If we enforced immigration law, these crimes would not occur (at least, not in the US). It doesn’t matter if they commit crimes at the same rate as citizens and legal residents — they’re committing crimes that are 100% preventable if we just enforced immigration law.

Bryan on August 15, 2007 at 1:30 PM

awesomely honest. that’s quantum honesty.

that’s like when anti-military progressives quote the homelessness, substance-abuse, homicide, suicide and domestic abuse figures for veterans and say that military service caused these rates, even though they’re less than in the general population.

they, but the way, draw a very meaningful distinction too: they “support the troops” by “opposing the war”.

HE IS A MONSTERRRRR!!!!

The Fourteenth Amendment declares that ALL persons born in the United States are citizens. People can be here illegally, but if their children are born in this country, these offspring are not illegal aliens, they are legitimate citizens.

radjah shelduck on August 15, 2007 at 12:47 PM

You are incorrect. While judges have allowed an eggregious misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to suggest that it means such, that is NOT what it says.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The fact is that the clause in bold above had a very clear purpose when written; to limit the granting of automatic citizenship to only those persons born while subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. This specific clause was carried over from similar British and Continental European laws going back several centuries, and it was universally accepted that a child born to parents present within a nation unlawfully, are NOT conferred citizenship of that nation. That interpretation stands to this day throughout Europe. It is only the unfortunate and improperly rendered 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision that strikes out the intent of this key clause.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Plyler v. Doe[3] stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

The justices clearly failed an English test in being able to read the words, yet still pretend they aren’t there. Did they really believe that the legislature included that phrase for the sole purpose of clarifying the status of children born to foreign diplomats while on U.S. soil? Because that’s the only condition left to which it now applies, and thus the “anchor baby” is born.

Plyler v. Doe must be reversed, and the Amendment must return to being understood as written, and we can move forward from there with one less immigration problem to solve.

I love the righteous indignation from Laura, and while Sager is clearly a fairly decent and moderately sharp guy, he really had to work hard at playing dumb in order to “miss the point”, that crimes committed by illegals wouldn’t happen here if they weren’t here. To compare it with crimes committed by citizens is irrelevant within the context of the discussion, and he knows better. But like the MSM, once he took his stand he wasn’t going to give ground in the face of a solid argument against him, so instead he just sounded foolish, and opened himself up to a whoopin’, and Laura eagerly obliged.

If we enforced immigration law, these crimes would not occur (at least, not in the US). It doesn’t matter if they commit crimes at the same rate as citizens and legal residents — they’re committing crimes that are 100% preventable if we just enforced immigration law.

Bryan on August 15, 2007 at 1:30 PM

There you go again, Bryan, using logic. Way to go man, just insult the liberals and their feelings, why don’t ya?

He is inetllectually and morally unable to understand the following:

1. Distinction between legal and illegal
2. Difference between murder committed by legal resident vs illegal residenst (hey Ryan here is the cliff note on this one: THERE WOULD BE NO MURDER BY ILLEGALS IF THEY NEVER MADE IT IN THE COUNTRY). And yes, BOTH are wrong.
3. Responsibility, accountability and maturity.

It seems pretty clear that Ryan has grown up in a bubble of security.

Bryan on August 15, 2007 at 1:30 PM

What he said.

morganfrost on August 15, 2007 at 1:27 PM

If you have ever known, worked with or lived among illegal aliens, you would understand that law breaking is a pervasive and accepted fact of life.

Much of the crime is document fraud. But in Los Angeles, about 40% of county jail detainees are illegal immigrants. These people represent a drain on our law enforcement resources.

Furthermore their communities are often unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement. Our passive approach to dealing with illegal alien scofflaws breeds the violent criminals Laura Ingraham was railing against.

I think she meant the term “second generation illegal immigrant” to define children who are brought here after their parents come here illegally…the parents find work and then send for their children back home – so while technically you may be right, I think Laura’s definition sticks…

- The Cat

P.S. To Ryan Sager DC Talk – Jesus Freak

The REAL question is, do we have a legitimate interest in keeping out immigrants with criminal intent? Is it legitimate for us to want to keep out terrorists, gang bangers, thugs, and those who are willing to cause harm just to get their way? I would love to hear the answer to these questions from the amnesty crowd. To those of us in the pro-enforcement crowd, our answer is a very emphatic, “YES! We want, nay, we need to keep the sociopaths out of our country and it is entirely legitimate for us to do so.”

The only way to keep the lowlifes out is to create laws saying that they may not enter this country (we already have such laws), and then check out every person who wants to live here against the criteria established by those laws. Encouraging or accepting people bypassing those laws is not only accepting immigrants who are good for this country, it is also accepting the sociopaths who cause significant harm, including a notable number of murders each year.

While it is true that keeping the lowlifes out will not eliminate crime, it will reduce it, ultimately saving lives. There are people who are now dead who would be alive if we simply enforced our laws. If an argument that we can’t stop all crime, therefore we shouldn’t try were actually legitimate, then we would have already shut down the police departments, sheriff’s offices, FBI, and all other forms of law enforcement. It is humanly impossible to stop all crimes, yet we must try to do so. The alternative is to simply allow evil to crowd out all the good in this world. Just look at what’s happening in No Longer So Great Britan.

There’s one other major problem with Sagar’s argument. After his statement about this country having benefitted by immigration, he went on to argue that the laws were different then. While true, that is not an excuse for disobeying the laws now. If the laws are wrong, unworkable or unnecessarily strict, the solution is not to disobey them, but to change them. If he thinks it is legitimate to simply ignore laws that he doesn’t like, then he has no place to claim aggrieved status when someone else simply ignores a law they don’t like and harms him in the process.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if he was severely injured (say paralyzed) by an illegal immigrant?

jdawg on August 15, 2007 at 12:10 PM
baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Mike D. on August 15, 2007 at 12:17 PM
bigskinny on August 15, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Hey, I thought we were supposed to be anti-female. Did I miss the memo?

Laura took this punk to school and spanked him righteously.

Sorry I missed her show this morning.

Jack.

Interesting discussion. However, for Laura’s point to be valid, I think she’d have to show that illegal immigrants are committing a higher percentage of violent crimes than other groups. Every group you can think of (except possibly “non-criminals”) has generated a few violent criminals.

Wrong. Every single crime committed by illegals adds to our overall crime rate and adds real numbers of crime victims. If we enforced immigration law, these crimes would not occur (at least, not in the US). It doesn’t matter if they commit crimes at the same rate as citizens and legal residents — they’re committing crimes that are 100% preventable if we just enforced immigration law.