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 ...
Removing the Taliban and installing a constitutional government in Afghanistan was a complex and expense problem, yet we tackled it and succeeded.
Removing Saddam and installing aconstitutional government in Iraq was a complex and very expense problem, yet we tackled it and are succeeding.
Why the excuses? Why not even try the tackle the ILLEGAL immigration problem with something other than amnesty/surrender?
"The louder somebody says something, the less substance there is to what they say."
- Zell Miller
Not a good idea
That's just your opinion, Dave S. With moral relativism, what you find an excuse for, other's won't (illegals stealing U.S. citizens' benefits); what other's find an excuse for, you won't (stealing from liberals). But that's the problem with moral relativism and it's logical conclusion. In a world of no absolute, no absolute standards, the possibility exists that anything/everything's excusable, blameless and open to interpretation, but moral relativism brings in a SUBJECTIVE STANDARD. If that were the standard applied to this, or any other country, no one has the right to condemn another's behavior, as there are no set of rules one must follow....except what is most expedient to the individual at the moment.
Instead of having US tax payer dollars be used to transport people back to their homeland, why not simply give the companies they work for notification of the illegals they have hired and give them one month to fire them.
At the same time, make the penalty for hiring an illegal so heavy no one will consider it.
Let the illegals get home the same way they got here. Period.
-Itzlzha
Oh I think you know.
I think some disincentive must be in place for the employers.
Steep fines may be one of the ways to go about doing that.
Removing Saddam and installing aconstitutional government in Iraq was a complex and very expense problem, yet we tackled it and are succeeding.
And the solution to these two problems (other than the constitutional government part) was just to buy and drop a lot of bombs on the problem. So is your solution here that we set up a demilitarized zone on the border and drop bombs on anyone seen crossing it? Gee that reminds me of the East German border during the 60's.
HA!
It was that simple, huh?
Facts? What 'facts'?
You think putting things in CAPS = FACTS?!?!!?
The DEA estimates that there are 10 -12 million cocaine users in this country. Dosen't stop us from going after all of them!
Nobody said there is not a problem. So your research is very impressive for what purpose? You can dig up that Blacks represent 50-75% of the population, so how do you propose we solve that?
Fact is that you all or nothing solutionists are the reason nobody wants to address this issue. To make it easy for you, I am not a Conservative but a Liberal, big deal! Now, how do you propose we pick the apples w/o cheap labor? It is a skill that is not easily learned and what HS kid can get the time off or will do migrant work?
There is a way to do it but you guys won't even address it let alone solve it.
Pray for W and Our Troops
"There is a way to do it... "
Enlighten us.
Are you REALLY this clueless, or does it take lots of effort?
In East Germany....the citizens were trying to get OUT....West Germany wasn't shooting them, because they were escaping a totalitarian regime.
On the US Border, they are trying to come in and exploit this country, and to take everything they can Illegally...in the meantime they are trying to recreate their home they left while they send WADS of cash back home!
Are you going to tell me that Mexico or (insert 3rd world craphole here) is a totalitarian regime? See, the ONLY time Mexico shoots is if the DEA/INS are near one of their mule routes/drug runs/smuggling ops.
A country that has no control of it's borders will not have a country long.
But OBL fools like yourself ONLY see the cheap lettuce and manacured lawns...or is it the underpriced construction that has you blinded?
moehoward- "Source?"
chronic_loser- DENVER POST FEB 24, 2005
LOL!! Could you be more vague? Why don't you just say "I read it somewhere". I'll take your source for what it is, valueless.
Yes, kinda. But it's also morally wrong to, say, not pay full sales tax on a used car, but I don't want to throw everybody in the can who does it. The disease isn't worth the price of the cure.
2. It is not "bad for the economy". It would be bad for the employers who rely on cheap, illegal labor, but the economy would improve in countless ways.
You are right in one way and totally wrong in another.
Yes, in the long run, if they had never come here, the economy would be better off, I'll grant you.
However, the cost of uprooting 10 million people, lets say 5 million of whom have jobs (not couting kids, say at home moms, slackers etc) would FAR outweigh any benifit. It would create economic chaos in some areas, and hurt everywhere.
And that's not even to mention the amount of money it would cost for the manpower to find and deport them, and also says nothing of the human cost of spending police time hunting down illegals who are otherwise law abiding instead of murderers/rapist/drug dealers/whatever.
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.