Support Hazelton, PA!

| | Comments (64) | TrackBacks (0)

This is a huge story which we will be covering in much more detail on this blog. In short, the town of Hazelton, PA has tried to do what numerous municipalities are also intending to do, and now they are being sued for it. The resolution of this suit will likely determine the fate of similar efforts throughout the U.S.

This is from the mayor of Hazelton, Lou Barletta:


I believe the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. People who are in this country have an incredible amount of opportunities and blessings. But some people have taken advantage of America’s openness and tolerance. Some come to this country and refuse to learn English, creating a language barrier for city employees. Others enter the country illegally and use government services by not paying taxes or by committing crime on our streets, further draining resources here in Hazleton.

Recent crimes – such as a high-profile murder, the discharge of a gun at a crowded city playground, and drug busts – have involved illegal immigrants. Some of those allegedly involved in those crimes were detained by other law enforcement officials over the years, but were somehow allowed to remain in this country. They eventually migrated into Hazleton, where they helped create a sense of fear in the good, hardworking residents who are here legally.

Illegal aliens in our City create an economic burden that threatens our quality of life.

With a growing problem and a limited budget, I could not sit back any longer and allow this to happen. I needed to act! That’s why I drafted the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, a measure designed to say enough is enough...


Click here to sign the online petition in support of Mayor Barletta and the law-abiding residents of Hazelton, and click here to donate to the legal defense fund.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Support Hazelton, PA!.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/526

64 Comments

zimzo said:

It seems like the old method of running foreigners out of your town by chasing after them with pitchforks was a lot more effective.

I imagine there are plenty of "foreigners" in Hazelton who are there legally. They are unaffected by the new law.

zimzo said:

I guess that is true in Budzinski-World where everyone is "treated decently and no one gets to claim protected status when they are not," where people all all races live together in perfect harmony, that might be true. Sadly, in the real world, that's not completely true:

"Police contacted three or four landlords to tell them that their renters were illegal immigrants, said Officer Kevin Templeton. Among them was Ed Sidwell, who had staunchly supported the ordinance, but who did not realize that though his tenant was in the country on a legal work permit, the tenant's wife and two of his three children were not.

The tenant moved out this weekend, to a new home in the next county. Sidwell said it was "the hardest thing" he had seen.

"There's a lot of sadness," said Sidwell, 63. "It is very stressful, because you are dealing with people's lives." But he said that he thought the ordinance was necessary to protect the quality of life in Valley Park, which is 88% white and 3% Latino, according to the 2000 census."

http://www.latimes.com/wireless/avantgo/la-na-immig16aug16,0,2074308.story

You're missing a basic point which obviously - based on past discussions here - we will never agree on: Removing the illegal alien population removes problems citizens can't put up with any longer.

I was with some local activists the other night. One of them has a teenage daughter who kept getting accosted with catcalls as she walked into the local 7-11 by the loiterers. This resident lives near the Herndon day labor center and patrons of the center use his back yard as a toilet. Not just once, but frequently, they have to clean up dirty underpants and socks (used as toilet paper) from their back yard.

More of this kind of "degraded quality of life" stuff has been discussed in detail here in previous months.

Are there going to be sad stories? Sure. That's why I, and the local activist I referred to, waited a really long time to get involved in this local issue. We thought: America can deal with these new residents just like it dealt with all the others throughout our history.

But the new situation is A) the number of new arrivals is huge, and B) many of them are not immigrants, but MIGRANTS, with no intention of becoming Americans. Thus the cultural divide - most evident in respect for law and what we consider basic decency - is pretty huge.

But the bottom line is, if there are people harassing your family and crap in your backyard, you just want the problem GONE.

Not to mention the impact on blue-collar jobs, crime, government benefits, blah blah blah we've been through all of it before.

Yes, there's a lot of sadness. The families who are trying to settle here to build a new life, whose only crime was to jump ahead in line for citizenship, will be sad cases. Not so sad to the other would-be immigrants who are trying to gain citizenship through the arduous legal channel - but sad, certainly, to anyone with a heart.

Nice job finding that story, seriously. It illustrates well why this is not a simple issue. Otherwise we'd all be on the same side right now. Here's my prediction: Before long you'll be surprised how many of us are on the same side. This issue bridges gaps - like same-sex marriage - and will result in a new political alignment in this country.

zimzo said:

There is a middle ground a lot of people can agree on. It was the Senate bill that now probably won't pass because of extremists on the right who have hijacked the the issue. You can't deport 11 million or 15 million immigrants and you can't keep pushing them from town to town. Until your side acknowledges reality and abandons the "build a wall" first pipe-dream, nothing is going to get done about the problem of immigrants who are already here.

The Senate bill S2611 was a crime and everyone who voted for it should be thrown out of office and possibly tarred and feathered. "Our side" is going to be the majority of citizens in the U.S. within a couple years, once everyone understands what is happening as a result of our open southern border. How do I know this? Because it is reality.

Other than that, I join you in the middle ground.

You should come to one of our meetings if you are ever back in Northern VA, talk to some of the real people who make up this movement, and then tell me if it is a bunch of "extremists."

zimzo said:

Hmmmm. Tarring and feathering certainly sounds moderate....

Jack said:

Zimzo:

While we may not be able to deport all illegal immigrants, does that mean we should not deport those we catch? Does it mean that we should not try to catch illegal immigrants at all?

-Jack

Whoa, sorry! I just re-read that and realize it wasn't quite clear:

I am an extremist. Have no doubt about that. I personally believe truth can be extreme and therefore "moderation" in itself is not automatically a virtue at all.

What I meant was the anti-illegal alien group here is, on the whole, NOT made up of extremists. You'd probably be surprised. I am not representative.

Had Enough said:

As it currently stands, there is no longer any fear, shame or otherwise of the laws of this country by illegal aliens. While our lawmakers on every level have completely ignored these people and allowed them to feel a sense of safeness and since the marches they have misunderstood ignorance with power. Total fear of the law and consequences mjust be put back into place.

It is disgusting that the pro-illegal groups have pounded it into the heads of the illegals and some lawmakers that this country can not survive without illegal aliens. In areas of the country where they have yet to be invaded all jobs are still being done by American Citizens.

In other areas of the country where there are large concentrations of illegals, blacks, whites, teenagers and college students are being displaced. There have been a number of articles about American prisoners that have been released from jail can not get a job, anywhere. Some have resorted to day labor areas only to be threatened and harrassed.

Just this week a construction worker in Colorado illegally was arrested for the murders of 8 women in mexico. In 2004, a 44-year-old construction worker found guilty of immigration fraud in Alexandria, Virginia and is wanted in Peru in connection with at least 26 killings. There are many more stories just like this. We have become a haven for illegal criminals in addition to everything else.

It is very basic, of course the murderers and rapists will not go back to their homelands quietly. We must take away from the illegals everything that makes it desirable to be here, jobs, medical care, free school for their children and everything else that that have been receiving on the American taxpayer.

When their lives are made as miserable as the American Citizens that have lost jobs, or lost a family member by a illegal drunk driver or the many other situations that are existing in this country slowly they will leave. Stop the hiring, the social services, the medical care, the anchor babies, and everyhting else. When the USA is no longer a playground, they will leave.

I also believe that every illegal who is caught driving with a license, has false documents or commits the smallest crime should be deported immediately. The party is over, stop the music and get busy. I don't care where you are from mexico, Ireland, Haiti, China, India, GO Home!

Had Enough said:

Zimzo: After reading your posts for sometime now, I believe that you are either illegal, a relative is illegal or you hire or otherwise benefit from illegals. If none of these situations fit you, than you must live in a cave.

H.E. - here's some more on the same topic:

http://wehategringos.com/whg/?p=882

Regarding Zimzo, my guess is living in a cave is not far off. He's intelligent but unaware.

zimzo said:

Oh my God, the illegals are going to kill and rape us all!

Come into my cave, Had Enough, where you'll be safe!

Moderate 5-19 said:

I always fail to understand why the conversation about illegal immigrants always must go to the place of name calling and accusations. I think this is a rather simple issue.
ILLEGAL MEANS ILLEGAL, it really does not have to go any further then that.

I also believe the focus of all attempts to “solve” or even deal with the illegal immigration issue should start and stop with the people and business that employ illegals. Illegal immigrants are not streaming over our boarders just to look at our national landmarks, they are coming to work. As long as (Americans) continues to offer them that employment they will continue to come. Place heavy fines and stipulations on those who employ illegals, make it less cost effective to employ illegal’s then to pay Americans.

Joe I read the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, the fact Mayor Barletta starts with “illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates” rather then talking about the Americans who are breaking the law by employing illegal’s is disheartening and does make me question his motives.

zimzo said:

I congratulate you Moderate 5-19 for never having broken a law in your entire life. I'm glad you think that obeying all laws, even ineffective or ill-advised laws, is more important than their effects on human beings. And I hope you hold everyone accountable for breaking any and every law, not only yourself but everyone from your neighbor to President Bush.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Zimzo,
If I break a law I expect to be held accountable. If I speed I get a ticket, that’s how it works.
Not to mention an illegal immigrant’s very presence in this country breaks the law. Every breath they take on American soil is illegal.

How can you compare a law abiding American, who strives not to break our laws with people who break the law by just being here.

Finally with the number of people who die just trying to reach America, I would think that would be enough for all humane people to discourage illegal immigration, not encourage it.

Now can we stop this ridiculous analogy? I have read your comments enough to know you are more intelligent then this question you pose.

zimzo said:

It's hard to respond intelligently to simplistic comments like this: "Every breath they take on American soil is illegal." I don't believe any laws have yet been passed against breathing, but I wouldn't put it past the hysterical anti-immigrant lobby.

The reason immigrants come to this country, and sometimes die trying, is that they are desperate. I doubt your conception of the law is so monochromatic that you equate someone stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family with someone robbing a bank. An immigrant who breaks one law to enter this country or overstays his visa and then lives as a law-abiding citizen as most do is not a "criminal" simply by breathing as you contend. The humanitarian thing to do, of course, would be to let those law-abiding immigrants who are already here and leading productive lives to stay here, make our immigration quotas more reflective of reality (because clearly our economy needs immigrants) and improve border enforcement, refocusing our efforts, I think on interdicting terrorists and drugs, which is a much greater concern than people coming here looking for better lives.

I think most reasonable people agree with this and don't believe that immigrants are all murderers and rapists exhaling criminality with every breath.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Zizmo,

“Immigrant Quotas”? What the hell are you talking about?

How would that work, we allow a certain number of illegal’s in the country and then randomly stop the flow?

Would it go something like this?

Let’s see, 98, 99,100 sorry number 101 you’re too late. We know you just want to work and provide for your family back in Mexico, we know you would be a law abiding citizen, we know you won’t pillage or rape, but we just met our quota of illegal’s in our country so you don’t get to pursue your dream or feed your family.

And if having illegal’s in the country is not a problem why even bother with border security, why not tell all security agents to go on home.

How about this answer instead:

1.Seal the boarders first, whatever it takes
2.Heavily sanction people who employ illegal’s
3.Deport first those who are in our criminal justice system.
4.Deport next those who have entered this country illegally
5.Work with the Governments of South America and other countries to help them stabilize their governments and grow their economies thus giving the people of these countries a way to support themselves and their families without putting their lives and the lives of their children at risk by coming across the boarder.


zimzo said:

Perhaps it would be better for all concerned "Moderate" if you refrained from commenting on subjects about which you are uninformed:

http://www.kkeane.com/quota-faq.shtml

You might also want to change your name to one that is more suited to your views.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Zizmo,

First of all, thanks all the same, but if you were to read my comments on a regular basis you would know my name suites me just fine.

Second I read your info (thanks) and it does not match your above comments.
You say that we should allow "law abiding-illegal immigrants” to stay in this country. How would they fit in this quota system? This is only for people who have not yet illegally came to this country. This system actually encourages people to enter the country legally. How does that mesh with your “hay if they are hear and breaking no laws let them stay” beliefs?

You are contradicting yourself.

Third, I admit this quota system does have some benefits, but I still contend that assisting these governments improve their quality of life and economy, thus having people investing their time talent and energy in their own country is preferred to this system.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Zizmo,

Great conversation, I'm going to bed, catch you tomorrow.

ZimZO: Take ye a pill! Moderate is in fact "moderate" according to your definition of the term. I happen to know this individual is not in my GOP camp and differs with me on many issues. In fact it is very likely this individual is far more in line with your beliefs than with mine.

This is what I have been trying to tell you: There are sound reasons to be concerned about the effects of illegal immigration in Northern VA. The issue cuts across party and ideological lines.

It would be a good idea to adopt an attitude of willing to learn. You are walking past an open window here.

zimzo said:

Just to explain what I meant about fixing quotas. The quotas for immigration from certain countries, for example in Latin America, clearly are not sufficiently large enough. They are also skewed toward skilled labor. Many illegal immigrants do attempt to immigrate to this country legally and resort to coming here illegally when they find that they are unable to because of artificially low quotas.

I don't know "Moderate" and it may well be that he is moderate on other issues, but when it comes to this issue I find the emotionalism, fear-mongering and hysteria evident in his comments and many others on your side of the aisle to be extreme. I think if you are being honest you will have to admit that the position expressed by the Senate bill, which was also President Bush's position represents the middle ground. It seems self-evident that something that a majority of the Senate, President Bush and I agree on would represent some sort of middle ground, but again I haven't found a lot of honesty in this debate.

As far as adopting "an attitude of willing to learn" I certainly haven't seen a lot of that from your side. As I have said before I know quite a lot about immigration issues. I encounter more immigrants, illegal and legal, every day than most of the people posting here do in their lifetimes. But I haven't really found a whole lot of willingness to listen to the other side here as reason seems unable to penetrate all the hysteria.

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about - but we've been through this before. Come visit Sterling Park.

Jack said:

Zimzo:

All quotas, high or low, are artificial.

Part of the reason the quotas for legal immigration are so low is that we already have enough illegal immigration. And we have the illegal immigration because the quotas are too low.

Both problems need to be fixed. However, past experience has given us no confidence that the Feral Government will secure with the borders. So we insist that they DO secure the borders before initiating a guest-worker program or increasing the quotas.

It is very difficult to believe that we can deal with a guest-worker program when we cannot monitor our current Visa programs.

There is current technology used to track blue sharks via satellites and radio tags. Why do we not do this for Visa holders, especially from problem countries?

You also did not answer my previous question. Assuming that we cannot deport all 10.5 million illegal immigrants, do you then propose that we not deport ANY? Do you propose that we do not try to capture and deport ANY illegal immigrants, because we cannot deport ALL?

Gnossis said:

"There is current technology used to track blue sharks via satellites and radio tags. Why do we not do this for Visa holders, especially from problem countries?"

Ok, so where does the money come from to produce and issue millions of these tags? And the money to pay the salaries of the people DHS would need to hire to track these tagged visitors?

Would tagging visa-holding aliens really be an efficient way to stem the tide of illegal immigrants? Isn't the problem actually the waves of people entering without securing the proper paperwork (i.e., visas)?

And what about the human factor? If your son/daughter went to study abroad and was made to wear a collar/bracelet/tag/piece of flair for tracking purposes, wouldn't you find it a bit de-humanizing?

Treating visa-holding immigrants as criminal threats by default would be a waste of resources and fails to address the situation in a practical way.

Jack said:

Gnossis:

The money would come from the Visa-holders themselves, of course. We'd even let them keep it as a souvenir.

Many illegal immigrants came here legally and stayed after their visas expired. How do you suggest we prevent similar abuse of the proposed guest-worker program?

I propose the "stem the tide" of illegal immigrants by building a very large and dangerous fence along the southern border. Build it about 1/4 mile north of the border, and shoot anything that gets close.

Once the border is closed, we can reconsider guest-worker visas and student visas, and track those visa-holders. I really do not care about the "human factor," we have a nation to protect.

zimzo said:

Jack and "Moderate," I think you serve as excellent examples of the kinds of the attitudes and thought processes typical of people allied against reasonable solutions to the immigration problem. Thanks for making my point just by being you.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Zizmo,

It’s hilarious how you ASSUME you “come in contact with more illegal or legal immigrants in one day then most people posting pass in their lifetime”. On a daily basis I work with legal and illegal immigrants. Some illegal’s I work with have been in this country for more than 20 years and has not made any efforts to become legal nor speak English. (I speak Spanish thus can talk with them).

One thing I have learned while working with illegals is how easily they are taken advantage of by our system. This is but one of the reasons I am opposed to illegal immigration. They are often abused or scammed and usually have not recourse to get help. Your bleeding heart views only serve to make it worse for them. If they entered the country legally they have an opportunity to protect themselves.

It’s ignorant and pretentious of you to, again ASSUME you understand my (or Joe’s) “thought process” or attitudes. What I see day in and day out is a system that does illegal’s more harm then good.

And, yes besides that they are in fact breaking the law by being in the country. They did not break the law just one time when they entered the country, but rather on a daily basis just by being here. To say they are “law abiding” when they are here illegally is ridiculous. How is it that someone who breaks the law everyday be law abiding?


Moderate 5-19 said:

And oh by the way Zizmo, it is quite clear to me that what you consider “reasonable solutions” are solutions that agree with your point of view.

The five point solution I listed above you can’t accept as “reasonable” because you don’t agree with it.

That's soooo open minded of you

zimzo said:

Well, if we made them legal wouldn't they also have the "opportunity to protect themselves"? What I don't get about the anti-immigration extremists is why do you think you can solve the problem by building a wall first (and doing virtually nothing about the immigrants that are already here) or enforcing laws against employers (which would affect a minuscule amount of the immigrants already here and would probably be as successful as our drug laws). Why are you so resistant to giving amnesty to illegal immigrants who are already here? I truly don't get it. The idea that you believe so strongly in the sanctity of our immigration laws is pretty laughable. There are plenty of laws I'm sure you don't agree with whose sanctity is a lot less important. And by the way the idea that someone violates a law simply by existing or breathing is a novel but pretty ridiculous concept. Please cite some case law where this idea is described unless you have just made it up.

I don't know you "Moderate" or Jack so all I have to go by is what you write. That's where I get the idea that you have extreme views and very little knowledge of immigration issues. So far you have yet to prove me wrong in that view.

zimzo said:

No, I think it's reasonable because a majority of people across the political divide agree with my position, including the President, with whom I agree on virtually nothing, and a majority of the Senate.

zimzo said:

And here's what I think of your "5 Point Program":

1.Seal the boarders first, whatever it takes

Why first? How far are you willing to go with "whatever it takes"? I suppose we could line up ever soldier we have with M-16s along the border. Does that sound reasonable to you? Are you including Canada, too? Are you proposing ending distribution of tourist visas, which is how most illegal immigrants come here in the first place? How long will this take? How much will this cost? What about all the immigrants who are already here? Do nothing while we wait until you seal the border airtight?
2.Heavily sanction people who employ illegal’s I see you want to run small businessmen out of business or throw them in jail. That should be good for the economy. I hope you don't like to go out to eat. Virtually every restaurant in America will have to close.
3.Deport first those who are in our criminal justice system. With what kind of guarantees that they would serve out their sentences in countries we deport them to? Maybe they would be freed and end up right back here. For every single crime? Do they get trials and if so where? What if they are innocent? What if they have families that are here legally? How likely do you think immigrants will be to cooperate with police as witnesses or report crimes?
4.Deport next those who have entered this country illegally Deport 15 million people? What exactly are the logistics of that going to be? Do you want police to go from house to house? Do you want to set up deportation camps?
5.Work with the Governments of South America and other countries to help them stabilize their governments and grow their economies thus giving the people of these countries a way to support themselves and their families without putting their lives and the lives of their children at risk by coming across the boarder. Sure, I agree with this. It doesn't really solve the immediate problem but it's the correct long-term solution. We should be doing this anyway.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Zizmo,

I looked back over past threads and noticed that time and time again you and I agree on issues. Most recently we both posted in agreement about George Allen and his deplorable comments.(VOTE WEBB) Of course I was agreeing with you thus I was not treated to name calling like “extremist”. Cool, I see how that works. Agree with you I’m correct, disagree with you I’m an extremist.

BTW, you telling me that George Bush has the same position on illegal immigration as you does NOT strengthen your case in my eyes.

Anyway let’s review:

1. Yes, whatever it takes, even it that means putting military on the boarders. In the end it would save a lot of lives.
2. Yes, if a small business person is employing illegal’s they are breaking laws so sanction them, if they lose their business that is their poor decision making.
3. I don’t really care if their country makes them serve their sentence. That is not my issue; if our boarders are sealed they will not be spilling back over to this country.
4. I admit deporting somewhere between 11-19 million illegal’s is just about impossible, but I would sure as hell try to start.
5. WOW you actually agree with me on this, I must be getting smarter because you validated me.
How can I ever thank you?

kevin said:

*pulls up chair to watch*

zimzo said:

I don't believe agreeing with me is the definition of moderate. I'm sure I have views on some issues that would be considered extreme to some. But on the issue of immigration as I have pointed out time and time again there is a middle ground, a mainstream of opinion. A majority of Americans on both the right and the left support the principles elucidated in the Senate bill. A group of far-right-wingers who do not represent the mainstream of thought on this issue blocked that bill from being passed for political reasons. You seem to echo their opinions, which are defined by extreme emotionalism, fear-mongering, exaggeration and "solutions" that even you admit are wildly impractical. Just to take your last post, you would have to be living in a dream world to believe that we have the resources to cover the borders or even a significant part of the borders with an already badly strained military. You clearly have not even thought about the implications of straining our law enforcement resources to locate, arrest, detain and prosecute all of the businessmen who hire illegal immigrants and all of the illegal immigrants themselves, or even a significant proportion of them. You seem to be completely closing your eyes to why they are here in the first place, which is that our economy needs their labor and they need to survive.

The upheaval and economic and personal devastation that would be the result of your plan would be downright suicidal. The other statements you have made, such as implying that illegal immigrants are responsible for a significantly large number of rapes and murders, is backed up by no evidence whatsoever, hence my claim that your position is based on emotionalism and fear-mongering. Your theory that the very act of breathing is a criminal act is so over-the-top ludicrous that I can't imagine how you can even say it once let alone repeat it. I know of know theory of modern of American jurisprudence that would sanction the criminalization of breathing.

So you can run outside tear off all of your clothes and scream at the top of your lungs "I AM NOT AN EXTREMIST ON IMMIGRATION!1!!!" but that does not make it so.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Hay Zizmo,

I have a question for you,
Did you ever think that you are an extremist?

Are there not any beliefs that you hold that the majority of Americans do not agree with you. And if so does that make you an extremist? Heck a majority of Americans thought Bush should be President. Do you? And if not are you an extremist?

And please go back and read my post and then tell me where I am "fear mongering".
I think you have my post mixed up with others.

And when did I ever say "locate, arrest, detain and prosecute" small business men. I said sanction, that's all I've said. I really don't think that would be that hard to do.

Zizmo what you do is assume (yes again assume) what you believe a person is saying and then you post based on your assumptions.

And since you seem to be so very focused on the "every breath they take is illegal comment" (which BTW I said once and you repeated in almost every post you made)let me clarify, (because you seem to act as if you believe I'm saying their being alive is illegal)
What I am saying is that their illegal status colors everything they do, from being treated unfairly, to working, to health issues, to education. Everything

And it has been me who continuously points out the reason they are here is to work and send money back home. (How about you go back and read my first post on this thread).

However, no matter the reason they come, those reasons do not erase their illegal status.
If we decide this then why not say that every hungry person in the world has the right to steal food and we should look the other way because they are stealing for “right reasons”.

And oh, one more thing, I think it was you not me who brought my “moderate credentials” and you not me who thinks name calling is an appropriate way to communicate.

People in glass houses Zizmo, people in glass houses.

Moderate 5-19 said:

Zizmo,

Once again good conversation, (although I don't ever see us agreeing)
I'm going to bed.

Catch you tomorrow


Zimzo: Debating with you is like walking through a blizzard of confetti. You keep skewing the issues and the opponents' points, and generally prevaricating, such that an objective reader loses focus on what has been established so far in the conversation.

"A majority of Americans on both the right and the left support the principles elucidated in the Senate bill."

Bogus. Who believes these kinds of statements: Your cat? The majority of Americans are concerned about illegal immigration and if the majority of Americans had any idea what all was contained in the Senate bill the Senate would be shaking in its collective boots.

"You would have to be living in a dream world to believe that we have the resources to cover the borders."

Bogus. We could build a fence for a few billion dollars - and that's not even the point. We could allocate more money for more border patrol personnel or whatever else was needed. If securing the border of our country is not worth the money, then what is?

"Our economy needs their labor."

Triple-Bogus. Companies and individuals who are profiting from the cheap labor need their labor, but the large number of blue-collar American citizens who can't afford to work for minimal pay and no benefits certainly do NOT need their labor. You are defending the unscrupulous rich, Zimzo. How can you face yourself in the mirror?

"The upheaval and economic and personal devastation that would be the result of your plan would be downright suicidal."

Bogus. Not for the Americans who would be able to get jobs a a living wage.

"Implying that illegal immigrants are responsible for a significantly large number of rapes and murders, is backed up by no evidence whatsoever."

Quadruple-Bogus, No Tag Backs. You, my friend, I respectfully submit, are nuts if you really believe that. There is all kinds of evidence to the contrary. Try these for starters:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/

http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/2006/05/symposium_pt_4_theyre_just_her.php

"I know of no theory of modern of American jurisprudence that would sanction the criminalization of breathing."

Oh yeah, that's going to sting our resident anti-breathing activist, Moderate 5-19. Zimzo, I think I have you pegged: You are an attorney, and a pretty good one, and you can do this stuff in your sleep.

Jacob Ash said:

Zim,
"So you can run outside tear off all of your clothes and scream at the top of your lungs "I AM NOT AN EXTREMIST ON IMMIGRATION!1!!!" but that does not make it so."
Repeating yourself ad nausium that jack and moderate ARE extremists also does not make it so.

It appears that all above who disagree with you on this issue you have labeled as 'extreme'. Are they extreme in that there view is pedantic regarding the law? Are they extreme because they are unreasonable? Are the extreme because by calling them such you can put them on the defensive? Why are there views extreme Zim, your say so, is just an opinion.

As for the enforcement first issue, how else does one get a handle on the problem? The first step in putting out a fire is to contain it.

Now with respect to the Canadian border, as soon as we see the canucks coming across the border illegally in the numbers we see coming up from the south then the logical thing to do is to seal that border as well. Easy? No. Most things worth protecting and having require us doing things that are hard.

Your observation that criminals who are deported will probably not serve out their sentences in their countries of origin actually makes the case for securing the border.

Can we deport all the millions who are here illegally? NO. Not all. But deportation of a large number of illegals, when couple with tighter border control will lead to deterrence.

-JA

zimzo says: "An immigrant who breaks one law to enter this country or overstays his visa and then lives as a law-abiding citizen as most do is not a "criminal" simply by breathing as you contend."

This point may have been made above, but most illegal aliens don't just commit the crime of illegal entry or similar. They also engage in document fraud, employers hire them illegally, employers frequently ignore minimum wage or safety laws, etc. etc.

And, illegal immigration is a multi-billion dollar industry, with a lot of hands getting a share of the ill-gotten gains. That includes those politicians who receive donations from companies that profit from illegal immigration and then give donations expecting loose enforcement.

In other words, illegal immigration has corrupted our entire political system.

Jack said:

Quotes from Zimzo:

"Jack and 'Moderate,' I think you serve as excellent examples of the kinds of the attitudes and thought processes typical of people allied against reasonable solutions to the immigration problem. Thanks for making my point just by being you."

"I don't know you 'Moderate' or Jack so all I have to go by is what you write. That's where I get the idea that you have extreme views and very little knowledge of immigration issues. So far you have yet to prove me wrong in that view."

And I see, Zimzo, that you have avoided my question again by resorting to ad hominem attacks and sarcasm -- "the last refuge of a defeated wit." I'll try once more:

Assuming that we cannot catch and deport all 10.5 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S., do you think that we should not try to catch ANY, or that we should not deport those we do catch?

One other question: Since the majority of the House of Representatives agrees with closing the border first, am I still an extremist?

Jacob Ash said:

'ilegalImmigrationIntroduction' is making an excellent point. Our winking and nodding at illegal immigrants for years is fostering a ,'culture of corruption'. As a nation we have become so inured to breaking the law in this respect that many, like Zim, do not even realize they are advocating the breaking of the law. Considering the fact that our nation is based upon a legal document, not blood lines, we are tearing at our own basic fabric here.

-JA

Had Enough said:

$126 Billion? I don't think so! They didn't add the billions that bush has been giving to faith based organizations (to provide more services, under the table). Catholic charities has cleaned up.

They did not include the cost to the states that are overwhelming. Schools, jails, medical care and on and on.

The feds tell the states to bill them and in return they are reimbursed pennies on the dollar.

You must triple that figure and you still wouldn't have a complete accounting.

I know of many American Citizens that are struggling to survive. Some have lost work to illegals and some have been outsourced, some have lost all their company benefits.

These American Citizens are paying taxes that cover schools, medical, etc. of these illegals while going without medical, etc. themselves.

Had Enough said:

Also the costs of fighting gangs. Trials, public defenders.

The costs of thefts, shoplifting, vandalism.

Then there is the human cost. Thousands of people are affected by the human cost everyday. When the human toll reached 3,000 (within our borders) no one bombed mexico.

Had Enough said:

I wouldn't want any family member of mine working along side an illegal.

I don't care if it is construction, a fast food place or a nanny in my home.

People from third world countries come here and they have never had a shot in their life. They do not believe in it.

Vegas had a problem with some hispanics last year that were refusing to get their kids shots to start school. They said shots were not required in mexico.

TB, and diseases that were never known to this country or Virginia are on the rise. We are also being invaded by bedbugs.

The cost of treatment just for TB can be over $100,000. to $1.2 million

I read a blog awile back where the man said they watch their hispanic neighbors wash their kids hair in kerosene in the front yard to get rid of lice.

There was an article in the Post earlier this this year where Wegmans said over half of their 600 or so employees were immigrants and they had a hygiene problem with them.

Another article about the crab pickers brought from mexico to work on the bay. They refused to wear gloves and complained of their cut, inflamed, bleeding and swollen hands while they picked crab meat.

Nationwide, fake health department certificates are being used by food service workers.

Can you imagine how many fake shot certificates are being presented at the schools.

If you want information on illegals and disease look up articles by the late Dr. Cosman.

Gnossis said:

Well if the views espoused here by Joe, Jack, and Had Enough are indicative of what's "mainstream" in the (neo)conservative movement, I, for one, am quite content to sit and watch the GOP turn itself into some 21st century version of the Know-Nothings.

Had Enough:

Maybe you and Jack could get together and form a posse. You could roam neighborhoods, darting potentially illegal immigrants (I'm sure you know them when you see them) with tranquilizers, and then Jack can tag them since he doesn't care about the "human factor."

Brilliant, I tell you! Brilliant!

Jacob, "Our winking and nodding at illegal immigrants for years is fostering a ,'culture of corruption'."

That just about nails it. The culture of corruption also includes the corporations AND homeowners living the good life off cheap labor. It used to cost $15,000 to get your roof replaced in Northern VA. Nowadays you can get it done for $6,000.

The roofing contractor can undercut his competitor who employs legal citizens; the homeowner has more disposable income; illegal aliens can send money back home - everybody wins!!

Except, of course, for the contractor who got outbid, his employees who end up losing their jobs, and the people living in the community who have to deal with the many downsides of illegal immigration as detailed in the comments above.

Jack said:

Gnossis:

Off to the ad hominem attacks and sarcasm again?

I ask again: How would YOU solve the problem of people's overstaying their visas?

Gnossis said:

"Off to the ad hominem attacks and sarcasm again?"

Sarcasm? Yes. Absolutely. Ad hominem? Ehh, not yet, that's not as fun.

Given the inevitable shrillness that passes for "debate" here (on both sides), I think sarcasm is definitely in order. You may disagree on that point, but since you obviously recognize sarcasm when you see it, and respond to it as though it were an attempt at a serious rebuttal to what you've said, then I can't help that you can't take a joke. We're just arguing on the Internets for crying out loud.

I ask again: How would YOU solve the problem of people's overstaying their visas?

In all seriousness (really), I'm not entirely sure what the best method would be to find and deport visa violators. That said, I think tagging immigrants (or foreign visitors) a la Martha Stewart on house arrest is absurd. Think about the practicality of it: how difficult would it be to remove and/or destroy the tag? Anyone determined enough to overstay his/her visa will find a way to do it, and a tracking tag is a pretty flimsy deterrent.

I think (brace yourself) that III and Jacob made good points about the fact that b/c we've turned a blind eye to this issue for so long it has essentially emasculated the government to the point that it can't address the situation effectively. Congress can talk and pass bills for building walls or offering some form of amnesty, but without a firm commitment to funding those plans, the whole thing is really moot, isn't it?

There also hasn't been much talk about the long-term effect(s) of deporting millions of people as you and others have suggested. Sure there will be some negative economic impact here, but our economy is strong enough that it would probably result in a slow-down or stagnation but not an outright depression, and we'd recover eventually (how quickly depends on the fiscal responsibility of the sitting government...but that's another debate). But returning millions of people to countries whose economies are struggling would put a huge amount of stress on those countries. Unemployment and poverty would become even worse; governments would be unable to provide an adequate infrastructure to provide the necessary/expected services due to the massive influx of people. This would create an even more dire situation south of our borders, leading to (I would suspect) an even more desperate and fervent movement to enter our country by any and all means.

Any realistic solution to this problem will take decades (i.e., the same amount of time that we've been ignoring this issue politically). If we're going to return people to these countries (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), our government needs to take significant steps to work with the governments of Central America to improve the quality of life in those countries so that once people are deported, they won't have the same socioeconomic reasons to illegally immigrate. Simply deporting people doesn't come close to addressing the root of this problem.

My short answer is this: I don't have a good solution; but I believe any serious attempt at addressing this issue will take a long, concerted effort. There is no quick fix.

zimzo said:

Joe I've seen those articles that "prove" that illegal immigrants are criminals before. The Heather MacDonald article, which begins "Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens," is especially laughable. In fact (though I know dealing with facts is not something the anti-immigration movement likes to do, preferring to rely on hysterical anecdotes) "Fears that immigration leads to more crime are not supported by most research, according to "On Immigration and Crime," a study in 2001 done for the U.S. Department of Justice. The report said that most studies in the past century show that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the rest of the population."

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137835401427

Try offering real evidence in the future if you want to convince people what you are saying is true and that you are not in fact pulling it out of your, well, you know.

Had Enough, thanks for adding your shrill fulminations to "Moderate's", Jacks's and Joe's. Gnossis is right, you all provide telling evidence for why voters should reject the conservatives who have hijacked this country in November.

Illegal immigrants are now all disease and lice ridden, Had Enough? I don't think I even need to say what that kind of propaganda that will chillingly remind people of (Hint: "Now children, turn to the chapter on World War II").

Jack asks: "Assuming that we cannot catch and deport all 10.5 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S., do you think that we should not try to catch ANY, or that we should not deport those we do catch?" How many, Jack? Using how much of our law enforcement agencies' resources? To what end? Do you propose we have a War on Immigrants not unlike our wildly successful War on Drugs? I have a question for you: What's wrong with legalizing the immigrants who are already here and allow our law enforcement agencies to docus on real crime (which, incidentally, because of Bush's cutbacks to pay for his tax cuts and the War in Iraq has been increasing under his administration)?

Finally, allow me to have a good laugh at this "culture of corrupton" argument. In light of all of the no-bid fraudulent contracts in Iraq, the Jack Abramoff and other scandals in Congress, the legislation written by lobbyists, not to mention the legalized bribery called campaign contributions that corrupts every facet of our electoral system, you actually have the gall to blame immigrants for corruption? Give me a break.

For the record, I am PRO-sarcasm. I employed it once some years back and I recall it being pretty nifty.

Had Enough said:


Illegal aliens linked
to gang-rape wave
The crime epidemic no one will talk about?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51424

A wave of illegal-immigrant gang rapes is sweeping the U.S. while public officials and law-enforcement authorities fear drawing the link, experts say.

**************
A Mexican man arrested in Virginia may be linked to a series of murders of women in the border city of Ciudad Juarez, investigators said Monday


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1102AP_Mexico_Border_Slayings.html


Everyday there are hundreds of articles nationwide about this crime wave and the criminals that bush has encouraged to sneak in.

bush took an oath to protect and defend. To date he has only protected and defended illegals.

zimzo said:

World Net Daily, Had Enough? (The same newspaper that printed an article written by the son of the editor who proposed that Nazi Germany's rounding up of the Jews proved that deporting illegal immigrants would be no problem.) A single Mexican serial killer arrested in Virginia? Now I'm scared.

Had Enough said:

There has been more than one illegal alien serial murderer in Virginia.

A while back they got one working at a construction site in Prince William County who was wanted for the murders of 26 people.

The fact is that these people should not be here.

I don't care what country they come from, if they are illegal they should not be here.

When you add this violent criminal element it only puts the citizens more at risk.

Jack said:

Zimzo says: "Jack asks: "Assuming that we cannot catch and deport all 10.5 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S., do you think that we should not try to catch ANY, or that we should not deport those we do catch?" How many, Jack? Using how much of our law enforcement agencies' resources? To what end? Do you propose we have a War on Immigrants not unlike our wildly successful War on Drugs? I have a question for you: What's wrong with legalizing the immigrants who are already here and allow our law enforcement agencies to docus on real crime (which, incidentally, because of Bush's cutbacks to pay for his tax cuts and the War in Iraq has been increasing under his administration)?"

So, Zimzo again avoids by question. This time, at least, he avoids the ad hominem attacks, but uses the time-dishonored tactic of asking a question in answer to a question.

I will answer your questions, even if you will not answer mine.

1) How many, Jack? Using how much of our law enforcement agencies' resources? To what end?

Deport all we catch. Do not release them until a hearing unless they are tagged. The article you cite (and truthfully, a very good one) mentions that many people are in jail and "no way of knowing which offenders are legal or illegal immigrants." Why not? We can run a person through a check for a concealed-carry permit or handgun purchase. We should run anyone arrested for a crime through the same process to determine his legality. Deport him if he is illegal. To the end that we remove these criminals from our society as quickly as possible.

2) Do you propose we have a War on Immigrants not unlike our wildly successful War on Drugs?

Like our War on Poverty, too, I suppose. No, I do not want a War on Immigrants -- I want a War on ILLEGAL Immigrants.

3) What's wrong with legalizing the immigrants who are already here?

They broke the law. That's what's wrong with it. Do you have no sympathy for those who wait years to do it legally? How about this: those waiting to get in legally can auction off their places on the waiting list to the illegals, eBay style. Then the victims (those waiting to get in legally) will get some compensation from the illegals who stole their places.

4) ...and allow our law enforcement agencies to docus on real crime (which, incidentally, because of Bush's cutbacks to pay for his tax cuts and the War in Iraq has been increasing under his administration)?"

Now, since the Hispanic incarceration rate is 3 times the non-Hispanic White incarceration rate (NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY REPORT
MAY 2001), one would expect that keeping out illegal immigrants, who have already shown their disdain for our laws, would help reduce real crime. Since poverty is said to increase crime, one would expect that having those jobs for our unemployed Blacks and legal immigrants would also reduce crime.

Furthermore, the Feral Government is not responsible for most criminal investigations -- that's a State and local matter. The War in Iraq is irrelevant to local crime. However, I will grant that the War in Iraq does take resources away from protecting our borders. However, it also attracts the terrorists to Iraq, which is still easier for them to get to, rather than attracting them to the U.S.

Since you still have not answered MY questions, I will assume you have no answers to give.

Jack said:

Gnossis:

A fine post. Thank you.

I entirely agree that the socioeconomic conditions in Latin America contribute to the problem, and that our deporting 10.5M people back there might make things worse down there. On the other hand, sending down a bunch of people steeped in capitalism and desiring change might make things better, too.

As for removing/destroying the tags, we have solved those issues with the current criminal tags, no?

Let's start here: anyone arrested (or already incarcerated) is run through a search to determine his legality. If he is in the country illegally, he is deported. If it is necessary to release him pending a hearing, he is to be tagged.

Yes, this will be a long-term problem, and will require long-term solutions, just like Islamic Terrorism. But our nation is worth the fight.

New post up at the top of the blog; let's move the discussion over there before this post falls off the main page.

Arthur De Volve said:

Yes it is hard. But we have to do the hard things now because, if we don't, our children and grandchildren will have crap for a country.

I am sick and tired of liberal bs like...we cant break up families. Oh yes we can a**holes. Or are you suggesting that we should stop putting murderers in prison because "it would separate them from their families". If I move to another country my children come with me, why would it be any other way?

Arthur De Volve said:

...ps, your gd right I am donating to the legal defense fund...

Jack said:

Arthur:

The conversation moved to http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/2006/08/illegal_aliens_crime_and_gang.php.

I have also written my congresscritters and volunteered to adopt an anchor baby whose parents are deported.

Arthur De Volve said:

the link doesn't work?

Jack said:

Don't know why. Go to the main page -- there are several articles there now on the topic.

-Jack

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM