In an interview on the Glenn Beck Program yesterday, Ace former prosecutor said that illegal immigration should not be illegal since we can’t catch them all.
He made no comments on unsolved murders and what that portends for the continued viability of homicide laws.
The nomination losing quote is below.
GIULIANI: Glenn, it’s not a crime. I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.
GLENN: It’s a misdemeanor but if you’ve been nailed, it is a crime. If you’ve been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.
GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.
GLENN: Is it –
GIULIANI: One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it a crime, which indicates that it isn’t.
GLENN: Should it be?
GIULIANI: Should it be? No, it shouldn’t be because the government wouldn’t be able to prosecute it. We couldn’t prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million. If you were to make it a crime, you would have to take the resources of the criminal justice system and increase it by about 6. In other words, you’d have to take all the 800,000 police, and who knows how many police we would have to have.
A slow curve served up just as Fred comes to bat. Knock it out of the park guy…before Mitt beats you to it.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/
September 8th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Time for a new Romney TV spot. That quote will sink Rudy very fast.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:10 am
I think you are right Nate. This blows the whole argument that Rudy at the state and local level is any different that Rudy at the federal level on his issue.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:12 am
I encourage everyone to read the original article to see for yourself just how wrong Gamecock is (once again). He selectively quoted part of an interview to make it sound as though Giuliani wants to legalize illegal immigration. Pretty pathetic attempt, in my opinion. Giuliani says, correctly, that illegal immigrants haven’t broken federal CRIMINAL laws. He adds that making it a federal crime takes the feds off other important cases to go after 12 million people, something Rudy thinks is the wrong way to solve this crisis. Rudy then goes on to describe all the ways he thinks the illegal immigration problem can be tackled (which Gamecock conveniently left out) in more logical and effective ways.
Now, one can disagree with his opinion. But at least get it right first before you attack it.
Trust me, read the article.
I should be surprised at Gamecock for this kind of attack but I’m not – this isn’t the first time he’s done this. I have no problem with political supporters hyping one candidate and pointing out deficiencies of others. But get the facts – ALL THE FACTS – before trying to smear the guy you don’t like. Leave that unprofessional campaigning to the Dems.
And I say all this as a Romney guy.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:35 am
I heard this on the radio when I was getting ready for a class this morning. Giuliani seems to have a nasty habit of steering into his own weaknesses like he did when confronted with the abortion issue in the first debate. I think he’s going to find that simply saying that he’ll close the border isn’t going to be enough. Open border people have been saying that for years and it’s just not going to be enough without strict employer enforcement.
Of course, Giuliani came out for amnesty weeks ago but hardly anyone seemed to notice.
September 8th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Um, NONE of the serious GOP candidates thing we should be rounding up 12 million illegals. Rudy’s position is the same as Fred’s and Mitt’s. (Although Mitt pretends he is farther to the right, he isn’t when you force the issue.)
September 8th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Metro, tell that to McCain who lost the nomination on this same issue. People will see this combined with his “we want you if you are illegal” speech as a total sellout. Amnesty on steroids.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I had to look it up because it strangely wasn’t covered in my immigration class, and I was left with the impression it was simply a civil penalty as well (i.e., classed like a parking violation), but Rudy’s definitely wrong. The first illegal entry is a misdemeanor, the second a felony, and the statute makes explicit reference to Title 18, which is Crimes and Criminal Procedure. He is correct, however, that deportation proceedings are technically civil.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:07 am
this could end up being very devestating. time will tell. it was certainly a blunder by Rudy.
however I think fears of Amnesty are overstated. If Bush couldn’t get amnesty through the congress, what makes you think Rudy will? You think the opposition is going to lessen?
Given the current climate, what does anyone honestly think the chances of Rudy or any other GOP President or dem President for that matter getting anything close to the recent bill passed? 10%? less? it’s not going to happen so it’s kind of useless to worry about it
The fact is that for the foreseeable future no bill anywhere near the recent one is going to pass so this is just largely rhetoric.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:10 am
The remainder of the discussion between Glenn Beck and Rudy Giuliani on illegal immigration…
GLENN: So what’s your solution?
GIULIANI: My solution is close the border to illegal immigration.
GLENN: How do you do that?
GIULIANI: You do that by building a fence, a physical fence and a technological fence, and the technological fence is more important than the physical fence. The technological fence would alert you to illegals approaching the border well in advance so the border patrol can get there and stop them. You deploy the border patrol every 50 miles along the border. I’ve already outlined this on a map. I did this in detail about two weeks ago. And then you have the border patrol stop people from coming in, literally stop them from coming in. If you did that for a year or two, you would end it. You also have a tamperproof ID card that every person from a foreign country should have that comes into the United States. The goal has to be, yes, you’re allowed to come to the United States but you have to identify yourself before we let you in, and we have to be sure you’re a safe person. And then if you come in, you’ll be in the computer base, you’ll be able to work, you will have to pay your fair share, you’ll have to pay taxes but we have to end it right at the border by having the resources to stop people from just walking into this country and not identifying themselves. Only the federal government can do this. If the federal government doesn’t do this, there is no way that the local governments in this country can handle it other than in a practical way. If you make people that are just going to be here for the next 20 years, if you put them in a situation of danger and risk, you’re going to have more crime in your communities.
GLENN: There are two things that jump to mind here, and I don’t — I mean this with all respect, I gotta tell you. As I watched you the other night — I mean, I really, truly think that we’re in real trouble in this country —
GIULIANI: We are in trouble.
GLENN: — on so many fronts.
GIULIANI: There was an article in Time magazine, I don’t know if it was a week ago or two weeks ago and it’s highly critical of me. Believe it or not, I’m very proud of it. The article says I am exaggerating the Islamic terrorist threat.
GLENN: No, you’re not.
GIULIANI: And I have to tell you in all honesty and good conscience, I’m understating it because I don’t know how to exaggerate it. It is a real threat. I wish it wasn’t. All you have to do is look at what’s going on in Germany right this minute with those people that were, you know, planning to attack American soldiers. All you have to do is look at what happened in New Jersey a few months ago with the people who were planning to attack Fort Dix or in Queens with the people that were going to attack Kennedy airport. This is going on all the time and we have to be on offense against it —
GLENN: Hang on.
GIULIANI: America has never —
GLENN: I don’t think there’s a soul — honestly I don’t think there’s a soul in the audience that doesn’t think you are going to be extraordinarily tough. I admire you for what you did with Yasser Arafat in the 1990s, I admire you for what you did during 9/11 with the Saudi prince and after. However, what you just said about immigration, you missed — there is no ramification that you just mentioned for the companies and that’s the supply — or that’s the desire side. And the other thing is, and I hear this all the time and it drives me crazy. These tamperproof ID cards. Have you noticed how many times we’ve changed our money in the last five years? There’s no such thing as tamperproof ID.
GIULIANI: Well, first of all, I didn’t mean to leave out the companies. Anyone who is engaged in illegal activity should be penalized. The more you have a system that has one single ID card and you have a tamperproof ID card, the penalties can be enforced. The problem with it is not that the penalties don’t exist. They are very hard to enforce. Now, you are absolutely correct, Glenn. There is no such thing as a 100% tamperproof ID card, but where you’re wrong is there are considerably better cards and identification systems than we presently have.
First of all, if you made it just one identification card, that would help instead of six or seven. Number two, if you just introduced some biometric data on it like a fingerprint, you’d probably get it to — I don’t want to do this statistically but you’d get it to 98%, 99%. That’s a heck of a lot better than where we are now. We have an ancient system of identification for immigrants who come to this country. Credit card companies do a better job of collecting data and removing fraud than the United States government.
GLENN: But what a surprise. It’s the capitalist system.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Good morning gang,
I don’t think I understand the Mayor’s logic here. Even if it is a civil proceeding, which I’m not sure about, you still have to have a law that has been violated in order to proceed. Sneaking into the country may not be the same as murder, but it is still a crime, which I think Glenn correctly points out.
My man Metro has a point, that rounding up every “uninvited guest” is probably not a realistic option, but you have to know that this statement will be pursued vigorously by Romney and the other candidates. Perception is reality, and this plays perfectly into the allegation that Giuliani supports sanctuaries and is unwilling to enforce immigration laws. I don’t know if he has “lost the nomination,” but this will probably be something he’ll wish he hadn’t said.
Finally, it strikes me that he is implying that some illegal acts shouldn’t be prosecuted if enough people are doing it. As if a wrong action becomes acceptable or permissible if enough people start doing it. To me, that is a big character flaw. (We all have them, but not all of us are running for president).
September 8th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Hey PnGrata, I didn’t see your post. Thanks for looking up the criminal/civil text. Your professor would be proud!
September 8th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Rudy is DONE. Count it. What doomed John McCain? Exactly.
Put a fork in him. Not only did he say it wasn’t a crime, but he said that it SHOULDN’T be a crime in the future.
DONE.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:08 am
#8 is important.
But will the witch hunters round up and burn another heretic who doesn’t spout the exact rhetoric that they want?
Rudy’s best hope here to get fiery and angry at Romney if Romney tries to misrepresent him. I can imagine Rudy now, using some of his trademark temper: “You’re lying to the American people to try to win this nomination. You’re giving them false hope, that you can really solve this problem in this utopian manner by spouting the rhetoric that they want, but in real life, complex problems require more complex solutions than just getting your constituents to cheer.” Yeah, that’d be good.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:56 am
#11 Kevin
That was exactly my point in writing this column. Thank you fer getting it.
I agree with Kavon and others that Rudy’s plan is good on paper, but when he parses civil v criminal, as well as virtual v real fence and then says it shouldn’t be illegal anyway, how can one have confidence he would “virtually” enforce much less actually enforce any of his plan.
September 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Uh, let’s see, Gamecock, because he’s about solutions and not whatever rhetoric happens to please you at the moment?
September 8th, 2007 at 11:43 am
TLG, could you be more specific?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
@Gamecock
I think I could answer that…
Giuliani has given the most detailed plan on solving the illegal alien crisis of any of the candidates so far. His plan consists of :
-Expanding the border patrol and effectively managing the men we have w/ a borderstat program. (See compstat.)
-Building the fence that has already been approved.
-Working with credit card companies to enforce the REAL ID act and intimidate companies with illegal-hiring practices by prosecuting the biggest offenders. (See how he went after dishonest stock-brokers in the 80’s)
Most of all, Giuliani has said that no more legislation is needed, including a “path to citizenship,” in order to enforce exsisting laws. THis effectively separates him from Mccain and I’m sure Giuliani will be able to communicate that.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Btw/ sorry for the long post…
I live 35 miles from the AZ-Mexico border and I’m tired of my family not feeling safe in my own backyard. So, I’m passionate on this issue. I’m open to anybody who thinks that they can end the chaos, but I just happen to think that Giuliani has been the most candid and detailed so far.
Until Romney or anyone else can explain their plan other than generalizations like, “seal the border” and “go after employers,” without saying HOW he’ll do it… I won’t believe it.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I like Rudy’s plan and have not ruled him out for my vote in the primaries.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
TLG #8: Yeah, I agree. It’s time for Rudy to get mad, show us some of that fiery zeal he used to show in the NYC town halls. I think his temper can actually be utilized as a plus. We need somebody who’s gonna nip it in the bud.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
“# Gamecock Says:
September 8th, 2007 at 11:43 am
TLG, could you be more specific?”
Specific about what? He simply stated a fact here, and if you’re going to make some idiotic proclamation such as that Rudy made a “nomination-losing quote,” then what you’re really saying is that Republicans are too f#$(ing stupid to believe legal facts and know the difference between illegal entry and illegal presence. Rudy has come out with a good plan: close the border and require ID. He’s being realistic — we can’t round up 12 million people. We just don’t have the resources. He’s also stating the FACT that illegal presence is not a crime.
If you think he lost the nomination over that — and that the party base can’t accept the truth — then any hope for our party intellectually in the near future is dead.
September 8th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Does anybody have the audio from this interview?
September 8th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
You know … Rudy is making Fred’s case for him … I mean, what the(?)
September 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Rudy said it shouldn’t be a crime, TLG. That’s the problem.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Gamecock…why on Earth should we make a law we can’t enforce?
Or should we throw that professor who overstayed his visa in jail?
Each case is different. You can’t just make some sweeping generalization about all people who have an illegal presence here.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:01 am
We can enforce it and sentences can fit the individual case.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Isn’t that what we’d do NOW under the CURRENT LAW?
If it were to be a CRIME, they’d need to be thrown in jail or made to pay some sort of penalty — even if it’s just a simple mistake.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Well, all of them, jail, awaiting deportation. We don’t have ROOM in our jails.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:32 am
We don’t have room in our jails for all the un-arrested drug users, drug peddlers, tax cheats, child support stiffs, DUI and DUS violaters, etc ad infinitum either.
Starting to get the point? Rudy is being disingenuous.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:49 am
No, I don’t get the point.
I’m against drug laws and mandatory taxation.
Child support stiffs — fantastic! Throwing them in jail will get the mothers the child support!
We need to reserve room in our jails for PEOPLE WHO ARE HARMING OTHER PEOPLE.
A professor who overstays his visa isn’t harming anyone. He should still be deported, but he’s not quite up there at the same level as a child molestor, to me.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:58 am
PATHETIC…it was a quote taken out of context… unfortunately, really, truly intelligent people who understand that don’t post on this blog.