The Nation's Cruelest Immigration Law?

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Chris,

I think you are being a bit disingenous here.

The soup may take 30 secs, but the cot bit? Doesn’t that involve somewhat more interaction? Aren’t they there for the night, providing ample time to chat a bit with each? In fact, don’t you all have a “no weapons” policy that means you’d HAVE to spend some time with each person doing a check? And, in fact, somebody has to explain the general rules of the facility to these people, no?

I have trouble believing that you couldn’t do a pretty decent job of sorting out the illegals if you wanted to. [/quote]

I’m with chris on this so long as the law is not broken. Unfortunately it often has been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_movement[/quote]

Is that what I get for “friending” you? :-)[/quote]

Oh I didn’t notice that! OK I’m with you on this one. Chris is wrong. Ha ha.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Chris,

I think you are being a bit disingenous here.

The soup may take 30 secs, but the cot bit? Doesn’t that involve somewhat more interaction?[/quote]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

It is harder than you think. I have only worked at the homeless shelter a few times (as my work was at night during this past summer so I wasn’t able too much). But I worked there a lot when I lived full time in Phoenix.

It is terribly hard the first few times they come to get anything out of them, it is even worse than the kitchen until they see that we care and we don’t pity them (they loosen up when they see that we’re not push overs and that we’re there to help them only if they help themselves).

Procedure goes like this:

  1. Doors open
  2. Line of women and children go in first
  3. Men go in second
  4. Everyone gets water-proof/rub-proof stamp
  5. Bags are checked and weapons and alcohol are taken
  6. Assigned cot or room
  7. Confession & Mass
  8. Supper

They can stay up to a week (we tell by the stamp), if they work for us (so they get a room, closet, stipend, more food, shower, &c.) they can stay longer, but we check to make sure they are legal.

For those who just come for the cot and supper we let them go two or three days then we pull them aside and let them know that we are happy to help them for as long as they need, but in order for us to do that they need help themselves.

This includes going to the office next door and applying for temp jobs and getting a sign off by the end of their week (the temp office is connected with us we help them get paper work started, including taking a picture). In order for them to get a signature paper work needs to be done by the job finder and that includes making sure they are able to work in Arizona legally.

So, I’m sure someone can get by for a short while of using the homeless shelters without being legal. But we honestly do our best to not enable these people. Enabling people is about as worse as not giving charity. If you want I can clip some of my 10 page thesis on the subject for you.

So, though we don’t personally have the man power/knowledge to pick the illegals out from those who are citizens and legals…our systems does it for us.

But, I’m not sure how easy you think it is with limited staff to figure out in a city of Spanish speakers which Spanish speaker is illegally here. If ‘bad at English’ was an indicator then about 50% of those 18 and under are suspect in Phoenix. After all we are like 48th in education and the Spanish speaking got to be such a problem that our government had to pass legislation that said that English was the language of the classroom (exceptions of course).

*Spanish is my first language and I am a natural citizen, it is also the first language of most of my family in Arizona and New Mexico and they are all natural citizens. Though I can no longer speak it fluently, though that is more likely to the fact that I learned Spanish from people that came from Spain and not Mexicans and South Americans. That is I learned Proper Spanish.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Chris,

I think you are being a bit disingenous here.

The soup may take 30 secs, but the cot bit? Doesn’t that involve somewhat more interaction?[/quote]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

It is harder than you think. I have only worked at the homeless shelter a few times (as my work was at night during this past summer so I wasn’t able too much). But I worked there a lot when I lived full time in Phoenix.

It is terribly hard the first few times they come to get anything out of them, it is even worse than the kitchen until they see that we care and we don’t pity them (they loosen up when they see that we’re not push overs and that we’re there to help them only if they help themselves).

Procedure goes like this:

  1. Doors open
  2. Line of women and children go in first
  3. Men go in second
  4. Everyone gets water-proof/rub-proof stamp
  5. Bags are checked and weapons and alcohol are taken
  6. Assigned cot or room
  7. Confession & Mass
  8. Supper

They can stay up to a week (we tell by the stamp), if they work for us (so they get a room, closet, stipend, more food, shower, &c.) they can stay longer, but we check to make sure they are legal.

For those who just come for the cot and supper we let them go two or three days then we pull them aside and let them know that we are happy to help them for as long as they need, but in order for us to do that they need help themselves.

This includes going to the office next door and applying for temp jobs and getting a sign off by the end of their week (the temp office is connected with us we help them get paper work started, including taking a picture). In order for them to get a signature paper work needs to be done by the job finder and that includes making sure they are able to work in Arizona legally.

So, I’m sure someone can get by for a short while of using the homeless shelters without being legal. But we honestly do our best to not enable these people. Enabling people is about as worse as not giving charity. If you want I can clip some of my 10 page thesis on the subject for you.

So, though we don’t personally have the man power/knowledge to pick the illegals out from those who are citizens and legals…our systems does it for us.

But, I’m not sure how easy you think it is with limited staff to figure out in a city of Spanish speakers which Spanish speaker is illegally here. If ‘bad at English’ was an indicator then about 50% of those 18 and under are suspect in Phoenix. After all we are like 48th in education and the Spanish speaking got to be such a problem that our government had to pass legislation that said that English was the language of the classroom (exceptions of course).

*Spanish is my first language and I am a natural citizen, it is also the first language of most of my family in Arizona and New Mexico and they are all natural citizens. Though I can no longer speak it fluently, though that is more likely to the fact that I learned Spanish from people that came from Spain and not Mexicans and South Americans. That is I learned Proper Spanish.[/quote]

Sorry for the small hijack BUT

Proper spanish? Is that a joke? Comparing spanish from Spain and Latin American spanish is like comparing british english to american english the differences are minor.

“Proper Spanish” as you put it, is taught in all schools, people choosing to speak slang is another issue, the same can be said about the United States.

When people are learning spanish they are often told to listen to television (news) from countries like Mexico and Colombia because they are the clearest in regard to pronunciation and accent. I am part spanish and have been to Spain and a few times I could not understand a damn thing the people were saying especially the older generations.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
It’s your moral duty to encourage and help people who are braking the law of the land?[/quote]

HOw am I encouraging and helping people break the law of the land? You’re making accusations and you’re not backing them up.

Well, last time I checked I have called into bust 4 houses full of immigrants, and helped another 15-30 illegal immigrants go back to their home.

How is it enabling? I don’t think they are coming into the US so they can eat a crappy bowl of soup, and sleep an old army cot.

Here is some specifics:

150-250 people come through the soup kitchen
We run for an hour.
That is between 2-4 persons a minute through the actual line.
They stay for 5-15 minutes.

To survey all those people is a logistics nightmare, we would need 300 volunteers at each meal

…we have 22 at the moment. We have enough to prepare and serve food and a few others to make sure everything is orderly.[/quote]

You’re a reasonably intelligent guy BC, but I think you’re playing a little dumb on this issue in an effort to defend your enabling, aiding and abetting. A solid case of selective intelligence. Of course you know most of the people that show up are illegals.

What about the US citizens in need who would otherwise be the recipient of your churches charity if you were giving it away to the illegals?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
OK, so here is a not-so-hypothetical question for those of you who are versed in the legal hierarchy of crimes and their punishment…according to severity.

We all know illegal immigrants are thieves (at best).

In an average span of say 10 years…
(1) how much value has the illegal immigrant thief stolen from U.S. citizens?
(2) what would be the corresponding crime and punishment for a U.S. citizen if they stole the same amount?

Just wondering how many years IN JAIL, a U.S. citizen would have to spend if they stole the same value as an illegal immigrant.[/quote]

We spend $14 Billion a year on illegals in California. That includes, education, health care, welfare, lost remittances, and incarceration. Seeing how our deficit is $29 Billion, it is a huge factor.[/quote]

That’s worse than I imagined. California has gotta be the worst case scenario.

I didn’t really hear any solid GOP solutions to the illegal probelm in last nights debate. Of course securing the border is primary…but I won’t say ‘first’ because the solution should not be sequential steps…(1) secure the border, (2) do the next thing. Can’t we walk and chew gum at the same time?

Romney made a good obvious point about ‘turning off the magnet’ in US. We may initially think that the problem is SO BIG, that its not going to get solved at the ‘soup kitchen’ level. But I’m not so sure about that. I mean…soup kitchens are EVERYWHERE. And they attract illegals like flies to fly paper. So in addition to employers (big and small) ‘turning off the magnet’, I believe the wrong kind of charity needs to be turned off as well (sorry BC).

The BIG KAHUNA problem is what to do with the 10-Million (!?!) illegals who are here and established once the ‘magnet is FULLY turned off’? Not going to soup kitchens. I’m not sure what the US policy is on that, but I do know Cesar Milan supposedly paid hefty fines when he ‘came out’. I wonder how much they were?

I say fine the crap out of them until their debt is paid off. Should an illegal get the Chapter 11 protection of a US citizen? (I really dislike thieving).

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
Sorry for the small hijack BUT

Proper spanish? Is that a joke? Comparing spanish from Spain and Latin American spanish is like comparing british english to american english the differences are minor.

“Proper Spanish” as you put it, is taught in all schools, people choosing to speak slang is another issue, the same can be said about the United States.

When people are learning spanish they are often told to listen to television (news) from countries like Mexico and Colombia because they are the clearest in regard to pronunciation and accent. I am part spanish and have been to Spain and a few times I could not understand a damn thing the people were saying especially the older generations.
[/quote]

Obviously you learned el sucio español.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Thanks for the info.

Couple of things:

  1. I was assuming that anyone desperate enough to immigrate illegally would speak NO English for the most part. Is that not true? My point being, anybody who’s in the country legally, but so poor as to need your help is going to have SOME English skills. “Bad English” is one thing, but “No English” should be a pretty good tip-off that some further checking is warranted.

  2. I respect your work. It’s clear that your heart is in the right place. [/quote]

Possibly, but I have not ran into someone who couldn’t (well except for the Arabs) speak English a little bit. Most of those who we sent back understood us.

I guess it is a trick that some immigrants play. The no ingles card. They understand English, but not super well so they just say no ingles in hopes you’ll speak Spanish to them.

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You’re a reasonably intelligent guy BC, but I think you’re playing a little dumb on this issue in an effort to defend your enabling, aiding and abetting. A solid case of selective intelligence. Of course you know most of the people that show up are illegals.[/quote]

That is amazing that you know who most of the people that show up are.

I mean we could take what I have seen, which means that most of the people are young adults, veterans, and drunks – usually men – majority black and white. The next is young families, usually only one parent, usually woman and children. Mostly black, but a large portion are white.

But, I’m sure all of them came from Europe and Africa illegally, too.

In Russia, Waldo finds you.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You’re a reasonably intelligent guy BC, but I think you’re playing a little dumb on this issue in an effort to defend your enabling, aiding and abetting. A solid case of selective intelligence. Of course you know most of the people that show up are illegals.[/quote]

That is amazing that you know who most of the people that show up are.

I mean we could take what I have seen, which means that most of the people are young adults, veterans, and drunks – usually men – majority black and white. The next is young families, usually only one parent, usually woman and children. Mostly black, but a large portion are white.

[/quote]

Let me phrase it better: Of course you know, with high probabilty, who the illegals are that show up. You’ve just demonstrated your filters.

I am one of the biggest immigration enforcement folks on this board, but I must respect the work that you do helping the needy. Well done.

I just wish that those same people did not abuse your generosity and the laws of our nation.

ok so it isn’t the Churches responsibility to to verify, I understand that. What I don’t get is why enforcement officials wouldn’t do their jobs.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
Sorry for the small hijack BUT

Proper spanish? Is that a joke? Comparing spanish from Spain and Latin American spanish is like comparing british english to american english the differences are minor.

“Proper Spanish” as you put it, is taught in all schools, people choosing to speak slang is another issue, the same can be said about the United States.

When people are learning spanish they are often told to listen to television (news) from countries like Mexico and Colombia because they are the clearest in regard to pronunciation and accent. I am part spanish and have been to Spain and a few times I could not understand a damn thing the people were saying especially the older generations.
[/quote]

Obviously you learned el sucio espa�±ol. [/quote]

“El espanol sucio” if you are going to be an ass at least get it right. Is that the proper spanish you learned?

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
You’re a reasonably intelligent guy BC, but I think you’re playing a little dumb on this issue in an effort to defend your enabling, aiding and abetting. A solid case of selective intelligence. Of course you know most of the people that show up are illegals.[/quote]

That is amazing that you know who most of the people that show up are.

I mean we could take what I have seen, which means that most of the people are young adults, veterans, and drunks – usually men – majority black and white. The next is young families, usually only one parent, usually woman and children. Mostly black, but a large portion are white.

[/quote]

Let me phrase it better: Of course you know, with high probabilty, who the illegals are that show up. You’ve just demonstrated your filters.[/quote]

Yes, we have filters. But until they go through the filters or they volunteer the information, we have no way of knowing. They can just as easily say that they are here legally, born here, or whatever.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ok so it isn’t the Churches responsibility to to verify, I understand that. What I don’t get is why enforcement officials wouldn’t do their jobs.[/quote]

Who? You mean Sheriff Joe Arpaio? He does, but they can’t always come at our beck and call. Most of their resources are busting the houses and work places and keeping them from actually entering.

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
Obviously you learned el sucio espa�?�±ol. [/quote]

“El espanol sucio” if you are going to be an ass at least get it right. Is that the proper spanish you learned?

[/quote]

Lol. My grandmother, a little Spanish woman, told me I spoke proper Spanish…you know the kind they speak in Spain. I was giving you a hard time, brother.

Further, speaking and writing are two different things. And, I assume you missed the part where I am not fluent?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ok so it isn’t the Churches responsibility to to verify, I understand that. What I don’t get is why enforcement officials wouldn’t do their jobs.[/quote]

Who? You mean Sheriff Joe Arpaio? He does, but they can’t always come at our beck and call. Most of their resources are busting the houses and work places and keeping them from actually entering.[/quote]

NO I mean the actual federal agents whose job it is. You know the ones the administration just told not to deport illegals.

It was kind a rhetorical question, I know why they don’t, because the federal government tells them not to.

If the federal government did their job, this law would not be necessary.