Posted on 05/18/2007 10:31:35 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
GIULIANI: And I think that, you know, we're going through a very serious debate on immigration and I think that I look at it from the point of view of how do we create more security for the United States? How do we, in an era of a war on terrorism, which is going to continue for the indefinable future, and then some of the other problems that we have, how do we create more security? And I think that either extreme is not the right answer.
One extreme is what I would call the punitive approach, which is reflected in the House legislation that was passed, which is to make it a crime to be an illegal or undocumented immigrant; it is illegal now but it's not a crime and I believe, if I recall correctly, that it would make it a five-year felony and there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. It would become a law that was honored in the breach and it could not possibly be enforced.
To give you the dimensions that I remember, at least when I was the Mayor, it's estimated that there are about 400,000 people in that category in New York, it could be more now but it used to be about 400,000. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, I believe, deports about 1,500 to 2,000 people a year so I pretty quickly figured out that I was going to have 398,000 illegal immigrants no matter what the federal government did and I had to do something sensible about it rather than something stupid and kind of make it work in the society in which we exist.
Well, that's really the picture for the whole country and to deal with it in a punitive way is actually going to make us considerably less secure than we already are because the problem is that we have such a huge underground that we can't really keep account of who's here, who they are, identify them, and kind of separate the ones that are here for benign or neutral purposes, which we can argue about the competitiveness and the economy and everything else, but they're not really doing damage to our society, might even be making vast contributions to it, and then focus on the people that we have to focus on who are the people that might come here to carry out terrorist acts or to sell drugs or to commit crimes and the reason we can't do that well is that we have a system already that's unenforceable, that's unrealistic given the numbers of people that want to come here, the size of our borders, the number of resources that we could conceivably have to apply to it.
So the right answer is to do the things that have to be done to secure our borders, introduce new technology, require more of people in describing who they are, identify them effectively, fingerprint them or finger image them if you have to, photograph them, come up with cards for them, use the modern methods that we presently have for identifying people but don't try to legislate against the inevitable forces of, you know, social movement and the economy because it isn't going to work. So we have to find a way and I think that the compromise the Senate was looking at something along those lines makes sense.
Give people a way to earn citizenship, give them a way to earn citizenship in which they have to demonstrate facility with English and they have jobs and they're paying taxes and they've put themselves in an entirely legal status, recognize the economic forces that are realistic ones that require people to come into the United States or require people to have people come into the United States, and you identify them and you have them pay taxes and you find out who they are and then you concentrate on the people who are avoiding that and you'll be capable of doing that because it'll be a problem the dimensions of which you can touch and feel and measure and see and it'll be much harder for terrorists to hide in a situation like that.
And I think that the Manhattan Institute, which sort of turns on trying to figure out the logical and sensible answer to a problem, can play a big role in getting us to think about immigration in a way that it is sensible and it gets us to a resolution that makes us more secure because I think that going in either extreme is going to hurt us.
Hey Rooty, this is for you for claiming it’s not a crime to be here illegally. Then explain what illegal means.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php
Here’s the link to the transcript of the speech that heads up this thread:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ah_2006.htm
I know so many people who are seriously struggling financially and if this crapola immigration proposal goes through and lowers wages anymore we might as well move to MEXICO! I have emailed both my Senator Mitch McConnell and Congressman Geoff Davis and plan on calling their offices and Jim Bunning. There really need to be a strong message out there to get people to understand what cheap labor will do for the wages of Americans.
Keep those phones and emials burning. We need to slap then out of their stupor.
nail...coffin
Oh wow. Such a surprise that Rooty takes the liberal, America-destroying side in this.
All you Rootyphiles who think he’s soooooooooooo tough on Terror should look at this and weep.
HAH! I *LOVE* it!
> I know so many people who are seriously struggling financially and if this crapola immigration proposal goes through and lowers wages anymore we might as well move to MEXICO!
Ya know, I don’t get it! I thought the Libs were all pro-lower/middle-class and big minimum wage hounds. Yet they support the biggest influx of cheap labor in decades!
Nobody who supports illegal amnesty is serving America. They are serving themselves, their donors, and/or their political power. And they’ll destroy this country to do it, too. GOP, Dims, everybody. They’re all corrupt b@stards!!!
“Go post this at Wideawkes”
What’s the name of the site??
Of course it can be emailed, it's just a ~40k jpeg file. It wouldn't be very good as a bumper sticker, but if you mean a virtual bumper sticker in an e-mail, sure. Help yourself.
Bye now.
It’s up to Fred. Will you run Fred?
bttt
LOL Good pic.
Who here is surprised he supports this?
2. Idiots who believe that "we must stop Hillary!" even if it meant voting for Stalin.
3. Folks who hang on Sean Hannity's every word.
Good. Leaky old wrecks with stuck rudders that only sail left belong on the bottom.
I’ll never vote for Rudy! He’s a closet RAT and bad for the Nation. My take on illegals is so extreme now that I’ll vote for the guy who closes the borders first, deports as many as possible and generally makes it his issue. Tancredo fits the bill now, but he has too many enemies, including many Freepers. Maybe it’s to be Fred, but he has not really joined the fray and may not.
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.