# Rights of illegal immigrants



## cuchuflete

I've been listening to some European radio debates and discussions about demonstrations by or about illegal immigrants in the US.  One participant stated that they have every right to demonstrate.  Another replied that they do have a 'human' right, but not a legal right to freedom of speech.

I wasn't sure what legal rights legal and illegal immigrants have in my country, so I went hunting for some legal rulings.

I found this: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16752



> The U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed whether undocumented immigrants have  *all *the constitutional protections that U.S. citizens enjoy; however, in 1945  the high court did hold that “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens  residing in this country” (_Bridges v. Wixon,_ 326 U.S. 135, 148).
> In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy went even further, saying  that “once an alien *lawfully enters* and resides in this country he becomes  invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our  borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth  Amendments …” (161).



This seems to say that only those who have *lawfully entered *the country have those rights protected by the First Amendment.

My personal view is that anyone should have the right to freedom of speech.  Their legal status as residents is a different matter.  The Supreme Court apparently disagrees with me.

What do you think?  Should people who have entered a country illegally be entitled to the protections and obligations of that country's laws?  Some of the laws? All of them?
Who should decide?

How about your own country?  Are those who enter your place illegally entitled and obligated to be governed by your laws?  Do they have identical rights as those enjoyed by citizens and legal non-citizen residents?  Is this good or bad?


----------



## Just_Wil

I agree, here in Costa Rica, the illegal inmigrants may have access to health centres at least. I think there are not much control about that, because thousands of illegal inmigrants come to our country, get a job (of course they don't even get the minimum salary), and in the end, nothing seems to change.
I believe they all should have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to do whatever they want in the USA or any country. They should have the chance to sort out their status, in the end, all those people moved away from their places to get better opportunities.
We know about illegal inmigration: In relative terms, our inmigration rate is higher than the north american.


----------



## sandzilg

Dear Cuchuflete,

I am surprised this thread is not 3 pages long already, with everything that´s going on today!
Anyway, I´ll gladly post my opinion as an inmigrant. 

The fact that I do not clarify whether legal or illegal is completely on purpose. I am just posting my opinion here, right? 

One of the arguments that I hear and read about a lot is that the last big wave of inmigration didn´t get here illegally. I´d like to point out that all that they were required at the time was to be holding a valid native passport and go through a quick "on the spot" medical examination, probably just to make sure they were not tuberculous or something that serious. 

Anybody who applies for residence, a work visa, citizenship or any other way to stay in the US for over the three month tourist permit knows very well this is not the case now. Aside for the thousands of dollars the administration makes you pay by sorting your application into three or four different types (and paying for each of them), that is not a guarantee that you will finally get it (after months of waiting, even years, in a limbo status). 
I guess by now you know I´m legal, since I went through it all. And I am not complaining. The way things are now, it is normal you have to organize things a little. It is fair. But I had the luxury of moving here because I wanted to. I was not escaping misery, poverty, crime, or certain death at a young age. If you want, I probably had a better quality of life in my country. But I did get a working visa that said I could, at the time, and at that place, perform a job that no other US citizen could provide. 
The millions that come here leaving families, friends, property or shelter at least, etc., come here because they feel they have no future at home. Or that they can not give their kids a future. So they come to the place they have been told holds a future for everybody. That´s what this country has been telling everybody for decades. 
That they are considering to put these people in jail together with murderers, rapists, etc., is simply brutal and cruel. And they can not afford to go through the legal procedure, because they would never qualify, even if they get to afford it, believe me.
So yeah, I think they do have a right to express their thoughts and opinions.
The problem is it takes too long for them to legally do it.


----------



## maxiogee

Good question, cuchuflete - and in the case of Ireland I have no idea.
I doubt that they have any serious protection of the law or of our constitution behind them.
I should be concerned, but I'm not in the mood to go trawling around looking for the info.


----------



## CitoyenDuMonde

Interesting topics.

I think that undocumented immigrants should have some type of human rights. The reality is they are here and some have US born children. It would be worse to separate these immigrants from their loved ones. Although, undocumented immigrants have broken the law by entering in the USA without proper documents most them are not criminals rather they are here to work hard. But the question is if all of these people are documented would they work for peanuts? Its a real tough call but something has to be done. Maybe if the USA would stop exploiting the countries these immigrants come from they would stay in their respective country. NAFTA was a nightmare for people south of the border and humans migrate to where the living conditions are better. Overall this is the effect of USA's foreign policies which will even become worse when CAFTA & AAFTA(sp?) is in full effect which will cause an exodus to USA.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

I'm not an expert but when I read the US Bill of Rights, I see laws about the rights of the people and nothing about whether or not these people are citizens or legal residents.

Of course, these ammendments were written at a time when millions of people in this country did not have those rights; slaves did not have the right to gather together and petition against slavery in many jurisdictions. 

Even today, we don't allow convincted criminals to march to Washington and they can be searched in ways the rest of the population cannot.

But if I was a Constitution lawyer, this is what I would argue: the language does not specify that US citizens and legal residents _*only *_have these rights.

The First Ammendment talks about "_*the right of the people peaceably to assemble*_"; 

the Second Ammendment talks about "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms*"; 

the Third Ammendment says "_*No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner*_" but it doesn't say the owner has to be legally here; 

the Fourth Ammendment talks about "_*The right of the people to be secure in their persons*_"; 

the Fifth says : "*No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.*" and so on.

[emphasis added]

Here's a link to the US Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html


----------



## Bastoune

"The People" are the citizens.  You should leave the Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States to those who are charged with that task: the Judicial branch.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

I'm sorry. Is this thread directed only to people who are in the Judicial Branch, Cuchu? 

*Mod Edit: *removal of personal remark.


----------



## Keikikoka

"*We the People of the United States*, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Illegal Immigrants are not the People of the United States. They are the poeple of their respective countires.


----------



## ElaineG

Bastoune said:
			
		

> "The People" are the citizens. You should leave the Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States to those who are charged with that task: the Judicial branch.


 
Actually, the Judicial Branch doesn't agree with you Bastoune.  (Maybe you should leave the interpretation American law to those who know something about it  .  No, actually I'm all for people trying to educate themselves about the law, but I find your remark to Residente was pretty rude and expect you agree that it doesn't look so nice turned around!).

The People are not solely the "citizens."  As Cuchu's original post made abundantly clear, legal resident aliens enjoy a wide panoply of Constitutional rights and protections and the general consensus is that certain due process rights (at a minimum) attach to all _persons_ on United States territory regardless of how they got here.

Moreover, international law, including Conventions governing the rights of refugees, and the statutes implementing those conventions, may confer rights on certain "illegal" aliens.

While Congress is generally held to have plenary power over immigration, in the immortal words of one young clerking panda: "continuously present aliens ... do have some constitutional status".  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/1st/961194.html&friend=nytimes


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Keikikoka said:
			
		

> "*We the People of the United States*, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> Illegal Immigrants are not the People of the United States. They are the poeple of their respective countires.


So are you saying that an illegal immigrant doesn't have the right to a fair and speedy trial under US law? Could we just toss a coin at deportation hearings if we wanted to?


----------



## cuchuflete

Bastoune said:
			
		

> "The People" are the citizens. You should leave the Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States to those who are charged with that task: the Judicial branch.



That last comment flies in the face of common sense.  I don't know whether you are a US citizen, an illegal alien, a legally present non-citizen.  It doesn't matter.  If you have a modicum of common sense, you will want to be informed of your rights and obligations while resident in the US.  

The Judiciary is charged with interpretation of the sometimes ambiguous language of the Constitution.  All those on US soil have a right to argue the interpretation--it has a funny habit of changing, at very least in part due to changes in the mood of the citizens and others present here.   The Supreme Court has reveresed long-standing ruling of........the very same Supreme Court.

The President of the US has complained when he didn't like Supreme Court decisions.  Why get so huffy when a member of the forums expresses an opinion?

The case law, even for us non-lawyers, is pretty clear...just read the links and quotes in the first post:  There are different sets of rights and obligations for each of (1)citizens; (2)legal aliens; (3)illegally present non-citizens.

Within the first group, citizens, their are different rights.  Each state has its own laws regarding the rights of voters, convicted felons, and other classes of citizens.

This thread was opened to invite discussion, and not to tell people to stop thinking and writing, just because they don't wear judicial robes.

However much I may agree or disagree with Residente's statements, they are welcome here. I state that first and foremost as a forero, but also as a member of the WR forum judiciary, aka the kanagroo-ape-panda-etc. court.


----------



## Keikikoka

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> So are you saying that an illegal immigrant doesn't have the right to a fair and speedy trial under US law? Could we just toss a coin at deportation hearings if we wanted to?


 
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that the poeple mentioned in the Constitution are the people of the United States. Illegal immigrants may or may not have rights; I havn't done the research into that to know either way. However, it would appear as though the rights granted in the Constitution are specifically aimed at the people of the US. That wouldn't negate illegal immigrants having rights.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Keikikoka said:
			
		

> Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that the poeple mentioned in the Constitution are the people of the United States. Illegal immigrants may or may not have rights; I havn't done the research into that to know either way. However, it would appear as though the rights granted in the Constitution are specifically aimed at the people of the US. That wouldn't negate illegal immigrants having rights.



I see. But I don't think that every time the Constitution says "the people" it's talking about "the people of the United States" meaning US citizens. 

I look at current events and notice that people in trouble who are not *US citizens* have rights quite similar to mine (I am a US citizen) under the law. Moussaoui is not a* US citizen *and seems to have rights out the wazoo. And he's not a Resident Alien either. I think those rights he has come from the US Constitution. I can't imagine where else they could come from. But if I'm wrong, I'm hoping some one could point that out.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Here are more facts:

Zacharias Moussaoui was arrested before the 9/11 bombings on a immigration violation. The FBI tried to search his laptop but failed to get a warrant.

So 

1) Moussaoui was neither a citizen (and is not a citizen) nor a legal resident and due to the fact that he was in US custody for a visa violation I can only suppose he was illegal. If anyone has evidence that Moussaoui was not illegal at the time of his arrest, please point it out. But I don't see how you get arrested and detained for an immigration violation and can still be considered "here legally."

2) Despite his status, the FBI had to ask for a warrant (Fourth Ammendment) to look through his laptop and actually failed to get one. 

It looks like to me that even though this person was neither a citizen, nor a legal resident, and, I'm assuming, illegal, the government still did not have the right to search his computer without a warrant.

Please read the article, and any other material you get your hands on, and come to your own conclusions.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/31/moussaoui.computer/index.html


----------



## danielfranco

I've been thinking about this question since it was originally posted, and so far I keep going in circles, without any real opinions forming:
The USA is a country of laws. If you are in this country, even just visiting, you are tacitly agreeing to all its laws. The illegal immigrants are breaking the laws. That should take away their rights. But if you are in this country, and subject to its laws, then the laws themselves give you rights. So by breaking the law because they are here, the immigrants are in fact protected by the laws and granted rights...
And so on and so forth. I know my logic is always suspect at the best of times, but it seems to me that even though this question is really a matter of ethics and morals, it can only have a legal resolution. That is, the immigrants will only have the rights the courts decide to give them, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" it might actually be.
Personally, I would think no one can deny that immigrants should have at least the rights accorded to every human... But that seems to be also a rather subjective statement, no? I mean, a look at the world news today might give the impression that we do not always agree what rights humans should have universally...


----------



## Residente Calle 13

danielfranco said:
			
		

> I've been thinking about this question since it was originally posted, and so far I keep going in circles, without any real opinions forming:
> The USA is a country of laws. If you are in this country, even just visiting, you are tacitly agreeing to all its laws. *The illegal immigrants are breaking the laws. That should take away their rights. *But if you are in this country, and subject to its laws, then the laws themselves give you rights. So by breaking the law because they are here, the immigrants are in fact protected by the laws and granted rights...


Hi Daniel,

I've highlighted the sentences that I don't think are quite right.

I think that people who are accused to have commited a crime still have some rights. Moussaoui obviously did have Constitutional rights even though he was under arrest for breaking the law.


----------



## danielfranco

Thank you, Residente!
I knew I could count on you to point out where my logic is feeblest! 
But, going back to that remark, I should have explained the idea rolling around in my vastly empty head with more clarity: your rights as a regular person under the law are taken away when you break the law, and you are handed abreviated and abridged versions of them.
So you are absolutely correct, the law-breakers still have rights. They are a rather anorexic set of rights. And maybe that's all the rights immigrants will ever get...


----------



## heidita

Illegal immigration in Spain's a big issue. 

There are daily boats coming from Africa to the islands or the main land, illegal entry, with a tourist visa, from South Americans and from East Europeans. 

The rights even for illegal immigrants are clear: they have legal and health services free of charge. Free schooling and eating at schools for their children, who of course entered illegally , too. 

But then, what about their obligations? I haven't read *anything* about immigrant's obligations yet. They only have rights? 
In Spain, since the immigration number has become a real problem, we have gangs of Colombians and Ecuadorians fighting each other, the so called _"ñetas"_ and _"Latin Kings"._ 
We have _trata de blanca_ imported by the Eastern Europeans and Africans, lots of voodoo stuff, obliging the women and teenagers to prostitute themselves. 
We have eastern European gangs attacking richer areas in Madrid, robbing houses and the latest fashion: _fast kidnappings_, which had never before existed.
I  myself was assaulted twice in Madrid, once by two teenagers with a very clear "mono" (addicts) and the second time buy an enormous black guy, who only had to show me his knife when I had already handed him all my belongings without giving him the chance to even take the knife out.

So, I do think ,and this is unfortunately not a simple opinion, that Spain has a big problem with illegal immigrants who do not come to this country to work as decent people. From the above mentioned there are lots of legal immigrants, too. 

I have lived in Madrid for thirty years and we never had problems with gangs, organized, very violent assaults on houses, voodoo and a long etc.

OK, now feel free to rip me apart for this *very* politically incorrect post, but I do love this country and I have no understanding for the unimaginably bad things illegal immigration has brought to this country.


----------



## Just_Wil

I think Heidita is right and it's a fair question, many people just talk about rights for the inmigrants but nobody says anything about the obligations for the inmigrants.
I always wanted (and I still want) to go to the US, but it'll be always clear to me that the obligations should come first, if my actions are according to the laws, those laws will become my rights too.
I've got nothing against inmigrants, actually, I've got some good friends from Nicaragua, but I just don't like it when I don't get an aspirin from the government if I don't pay my insurance while all the illegal inmigrants can have health services for free. (Here in Costa Rica, schooling is "free" and it's also an "obligation"...sure, I don't buy it!)


----------



## sandzilg

> If illegal immigrants have one big obligation here is to pay their taxes. If ever illegals get a chance to change their status, that's the first thing Uncle Sam wants to know.



I agree. And it will be fair. But in order to pay taxes, you have to be hired with a contract and be given an employment authorization. Unless you are petitioning because you are a relative (spouse, son, etc.) you will need to be sponsored by the company that hires you. They have to go through months if not years of paperwork, not to talk about the thousands of dollars. And those companies will have to, at least, pay the minimum wage.  
Now, how many of the people who hire illegal immigrants now are willing to do that?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Sandzilg-- interesting comments, but far from the thread topic.  Feel free to open a new thread to discuss it.

The obligations of immigrants, legal and other, are the same as that of citizens: obey all the local, state, and federal statutes.
How much more simple can it be?

If an immigrant has violated immigration law in entering the US, as a resident they are still obliged to obey any and all other laws.

The Constitution doesn't give those here as legal visitors, or as illegal residents, any exceptional rights to break laws.


----------



## sandzilg

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hi Sandzilg-- interesting comments, but far from the thread topic. Feel free to open a new thread to discuss it.




Thanks Cuchuflete, I might do that!


----------



## cuchuflete

Please try to stay on topic.  Many posts give information about 
the thread topic, and also serve as platforms for other thoughts about immigration. Please take the latter to a new thread if you wish to discuss it. There are existing threads on the topic as well.

This thread is about the questions in post #1.

Thanks,
Cuchu

PD-Heidita...anti-politically kerrect is fine, when it's on topic.
A new thread presents anyone the opportunity to be firmly on topic for at least one post!


----------



## cuchuflete

To make life easy...here are the many questions from post #1.



> What do you think? Should people who have entered a country illegally be entitled to the *protections and obligations* of that country's laws? Some of the laws? All of them?
> Who should decide?
> 
> How about your own country? Are those who enter your place illegally *entitled and obligated to be governed by your laws*? Do they have identical rights as those enjoyed by citizens and legal non-citizen residents? Is this good or bad?


----------



## Joelline

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Should people who have entered a country illegally be entitled to the *protections and obligations* of that country's laws? Some of the laws? All of them?
> Who should decide?


 
I believe that *anyone* who is in the USA (as citizen, resident, legal or illegal immigrant, accidental tourist...) is absolutely entitled to the *protections* of the laws of the USA. This is known as "due process" and is covered by the first clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution (note the careful distinctions here):

"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.*

So, can anyone speaking of US laws take this into consideration when addressing cuchuflete's questions. Other countries will, of course, have other answers. But this one question seems to me to be answered definitively for the US.

*Obligations *are very different and a very complex issue. Obviously, tourists, visitors, etc. do not have a necessary obligation to pay federal income taxes (depends on how long the person has resided here). Others may be entitled to exemptions from obligations due to diplomatic immunity (one thinks of all those unpaid parking tickets issued in NYC and DC). However, for the most part, all those in the USA are obligated to obey the laws of the USA, whether local, state or federal.

Those who enter this country illegally violate federal (and, in some cases, state laws), but they are still covered by due process and obligated to obey the laws (whether one perceives irony in this or not).


----------



## cuchuflete

The first clause of the 14th amendment does not preclude any state from passing laws which limit the legal rights of non-citizens to benefits available to citizens. This seeming contradiction does not, in fact, violate the equal protection provisions in the same clause.  That's a further irony.


----------



## Joelline

It is essential, I think, to make a distinction between *rights *and *privileges*. Voting, for example, is NOT a right; it is a privilege (which is why those convicted of certain crimes lose, permanently, their right to vote). Benefits are privileges; they are not legal rights. I see no irony in denying some benefits to illegal immigrants; in fact, I am often amazed at how many benefits we do grant to them (even if in lesser amounts than to citizens or legal immigrants): education of their (non-US born) children; health care, etc.


----------



## cuchuflete

Please read and reply to the questions in Post #1. If that's too much trouble, address the questions in Post #25.  Off-topic material will be removed.  

This thread is NOT about whether you like immigrants.


----------



## heidita

I personally think that one cannot talk about the *rights *of a person of any condition, unless one also includes in the lot his or her *obligations *as both (should) necessarily go together.


----------



## cuchuflete

heidita said:
			
		

> I personally think that one cannot talk about the *rights *of a person of any condition, unless one also includes in the lot his or her *obligations *as both (should) necessarily go together.



I completely agree with you Heidita.  That's why I phrased the questions this way--



> What do you think? Should people who have entered a country illegally be entitled to the *protections and obligations* of that country's laws? Some of the laws? All of them?
> Who should decide?
> 
> How about your own country? Are those who enter your place illegally *entitled and obligated to be governed by your laws*? Do they have identical rights as those enjoyed by citizens and legal non-citizen residents? Is this good or bad?


----------



## TrentinaNE

> Should people who have entered a country illegally be entitled to the *protections and obligations* of that country's laws?


Yes, starting with the obligation to comply with the country's immigration laws.


----------



## cuchuflete

TrentinaNE said:
			
		

> Yes, starting with the obligation to comply with the country's immigration laws.


Hi Elisabetta,
Assuming you meant to write it with that word, with, you have raised a good and pertinent question.

Having already entered a country by extra-legal means, are there specific laws that instruct a person what they ought to do, other than obey all the ones they haven't yet broken. This could be a legal enigma. 

Here is an admittedly trivial analogy, just to illustrate the difficulty of the question:   I violate a speeding law while driving on a highway, but don't get stopped by the highway patrol.  Technically I am an unapprehended law-breaker.  How do I 'take back' my crime?   Does the law require that I drive to the nearest constabulary and turn myself in?   If I'm the only witness to the crime, the Constitution protects me from any obligation of self-incrimination.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Thanks for the edit, cuchu.


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This could be a legal enigma.


My point exactly.  



> If I'm the only witness to the crime, the Constitution protects me from any obligation of self-incrimination.


But if in the course of reporting the crime you witnessed, it comes out that you were speeding, you can still be ticketed. I've read accounts of illegal aliens taking care to exercise their "rights" for fear of deportation. Isn't that what some employers actually count on so that they can get away with employment violations of their own?

In the end, rights and obligations are both a matter of law enforcement, and as a nation, the U.S. isn't really enforcing immigration law.

Elizabeth


----------



## cuchuflete

Prego,
We were editing in tandem.   I still don't have an answer I'm comfortable with.


----------



## ElaineG

> Having already entered a country by extra-legal means, are there specific laws that instruct a person what they ought to do, other than obey all the ones they haven't yet broken. This could be a legal enigma.


 
There's an even more enigmatic class of illegals, of whom I have encountered several in NY: Those who entered the country legally, but because of a change in status -- usually loss of the job that gave them the visa, they are now illegal. In some cases, they've had American children in the mean time. Having become, even if only briefly illegal, it is almost impossible for them to square their status with the INS. Even if they obtain another job, the INS will likely deny the new work visa on the basis of the "illegal" gap in their residency, and having been made aware of the irregularity, deport them. This creates a peculiar incentive to remain illegal and invisible.

I suppose you could argue that, immediately upon losing an H-1 eligible job, they should pick themselves up and self-deport themselves back home. But that's a difficult choice to make.

A close friend of mine has been living in the United States for the past 10 years. He attended college here on a student visa, and then was able to get a work visa, and practice his trade of interior design. The company that sponsored him closed 2 years ago. He found work with another company that agreed to sponsor him, but they then also had financial difficulties. At that point, he became "illegal" and began working off-the-books doing consultancy for various companies. He has lived with his lover, his lover's mother (who they jointly support), and his lover's sister and her child for the past 5 years. His lover, being male, cannot marry him and give him certain legality -- as any heterosexual couple do. As a result, my friend,_ a very law-abiding and ethical person_, has decided he cannot stand the risks any longer and is leaving his lover and their family, and returning to his country of origin in a couple of months. That breaks my heart. 

I compare that to another gay friend of mine, who recently married his English boyfriend (in England of course!), and promptly received full rights to work and live in the UK as a consequence, and I realize just how backwards America is.


----------



## TrentinaNE

While I was driving to work this morning, NPR ran a report about a landscape business owner in CA who goes to great pains to ensure his Mexican employees are in the U.S. legally, and thinks there is an economic payoff to doing this: his workers aren't worried about being deported, so they can focus better and be more productive. As my commute is very short, I didn't hear the entire account, but it seems relevant to the discussion... in a way.


----------



## maxiogee

Within the EU an asylum-seeking immigrant must present themself to the authorities at the first country that 'land' in. This is not always done. The principle is, I think, that they can be shipped back to the country that can be proven to have first landed in. The problem is in proving which country that was.

This was introduced, I think, to prevent illegals from claiming asylum when they were caught as illegals.

=====

On a separate, but highly related note.
Almost every country requires that its citizens be aware of the law.
*Ignorance of the law is no excuse* is a standard prosecution line.
How are immigrants, on the day they arrive in Xyzland, expected to make themselves conversant with their legal obligations?


----------



## heidita

Elaine, surprisingly enough this couldn't have happened here, as homosexual marriages are legal in Spain (surprising because of the deep rooted Catholicism).

But then, on the other hand, there are many marriages which are so called marriages for the papers, when Spanish citizens marry an immigrant just for the purpose of him/her not getting deported. These people get paid and abuse the precarious status of the immigrant.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I'm just going to address one bit of your first post, Cuchu.

Canada is still in the business of deporting its illegal aliens, many of whom are construction workers in short supply.  Most in Ontario, especially the greater Toronto area, are Portuguese, although a sizeable chunk come from Central America and Argentina.  Thousands have already been sent home.  Many had homes here and had been waiting for their status to become legal.  Here it is not illegal to work while you're waiting for your status to become finalized, as long as you declare yourself on entering.  Most of these people were here quite legally for years until their hearings turned them down .... and then overnight they metamorphosized into .... gasp! ... ALIENS!

The kicker is that their employers, as required by law, deducted their taxes and union dues from their paychecks.  These alien beings supported our health, education and public institutions.  They got some of this back, in that their children were able to attend school; but they were entitled to no health coverage (and construction workers need this more than most people), union protection or benefits, municipal benefits like library cards, etc.

Who's supporting who, here?


----------

