Replies

Which is why, as stated in the article, the crux of Thompson’s plan hinges on enforcement of existing law.

Wrong! His plan does not "hinge" on enforcing existing laws. It's only part of his plan. The other part is to create more needless laws! Why can't you comprehend this fact? I have already posted the comment from the article referring to new laws but for some unexplained you have not read it so here it is again. Paragraph five, first line " Thompson will also call for stronger laws to force employers to verify that workers aren't illegal immigrants". It is ludicrous to pass more laws because the existing laws have not been enforced!

Which is precisely what he’s said he’ll do.

He's gone far beyond simply stating he'll enforce existing laws. He is attempting to make it sound as though he has some new solution to the problem. The solution was passed in 1996 and just now he is addressing the issue? It doesn't pass the smell test.

He’s running for president ... grandstanding comes with the territory.

Are you serious? He is trying to take credit for a solution that was created 11 years ago. If you don't mind politicians deceiving you then deserve to be deceived.

However, it is clear there is a problem with immigration law - and a plan incorporating the enforcement of existing law as well as additional punishment (of the State or locality, not merely individuals) for failure to enforce seems like a reasonable solution.

What additional punishment could you possibly be referring to that is not already in the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act? This law punishes governments! You clearly have not read this law I posted in post #9. It provides every type of conceivable punishment including imprisonment, fines up to treble damages and confiscation of property against individuals, organizations and municipalities! many of these crimes are felonies! If that isn't enough, the Federal Immigration and Nationalization Act allows private citizens to sue under the RICO statute. No new immigration law could be more severe. There is no problem with this or any other immigration related laws. The only problem is people not enforcing them. Passing more laws will only result in more laws not enforced.

Something needs to be “formulated”.

The only formulation needed is to hold our politicians feet to the fire to enforce existing laws. That hasn't been done with Bush. Thompson is suddenly talking about enforcing existing laws because he feels the heat from the people and realizes what will happen if he doesn't enforce those laws.

The current immigration scheme is broken ... the punishments aren’t enforced enough on individuals, and don’t apply to states or municipalities.

It's broken only because the people charged with enforcing the laws are weak. The laws are not weak. The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act does apply to states and municipalities! I already posted the portion of the law pertaining to governments to you in post #169. Either you have not bothered to read it or chose to ignore the passage. Here it is again:

Per the law:"A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

· assists an illegal alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or · encourages that illegal alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or · knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Thompson’s plan to enforce existing laws, and add punishments for the States and municipalities should correct both failures of the current arrangement.

No plan is needed because the plan has existed since 1996 and includes the supposed failures you state.

The only new laws I saw were augmentations of existing law so as to impose additional punishments on States and municipalities (which current law does not do ... current law punishes individuals only).

Wrong again! the issue of municipalities or any other organization(government) is addressed in the law I cite. No plan, new law or "augmentation" as you put is needed.

It seems to me you and Thompson agree - enforce existing law.

I disagree with him pretending a much more complex solution is needed and that he will create solutions that already exist in the law. It's misleading and deceptive at the very least.

He adds a couple of financial incentives to ensure enforcement

No where in the article does is it written Thompson mentions financial incentives. It does mention financial punshiment that already exists in the law I cited. TRhere is also a law that does refer to stripping Federla grant money from states and ciities sfor violating the law because the Attorney General for Connecticut has warned the state legislature they could lose Federal grant money for violating federal laws because the sate wants to give financial assistance to illegal aliens.

Blah, blah, blah ...

You’ve basically got a long list of unnecessary complaints that you’ll lodge against any Presidential candidate with the temerity to actually try to change the current immigration enforcement regime. You’ll apparently object to any candidiate that cares to elaborate on the phrase “I’ll enforce current law” (a quote that Thompson actually used as a primary platform for his immigration proposal).

I’m sorry, but the answer “I’ll enforce current law” - with no further elaboration - simply isn’t enough. Its a line we’ve heard dozens of times from dozens of candidates over dozens of years ... and its gotten us nowhere. Details are an absolute necessity - and a change or two here and there to current law wouldn’t be entirely unwarranted either. I want to know why their plan is different, why theirs will work where the current scheme hasn’t, and why cities and states will listen this time when they haven’t in the past. Thompson has an answer beyond “I will enforce current law” ... which apparently has sent you into a tizzy.

Current law has failed - its mechanisms for enforcement have failed, and its penalties and punishments for a government’s failure to enforce have failed. I want to know, specifically, how candidates plan to remedy the failures of current immigration law. To Thompson, a renewed commitment to enforcement is among the remedies - but new and more inventive punishments for a government’s failure to enforce are clearly necessary as well. It must be made clear that things have changed ... repeatedly spouting “current law, current law, current law” doesn’t make that clear ... it sounds like more of the same. It must be made clear that the current view of optional enforcement of immigration law has ended ... the attachment of funding to enforcment is the perfect mechanism to do so.

Immigration law, and the enforcement thereof, has been broken for better than a quarter-century. Reagan declared amnesty, and things only got worse from there. Thompson proposes attaching federal funding to immigration enforcement - as a mechanism to force cities and states to enforce current law - and you get your panties in a bunch because he dared suggest a change to current immigration law.

Of the current frontrunners ... Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Hillary and Obama ... Thompson is the only one with a commitment to the enforcement of current immigration law. He comes out with the most sensible plan to date, rivaling that of Duncan Hunter - and, one that conservatives will have a difficult time disagreeing with any portiont thereof. Yet, you bitch and moan that he dared come out with an answer that was more than a sentence long ... that is simply nonsensical. Tert, one-sentence answers are not the makings of a successful Presidential candidate ... details are needed.