free book on my e-reader. I really like to read, right now reading Hazlit's Economics in one easy lesson, he puts things very succinctly and easy for a layman like myself to understand. The Austrian school of Economics helps us understand a lot more about human nature than just money.



Good point. But if you are faced with death, economic ruin, your family being wiped off the map, it might be easier to move to another place that tells the world they are the land of the free.
I think one thing that might help is that many of our southern neighbors are seriously looking at doing away with the loosing battle of drug wars.
And we are to look at the statistics, many folks lately are actually leaving U.S. for other countries that hassle their personal freedoms less.
I understand your frustration at what you see and experience, what I encourage people to do is look deeper into what is the actual cause of the problems we see. Sometimes this means coming to terms with things that make us personally uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

Federal Government not doing their job, Washington is a sancturary state, Libtards.

Tawnos said:

I'm not calling out being a citizen. Nor is everyone who is here and not a citizen here illegally. There's a difference between travel and naturalization, you should look it up some time.



That's also not true. Most people here "illegally" have committed civil offense, a tort, punishable by a fine. That is not a criminal act.

Click to expand...

I would think a country being invaded by 11 million people would be an act of war, we have been invaded. Problem I see is if a war comes to this country, they will have people already in place that wont stand up against their own people.

LkWd_Don said:

Let's look at something real quick..

LOL You are the one who told me that I was wrong, that what I was saying was not true! That most here illegally have committed no offense. That only "Tort" laws with fines were involved. I am sorry to say.. but if they are in this country without proper Immigration Documentation they have committed a criminal offense. If they had documentation that was forged or did not actually belong to them when they crossed the border to get here, then again they have committed a Criminal act. I will stand by my statement that if they are here illegally, they are criminals as for them to not be criminals.. they would be here legally. It really is a very simple concept and the Immigration Laws passed by our Congress spell it out and support that concept.

So twist as you wish.. it does not change Facts!

Click to expand...

So just for the sake of hashing it out...

If being in the country illegally is a criminal offense, than why is overstay of a visa forgiven for the spouse of a US citizen, regardless of how long that overstay is? Also overlooked is working without authorization and intent to immigrate when they entered the country originally under a non-immigrant visa.

If it was a criminal offense wouldn't there be an obligation to prosecute?

jdholmes said:

So just for the sake of hashing it out...

If being in the country illegally is a criminal offense, than why is overstay of a visa forgiven for the spouse of a US citizen, regardless of how long that overstay is? Also overlooked is working without authorization and intent to immigrate when they entered the country originally under a non-immigrant visa.

If it was a criminal offense wouldn't there be an obligation to prosecute?

Click to expand...

There are laws about marriage immigration. The marriage shows an intent to follow the law and a overstay is often due to paperwork delays.

I can't speak for the other cause.

As for the obligation to prosecute though it would have to happen all over the board. The Sheriffs and police departments would lose more of their offices if that were to happen. The other issue is that the prosecutors are politicians and so they often times cherry pick cases on something like that. They too want the votes of the illegals and so often times will bend you (and I) over for the sake of the illegals.

Tawnos said:

Are you incapable of reading? What part of "any person" is unclear in the 14th amendment? The part where scary brown people might come here and steal yer jerbs?

Click to expand...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

jdholmes said:

So just for the sake of hashing it out...

If being in the country illegally is a criminal offense, than why is overstay of a visa forgiven for the spouse of a US citizen, regardless of how long that overstay is? Also overlooked is working without authorization and intent to immigrate when they entered the country originally under a non-immigrant visa.

If it was a criminal offense wouldn't there be an obligation to prosecute?

Click to expand...

You gave the key difference in the examples of your question as to why a person who initially entered the USA with a VISA is not considered as an illegal alien.. They entered Legally with a State Department Approved VISA (Immigration Documentation), which has simply expired, making them subject to paying certain fines and if they committed certain acts are deportable rather than criminals under our Immigration Laws. Now if they break any of the multitude of Criminal Laws that do not pertain to immigration, they can serve time in our Jails as criminals and that might make them felons even though it does not make them illegal aliens.

Now, let us take another look at what I had said previously:

I do find where once an alien has been legally admitted to the US and commits or is involved in one of the listed actions, that they can simply be deported. Which is the "Tort" Law you are referring to.
(A) In general
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in—
(i) any activity to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is deportable.

Click to expand...

The tag of being an illegal alien is generally reserved for those who have avoided all avenues to LEGALLY reside here. So when someone who is found sneaking across the border, they are sneaking across because they do not wish to abide by our laws. This means they are voluntarily making themselves criminals by knowingly being here illegally because they do not have appropriate immigration documentation which is against our Laws. Then there are another more Criminal bunch of illegal aliens who Forged or Purchased Forged documents and then crossed at a Immigrations/Customs check point and then were found to be here illegally while in possession of additional evidence of their criminal activity.

LkWd_Don said:

You gave the key difference in the examples of your question as to why a person who initially entered the USA with a VISA is not considered as an illegal alien.. They entered Legally with a State Department Approved VISA (Immigration Documentation), which has simply expired, making them subject to paying certain fines and if they committed certain acts are deportable rather than criminals under our Immigration Laws. Now if they break any of the multitude of Criminal Laws that do not pertain to immigration, they can serve time in our Jails as criminals and that might make them felons even though it does not make them illegal aliens.

Now, let us take another look at what I had said previously:


The tag of being an illegal alien is generally reserved for those who have avoided all avenues to LEGALLY reside here. So when someone who is found sneaking across the border, they are sneaking across because they do not wish to abide by our laws. This means they are voluntarily making themselves criminals by knowingly being here illegally because they do not have appropriate immigration documentation which is against our Laws. Then there are another more Criminal bunch of illegal aliens who Forged or Purchased Forged documents and then crossed at a Immigrations/Customs check point and then were found to be here illegally while in possession of additional evidence of their criminal activity.

Click to expand...

Actually I think you are wrong on that one...I have a fairly extensive knowledge of the immigration process.

Once a persons visa expires they are illegally within the country. There is a 90-180 day grace period given for which they can file an extension of their visa (this depends on country of origin and type of visa) or apply to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident if eligible. If they fail to do so they are immediately deportable and are an illegal resident of the united states.

This is how many of the illegals in the united states got here in the first place. It is a safer route than trying t be smuggled across. They get a tourist visa come over and just never leave. Many of the illegals in our country have come over on one visa or other and setup a home.

Now for example - A Mexican comes over 13 years ago on a visitor visa because they have a brother living here. In order for that brother to petition for them to get permanent residence they would have to wait 20 years in Mexico. Instead they get a tourist/visitor visa come over, stay for 13 years...work, pay taxes etc. they then meet an American citizen and decide to get married.

Now that illegal can file for adjustment of status with a visa immediately available to them because their spouse is a citizen. In a blink of an eye their illegal status is wiped away, the thirteen years of illegal residency is forgiven, their illegal work is forgiven and their intent to immigrate from that visitors visa is never mentioned.

If they had got caught before they got married and filed for AOS with USCIS they absolutely are viewed as illegal aliens.

If they were criminal charges, would all that be possible?

1911er said:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Click to expand...

Hurr de derp.

FFS, that's dealing with birth citizenship. The 14th amendment says the following in its first section:
1) people born or naturalized here are citizens of the US and the state where they reside
2) States cannot abridge the privileges or immunities of US citizens
3) no state can deprive any person life, liberty, or property without due process of law
4) no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law

You do know the difference between "citizen" and "any person", right? Apparently not, because you highlight half of the first part of a sentence. You're as bad as a Brady Campaign person doing this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.