Posted on 01/23/2004 12:27:48 PM PST by ckilmer
They're not unenforceable. They're just not being enforced. You can't claim they're unenforceable when we've never even tried to enforce them.
You just did.
but the hysteria I tend to see on these threads I can only interpret as resulting from an irrational fear of seeing little brown people overrunning the country.
Speaking for myself, my own three children (being half Mexican-American) as well as my nieces and nephews are "little brown people." May I suggest you try to stick to the facts of the argument at hand the next time to wish to persuade? You might win a few people over to your side that way.
Not me, though.
LOL! They have laptops, maybe?
I think a good portion of the anti-immigration fervor is racist in origin. I never throw around the race card
ROFL!
You're also a DU-ing, DNC-loving troll, and I hope you're ZOTTED!!!
ROFLMAO!
Thanks, folks – the elevated level of rational discussion by the pro-amnesty contingent on this thread made my day. Now I’m off to read National Review, whose editor was just accused (by a Freeper who signed up three days ago) of being a DNC “mole” on another thread -- because he suggested that “ conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting.”
And you think that DU is bonkers?
No, we have laws on the books that are not being enforced.
LOS ANGELES [Dec 2003] — Environmentalists in California are trying to block a federal plan to build a new security fence to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into the United States from Mexico.When Ashcroft issued a regulation to deputize local LEOs to enforce immigration law, the LEOs balked and the ACLU came to their defense:The 14-mile fence would accompany an existing 40-mile fence that has been credited with causing a massive drop in illegal border crossings since its construction in 1993.
Supporters of the fence say that the increasing number of terrorists who are at large means the United States must be even more vigilant at its borders.
But environmentalists argue that the construction of a fence would disrupt the local ecosystem, cause erosion problems and damage the area where the Pacific Ocean meets the Tijuana River (search), now inhabited by rare birds and insects.
The dispute could pit the California Coastal Commission (search) against the will of the White House, which has the authority to overrule the state body, but could find itself in a legal fight.
WASHINGTON [Aug 2002]- The Department of Justice -- through a regulation that goes into effect today - has gained the authority to deputize local and state police to enforce complex immigration laws, a move that the American Civil Liberties Union said is a sure-fire way to reduce immigrants' willingness to cooperate with authorities in the fight against terrorism. "Enforcing immigration law is a full-time and highly technical matter and should not be the part-time obligation of our already overburdened state and local police," said Timothy Edgar, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Immigrants are not going to be overly thrilled about cooperating with police if they fear arrest for minor immigration violations."To Bush's credit, he is working on the immigration problem:The regulation that goes into effect today was initially conceived in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act but was never put into effect. Attorney General John Ashcroft, however, has been all too willing to use immigration law as a pretext to target particular communities, the ACLU said.
Not surprisingly, even local and state police departments are wary about what federal deputizations will mean for their overstretched budgets. State police in Arizona and the local department in San Jose, California, have both made it clear that they will not participate in any immigration law enforcement.
Of ultimate concern to the ACLU and other groups is the broad language used in granting Ashcroft the authority to deputize local or state police for immigration duty. The provision grants the Attorney General authority only in an "immigration emergency" but does little to clarify exactly what such an emergency would entail. Under the current language, the Attorney General would have a free hand to use the new authority in an abusive, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner.
"In the atmosphere of heightened suspicion created by September 11, the Administration should be fostering ties to the immigrant community in America, not erecting walls of mistrust by threatening deportation every time a law-abiding non-citizen wants to report illegal activity," Edgar added.
Then you have state and local laws that are a block to enforcement:
(Washington, DC - August 26, 2003) Two years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, conflicting state policies have become a weak link in the immigration-related dimensions of U.S. national security, finds a new FAIR report.
State of Insecurity: How State and Local Immigration Policies are Undermining Homeland Security shows that, despite the federal government's increased push to tie immigration enforcement to national security, states continue to adopt policies that fly in the face of federal immigration law.
More info on this at:
Homeland Security Launches Operation Ice Storm [to combat smugglers]
Blueprint for Immigration Reform
Border Patrol has increased from a strength of 9,788 on September 11, 2001 to 10,835 on December 1, 2003. Between ports of entry on the northern border, the size of the Border Patrol has tripled to more than 1,000 agents. In addition, the Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity.
The Bush Administration's Operation Tarmac was launched to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals.
President Bush announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested.
This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies.
Fair and Secure Immigration Reform Fact Sheet
There is also pending legislation to require hospitals to turn illegals over to immigration officials within two hours of providing treatment.
An older post of mine lays out other initiatives
Of course they would. But Bush's faulty plan has already increased their numbers by 15 percent.
Yes, it is.
It's blanket because it it applies to anyone who says they have a job.
Amnesty is defined as "A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses."
Our immigration laws are federal laws, and violating them is an affront to the sovereignty of our nation, as well as the individual states. To forgive that offense by granting legal status to these criminals is an amnesty. Deny it all you want, but you can’t change that simple fact.
Nevertheless, I will proudly and gladly vote for him this November, and also plan to volunteer at my local Republican HQ to work hard for his re-election. I happen to like much, though not all of his domestic agenda. I also happen to be very proud of his genuinely conservative foreign policy.
But overriding everything else, George W. Bush almost single-handedly held this nation together in those terrible days immediately after 9/11/01. His pursuit of our enemies since then has taken guts, resolve, and far-sighted thinking. That obviously doesn't count for squat with many self-professed "real" conservatives. As for me, his towering, comforting presence and defiant spirit during that time has more than earned my loyalty, my life-long respect and my support.
Some good — and many terrible — arguments have been posted on this forum recently about this issue. I think everyone, by now, gets the point of folks like you, AmericanInTokyo. To keep nagging and yammering here on FR is a waste of time for those "real" conservatives who feel so strongly about the issue. Instead, you all should nag and yammer at your congress-critters — you know, those folks who actually will make the decision as to whether or not the proposal becomes law?!
On the other hand, if your real purpose is simply to disrespect the President, I say bring it on, bub. This President's record is one not only to be proud of, but already is one for the ages.
As regards the guest-worker proposal, the last laugh will be on you. Why? As a substantive issue, the Bush proposal is a shadow, a chimera. The likelihood that Congress will pass any immigration reform legislation for the foreseeable future is somewhere between slim and none. The Dems hate the proposal because it isn't a complete, blanket amnesty. It doesn't go anywhere near far enough for them. Many Republicans dislike it for some of the very same reasons stated on this forum. Ipso facto, gridlock on the issue in Congress.
Ummm...before you post such condescending responses to other FReepers, jimt, you just might want to get your facts straight first. As the moment the guest-worker program is a PROPOSAL, not a policy. It would become a policy upon passage by Congress, receipt of a presidential signature, and implementation of enabling regulations by the executive branch department or departments having jurisdiction over the matter.
Just in case you don't know the difference, synonyms for "proposal" are "suggestion" and "request." Synonyms for "policy" are "rule" and "procedure."
By the way, don't set doctrinaire law here on FreeRepublic if some of us like to indulge in BOTH yammering on FR about this issue, as well as peppering the backsides of our representatives on the issue through treatise. Which is what I do, for your information.
I'll pardon your atrocious grammar if you'll give me a definition of a "real" conservative.
Why, the day I get ZOTTED off Free Republic will be the day you finally post something of intrinsic value that resonates, with even the slightest traceable essence, of reason, logic and orginality.
See, the point isn't whether Bush's immigration proposal is half-baked. Many of us would agree with that. The issue is whether those who think it's half-baked are able to see the bigger issues in this election, and will vote to re-elect Bush for the things he's done right -- like his response to the 9/11 attacks, his refusal to surrender the sovereignty of the US to the "international community," the character and nature of his judicial appointments, his tax-cutting policies, his effort to bring faith back into the forefront of our culture, and so forth. When I read incessant threads where the only thing people are concerned about is immigration policy, do you understand why I think those who spew their poison toward Bush on such threads are dangerously narrow in their viewpoints? For those who are unable to see the bigger issues, and are consumed by the single issues, if it means they will put this nation in jeopardy because of their passion for the single issue, they are no better than the liberal Democrats.
Indeed, this "single issue" (over the long term) effects the very future of our Republic as we know it, in geopolitical, public health and welfare, national security, budgetary and cultural fields.
I don't take kindly to my country being treated that way, regardless of which party occupies the White House or controls the levers of Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.