Should the girl in this story be deprived of simple privileges the 290 million U.S. citizens have?

Question

Title:A Haven indeed; Illegal immigration.(ID cards in Connecticut). Source:The Economist (US) 384.8540 (August 4, 2007): p.29US. (598 words) From Expanded Academic ASAP. Document Type:Magazine/Journal Bookmark:Bookmark this Document Library Links:
Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2007 Economist Newspaper Ltd.

One city devises its own immigration policy

MARICELA was eight when, with her parents, she crossed the border from Mexico. Twelve years later, a high-school graduate with an American accent, she is still illegal, unable easily to rent a flat, open a bank account or get a library card. She and the 10,000-12,000 other undocumented immigrants in New Haven, Connecticut, are hoping that a new policy may make their lives better.

As the federal government has proved itself incapable of formulating an immigration policy, local governments are stepping in as they did on health care and the environment. New Haven, home to Yale University, is already considered a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. It offers help in filing federal taxes, and it has ordered its police not to inquire about immigrants' status. Last week it became the first city to issue its own ID card. All 125,000 residents may have one: legal and illegal, children as well as adults.

The card cannot be used for federal or state services, but it will allow holders to use city beaches and libraries. It can also be used as a debit card at many downtown restaurants and shops, and for parking meters. Two banks, First City and Sovereign, have agreed to accept the card, allowing users to open accounts. Until now, most of the city's undocumented immigrants were forced either to carry their cash or to hide it at home, making themselves easy targets for muggers and burglars.

These immigrants, mostly from Latin America, make up most of the block-long application queue at city hall. The card costs $10 for adults and $5 for children. The rest of the programme's costs will be funded by a $250,000 grant from First City.

In June the town's board of aldermen approved the measure by a vote of 25 to one. Less than two days later, immigration and customs enforcement agents conducted home raids on undocumented immigrants, with 32 arrests. Only five of those arrested had outstanding warrants. John DeStefano, New Haven's mayor, suspects the raids were in retaliation for the card. Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, has denied it. Further raids have been suspended.

City officials say the data collected during the application process will be kept confidential. Information will probably not be shared with the federal government unless someone is under criminal investigation. Michael Wishnie, a Yale law professor who has been retained by the city to fight any court challenges, points out the cards are no different from records already possessed by the Internal Revenue Service and by health and welfare agencies.

While cities like New York, Miami and San Francisco are considering adapting similar programmes, others are trying to tighten laws. Last year Hazelton, a small Pennsylvania town, began fining landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and penalising employers for hiring them. On July 26th a federal judge struck down the measure. The ruling has national implications, as 100 other cities have adopted something similar.

New Haven's anti-immigration groups say the cards violate federal laws against aiding illegal immigration. And they fear the city will be inundated with illegal migrants. But it is not easy to obtain a card. Residents must show valid government-issued photo identification, such as a passport, driving licence or consular document. They must also prove residency in New Haven with two utility bills, a pay stub, tax statements, or documents from health and social-service agencies. About 25-50% of applicants are turned away for not having the papers required. Maricela did not get a card; she could not prove she was a resident of New Haven.




Source Citation:"A Haven indeed; Illegal immigration.(ID cards in Connecticut)." The Economist (US) 384.8540 (August 4, 2007): 29US. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Los Medanos College. 23 Aug. 2007
.

Answer 1

No.She is already integrated,why not give her status?

Answer 2

Cities are not allowed to enforce federal immigration laws. That's in the plain text of the federal laws.

So, what you have is a city (in CT) offering city services to everyone who is a resident of the city. That's what they are supposed to be doing, since they are not allowed under federal law to take immigration status into account.

And what you have is another city (Hazelton) violating federal laws by creating it's own immigration-based laws.

So, New Haven CT is acting as the law requires, in a way people don't like. And Hazelton is acting in a way forbidden by law, in a way that people like.

Which brings us to the question -- which is more important -- what the law requires, or what people like to happen?

Because most of the people who oppose illegal immigration seem to be arguing that everybody needs to follow the laws. Meaning they should support New Haven, and oppose Hazelton. Which is not what's happening. Curious, that the law only seems to matter when people like what the law says.

Answer 3

Your question was faulty. You talk about privileges when you should be talking about rights. American citizens are born with certain rights that citizens of other countries don't have. Your girl is a citizen of another country even though she has lived in this country so long. I believe that the 14th amendment needs to be revisited and that law that a person born in this country automatically becomes a citizen. It was not intended to be used that way but Congress has the power to change the rules. Like my house, I can be a gratitious host but I reserve the right to decide who comes inside. I particularly don't like finding people in my house without my knowledge no matter how nice they may be. My concern is national security. If a laborer can access this country illegally, get legal documents like you described, and live without fear of being stopped then a terrorist can as well.

A few years ago I worked for a company that had many hispanic workers. I'm quite sure that they were all legal (right). One day I found an employee obviously praying in the mens room. He was praying to Mecca! I discreetly asked about his home town and then asked some others who were from the same town. They told me that his accent was odd for that town and that his spanish was strange. Apparently it got back to him and he stopped showing up for work. He didn't even come back to get his paycheck. Do you see the problem?

Answer 4

Don't you get tired of hearing the same thing over and over again? Once again you are talking about rights of a "legal citizen" compared to no rights for an "illegal immigrant". It is not Americas fault that the illegal parents did not do what they should have done.

Answer 5

although i am against illegal immigration. I feel that a child (under age of majority) is brought into the country by parents and they have reached the age of majority and is able to support themself. they should be able to obtain some form of protection that is not afforded to adult immigrants.

but saying that I believe her parents should be deported, she should have the right to stay on her own and go through the process of legalization. Her parents made a choice to illegally enter as adults so there should be no reward for them. If she doesnt want to be seperated from her parents then she would have the choice of returning with her parents.

the mistake that is made is when people say "this law is causing families to be separated from each other" or "this law keeps them from being able to" that is not correct it is the act of them comming here illegally that has caused it. If they had went the legal route this would not be an issue.

I can tell your bias in the way you phrase your statement, you say "New Haven's anti-immigration " I dont believe there is an anti immigration group. It is an Anti illegal immigration group. Big difference.

These people have to keep their cash on them or hide it in their house because they came here illegally not becuase of a law. If they came here legally then they could legally set up an account.

The point I am trying to get across is that the immigration laws are not just there to protect american people but the people immigrating. They are there to keep employers from taking advantage of them, to make sure work enviroments are safe and so on. A landlord who is willing to rent to an illegal is willing to have 5 times the legal amount of people living in one place and is not likley to worry about fire regulations or up keep of the place, why should he who are they going to complain to.

The USA takes in more legal immigrants than any other country in the world. This shows there are legal routes avialable to these people. These are people who chose to not do things legally and as the saying goes every choice has conseqences (sp).

In the end you cant blame the laws for infringing on the rights of people who are affected by them due to their breaking of other laws it would be like a bank robber saying the reason he is in jail is becuase the police arrested him when the real reason is becuase he robbed a bank

I also feel the city/town is doing nothing more than undermining a larger effort.

Answer 6

Yes.

Not her fault, but it is her problem.

Blame her illegal criminal parents.

Back of the line invader baby.

Read our constitution. It is supposed to protect us from foreign invasion and she just happens to be an invader who didn't choose to invade, but still wants the benefits of citizenship without earning it through the correct legal channels.

We already played nice with amnesty once, and we say not again. All these new ways to get around the constitution and law are and should be illegal. We supposedly are against practices that promote policies of

separate but equal, which is what these measures entail.

Why should taxpayers or anyone foot the bill for separate but equal systems just to accommodate these invaders?

Answer 7

YES completely...Not only shoud they be denied, but they should have deported everyone standing in line for the card who is illegal...

Answer 8

If I were able to sneak into Yankee Stadium, does that mean I should be allowed to stay and watch the game? The answer is no.

Answer 9

I bet you also support the rights of child predators to live where they want without having to register.

Answer 10

Illegal is illegal