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 ...
We wouldn't need to round up and deport any illegal aliens in order to get rid of most of them. Crack down hard on companies that hire illegal aliens. Cut illegal aliens off from ALL taxpayer funded services. With no access to jobs or taxpayer funded freebies, most illegal aliens would most likely voluntarily return to their home countries.
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)
The 12-15 million illegal aliens didn't all arrive overnight and they won't all leave overnight. The process of eliminating our country of illegal aliens might take several years to complete. As the illegal aliens begin to return to their home countries due to the fact that they would no longer have access to jobs or taxpayer funded freebies in the United States, we could increase the number of legal immigrants that we let in so they can take the place of illegal aliens who are currently in the American workforce. By doing it this way, ridding our country of illegal aliens would have a negligible negative effect on our country's economy.
Or, quite simply, SCOTUS can rule that previous laws were not, in fact, in line with the Constitutional intent and overturn said laws that have allowed the children of illegal aliens benefits designated for American citizens. This type of correction of wrong/immoral interpretationwas done by SCOTUS in more cases than just Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, which was overturned almost 60 years later by SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Mo1, don't take it personally. I didn't mean it that way.
I do however think there are counters to Chertoff's assessment and I attempted to address some of them. I didn't even get into the cost of healthcare and eduction.
You should offer up your comments in support of Chertoff's assessment if you agree.
Take care.
What you say is true. That has to be reversed and it has to be made more difficult to cross illegally. I hope you are not suggesting that the legal way be made as simple as walking across the river and we abandon the laws that are designed to protect our republic. Seems as though national politicians have abandoned our southern border and all the Americans along it with full expectation of somehow profiting from the ensuing chaos.
But your arguments go in line with saying that illegal aliens and their children, should receive, as a matter of course, rights and benefits bestowed upon U.S. citizens, and that to rule otherwise is bad law....and to that extent, I strongly disagree with you.
What happened with the state that was building a wall....is that over with too??
And what percent of all illegals are hired by these companies? Damn few. And note I said percent.
OK....that does it. Time for niceties is gone...
If "Illegals" AREN'T being employed...what are they doing? What "jobs"? And what did that drivel "doing the jobs Americans won't" mean? Either they are working or they are not...which is it, you OBL pultroon?
How do Illegals make a living in your world...and what color is the sky?
And if Illegals AREN'T employed illegally...they are on Welfare Illegally! More illegalities by Illegals....I'm shocked! The Horror!
What percentage of crime is committed by Illegals? Oh, and do include Illegal entry to the US in that answer...it is a crime.
Should Illegals be allowed US/State Welfare et al benefits?
Do try to stay on point and answer these questions Bayou-Dave S...
One more useless government bureaucrat.
They'll just build a tunnel.....
Blinded illegal alien loving fool that I am, nevertheless, please indulge this simple question.....
WHY is it important to deport before we loosen the borders to allow more people in? The idea of letting them in seems to me to acknowledge the need for immigrants. If they are already here, why is it such an article of faith that they have to be DEPORTED before the same bunch wants to be RE-IMPORTED. There are reasonable ways to register and "legalize" the good guys that don't call for such draconian measures. We accept fines for most civil infractions. Why not this one?
A non-starter.
It's a major national security, economic, and social threat to our country staring Washington in the face for over 4 years since 9-11.
It's also a dereliction of duty that should result in charges of negligent homocide and High Treason if we get hit again by terrorists who sneak in from Mexico.
America first!
Idiot!
Or a future SCOTUS could overturn rulings made today, which is why I favor a constitutional amendment, when it comes to defining who a citizen is. The Constitutional amendment process requires state and congressional approval. Better that than to depend on the whims of five non-elected judges.
" Try and refute any of this...."
you're an ignorant racist!
(wait, that's NOT refutation??? Just an attack? Come on, PLEASE count it as a refutation!)
Better than being beyond belief.
wow, that was almost clever....wait, it was not anywhere near clever.
Just like your idea to have go through the amendment process to put in the constitution what is already there is not anywhere near logical.
And that's not just based on the fact that you're about the only person on this earth who advocates the "duplicate amendment" theory.
Like whistling out the back door and the dogs come running out of the woods. They know when you call em. Hi dennisw. Let me engage in this kind of friendly engaging debate and I would be banned for "personal attacks."
Ahhh, the happiness of free republic. Home to defenders of free speech.
Of course, you don't count the 16,000 plus illegals currently serving in the armed forces, there, do you? They don't deserve anything but a one way ride to the border, right? 'Scuse me while I whistle the star spangled banner and admire my own "patriotism" ok?
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.