http://Vets4Fred.net It's time for Vets to sign up!
Posted on 08/13/2007 3:25:13 PM PDT by SE Mom
If you listen to folks who oppose immigration and border enforcement, you get the feeling they think we put locks on our doors to keep everybody out. The truth is we have locks so we can choose who comes in.
An example of what happens when we don’t make the choice took place August 4th when three Newark, New Jersey, college students with great promise were executed, gangland style. The killers’ ringleader was apparently an illegal alien indicted twice in 2007 for felonies, including the rape of a kindergarten-aged girl.
Why would such a person be set free instead of being handed over to authorities for deportation? The answer is that Newark is a “sanctuary city” which bans cooperation between local officials and federal immigration officials. More than 60 sanctuary zones, including 30 of America’s largest cities, provide a national networked haven for foreign and organized criminals who recruit and operate outside those areas as well. These sanctuaries include Cambridge, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Austin and Houston, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and New York City.
The consequences of “sanctuary cities” may be most obvious in the city that became the first in 1979 — Los Angeles. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, a confidential California Department of Justice study from the mid-1990’s showed then that at least 60 percent of the members of L.A.’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants in Los Angeles, 95 percent are for illegal aliens. Frustrated police say they are powerless to pick up even well-known, previously deported felons.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredfile.imwithfred.com ...
I don’t agree with any of that. Duplicate programs testify to the fact that the public can be aroused over and over again and be manipulated while a problem continues, especially if it is in minority communities. Typically, noone ever evaluates the effectiveness of the programs. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that Thompson has accomplished anything.
McCain stated on BOR tonight that small businesses are EXEMPT from the employer verification of employee status.
I believe it's for any business with not more than 10 employees.
IOW, while you're throwing universal hate and blame around, the government is not too subtle in it's pat on back of companies in which I contract.
Small business is the backbone of this nation and Fred Thompson isn't going to disturb the peaceful majority.
Which, BTW totally invalidates your ridiculous assertion that ALL illegals are criminals and need to be sent packing.
I'll sleep well tonight. Will you?
Hooray Fred! Thanks for posting. Great thread. Thought provoking posts. Thanks to all posters. BTTT!
You just make this crap up as if you actually knew something. I have not thrown universal hate and blame around. I have been very specific in blaming you, and people like you, for creating a friendly environment for illegals, and thereby facilitating rapists and murderers, the likes of which killed those three college kids.
Personally, I don’t give a crap what you think, or how you sleep. It’s how your actions have damaged the lives of innocent Americans that interests me.
I have no doubt that you’ll sleep well, even after you blamed those three college kids for their own executions on that other thread. You’ll sleep the sleep of those without a conscience.
I’m don’t doubt that Stalin got a peaceful rest, too...but when he woke up he was still Stalin. When you wake, tomorrow, you’ll still be someone who helped created the environment that allowed illegals to pray on innocent children. Were it not for you, and people like you, they’d be alive today. And that’s a fact.
Fred essay bump!
Thank you both!
He doesn't say whether or not he would support withholding federal money from cities who, by proclaiming themselves "sanctuaries", are accessories to these criminals.
Has Thompson taken a position on withholding funds?
If the public can be aroused over and over again, then that proves my point: illegal immigration is not a top, sustained priority for most people, and the issue falls off the radar for many unless someone makes it an issue. If no one is forced to evaluate the programs' effectiveness, what that means is that for the most part people don't care.
Most people in this country don't deal with the illegal immigration problem face-to-face on a daily basis. If they did, politicians would be forced to pay more than lip service to enforcement. With this essay, Thompson is making the argument for immigration enforcement to those who don't realize how much illegal immigration affects them. That's the first step toward forcing politicians nationwide to take this seriously.
As for what Thompson has accomplished, it's been well-documented on this forum.
I suspect Fred will identify more “solutions” when he becomes a full candidate. Give the man a chance to form his campaign team. For starters, he gave you his opinion on the “comprehensive” plan. Likely you will have to wait until this fall for more “solutions.”
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
“Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.”
“I was getting a little worried, but this essay means he’s coming out swinging.”........
“he would clean up the sanctuary city....gang/crime-wise. And the ones that are peaceful will be registered and documented as alien-residents...with hopefully assorted ways they could become citizens.”
In other words, in his own words, he would “figure out some way to make some differentiation between the kind of people that we have here” and give them “aspirations of citizenship”.
Giving ANY illegal aliens AMNESTY, is hardly “coming out swinging”.
Go a step further. File RICO suits against the city governments of the "sanctuary cities", as they are engaged in a deliberate pattern of violating and obstructing federal law.
Only to the Freeper who doesn't understand how much our economy and the government coffers depend on them [illegal aliens]
To anyone who understands what it's like to be self-employed...to work without any government safety net...it's a no brainer.
_________________________________________________
The Queen of Bleeding Hearts is the only possibility that fits.
You’re right, but the sanctuary cities are a democrat scheme.
“Only to the Freeper who doesn’t understand how much our economy and the government coffers depend on them [illegal aliens]
To anyone who understands what it’s like to be self-employed...to work without any government safety net...it’s a no brainer.”
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were one of THOSE kind of freepers. Makes sense that you would support Fred.
The flip side to sanctuary cities is having Clinton-appointed judges shoot down local laws that try to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants, such as what happened with Hazelton recently.
ping
The 'local laws' to which you refer are unconstitutional.
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.