Rudy tells Glenn Beck that illegal immigration isn’t a crime
posted at 4:02 pm on September 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
He’s half right. The hard truth is that it’s a federal crime to cross the border but not a federal crime to be present in the United States without authorization. See this old post at MM’s immigration blog for further details. Tancredo’s been trying to close the loophole for awhile now but without much luck; in fact, it came up just a few weeks in a high profile appellate court decision in Kansas. You can, of course, be deported for being present in the United States without authorization, but deportation is a civil penalty for a violation of immigration law, not of federal criminal law.
As I say, though, Rudy’s only half right. The wrinkle in all this is that if you’re deported once and then come back in and get caught again, that is a criminal violation. The statute is 8 U.S.C. 1326; think of it as providing for one free bite at the apple. Rudy seems never to have heard of it:
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.
Beck is right, Rudy’s wrong. A second offense is a crime. Now, follow the link and let Rudy explain to you why it’s a bad idea to criminalize unauthorized presence in the United States. Ask yourself how many other criminal laws we have that would be unenforceable if we tried to prosecute all offenders but which nevertheless have some salutary deterrent effect by giving prosecutors the option of charging people with them.
Fred’s better on this issue than Rudy is, but watch this short clip from last year. He ain’t that much better.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Where’s the Tancelot pic again?
Speakup on September 8, 2007 at 4:06 PM
More:
Via Ian Schwartz
2Brave2Bscared on September 8, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Rudy’s killing himself with this idiotic talk about illegals not being illegal.
This reasoning is similar to saying that having a knife inside someone’s body is not illegal, only when it initially breaks skin. Just plain stupid.
I’m going with Hunter.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:09 PM
IF being an illegal alien is not a crime, though it is a crime to enter this country illegally, then one could argue all other crimes commmitted by illegal aliens arent’t crimes.
After all, don’t we constantly hear it’s America’s fault, in other words, our fault, people enter this country illegally?
I spit on Mexico, and I’m
Mexican-American.madmonkphotog on September 8, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Why do these people like Fred Thompson think that you have to physically round up 12-20 million illegals to get them out of the country? You don’t. All you need to do is go after the employers and landlords that hire/rent to illegals, and if the illegals can’t find work or a place to live, they’ll go home.
It’s working in Arizona.
2Brave2Bscared on September 8, 2007 at 4:13 PM
The second time it is a crime, but the first is a civil proceeding ending in deportation. Making it a crime would mean we wouldn’t just deport them. We’d have to arrest and prosecute them. You do that to 12 million people we can’t find.
How would threatening with making it a crime making them any more deterred from doing it? If they cross the border and we catch them now, they get their @sses thrown back to the hell-hole known as Mexico.
Let’s threaten them with having to sit in an American jail. Yeah.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM
We need somebody with ENFORCEMENT DNA not nuance DNA. Go Fred!
Mojave Mark on September 8, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Did you watch the video? Fred wants a pathway to citizenship for them. He says we have to give them an aspiration of eventual citizenship.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:19 PM
If someone does not have the legal right to be in the US, but they are in the US, then they are here ILLEGALLY.
One does not need to write a law declaring specifically that someone who does not have a certain right does not have that right. That is stupidity at its utmost.
Someone either has the legal right to be in the US or not. If they don’t, then they are here, illegally. End of story.
Rudy has lost my vote, in all cases. This is just too much stupidity for me.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Rudy Giuliani – Hard on crime*.
*Unless, you know, it’d be hard to catch them and stuff; then we really shouldn’t bother
There’s a slogan that’ll bring in the Conservatives in droves.
gekkobear on September 8, 2007 at 4:23 PM
To become a US citizen the first thing that must be accepted is that you must obey the laws of our country
If the very first act you do is to come here and break the laws to do it then how is it wrong for Americans to suspect that many other laws will also be broken ?
Republicans arent anti Immigration. We are anti law breaking even if its seems “for a good cause”
We have a system in place to legally immigrate to this country. Those people who make the effort to legally come here are cheated out of jobs and benefits that they are due as an american citisen. So we should penalize legal immigrants by forcing them to compete with illegal ones for their rights as American citisens ?
In the end people who legally immigrate here are the ones cheated the most by amnesty. They waited for their chance and did every thing right. Yet people who broke the law and didnt wait are told thats OK we dont care go ahead and break the law ?
It isnt just to reward those who break the law by punishing those who make the honest effort to legally immigrate.
William Amos on September 8, 2007 at 4:23 PM
The current law doesn’t agree with you. It’s a civil, not criminal, proceeding the first time. The law believes there’s a difference. He’s an attorney, so he distinguishes.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Forget the laws, they need to respect the sovereignty of the US – and Republican candidates need to be reeducated on what national sovereignty is, and why talk of people being illegally in the US not illegal is INFURIATING!!
It is an issue of sovereignty, which is much deeper than our body of law. Rudy should know this, or leave the primary for stupidity.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Again, it’s not a matter of catching them. It’s a matter of putting 12 million people in cuffs, giving a bond hearing, putting them in a court room, etc.
I can’t wait to see us start putting 7-year-old here illegally in cuffs and on trial.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
He’s not against catching them and deporting them. He’s against making it a criminal proceeding for first times, because it would suck up all of our law enforcement and legal resources, not to mention unlikely.
It needs to be accomplished through employers who hire the illegals being punished, and a fence being built.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
He may distinguish, but this is an issue of national sovereignty, not law. many lawyers seem to have problems understanding this.
Like I said, it is the same as saying that having a knife held inside someone’s body is not illegal, only puncturing the skin. The particulars are not in the law because they are so obvious, except to lawyers.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Earlier today I emailed to two of Rudy’s staff members on this issue, quoting the comments from Beck’s interview. I told them that this one issue will kill his chances. If his stance on this issue, however, were as good as his reputation on the WOT, he would be a slam dunk.
The first ENTRY is a misdemeanor, with up to six months in jail, but mere PRESENCE, unfortunatley, is not yet a crime(##%%^^&&!!). Rudy was disingenuous, at best.
A second entry, after deportation, is a felony (Elvira, for example). Note that the Dec. 2004 House bill, which would have made first entry (and also presence??) a felony, included this feature as a DEMOCRAT poison pill amendment: http://www.jmi.com/immigrationmarches/#housevote
Imagine a burgler breaking into your home, and you wake up and find him standing in your home only AFTER he is merely “present” in your home. No crime here, move along.
Insane.
Thompson’s comments on video above are more of the same ol’ crap.Maybe Rudy as Prez and Tanc as head of DHS?????
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Rudy is NOT stupid. He does not believe what he is saying, but hopes he can bamboozle you. He is trying to shift responsibility for his past positions by blaming it on things outside of his control.
In the debate, he said there was an “executive order” that he had to follow in regards to sanctuary policy in NYC.
Then he said that ICE only deported 2000 people, so what was he supposed to do with them. Now he’s saying it isn’t criminal because we can’t try all these people and imprison them.
These are all supposedly clever ways for Rudy to avoid responsibility for his true immigration opinion– which is open borders. The only problem is, his obfuscations are about as transparent as any teenagers.
Hey- I’m not saying I won’t vote for the guy. They’ve all lied/spun their positions. But the real Rudy is an excellent manger, authoritarian, tough on terror. He aint tough on illegal immigration.
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Yes, but you see there’s something called “laws” in the United States. Everything can’t be done in the name of sovereignty. It’s a criminal or civil proceeding. Being able to prosecute all first-time illegal is extremely unlikely, and would put a huge strain on our law enforcement and courts.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I won’t. If people are set on the dissolution of the US – which is what this sort of policy will inevitably lead to – then I’m happy to let the Dems do it. I liked Rudy a lot, for many, many years now, but this is a total deal breaker for me. And to add this idiotic legalistic BS is just offensive. It is the reasoning of a 5 year old. I am very disappointed in Rudy … and finished with entertaining thoughts of supporting him in any way.
Yep. I agree with everything you’ve said. The illegal issue plus the idiotic defense of it is just too much for me.
And Rudy can’t be that smart if he says stuff like this. Not too smart, at all.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Then explain my knife analogy. Is it illegal to have a knife held inside someone’s body – even though no law in the states specifically states this?
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Most, if not all, of them.
Troy Rasmussen on September 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I didn’t write the law. The current law doesn’t make sense, and I don’t argue that. However, it’s possible to prosecute someone for a stabbing. Prosecute 12 million people we can’t find. That’s not reasonable either.
What would be ideal? That we prosecute them for that. What’s reasonable? Not that.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
amerpundit:
There are some situations that we have laws to disallow and there are other situations that we have laws to allow. Being in the US is one that we have laws determing who is allowed to be here. Presence in the US is one of those situations that is handled by determing who is legally correct (has the legal right to be in the US). All others are here ILLEGALLY! I don’t see what is so difficult about that, unless someone is claiming that there is nothing as the “legal right to be in the US” as opposed to being here without that right (and thus, illegally).
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I called Rudy’s office. Stabbing you is a criminal offense. Having the knife inside is a misdemeanor, maybe. Go figure.
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Again, who’s talking about prosecuting? We’re just talking about deporting them and whether they have any right to be here – which they don’t. Rudy is dancing around this very basic and obvious distinction.
By the way, we’ve been able to deal with illegals for over 200 years – indcluding a few mass deportations in the 20th century. How did we do that?
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:46 PM
LOL!
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Actually, they’re both right; they’re just obviously talking about different things, as you had already acknowledged.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
HELLO! Making it a crime, which it isn’t now, would mean we’d have to prosecute. The current law makes it a civil proceeding, ending in deportation. We simply need to enforce the current law – which we don’t. If we do, we’ll be able to deport them as we find them. By making it a “crime”, we’d have to add in extra steps. It’s a technicality, but it’s the way it is. That’s what I’m saying.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 4:49 PM
If one of the candidates doesn’t crack Rudy over the head for this, I will not be voting for any of them.
Valiant on September 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Yeah, thought the same thing. Except that is nothing but a statement that your government no longer meets your needs, and the consequences of that is scary.
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Look, amerpundit, is it legal for a foreign national to be in the US without the permission of the US?
If so, then we are finished as a sovereign nation. If not, then what do you call someone who is doing something, without the legal right, that only those with the legal right to do are allowed?
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM
First illegal entry is “only” a misdemeanor, which is a “minor” crime, but it is a crime, punishable with up to 12 months (typically max of 6?) in prison. If this is also applied to mere “presence”, the law would be symmetric and logical – like breaking and entering into your home?? As a misdemeanor, I believe courts have leeway for simple proceeedings, wrist-slap fines/punishments (a la Paris, Lindsey, et al) and power to sentence them to merely LEAVING THE COUNTRY. This would “clog” the courts for the first week, until the word gets out. Misdemeanor for mere presence is needed to give the necessary legal leverage and stop sanctuary bullcrap.
Again, Rudy minces words on this. Shame.
Also shame on Fred (him, not me) – “pathway to citizenship”?
Bullcrap.
A Swiss friend of mine laughs at our “system” – over there an illegal alien (first offense) gets 48 hours before being shown the door. No trial, no appeal, no waiting in line – just a quick process.
The quick response with this number of posts on a Saturday afternoon on this issue SHOULD be an indication to all Republican candidates how strongly most Conservatives feel on this issue.
Not Holding My Breath.
Tanc and Dunc – there’s a team!
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
You would think that they would have picked up on the mood after that fiasco over the Senate bill.
Tanc and Dunc look good to me, too, individually and as a running pair.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM
We deport them. We don’t prosecute them. When you get a parking ticket, do you get put in cuffs, told to contact an attorney, and put on trial? But parking in that spot was illegal, right? So then you’re arrested, right? No. You’re given a ticket because it’s a civil proceeding.
Is our sovereignty violated? Yes. But the law states it’s a civil proceeding – not criminal.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Your car is towed away immediately without any court hearing or anything. I’d be happy if that was our policy with ILLEGALS.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Ok. If the meter expires, you get a ticket. Again, do you get arrested? And your car isn’t you. You can get it back by calling the company.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Please define what constitutes a candidate being “good” on this issue. If I recall correctly, the biggest problem many people had with the recent Senate immigration bill was that they did not trust the government to implement the border enforcement provisions of the comprehensive plan. There was a lot of talk at the time about “enforcement first,” although I’m not sure if you ever specifically said that. Lately, it seems that the goalposts have moved and many pundits bash candidates who take the “enforcement first” position while acknowledging that they may not be able to deport 12 million to 20 million people. I assume that many of those who were against the bill have always preferred the mass deportation approach, but were just unwilling to say so directly. Are you in favor of trying to deport the 12 million as a first option?
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 5:18 PM
You know, how hard is it to just throw us a bone and say “Illegal immigration is a crime, and crime has to be punished.”, even if you have no idea how that will be accomplished?
I’d rather that than all this pandering gobbledegook.
Hawkins1701 on September 8, 2007 at 5:20 PM
So you want them to lie and appease to get into office?
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
But that’s not 100% true, as has been shown in this thread. Ad isn’t that just the very definition of pandering anyway?
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Well, along those lines (though comparing minor traffic violations – not even moving ones – with people illegally staying in the US is a bit too far for me) there was that Texas Sheriff who handcuffed and arrested a mom because her kid wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.
But I don’t get your point. Are you trying to say that being in the US ILLEGALLY is the same as parking in a no-parking zone?
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:28 PM
No. I’m saying that things aren’t clean-cut, so that anything not allowed is a “crime”. There are civil proceedings, which tickets fall under, and the law states that first time illegal entry is, too.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I’m with ya there, thats exactly how I feel about it. I have no desire to see 12 million people rounded up. Build the fence, enforce the laws. But if someone’s pulled over and they are found to be here illegally, then that should be it – the gig is up and its time for them to go home and head to the back of the line like everybody else if they want to live here. No Cutting in Line!
Keli on September 8, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I think some folks are taking Rudy’s comments out of context. Of course he knows the law. I’ve tried to make the same point he has several times on this site – presence here illegally is not a crime. I used to think, obviously it should be, but maybe Rudy’s point about this eating up federal resources is a good one. This is the problem with sound bites and short snippets from transcripts; we do not get a full explanation of a candidate’s positions.
mikeyboss on September 8, 2007 at 5:33 PM
The reason this is best, because to charge it criminally would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a public provided lawyer, a jury, a judge, and the right to appeal.
Think about what you are asking for.
I say go after the employers, bankers, landlords, and anyone
else providing sancutary to the invaders.
Oh, and close the damn border now!
Rudy is part right, Glen is part right.
Does not really matter, Rudy is still a gun grabbin baby killer at heart. Living a lie, just like Slick willy did and now his wife takes the torch from him.
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I’m with you on that. I’m saying that making it a criminal proceeding for first-time offenders is no practical.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:39 PM
no=not
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I’d be happy to explain. The worst part of the bill was the REWARD, not just amnesty, of a Z visa and other “paths to citizenship” for lawbreakers. Z visa applicants had a 24 HOUR wait before automatic permanent residency. Can you imagine DHS processing 12 to 20 million applications, health screening, and background checks – 24 hours???
Simultaneously???
This disingenuousness by proponents of the bill showed us their true colors. Bush and Kennedy, et al, INSISTED on rewarding the current 12 to 20 million illegals as part of a “package” of enforcement. They held hostage our national security to gain the 8th amnesty since 1986. If the rewards had been left out, the bill most likely would have passed easily.
Most of us who have kept up on this issue for many years favor “attrition through enforcement” – NOT mass deportations. That’s why we want strict laws against employing illegals and giving them in-state tuition, etc.
No carrots, no attraction to stay here.
See the Zogby poll where most people favor this approach – strict enforcement with no rewards, no mass deportations:
http://www.jmi.com/immigrationmarches/zogby5.html
I’ll let others continue the lecture.
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Proof of illegality beyond a reasonable doubt is easy, as any American citizen or resident can produce either a birth certificate, passport, or green card within a couple of days at the outside. Everyone else does not belong here. There’s nothing to appeal and only an idiot judge would take such an appeal.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:41 PM
That’s the last nail in the coffin with me and Fred.
PRCalDude on September 8, 2007 at 5:41 PM
I thought you were trying to make the illegals feel better :)
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:42 PM
You mean the same type of judge that would strike down counter-terror programs because they may infringe on the privacy rights of terrorists?
It’s not so much proving beyond a reasonable doubt, but the amount of time and resources criminal proceedings for 12 million people we can’t find, would take. And how do you put 7-year-olds on trial?
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Ha.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Thank God Rudy is a big city northerner and thus unelectable for the GOP candidate…..Fred, well after awhile the folks hopfully, will see that he can only read the scripts not write them.
Legions on September 8, 2007 at 5:46 PM
an idiot judge, well we have a few of those.
But a judge does not get to decide whether you sppeal a criminal conviction. You do.
The appeal goes to the next level, and cost more too.
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 5:47 PM
So who do we vote for, none of the above?
So far FDT is looking like my man.
Might have to hold my nose though.
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Answer:
Duncan Hunter really impresses me – immigration and most other issues. Tanc is 99% known for immigration only.
Dunc for Prez, Tanc for DHS??
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Yes. I don’t trust our judiciary, either. In fact, many of these parsing problems are due to judges of mediocre intelligence who don’t have the guts to run their courts as they are charged to do. I get incensed every time another frivolous suit is allowed into court because one of these judges doesn’t have the guts to throw it out – which they can.
I agree on the time issue. I am not in favor of running illegals through criminal courts. I am in favor of quick deportations when one is found to be unable to produce proof of the right to be here within 48 hours – and to not allow any entrees to services for them, including hospitals, schools, police, … where they must be reported and deported.
As to the 7 year olds, they are under the charge of their parent(s), and I have no problem holding the whole family accountable. If they don’t like Mexico, let them go to Canada or Venezuela, but they have no right to be here, and, they take away OUR right to import exactly the people we want.
The US is one of the luckiest nations in the world in that everyone wants to come here. Billions of people would do almost anything to get here, and we get to pick and choose among all those people for who we want to accept into our society. Illegals take that away from us and then demand more stuff from us. That is their biggest offense, besides the fact that they are totally disrespecting our sovereignty, which used to be a serious issue for people …
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Newt: Secure the borders; put pressure on the employers; institute a guest worker program; assimilate/educate/patriate.
As for Rudy, he applies a very strict interpretation to the laws that are actually on the books. Whether we like the laws or not, Rudy’s approach is to enforce them as written. The way to deal with something if you don’t like it is to change the laws, not try to interpret them in ways they clearly weren’t meant to be applied. Problem is, he doesn’t want to change this law, and many of us would want him to try.
aero on September 8, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Oh yeah. More than a few. It’s a real shame. Our judiciary is a mess, filled with incompetents and morons.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Sorry, but you have it all wrong.
It would be up to the goverment to prove you are illegal and that you crossed our border illegally. You do not have to prove anything.
If only one of them had a chance. Maybe they will get a surge at some point.
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 5:59 PM
I agree. My whole point was that deportation upon location is accomplished through civil proceedings the first time. Criminal proceedings would involve putting them through our courts.
Basically I think it all boils down to our government having to actually enforce our laws – not ignore them.
amerpundit on September 8, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I doubt that, since anyone who wants a strict interpretation of law need not look any further than the preamble to the US Constitution (my emphasis):
“Ourselves and our posterity” strictly EXCLUDES illegals.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 6:03 PM
What a weak sister !!!! Freddie is not much better. Who can I vote for ??? I do not want another potential Bush as President.
SIJ6141 on September 8, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Agreed.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Not sure if you are saying a judge must allow you to appeal,
or if you are saying the judge does not get to decide whether
or not you may appeal.
But I will tell you how it works.
You file a appeal to the next level of the court system.
The presiding judge that found you guilty has no say. period.
But this is a side issue, that is distracting others perhaps. I take the blame for starting it.
I will leave it, you may have the last word if you care too.
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 6:08 PM
AP, I will have to quibble with you to an extent on the half-right half-wrong point until I find an explanation for the statute preceding 8 U.S.C. 1326 [Re-entry of removed aliens], i.e., “8 U.S.C. 1325, Improper entry by alien” which has what appears to me to be criminal penalties, unless,
“… 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 ….”
can be understood to be a civil penalty. BTW, the subsequent subparagraphs lay out “civil penalties” for if aprehended while attempting to enter without permission.
(via Patterico)
Dusty on September 8, 2007 at 6:09 PM
The appellate court must accept the appeal.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 6:10 PM
If Fred continues with this line of reasoning, and Mitt comes out with a clear statement to support his no-amnesty position, I might flip over to Mitt “Silly Putty” Romney.
I’d go with Tancredo or Hunter if they had a chance, but they don’t.
Forget Rudolph “Eddie Haskell” Giuliani: “Why, no, Mr. Cleaver, I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away”. “Oh, yes, Mr. Cleaver, I respect our country’s immigration laws”.
Forget “Maverick” McCain.
Ron Paul?
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 6:14 PM
TANCREDO-HUNTER 2008.
They may be only choice left who won’t betray you or the nation.
profitsbeard on September 8, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Here is a web site that seems to try and sort out the truth
on what the candidates have said, or others have said about them.
So far I have enjoyed it, just found it today.
PolitiFact.com from the St. Petersburg Times
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 6:21 PM
HUNTER-TACREDO 2008?
Romney had better wake up quick to the majority’s wishes on the border/illegals issue.
Fred and Rudy are looking weak.
profitsbeard on September 8, 2007 at 6:23 PM
I believe that a law enforcement officer has the right, in the appropriate circumstances, to demand identification. Identifying yourself should lead to residency status.
One can only hope and dream. Rudy and Fred are definitely weak on this issue. McCain is hopeless of course – he is part of the problem. Mitt may be the best of the front runners on this issue, and is trying to make points against Rudy on this issue, but he has his “landscape baggage.”
I am hoping for Tanc and Dunc to really press the front runners on this until they yell “uncle” and commit wholeheartedly to strict and total enforcement, and absolutely no rewards.
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Look, I can see there being a reason for illegal presence not being a crime and would compare it to not being a crime to exist all the time before being apprehended for committing rape, robbery, kidnapping, assault, petty theft, fraud or embezzlement.
However, the criminal act was still committed and when you are caught you then pay the penalty for the act, just like one does for any other crime. The nice thing, IMO, is that there doesn’t seem to be a statute of limitations, and until we actually have people in government, including Giuliani, who will enforce the law, in this case a law which does exist and he is wrong about, I hope there is no statute of limitations established.
Dusty on September 8, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Sigh… I may sit this next one out with you AP.
BadgerHawk on September 8, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Wrong, they do have the right to see your drivers license if you are driving and get stopped. After all, driving is not a right. And many illegals have a DL.
That does not tell them you are a legal or illegal.
If you are caught robbing a store, guess what, they do not have to know who you are to charge you. Ever heard of John Doe?
They likely can ID you, from various sources. But there is no crime for not ID’ing yourself that I know of.
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 6:36 PM
That’s how I feel. Neither one may have a chance in hell of being elected, but I sure as hell am not going to sacrifice my principles and core conservative beliefs to vote for someone else just because they can ‘win.’
2Brave2Bscared on September 8, 2007 at 6:41 PM
I agree that we want everyone here legally and we want to choose the immigrants that can best add to our society. The current political heat regarding all immigration has the 110th congress failing to react to business needs on the H1-B visa program. Last year the quota for business filled in one month. For 2008 the quota was filled in one day.
The federal government should be able to allocate the resources to secure the borders, but also tune the legal immigration influx to what is optimal for American industry. Especially in the high tech sector, skilled individuals who are unable to come to the US will be able to compete against US companies from other countries.
dedalus on September 8, 2007 at 6:41 PM
If you’re in any public place, a police officer can ask for your name (with cause). You are required to give your name if your State has a law requiring it. Nothing more.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, No. 03-5554, from SCOTUS, June 2004.
For example: if the police stop me in a park for suspicious behavior, all I have to give them is my name. No ID, nothing. Of course, if I’m driving I have to produce a driver license, etc…
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I agree.
We all know why this problem is so bad, these days. This is because we kept the southern border open for migrant farmers from Mexico to come and work for the season – even though everyone knew that they were here illegally. But, as time went on, the Mexicans realized that the US was not keeping tabs on them and they started being offered regular jobs (at lower wages and without all the red tape hassles of normal employees) and decided to just stay, since it was 1000 times better than life in Mexico or further south. They then came in a torrent and refuse to stop. Refuse.
Because we were nice to Mexico and the Mexicans, they took advantage of us and have now drowned our country in their nationals. It’s like those change dishes at the cash registers. They are there for anyone to take a few cents out of, to even up a $24.03 charge and make life simpler for everyone. this is what we offered the Mexican migrant workers, but they decided to just take all the change in the bowl and not even buy anything. Now, it’s not “theft” to steal the money out of the change bowl and not use it for a purchase, but it is very nasty, totally selfish, anti-social and will cause the disappearance of the change bowls for all.
As they say, one rotten apple spoils the barrel, and this abuse of our good nature has forced us to be stricter in our border and interior enforcement than we would like to be, with all people.
As to your tech workers, each one who wants to come here is waiting in line behind some illegal who does nothing for our economy and even less for our society.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Well said.
Dersu on September 8, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Thank you, Dersu.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 7:00 PM
What I don’t understand is how a candidate that doesn’t support rigorous enforcement of US national sovereignty during a time of war can possibly be considered “toughest on terrorism”, as the Rudy supporters often claim. Where is the evidence? Clearly he does not understand the nature of the enemy and the magnitude of the threat we face.
Rudy supporters have been living in the same kind of utopian fantasy world that the Fred heads apparently have been.
FloatingRock on September 8, 2007 at 7:58 PM
None of these yo-yos are worth electing . . . a sad state of affairs.
rplat on September 8, 2007 at 8:04 PM
They’re two sides of the same coin.
FloatingRock on September 8, 2007 at 8:10 PM
I say again: Recruit Newt! He’s the only Conservative Movement leader we seem to have left.
aero on September 8, 2007 at 8:13 PM
No more sound bites from candidates on this important issue!
We need to get each candidate to SPECIFICALLY comment on two bills now (stalled??) in committee:
The (memoriam) Norwood bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.842:
And the “presence” part of this bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110Lw96wC:e5299:
Couldn’t find a “presence” aspect in the King-Smith bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2954:
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 8:16 PM
picky picky
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 8:26 PM
How so?
FloatingRock on September 8, 2007 at 8:29 PM
EXACTLY! I didn’t make my point as well as I intended. Thank you! How can you have security with the “back door” wide open for people such as Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed?
(Admitted to crossing the Rio Grand up to 250 times, last time caught with wet and muddy clothes in her luggage at McAllen, TX, INTERNATIONAL aiport, S. African passport with ripped-out pages, $9,000 cash, etc.)
We have supposedly tight (definitely inconveninet) security at airports, a big flap about Dubai managing our ports, but land borders??? No problem. Insane. To keep burglars out, I normally lock the front door AND the back door.
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 8:30 PM
was a joke. you make a good point.and he will have to answer for it.
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Rudy stepped in it with his Glenn Beck interview. I am glad Glenn pinned him down. Now we know. He offers us nothing. Tancredo and Hunter understand how serious we are on this issue. Our problem is the nomination and the Screaming Shrillary. I don’t know if either of them stands a chance of getting nominated. If nominated Shrillary could beat them by name recognition alone.
Drop back and punt.
McCain figured it out – the shamnesty won’t work. We ain’t buyin’ it.
Terri on September 8, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Once somebody has broken our immigration laws they should be absolutely be permanently banned from ever getting U.S. citizenship.
If we set up a temp worker program, they too should be banned from becoming citizens.
People that want to be citizens should have to stay in there country and go thru the normal channels.
Fred better get that straight real quick., and I am a big Fred fan.
TheSitRep on September 8, 2007 at 9:24 PM
FloatingRock on September 8, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I think you have a serious misconception about what the term “sovereignty” means. It does not mean keeping foreigners out, or restricting their access; it simply means that the government of the USA has sole jurisdiction over the country. Whether or not it exercises is sovreign powers to limit immigration, and by how much, is another question entirely. The Giuliani approach, which begins with securing the border, is a plan that aims to make it easier for the USA to exercise its sovreign powers if and when it chooses to do so.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Giuliani has made it clear that he doesn’t want a fence across the whole border. He wants mostly a “technological” fence. Also, Americans “choose” to exercise our sovereign power to restrict entry. Finally, call me a skeptic, but I don’t trust Giuliani to do what he says about the immigration issue. So far, I have not heard anyone who is likely to be our next President say anything that I believe indicates that they intend to seal the border.
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Even if American choose to restrict entry, as it stands it is obvious that we can’t do it. I don’t understand how those who were so against a comprehensive immigration reform bill, declaring that it would not work without enforcement first, can be so hot for a comprehensive anti-immigration bill. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the anti-immigration agenda has less to do with security and prosperity than simple Tancredoite nativism.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 9:53 PM
to exercise its sovreign powers if and when it chooses to do so.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I believe the United States has exercised its sovereignty by defining and marking it’s borders, and by making laws for citizenship and immigration.
Maybe you’re saying that Giuliani was unaware that the U.S. had borders, and was also unaware that the U.S. had immigration laws? If so, he can be excused for refusing to cooperate with the Federal government, and for enticing people to illegally cross those borders and break our immigration laws. Great argument. Possibly, Giuliani was also unaware of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Excellent!
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Hi Progressoverpeace,
If lawmakers are grouping tech workers with illegal residents then they are mixing apples and oranges. We need more of the former and fewer of the latter. What the congress should understand is that many American companies are making hires off-shore that they could have made here. By keeping the labor pool constrained here, the congress helps grow the economies of China and India.
dedalus on September 8, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Where is Fred Thompson’s foremost shill when we need him?
ErikPFJohnson where are you?
Yeah right, like he’ll show up when the tide is against him.
Mcguyver on September 8, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »