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.

GLENN: So what’s your solution?
GIULIANI: My solution is close the border to illegal immigration.

Sounds like an open boarder pander to me too!!!

The success of an Athens law that impounds vehicles driven by unlicensed motorists is encouraging Decatur Mayor Don Kyle to support an even stricter ordinance.

The Athens ordinance took effect Aug. 10 and snaked 299 vehicles off the street in less than four weeks. Police averaged nearly 18 vehicles per day.

But the typical reaction from those anonymous critics of common sense law enforcement and apologists for illegal aliens:

Despite the successful numbers in Athens’ ordinance, critics maintain the new law unfairly targets illegal immigrants, who do not have the ability to obtain a driver license or insurance.

According to one Athens towing company employee, a majority of the vehicles impounded since the new law took effect do belong to illegal immigrants.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070909/seizing.shtml

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.

Build the fence, jail the employers, fine their businesses into bankruptcy. You will be surprised how quickly the alien flood ceases.

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.

Build the fence, jail the employers, fine their businesses into bankruptcy. You will be surprised how quickly the alien flood ceases.

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.

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.

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

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

It’s not the same argument though. …
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.

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.

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.

jaime on September 9, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Until the borders can be controlled, such measures will not be very productive.

-Me

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.

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

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.

your arguments are as convincing now as they were back in May when Lindsey Graham made them.

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.

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

Hear, Hear.

Big S on September 9, 2007 at 1:12 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.

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.

From Yahoo:
WASHINGTON – Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said illegal immigration is not a crime, prompting rival Mitt Romney to accuse him of not taking the problem seriously. The two have clashed for weeks over illegal immigration, an i…

Trying to overlook your epithets

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.

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.