Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
Wow, immigration may become an issue afterall.
Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the fight.
In one corner: Arizona!
In the other corner: Illinois!
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
Brooklynian » Forum » Brooklyn Politics »
-
-
Props to Illinois! May NY not be far behind!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/04raids.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1 -
Gee I wonder which one is closer to Mexico?
-
Booklaw-
Bloomberg has done as much as he can with his Sanctuary City program, but I'm not sure upstate is ready to back a governor who tries to implement such a policy statewide ....or even simply drop out of ICE.For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I wonder whether upstate conservatives really care about immigration issues. Unlike Arizonans, they are more likely to encounter Canadians than Mexicans. Perhaps that's the answer... They know they cannot compete for the few available jobs with their better educated, healthier, and much better- mannered neighbors from the North.
-
Well, someone was behind all of the crap Spitzer got when he tried to create a plan that dared give immigrants drivers licenses.
(this was one of the few things he got press for before he got caught paying for sex)
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Capt. Planet said:
Gee I wonder which one is closer to Mexico?Chicago has a huge mexican population.
-
tsarina said:
Chicago has a huge mexican population.Yeah that was funny.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Last March, while celebrating Mexico’s upcoming bicentennial, Mayor Daley proclaimed 2010 the Year of Mexico in Chicago. Truer words have not emanated from city hall in years. Less than a century after the first surge of immigrants fled Jalisco, Michoacán, and Guanajato to avoid the revolution rocking their homeland, the Mexican influence in Chicago reaches almost everywhere—but particularly the world of food. In large part thanks to the million-plus Mexican Americans living in the Chicago area, the city and suburbs offer what may be the best place in America to unravel the complex regional nuances of Mexican cuisine. The streets teem with taquerías, birrerias, torterias, and mole houses. And where the upscale Mexican scene once consisted simply of ¡Salpicón! and Rick Bayless’s empire, innovative restaurants like Chilam Balam and Mexique now keep materializing left and right.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/November-2010/Best-Mexican-Restaurants-in-Chicago/
...thanks to you people, I'm now hungry for lunch and it's only 9:39 AM.
I need to go visit my sister in Chicago again.
There's a very large Mexican community near Midway airport.
....so, anyone want to talk about ICE's program?
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Looks like he's trying to save money and retain the votes of the LEGAL Hispanic population. Immigration is not the issue. ILLEGAL immigration is.
-
pragmaticguy-
No, the IL gov has withdrawn his state from a program that was designed to deport illegal immigrants who were ALSO criminals.
He is dropping out because (in actuality) the ICE is deporting illegal immigrants, regardless of whether they have committed a crime.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
By being here illegally....they have ALREADY committed a crime. So that point is moot. They wouldn't be deported if they were here LEGALLY even if they had killed someone. This is the fact that many fail to see.
-
Yes, those who are here illegally are obviously guilty of an offense. But the ICE program was designed to target people who are here illegally AND have committed a crime (such as those handled by criminal court) while here.
The program was not designed to deport those who are here merely illegally; such a program would be similar to the law recently proposed by Arizona. The legalities of the AZ law (and similar ones) are now being weighed by the federal courts.
My analysis of the ICE rule is as follows:
By creating a procedure in which people who are here illegally AND criminals are deported, the feds attempted to create a compromise that satisfied people in the polarized groups:a. Those who would like amnesty and citizenship for everyone presently in the country illegally, as long as they have not committed a crime while here.
b. Those who would like to deport everyone who is here illegally.
In my view, neither "a" or "b" is politically tenable. Please allow me to explain.
As you are likely aware, NYC is presently in a situation wherein approximately 20% of its residents are in the country illegally.
A policy in which all of those people were suddenly given the full rights of citizens (minimum wage, public assistance, voting rights, etc) would also cause complete social and fiscal chaos.
Likewise, a policy in which all of those people were deported would cause complete social and fiscal chaos.
....hence the federal ICE program. But given the recent actions by the ICE program (it is deporting people whether they have committed a crime or not) and opposing states such as AZ and IL, I am reaching the conclusion that this compromise isn't going to hold for much longer.
It seems several things may happen:
1. The feds may decide to tell states and cities they MUST participate in the ICE program discussed above (even if is implemented in a way that is not consistent with its mission). and/or
2. The feds may decide to tell states that IN ADDITION TO 1, they must participate in programs which deport illegal immigrants that have committed NO CRIMES WHILE HERE, and/or
3. The feds will allow states and municipalities to drop out of ICE programs and continue to declare "sanctuary cities". The feds will deport only persons whom the states and cities explicitly request be deported.
The government of NYC seems to prefer #3. The government of NYS is so confused and dysfunctional that no one can determine its stand on anything.
Unless it agrees to grant states and municipalities carte blanch in how they implement the federal immigration polices, the federal government may have to get off the fence and decide.
If the feds are forced to choose, which way do you think they will go?
...or do you think they'll continue try to find a way to ignore the issue?
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Booklaw links to a graphic that shows how the present ICE program is not living up to its originally stated objectives:
In response to this program's "changing goals", should we create a program which is stricter or more lax?
...can we expect governors to continue to participate in programs that no longer offer what they signed up for?
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
My friend....as far as illegal immigration goes it's more or less like the armed forces' "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Anything is legal until one gets caught. I really wish there was a simple answer to this. As for being a sanctuary city or there being sanctuary cities, this forces those who are here illegally to seek residency in those areas. Thus, they put a burden on infrastructure and cost a disproportionate amount of money to what they contribute. Yes, I know that they pay sales taxes and such but the free medical care they will undoubtedly incur takes Medicaid dollars away from those who are here legally or were born here. And that doesn't include the cost of educating the children that are here illegally as well. It's a conundrum that may well not have an answer but the recession is stemming the tide of people crossing the border better than any border patrol so either way it seems there's no win/win here.
-
yes, its complex. On the other side of the coin, illegal immigrants also work for really cheap. ...which help$ out those companies and individuals who like to profit from cheap labor (food service, home health aids, unskilled construction, etc.). How else could I have just ate a yummy slice of pizza for $2.25?
But, let's stick with that analogy to the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy.
After a while, some groups said "this is stupid, and I'm not going to continue to play this game". They then sued, and the courts found that neither side has to play anymore.
I think the same thing is happening in immigration.
By creating laws that are far stricter than the federal ones, some states are trying to pull the feds in one direction. Other states are pulling in the opposite direction.
...while we'd like the present policy of "don't ask don't tell" to continue to avoid the issue, it doesn't seem to be working anymore. Different groups are stating that the compromise doesn't work for them, and they are willing to fight for their side of the issues.
We may have to (gasp), do something more than type about the issue.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
we also don't need teams of commandos with automatic weapons raiding factories to arrest a bunch of Guatemalan women and separate them from their children.
-
Freedom isn't free, Vidro
/blind patriotism
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Whynot....yes these people are willing to work for less money than Americans. That's called exploitation and though they may "help" certain companies by patronizing these places we're really contributing to their helplessness. Maybe too many of us are negligent in putting up with this. Maybe that's why Chavez was able to do so much for the crop pickers who worked themselves to the bone and never got a fair wage. Like I said....there's no simple answer and you're right... unfortunately this may all be swept under the rug because there really doesn't seem to be a solution. As for the pizza....a whole DiGiorno frozen pie is only about $5.50. Of course it's tough to make that when you're outdoors.
-
So, instead of continuing the present madness, dare we create a process wherein:
- people who have been here for a period of time are granted citizenship.
- ICE would deport criminals, and no one else.
My thoughts stem my belief that I would have hard time living somewhere was I part of the underclass (unable to vote, unable to get routine medical care, unable to work on the books, unable to get minimum wage, unable to get loans, unable to sign leases) and not commit a crime.
....hey, if someone manages to live way for five years and resists the urge to participate in the crime, is there any harm in creating an efficient process that makes them a citizen?
(as a courtesy, I'd also give them a map of the country that showed areas where they still might not be welcome)
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I'm not against making them citizens but you know...years ago immigrants had to have a sponsor so that they wouldn't be a burden to the economy. Might be the way to go here in that they get a sponsor and they're not entitled to any benefits other than education and emergency medical for four or five years. I've had friends who have emigrated from one country to another and either had to have mucho dinero or a GUARANTEE of a job for four years. We could do that here.
-
Our healthcare system inefficiency is a FAR bigger burden on the economy than illegal immigrants. Like, exponentially so.
And many illegal immigrants pay income tax on fake SSN's and so don't actually reap any benefits. Certainly not social security.
There's simply no definitive evidence that their emergency room visits are a massive net drain on the American economy and budget.
If the budget is our concern, immigrants at emergency rooms and public schools are pretty far down the list (I'm open to evidence otherwise).
If illegal immigration itself is our concern, you guys are throwing around good, practical ideas.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Gabe....I don't know if our health care system is inefficient. I've always gotten great care. What there is a problem with is waste and theft. As I noted, these immigrants should be allowed access to emergency medical care and schooling. But we need to draw the line somewhere and their families should want to help them out when they need it to make sure that line is not crossed.
-
PragmaticGuy said:
Gabe....I don't know if our health care system is inefficient.Isn't looking at our healthcare costs vs other countries enough to determine that?
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
PragmaticGuy said:
I'm not against making them citizens but you know...years ago immigrants had to have a sponsor so that they wouldn't be a burden to the economy. Might be the way to go here in that they get a sponsor and they're not entitled to any benefits other than education and emergency medical for four or five years. I've had friends who have emigrated from one country to another and either had to have mucho dinero or a GUARANTEE of a job for four years. We could do that here.Yes, other countries are much stricter.
...but we find ourselves in a completely different situation, in that we have so many illegal immigrants that our economy has become dependent upon them.
In my view, many illegal immigrants contribute far more to the country than they "take".
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Pragmatic guy, the numbers don't agree with you.
The US spends more and gets less per dollar than any other industrialized nation on earth.
Our system is wildly inefficient with respect to cost (read: budget)
http://healthland.time.com/2010/06/23/healthcare-u-s-spends-more-but-gets-less/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalhealth/july-dec09/insurance_1006.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png
http://apurvadesai.com/2009/07/23/national-health-care-spending-levels-a-global-comparison/
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_10202004/
PragmaticGuy said:
Gabe....I don't know if our health care system is inefficient. I've always gotten great care. What there is a problem with is waste and theft. As I noted, these immigrants should be allowed access to emergency medical care and schooling. But we need to draw the line somewhere and their families should want to help them out when they need it to make sure that line is not crossed.Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
With respect to cost....that's only because doctors and hospitals want to get paid more. A lot of that is because so many people are willing to sue as much for perceived malpractice as for the real thing. That's tort reform and a whole other topic which we needn't get into here. So I still don't know if we're inefficient or just costly. There is a difference you know. Oh...and unlike other countries, we don't put price controls on pharmaceuticals and that contributes more to cost than doctors. I take seven different pills because of HBP and cholesterol but I only see my doctor once every four months. The drugs cost my health insurance way more than the doctor visits.
-
We are inefficient AND costly. Read the links or do your own research, but I seriously encourage you to read more.
A lot of that is because so many people are willing to sue as much for perceived malpractice as for the real thing. That's tort reform and a whole other topic which we needn't get into here.
There's not much evidence to support that first claim.
Tort reform would help keep costs down but it's not a major source of raised HC expenses, which have skyrocketed in the past 20 years or so.
The absence of price controls of pharmaceuticals is not the major reason our health care is so much more expensive. Again, read some of those links.
The major reasons are that there are no incentives to keep costs down. Most employees are disconnected from actual health care costs and so don't really care or pay attention. Doctors get paid to give people procedures, not keep them healthy, which are two very different things. Too many Americans get too many unnecessary procedures that are unnecessarily expensive because there's no oversight, no price comparisons, and the myriad regulations don't actually do what they're supposed to do.
Simply put, most analyses show that the US has the least cost-efficient health care system in the industrialized world.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Given a choice between reforming health care and reforming immigration, I think I would still prefer to reform immigration.
We've only got until 5 PM.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
health care's going to bankrupt us.
I'm still not really sure why I should care about the current level of illegal immigration.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Illegal immigration doesn't bother me, but randomly deporting illegal immigrants does.
Surely we could have a method of sorting that goes beyond being "unlucky"
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
Completely agree.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
PragmaticGuy said:I take seven different pills because of HBP and cholesterol but I only see my doctor once every four months.
Serious question - in other countries, would doctors prescribe 7 pills or would they tell you to change your diet and exercise more? I get the feeling that the health care system in place is in love with the magic pill.
...not that there's anything wrong with that. -
w/r/t to cholesterol: diet and exercise can only do so much. Medication is really the major way to treat it.
But your point is well taken, no question medication is over prescribed in this country.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
WhyFi said:
Serious question - in other countries, would doctors prescribe 7 pills or would they tell you to change your diet and exercise more? I get the feeling that the health care system in place is in love with the magic pill.The scene in the movie Natural Born Killers where they are in Drugmart is a favorite
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
I recommend the documentary film, "Money Driven Medicine" (description here), for an explanation of the costliness of health care in the US today.
-
my father just got a hospital bill for a procedure on his heart. I don't know what it was exactly, they stuck a wire up his wrist and took a gander at his ticker.
took 4 hours.
hospital stay alone was $20,000
when the doctors and anesthesiologist are added in I estimate it will be over $30,000, if not more.
luckily we have insurance and only owe $300.
the insurance company will take 90-days to pay and their agreed rate will probably be around 50% of what the hospital charged.
doesn't sound too efficient to me.also, an article today out of florida describes Ob/GYNs refusing overweight patients due to added risk.
malpractice insurance averages $200,000 per year for OB/Gyns in Florida.
That's a lot.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/18/977187/-Fat-Bottomed-Girls!No-Checkup-For-You!?via=siderec -
trying again.
-
booklaw, have you read the two big New Yorker articles on our health care system from 2009?
Fascinating, IMO
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/12/14/091214fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
I'm definitely going to check out that doc.
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
WhyFi said:
Serious question - in other countries, would doctors prescribe 7 pills or would they tell you to change your diet and exercise more? I get the feeling that the health care system in place is in love with the magic pill.I do exercise quite a bit and I have changed my diet but still the meds are the only things that really help. But thanks for the thought.
-
whynot_31 said:
Illegal immigration doesn't bother me, but randomly deporting illegal immigrants does.Surely we could have a method of sorting that goes beyond being "unlucky"
As if on cue, this article was published today about whether NYS can withdraw from ICE's "Secure Communities" program.
As early as this week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo could decide whether New York should withdraw from Secure Communities, a program that has local law enforcement agencies share digital fingerprints of those arrested with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE.
article » Some members of the legislature along with immigration advocates are pressuring Cuomo to leave the program. They charge Safe Communities has resulted in unnecessary deportations and has made many immigrants reluctant to go to the police.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
booklaw said:
Props to Illinois! May NY not be far behind!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/us/04raids.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1Booklaw-
Your wish (and mine) has come true.
NY State has informed ICE that it will no longer participate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/nyregion/cuomo-pulls-new-york-from-us-fingerprint-checks.html?_r=1
....gasp, it looks like we might have to have a national conversation on this issue.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
it looks like we might have to have a national conversation on this issue.
!!!!!
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
at a minimum, this may make ICE simply make sure it is only deporting illegal immigrant who are only criminals.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
The conversation begins? The line is drawn?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/georgia.immigration.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Atlanta (CNN) -- A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday temporarily blocking key provisions of a new Georgia law that aims to crack down on illegal immigration.
Most parts of the law, known as HB 87, were scheduled to go into effect Friday.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr.'s ruling blocks enforcement of two of the most controversial sections of the law, while allowing other parts of it to move forward.
"State and local law enforcement officers and officials have no authorization to arrest, detain or prosecute anyone based upon sections 7 and 8 of HB 87 while this injunction remains in effect," Thrash ruled.Those sections allow police to inquire about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations. They also would allow the imposition of prison sentences for people who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants during the commission of a crime.
"The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia," Thrash wrote.
In his 45-page ruling, Thrash cited a previous court decision that said preliminary injunctions were in the public interest "when civil rights are at stake."Although his ruling was a victory for the plaintiffs, he also tossed out some of their arguments at the state's request, a point stressed by Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens soon after the decision.
"I appreciate the speed with which Judge Thrash ruled, given the complexity of the issues. I am pleased with the dismissal of the 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 'Right to Travel,' and Georgia constitutional claims by the plaintiffs -- even after this ruling, 21 of the 23 sections of HB 87 will go into effect as planned," he wrote in a statement.
Olens said his office will appeal the judge's ruling regarding sections 7 and 8.The office of Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, which supports the law, also weighed in on the decision.
"Beyond refusing to help with our state's illegal immigration problem, the federal government is determined to be an obstacle. The state of Georgia narrowly tailored its immigration law to conform with existing federal law and court rulings," said Brian Robinson, the governor's deputy chief of staff for communications. "Georgians can rest assured that this battle doesn't end here."
The Georgia lawsuit is the latest battle in a nationwide skirmish between state and federal officials over who controls immigration enforcement.
Arizona's controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration catapulted the issue onto the national stage last year, drawing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, which argues the law is unconstitutional.
In April, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed Arizona's law last year. Brewer announced last month that the state would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
The Supreme court seems the ultimate destination
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org -
Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
-
It should be interesting, because it will provide the guise of being "non-political".
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
With the city’s assistance, immigration authorities annually detain and deport thousands of inmates charged with a range of offenses, from misdemeanors for theft to felony drug dealing.
But now the City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, wants to curtail this practice by permitting the jail to cooperate with the federal immigration authorities only in limited circumstances.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor. -
The feds have now stated they will revise their policies.
Much to the dismay of groups who want deportation for all illegal immigrants, ICE will focus their deportation efforts on persons in the country illegally who commit offenses like violent crime while here.
source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/18/deportation.reviews/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
Immigration may become a major issue in the 2012 race.
For better or worse, the change on Nostrand is going to make the change on Franklin look minor.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!