Posted on 11/15/2005 6:51:13 AM PST by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You're saying the Constitution, which defines who are its Citizens, the ones elected officials are BOUND to protect, the ones who are bestowed with certain of its countries assets and benefits, is BAD?
That's more than a preposterous joke, THAT'S IDIOCY.
If the infants parents were NOT under US jurisdiction, how then can you deport them or have any legal right to tell them what they can or can not do. Of course they under US jurisdiction. The fact that you think this is misinterpreted means nothing as long as the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Yeah, seems to me this means that children of anyone legally residing in the US are citizens while children of illegals are not. The Supreme Court can interpret and reinterpret the constitution however it likes though.
If the infant's parents have no right be within the U.S., then they can be deported....because, otherwise, they are within the United States of America at this country's pleasure/will.
"It is pathetic."
No, you're pathetic.
congratulations on posting complete gibberish.
You can rationalize it all you want - the truth is we have these laws, the vast majority of the country want these laws enforced, and the people in power aren't doing their jobs in enforcing them.
And you're making sickening excuses for them. Seriously, I haven't seen such tortured and pathetic reasoning since bayourod ("border fences don't work!") was banned.
I doubt it. The 14th amendment has been in place a long time and there are plenty of legal precedents to make it settled law.
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.
I disagree. I don't want to rely on the whims of future SCOTUS' to interpret the law. A well-written, unambiguous constitutional amendment will insure that they will not have the power to decide in the future.
I see...so you are saying that not even TRYING to seal the border, stop Illegals from being ILLEGALLY employed, and remove those who are a THREAT to life, limb and freedom illegally here...is better than actually doing it, right?
After all, how can these problems be fixed if they are NEVER addressed?
So, since right now or never is your Straw Man, what is YOUR method for stopping the flood of illegals, the influx of who-knows-what deadly disease/bioweapon/nuke material across a porous border on the backs of "oppressed" lettuce pickers...the fact that border towns are being bankrupted by being forced to provide services to ILLEGALS, the ending of illegally employing illegals to artificially depress the wages in certain industries?
Well, what is YOUR "right now" answer?
And when the border patrol is driving these illegals back across the border at a regular border crossing and goes through all the paperwork at the other end and possible refusal by the Mexicans to allow entry, what is to keep 10-20 times as many illegals from entering while the border guards are gone? They dont release them because they are led by stupid beauracrats. They release them because they dont have any where to store them and no one to return them to the country of origin assuming that country would take them back.
When we get hit again by terrorists who've snuck in from Mexico, and there are hundreds of thousands of angry Americans marching on D.C. to physically take back the Congress and White House, that's when it'll finally sink in - as the citizenry physically hauls every politician out of their barricaded offices (square or Oval) and into squad cars.
We may not be able to identify them all, but the INS knows where they congregate, et al. They just need to get the ones they know about.
That's why you build a border fence - to keep people out in the first place and to keep them from coming back once deported.
But making excuses for why things are the way they are isn't going to get anything done. It's just going to give cover the the cowards in washington who refuse to do their job.
"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."
There is a cheap easy way.
Enforce existing laws for employers. I own a small business, it's not that hard to find out if someone is here legally. (Nexus) The illegals will self deport if there is no work...and no goobermint handouts.
If the job market dries up for illegals and we find that we DO need 20+ million dish washers and lawn cutters, then by all means start a guest worker program.
You and I can rail about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and speculate it on what it really means. However, we are not constitutional lawyers or scholars. We don't make or interpret the laws. The hard fact is that the current laws and their implementation by our legal system confers citizenship on people who are born here regardless of the citizenship of their parents. We cannot change this without changing the law and overturning a 100 years of legal precedents.
How many large companies hire illegals? Few. Therefore you have to go after and take to trial a large number of small companies.
Few? Really?
Then...then...who's doing the work "Americans won't do?"
If there are "few" Illegals working...then how are they "earning" a living?
Would this be an admission that Illegals are sucking the American Taxpayer dry thru welfare fraud?
Or did you "mispeak" like Andrea Mitchell? That maybe ther are WAY too many "Illegals" employed in industries and jobs that artificially depress the wages in that industry, and kill off the competition that do not hire Illegals?
Give it up, you OBL pultroon...the more you argue, the faster we seal the border!
That goes without saying.
Pray for W and Our Troops
" How many large companies hire illegals? Few"
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Funniest post on this thread.
Check out Tyson Chicken, Walmart, Home Depot...etc.........
"I disagree. I don't want to rely on the whims of future SCOTUS' to interpret the law. A well-written, unambiguous constitutional amendment will insure that they will not have the power to decide in the future."
In your vision, and it's rather bizarre, it relies on continually passing constitutional amendments to accomplish the same thing as they are ignored by activist courts, instead of just resorting back to the original interpretation ofthem.
By your same 'logic', you'd see another amendment to restore first amendment rights violated by mccain feingold, instead of just bringing a case to the supreme court that overtuns mccain feingold.
Within a couple decades, we'd be saddled with hundreds of amendments that were duplicates of each other in order to get rid of bad laws, instead of doing what has always been done and rectifying the laws with the amendments already there.
Congratulations on one of the most bizarre interpretations of the constitutional process I've ever seen. You've outdone just about every constitutional scholar in the country with your "just add another amendment!" approach.
Why don't you challenge the court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment through our legal systrem? You seem to have it all figured out or did you stay at a Holiday Inn?
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.