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 3 4 5 6 7

You did it again. No one here is arguing to “close the door” on “legal” immigration. The kind we had throughout the century spanning the late 19th and most of the 20th century.

They are arguing against “illegal” immigration.

You are a dishonest POS parading with a great big righteous “Christian” badge. I am done here.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 7:38 PM

You realize what restrictions were enacted in the late 19th century and which prevailed through most of the 20th. Go down the list of the immigration acts and you’ll find amusing names like “The Alien Exclusion Act” (which isn’t directed against space invaders) or “The Chinese Exclusion Act” or “The Asian Exclusion Act” (which mean everything the names say they mean). Then there are the rather interesting “Emergency Quota Act” (hint: Catholics and Jews), and the “National Origins Act” (we ain’t taking anyone who isn’t here already, and if you are here already, only in the percentage you currently enjoy).

As you can see, these acts are to prevent us from being overwhelmed with undesirable cultures. After all, if we opened it up, a billion Chinamen would suddenly deplane at every airport in the country, and we’d be Communist — just like that!

This concept of “illegal” is merely a false flag to hide real intentions.

Heh. Now let’s see if you are as good as your word.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:48 PM

unclesmrgol wants to see the United States destroyed. It isn’t an incidental outcome of what he is advocating, it is the purpose of what he is advocating.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Buh-bye…..

Solaratov on February 16, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Those were the words of Abraham Lincoln. Are you suggesting that he emigrate?

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM

This concept of “illegal” is merely a false flag to hide real intentions.

Heh. Now let’s see if you are as good as your word.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Back to the race card. You’re as simple as they get.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM

unclesmrgol wants to see the United States destroyed. It isn’t an incidental outcome of what he is advocating, it is the purpose of what he is advocating.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Actually, I’m trying to save the United States — to restore its greatness — but I see you aren’t having any of that today.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Back to the race card. You’re as simple as they get.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Occam’s Razor.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Actually, I’m trying to save the United States — to restore its greatness — but I see you aren’t having any of that today.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM

You are delusional brother. Go re-read what you wrote.

VegasRick on February 16, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Occam’s Razor.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:53 PM

You’re simply lacking and ability to think with any complexity. You’re also dishonest and the truth is far down on your list of priorities.

CW on February 16, 2013 at 7:56 PM

unclesmrgol wants to see the United States destroyed. It isn’t an incidental outcome of what he is advocating, it is the purpose of what he is advocating.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Exactly, the utter destruction of the U.S., he’s as much as admitted it.

Like I said upthread, he’d burn heretics according to the logic he’s espoused here.

ebrown2 on February 16, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Actually, I’m trying to save the United States — to restore its greatness — but I see you aren’t having any of that today.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM

By self-admittedly invoking a global-scale Cloward Piven holocaust…

Brilliant, just brilliant.

ebrown2 on February 16, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Actually, I’m trying to save the United States — to restore its greatness — but I see you aren’t having any of that today.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM

You talk of war and how the Apache nation was broken…

The Apache are not considered the smartest people on the planet, for they did resist

…and bringing in 100 million in a single year and you want anyone to believe you are interested in greatness for the United States?

You are a self-loathing thug who revels in the idea of a nation brought low with its culture and society shattered.

Like the leftists you only seem to love what you can turn America into, not what it is.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Exactly, the utter destruction of the U.S., he’s as much as admitted it.

Like I said upthread, he’d burn heretics according to the logic he’s espoused here.

ebrown2 on February 16, 2013 at 7:58 PM

He is as radical as the worst Marxist.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Yowser!

Bmore on February 16, 2013 at 8:13 PM

The answer to all of this is simple…

… Grant amnesty to all illegals and open the borders to all who wish to come here on one condition.

They must register and vote as Republicans…

Seven Percent Solution on February 16, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Actually, I’m trying to save the United States — to restore its greatness — but I see you aren’t having any of that today.

unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM

But please keep trying.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 8:25 PM

He is as radical as the worst Marxist.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Far worse, because of the hypocrisy and willfully evil lying Phariseeism involved. It was the same kind of “Red priests” that supported and enabled the persecution of -all- Christians behind the old Iron Curtain.

ebrown2 on February 16, 2013 at 8:27 PM

You know, what kept the roman empire alive for 400 years was granting full citizenship to conquered territories.(sp?) Britain, a similar mo.

Isolationism is key to failure.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 8:27 PM

You know, what kept the roman empire alive for 400 years was granting full citizenship to conquered territories.(sp?) Britain, a similar mo.

Isolationism is key to failure.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Actually what destroyed it was bringing in huge numbers of slaves from other lands to replace the native Roman farmers and citizens. That stripped Italy of men who were willing to fight replacing them with a compliant population, but not one that would fight for the Republic.

That is why the legions had to be increasingly recruited from outside of Italy, and the same destructive behavior took place in the provinces. That meant that foreign auxiliaries had to be employed, and soon even the legions themselves were made up of mercenary Germans.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:38 PM

And what’s wrong with Chinese men?

[unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:39 PM]

There is nothing wrong with Chinese men. You said my numbers were exaggerated mostly from a resource limiting standpoint. I gave a plausible scenario, a few really, wherein other countries might use it to advantage in relieving themselves of their problems. Cuba did so to some extent.

I don’t agree that was using the fine logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. If it were, I’d have used an immigration rate of a billion. How is it fake, or more fake if I used a billion.

I think you want to use strawman, but it would be clear to everyone you don’t know what you are talking about if you used the complaint it was a strawman and are afraid of being cornered by your objection to limits on immigration and “lines” and want to wiggle out or avoid it, thus the attempt at distraction.

Hey, why did you ask me about Chinese men? What’s wrong with lower caste Indians and Muslims or Egyptians that you don’t want to defend them?

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Why are our legislators currently taking time to write laws on immigration at all if the nation is disregarding the laws already on the books?

onlineanalyst on February 16, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Actually what destroyed it was bringing in huge numbers of slaves from other lands to replace the native Roman farmers and citizens. That stripped Italy of men who were willing to fight replacing them with a compliant population, but not one that would fight for the Republic.

That is why the legions had to be increasingly recruited from outside of Italy, and the same destructive behavior took place in the provinces. That meant that foreign auxiliaries had to be employed, and soon even the legions themselves were made up of mercenary Germans.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Exactly. The desire to NOT incorporate those “slaves”, plus a nasty bout of malaria did them in. sound familiar?

Also, bringing in the slaves did not strip Italy of population, they did that themselves.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Bringing in the “slaves” did however, destroy their republic. That should sound familiar too. Populism at it’s best.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Hey, why did you ask me about Chinese men? What’s wrong with lower caste Indians and Muslims or Egyptians that you don’t want to defend them?

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Now that’s a good question…

ebrown2 on February 16, 2013 at 8:53 PM

The desire to NOT incorporate those “slaves”, plus a nasty bout of malaria did them in. sound familiar?

What sounds familiar is the great landlords (Republicans/Democrats) bringing in masses of people to displace the local population because they see that as creating a more compliant servile population.

Also, bringing in the slaves did not strip Italy of population, they did that themselves.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Yes it did.
http://romancrisis.wikispaces.com/Latifundia

Slaves from conquered territory were bought and forced to manage and work on these large pieces of land. The abundant supply of slaves led to “worsening treatment of the labor force, as well as deteriorating conditions for the declining numbers of free laborers on these large estates”. These estate turned slave plantations, known as Latifundias, became popular and spread throughout many regions in the Roman Empire.

Eventually, Rome was left with city where majority citizens were impoverished, landless,and jobless. Rome was filled with imported slaves, unemployed farmers,and fortune hunters. The great contrast between the “poverty of the many coupled with the great wealth of the few” created a hostile environment, differing much from old Rome’s values and ethics.

Therefore, peasants began to struggle financially. Lack of money was just the beginning of the crisis for the lower class. Many had to sell their land, and even more got evicted from their homes. This process became more common, because the rich wanted to invest in successful warfare by buying Italian land.

Simply, the slaves were cheap and exempt from conscription.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Actually, I’m trying to save the United States — to restore its greatness — but I see you aren’t having any of that today.

[unclesmrgol on February 16, 2013 at 7:52 PM]

Maybe, but you are putting the cart before the horse. You need to eliminate the welfare state prior to instituting unrestricted immigration for that to occur. You do understand that, don’t you. Immigrants of past generations self-selected and those that came were primarily those seeking the promise of prosperity due to individual achievement. With the existence of the the welfare state the composition of those self-selected immigrants will be much different. How do you address that? It seems you want to because you’ve suggested you want a policy of deporting everyone who depends on government entitlements when they come.

Or is my impression wrong in that you think the the collapse of the welfare state will either come or not and the immigration rate is independent of that, that self-selection for dependency will not be significant or that unrestricted immigration will not alter whichever outcome does in fact occur?

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 9:00 PM

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Odoacer wanted to assume the Imperial throne. The eastern empire would not have it. Thus 476 is a very arbitrary date.

Funny that the Franks would so desperately want to assume the title of Holy Roman Emperor.

Populations that cannot sustain themselves should be more conforming.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Now that’s a good question…

[ebrown2 on February 16, 2013 at 8:53 PM]

Well, it wasn’t just that his tribalness was annoying, but that he doesn’t seem to concern himself at all real life consequences — even outside the the racial or ethnic ones — possible and probable, of his position and purposely uses past or present racial and ethnic issues as a bludgeon to avoid addressing them.

Dusty on February 16, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Populations that cannot sustain themselves should be more conforming.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Sorry, but if you want to surrender then join unclesmrgol and the leftists. Just handing over western civilization to the Muslims, or the Marxists in Latin America isn’t something I care to be a part of. I know who they are and we see that every day south of the border, and in the Arab Spring.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Well I always thought doing something illegal was a crime. But then our country embraced Orwellianism.

bgibbs1000 on February 16, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Sorry, but if you want to surrender then join unclesmrgol and the leftists. Just handing over western civilization to the Muslims, or the Marxists in Latin America isn’t something I care to be a part of. I know who they are and we see that every day south of the border, and in the Arab Spring.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Don’t you dare put words in my mouth.

I, for one, see incredible goodness in western civilization and the theories of Locke. I welcome ALL who would join in those beliefs. I recognize the tacqiyah (?) and its dangers to our world, but I don’t see uncle as the problem.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Don’t you dare put words in my mouth.

I, for one, see incredible goodness in western civilization and the theories of Locke. I welcome ALL who would join in those beliefs. I recognize the tacqiyah (?) and its dangers to our world, but I don’t see uncle as the problem.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:25 PM

They aren’t joining in that belief. The Paris uprisings, the British riots, the terror campaigns, La Raza, the Hispanic marches flying the flag of Mexico, the 75% Hispanic support for the welfare state, the Hispanic support for Barack Obama. What part of this don’t you get?

“Wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. Mexico does not end at our borders.” - President Calderon

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Populations that cannot sustain themselves should be more conforming.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Don’t you dare put words in my mouth.

BTW, conform to what? It doesn’t sound like you are saying that they should conform, but rather that they should be the ones being conformed to. I don’t think I put any words in your mouth.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM

They aren’t joining in that belief. The Paris uprisings, the British riots, the terror campaigns, La Raza, the Hispanic marches flying the flag of Mexico, the 75% Hispanic support for the welfare state, the Hispanic support for Barack Obama. What part of this don’t you get?

“Wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. Mexico does not end at our borders.” – President Calderon

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:34 PM

And, again, you mistake nationalism for ideology. Mexicans value their freedon too. 75% is not 100%. Our work is cut out for us. Don’t make it harder.

By the way, there are plenty of “Americans” who voted for obozo too. This isn’t a Mexican vrs America thing. It’s an economic freedom vrs serf thing. It’s our job to educate them, not ostracize them.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM

BTW, conform to what? It doesn’t sound like you are saying that they should conform, but rather that they should be the ones being conformed to. I don’t think I put any words in your mouth.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM

It helps if it’s a 2 way street. But it is what it is. Adaptability is key to survival. Pick your fights carefully. They are more effective that way.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:46 PM

By the way, Sharrukin, are you the one who had that wonderful history of the crusades, I saw, a couple years back.

Great history. Careful of the turnout.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:49 PM

75% is not 100%. Our work is cut out for us. Don’t make it harder.

If we cannot all observe/obey the same laws, we are not equal before the law.

Stop advancing special treatment of different groups as a moral imperative.

You are not merely making our task harder, you’re making it utterly impossible.

It’s our job to educate them, not ostracize them.

No, it’s our job to insist in equality before the laws for all immigrants and natives alike, and it’s their job to OBEY THE GOD****** laws of our country, and assimilate once they are in fact legal…

Stop lying. You are hopelessly dishonest, and should be deported along with the other amnesty shills on the left that troll these immigration threads.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM

They aren’t joining in that belief. The Paris uprisings, the British riots, the terror campaigns, La Raza, the Hispanic marches flying the flag of Mexico, the 75% Hispanic support for the welfare state, the Hispanic support for Barack Obama. What part of this don’t you get?

“Wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. Mexico does not end at our borders.” – President Calderon

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:34 PM

And, again, you mistake nationalism for ideology.

No La Raza means “The Race”. That’s not nationalism. It’s racism.

Marching in the US waving the Mexican flag IS nationalism, but it couldn’t be called loyalty.

Not sure how rioting and burning down houses and vehicles is nationalism…but maybe it’s a national sport or something?

Mexicans value their freedon too.

They have been voting for socialism for a hundred years so they don’t value it that much, or they have a radically different idea as to what that means.

75% is not 100%. Our work is cut out for us. Don’t make it harder.

Lets not and say we didn’t.

The GOP has been chasing that phantom for decades and you imagine you have found the magical set of words that will make it all happen?

Do tell us what they are?

It’s our job to educate them, not ostracize them.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM

It’s not anyones job to do anything but boot their criminal butts out. Sorry, but they aren’t owed anything.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

There are simply always going to be those who will have, for personal, professional, or political reasons, beliefs systems that are utterly ruinous to the US as a 50 state constitutional republic…..

Many of them will declare themselves the true patriots, as the amnesty shills do do often on this board.

There is nothing to be done but defeat them. You’ll never turn a traitor back to the path of a patriot, any more than you’ll turn a leftist back to the limited government paradigm…

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

By the way, there are plenty of “Americans” who voted for obozo too. This isn’t a Mexican vrs America thing. It’s an economic freedom vrs serf thing. It’s our job to educate them, not ostracize them.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM

They’ve been educated and that’s the problem. We’ve been out maneuvered. We’ve been flanked. When the hippies quit protesting and joined the establishment we thought we had won, but they were simply taking over the bureaucracy. They took the long view and worked for decades. We could attempt the same, but we just don’t have that amount of time, before things go BOOM.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM

ignored. try being civil.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 PM

By the way, Sharrukin, are you the one who had that wonderful history of the crusades, I saw, a couple years back.

Great history. Careful of the turnout.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:56 PM

And, again, you mistake nationalism for ideology.

Foolish remark. Their ideology is that 1 US territory belongs to them, and 2 that the US is rich and prosperous from theft.

nationalism dictates they take it back, which they are doing with help from traitors such as yourself.

The two concepts work and tandem and no one is confusing them. You are claiming knowledge you don’t have, and distinctions that do not exist.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Mexicans value their freedon too.

They have been voting for socialism for a hundred years so they don’t value it that much, or they have a radically different idea as to what that means.

umm. so have we. education.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:57 PM

umm. so have we. education.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:57 PM

No we haven’t.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:59 PM

umm. so have we. education.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 9:57 PM

You’re thirty or fourty years too late. I would say let it burn, but what you don’t get is that you can’t stop it.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 9:59 PM

It’s not anyones job to do anything but boot their criminal butts out. Sorry, but they aren’t owed anything.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

I will be with you in those trenches, Sharrukin, and I will have your back. But I will also blet you know that this didn’t have to happen.

You don’t have to say it. But it’s true.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

We don’t allow traitors in our trenches, you’re off with the La Razas. Don’t let them find out you’re a yanqi imperialist…..

Of course we might brand you that way so they make quick work of you….

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:04 PM

But I will also blet you know that this didn’t have to happen.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM

What didn’t have to happen?

Refusing amnesty to criminals? If you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in basic fairness, if you believe in national sovereignty, if you believe in fiscal sanity, if you believe in conservatism, if you believe that socialism is wrong, if you believe that immigrants should assimilate, then yes it did have to happen.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM

What didn’t have to happen?

Refusing amnesty to criminals? If you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in basic fairness, if you believe in national sovereignty, if you believe in fiscal sanity, if you believe in conservatism, if you believe that socialism is wrong, if you believe that immigrants should assimilate, then yes it did have to happen.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Current birthrate less that 1.9 and driven lower every day, by democrats. How would you fix this? Because that is the REAL problem. Always has been.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

It’s not anyones job to do anything but boot their criminal butts out., and owed the decency Sorry, but they aren’t owed anything.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

They are people and owed the decency of being treated as such, or we might as well be democrats.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 PM

You’re arguing with a lunatic whose god is Emma Lazuarus, Sharrukin.

Like HondaV65 and unclesmrgol, there’s nothing this guy wants but the bum-rush of the constitution by the progessive mob.

If he has to support a plain old-fashioned border incursion by tens of millions of Cesar Chavez howlers, to get it done, then support it he will.

What gets me really steamed is the conflation of this invasion with general immigration. It’s all a lie of course.

Immigrants should:

Come in slowly, no bum-rushes
Obey all laws
refuse all welfare
assimilate culturally
speak and write the native tongue
support the system of government
refrain from revolutionary agitprop
defer to local patriots and leave their own symbols back home.

Of course the ones that do this, are our brothers and we grudge them nothing.

But the cranks like this guy supporting the bum-rushing of our laws, our country, and thus our constitution, are just liars crying racist for their own gain.

He’s got an illegal wife or girlfriend, or he owns a company that breaks the labor laws.

That’s most likely why he’s here agitating for the left on the immigration issue.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:16 PM

They are people and owed the decency of being treated as such, or we might as well be democrats.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 PM

You are a democrat, when you say we cannot humanely enforce our immigration laws.

We have NEVER been anything but decent to the illegals. Even the Minutemen never harmed a single one.

You just cannot stop lying.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:17 PM

Current birthrate less that 1.9 and driven lower every day, by democrats. How would you fix this? Because that is the REAL problem. Always has been.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Illegal immigration is the best solution? Or is it legal immigration? Which would be better?

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Yeah, a sabini dego whose family caught the same Shiite from peoplelike you.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Illegal immigration is the best solution? Or is it legal immigration? Which would be better?

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 10:18 PM

legal obviously, but hey, lets divide families and throw people out. good on you.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:19 PM

You’re arguing with a lunatic whose god is Emma Lazuarus, Sharrukin.

Like HondaV65 and unclesmrgol, there’s nothing this guy wants but the bum-rush of the constitution by the progessive mob.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Thanks for the heads up.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Current birthrate less that 1.9 and driven lower every day, by democrats. How would you fix this? Because that is the REAL problem. Always has been.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

The nations had far less people before and survived just fine. Another lie.

And it has not “always been”, this is a problem of the last 30 years, and the importation of a politically socialist peasant class with a massive illegitimacy rate is not the solution.

And you know this, liar.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Yeah, a sabini dego whose family caught the same Shiite from peoplelike you.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Stop your god****** moral preening and obey the ******* laws? I don’t give a rat’s *** what racial insults your grandfathers endured.

GROW THE **** UP.

You worthless sniveling amnesty shills are utterly beneath contempt.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:22 PM

legal obviously, but hey, lets divide families and throw people out. good on you.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Orwellian doublespeak.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 10:25 PM

It’s not anyones job to do anything but boot their criminal butts out., and owed the decency Sorry, but they aren’t owed anything.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 9:54 PM

They are people and owed the decency of being treated as such, or we might as well be democrats.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 PM

They aren’t owed a damn thing. Neither are the hill tribesmen of Ethiopia, nor the Fulani people of northern Cameroon. The reason for that is that they aren’t citizens and the US doesn’t owe the world a living, and they owe criminals even less than that.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 10:25 PM

The idea that this is about race is also infuriating.

America fought a war to rid itself of slavery. PERIOD.

THIS IS NOT A RACIST COUNTRY. TO HELL WITH ANYONE WHO SAYS IT IS.

We could exchange the 20 million illegal latinos with 20 million english, or swedes, or germans, or whatever race you amnesty shills think than amnesty opponents worship, which of course we do not.

We’d oppose amnesty for them too. OK? You import 20 million Norwegians or Germans, they’d vote to sink the country faster than the Hispanics would.

The Hispanics are hardworking and friendly, and the women are usually quite attractive.

We don’t have any problem with them for who they are, this is a leftist lie.

We want equality before the law, and we want assimilation, and we want slow and steady immigration that helps people become patriotic americans, NOT LA RAZA SCREAMING SOCIALISTS.

So just chill with the lefty race card playing, amnesty shills. This is manifestly not about race.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Current birthrate less that 1.9 and driven lower every day, by democrats. How would you fix this? Because that is the REAL problem. Always has been.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

There we go. Lets out source our reproduction. If you had current knowledge about the levels of automation that are rapidly approaching then you wouldn’t be worried about that falling birth rate. The fewer average citizens we have the less burden on the welfare state, because in 50 years, barring disaster, there won’t be many low skill jobs. What will we do with all this unemployable population? We’ll shed it one way or the other.

DFCtomm on February 16, 2013 at 10:30 PM

They are people and owed the decency of being treated as such, or we might as well be democrats.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:12 PM

They aren’t owed a damn thing. Neither are the hill tribesmen of Ethiopia, nor the Fulani people of northern Cameroon. The reason for that is that they aren’t citizens and the US doesn’t owe the world a living, and they owe criminals even less than that.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 10:25 PM

The sooner we can get over this false and solely emotional notion that we owe non-citizens jack-shit, the faster we can reclaim our national identity and sovereignty from the REAL race baiters.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 10:36 PM

The sooner we can get over this false and solely emotional notion that we owe non-citizens jack-shit, the faster we can reclaim our national identity and sovereignty from the REAL race baiters.

gryphon202 on February 16, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Agreed. It seems that a great number of people think that non-citizens should be accorded greater concern than actual citizens.

It’s similar to the notion that it’s moral for the US to go to war for Iraqi freedom, but distasteful to go to war for its own self interest (such as oil).

The whole notion of moral crusading needs to be ejected.

sharrukin on February 16, 2013 at 10:41 PM

The nations had far less people before and survived just fine. Another lie.

And it has not “always been”, this is a problem of the last 30 years, and the importation of a politically socialist peasant class with a massive illegitimacy rate is not the solution.

And you know this, liar.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Right. ‘Cause back in 1900 the world had 6-8 billion people too.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Do you ever NOT need explitives?

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM

The idea that this is about race is also infuriating.

America fought a war to rid itself of slavery. PERIOD.

THIS IS NOT A RACIST COUNTRY. TO HELL WITH ANYONE WHO SAYS IT IS.

We could exchange the 20 million illegal latinos with 20 million english, or swedes, or germans, or whatever race you amnesty shills think than amnesty opponents worship, which of course we do not.

We’d oppose amnesty for them too. OK? You import 20 million Norwegians or Germans, they’d vote to sink the country faster than the Hispanics would.

The Hispanics are hardworking and friendly, and the women are usually quite attractive.

We don’t have any problem with them for who they are, this is a leftist lie.

We want equality before the law, and we want assimilation, and we want slow and steady immigration that helps people become patriotic americans, NOT LA RAZA SCREAMING SOCIALISTS.

So just chill with the lefty race card playing, amnesty shills. This is manifestly not about race.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:27 PM

so you’re going after the nigerians and indian brides next right?

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Just checking in to see how y’all were getting along. Looks good, carry on. I’ll wear you down eventually.

Bmore on February 17, 2013 at 12:22 AM

Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?

That is an actual question? Only in America …

DannoJyd on February 17, 2013 at 1:03 AM

It’s not a crime if you are from South o’ the Border or what constitutes a border these days.

Sherman1864 on February 17, 2013 at 4:00 AM

Do you ever NOT need explitives?

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 11:05 PM

.
(expletive) NO !

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?

headline: Jazz Shaw

.
That is an actual question? Only in America …

DannoJyd on February 17, 2013 at 1:03 AM

.
The U.S. is the only country where “illegal immigration” helps to advance the cause of the One World Government.

So of course it’s “only in America”.

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The question posed here detracts from any real solution. When the law is an ASS you change it. You don’t insist on compliance first. e.g. when the 55 MPH speed limit was abandoned no one insisted that all those who drove faster than 55 relinquish their licenses first. Perhaps Prohibition should never have been repealed either until there was a serious attempt at enforcement.

For the record current immigration law already provides that documented or undocumented illegal entrants to the country can adjust their status to legal permanent resident status upon approval of a petition from ICE. it must be shown that all income taxes were paid and that the entrant has committed no crimes.
If we are to broaden the categories under which petitions to adjust status should be granted presumably because it is a good idea. why is it necessary to also change the immigration rules that have been in existence for decades? Regardless of who people entered the country they were always allowed to change their status as long as they otherwise showed good character.

The “enforcement” crowd is really not talking about enforcing current law. Current law creates two options if you stay as an illegal you get deported. If you apply and are granted a petition for adjustment nothing happens. Saying it is a crime is irrelevant. The “enforcement” crowd wants to impose stiffer penalties than already exist. So the underlying basis is not pious respect for the law. It is a fundamental disagreement over the importance of immigration to the economic vibrancy of the country. The griffins among you guarding the priceless treasure of US purity are intellectual descendants of the 19th century Know-Nothings. The Know-Nothing movement like its contemporary the Temperance movement achieved a measure of success in the first decades of the 20th Century. The disaster that was the Temperance movement was quickly reversed, but the racial and ethnic classifications and moreover the miniscule overall quota for legal entrants imposed by the heirs of Know-Nothing movement have survived to the present day.

As I have repeatedly stated immigration law must eliminate the 1.1MM annual quota in order to exorcise the racial and national dislike by which these laws were created. If the quota is not eliminated or significantly increased any other “reform” is doomed to fail by the laws of economics. It is not economic suicide to permit immigration. Just the opposite it is economic suicide to restrict it unnaturally.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

The “enforcement” crowd is really not talking about enforcing current law.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

The hell I’m not! How in the bloody blue hell can you talk about the adequacy of current law when we are ignoring it?! The stupid is strong with this one…

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM

The nations had far less people before and survived just fine. Another lie.

[snip]

And you know this, liar.

rightwingyahooo on February 16, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Right. ‘Cause back in 1900 the world had 6-8 billion people too.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Oh, okay. So we have to relax the immigration laws we’re already ignoring because the world’s population is exploding. What a bullshit non-sequitur.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM

The question posed here detracts from any real solution. When the law is an ASS you change it. You don’t insist on compliance first.
e.g. when the 55 MPH speed limit was abandoned no one insisted that all those who drove faster than 55 relinquish their licenses first. Perhaps Prohibition should never have been repealed either until there was a serious attempt at enforcement.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

.
Drawing an analogy between (en mass) illegal immigration and breaking the 55 mph speed limit, or the illegal production and sales of alcoholic beverages during ‘Prohibition’ just ain’t gonna WORK.

The negative societal impact of the quantity of illegal immigrants we’ve allowed, is exponentially worse than breaking the 55 mph speed limit, or the consumption (abuse) of illegal alcohol during Prohibition.

Get the (expletive) fences UP. Allow our Border Guards to perform their ‘job description’ EFFECTIVELY.
Use our MILITARY on the border, just like Russia or China.

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Use our MILITARY on the border, just like Russia or China.

listens2glenn on February 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM

I dunno if Posse Comitatus allows for such an action, but I’m not opposed to it on-principle.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 11:39 AM

The “enforcement” crowd is really not talking about enforcing current law.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

More Orwellian BS.

farsighted on February 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Bama talkin’ bout pushing his own bill if congress does not act is just talk. He’s trying to make himself look good, and will then blame the lack of progress on the GOP house, and try to get the dems control of the house in 2014.

Comprehensive anything reform is a sham, just like Bamacare.
First we need to secure the southern border.
Second, enforce the current laws.
Third, make E-verify the law of the land.
Fourth, stop illegal benefits and fraud.
Lastly, let’s talk about a path to citizenship for those who are productive or serve in the armed forces.

harpman on February 17, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Actually, the surprising answer is that often illegal immigration is NOT a crime. Unlawful entry to the US is a federal crime, but millions illegal immigrants have committed no crime under the immigration laws because the merely overstayed a valid visa, which is not a federal crime.

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” provides that any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or

Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

But if federal and private polling statistics are to be believed, around 25 – 40 percent of immigrants who enter the United States legally become illegal immigrants eventually as they over-stay their visa. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, or IIRIRA, authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to impose certain civil penalties on any legal aliens staying in the United States beyond their visa. Under IIRIRA and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any individual illegally present in the U.S. is only guilty of a civil violation of the INA. Most immigration violations are not criminal offenses, including legal aliens who have overstayed their visas.

Sent from my iPad

KenMcK on February 17, 2013 at 12:30 PM

The Hispanics are hardworking and friendly, and the women are usually quite attractive.

Thank God you cleared that up.

lostmotherland on February 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM

lostmotherland on February 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM

…lost again!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Actually, the surprising answer is that often illegal immigration is NOT a crime.

KenMcK on February 17, 2013 at 12:30 PM

If it’s not a crime, it’s a tort? Law falls under either of those two designations in our legal system. So when someone gets busted for crossing the border illegally, who is damaged and who do they sue to recover damages?

Look, an illegal border crosser is by any stretch of the imagination engaging in harm against the state. That is the very definition of a crime, and that is why the stated penalty is administrative rather than monetary. The definition of “crime” is not “something you go to jail for,” Butch.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 4:22 PM

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Do you think there is any thing that can damage the national stability of the U.S., and if so can you give us some examples.

DFCtomm on February 17, 2013 at 4:38 PM

legal obviously, but hey, lets divide families and throw people out. good on you.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:19 PM

You’re REALLY CLUELESS. Take it from a LEGAL immigrant, who came here only AFTER applying and receiving entry papers from USA government. And assimilating in the process. Not part of MI state islam ghettos, nor LA Mexican ones, where the rile of USA law stops and illegals feel like we owe it to them for whatever.

We have immigration laws on books, time we actually go by those laws and treat anyone who broke exactly as the law stipulates: CRIMINAL.

You want to have an argument, try it with LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

riddick on February 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM

legal obviously, but hey, lets divide families and throw people out. good on you.

WryTrvllr on February 16, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Repeat after me, children:

America has no obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to non-citizens.

Good job!

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 6:11 PM

DFCtomm A broad question that I couldn’t presume to answer. If your point is that immigration threatens national stability then I submit that there is no evidence to support that position. If anything the evidence supports the opposite. The US thrived during a period of unrestricted world wide immigration. From 1880 to 1920 we added more than 5 million immigrants a year at a time when the population was only 50MM. it would be like adding 30MM a year now.

A dynamic view of immigration is that each new entrant is both producer and consumer. Unfortunately the static view, that new entrants take the jobs of other Americans for less money has prevailed in the US for nearly 100 years promoted by an unlikely coalition of Know-Nothing Republicans and Democrat Trade Unionists. As a corollary today’s Neo-Know-nothings have the equally static view of immigrants solely as consumers who produce nothing.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 6:28 PM

A dynamic view of immigration is that each new entrant is both producer and consumer. Unfortunately the static view, that new entrants take the jobs of other Americans for less money has prevailed in the US for nearly 100 years promoted by an unlikely coalition of Know-Nothing Republicans and Democrat Trade Unionists. As a corollary today’s Neo-Know-nothings have the equally static view of immigrants solely as consumers who produce nothing.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Say it again, kiddo:

America has no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to non-citizens.

Christ on a cracker, you’re an expert at basing an argument on false premises and non-sequiturs, aren’t you?

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM

America has no obligation, legal, moral, or otherwise, to non-citizens

When you talk about what America owes its citizenry you show that you really are at heart a Democrat trade unionist? Except for its national debt America owes both citizens and non-citizens the same nothing. “Ask not……

American citizens have the right to expect that their fellow citizens will not create arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on their ability to (1) reunite with family members or (2) to employ educated, talented or hardworking people willing to work for wages that are not artificially inflated by government decree or the force of union thugs.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 6:42 PM

When you talk about what America owes its citizenry you show that you really are at heart a Democrat trade unionist? Except for its national debt America owes both citizens and non-citizens the same nothing. “Ask not……

American citizens have the right to expect that their fellow citizens will not create arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on their ability to (1) reunite with family members or (2) to employ educated, talented or hardworking people willing to work for wages that are not artificially inflated by government decree or the force of union thugs.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I should start a compost pile. Really. This steaming pile of irrelevant manure might actually someday make a nice healthy bit of night soil.

If you don’t want to be taken from your family, don’t come here illegally, dumbshit! We have a path to citizenship. It is enforceable. We are not enforcing it, and I’m not interested in hearing how inadequate the current law is unless and until we do. And I don’t give a flying fark if we can deport all the illegals. We can no more do that than ticket every speeder every time they speed, but no one talks about changing the speed limit to make it “more humane.” Nor should we! It’s about safety, and rightfully so.

If anyone can waltz in here, do the horizontal mambo, and claim some special privilege because they pushed out a few children through their birth canals, my citizenship, as well as that of my ancestors who immigrated here through Ellis Island, means nothing. And if it comes to that, FOAD. You have absolutely no concept what “sovereignty” really meeans, and you are part of the problem.

And you know what else solve the problem of “separated families?” Get rid of this God-awfully stupid “anchor babies” bullshit. Send someone back for being here illegally? They’ll get a free and one-way ticket back to their country-of-origin with their entire immediate family. If that doesn’t salve your conscience, you are well-and-truly beyond hope, libwit.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 6:50 PM

American citizens have the right to expect that their fellow citizens will not create arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions on their ability to (1) reunite with family members

I didn’t realize that they weren’t allowed to visit their relatives in the nation where they are citizens?

or (2) to employ educated, talented or hardworking people willing to work for wages that are not artificially inflated by government decree or the force of union thugs.

oznerola on February 17, 2013 at 6:42 PM

What garbage. You have no right to employ anyone on the planet that takes your fancy.

The wages have always been artificially inflated by the existence of a border. Mexico has an economic system that is separate from the US and always has. The idea that the US must synchronize the two economies for the sake of immigrants is absurd.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:52 PM

The idea that the US must synchronize the two economies for the sake of immigrants is absurd.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:52 PM

And yet, here we go. Onzie is asserting that we have an obligation to non-citizens. I am asserting that we do not. Ergo, one of us is correct and one of us is incorrect. There is no middle ground to this — every coin lands one of two sides-up.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM

And yet, here we go. Onzie is asserting that we have an obligation to non-citizens.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM

It’s what they always do. Weeping for the poor victim and cries of heartlessness is as the argument amounts to. If that doesn’t work…then more weeping.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 7:01 PM

It’s what they always do. Weeping for the poor victim and cries of heartlessness is as the argument amounts to. If that doesn’t work…then more weeping.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 7:01 PM

I’m conservative, dammit. I’ve been accused of heartlessness since I became politically aware at the age of 13. The libwits are going to have to do better than lay this guilt trip bullshit on me if they want to propose a remotely salient solution to the problem of the erosion of our national sovereignty.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I’m conservative, dammit. I’ve been accused of heartlessness since I became politically aware at the age of 13. The libwits are going to have to do better than lay this guilt trip bullshit on me if they want to propose a remotely salient solution to the problem of the erosion of our national sovereignty.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Since when have the leftists ever had a remotely salient solution to anything?

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Since when have the leftists ever had a remotely salient solution to anything?

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 7:07 PM

That’s a good question. I never could figure out what they do at conservative blogs like this one, aside from pissing me off and being dumb.

gryphon202 on February 17, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7