Chertoff to Hannity: Removing 10~11M ILLEGALS too expensive and impractical

FoxNews Channel: Hannity & Colmes ^ | November 14, 2005 | Transcript

[DTogo]

...HANNITY: Because you had made a controversial statement, and you seem to be backing off of it now, and it was that people that are here illegally, that they all ought to be sent back.

I'm paraphrasing.

And it seems like now you've sort of backed off that position a little bit, because there are million that we estimate that are in this country illegally.

Why wouldn't we send them back?

CHERTOFF: ...I also recognize we've got, according to some estimates, 10 to 11 million illegals already in this country working. And the cost of identifying all of those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars...

HANNITY: Why — in that sense, aren't you really rewarding those that didn't respect our laws and sovereignty? In other words, OK, you're saying, you came into this country illegally.

Now that we've identified you, we're going to let you even stay longer and make money, and then you can go back in three to six years.

Why don't we say, no, you're here illegally, you didn't respect our laws, you ought to go home? Why don't we just say that?

CHERTOFF: Well, Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality.

I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows.

Now, this is not an amnesty. This is not — the president's proposal is not a path to citizenship. It's clearly temporary, and it clearly envisions people who would have to commit to go back....

[sharkhawk]

You don't have to violate the constitution. You just have to enforce the laws.
When you catch an illegal alien in any other interaction with the police- like any crimes or traffic stops - you DEPORT THEM, not let them go.

I agree that any illegal alien who is picked up by police for a crime should be deported. But this thread was about deporting ALL illegal aliens, now. Does everyone who talks to police have to prove their citizenship? What if you don't have a passport/birth certificate or Drivers License on you? Off to jail you go?

[kabar]

Seems pretty clear to me.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It is not just my opinion. The courts have upheld that interpretation.

[jackbenimble]

A Salvadorean did not have a legit tax ID number (he was paying SS, fed income tax, medicare, state income, and local taxes into a bogus number, had been doing so for years, but never filed to get refunds because he was afraid). He is a good kid

You have a strange definition of "good kid". From your post we know that he: entered our country illegally, committed identity fraud, failed to file income tax returns and violated our employment laws. My guess is that he also probably broke a few other laws like: driving without a license, driving without insurance and probably more. Most illegals pretty much ignore any law that gets in their way. They only feel that they need to obey the laws that are not inconvenient for them to obey. They are not exactly model citizens and I have no desire to hand them the voting franchise.

As far as paying taxes goes, there is a big difference between filling out the form and actually contributing to the treasury. Employment taxes (SS and Medicare) are hard to avoid but most illegals list enough deductions so that income tax withholding is negligible. Now that he is legal and filing tax returns, he likely qualifies for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and is getting tax refunds in excess of whatever he is paying in. The EITC is welfare disguised as a tax refund courtesy of middle class taxpayers. If we do as you say which is to turn all these low income illegal third worlders into citizens they are going to be vastly more expensive then they already are for taxpayers because many will qualify for the EITC. They will get the whole enchilada: citizenship and welfare too!

[nicmarlo]

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866. "

THIS IS INSANE!!! Then why have "anchor" babies/families been on the receiving end of U.S. taxpayers for decades????

[kabar]

Too bad SCOTUS doesn't agree with you or Senator Howard.

[Centurion2000]

Chertoff to Hannity: Removing 10~11M ILLEGALS too expensive and impractical

Civil Wars and possibly losing 4 states to Mexican invasion is even more expensive. The government's incompetence at border security allowed this.

[flashbunny]

No, there are plenty of laws on the books that will facilitate deportation without violating the constitution.

Catch an illegal, find out where they live, and execute a search warrant on the residence. You'll likely find more illegals living there.

Plus, once you start actually enforcing the law - especially by going after employers of illegal aliens, you will make it less desireable to work here.

All you really need to do is start chipping away at what keeps them here - work, benefits, other illegal family members- and they'll start to leave on their own.

If you want to really get them to leave on their own, pass a law that anyone caught in the country illegal will be subject to asset forfeiture, since their assets would likely have been gained as a result of the intial crime. (like they go after the results of white collar crime). USe the money to pay for the reward system and enforcement.

The problem can be solved pretty easily if there's actually a will to do it with politicians. However, most of them are sold out to special interests, so instead of solving the problem they wring their hands and cite horror stories of how we just can't afford to do it, from either a dollar basis or a "human cost" basis.

Either way, it's just pathetic excuse making, and it's costing billions of dollars and many lives by doing nothing.

[flashbunny]

too bad they screwed up roe v wade as well.

Is citing a bad supreme court decision by liberal activists something you want to base your position on, or do you want to work to change it back to the ORIGINAL interpretation?

[sheik yerbouty]

In D.C. they have AIDS of the will..

[kabar]

The current effective federal statute, Title 8, Section 1401, first passed by Congress on June 27, 1952 and last amended on October 25, 1994, of the U.S. Code provides details on the circumstances under which persons are legally recognized by the United States to be "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth".

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Part I--Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

[Itzlzha]

I never thought I'd say these words, but please "raise my taxes". Or lower them or do whatever it takes.

No.

That is EXACTLY what they want you to think...it's the same "shell game" the Local Gub'Mint does...."we need more taxes or else Fire and Police and Edjumacashun get cut!" Never mind all the OTHER pork that they REFUSE to cut...this is all about taking more from the Serfs, and NOT giving the promised services anyway!

You don't REALLY think that Chertoff or the Bush Administration..or MOST in power for that matter, WANT to stop Illegal Infiltration, now do you?

This is the time to take off the "Party over Principles" blinders, and start cleaning house!

[nicmarlo]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

And there's where we come right back to what I posted earlier.

[unixfox]

Kinda like why sweep the floor, it's only gonna get dirty again.

[kabar]

Is citing a bad supreme court decision by liberal activists something you want to base your position on, or do you want to work to change it back to the ORIGINAL interpretation?

Of course not. My point is that in order to make such a change, you will have to go through the constitutional process. I don't want SCOTUS deciding.

Some other info on the definition of natural born citizens. It has some current relevancy since John McCain was born in Panama.

The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (which held that a person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. but to noncitizens is thereby automatically a citizen) has been viewed by some legal scholars as indicating that a person born abroad, even to parents of U.S. citizens, does not constitue a "natural born" citizen.

Likewise, Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 663 (1927) recites that "under the common law which applied in his country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens but were aliens." But no Supreme Court case has yet squarely addressed what "natural born Citizen" means in the context of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

[Borax Queen]

yeah, I heard this bullcrap drivel last night from Chertoff... blah blah not an amnesty blah blah we've added more border guards blah blah

[unixfox]

At $100 a Beaner, the 10 million-problem could be solved for $1 billion.

I could get rich real quick in Odessa Texas.

[nicmarlo]

idyot!!

[kabar]

That is a distinction without a difference. The reality is that we are providing citizenship and issuing passports based on the existing laws, which automatically confers citizenship on being born here (except for diplomats).

[flashbunny]

"Of course not. My point is that in order to make such a change, you will have to go through the constitutional process. I don't want SCOTUS deciding."

The supreme court, if it has 5 people who believe in originalism on it, could clarify the issue with another law. It would just need to work its way through the court system.

You don't need another constitutional amendment any more than you need another constitutional amendment to overturn anti-gun laws. The underlying amendment is already there - it just needs to be intrepreted like it was meant to be.