And by “you guys” I mean the 20+ spam commentors we had last evening, Gov. Mitt Romney, and my dear friend (and one of the people on Planet Earth I admire the most) Mike Devine-aka Gamecock.
Will everyone please take a deep breath and please listen to me for one moment.
Let’s review what Hizzoner said on Glenn Beck yesterday.
GIULIANI: Glenn, it’s not a crime. I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.
Is Rudy correct on this? As shocking as it may seem to some (and as much as they do not want to hear it)-yes he is.
And how would he know?
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.
One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it a crime, which indicates that it isn’t.
Once again, Hizzoner makes a statement of fact, tells us all like it is, and his statements are twisted by his opponents and the supporters of other candidates.
Did Rudy once say that illegal immigrants have done nothing wrong? Did he say that we should do nothing about the problem? Did he propose that we encourage more people to cross the border illegally. Absolutely not.
Hizzoner was making a very specific legal argument here. That if the government passed a law at this point that would target (the minimum) 12 million people who are in this country illegally, it would be expected to enforce it! That would mean the mass deportation of 12 million people, which is six-times the total number of people in prison in the entire United States! This is necessarily true because said law would target the immigrants, not the employers who hired them.
Now if you are one of the people who believes that the political will exists to round up 12 million people into camps for mass deportations, there is nothing more for us to debate here.
But if you are a person who is looking for a real solution to our nation’s immigration crisis, then take a look at what Hizzoner has proposed to solve the problem: seal the borders (thereby ending illegal immigration), identify every single person in this country illegally, deport the criminals (drug dealers, gang-bangers, and security risks), make those who remain learn English and assimilate, and then begin the debate as to what should be done with the remaining people.
Believe me, I know that this is an emotional issue for many of us, and it is a matter of tremendous importance in my household. But please, step back, take a deep breath, and look at the context and totality of Rudy’s statements here.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
In the other thread I mentioned this. It most certainly is a crime. I’ll quote the statute:
18 USC § 1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Title 18 is Crimes and Criminal Procedure. 18 USC § 3559 would define the first entry as a Class B misdemeanor. The second entry is a Class E felony.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Giuliani said, if “you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city.”
Well I happen to be a voter and he’s not one of the people I want in the White House. So we have a disagreement. He can go look for a vote elsewhere.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Secondly, when he mentions the proposal to make it a crime, it was a proposal to make the first entry a felony.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:27 am
I just hope we don’t make speeding on federal highways against the law, because if we did 75% of Americans would be suspended from driving due to multiple offenses within a week because we would have to take all the police and….
But it is illegal and yet, most Americans, despite the fact that they regularly speed, still have driver’s licenses.
Go figure
We expect the federal government to enforce the CURRENT immigration law would have 20 million in prison for 6 months or more, but they don’t.
Aggressive enforcement would cause much self deportation. The mass deportation argument for the defeated immigration bill failed to convince anyone because it’s simply disingenuous. The illegals weren’t bused into the country en masse and they can leave over time the same way they came in.
But, if we had a true fence, I would be amenable to regularization, so long as it’s short of citizenship.
But his emphasis on “virtual” also bothers me. That would lead to more violent confrontations at the border, not less.
Build the fence. A real one. To deter and so we don’t have to have shooting matches.
Rudy comes across as disingenuous on this issue. The problem quote is this:
“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.”
RUDY, WE WOULDN’T
HAVE TO
TAKE ALL THE 800,000 POLICE
AND DO ANY SUCH THING.
That just insults my intelligence.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Kavon: I would advise against using the rhetoric of “round[ing] up 12 million people into camps.” Supporters of deportation generally just want the illegal aliens to get out of the country, without having the government hold them in “camps” first.
PnGrata: That’s 8 USC § 1325, not 18 USC § 1325, but otherwise you appear to be correct.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Whoops, true. Sorry bout that. I was using Cornell and had to type in the title myself, and had both 8 and 18 open and mixed them up. Thanks for the catch.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Gamecock. . .are you advocating that the feds should overstep their legal authority and somehow arrest 12 million people? Do you really think the overcrowded prison system could handle 12 million more people? I think you’re missing the obvious point Rudy is making here. He’s the only one who has come out and said that we have a serious problem that needs a serious, realistic solution.
And your comparison to speeding is ridiculous. Speeding isn’t a federal crime either, which is why the feds don’t go after speeders either, even on federal highways. Or should they do that too?
I thought you were some kind of lawyer. Shouldn’t you know this stuff?
September 8th, 2007 at 1:44 am
The overcrowded prison system couldn’t handle the arrest of all citizens that are guilty of all kinds of crimes that the feds don’t sick their entire forces on.
It couldn’t handle the enforcement of the existing illegal immigration law.
so?
Rudy may have a serious proposal, but his disingenuous argument on this “civil v criminal issue and his emphasis on “virtual” fences shows that he seems not to be very serious even if his proposal is.
And yes, as fellow lawyer with Rudy, I know when one of my kind is spewing BS. Just as he has on Roe and judges.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:47 am
My issue with the immigration problem is the same one I have with the health care problem: They are both GIGANTIC crises and too many people want some easy answer that will solve everything by the end of the year. Sorry guys, but there is no easy solution. So instead of attacking anything that may help alleviate the problem, let’s maybe consider that some solutions, or a combination of several (there are good ideas from both the Rudy and McCain plans), and at least attempt to tackle the problem. We’ve been debating this for decades and we’ve accomplished nothing, except a that we have a huge increase in illegal immigrants.
Rudy explained several plans to combat illegal immigration (don’t rely on Gamecock for those solutions. . .read the article and hear it from Rudy himself). I haven’t heard anyone else (well, with the exception of McCain) take the political risk of explaining a plan of action (and I’m a Romney guy disappointed that he hasn’t said much). Study his plan before attacking it.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:02 am
It looks to me like the distinction is between entering the country illegally and being in the country illegally. It’s the difference between robbing a bank and being in possession of stolen goods. Both of those ARE crimes, but they’re different crimes. In the case of immigration, apparently, one is a crime, and the other isn’t. Such distinctions really aren’t so unusual.
Just a guess.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:04 am
the idea that most would self deport is a fallacy. there’s no evidence to back it up and we’d still have millions here.
technically Rudy is right. from the CRS:
Although unlawful entry into the United States is both
a criminal offense and a ground for removal, unlawful presence is only a ground for
deportation and is NOT SUBJECT to criminal penalty, except when an alien is present in the
United States after having been removed. This report briefly discusses some of the
issues raised by criminalizing unlawful presence.
It’s pretty clear Rudy was talking about unlawful presence vs unlawful entry. The CRS agrees with him that simply being an illegal immigrant in NYC does not make one de jure a criminal. Hence the bills to criminalize it. If it were a crime, there’d be no need to criminalize it
more:
The removal of aliens,
however severe its consequences, has been “consistently classified as a civil rather than
a criminal procedure†by the courts.1
an alien found unlawfully present in the U.S. is
typically subject only to removal. Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an
alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing
the U.S. while a removal order was outstanding.3
Rights in a Criminal Prosecution Versus a Removal Hearing. Removal
hearings are not criminal proceedings. Whereas criminal cases are conducted through
judicial trial, removal cases are usually conducted through administrative proceedings
before the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of
Justice. Though orders of removal may be reviewed by a federal court, statute and court
jurisprudence generally provide that such review is limited in scope and largely
deferential to the administrative authorities charged with implementing immigration
laws.8
The constitutional rights accorded to an alien in a removal hearing are generally less
than those to which the accused is entitled in a criminal proceeding. Among other things,
in a criminal case the accused often has a right to both a trial by jury and appointed
counsel, while an alien in a removal hearing does not (though an alien does possess the
right to obtain counsel at no expense of the Government).9
Further, if unlawful
presence is made subject to more than six months’ imprisonment, as is proposed by
House-passed H.R. 4437, it would constitute a “serious crime†for which the accused
would have a right to a jury trial.14 In contrast, if unlawful presence is made subject to a
maximum of six months’ or less imprisonment, as proposed in S. 2454, the accused
would probably not have a right to a jury.15
and the CRS report goes on.
In sum, on the law Rudy is correct. Glenn and Rudy were sort of talking past each other. When Glenn said “isn’t it a crime” I think he was referring to the actual crossing of the border. Rudy is clearly talking about the 400K that were in NYC and presumably had been there for some time in many cases.
Rudy is clearly referring to the unlawful presence aspect of things as opposed to the unlawful entry of things.
He is consistent that the federal govt must enforce the unlawful entry aspect of things and he says he will.
But the fact is that under current US law, merely being an illegal immigrant present in NYC or anywhere else in the US in not a crime(except in the small % of cases where the person was formally removed or ordered to be removed).
PnGrata above confuses improper entry with improper presence(ie there is no such statute, except in the small % mentioned above) The vast majority of the 400K in NY weren’t fromally removed or had orders outstanding. they simply slipped through.
one can debate his thoughts on if it should be, but he has good points there as well, as the CRS report makes clear.
If you thought the war on terror was overlawyered and there were too many legal issues and hurdles and the like as many conservatives do, just what do you think will happen with the lawyers and groups like the ACLU and MALDEF with criminalizing unlawful presence and enforcing it in any real way.
Basically, Rudy was right on the law. But I agree politically it was a pretty dumb move.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Another fact that needs to be considered in enforcement levels is the matter of proof. How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone entered the country illegally without a confession? No Social Security Card? He lost it. No number? His parents were poor and uneducated and never acquired one for him. No birth certificate? Ditto- he was born in a dirt shack in New Mexico, not a doctor’s office. Did anyone see him cross? No. Did he tell anyone where he crossed? Not that the Feds can find. Have the Feds matched his boot to a print right on the border? No. There’s not enough evidence to prove it to that degree in many cases.
So much easier to just deport them, which is a civil penalty, but a big one, and thus just needs clear and convincing evidence. That’s why you don’t see a million criminal immigration proceedings a month.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:08 am
I think I’m kind of saying the same thing as Jim. The reason there’s a separate unlawful presence versus unlawful entry, is that unlawful presence is again much easier to prove all the facts (especially under a civil standard) than the criminal standard for entry.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:11 am
The criminal vs. civil act is such a minor point of what Rudy said. He was specifically asked if it was a crime. Rudy did not give an opinion as to the legal definition, he gave a statement of fact based on his experience as a US Attorney. The rest of the interview – the vastly more important part of the interview – is being ignored here, and that’s just plain irresponsible of anyone who cares about the issue and where Rudy and others stand.
This really gets me angry, which I didn’t need on an otherwise relaxing Friday night (still Friday night here in Anchorage). I come to this site to gather info on the various candidates, and to hear the opinions of supporters and detractors of them as well. But when obvious hit pieces come out, taking selective pieces of interviews and tossing the rest, and then using those selective pieces to falsely smear a candidate – any candidate – well it ticks me off and makes me wonder what the point is in coming here in the first place.
We have many months to go before we have a nominee. Can we all please try to conduct educated, rational discussion instead of going out of the way to attack the ones we don’t like? Can we discuss all the facts instead of nailing a candidate with a small, non-representative piece of what they said? Is that too much to ask?
September 8th, 2007 at 2:37 am
and on Mitt’s attack on sanctuary cities in general, he should get himself a calculator and a map.
There’s 12M+ illegals here. Of the 400K in NYC how many came during Rudy’s time and weren’t there during Dinkins and Koch? How much is Reagan, Bush and Clinton responsible for not doing anything about it and deporting at most 1-2K a year? What does NYC have to do with th 97%+ of illegals that aren’t there?
Also, look at a map. Last time I checked the East River doesn’t overflow into Mexico and the Verrazano and GW Bridges don’t cross the Rio Grande. Policies in NYC had nothing to do with the millions who crossed the border and managed to go thousands of miles undetected by the feds and countless state and local authorties to get to NYC.
The whole thing is silly. Even proponents of the attrition strategy concede it will take more than a decade to reduce the numbers to an acceptable level and that assumes no intervening legislation or a change in Congress or the WH that would affect things. For example, even if Bush had gone with attrition this year. What would happen say in 2009 or 2010 when a Pres Clinton and a dem Congress repealed the attrtition and put in a more liberal policy? We’d have to start over. It would take years to even make a dent.
There are currently 10K BP, and anywhere from 3-5M illegal crossings a year.
We need at least 20K BP and mining and other military measures. Even if you reduced the number of new illegals by 50% which strong border security, a tremendous achievement you;d still have 1.5-3M a year to replace whoever would leave by enforcement and attrition.
The enforcement/attrition approach just won’t work and really isn’t a feasible and practical soloution.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:46 am
In Mitt’s defense, every time I’ve heard him mention it he’s always been quite careful to say Rudy’s NYC sanctuary policy was just one example of a flawed approach, not that Rudy alone caused the entire problem. NYC along with a host of cities across the country effectively inviting illegal immigrants in creates magnets – that we don’t have the resources to halt movement along the border entirely (even with a full length fence) but that reducing the attractiveness of illegally immigrating (by increasing the probability of getting caught well after crossing) would be necessary as well.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:46 am
alaska jake, I’m not quite sure who’s side your on but he gave the right legal answer. Being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. Crossing the border illegaly is a crime, but once you’re here, if you weren’t caught, you’re pretty much in the clear.
It is a bit of legal jargon and technical issues but that’s what law often comes down to and conservatives have no problem defending it when it suits their purposes as in SC cases like ledbetter and other cases that hinge on technicalities. conservatives say they want judges to apply the law, not make it. well, the law is that being present somewhere as an illegal immigrant is not a crime.
Rudy was clearly talking about unlawful presence and Glenn seemed to confuse presence vs entry and treat them as the same thing which they aren’t.
maybe they should be and that’s up for debate. Rudy says no. Many conservatives say yes. The CRS report dealt with efforts by Congress to make it so, which obviously wouldn’t have happened if it already was so.
Realistically, given the makeup of the Congress, any such chance for it to happen during Rudy’s term is zero so this whole debate is somewhat beyond the point.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:47 am
I personally get the impression that Mr. Giuliani doesn’t really give a flyin’ one what illegals do, nor whether they’re here or not. I also get the impression he doesn’t care about the abortion issue, traditional marriage, and fiscal matters. That much anyways. I do think he cares about the war effort. Bless his heart, he’s just a 1 issue guy. Kinda like the president we have now.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Mitt has specifically gone after NYC and San Francisco as if their policies alone are responsible for the vast majority of it instead of the minute % they actually are.
NYC’s policies have no effect on 97/98% of illegals.
To act like guys are crossing the Rio Grande and running in from Juarez, Tiajuana and wherever else because of it is silly.
The real problem is at the border, not 1500-3000 miles away where people have been for years.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:51 am
I agree iwth Liz that he doesn’t care about abortion or immigration all that much. I think he does care about fiscal matters and taxes and the economy, and of course nat’l security, terrorism and foreign policy. I also think he cares about school choice and tough judges to a degree. He should focus on the latter as much as possible instead of constantly defending himself and responding to attacks. He need to be on offense, to create news and push issues, not defend his record if he wants to win.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:54 am
That’s a lot of parsing from someone who is making the claim that he’s going to end illegal immigration.
Then again, he is in favor of amnesty.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Jim
I’m with Rudy on this. Legal definitions aside (your comment that the legal jargon debate is beyond the point is really what I was trying to say above), Rudy is actually proposing rational ways to combat both the problem of illegals already here as well as ways to stop the problem in the future. He’s also one of a very small group of politicians willing to say that this is not a problem to be solved with one-size-fits-all solutions, and won’t be solved in a few months or years. Unfortunately, too many voters want a plan that wipes out all 12 million illegals and stops new ones, and they want it all by next week. Ain’t gonna happen. Meanwhile, no one has come up with any alternate plans. McCain was attacked from all sides when he came out with his plan a few months ago and the plan withered and died in Congress. Where’s the alternative? All I keep hearing about is a fence. Anyone who thinks a fence is the be-all end-all to the illegal crisis is just fooling themselves. We need a comprehensive plan that deals with illegal immigration from many different angles. So far, Rudy is the only one who has one.
My point here is this: had we as a nation spent the last couple decades trying out some of these plans instead of wasting many years and millions of dollars fighting each other, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess that we’re in now. I commend Rudy for thinking rationally and long term to solve a problem that has grown way out of hand. Rather than attacking him in a feable attempt at scoring political points and quick soundbites, others should either work with him or come up with their own plan.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:27 am
The solution to the problem of 12M illegals is simply to admit the obvious.
We have, for a very long time now, had immigration quotas written into law that have been totally out of whack with the needs of our economy for low-skilled workers.
We should regulate immigration in such a manner that our economy can remain healthy and growing. We have failed to do that.
The illegals have solved this problem, for our economy, by coming anyway. Were it not for that fact, our economy would be in terrible shape.
When I see so many in the GOP playing with the notion of expelling the 12M, or even just passively hoping and encouraging them to go, I see a group of people who have, for some strange and rather unsavory reason, lost all perspective on this situation. If any appreciable percentage of the 12M were to leave it would throw our economy into a recession, or worse. And yet all these Republicans who usually spout proudly about their knowledge and concern for the health of our economy, just ignore this fact.
Very bizzare.
The 12M should be regulated, and be put on a path to citizenship. Let ‘em earn it, but you cant kick them out without destroying our economy, and you can’t let them stay as permanent second class (non)citizens.
Secure the border if you wish – but you better also fix the immigration laws while you are at it, so that we can have a legal stream of workers sufficient to meet the needs of the economy. Otherwise there will either be continued illegal immigration, or if by some chance the border becomes really secure, you choke off future economic growth.
Somehow I get the feeling that Republicans are pretty much immune from a rational approach to this issue, and that the dynamic of the campaign will only make it worse, as all manner of emotional appeals are made – driving the party consensus ever more into lala land.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:35 am
#22
Giuliani’s plan pretty much is the fence. The only other thing he ever mentions is the ID card.
Anyone who is serious about illegal immigration mentions employer enforcement.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:38 am
I’ve heard this argument that kicking out the illegals would ruin our economy. I’m not sure I totally agree. I’m no economist so I can’t quote actual numbers. But I would think the cost to our economy from sending illegals back home can be at least partly balanced by the money freed up from not having to pay the medical, education, and other social requirements that we as a country of legal taxpayers are covering now. This doesn’t include the non-tangible costs to the country from 12 million extra people (pollution, crime, effects on infrastructure like roads and highways, etc). These are numbers I’d be interested in seeing.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:55 am
#24. . .not true. He’s saying to seal the borders, utilize better technology (more important and effective, he says, than a fence), and ID the illegals already here as just the beginning of his plan. He also says to get rid of the criminals immediately. But he’s also smart enough to understand that of the remaining millions of illegals still here, something needs to be done, and immediate mass deportation isn’t a feasible answer. You’re correct to say that employer enforcement is crucial. If you read the entire interview, you’ll see that Rudy agrees with that too. He also calls for simplifying the ID card process, in a way that makes it easier for businesses to recognize who is legal and who isn’t. (He correctly states that credit card companies do a better job of collecting data and eliminating fraud than the federal government.) Finally, he understands that while you can’t deport all 12 million at once, you also can’t ignore them, and he explains in the interview how that played out in NYC while he was mayor.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:05 am
The something that needs to be done, according to Giuliani, is to give illegals citizenship.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:07 am
OK Thomas Alan. I can see you’re more interested in spitting out one-liners instead of being serious. I can take a hint.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:17 am
I’m not spitting out one-liners. Giuliani’s an amnesty backer:
It’s basically the same line we’ve been getting from President Bush and Sen. McCain. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s the fact. Giuliani wants to make the breaking of our laws and national sovereignty the first step on the path to citizenship.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:29 am
So his plan is simply to grant full amnesty. I thought you said his plan was to build a fence. Which is it?
See, you did exactly what Gamecock did: Take one paragraph from an entire article and present that as the entire plan. That’s no way to have an intelligent political discussion.
And next time you quote an article, you may want to read the entire article first. Amnesty is not part of this plan. The entire article spells out the other parts of the plan, as did the original Glen Beck interview you chose to ignore. Even the quote you selectively chose to highlight proves that: all illegals must identify themselves as illegal, learn English, and GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE. They will not get automatic citizenship, but will have to get in line and reapply. Now, if you were against any immigration, legal or otherwise, I can see how that would still bother you.
Once again, I suggest you read your own quoted article. Just because you say something is “a fact” doesn’t make it so.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:57 am
I’m taking the most important paragraph and treating it as such.
Yeah, Giuliani says you have to learn English, identify yourself, and “get in the back of the line” (while being permitted to live in the country permenently). So what? That’s even more generous than Sen. McCain’s bill.
And anyone who would present such a plan is completely unserious about border enforcement.
September 8th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Actually Giuliani’s stance is pretty much what most of America wants. We don’t (and can’t) deport 12 million illegals. They are already here. So why not let them stay and *earn* citizenship – *with the understanding that we secure the border and stop the influx of illegal immigration as much as possible* ? I think everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that the illegals already here aren’t going anywhere – regardless of whether anyone wants that or not. If we get serious about securing the border and really does stop the mass migration then what is wrong with this approach?
September 8th, 2007 at 6:06 am
oops…
If we get serious about securing the border and THAT really does stop…
September 8th, 2007 at 6:15 am
AJ – #25 – I think you’re on to something about the idea that deporting 12 million would ruin the economy. I’m with you. i don’t think deporting 12 million of some of the most dependent upon the welfare state will hurt the economy one bit.
As an aside, I also think that when people make those kind of statements, most of the rest of us don’t buy it and it undercuts their rationale for allowing the illegals to stay. Instead of wasting resources trying to deport these millions (most of whom haven’t really committed any terrible crimes – and the ones that do we ought to get rid of) why not focus on securing the border, IDing the illegals already here and throwing the book at employers who hire new illegals? I like Giuliani’s stance on this issue. It actually seems like he thought it through and has that he has a plan for fixing the problem, unlike other candidates who are just trying to exploit the issue for political gain, their own credibility on the subject notwithstanding (cough…Mitt).
September 8th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Adam. . .I agree. It just seems like we’ve wasted so many years and so much money fighting each other over how to solve a problem and yet we’ve accomplished nothing. And if we keep trying to offer “solutions” involving evacuating 12 million people, we never will accomplish anything.
Think about this: They want to round up 12 million people (equivalent to the population of Pennsylvania) and ship them all south. This brings up several questions: Where do we put these people? How do we transport them? Who does the rounding up and transporting? What happens to the Mexican economy when they take in an influx of that many people all at once? What happens to the US when Mexican political and economic stability collapses?
See, those who advocate this “fet rid of them all” idea fail to comprehend its consequenses if it’s carried out (which in reality, can’t happen), and never offer a way to actually achieve that goal. Just once I’d like to hear any possible way to expel 12 million people. It’s never been done in the history of the world. (Hitler used death camps and still didn’t reach that number.)
Giuliani at least offers some method of dealing with those who are already here, and also has a plan to deal with those who want to cross over to the US in the future. No one else has offered anything close.
September 8th, 2007 at 6:40 am
#34.. . .Thomas Alan, what’s your solution? How do you propose getting all 12 million out of the country? What’s your candidate’s plan?
You’re good at attacking Rudy but you’ve offered no alternative.
September 8th, 2007 at 6:41 am
(that was meant for #31, not #34)
September 8th, 2007 at 6:59 am
One final thought before I retire for the night, as it’s nearly 4am Alaska time. . .
One thing often forgotten among the debating back and forth is that we are a nation of 50 unique individual states, meaning there may be 50 different ways to combat these problems (immigration, healthcare, education, etc). Illegal immigration affects the entire country, but individually it affects the states in different ways. Border patrol and fences are important tools in fighting illegal immigration in states like Texas and California but it’s useless in NY and Illinois. Similarly, chicken processing plants in Arkansas and lettuce farms in California will feel the effects much differently than industries in other states. We need to have a way to these problems that involve more than just one giant overall solution. And we can start small, in some states, and add new solutions in other states as they are formulated, instead of dismissing every plan that doesn’t solve the entire problem at once.
The same can be said for social security, minimum wage, education, and every other issue we face. We’re one country but that doesn’t mean we all have the same challenges. Doesn’t it make more sense to try several different plans and see what works best?
September 8th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Attrition does work. Arizona just passed a serious employer sanctions law and illegals are already leaving the state. They are here to work more than they are here for “a better life”. If they can’t work they will go home as many of them do after several years anyway.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:32 am
The broke it and now they can fix it.
Americans want to see the government held accountable for their failure to do their job and uphold our laws.
They don’t want want solutions or compromises, they want gov’t to do what they were always supposed to do.
Reagan said we would have amnesty, just this one time, what happened?
No more lies or weaseling out of it…let them do the job they were always supposed to do.
No thanks to Guiliani, McCain & Romney.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:57 am
AJ,
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 9:14 am
I’m encouraged by the relatively sane discussion of immigration by some of the people on this thread (Adam, alaska jake, jim.) It was my impression that the biggest problem many Republicans and conservatives (not to mention the rest of the country) had with the recent immigration bill was that they did not trust the government to actually implement the border security provisions contained therein. In the early days of the bill, I heard a lot of talk about “border enforcement first” from the anti-crowd (implying that something else were to come after.) The discussion seems to have moved beyond that in many places I’ve seen to deporting all 12-20 million that are here, or trying to be mean enough that they’ll run away on their own. “Border enforcement first” doesn’t seem to be enough for a lot of people anymore, and I think it’s a really unhealthy demand to be making.
Also, for those of you giving McCain a hard time about the immigration bill, just wait until you read Kennedy-Obama. Never heard of it? It’ll be the full amnesty that President Clinton signs into law in 2009… I can’t imagine McCain was ignorant of the fact that Republicans may not get another chance to meet Democrats halfway on the issue.
September 8th, 2007 at 9:28 am
BlueAngel – the last I heard Romney say about illegal immigration is that there should not be a path to citizenship, I don’t have the link in my hand, but I will try to find it in a few minutes.
–
Back to the main topic – anything short of ensuring that illegals cannot obtain work, jobs, education, etc. and requiring them to leave, re-apply in their home countries, and wait there until we decide they can enter – is amnesty. I don’t even want them to pay a fine, I just want them out of here.
If Giuliani supports any kind of “path to citizenship” short of that, in my book at least, he supports Amnesty.
–
As for it hurting the economy, I’m not so sure. While there is a need for cheap labor in this country, and there are jobs Americans won’t fill, we need a system that controls exactly who and how many enter. We also need to make sure that no illegal has a job that an unemployed American would take. Americans will probably pack meat, Americans will work if Fast food joints, and Americans will work Construction. IF we need guest workers, fine, but we need to make sure we strictly control any guest worker program.
September 8th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Big S – Unless Democrats can get sixty votes in the Senate in 2008, there will be no Amnesty – and that won’t happen, because opposition to Amnesty of any kind is too high.
As for “meeting in the middle”, whats the point? To me, there is no difference between allowing illegals to become citizens right away, and requiring them to pay a fine first. As I said, anything short of requring illegals to return home, and start the process of becoming a citizen like anybody else is Amnesty.
As I have also said, it is not a matter of having to deport 12 million people – you simply ensure they can’t get jobs, education, housing, or other services, and they will have no reason to stay.
September 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Obama has been smart enough not to put his name on any immigration legislation.
Strangely, I respect Rudy’s position on immigration much more than Romney’s because Rudy is at least being honest. Romney is just playing politics because if he actually care he would have done more in Massachusetts. But it seems to me Rudy has made a HUGE mistake. This is gonna to do him what Obama’s comments about meeting with dictators did to him. The conservative base does not want to hear anything other than they a candidate is gonna track down and deport illegals. Of course, employer sanctions is the only way, but the business wing of the GOP does not support that. So that leaves just rhetoric without solution.
September 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Big S – Unless Democrats can get sixty votes in the Senate in 2008, there will be no Amnesty – and that won’t happen, because opposition to Amnesty of any kind is too high.
Not sure I’m willing to bet on that.
September 8th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Pat Rooney -
“Obama has been smart enough not to put his name on any immigration legislation.”
Or dumb enough – remember, a Democrat running for President must also win over independents, and accross-the-board Amnesty is not going to do that.
–
“Strangely, I respect Rudy’s position on immigration much more than Romney’s because Rudy is at least being honest”
Your opinion, but I can’t really respect a candidate who wants Amnesty
–
“Romney is just playing politics because if he actually care he would have done more in Massachusetts.”
What could he have done? He did order the state police to go after illegals, but the Gov. Patrick repealed that order after Mitt left office. Other than something like that, I don’t think Romney could do anything else. Cutting funding to santuary cities, passing employer sanctions, or any similar action would have required the approval of the legislature – something he would not have gotten with 80% liberal control.
–
“But it seems to me Rudy has made a HUGE mistake. This is gonna to do him what Obama’s comments about meeting with dictators did to him.”
Actually, I think it will be worse – because Obama was at least sharing the opinion of the liberal base. Rudy’s position puts him in conflict with his own party. Obama’s didn’t.
–
“The conservative base does not want to hear anything other than they a candidate is gonna track down and deport illegals.”
Not entirely true, but they deffinately don’t want any policy that allows illegals to receive any benefit from being here against the law.
–
“Of course, employer sanctions is the only way”
Combined with ID cards, preventing illegals from receiving drivers licences, education, housing, you get my point.
–
“but the business wing of the GOP does not support that. So that leaves just rhetoric without solution.”
I think this is another statement that is not 100% true. Employers want cheap labor to fill jobs Americans won’t take – true, but I don’t think they care where it comes from. I think that, as long as they get labor, they will support a program to crack down on illegals. Enforcement, combined with a GW program, would likely find broad support accross the GOP – it just hasn’t happened yet because no bill has seriously offered both.
September 8th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I’m no Rudy fan but he only stated a fact. If illegal immigration was a crime you’d have to throw illegals in jail instead of deporting them.
This approach that some people are pushing of blaming and demonizing the illegals will not work. They are only doing what every other immigrant in the history of this country did. The gatekeepers are the ones at fault today because they lost control of the situation.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
ACT Blog, you have been drinking the mittjuice. Its absurd to say that on the one hand illegal immigrants have committed a crime but on the other that as governor Romney had no power to enforce the laws of his state or that he needed permission from the legislature. Would he have need permission to arrest bank robbers or to investigate rape? The truth is Romney did not bother with the issue until he decided to use it to attack Rudy.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Rudy may want to read 8 U.S.C. 1325, which states: (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325)
Section 1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of –
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the
purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be
imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than
$250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws
shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance
with title 18, or both.
If you can be imprisoned for up to 6 months for entering the country illegally, isn’t it a crime?
September 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I see that the law showing that illegal immigration is a crime has already been posted. Sorry for the double post.
Rudy is right that we can’t round all of them up and force them to leave. That is why Romney is right on the money when he says that we have to eliminate the “magnets” that draw them here – employment and free services (i.e., sanctuary cities). If they can’t get a job and handouts, they will leave on their own.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Tom Tancredo: “Right now, illegal presence in the USA is not a crime; it is a civil infraction.”
September 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
This discusion is pointless, since none of you even mentioned the true reasons why JulieAnnie said that.
The reason he is siting with Bush is the fact that he is following agenda of North American Union.
If you don’t see that, that’s sad. And, if you think it is conspiracy theory, just elect Adolph JulieAnnie.
And, if you believe that’s the agenda of his, how can you even consider him as a candidate and seriously talk about him.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I’m afraid that those of you now willing and eager to buy into campaign promises of rounding up and tossing out all illegal immigrants are destined for deep disappointment — and that is after assuming improbably that any candidate focused relentlessly and unwaveringly on only that issue can actually win the presidency after alienating a large portion of Americans of latino heritage.
First, take a good hard look at the laws being cited in these comments. Then take a look at all the court decisions based on those laws that complicate them. Delve into the long list of manuals upon manuals of regulations for ICE (INS) on enforcement and procedures. Consider, then, how many federal departments and agencies are involved in all of this, including the border patrol, ICE, DoJ, etc. — hell, we have legally mandated government-payroll lawyers who guarantee illegal aliens identified as such their due process rights and a fair hearing.
Now, unless you want to suspend the rule of law and the constitution and devote all of our resources to evicting the illegals from the country, nothing will ever happen that will satisfy you. And falling for the candidates who pander to you the hardest is destined to end in tears.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I asked back in post #35, if the Giuliani proposals are bad, what’s the alternative. Except for one post mentioning business enforcement (which Giuliani supports) no one had given any other options besides “send ‘em back.” I ask again – what is the alternative to Giuliani’s plan of strengthening the fence, utilizing better tracking and enforcement technology, IDing everyone here, deporting the criminals immediately, and then dealing with the otherwise law-abiding illegals still here? Criticism is the easy part. Let’s hear some solutions.
For those still clinging to the mass deportation idea – do you realize just how big “12 million” really is? We’re talking five times the population of Chicago. Six times the number currently in prison in this country. This isn’t a matter of rounding up a few hooligans at the local mall. 12 million people cannot be arrested and sent packing, and they won’t just leave on their own if they can’t find work. Many will instead turn to crime, or find work illegally anyway. They will not just say “oh well, it was fun while it lasted” and head back to Mexico.
I’m willing to entertain any and all viable, realistic, and comprehensive solutions. Until I hear any, I have to support Rudy on this one. So far, it’s the only solution out there.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Aron,
nice to see that even Tancredo agrees with Rudy on this issues that it’s not a crime. Is Tancredo all of a sudden for amnesty?
If you read the interview Rudy was clearly talking about illegal presence and all the Rombots here have confused it with illegal entry. For legal purposes they are 2 distinct issues.
September 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
What has happened to the Republican Party? It’s becoming the party of Michael Savage and every other wing nut. This reminds me of what happened to the Democrats in the seventies and eighties. The Michael Moore wing became the party, and the party stopped winning elections. Every year, the Republican Party becomes more and more wing nutty, and the common sense conservatives and regular Republicans are leaving the party.
Look, there may be an argument for deportation or encouraging self-deportation or whatever. When Eisenhower started enforcing immigration laws, a lot of the illegals self-deported. But you guys are acting like anyone who doesn’t share that view should be thrown out of the party. What happened to big tent? The Republican Party is starting to remind me of a very conservative church, where members have to believe in the Bible literally, have to live a certain way, an so on, or be questioned, interrogated, or thrown out. But a political party isn’t a church. Churches don’t have to win elections. The US will never be a religious autocracy, thank God, and you guys are going to have to win elections if you want to run anything. The more purity tests there are and the more people you toss out, the fewer Republicans there will be and the fewer offices Republicans will hold.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
57 is important — and shows why we have to nominate Rudy Giuliani if we want to rebuild our party. We have to show that we’re not just the party of fundamentalist Christians.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
50 — The act of crossing the border illegally was a crime. Being an illegal immigrant is not a crime. It was crossing over. A college professor, as JS pointed out in the other thread, who overstays his visa is not guilty of a crime — it’s just a civil infraction. If it were a crime, he’d have to be arrested and deported by the INS. (And Rudy knows how wonderfully efficient they are!) Do you REALLY want unlawful presence to be a CRIME?
September 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
ACT Blog — “Actually, I think it will be worse – because Obama was at least sharing the opinion of the liberal base. Rudy’s position puts him in conflict with his own party. Obama’s didn’t.”
There’s no ‘position’ here to be in conflict with. It’s not an ‘opinion’ of the base — it’s legal fact. If the ‘base’ would like to be in conflict with legal fact, then it’s got more problems than we thought.
September 8th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
#34
In case you’re still interested, the problem IS NOT COMPLEX. You aggressively sanction employers. That’s how you deal with most of the illegals already here. No jobs and they’ll just go home.
You’re using the same deportation nonsense that the open borders crowd tried to shove down our throats in July.