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....

[Dave S]

Despite heavy Soviet losses during their occupation, I don't recall the Bush Administration saying it was going to be too expensive and impractical to remove the Taliban regime and establish a constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, halfway around the world.

Do you really believe bombing the hell out of known Taliban positions is equivalent to finding, incarcerating, and eventually deporting 10-11 million people, all of whom you have to individually prove that they have no right to be here. You cant just go out and arrest anyone who looks Mexican or even foreign and ship them out. SCOTUS will toss that out in a second. Even Scalia.

And what are you going to do when the country of origin refuses to take them back? Are you going to invade every third world country and take over their airports so we can run hourly flights to each.

And after you've spent all these billions to clear them out, you will have to spend it again next year because they will be back.

[Itzlzha]

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

Most likely a result of liking their Pages bent over, and being buddy-buddy with Barney's Frank.

[Dave S]

All the administration has to do is say, "we're going to start imprisoning all of you if you don't leave".

Where are you going to imprision them? We dont have enough prison space to house all the criminals we convict. Where are you going to house all of them as they await trial? You do realize you cant just scoop up people who dont have papers on them and ship them to a foreign country. Face it people, if this was as cheap and easy as you think, someone would have done it already.

[bray]

Whether it is popular or not there are realities that need to be addressed with the Mexican issue. There is alot of manuel labor that needs to be done here with cheap labor. Much of the problem is thanks to Child labor and overregulation. The fact is that agriculture and low paying jobs are low technology high labor jobs that need to be filled.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[nicmarlo]

I know what is being done, I am not arguing about what's being done; I'm stating that it should NOT be done, because of the distinction with a difference....if they were following the actual Constitution of the United States.

[chronic_loser]

NO ONE denies that we need to get control of the borders. What I find disgusting is the unwillingness to do anything but stand in a corner with your fingers in your ears howling "ILLEGAL, DEPORT, ILLEGAL, DEPORT" as if there were NO other solutions to the mess at our border. If you look at my posts you will see that I do NOT advocate a "no border" solution, but a freedom of ingress and egress based on verifiability of disease vectors, criminal background, job availablity, and paying taxes, and predicated on some kind of national "prop 200" that would deny any benefits to non-citizens (might be a foot in the door to roll back the welfare state to citizens, if we played it right!).

There are MARKET BASED FREEDOM BASED alternatives to turning us into a police state and creating our own little version of the Pali refugee camps. Can you imagine the human cost of simply dumping 10 million people off at the border? No, because you and your ilk can't think past being pissed off that you get an ATM screen that asks if you want to speak Spanish or English, and as long as they aren't here, you (I speak collectively) don't care. Not my problem. Starve for all I care.

If that is being "American" then the definition of being American has changed. It is not my America, and I will go further and say it is every bit as UNamerican as the nitwits on DU.

I would say the kinds of stuff that is said here to illegals who have signed up (at present estimates there are over 16,000 illegals who are bravely serving our country, having enlisted in the armed services, according to a Denver Post article Feb 24,2005). Many of these kids only want to be Americans, are putting it all on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, so you and you band of oh-so-noble defenders of law and order can prate on about how the solution to their illegal status here can ONLY be remedied by deporting them. You would not have the balls to say it to their faces, either. But then again, maybe you would. Some of you people have no shame at all.

[THEUPMAN]

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.

.. hmmm .. yes I've seen that used .
I thought perhaps there was more .

"subject to the jurisdiction" seems to be the clause that brings in the doubt.

I assume that a foreign diplomat who has "immunity" could have a child born here with out becoming a citizen.

When does the U.S get "jurisdiction" over someone who comes in to the country illegally?
And exactly what does it mean?

... they have to be born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction .... just seems like something doesn't fit to me.

[kenavi]

ya have to be willing to use the whip or it does no good.

Thanks for a bit of good horse sense!

It's not the same as turning illegals into the whipping boys for everything wrong.

[Dave S]

It's all so simple...just identify, locate and verify the immigration status of 20 - 25 million suspected illegals and boot 'em out today! And of course there would be no negative effect on the economy if approximately 10% of the workforce, illegal or not, were deported "now".Yup, sounds like a win-win situation to me. (sarcasm off)

What do you expect of the simple minded. The same people who think they can get rid of the illegals by just shipping them out likely also bable on about the dangers of the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission. Queen Elizabeth is a Lizard Alien and she controls the World Government through these organizations ya know.

[eskimo]

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?

I don't. I don't think any of this sleazy self-appointed ruling class trash would hesitate to destroy America for fun and profit. Hell, their intentions should be obvious at this point.

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

Perhaps this efficacious brew, our republic, has had enough scum rise to the top that it must be skimmed off before the brew is ruined.

[chronic_loser]

14th amendment. The drafters of that never intended and never envisioned it being used by illegal immigrants, but here we are. I think the "jurisdiction" argument (making all illegals subject to the "jurisdiction" of their home country, like ambassadors) is interesting, but we would have to do it so selectively that we would either:

1) move them out from the jurisdiction of our legal system, so that we can't prosecute for ANY crime, or

2) make the jurisdiction so narrow (the delivery room of a hospital?) that it would not survive court challenge

[hedgetrimmer]

Where are you going to imprision them?

Malaysia demonstrated that most will leave without requiring a prison stay first.

No one was "scooped up and shipped to a foreign country". They left of their own free will, which is completely constitutional.

You are not standing up for the rights of your fellow American citizens if you do not support our right to regulate our borders and our immigration policies. If you are an American citizen, you should know that for the American system to continue, Americans need to respect their fellow Americans and the law.

If a business must break federal law in order to be profitable (that is use an illegal workforce) its no longer a business but a criminal enterprise.

[flashbunny]

You start out reasonable, but then you get into emotional rhetoric that resorts to name calling because some people have the audacity to actually want to see our national security laws enforced!

Congratulations, you're picking up the slack for bayourod nicely.

Sheesh.

[chronic_loser]

I would say the kinds of stuff....

Should read I would NEVER say the kinds of stuff....

[Dave S]

What is wrong with this utterly clueless and feckless Administration, anyhow? Don't they realize the American people want this problem FIXED, and now? We're not interested in their lame excuses!

What is wrong with this clueless and feckless administration? Dont they realize that the American people want cheap gas prices, unlimited free medical care, guaranteed Social Security benefits w/o any changes to the program. And they want these problems FIXED TODAY!!(SARCASM OFF)

[Digger]

>>>Bush the elder was a failure as president and junior is fast following in Dad's shoes.>>> He's still better than Kerry, but I'm very dissapointed in his second term.

This is what one gets when you have a corrupted "Two-Party Cartel". All cartals produce a lower common denominator each & every new appointment. Don't think for once that the elites that own this cartel don't have the Hildabeast in their sights for 2008. Only us few true conservatives with an all out assault on her can stop it from happening.

[moehoward]

If Bush doesn't get on board - and there is NO indication he will- the GOP will lose more seats/elections. They will be guilty by association.

".....sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars..."

Asset forfeiture by Illegals and their employers will cover this bill nicely. Regardless, sending them home will SAVE "billions of billions of dollars" in social services consumed by Illegals.

[ArcadeQuarters]

Chertoff - Just another liar and fraud.

This is what annoys me about the Bush administration. It's portrayed as ultra conservative so conservatives get the blame when things go wrong yet the screwups are usually caused by the most liberal policies like the flooding of the US by illegal Democrats and the whorish spending.

[Dave S]

Crack down on businesses that hire illegals.

How many large companies hire illegals? Few. Therefore you have to go after and take to trial a large number of small companies.

Prohibit the children of illegals from attending schools that receive federal funding, or else the schools lose the funding. Prohibit federal funds for being used for illegals except for emergency medical care.

What are you going to do about the fact that the Supreme Court has said you cant do that? Duh?

[hedgetrimmer]

Dont they realize that the American people white house want(s) cheap gas prices, unlimited free medical care, guaranteed Social Security benefits w/o any changes to the program open borders in order to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico to form the North American Union? That is why they do not protect our border, it has effectively expanded through "free trade" agreements and trade enforcement policies to include these two countries.