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 | printer-friendly
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: « Previous 1 2
Making laws is one part of it; enforcing them is the other half. Right now, those laws are enforced, with the USA exercising its sovreign power as a nation to do so. However, such enforcement is not very effective given the current state of the security apparatus.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Who said anything about a comprehensive anti-immigration bill?
There is no anti-immigration agenda. There are current US laws, unenforced, and conniving politicians who make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants– like you just did.
Nativist is a loaded word. You use it on purpose. So make your point.
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 10:05 PM
I already explained how illegals restrict the US’ own choices in who we want to extend invitations to come here and become citizens. That is an infringement that RESTRICTS our government’s ability to exercise sole reign and therefore takes away from our sovereignty. There is no dancing around this point. The less choices you have, the less sovereignty you have.
Now, as to your point that our own government can decide not to defend US sovereignty … that is true, but that also spells the end of the US as sovereign nation if there are enough people willing to barge into the US, which there are. So, for anyone who is happy to look forward to seccessionist votes in many of the southern border states in the next decade or two, just keep doing what you’re doing. Don’t worry about the dissolutions of all those nations around the world. Don’t worry that France is already into its 5th republic. Don’t worry about Quebec constantly screaming about seccession. None of that could ever happen in the US …. We can allow in as many people who claim “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us” and not expect them to ever decide that they want to pull away from the US. Yeah.
As to your idea about Rudy enforcing the border (though illegals are more than a border issue) I find that laughable, since he’s out trying to argue for why illegals are not illegal (even though they have NO LEGAL RIGHT to be here – call it what you want, but that’s illegal in my book) and why they should be allowed to stay here.
I will not vote for Rudy, no matter what. No matter what. This illegal issue is a total deal breaker for me.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 10:05 PM
I’m not saying that they mix the two, but it’s a question of population size and services. One illegal being here is still a person in the system and still uses the system (abuses, for the most part). We can only grow the population at such a rate, and the illegals are part of that growth, whether we like it or not.
I agree. That’s why I want the illegals out and more high-quality immigrants (and/or guest workers) brought in.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 10:10 PM
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 10:05 PM
While there is no comprehensive anti-immigration bill pending, immigration opponents want a fence along the entire border, beefed-up workplace enforcement, and changes in laws regarding the prosecutions of people who are found to be in the country without documentation. All of these have been discussed on this thread, and any suggention that one can be done without the other is met with dissent.
Oh really? I suppose you haven’t noticed how many commenters have been proposing changes to laws to restrict immigration, even going so far as to suggest amending the citizenship provisions of the Constitution. Giuliani stated the law regarding illegal presence in the USA, and was met on this thread with comments about “closing the loophole.” Whether you think that’s the right thing to do or not, it is part of an agenda.
Perhaps only because it is accurate. Strident opposition to any kind of regularization of those illegal immigrants who are here already (even with assimilation-oriented requirements), and the desire to make them leave at just about any cost, is a nativist principle. Pure and simple. No security argument is made, just an argument about others “invading” the country. I know he’s popular around here, but Tancredo fits the bill perfectly. He goes on and on about abolishing “press 1 for English, 2 para Espanol” on customer service lines, wants to stop legal immigration, and had a dustup with the Denver Public Library over whether or not they should stock books in Spanish. These are not the positions of an immigration restrictionist interested in security and prosperity (Like Duncan Hunter), they are the crusades of a nativist nut. It pains me to see how popular he is on conservative blogs.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 10:24 PM
“Comprehensive” is code for amnesty/rewards/Z visas, etc. The “comprehensive immigration bill” would have sailed through Congress without the “comprehensive Z visa reward program”.
“
anti-immigration” anti-illegal immigration. There, I fixed it for you. I find that anytime someone (such as La Raza, ACLU, etc.) starts dropping the word ‘illegal’ from the illegal immigration issue, I assume they are being disingenuous. And when “nativism” creeps into the discussion instead of arguing law, I am convinced.I like Rudy. I really do. Except for his squishyness on thoroughly and enthusiastically enforcing our sovereignty. And this issue is a killer for me, and many others.
Again, read the poll: http://www.jmi.com/immigrationmarches/zogby5.html
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Do you actually think with that brain?
JiangxiDad already explained to you that illegal aliens are not immigrants any more than a burglar is a houseguest. So, I guess you would say that people who lock their doors are anti-houseguest. Brilliant.
progressoverpeace on September 8, 2007 at 10:29 PM
There isn’t a single thing you said that I agree with. Everybody is here for different reasons. I come here to discuss politics with like-minded people because I live in a sea of liberals. I’m not trying to preach to the choir, but it’s nice to know I’m not the only one in the conservative closet.
You come here for other reasons. You obviously have plenty of libs to talk to wherever you are, since you choose to spend your time online talking to conservatives.
We’re just not a match, so I’m gonna pass.
JiangxiDad on September 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Giuliani was asked by Beck about allowing the 400,000 illegals in NYC to use city services if they were otherwise law abiding. Beck retorted by asserting that they had already committed crimes by crossing the border, and Giuliani stated that illegal presnece is not a criminal offense. They were both correct, but were talking past one another about different issues. Giuliani never said that illegals are not here illegally, just that the law does not treat that level of illegality as a criminal offense.
With all due respect, immigration enforcement does not go by your book.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Fred no!!
Well back when things were tenuous and it looked like amnesty might pass I had the same opinion as Fred. But now with momentum on our side it is time to vigourously enforce the law (with a program and staff to accomodate legal temporary workers) and bring about a wave of self deportation then; I would consider an amnesty coupled with a heavy fine state and federal, paying into the IRS for 10 years before they start to acrue benefits, and the last person inline to get into the United States legally is where the line for former illegals begins, say 15 years.
At least Fred mentions fairness to those who waited for the legal process and a deterant to the next 12 million. The deterant only comes with internal enforcement and closing the border. For goodness sakes they are still trying to get in after all we have thrown at them. The message is not loud enough yet.
Mitt has had the best answer so far…
Theworldisnotenough on September 8, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Read very carefully, and you’ll see that this does not disagree with what Rudy said.
This confirms that it’s the act of attempting to enter that is subject to those criminal penalties, not the presence in the US per se.
A weekend talk show here in KC covered this a few weeks ago. The illegal entry has to be proven indirectly, but it can be done.
The trick is for the prosecutor to charge under 8 USC 1325(a)(1), present the manifest evidence that the defendant is an alien, is present in the US and no entry visa was issued to him, which means that he entered “other than as designated by immigration officers”. Then the burden of proof would seem to be on the defendant to show otherwise.
In the real world, this sort of thing never should get to a courtroom: The administrative hearing officer determines that the alien is here illegally and issues a report to that effect. With that report, the AUSA sits down with the alien’s counsel, says “We can go to trial and your guy gets up to 6 months and a fine, or you can plead out to a reduced fine and a suspended 6 month sentence.”, at which point the counsel says “Take the deal.”
(If the alien in question is also charged with some other crime, the AUSA maybe does things differently.)
If he ever returns illegally, the suspended sentence is explicitly reactivated under 8 USC 1326(c), with what appears to be an additional 2 years each for violating 1325(a) a second time, and 1326(c) for the first.
The Monster on September 8, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Please define this term, and without using ‘Tancredo’.
Is this slang for rewarding law-breakers with the ill-gotten goods that they set out to steal, i. e., residency?
We will never stop illegal immigration without removing the
“carrots” – the rewards to cross the border without our permission. These include the hope for ‘regularization’, in-state tuition, under-paid jobs with no Soc. Sec. number, ad nauseum. Workplace enforcement and ending benefits for illegal aliens are a must if Rudy hopes to control the border.
If I were south of the border, and saw Bush pushing for Z visas/amnesty/rewards while raiding a few work sites, I would be very confused.
I am an Instrument Flight Instructor, taking security
training from, and following the rules of, the TSA. I have a student from El Salvador, with a green card, who is PISSED, as I am, that some politicians want to reward illegal aliens with “regularized” presence in this country.
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Thanks for making my point again.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Yes, to put it crudely, it is. We will not be able (in practice or politically) to round up all of the illegal immigrants and forcibly deport them. We will also not be able to scare all of them off, even if we’re reeeeeaallyy mean about it. Sometimes you have to suck it up, admit you made a mistake (i.e. not enforcing the borders for the last however many years), and move on without complaining about what constitutes fair tratment of somebody who broke a law 10 or 20 years ago.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Your policy will INCREASE illegal immigration. In the Spring of 2006, when the Senate and Bush started talking about amnesty, there was a mad rush to the border to get in before the cutoff date.
I wish our President would suck it up, admit his mistakes, and start enforcing our laws.
You may not remember, but immediately after 9/11, we deported 1500 illegal Pakistanis. Within 6 months, an additional 15,000 self-deported. This country hasn’t tried to enforce our immigration laws for 30+ years. Many states, counties, and cities are starting to “do the job George Bush won’t do.” Why not TRY to enforce our laws for a change?
I have work to do, and so does Rudy – on his platform.
Good night.
fred5678 on September 8, 2007 at 10:58 PM
I guess that might make sense if you had never heard of the IRS. Why do people pay their taxes? I know I don’t want to, and it would benefit me economically if I didn’t pay them.
Why do businesses pay taxes and withold W2 taxes from their employees? There are more than 12 million people paying taxes, more than 12 million businesses paying taxes.
Tell me, Big S, why is it so much more practical and humane (and non-nativist) to force me and everyone else to pay taxes, but not to require people to be in this country legally?
I take from your arguments thus far that Giuliani thinks it’s OK for people not to pay their taxes, as long as there’s a lot of them refusing to pay.
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 11:04 PM
I would argue that the IRS does not catch everyone who evades taxes, deomonstrating the difficulty in enforcing such laws on the population.
Big S on September 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM
I’m not clear what your point is, you have made several.
Theworldisnotenough on September 8, 2007 at 11:39 PM
One of the more prominent uses of the term “Amnesty” over the years has been when state governments allow businesses or individuals who have failed to pay taxes to square up with reduced penalties. The programs generate a cash infusion for the states and clear the backlog of investigations.
Is tax amnesty also “shamnesty”? Should the only recourse of someone failing to pay all their taxes in a given year be prosecution to the fullest extent of the law? Should we increase the size of the IRS or state agencies to make sure no one is grubbing a temporary free ride?
dedalus on September 8, 2007 at 11:44 PM
That didn’t really answer my question. I’ll admit I’m not happy with Giuliani’s record on illegal immigration. You are defending his actions, say it was the best way to handle the situation. Your reasons include: 1) too difficult to enforce, 2) U.S. has not execised it’s sovereignty, and so on.
Trying to overlook your epithets and make sense of your argument about sovereignty I thought about the border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, where the border is indefinite, and there are no laws (that I know of) to regulate the passage of people across it. I pointed out that the U.S. has clearly defined its borders, clearly marked it’s borders, makes some attempt to enforce the borders, has made immigration laws that apply to all countries (some differently than others), and made laws regarding citizenship, legal residency, visiting, and entering or staying illegally. Your response is that the enforcement is not very effective, but I fail to see how that excuses Giuliani’s actions when Mayor.
Then, trying to make sense of your argument about how it’s impossible to enforce immigration laws (very defeatist) I compared your argument to taxes. Although the governments are not 100% effective in collecting taxes, they do a good enough job (with a lot more people than are here illegally) to have a workable system. Your response is that since it’s not 100% effective, what?? That’s as far as your answer went.
It seems to me that you’re aguing from a partisan position rather than a logical position. Can you honestly say that you would be saying the exact same things if Fred? had declared Tennessee a sactuary State, and sued the Federal government twice to give benefits to illegals? C’mon, let’s see what you would say if Fred had done the same things Rudy has done. Or better yet – Tancredo.
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 11:48 PM
I’ve felt for a long time that Rudy was just another amnesty shill. His assertion that he can end illegal immigration without any specifics has always sounded exactly like the Democrats plan to make all immigration legal.
But Fred!, how did I miss that clip from last year. I remember his “build the fence, then we can discuss” speech but not that crap about having to give illegals a path.
So there isn’t any hope. Of course I’ll continue to support the only conservatives running, Hunter and Tancredo but otherwise no matter who wins we’re going to continue right down the toilet.
Buzzy on September 8, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Tax amnesties are rare, but the main point is that the companies and individuals have to pay all of their back taxes. The are excused a punishment of prison and fines, and they don’t have to have a conviction or wrong-doing on their record. But all back taxes are paid.
The equivalent for illegal immigrants would be no prosecution, no fines, no jail time, no criminal record, but they have to leave the country immediately.
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 11:54 PM
It could be deportation. It could also be a fine and legal status. It depends on what lawmakers decide. Not all illegal residents enter the US illegally. If someone entered on a legal visa and overstayed it doesn’t seem unreasonable to allow them to become current again if they are productive and as long as they pay a penalty.
My point isn’t that we ought to do one thing or the other but that “Amnesty”-style solutions can have a practical benefit if applied properly.
dedalus on September 9, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Maybe. But your comparison to a tax amnesty calls for expulsion.
In a tax amnesty the offender has to make things the way they would have been had he not broken the law. There are just no penalties involved. In the case of illegal immigration, the comparison to a tax amnesty would equal expulsion.
jaime on September 9, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Hi Jaime,
I can see your point regarding the “Amnesty” analogy when the entry to the US was illegal. When the entry to the US was legal and subsequently the individual became out-of-status. It is not unreasonable to allow the individual to normalize their status, provided that individual is a positive contributor to society.
To go in another direction with the tax analogy, there is also an “offer in compromise” (Form 656) process with the IRS that allows tax cheats to settle up for less than 100 cents on the dollar. Seems like that could be construed as unfair to the straight-arrow who pays all of his taxes on time.
dedalus on September 9, 2007 at 12:57 AM
jaime on September 8, 2007 at 11:48 PM
A little touchy about the “nativist” tag, are we? Come on, own it.
In all seriousness, though, to make sense of my argument, which is not a partisan one, note that there is a difference between enforcing the border and enforcing the immigration laws for illegal aliens who are already here. The law that Giuliani quotes, and which is the subject of this thread, makes that distinction. I have no problem with your claims about the sovreign rights of the USA to define and enforce its borders. However, I strongly disagree with the notion that we should round 12 million people up and ship them out; not only is it complex and inhumane, but it would also not directly address the problem of more people coming in illegally. Until the borders can be controlled, such measures will not be very productive.
About the taxes, I did not bring up that argument. My quarrel with it stems from the fact that IRS enforcement of the tax codes is leaky, and quite a few people are able to get away with falsifying their earnings and holdings, mostly because voters will not tolerate the level of intrusion required to make the enforcement near 100% effective. I believe a similar dynamic would take effect in immigration enforcement.
As far as “sanctuary cities” go, I don’t mind the provision of some services to individuals in a manner that is blind to immigration status. Since I do not believe that we will be able to forcibly deport, or scare away all of the illegal aliens residing here, I believe it is in the nation’s interest to assimilate them as much as possible and prevent the perpetuation of an unassimilated underclass.
Big S on September 9, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Hey, dedalus. Good talking to you.
I see your point about lesser measures, and don’t disagree. I’m just saying that in order to compare to a tax amnesty they would have to leave the country. Also with your example of a visa overstay. Had they not overstayed their visa they wouldn’t be here. To compare to a tax amnesty they would have to leave. That’s all I’m saying.
As for the offer in compromise, the IRS examines your assets before it decides to compromise. If they think they can get more, they’ll press for it. If they think it’s hopeless to collect any more, they’ll compromise. But they investigate it pretty thoroughly first.
I believe that some of the illegals should stay. But under limited circumstances. If most of them are law abiding, as their supporters claim, then most should stay. But SS records, IRS records, credit records, county voter rolls, etc. should be examined and if any identity theft has occured they should be deported. Any other record of a crime should also be cause for deportation.
But if they’re crime-free like their supporters say, they should stay. After border and interior enforcement are under control.
jaime on September 9, 2007 at 1:26 AM
I see your arguments. They’re the exact same arguments used to support the comprehensive immigration bill that was in the Senate earlier this year. I think you (and Rudy) are in the minority of U.S. opinion, and it’s not a winning argument for his campaign. Well, it might be for a Democrat primary.
Since we heard all of your arguments during the debate of the bill, and most conservatives rejected them (except those that benefit from illegal labor) I’m surprised you’re making them here again.
I don’t know if you’re one of those that benefit from illegal labor, or just a supporter of Rudy who will make any vapid argument to lessen the damage to your candidate. But your arguments are as convincing now as they were back in May when Lindsey Graham made them.
jaime on September 9, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Jaime,
Good points. Have a good night.
dedalus on September 9, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Hear, Hear.
progressoverpeace on September 9, 2007 at 2:30 AM
See, I liked the explanations back in the 1980s when this plan was implemented and was designed to end the illegal immigration problem forever.
Or in the 1960s when it was the real solution to the problem and we’d never have to worry about it again.
When I die of a brain aneurysm in the 2020’s I guess we’ll know what it was… listening to someone claim they’ve got a working plan to solve the problem before rehashing this again.
gekkobear on September 9, 2007 at 3:25 AM
Fred was for shamnesty before he was against it.
csdeven on September 9, 2007 at 3:28 AM
Well golly gee… we should just “assimilate” all the illegals! Problem solved!
People who jump the border illegally are going to sign up for assimilation classes? Or are you just talking amnesty?
If they are to be someday- after securing the borders- some sort of “path to citizenship”, they should be given no advantage over those who want to immigrate legally.
And will someone explain to me how Rudy is being forgiven an illegal immigration stance that’s even worse than that of McCain, who’s support tanked after supporting the shamnesty bill? I don’t get it.
Hollowpoint on September 9, 2007 at 4:31 AM
It’s not the same argument though. I opposed the comprehensive reform because I think we need to secure the borders to before we can decide what to do about those who’ve made it in already. Once that is done, I would find some kind of amnesty palatable. Americans will never consent to rounding up and shipping out millions of people in a forceful manner, and many of those will not self deport, since a crappy life in the USA may still be better than where they came from. In that case, I prefer they learn English, get real jobs, and start paying their fair share as soon as possible.
Big S on September 9, 2007 at 6:17 AM
Yes, it is the same argument.
Any form of amnesty, either before or after “securing the border” (which will never be 100% secure), only encourages MORE illegal immigration. Every BP agent says that we have to have strong interior enforcement, even with a 2,000 mile fence, else the crossings will never end. You do realize that Mexican trucks are now allowed all over the U.S.??
The grand 1986 compromise gave amnesty to 2 to 3 million illegals. We have had 6 additional amnesties since then, and now we have 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. You have to stop giving amnesties, which only encourage future illegal crossings.
We have to DISCOURAGE future illegal immigration by removing all the incentives – jobs, benefits, etc. and then there will be no way that illegal aliens can support themselves or, more typically, send money ($20B annually) OUT of our economy, back to their families.
Imagine yourself contemplating illegally crossing the border – if you know that workplace enforcememt is 100%,
and that you can’t get any benefits, why would you cross?
What would be the purpose?
If, on the other hand, you can realistically hope for future amnesty while you can work with a fraudulent soc. sec. card, get free education, free non-emergency (and emergency) hospital care, bank accounts, mortgages, and credit cards with a Matricula Consular card, in-state tuition, driver license in almost 11 states, etc. – yes, you would try to cross.
You didn’t look at the Zogby poll, did you?
http://www.jmi.com/immigrationmarches/zogby5.html
Most Americans want ATTRITION BY SELF-DEPORTATION, not massive roundups. Stop forgetting that. There are THREE choices – not just two, as Bush and amnesty proponents keep repeating. To paraphrase John Lennon, “Give enforcement a chance” – for the first time in 30+ years.
fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 6:46 AM
No. You’re given a ticket because presumebly if you parked your car, you’re not around to get arrested.
Also, the adjudication of parking tickets is done by administrative hearing, the outcome can be appealed to an appeals court.
Traffic violations are criminal offenses. The reason you dont get arrested is because you surrender your license to the police officier as a bond. If you dont have your license on you, then you are arrested.
This is how it works in Illinois.
Here is info from the Cook county circuit court website. I live in Chicago
http://www.cookcountycourt.org/traffic_court/index.html
Right to know the penalty
Traffic violations range in seriousness from a parking violation carrying a maximum fine of $100.00 to a felony offense resulting in a prison sentence of more than 10 years. The penalties for all violations are set by the state, county or municipal government passing the law.
Violations established by county or municipal governments are contained in ordinances. These are called quasi-criminal offenses. If a person is found guilty of violating an ordinance the penalty is usually a fine. However, in some instances an ordinance may provide for a jail sentence. Violations of state law are classified as either petty offenses, business offenses, Class A, B or C misdemeanor or felony offenses. Felony traffic offenses are generally not heard in traffic court and therefore will not be discussed here.
The range of penalties for cases heard in traffic court are:
Petty Offense
fine of $1 to $1,000
examples: speeding, disobeying a red light
Business Offense
fine set by law creating each offense
example: driving without insurance
Misdemeanors
Class A jail up to 364 days or fine of $1 to $2,500 or both
examples: driving under the influence, driving on a suspended or revoked license or speeding 40 or more miles over the speed limit
Class B jail up to 6 months or fine of $1 to $1,500 or both
example: to advertise or distribute any information or material that promotes the selling, giving or furnishing of a fraudulent driver’s license or permit
Class C jail up to 30 days or fine of $1 to $1,500 or both
example: third conviction for a petty offense traffic violation within one year
In addition, a conviction of certain traffic violations will result in license sanctions
VinceP1974 on September 9, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Was Rudiani wearing stockings during the interview?
Fred! is waffling on immigration. Time for a re-write Fred!
The 12 million will leave when they cannot earn money or live on welfare. Eventually they will steal, sell dope (or other criminal career) or go back to Guatemala or Mexico to earn money honestly.
Build the fence, jail the employers, fine their businesses into bankruptcy. You will be surprised how quickly the alien flood ceases.
saved on September 9, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I thought Ian worked at HotAir??
AprilOrit on September 9, 2007 at 11:59 AM
The government already takes tax money from businesses, generating about $300 billion a year in revenue. Securing the borders is the job of the federal government, not of private enterprise. In return for the taxes paid, business owners expect the government to provide the infrastructure that will enable them the chance to compete effectively in an increasingly tough international marketplace.
dedalus on September 9, 2007 at 12:21 PM
That’s too easy, they would rather waste money being Mother Hen over in Iraq and offer all the Iraqis, who will not step up to the plate, American entitlements. It’s ridiculous.
We are offering entitlements here to evry illegal, thankfully states are cracking down and we are doing it in Iraq – to a country of citizens who could care less about their own survival.
This country is being used across the board – by Mexico and by the Iraqi Government, it pitiful.
If these people are deported they should not be back here, period.
AprilOrit on September 9, 2007 at 12:49 PM
[The Monster on September 8, 2007 at 10:37 PM]
Monster, in general I agree with you about mere presence not being a crime; I noted this in a comment shortly after the one you reference.
But let me qualify this about your statement, “This confirms that it’s the act of attempting to enter that is subject to those criminal penalties, not the presence in the US per se.” It is not merely the act of attempting but the act of entering, which implies being successful, that is subject. Look to the “or” in “enters or attempts to enter” of 1325(a)(1). If you arrived here via a method not prescribed, you committed a crime. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been here for 5 or 10 years, as best I can tell. If found out, you can be prosecuted.
So, my original point contrasting with AP’s still stands. AP argues that Rudy is right that it is not a crime for the first offense. Section 1325 indicates this argument is wrong, unless we now descend into whether the crime is civil or criminal. Either way, the penalty is being subjected to possible fine and/or imprisonment which is the same possibilities for repeated offenses.
In thinking more about the term “illegal immigration”, though, it’s more describing of the act, not the presence. In similar fashion, the term “illegal immigrant”, to me, describes an alien who committed the act of entering the US illegally, which is a crime. As such, I think Rudy is not half right, but is entirely wrong in his explanation of what is law. For Rudy to play this into a presence thing is deceitful, especially for a former district attorney who should be forthright about what the law is, especially when running for the highest office that is invested with protecting and applying the laws of this land.
Dusty on September 9, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Big S. There sure is some Big S going on with your posts. You’re full of S. In fact you oughtta change your handle to Big SSOS, Big Sorry Sack of Sh*t. You sound like a typical open borders, WSJ, type globalIST. Shall we get into an -IST words war? I’m sure you’ll go straight for the one beginning with race next since you’re a walking Bush talking point. It is amazing to me that people like you think we should base public policy simply on which one will make the most money as if there should be no other considerations? It pains you to see how popular Tancredo is on conservative blogs huh? You’re welcome to leave anytime. You’re presence here is painful for us too.
full circle on September 9, 2007 at 4:36 PM
We need some more common sense approaches like this:
But the typical reaction from those anonymous critics of common sense law enforcement and apologists for illegal aliens:
http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070909/seizing.shtml
fred5678 on September 9, 2007 at 4:39 PM
It is amazing the BS that counts for commentary on this site sometimes.
Sounds like an open boarder pander to me too!!!
tommylotto on September 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM
President Eisenhower was able to deport illegal aliens and it would work today if the Government just implemented the program and stopped talking about it.
Here is an excerpt from an article that explains that it can be done and quickly;How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico:
Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
So much for the lying propaganda coming out of this White house and its minions. You can deport illegals and Eisenhower proved it could be done.
The utter nonsense that it is impossible to deport the Illegals is just good old fashioned propaganda by the open borders lobby and illegal advocates.
ScottyDog on September 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Rudy is “half right” if you think that 50% of all illegal aliens arrived here legally, overstayed their visas, and have never been deported. If you believe all that stuff, I’ve got a really cool bridge I’d like to sell you a 50% interest in.
Xrlq on September 10, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2