illegal immigrants, should something be done? Options

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

One question for the people who have included deportating illegal aliens when caught in their posts. How do you find out where to send the immigrant if it doesn't own any kind of identification data (passport, ID card, etc..) and refuses to say what its country of origin is?

People come in from a few other countries rather than just Mexico alone.

[iROCKYOURSOCKS]

Kurd Jam ,

first off all an immigrant or alien is not an "it" they are human to, i dont see them any diffrent from you, me or anyone else.

first off these immigration patrol or police or whatever will send anyone to jail if they refuse to say where they are from, so they keep them in jail until they can either guess where they are from or just find out where they are from. I seriously doubt that these people wont say where they are from its either jail or being sent to another country.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Kurd Jam ,

first off all an immigrant or alien is not an "it" they are human to, i dont see them any diffrent from you, me or anyone else.

first off these immigration patrol or police or whatever will send anyone to jail if they refuse to say where they are from, so they keep them in jail until they can either guess where they are from or just find out where they are from. I seriously doubt that these people wont say where they are from its either jail or being sent to another country.

Illegal immigrants can be either male or female, therefore the best way to reffer to an undetermined individual that immigrates illegally into another country is by using the pronoun it.

I really do doubt there's any legal basis for what you said, too. Or sufficient room in jails, for that matter.

[Spirited Away]

In 1970's (and so on), many Vietnamese illegal immigrants are sent to Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, where they stayed in immigration camps until they are admitted/moved elsewhere since the new regime didn't want them back.

It's not going to be a deadlock just because they refuse to give information on where they come from.

And before you shoot his/her idea down, it IS true that illegal immigrants can be detained in a jail, or jail like community until that person is deported.

On another note, a baby can be an "it", but have you ever heard of an adult be called an "it"? I doubt it. Unless you mean to say that all illegal immigrants are babies, it's better, more respectful of another human being to use "he/she", or simple "he" if you're lazy.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

And before you shoot his/her idea down, it IS true that illegal immigrants can be detained in a jail, or jail like community until that person is deported.

On another note, a baby can be an "it", but have you ever heard of an adult be called an "it"? I doubt it. Unless you mean to say that all illegal immigrants are babies, it's better, more respectful of another human being to use "he/she", or simple "he" if you're lazy.

They're illegal immigrants, so the part where they can be detained by the proper authorities is assumed. It's the conditions of such detention what I am casting doubt upon.

From what I understood, she wrote about indefinite detentions until authorities can find out where the immigrant originally comes from, which essentially is a different thing from what you're talking about. And of course, I still doubt there's a legal basis for what she said.

Furthermore, my question remains unadressed.

I probably should have somehow highlighted the hyperlink in my previous post, since it has passed unnoticed. That was my bad, however, under the list of definitions for the pronoun it you can find this one:

2. (used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.

John's a person. John's most likely a male person. John's been called an "it", regardless.

I do not see what the big deal is over me using a neuter pronoun. You people seem to have assumed I did choose that word because of disrespect when I have stated twice already that it was a grammar resource; I even provided a dictionary entry to demonstrate it. I honestly can't resort to any clearer and simplier explanation than that.

However, if you still consider it's something worth being discussed, we can set up a thread in a suitable forum so we don't derail this topic's original purpose.

[Spirited Away]

I only answered from general knowledge of what happened to Vietnamese illegal immigrants. Here's what I came across in simple research. Finger-printing is used to keep track of illegal immigrants who are not in jail for whatever reason (e.g. no room in jail). They are held for a hearing and the results of the hearing determines if they will be deported to their contry of origin. How do law enforcements know where that is? There must some sort of process of elimination, a guestimate even, like iRockyoursocks have said. To be honest, I don't know what that process is or how it works. But, the FBI can always get involved, and they have.

Though, even with such processes, whatnot, I'm sure there are a few who have cheated the system. I don't doubt that.

Just to be on the clear side though, there is legal basis for that he/she said about detaining an illegal immigrant until country of origin is figured out/guestimated.

I hope this is a sufficient answer.


On to the grammar.

In "Who was it? It was John", "it" is referential to WHO, denoting a person, while "What" would have put John's humanity into question. John could have been a dog or a sailboat for all we know. Here's an example:

"A person from the insurance agency called while you were out. Call (him/her/them/it) back."
Which pronoun is not appropriate within the context of and in reference to "a person"? Why would a person be called it? Wouldn't that defeats the purpose of "he/she"?

If you want to say "It was God that created everything", without reference to what "it" is, that "it" would be called an expletive. You see how "reference" is important?

You wouldn't say "it gave me homework" and expect people to know that "it" means your teacher, when "It" could be a tutor program, or a computer exercise.

While your explanation was indeed clear and simple, the appropriateness of "it" standing in for a human being is still in question.

It's alright with me if you would like to debate the usage of expletives and referential pronouns. Then again, you could be right seeing how I haven't taken an English class since three years ago =]

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Seriously, people. When I say legal basis I am talking about the real law and not guesses about what the law may say; quoting the real law articles will help keeping talking points clear and therefore make the debate easier and more accurate.

For example:

"They are held for a hearing and the results of the hearing determines if they will be deported to their contry of origin. How do law enforcements know where that is? There must some sort of process of elimination, a guestimate even, like iRockyoursocks have said. "

There are 193 official countries in the world if I am not mistaken; from your words I could interpret that they keep sending people to countries one by one until the person ends up in a one that somehow fits. However, I doubt it was your original intention (hopefully) to say so, hence why using the proper legal texts will come in handy to avoid confuse and/or vague posting. They have less doubt value added than hypothesis do.

As per the it thing, I'll be clear since this is going nowhere anyhow; I am not going to use he/she or any similar euphemistic form when the pronoun it does the job just fine since it's both grammatically correct and doesn't suppose a problem unless people decide to see one where there isn't. =/

In "Who was it? It was John", "it" is referential to WHO, denoting a person, while "What" would have put John's humanity into question. John could have been a dog or a sailboat for all we know. Here's an example:

(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded):

Illegal immigrant -> Person -> can be male or female -> a correct way to refer to a person who's gender isn't relevant to the matter at all is by using the pronoun it.

I first thought there was a misunderstanding in the way I did use the pronoun, however seeing as how my explanation was disregarded I am now tempted to think you're arguing over something trivial just because, really. I just hope that's not the case. =|

[miceylulu]

How hard? Do you know how many freaking ppl wait to take the test? How freaking neglectful some embassies can be? And if we kick them out.. they'll lose their jobs.. jobs that they may not be able to get back or afford losing.. I say to keep the current ones already established.. but like was mentioned.. make it a lot harder to get in

Oh freakin' well! If they won't take the time to do something important to them, then they don't deserve to be in our country! Who cares if they lose their jobs? LEGAL immigrants and those born here can take those jobs. They took the time, or were lucky enough to be here when they came in this world and I don't think that they should have been rejected those jobs in the first place if they're meant to be here.

Exactly... legalize it and no more need for massive boreder patrols. if you crack down you will only need MORE border patrols. Concentrate patrols on t'rists.

Oh, then we should just legalize murder, and legalize marijuana, and legalize rape, and legalize everything else so that we don't waste our time trying to track down those criminals and spend our money elsewhere.

'Cause that TOTALLY makes our country better.

*SARCASM*

LLMATiC' date='Jul 27 2004, 3:30 PM' post='425030']
that bugs the hell outta me its like ok uv been here for so long u didnt pick up ne english .. or those who knoe english but only speak their language i mean its ok wen ur round ppl who speak that lang. but jus not to me

I thought this was funny because you're talking about people who can't speak English, but obviously you can't write it.

[Spirited Away]

Seriously, people. When I say legal basis I am talking about the real law and not guesses about what the law may say; quoting the real law articles will help keeping talking points clear and therefore make the debate easier and more accurate.

For example:

"They are held for a hearing and the results of the hearing determines if they will be deported to their contry of origin. How do law enforcements know where that is? There must some sort of process of elimination, a guestimate even, like iRockyoursocks have said. "

There are 193 official countries in the world if I am not mistaken; from your words I could interpret that they keep sending people to countries one by one until the person ends up in a one that somehow fits. However, I doubt it was your original intention (hopefully) to say so, hence why using the proper legal texts will come in handy to avoid confuse and/or vague posting. They have less doubt value added than hypothesis do.

Quoting real law articles, eh? Are you one of those people who don't believe that something like the first step of Probating a Will is applying for letters of Testamentary unless you read it yourself somewhere? Or will you believe it simply because I'm spieling jargons? Unless you have access to Lexis Nexis or to some Law journals, I have my hands tied on how to convince you, my friend. If you can't believe the words of my research, why don't you try to do so yourself instead of insisting that someone else prove it to you? I already know the answer and it's your problem if you don't believe it.

193 countries in the world, eh? I suppose you think everyone in those countries look the same? Maybe you're one of those people who mix up an Asian for a Hispanic? I don't know. And then, maybe you also can't tell the differences between the Chinese and Korean characters? But you know what, experts can tell real easy. Also, don't you think the person guiding the illegal immigrants would know something about their clients origin? I guess you don't think these things can be investigated.

I'm not here to convince you this is how they do it. I know there is process and because I am not an expert, I can't use the jargons you expect me to provide.

A guestimate would be something like this: illegal immigrants found involved in drug-related offenses are usually Dominicans and Columbians [source]. Then, the court would investigate further. How? I don't know since I'm not the expert and you're looking for one in the wrong place.

As per the it thing, I'll be clear since this is going nowhere anyhow; I am not going to use he/she or any similar euphemistic form when the pronoun it does the job just fine since it's both grammatically correct and doesn't suppose a problem unless people decide to see one where there isn't. =/
(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded):

Illegal immigrant -> Person -> can be male or female -> a correct way to refer to a person who's gender isn't relevant to the matter at all is by using the pronoun it.

I first thought there was a misunderstanding in the way I did use the pronoun, however seeing as how my explanation was disregarded I am now tempted to think you're arguing over something trivial just because, really. I just hope that's not the case. =|

Grammatically correct? Perhaps, but it's grammatically inappropriate for the reasons I've stated (and ignored), you'll have a hard time convinicing me otherwise, but I don't think you will try since you think the matter is trivial. I would like to see you (or anyone for that matter) write your personal essay for college or submitting an article using the word "it" to represent someone instead of the traditional "he" and "he/she". That would be funny.

"A person from the insurance agency called while you were out. Call it back." Haha.

For the record, I'm very argumentative. Things as trivial as calling a human being "it" will get me going because I like to have my say.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

I am one of those people who takes vague allusions to past incidents as, surprise surprise, vague allusions to past incidents. I am also one of those that do give little value to unfounded hypothesis unless they can be proven somehow.

In other words, I try to be reasonable when it comes to debating. I don't ask for a thesis on immigration law here, nor will I bother guessing what is that you're trying to say anymore when due to lack of basis your posts can be easily misinterpreted. There's a middle ground between both extremes, and I don't think I am being excessively strict when requesting a reply along the lines of:

"Illegal aliens can be detained and held on custody for X period of time until their final deportation, which may occur under Y circumstances as it's stated in USA law.

Fell free to check these articles/reports/etc... for further information."

It's pretty easy to see why this reply, while being rather short, does offer more information than all of your posts in here combined. It may take some time to do the research, but at least that'd be an answer. Not a rant.

193 countries in the world, eh? I suppose you think everyone in those countries look the same? Maybe you're one of those people who mix up an Asian for a Hispanic?

Nice try, but it takes a lot more than that to play the libel game.

There are 193 official countries in the world if I am not mistaken; from your words I could interpret that they keep sending people to countries one by one until the person ends up in a one that somehow fits. However, I doubt it was your original intention (hopefully) to say so, hence why using the proper legal texts will come in handy to avoid confuse and/or vague posting. They have less doubt value added than hypothesis do.

Read, then try to be snarky?

I don't know.

lol u funny

And then, maybe you also can't tell the differences between the Chinese and Korean characters?

. Meek.

.But you know what, experts can tell real easy. Also, don't you think the person guiding the illegal immigrants would know something about their clients origin? I guess you don't think these things can be investigated.

I'd still need to know how do experts can tell where an undocumented person that doesn't wish to collaborate with its identification procedure is from. You know, since that would answer the question I posted a few days ago, and all.

Grammatically correct? Perhaps, but it's grammatically inappropriate for the reasons I've stated (and ignored), you'll have a hard time convinicing me otherwise, but I don't think you will try since you think the matter is trivial.

Guessed right.

[Spirited Away]

Oh goodness gracious, "proven somehow"? You asked a question, I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge without being an expert on the matter. What do you want? A debate that stems from general knowledge of the topic? Talk about trivial. If you wanted me to elaborate on my answer, I wouldn't be able to without, *gasp* being an expert/having research extensively. If your intentions are to prove that my answer is inadequate without including proper proccedures, then you did a good job at worrying about the trivial things.

Legal texts. Haha, feel free to give me your login info. to Lexis Nexis and I will conduct proper research for you in less than 30 minutes. Or else, quit being such a baby about it.

Look, go to wiki and search under deportation. You'll get the general idea. If you want the process specifically, which I'm not sure why or how that would support your argument (or lack thereof?), I suggest reading books, or talk to an immigration lawyer.

The legal "process" is complicated and I wouldn't know where to start researching or explaining it to you. Now, if you want to ask me about Probating Wills, I can definitely help you with that. I'm no expert, but I have worked on some.

------------
Scenerio:
You: How does the sky get so blue?
Me: I'm not sure, but it has to do with the atmosphere and light waves.
You: That's so vague!
Me: But that's the general idea/knowledge, if you want a more in depth answer, read a science book.
You: General ideas are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to answer my question!
Me: Well, too bad. Read a book.
-------------

What's vague here, is your ability to accept one person's answer for what it is, and further, your ability to use "it" in proper situations.

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

There are law schools with free online databases.
There are free legal sources online.
There are free online encyclopedias.
There's a USA immigration site.

Lets simplify things.

One question for the people who have included deportating illegal aliens when caught in their posts. How do you find out where to send the immigrant if it doesn't own any kind of identification data (passport, ID card, etc..) and refuses to say what its country of origin is?

People come in from a few other countries rather than just Mexico alone.

I am one of those people who takes vague allusions to past incidents as, surprise surprise, vague allusions to past incidents. I am also one of those that do give little value to unfounded hypothesis unless they can be proven somehow.

In other words, I try to be reasonable when it comes to debating. I don't ask for a thesis on immigration law here, nor will I bother guessing what is that you're trying to say anymore when due to lack of basis your posts can be easily misinterpreted. There's a middle ground between both extremes, and I don't think I am being excessively strict when requesting a reply along the lines of:

"Illegal aliens can be detained and held on custody for X period of time until their final deportation, which may occur under Y circumstances as it's stated in USA law.

Fell free to check these articles/reports/etc... for further information."

I am giving you 1000 tries, I'll be back next year.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Miceylulu, PLEASE do not double post.

In order to quote multipl posts, click on the '+' icon in the bottom right corner of each post, and then hit add reply.

Also, I love that this has turned into an argument about how to argue. LOVING the pedantry...

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

See it as that, if you may.

Personally, I find it quite difficult to debate working from what I assume about someone else's assumptions over someone else's assumptions over a question I posted a few days ago. In my case, I consider that trying to reply in the best way possible (within one's own abilities) is more of a sign of being considered towards other people rather than a display of pedantry seeing as how nobody has the obligation to post anything in here to begin with.

Furthermore, from this very same forum's guidelines:

I would also like to add, if you're going to make a topic, please make sure:

- that it's semi-intelligent
- that people can actually have solid opinions on it
- that people can actually back up these opinions with solid facts, not just personal opinions and feelings

[Spirited Away]

How are they assumptions? Did you not see and understand the term "general knowledge"? You can easily research to find that the answer is as I've said, but with the bonus of being embellished with legal jargons and further circumstantiated by companion articles. In the end, a layman's answer is still the most simple, yet effective, which lends the fact that my ability to plainly answer your question is sufficient.

If you wanted an answer that you can argue with, sorry I didn't provide you one. General knowledge is a bitch isn't it? It doesn't give you anything but general information. Gee, maybe you should practice immigration law or do research and tell me the details that is missing from my answer.

I fit the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none", but I'm content. I am slightly sorry that you are not, but that's your problem. It's also your problem that you can't debate a general answer or do much with it except to irrelevantly point out that it's "too general", however dysfunctional it is to do so. Thanks for beating a dead horse for the last 3-6 posts (wasn't counting exactly). It's overkill now.

Funny that you quoted the forum rules that I helped to word when I was a moderator. General knowledge follows them well. What was your point?

[viugiufgjhfhjfhg...]

Seeing as how the two persons that tried to reply to a specific question either went on a tangent over inane style issues, and blatantly failed to deliver a corresponding specific answer, makes me think the question hasn't been understood at all. Thus you two seem to have assumed I asked about something completely different than what I originally meant.

As a precedent of what's going to follow next, I'll quote the rules you helped wording when you were a moderator. I hope you see what the point is now, supposing you're interested in seeing it.

- that people can actually have solid opinions on it

-that people can actually back up these opinions with solid facts, not just personal opinions and feelings

Now we'll use your own example:

Scenerio:
You: How does the sky get so blue?
Me: I'm not sure, but it has to do with the atmosphere and light waves.
You: That's so vague!
Me: But that's the general idea/knowledge, if you want a more in depth answer, read a science book.
You: General ideas are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to answer my question!
Me: Well, too bad. Read a book.

First, I asked a specific question and not a general one. Due to the way I asked, the most appropriate reply would address the particular case I am inquiring about.

Kurd: How does natural humidity in the atmosphere affect the way we perceive the color of the sky?

This would be more representative of the kind of question I originally asked. A question focused on a specific characteristic of a general phenomenon. In this case, it's easy to see how a general reply wouldn't address the point I want to know about; "It has to do with atmosphere and light waves" does mention two of the elements involved in answering my question, but does not indeed answer my question in a desired fashion.

"Light being refracted by water crystals in the atmosphere, as well as the later's composition does affect the way we perceive the color of the sky." Would be a much better reply, though. Toss a link in it and there you go. A decent answer that's only a few key strokes longer than yours and that doesn't require a PhD in order to come up with it.

Me: But that's the general idea/knowledge, if you want a more in depth answer, read a science book.
You: General ideas are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to answer my question!
Me: Well, too bad. Read a book.

See, if I wanted to know the answer that bad I'd read about it. Which I have done, since I was posting about this same subject in another forum a few months ago; and the fact that I have bothered to read before talking is one of the reasons why I would like to try and discuss about immigration in here, as disappointing as it is turning out to be.

No, general ideas are not always good when it comes to answering specific questions, mine included in the lot. And "go read a book" isn't actually helpful either, although I doubt you have tried to be helpful at all as far as discussing ideas goes. You do seem to be more interested in having me accept your terms rather than on having them debated.

If you don't want to or can't answer my question according to its nature, please say so; a yes / no reply will be enough, and then the both of us will be able to stop wasting our respective time on this and/or get down to business once for all.

999 tries, 364 days left.

[APairOf_IrishEye...]

Why live in a country if your not going to be a citizen.
If your living in a country where the main language is English then learn English.
Every illegal immigrant i know talks about how wonderful the country they came from was IF IT WAS SO WONDERFUL WHY DID YOU LEAVE.

I'd have no problem with them if they would just be like every other american has come to be.
My family came here as immigrants and we adapted just fine.

Maybe its not all of them, but the ones i know around here complain about everything, everything that would be different if they were citizens.

[radhikaeatsraman]

Instead of trying to come here illegally, why don't Mexicans try to improve their own country first?

[Kontroll]

Instead of trying to come here illegally, why don't Mexicans try to improve their own country first?

With what resources? I'm not saying they are completely poor, but I'm sure there have been people who have tried to improve the living conditions of the Mexican people. It costs money.

And also to contribute to this debate...I feel that illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed into this country. They have no right to be here. It wouldn't be fair to everyone else. Most people that live in America that has come from a different country has worked hard to get here. They learned the English language and it would just be a complete punch in the balls for them if illegal immigrants were allowed to live here without proper authorization.

[*Uronacid*]

Seeing as how the two person....

I would so have you deported... *sigh* You are quite possibly the most annoying immigrant ever, but I like you're throwing Spirited Away all these curve balls... keep it up. :]