Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?

posted at 8:31 am on February 16, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The President has been back out on the road again, spinning heartwarming tales and pushing for his second term agenda, as you’d expect any recently reelected leader to do. I’ll confess that I had a hard time paying attention to a lot of it, what with asteroids crashing to Earth on poop filled cruise ships and all, but there was one theme which caught my attention. He’s going all in on the hot new fad of comprehensive immigration reform.

President Barack Obama told a group of Senate Democrats Wednesday that Congress must move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, or else he will propose his own legislation on the hot-button topic…

In a description of Wednesday’s meeting, the White House said Obama “reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan, commonsense effort, including continuing to strengthen border security, creating an earned path to citizenship, holding employers accountable and streamlining legal immigration.”

Everyone seems to be talking about it these days, and not just Democrats. Republicans from Marco Rubio to John McCain have their own proposals, many of which involve some form of what the President is talking about. You can call it a “path to citizenship” or amnesty or Expedited Entry… whatever you like. But for some reason there are still quite a few of us who hear proposals such as these and get an uneasy feeling. For some of us, it may even be hard to quantify exactly what’s wrong. But if you harbor any such qualms, of course, you will be immediately labeled… say it with me…

A racist.

Whatever. But as I considered the question this week, I realized that there might be a better way to describe exactly why this sounds troubling. And to understand it, you really need to talk about the story of Ray Bowman and William Kirkpatrick. Those names might not be familiar unless you lived in the Pacific Northwest in the 90s, but they were something of a legend. In a career spanning more than 16 years they robbed 28 banks around the country for a total of more than $7 million. I’m not going all anti-hero worship on you here, but you’ve got to admit… in terms of raw focus and mission attention, these guys were good. They stole a LOT of money without getting caught.

But the law finally caught up with them, and in 1999 they went to trial and were sent to lengthy stretches in the Crowbar Motel. Now here’s the thing about their story… during the trial, not one person – not in the media, the public, the courts or the government – not one single person stood up to say anything remotely like the following:

You know, yeah… okay.. they stole the money. But they’ve had it for a really long time now. And their families are depending on it for retirement and the kids’ college. Some of it is invested in various places and we’d have to draw it out. Maybe, after all this time, we should just let them keep it.

Why did nobody say that? The answer is because they broke the law and they got caught. This applies for virtually any other law you could name… except for illegal immigration. As things stand now, crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime. Beyond that, continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime. If you do this, you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here. But for some reason, we seem to be reaching the point where we’re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover. Yes, it’s a crime to come over the border uninvited, but if you make it to home base, maybe we’ll just forget about it.

Now, before the inevitable, hollow argument comes flying back at me here, I’m not talking about anything resembling the statute of limitations. (Why we have a statute of limitations is a debate for another day.) Bowman and Kirkpatrick kept committing crimes all through their run. And people who are here illegally continue to break the law every single day by the simple fact of being in the country. If you want to have a discussion about a statute on illegal immigration where people can leave for seven years and have it dropped from their record… fine. We can have that debate. But it doesn’t apply to this situation.

Allow me to also answer the second, inevitable question which crops up every time we have this discussion. No, I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country. I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it. I also don’t know what to do about the 90% of robberies that go unsolved each year. But I’m pretty sure that the answer isn’t to decriminalize theft.

I’ve had some conflicting feelings about this immigration question myself, I confess. But America either is or it is not a nation of laws. If we are to change our system so that entering our nation without permission is no longer a crime – or at least not that serious of one – then lawmakers need to make that clear. But don’t tell us you’re doing it just because you can’t figure out how to stop people from breaking the law. And if keeping control of our borders and retaining management of who does or does not enter is still an important priority and a criminal matter, that should be made clear also. What we’re getting out of Washington now is static, clarifying nothing and selling a feel-good product which doesn’t seem to address any of these questions.

Discuss.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 7

Ok, let’s suddenly say that illegal immigration isn’t breaking the law.

Now that this issue is addressed, let’s now address the issues of:

-Identity theft
-Social Security fraud
-Tax evasion
-Mortgage lending fraud

Philo Beddoe on February 16, 2013 at 8:42 AM

YES!

Next.

As for the attitude towards the proceeds of crime – who did they steal from? Not the 47%, that’s for sure.

OldEnglish on February 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?

Illegal

Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law.

Crime is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems)

After a lengthy investigation I must conclude that the answer is yes!

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Let’s look at it this way…

Try to sneak into southern Mexico without any papers or visa or permits to be there.

Then try to get a job…or enroll your kids in school or go to the ER or open a bank account or any of the other common day-to-day things illegal immigrants are allowed to do here.

If you are fortunate, you may be driven to the nearest border crossing and told to leave, with what you can carry on your back.

Many are shot or imprisoned or simply disappear.

You can call the unfortunates undocumented…but they are still here in violation of established US law.

We, as a sovereign nation have every right to choose who enters, and when.

Ask any other nation if they do not have the same right…then go violate their borders.

Good luck.

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 8:47 AM

This country is chock full of pansy ass do gooders, that is why some don’t see it as a crime.

GhoulAid on February 16, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Discuss.

That’s about all we CAN do at this point.

Cleombrotus on February 16, 2013 at 8:52 AM

It’s simple, really. The Democrats are trying to enlarge their voting bloc, and the Republicans are trying to mitigate the effects of that enlargement.

To paraphrase Tina Turner, what’s law got to do with it?

flipflop on February 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Whatever Washington does short of finding all the illegals, taxing everything they have at 75%, and shipping them back home, we’ll be discussing this matter again in another five years. The pro-amnesty crowd will make the same arguments as the last three times we faced this, our side will bring up The Law(TM), and the result will be the same: the laws don’t matter. But feeling good and loving that diversity thing are paramount!

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

No, I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country. I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it.

I do.

Pass a law that makes any contract with an illegal alien unenforceable. They don’t legally have to pay car loans, rent, mortgages, utilities, or taxes.

Pass another law that allows them to sue their employer for ten times the wages and benefits they would have earned if employed legally and they can do this at any time, even after employment. Throw in a $25,000 lump sum from that same employer on top of that which they can take back to their country of origin.

That would be the end of any job market for illegals, and the end of any apartments, car sales, houses, or pretty much anything else while they are in country.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM

Is it a crime? Well, sorta, flexibly speaking that is, but if you factor in compassion, guaranteed votes, and cheap labor, and then top that off with stories about those anchor babies, sob, sob, then maybe yes, maybe no, but then, I suppose that crime is a minor consideration and law, sovereignty and the frustration of those who abide by the laws of the land who are waiting to get in, you could well dismiss any talk of crime…besides, that’s sort of racist, isn’t it?

Don L on February 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Next time some liberal or anyone else tells you that being “undocumented” is not a crime, gather up a handful of your friends and relatives and walk into their family room …drop off your belongings, leave your trash anywhere you choose, go to the kitchen and start cooking your dinner with their food, raid their pantry, occupy their toilet, and then tell them you are out of food and toilet paper, and your kid has the sniffles and they better damn well take care of it, get to the store, like right now. On their dime, not yours.

We do have laws already on the books to take care of this sort of thing.

Think your liberal friends will allow you to take over their house, or even a part of it, without their permission…upfront…before you do so?

Didn’t think so.

So what’s the difference?

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

I support the Maha Rushie compromise with the left: Amnesty but no vote for 25 years.

petefrt on February 16, 2013 at 9:02 AM

I believe that they are frantically breaking into this nation because Holder and the Obama administration has flooded their nation with illegal assault rifles…

Don L on February 16, 2013 at 9:02 AM

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

The libs will tell you that they have rights and so the ‘undocumented’. The worst thing in the world to a lib is that laws and rules apply equally. If rules can’t be bent to feel good, then the rules have to go. Well, for some, anyway.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM

A voice of sanity and reason.

This time.

Thanks, Jazz. :)

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM

For some of us, it may even be hard to quantify exactly what’s wrong.

Huh? It’s spitting on our law and, more importantly, our sovereignty. Slimeballs like Rubio and Barky are working for the destruction of the very notion of the nation-state.

There’s nothing difficult about identifying what is terribly wrong with these slimeballs who are giving aid and comfort to an enemy invasion, which is exactly what tens of millions of America-haters invading our sovereign territory is.

And, “amnesty” would only involve not punishing the illegals any further than merely deporting them. Not putting any further restrictions on the possibilities of their re-entering legally at some future date, applying for citizenship like normal humans, etc. THAT is amnesty. To grant them legal residency is far beyond amnesty (aiding and abetting, as I said above). To give them anything approaching a “path to citizenship” is downright treason.

Illegal aliens should be immediately deported when found (however so) and their punishment should be that they are no longer allowed to come to the US. Not to visit. Not to anything. They are persona non-grata from now on. And they can never, never, NEVER even think of becoming American citizens.

That is what should happen. There are BILLIONS of people around the world who are dying to come to America and to become Americans. It is OUR CHOICE as to which ones we want to invite and which ones we choose to allow to become citizens.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

I’ve also been considering this issue. Jazz, I agree with you about this being a nation of laws and I also agree that decriminalizing shattering federal immigration law is not the answer.

For those who insist that it would be too costly to deport the 12-20 million who have willfully shattered federal immigration law, it’s important to point out that the estimated cost to the tax payers of apprehension and deportation has been posited, by the LEFT, at about $40B. This nation is currently spending over $113B per year on social services for illegal aliens. This doesn’t count the other costs associated with dealing with illegal immigration, such as enforcement, penal system, and cost of adjudication. Nor does it address the toll that related crime takes on the communities and states impacted by illegal immigration and the drain on local resources. Further, the PEW CENTER has estimated that illegal immigrants contribute about $15B/year to the overall economy, total, not including the aforementioned costs.

I’d also point out recent figures detailing the massive cost to taxpayers of the 83 separate means tested federal welfare programs. 100 million Americans are now enrolled on one or more of these programs and these programs, which do not include Medicare, Social Security, or the Veterans Administration, are the single largest expenditure of the federal government. Some 43% of all immigrants who’ve been in this nation for 20 years or more, legal and illegal, are benefiting from one or more of these programs.

Finally, this is a nation of laws. These laws must be enforced equitably without preference or prejudice. This equality before and under the law is a founding principle of this nation. To further erode this principle is to erode the pillar on which this nation was built. To give any group who chooses to willfully shatter the law, thus demonstrating a complete disregard for the rule of law and a clear disdain for the rights of the citizens and legal immigrants of this nation, any form of preferential treatment under the law or exception to the law would erode that foundation pillar of our nation beyond repair. Either the law applies to all, or it applies to none.

thatsafactjack on February 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Years ago the US was seen as a haven for those seeking a safe habor from despots, dictators and more recently communist dictators. Imperials criminals who would imprison, torture, rape and kill their citizens simply for believeing differently than they do need and deserve a safe haven.
When you have a neighbor less than 100 miles away being subjectd to the worst that communist dictators can come up with, torturing their citizens, exceptions should be made in border security.We have done so and correctly.
Other than that it remains illegal to cross our borders without permission, IMHO.

rodguy911 on February 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

As a BASE LINE, we need to deport illegals who commit crimes above say traffic violations.

DavidM on February 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Might be interesting to have a few hundred, maybe a thousand or so, walk through the gates at the White House and set up tents and shanties, campfires and such.

It is OUR house, remember…we pay for it.

But, we’d be arrested on the spot for trespassing…on OUR land.

Hmmm…anyone want to go to DC?

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM

As a BASE LINE, we need to deport illegals who commit crimes above say traffic violations.

DavidM on February 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM

I’d go even farther. Just enforce the law as written. If that means a lifetime ban on re-entry for illegal aliens, so be it.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM

-illegal entry
-tax evasion
-identity fraud
-insurance fraud

mjbrooks3 on February 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Can you go to any other country in the world, cross their border in contravention of their laws, their stated about how to enter, and get away with it?

rbj on February 16, 2013 at 9:11 AM

But for some reason, we seem to be reaching the point where we’re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover.

N!**@ Please!! Spare me your naivete. There is NO RULE OF LAW IN AMERICA. Not for the banks, not for the unions, not for the crony corporations, not for the forclosure fraud robo signers, not for the illegals and their anchor babies, not for crooked cops, not for crooked politicians, and not for inside traders. Why get all indignant now? America is beyond a banana republic – a coconut kingdom maybe?

abobo on February 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Where do I line up to become an “undocumented worker”?

I want to live in the tax shadows also…

mjbrooks3 on February 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Mexico’s southern border is about 1/4 the length as ours. Can their efforts be quadrupled effectively?

Donald Draper on February 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

I think any person who has a dependent child should be immune from the prosecution of any crime that could result in jail time. It’s really not fair to punish the child for something that happened through no fault of their own. Now what could possibly go wrong with having such a big heart? It’s all for the children.

Wigglesworth on February 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Wigglesworth on February 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Good one. :-)

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM

A racist.

Oh I’ve seen racism here. Stories of long ER waits, in say San Antonio, in “a waiting area full of illegals” is racist.

I have a patient population of at least 40 percent Hispanic. And sometime just have to tell the white folk in my waiting room “the illegals were here first”./

Marcus on February 16, 2013 at 9:18 AM

The easiest way to begin to get a handle on this might be for state legislatures to provide a $100 reward for every non-documented illegal turned in by lawful citizens.

When transgressors are apprehended, fine them $125, take their fingerprints, and issue them a valid state i.d. including both fingerprint and photo marked —ILLEGAL ALIEN—

Give all the corresponding state and redundant federal security agencies access to the data.

Fine or require a trip to local courthouse to show i.d. if found without one, plus enforce all local and federal laws.

Run all illegals for wants, warrants, and federal inquiries, etc…

Just like, or actually, more lenient than any other country on Earth. Do this and we will at least be able to better analyze the problem. They way we handle it now, by ignoring our duties to the lawful citizenry by letting ignoring the federal immigration laws is disgraceful.

ROCnPhilly on February 16, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Yes. Allow me to break this down for you.

A couple of years back, the following allegorical story went viral. You may have seen this already, but it explains illegal immigration as succinctly as anything I have come across:

Let’s pretend I broke into your house. When you discover me there, you insist I leave. But I say, “I’ve made all the beds, washed the dishes, did the laundry, and cleaned the floors; I’ve done all the work you don’t like to do. I’m hardworking and honest (except for breaking into your house). Not only must you let me stay, you must also add me to your insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide these benefits to my husband, too (he will do your yardwork, he’s honest and hardworking too–except for that breaking in part). If you try to force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house and proclaim my right to be there! It’s only fair, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m trying to better myself. I’m hardworking and honest…except for, well, you know. I will live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness and prejudice.

Oh yeah, I want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me.

Good plan..don’t you think?

kingsjester on February 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Is it a crime for legal working citizens to stop paying any income taxes to a government who refuses to uphold our laws?

trs on February 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Anyway I’m off to Wal Mart. Mine is always busy on Saturday. Full of illegals.

Marcus on February 16, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Yes, they are criminals.

Holy F. I just agreed with something Jazz wrote. Guam must have capsized.

CorporatePiggy on February 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

CorporatePiggy on February 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

I knew those Russian bombers were up to something. :-)

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 9:25 AM

-illegal entry
-tax evasion
-identity fraud
-insurance fraud

mjbrooks3 on February 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Thank you. That list can be added to.

bazil9 on February 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM

There is supposed to be an advantage to being a citizen in a nation. When any nation makes it so that the government is working harder for non-citizens (especially illegals) than citizens then there is a serious, fatal problem and that nation is not long for this world. The Constitution states it very clearly in the preamble that it is constructed for the citizens of the US and no others:

“to secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES AND TO OUR POSTERITY”

In aiding and abetting illegals (all of whom have citizenship in other nations, where they belong) people are taking away the liberties of AMERICANS, putting these treasonous slugs in direct opposition to the Constitution and to the very notion of the nation-state. Of course, in a nation that elected an ineligible retard, who hates our nation and everything our nation ever stood for, to the highest office … twice, one cannot be all that surprised that there is a tendency to dissolve America by making it property of the world and putting American citizens at the bottom of the totem pole on sovereign American territory.

It’s time for a national divorce and a re-establishment of a nation based on the American Constitution and American principles – which the American Socialist Superstate we are now in has no respect for either and even less for Americans, ourselves.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Anyway I’m off to Wal Mart. Mine is always busy on Saturday. Full of illegals.

Marcus on February 16, 2013 at 9:21 AM

nyway I’m off to Wal Martmy job at the hospital. Mine is always busy on Saturday. Full of illegals.

Wigglesworth on February 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

I think I’ll stop using the term ‘illegal immigration’ altogether and call it ‘illegal entry’–the same thing as a burglar breaking into my home.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Posting this question on HA already means the illegal immigrants and their supporters have won.

Find me an illegal immigrant who commits only the crime of illegally crossing the border. After that, it’s tax evasion, and I’m sure a long list of other state and local laws they break just being in the country and not part of the “system.”

Aplombed on February 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Is it a crime for legal working citizens to stop paying any income taxes to a government who refuses to uphold our laws?

trs on February 16, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Yes.

It would also be irrelevant.

There was a time when a tax revolt would have been effective. That time is long-gone. The government has access to printing presses and lots of ink for show, and computers to add lots of zeroes to its account balances. The populace not paying taxes would simply stimulate more currency creation. This would not only give them a cheaper way to provide themselves with power-purchasing cash, but also to further devalue whatever wealth you have managed to keep from them.

Fiat currency is the slow blade by which this country will be slain.

ROCnPhilly on February 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM

A crime? Obama and McCain and Rove and Rubio seem to think it’s something that should be rewarded and highly so.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Home invasion is still a crime.

Ronnie on February 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Everyone can dance around the topic if desired but face it, until we show some consistency on the rule of law in other areas – there’s simply no Goddam way we’re gonna convince liberals adhere to it on this particular issue.

I hated Bush and liberal compassionate conservatism but at least he had the balls to do something about corporate crime and even went so far as bring the hammer down on personal friends like Ken Lay when crimes were found out about at Enron, Worldcom, and Arthur Andersen. Yet for some reason, today’s “True Conservatives” ™ **cough cough Eric Cantor cough cough** seem to think crony capitalism is what makes America great, by deed if not by word. When you let one crime slide, logic dictates that an unwillingness to let ALL crimes slide is indeed indicative of bias – one this one thing the liberals are actually correct.

So, the real question is do we start showing some consistency – or do we simply allow ALL crimes to slide?

abobo on February 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I think I’ll stop using the term ‘illegal immigration’ altogether and call it ‘illegal entry’–the same thing as a burglar breaking into my home.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Obama and McCain and Rove and Rubio want to give him the keys and maybe even the deed.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Illegal habitation is already a crime, make it a felony, and sending illegal foreigners home isn’t that hard, freeze and confiscate their assets for the ill gotten gains they actually are.

Only through perversions of our highest laws have we come to this point, American’s have every reason in this world to be angry as hell, the people they’ve hired on both sides of the fence to protect their lives and livelihoods have stabbed their own countryman repeatedly in the back.

Speakup on February 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Home invasion is still a crime.

Ronnie on February 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM

No habla English.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM

Obama and McCain and Rove and Rubio want to give him the keys and maybe even the deed.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

And a stipend to ‘help him along’.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

I’m always very weary of the governmnet’s use of the term “reform”. -They keep using that word. I don’t think it (ever) means what they think it means.
But in this instance, as with alot regarding this administration, is it or isn’t it falls under truth in the crime and politics rule(or with this group we maybe should refer to it as political crimes). The term is always fluid.

onomo on February 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Shaw, yes they are criminals. No doubt about that. But you plainly state that you don’t know what to do with the 5-12 million already here. Therein lies the problem. We have 2 political formations in the country, 1 of which want to legalize them. So any solution proposed on what to do about the 5-12 million already here becomes unworkable and untenable. You may not like it, but thats how it is. So when you come up with a workable solution, acceptable to all, your input would be appreciated.

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Touché.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 9:43 AM

What is mexico’s illegal immigration laws again? Hmmmm

bazil9 on February 16, 2013 at 9:44 AM

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Asked and answered about a thousand times.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 9:44 AM

What is mexico’s illegal immigration laws again? Hmmmm

bazil9 on February 16, 2013 at 9:44 AM

More like a rope than a welcome mat.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Is it a crime? Definitely. Should it be? Seems a little iffier to me and I lean toward no. If immigration is to migrate from one place to another (basic, I know), then the only thing that could possibly make such an activity illegal is trespassing on private property. So, private property owners should be able/allowed to prevent immigrants from migrating onto, or through, their property; but governments? Eh, not so much, I think. Does a government even have the ability to own private property to be trespassed upon? All of its lands are “public,” and expressly not owned by any private person. Unless the government somehow qualifies as a “person,” I don’t see it.

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?

…do I have to help you with everything?…No, it is not a crime!…also, there is peace in the Middle East…no one is fighting in Africa…’everybody’ in the world loves and respects America now according to Pakistani polling…no guns got loose in Mexico killing hundreds of potential taxpaying US citizens…firecrackers went off while people were taking a walk in the neighborhood in Benghazi…and the private sector is doing fine!…WTF is wrong with you?

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Home invasion is still a crime.

Ronnie on February 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Not if the home belongs to a money-grubbing ahole and the invader is self righteous and speaking truth to power.

You dumb homophobe.

Bishop on February 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Home invasion is still a crime.

Ronnie on February 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM

…nooooo!…they’re just “squatting“!

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Bishop on February 16, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Well…at least I didn’t spew Diet Coke all over the monitor this time…I spewed Chrystal Light Peach Tea.

Dadgum it, Bish!

kingsjester on February 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

@VorDaj A workable solution, acceptable to all? No, never been answered.

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Is it a crime? Definitely. Should it be? Seems a little iffier to me and I lean toward no. If immigration is to migrate from one place to another (basic, I know), then the only thing that could possibly make such an activity illegal is trespassing on private property. So, private property owners should be able/allowed to prevent immigrants from migrating onto, or through, their property; but governments? Eh, not so much, I think. Does a government even have the ability to own private property to be trespassed upon? All of its lands are “public,” and expressly not owned by any private person. Unless the government somehow qualifies as a “person,” I don’t see it.

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Dude! You’re missing the point! Freedom flows from sovereignty, which is the ability of a nation to determine its own affairs. You can not have a sovereign nation without recognizing that nation’s right to police its borders and define who is a citizen.

We owe non-citizen aliens (but I repeat myself) NOTHING. They are here at our pleasure, and we can make them leave any time and for any reason. To say otherwise as if we have an obligation to them is slow national suicide.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

the only thing that could possibly make such an activity illegal is trespassing on private property. So, private property owners should be able/allowed to prevent immigrants from migrating onto, or through, their property;

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

It’s not your property.

It’s just land and where do you get the right to claim it exclusively for yourself?

A property deed from the government you say?

Well then I guess if they can decide that you actually own land, then they can also decide that crossing that border is against the law.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

You were joking with all that, right?

Government can and does limit what can happen on ‘public lands’. You can’t leave trash all over Yellowstone, and you can’t drill in ANWAR without a permit, for example. But in some places, shooting a person for merely trespassing will get you a jail sentence.

If government can’t regulate its borders, then how about inviting the Mexican Army to move into Tucson and set up a base?

I really hope you were joking. If not, I more hope you’re still too young to vote.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

What is mexico’s illegal immigration laws again? Hmmmm

bazil9 on February 16, 2013 at 9:44 AM

People banned, automatic weapons permitted? Do I win something?

hillsoftx on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

A country is owned by its citizens – privy to them only.

OldEnglish on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Why do we even have borders.

tomas on February 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM

If it violates a statute or law then it’s illegal . . . if it doesn’t then it isn’t. The real question is, do we intend to enforce our laws? If we don’t then anarchy is in the logical progression. Furthermore, if we are in fact a “nation of laws” then we are about to disintegrate.

rplat on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

@KA2 lol. Good snarky post.

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Background check for guns ? Federal database ?
Ya see where I’m going here ?
I’d like to see billboards across
the country stating Mexican immigration
laws .

Lucano on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

So when you come up with a workable solution, acceptable to all, your input would be appreciated.

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Now, imagine this as the basis for all law in the United States.

Volume…that is what determines if a law is to be enforced or not?

Might as well strike all moving violations while driving from the books. Just too many of them to ticket them all. Kinda unfair that you have to get a ticket when the guy who just passed you didn’t. And you have to pick up your kids at school.

There are simple ways to enforce the law.

And simple ways to get illegals back to their countries of origin.

Make it illegal to hire, contract, provide services to…any…any illegal. $10,000 fine per each violation. Loss of any access to federal or state contracts for a period of ten years Confiscation of property. Imprisonment.

Other countries do this sort of thing…daily.

And the pro-illegals crowd? Haven’t heard a peep out of any of them.

So this is not about illegal immigration.

It is, however, about fundamentally changing the way we are governed by establishing a permanent progressive voting bloc.

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

So, the real question is do we start showing some consistency – or do we simply allow ALL crimes to slide?

abobo on February 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Nope. Consistency would never do. It’s the inconsistency or abritary application of law which gives the bureaucrat his power. To a tyrant and would-be tyrants, it’s best to outlaw everything possible so that one cannot live without breaking the law. That way, if you have in your possesion anything your ruler wants, be it land wealth or silence, an infraction can be proven and threats of prosecution made to pressure your full compliance with their wishes.

On the fip side, if you want anything from government, even if it’s something stated clearly in law, you’ll have to beg for it and “play ball” with the powers that be.

This concept is explained well by Hayek and dramatized (as well as explained) by Ayn Rand.

ROCnPhilly on February 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

A country is owned by its citizens – privy to them only.

OldEnglish on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

And a non-tyrannical government is supposed to be representative of that citizenry, unconcerned with the “rights” of non-citizens.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Yes, it has – obey the law! The law is acceptable to all but criminals, is it not?

OldEnglish on February 16, 2013 at 9:58 AM

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I would advise you to go have a conversation with Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz.

Oh, wait. You can’t. An illegal, crossing his ranch on the border, murdered him in cold blood.

kingsjester on February 16, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Discuss.

That’s about all we CAN do at this point.

Cleombrotus on February 16, 2013 at 8:52 AM

First sad chuckle of the day. :}

Fallon on February 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I’d go even farther. Just enforce the law as written. If that means a lifetime ban on re-entry for illegal aliens, so be it.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM

You just had to apply some common sense, didn’t you?

bazil9 on February 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

It’s politics pure and simple .
Two groups in DC that try to
out compassion each other .

Lucano on February 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

If all it takes is numbers, then 30-40 million of us should just stop paying our taxes, the government would then overlook this omission and grant amnesty to the violators.

The new America, where all lawbreakers deserve a break.

Oh wait, paying taxes is voluntary. I know that because the IRS employs 100,000 people to make sure we volunteer.

fogw on February 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM

You just had to apply some common sense, didn’t you?

bazil9 on February 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Sadly lacking in this national conversation on immigration. We need an accurate premise on which to base our arguments before we can have a debate.

I’m not a Numbers USA guy. I don’t believe we have to roll back our immigration to pre-1965 levels with 1924 country-of-origin quotas in order to maintain our national sovereignty. There may be other good reasons to do that, but I have yet to hear any. I believe wholeheartedly in the constitution, and the constitution says it is the chief executive’s job to “faithfully execute the laws.” As in, all laws. Simple enough to me.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I support the Maha Rushie compromise with the left: Amnesty but no vote for 25 years.

petefrt on February 16, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Do you actually believe some court will not declare this unconstitutional? Rush is crazy on this one.

bw222 on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Freedom flows from sovereignty, which is the ability of a nation to determine its own affairs.

You may be right. I’m not all that smart and I can’t say I understand how freedom flows from sovereignty. However, I dislike the idea of this nebulous “nation,” which is really just a bunch of individuals, determining “its own affairs,” which always seem to end up being my affairs. Every bit of freedom I have ever lost, I have lost to the government, so again–not too keen to recognize its sovereignty.

Case in point:

It’s not your property.

It’s just land and where do you get the right to claim it exclusively for yourself?

A property deed from the government you say?

Well then I guess if they can decide that you actually own land, then they can also decide that crossing that border is against the law.

Immigrants have been staking claims to property and via their labor have made it theirs for millenia. (Everyone has to migrate away from their parents property to find their own.) My counter-question would be: Without a contradicting claim by another would-be owner of the same property, where does the government get the right to say I don’t own my property?

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Lucano on February 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Yeah, I know…sadly.

Maybe we should have just given the Japanese Hawaii, and the Philippines back in 1941, along with the Aleutians. They really really wanted them. What right did we have to stop them?

US citizens…strangers in their own land.

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Falsified information on State and Federal documents – continually for years. Would the government be as forgiving to a citizen for that deception as they are to the illegal entrant?

SouthernRoots on February 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM

fogw on February 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Or , maybe just 5 million of us should cross
the boarder into Mexico !

Lucano on February 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

fogw on February 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM

In old Soviet Union, everybody was volunteer. You volunteered to work or you volunteered to go to Gulag.

But, all volunteered.

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

What is the law?

Bmore on February 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 AM

You’re describing what is; I was positing what I think perhaps should be. I am by no means dogmatic on this issue, by the way–not yet, at least. I’m still thinking this through, and this is what I have thought so far.

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

As in, all laws. Simple enough to me.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Yup.

bazil9 on February 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Let’s change the way we look at this, we don’t have an immigration problem because most of the illegals here are not immigrants they’re poor people, from foreign countries, looking for a job and a way to support their families. Now, if we look at it that way, we only need to document these people and do it in such a way that we know how many are here, how many are working and how many we can collect taxes from.

What is the problem with that? Well, you have employers who are keeping these workers off the books, paying them cash, so they can avoid paying mandatory benefits, such as workman’s compensation, 1/2 their social security taxes, 1/2 their medicare taxes, etc. The Democrats don’t want a way to document them, because they can’t vote if they’re documented, only if they become citizens. They don’t want them to become citizens either because they’re not positive they’ll get 100% of their votes, but they are sure they’ll get a majority of the votes of people who are the same ethnicity as them by claiming they want to make them citizens.

If the Republicans were smart (always a challenge) they would be proposing legislation that makes it easier to get a green card and makes the penalties for hiring someone without a green card so onerus it would make it difficult to hire someone without one. That solves the problems of people being in the shadows and, once they obtain their green cards, they can get in line to apply for citizenship. My bet is many wouldn’t want to be citizens, but would appreciate the opportunity to work for higher wages and out in the open.

That should be the goal, all the other things we’re talking about is camoflage.

bflat879 on February 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM

kingsjester on February 16, 2013 at 9:58 AM

You will recall, I hope, that I do believe Mr. Krentz should have been able to prevent his attacker from migrating onto/through his property.

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Immigrants have been staking claims to property and via their labor have made it theirs for millenia. (Everyone has to migrate away from their parents property to find their own.) My counter-question would be: Without a contradicting claim by another would-be owner of the same property, where does the government get the right to say I don’t own my property?

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Ask the EPA that. They, along with the Department of the Interior, tell people all the time what they can and can’t do with privately owned land.

And while you’re at it, explain to me why you believe that we have any obligation to recognize the rights of non-citizens. What obligation do we have to let them remain here at all?

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Without a contradicting claim by another would-be owner of the same property, where does the government get the right to say I don’t own my property?

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

How about the reverse of your argument?

The government ensures you own your property by issuing a deed. The deed spells out the borders, so that no one can encroach on you, and you can’t encroach on another’s either by accident or design.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

America really isn’t a country of laws anymore.

The left criminalizes almost everything, and then chooses who to prosecute and how much. Compare Aaron Swartz and Jon Corzine.

That being said, the left wants shamnesty because they want to import a new class of voters who will vote for them – no more, no less.

18-1 on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

(Everyone has to migrate away from their parents property to find their own.)….
j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

That kind of talk is indication that you have been indoctrinated by one too many liberals.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Yes, they are criminals.

Holy F. I just agreed with something Jazz wrote. Guam must have capsized.

CorporatePiggy on February 16, 2013 at 9:24 AM

…no see!…you right wing nuts are using the wrong terminology again! …its like you use the word ‘illegal’ instead of ‘undocumented’…Guam ‘tipped‘…it did not ‘capsize’ !…you right wing nuts just can’t talk right!
(how am I doing as a troll?)

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

My counter-question would be: Without a contradicting claim by another would-be owner of the same property, where does the government get the right to say I don’t own my property?

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM

What claim?

A legal claim?

Under what law?

If you are talking about the absence of laws then the toughest gang around gets the land that you think is yours and they throw your corpse into a ditch somewhere.

Every bit of freedom I have ever lost, I have lost to the government, so again–not too keen to recognize its sovereignty.

You don’t have any freedoms or any rights. You can fight and struggle to take what others currently have, and if you are smart enough, or tough enough you get their goodies.

Unless you organize a government which will enforce agreed upon rules that everyone will be subject to. Those are called ‘laws‘.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Where is my green card get out of jail free card?
Which laws do I get to break? What about those immigrants that come hear legally? What do they get? …

Mush-mouthed idiotic liberals (including j2kp0t) have a strange idea of fairness.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I think any person who has a dependent child should be immune from the prosecution of any crime that could result in jail time. It’s really not fair to punish the child for something that happened through no fault of their own. Now what could possibly go wrong with having such a big heart? It’s all for the children.

Wigglesworth on February 16, 2013 at 9:13 AM

So this is not about illegal immigration.

It is, however, about fundamentally changing the way we are governed by establishing a permanent progressive voting bloc.

coldwarrior on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM

This is why I still leave the Gulch every day to read here.

Fallon on February 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

j2kp0t on February 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM

That does not make him any less dead…at the hands of someone who should not have been in our sovereign nation.

kingsjester on February 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7