|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 30, 2008 12:14:52 GMT -8
To be clear, ILLEGALS. People who enter the country illegally, steal jobs, and bleed the welfare system dry. Companies should outsource more jobs abroad, to eliminate the need to sneak into your country so much. I thought these were legal Hispanics getting harassed in the San Juans anyways.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jun 30, 2008 12:36:46 GMT -8
Must have missed something. What is wrong with rounding them up and sending them home ASAP? Bullets are cheaper. Excuse me?!?!?!? You advocate the death penalty for immigration violations? Border patrol is crazy all across the 49th parallel. I had a friend visiting who is from an arab gulf state (not one of the ones on the high security lists), is going to school in London and works for his country but doesn't have diplomatic status. He got a Visa no problem. Landed in Toronto and got asked a few extra questions and it took maybe 15 minutes. When he was leaving Toronto for New York he was kept here by US Customs for almost 6 hours. He finally got on an 8pm flight when he was at the airport early for a 12:15 flight. My question is why give someone a Visa in the first place and then do that? Shouldn't they be stopping people at that point and not at the border? I hope his country is as obnoxious back to Americans when they come and visit. I agree with you that the issues there should have been worked out at visa issuance time rather than at the border crossing, unless there was some change in the situation that immediately presented itself. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Just to clarify, there are two different government agencies involved here. The US Customs and Immigration Agency is the group that stands at the border (or airport and such places) and inspects people as they enter the country, asking such famous questions as "Anything to declare?" and "Are you coming here to buy drugs?" and so on. The US Border Patrol is a law enforcement agency dedicated to locating people who have crossed the border without checking in with Customs & Immigration, or who are in the US without benefit of proper immigration status. Must have missed something. What is wrong with rounding them up and sending them home ASAP? Am I being politically incorrect? Well, if you are talking about deporting people who shouldn't be in the US, then I do not object to sending them home. I don't object to sending them home, of course, after offering them due process and all the rights that the US Constitution offers people who have broken the law. I say we give people their constitutionally guaranteed "day in court". No, the main issue I have is that our constitution provides that persons will not be stopped and searched simply to see if they have broken the law without probable cause. Thus, if the Border patrol sees someone crossing the border illegally, or if they see someone who they know has broken the law, or if because of the circumstances around a person it is evident they may have broken the law, then law enforcement is well within their rights to stop them. On the other hand, if the law is stopping everyone coming off the ferry (or traveling down a particular state highway) to see if they have committed a crime, that doesn't seem like probable cause to have stopped someone. Worse, if only the dark-skinned people are being asked to prove that they are "legal", I don't see how that can be anything other than blatant racism. When we stop a young family of obvious Hispanic descent and ask for their ID, while waving through the guy of Northern European descent who has binoculars in his backpack and spent half a day tracking boats in Friday Harbor, then clearly law enforcement is not performing their stated goal of trying to find terrorists. Sure, I should have nothing to complain about, since I was not personally stopped. But I am still upset that my fellow citizen standing next to me is stopped for the crime of having dark skin. Or worse, to prove their innocence. That sounds like racism, not law enforcement. Besides, if the goal is really to locate "illegal" immigrants, there are a lot of places in Washington that would yield bigger numbers of offenders. If it's about ferries, you will find a lot more on the ferry to Bainbridge Island. If it's about finding people out of status, try the spot where day labourers stand while looking for work. But standing under an awning that says "US Customs & Immigration" when you are not performing that function shouldn't legitimize this operation.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jun 30, 2008 14:29:02 GMT -8
...ILLEGALS. People who enter the country illegally, steal jobs, and bleed the welfare system dry. They clearly need to be rounded up and sent home, pronto. If they are caught the second time, hard jail time might be needed. I don't suppose you see the irony in that statement...
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jun 30, 2008 17:07:33 GMT -8
Excuse me?!?!?!? You advocate the death penalty for immigration violations? Sarcasm. Shooting them full of holes is every redneck's dream, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by SS Shasta on Jun 30, 2008 18:03:37 GMT -8
Has this discussion drifted a bit off course from the purpose of this board?
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Jun 30, 2008 19:27:01 GMT -8
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 1, 2008 4:45:44 GMT -8
Just to clarify, there are two different government agencies involved here. The US Customs and Immigration Agency is the group that stands at the border (or airport and such places) and inspects people as they enter the country, asking such famous questions as "Anything to declare?" and "Are you coming here to buy drugs?" and so on. The US Border Patrol is a law enforcement agency dedicated to locating people who have crossed the border without checking in with Customs & Immigration, or who are in the US without benefit of proper immigration status. Well, if you are talking about deporting people who shouldn't be in the US, then I do not object to sending them home. I don't object to sending them home, of course, after offering them due process and all the rights that the US Constitution offers people who have broken the law. I say we give people their constitutionally guaranteed "day in court". No, the main issue I have is that our constitution provides that persons will not be stopped and searched simply to see if they have broken the law without probable cause. Thus, if the Border patrol sees someone crossing the border illegally, or if they see someone who they know has broken the law, or if because of the circumstances around a person it is evident they may have broken the law, then law enforcement is well within their rights to stop them. And this isn't just an issue with ICE and the US Border Patrol. For awhile now certain laws have made it advantageous for police departments and other law enforcement agencies to profile and stop motorists on the suspicion of transporting illegal items. Typically though, they are profiling in order to stop the people they believe to be moving money over the border or across the country instead of the actual mules, dealers and suppliers. The argument is by removing the money from the traffickers pockets, the trade is more severely impacted. The money is then transferred into the seizing agencies coffers. However, many cases are now emerging where agencies have started using this seized money as a cash cow, stopping people they think will not protest the seizure of their monies for what ever reason...in some cases it is drug money, in others, people are reluctant to object because they have a cash business and they are skirting tax laws. The seizure is made and no charges are pressed, thus the money is in the coffers and no additional expenses are incurred. While the pretense of the Border Patrol's stop and question session at Anacortes Terminal was to apprehend illegals and suspicious individuals, I can't help but wonder how much the laws I noted above come into play, too. Which "THEM" are you talking about? Rounding up who? And who will be rounding "them" up? And how does the rounder know who the roundee really is? And if the rounder is pretty sure about who the roundee is, will the rounder be able to find the roundee? To be clear, ILLEGALS. People who enter the country illegally, steal jobs, and bleed the welfare system dry. They clearly need to be rounded up and sent home, pronto. If they are caught the second time, hard jail time might be needed. I would suggest a little more research on this topic! This argument is mostly unfounded. First off, most of the jobs filled by the illegals no longer attract the workforce in the US. I know what your next comment will be, so I will head it off. Wages make no difference in this. Many employers have tried increasing wages to make jobs more attractive, and the US workforce still shuns the jobs. Farming, construction and production factory jobs don't seem to be sexy enough for people anymore. Sadly, many of the workforce want to be behind a desk and won't accept less/different. As for the welfare issue, again, check your facts. Most illegals either avoid the welfare system as they feel it might expose them; or if they have bought an illegal SSN, they are paying taxes and are supporting the welfare system. I work in the construction field in the US; I know I see illegals in my travels; I can also tell you that the number of foreign workers here has dropped dramatically since the residential housing market has crashed. These people are going home when there is no work, not riding it out on the welfare system.
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Jul 1, 2008 7:55:36 GMT -8
Has this discussion drifted a bit off course from the purpose of this board? Yes and no. I know we shouldn't probably be discussing immigration here. I am just hoping that some of the information here will answer the following question: Why is the Anacortes Ferry Terminal the focal point for what is either a check for terrorists or a crackdown on illegal immigration, depending on which explanation we are getting today. The point is not to discuss immigration. The point is that there is either a terrorist threat on the ferries that we are not being told about, or ferries attract undocumented aliens, or the Border Patrol is just exploiting a convenient place for them to work. The question is not why we are enforcing the law. The question is why, all of a sudden (over the last several months), the law needs enforcing on this particular ferry.
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 1, 2008 11:37:53 GMT -8
Has this discussion drifted a bit off course from the purpose of this board? Yes and no. I know we shouldn't probably be discussing immigration here. As long as it relates to ferries, ferry terminals and ferry travel in some way, it's all fair game, isn't it? Or are we avoiding all subjects that are controversial and potentially divisive here? On the one hand, I can understand trying to maintain the harmony among users, but on the other, it is good to stimulate thought, exchange ideas and draw attention to all that is wrong in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 1, 2008 14:44:34 GMT -8
... it is good to stimulate thought, exchange ideas and draw attention to all that is wrong in the world. (this reply is to the issue of divisive-issues in general, as this issue was just raised in this thread) ----------- As it relates to ferry-issues, yes that's good. It's where we go off into related-issues (ie. 2 degrees separated from the original ferry-related issue) where we've got to be careful. Remember that the "all that is wrong in the world" has an element of subjectivity. So as long as we all recognize that we'll have differing ideas on "what is wrong in the world", and try to respect those other viewpoints, we'll be ok. Then again, Hitler thought that Jews were wrong in the world, so there is subjectivity and discernment needed in applying this principal of respecting others' ideas (and this Hitler analogy is only used in the context of my comment that respecting others' viewpoints is desireable... but that this respect, like other ideals, has it limits.......). re divisive issues, this forum has had many such ferry-related items already, re those that arise from our union / non-union stance or our big-govt vs small-govt stance and re domestic-industry vs global-industry viewpoints. For most (or all?) of these divisive issues re ferries, we've usually reached the point where each side is dug-in on their core-belief, and there is no changing those core-views. But the benefit of these types of discussions is that those who take the time to explain their dug-in position are educating the others re why they have that dug-in point-of-view, and why that core issue is important to him/her. That way, someone can reach the point where they can say "I still don't agree with you, but now I understand why you believe what you believe, and I respect that". We also reach the points where the regular members (who have the common bond of ferries-interest) discover that other members might have other viewpoints are in opposition to each other. For those things, you need to decide whether to push the disagreement-issue and whether this is more important than the common-agreement items that brought us here together in the first place. To conclude, I think that for controversial issues we need to remember that someone might initially disagree just because they haven't really thought about the issue enough or considered all the implications/issues. In those cases explanation of viewpoints is good, to help understand why someone thinks differently on some issues. And of course how you say it is important too. If you know that an issue is divisive, you really should be careful with how you present your ideas....assuming that you want to be understood. This forum has lots of examples of divisive comments that were made to provoke or just lazily-made which usually results in controversy. So to those who have the combination of liking divisive issues and also being lazy re explaining themselves adequately, you're just asking to have your viewpoint ignored or dismissed. If you care enough about an issues, then care about how you present it.....
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Jul 2, 2008 5:37:55 GMT -8
Has this discussion drifted a bit off course from the purpose of this board? Yes and no. I know we shouldn't probably be discussing immigration here. I am just hoping that some of the information here will answer the following question: Why is the Anacortes Ferry Terminal the focal point for what is either a check for terrorists or a crackdown on illegal immigration, depending on which explanation we are getting today. The point is not to discuss immigration. The point is that there is either a terrorist threat on the ferries that we are not being told about, or ferries attract undocumented aliens, or the Border Patrol is just exploiting a convenient place for them to work. The question is not why we are enforcing the law. The question is why, all of a sudden (over the last several months), the law needs enforcing on this particular ferry. I do find it interesting that they have chosen this particular route, too. I suspect it has a little to do with convenience, a little to do with confusion, and a little to do with opportunity. I highly doubt it has much to do with security and some un-named threat. That is why I felt it important to point out some of the ulterior motives enforcement agencies have for this type of apparently unprovoked inspection/detention that are not necessarily in the best interest of the general public. This has become an endemic problem in several areas of the US and is not limited to the Anacortes ferry. I did detour into the immigration ring for a moment, and I will again. As an immigrant to the US and now a citizen, I have been through the process and believe I at least understand some of the thought process, not only of the immigrant, illegal or not, but of the immigration department. As such, some of the attitudes held by the citizens of the US truly grate against my nerves like nails on a chalkboard. SS Shasta took a blast from me because of these views which I truly blame on a lack of sufficient and objective information being readily available to the US populace. I can only ask people to take the time to research the available information out there...some of it easy to find, some of it not...so you can form a truly informed and objective opinion of the situation. But, you are right, immigration is not the reason this needs to be discussed...in actuality, the discussion that needs to be made is much more in depth than we probably want to get into here and involves civil liberties, right to due process, and individual rights; whether of US citizens, or foreign nationals. (aside: Given the post above, I am using my powers as a leading expert in extreme excessive verbosity to bestow Mike with an honourary doctorate...I would use bullets, but they would only let me use a taser...except in Florida where I can pack my concealed weapon anywhere I want...)
|
|
|
Post by hwy19man on Jul 3, 2008 13:38:33 GMT -8
Canadians shouldn't look at our neighbors to the south and be smug. The same things can happen here. Both countries federal officials interfere in state or provincial affairs and mess with the daily lives of locals. The reason for this latest kefuffle comes from the lack of knowledge US Customs and Border Patrol has in this area. When I emailed to ask why this dispute is happening, It appears that this federal body has been looking at incorrect and outdated maps of the area. Junior officers thought all ferry crossings to and from Anacortes were international voyages because they thought the international boundary line between Canada and the United States was Rosario Strait, not Haro Strait! I was told that one of the maps the BP were using was this one, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vancouver1798map-SanJuan-Gulf.png This was a map drawn by Captain George Vancouver. The BP are also using other maps made by Americans that showed the boundary running through Rosario Strait, one of these map artists was John C. Frémont, who was a well respected geographer during his time. While in shock with these answers, I quickly informed the BP that the international boundary was defined and settled over 136 years ago and it is definitely Haro Strait as shown here in this link, faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/images/SanJuanBoundary.jpg Another source I told them was to get a Washington State Ferry schedule and open it up to the map of all the ferry routes. The boundary line is shown there as well and can also be viewed at www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/pdf/2008Summer.pdfNeedless to say, I told the BP that they should get updated maps and take a few history classes on Washington State or simply ask the locals about the geography in the area. [/font] [/quote] Funny and very good sarcasm there. I have to admit that I kind of fell for it while reading the first three paragraphs. I realized something was up when I saw Captain Vancouver's map! By the way, here is the working link, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vancouver1798map-SanJuan-Gulf.png
I also wonder if Canada Customs knows its geography as well. I must say that if this situation was happening at Swartz Bay and\or Tsawassen having immigration for Gulf Island passengers disembarking at these terminals, there would be quite an uproar.
Overall in Canada or the United States, federal inspections on domestic ferry runs is wrong and must be stopped immediately. All this does is increase paranoia and make westerners resent their eastern federal government agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Barnacle on Jul 3, 2008 14:01:20 GMT -8
I nibbled, but only because of the suspected ineptitude of our government... ;D
|
|
|
Post by ruddernut on Jul 3, 2008 16:07:58 GMT -8
It doesn't just happen on the ferries. I've been at the station in Bellingham when immigration or border patrol officers were checking everybody boarding a Greyhound headed toward Seattle for ID. One Hispanic looking guy whom I guess didn't produce sufficient ID even got his bag searched.
|
|