bigmacbear (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bigmacbear) wrote2006-03-30 09:59 pm
bigmacbear) wrote2006-03-30 09:59 pm
Entry tags:
This is just mean.
The US House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 4437) last December that, if also passed by the Senate and signed into law by George II, would make it a felony to be in the US illegally and would also prohibit anyone from giving aid to illegal immigrants. While this may seem reasonable, if perhaps mean-spirited, the devil is in the details.
One of the provisions aimed at stopping people-smuggling could result in a major constitutional crisis if stringently applied: namely, the bill provides for the seizure of any property used to harbor illegal aliens, without regard to the nature of the property or its ownership. (I'm putting aside for the moment the ballooning use of civil forfeiture in the law in general, which is in and of itself of questionable constitutionality and flies in the face of any notion of equity in law.) Specifically, as was pointed out in one or another show on Air America the other day, this could have serious implications for churches which either do not practice due diligence as to whom they serve or intentionally serve illegal aliens in any material way (the "Sanctuary Movement" comes to mind). To my way of thinking this is a direct infringement of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. (Section 202 of the bill, Section 274(a) -- note particularly paragraph (1)(C) through (F) -- in conjunction with Section 274(c).)
Another provision of this bill removes the jurisdiction of all courts from any decision made by the Homeland Security department to allow someone who would otherwise be deported to voluntarily leave the country. In this case it seems the legislative branch is attempting to tie the hands of the courts, which I'm not sure is legally effective and in truth is a perversion of checks and balances. (Section 208 of the bill in three separate places.)
Some say that illegal aliens are stealing our jobs. For the most part this is not borne out by the facts, as illegal aliens tend to be exploited in labor-intensive jobs under conditions that are actually illegal (not to mention entirely immoral) to subject anyone to. Legal aliens are the ones who tend to fill positions that might otherwise go to middle-class Americans, and abuse of these provisions of law is not nearly as widespread as one would think -- tech firms do, after all, have lots of people working for them with brains (by definition) and at least a modicum of moral compunction about how they use them.
I think the dearth of good jobs over the last few years stems not from immigration so much as from the unwillingness of corporations to invest in their rank-and-file worker in order to maximize benefits for the CEO. That is a set of misplaced priorities which is reinforced by the Republicans at every turn, and frankly I wonder how much longer the country can stand it. Immigration reform, whatever form it takes, is ultimately a red herring that distracts people from the evil that is done in the name of corporate excess and government beholden to it -- including propping up the civil war we started in Iraq in the name of those same goals.
One of the provisions aimed at stopping people-smuggling could result in a major constitutional crisis if stringently applied: namely, the bill provides for the seizure of any property used to harbor illegal aliens, without regard to the nature of the property or its ownership. (I'm putting aside for the moment the ballooning use of civil forfeiture in the law in general, which is in and of itself of questionable constitutionality and flies in the face of any notion of equity in law.) Specifically, as was pointed out in one or another show on Air America the other day, this could have serious implications for churches which either do not practice due diligence as to whom they serve or intentionally serve illegal aliens in any material way (the "Sanctuary Movement" comes to mind). To my way of thinking this is a direct infringement of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. (Section 202 of the bill, Section 274(a) -- note particularly paragraph (1)(C) through (F) -- in conjunction with Section 274(c).)
Another provision of this bill removes the jurisdiction of all courts from any decision made by the Homeland Security department to allow someone who would otherwise be deported to voluntarily leave the country. In this case it seems the legislative branch is attempting to tie the hands of the courts, which I'm not sure is legally effective and in truth is a perversion of checks and balances. (Section 208 of the bill in three separate places.)
Some say that illegal aliens are stealing our jobs. For the most part this is not borne out by the facts, as illegal aliens tend to be exploited in labor-intensive jobs under conditions that are actually illegal (not to mention entirely immoral) to subject anyone to. Legal aliens are the ones who tend to fill positions that might otherwise go to middle-class Americans, and abuse of these provisions of law is not nearly as widespread as one would think -- tech firms do, after all, have lots of people working for them with brains (by definition) and at least a modicum of moral compunction about how they use them.
I think the dearth of good jobs over the last few years stems not from immigration so much as from the unwillingness of corporations to invest in their rank-and-file worker in order to maximize benefits for the CEO. That is a set of misplaced priorities which is reinforced by the Republicans at every turn, and frankly I wonder how much longer the country can stand it. Immigration reform, whatever form it takes, is ultimately a red herring that distracts people from the evil that is done in the name of corporate excess and government beholden to it -- including propping up the civil war we started in Iraq in the name of those same goals.