Posted on 12/20/2004 12:21:42 PM PST by nanak
After the White House news conference this morning, Bill Kristol on Fox News praised President Bush's remarks about "immigration reform" as "eloquent." Beg to differ. The president's open-borders statements were empty, garish platitudes strung together sloppily like cheap Christmas lights:
Illegal aliens "do the job Americans won't do." President Bush used that dog-tired phrase about a half-dozen times during today's press conference as he defended his impending illegal alien amnesty plan. Mark Krikorian effectively puts this mindless rhetoric to rest here.
"Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." Uh huh. Well, terrorists and gang members and drunken murderers and cop-killers don't stop there either. And based on past and recent experience, granting amnesty to 13 million law-breakers will only result in more illegal immigration, not less.
We need immigration reform that "recognizes reality." Rank-and-file immigration enforcement officials give a real reality check on the amnesty debacle here, here, and here.
As immigration enforcement veteran/former U.S. prosecutor Peter Nunez put it:
[W]e need to stop the talk of a coming amnesty, or of a guest worker program, both of which, by themselves, serve to encourage additional illegal immigration. What kind of message are we sending when we dangle that possibility before people desperate enough to put their lives at risk? Doesn’t this kind of talk also indicate that we really don’t care much about law breaking, that we don’t really care that much about the rule of law, that these immigration laws exist only as a token objection to the violation of our sovereignty? Now, that is eloquent.
LOL! Nick says it will save America. He says we need 60 million more illegal aliens so people can retire.
Yeowza!
Marked for later reading.
Don't put words in my mouth. What I said was, we have to do that, or have lots of babies fast, or we'll find ourselves having to decide which old people to snuff. You keep trying to turn it into people playing on a golf course. The issue is whether we have to kill them... or "encourage" them to go die.
That is what Joe does best.
bttt
Won't stop jury nullification - if the jury still thinks he did nothing wrong, they will still acquit. In case you didn't notice, the case Poohbah mentioned involved the documents being printed on FAX PAPER.
The jury acquitted in 15 minutes.
It won't matter whether or not your verification program is mandatory. You've got to convince a jury to acquit. So far, they haven't.
I have been watchling the social security threads and nowhere in the articles does the press mention the Totalization Agreement with Mexico. Why expand a failing program? It is a fact that Mexicans are not reproducing like they once did so therefore we will have many more older Mexicans on the dole. Do we snuff these people too?
We'll see, won't we? So far no jury has heard a case where mandatory workplace verification was violated.
Normally, I don't pay attention to "he said, she said" statements especially when they are stated as facts. With your statements you have implied that all juries would acquit any one who has hired illegals. Back it up with facts, not "he said, she said" statements.
In other words, "he said, she said" it was fax paper. For some reason without the case cited, I don't think we will ever know.
Bingo. When Bush claims there will ever be an enforcement part to his sleazy scheme, he's lying. He can't be bothered to enforce immigration law now. Why would he in the future?
Actually, you pay attention to "he said, she said" statements if you agree with them.
With your statements you have implied that all juries would acquit any one who has hired illegals.
There may be an odd jury that convicts, but the general rule is that they acquit.
Back it up with facts, not "he said, she said" statements.
OK, here's the biggest fact: US Attorneys get bonuses (aka "pro pay" or "proficiency pay"), raises, and promotions based on their conviction rates.
High conviction rates equal lots of money rolling in.
The refusal of US Attorneys to spend time on prosecuting employers is quite telling in this context. A US Attorney would indict his own grandmother if he thought he would get a conviction. Conversely, they aren't going to spend time on cases that are likely to end in acquittals.
Under the old rules, perhaps, but those rules are in the process of becoming obsolete as workplace verification becomes mandatory under President Bush and David Dreier.
No I don't.
There may be an odd jury that convicts, but the general rule is that they acquit.
The general rule as I see it is the employers "cop a plea" and fines or payoffs are made. Very few juries see these cases.
OK, Here's the biggest fact: US Attorneys get bonuses (aka) "pro pay" or "proficiency pay", raises or bonuses based on their conviction rates.
High conviction rates equals lots of money rolling in.
The refusal of US Attorneys to spend time is quite telling in this context. A US Attorney would indict his own grandmother if he thought he would get a conviction. Conversely, they aren't going to spend time on cases that are likely to end in acquital.
It sounds to me like the US Attorneys have the same mentality as the federal airport workers. It looks like they all like to harass grandmothers instead of doing their job.
Gotta go. Merry Christmas to all.
I think a lot of Freepers are not comprehending how difficult that would be, nor are they considering the dangers of keeping the status quo i.e. do nothing which is going to be the effective result of an insistance on a zero-tolerance policy.
A voice of reason.
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.