Bush Breaks First Campaign Pledge By Renewing Call For Illegal Alien Amnesty

FAIR ^ | November 10, 2004 | Dan Stein

[Missouri]

Fair enough. Why doesn't he implement them first?

[Fatalis]

To do that, you need to actually convict the employer of a crime...

...and juries, by and large, refuse to do that.

Do you have examples of that?

[Poohbah]

He could start punishing companies that employ illegals.

How?

Juries routinely refuse to convict in these cases.

[FreedomCalls]

Houses in California built by illegals are not cheaper than houses in Montana which are built by Americans.

You mean there is someplace where houses are not built by illegals?

[Poohbah]

Do you have examples of that?

Go back and review what happened right after the 1986 amnesty. The present stringent penalties (the ones never employed) were enacted as part of that amnesty. US Attorneys filed cases and held trials.

And juries refused to convict.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Okay, assuming your illegal alien Donald Trump buys bonds, my tax dollars will have to redeem the bond, plus interest. While his initial investment does fund the social programs that his illegal brethren suckle from state and federal teats, my tax dollars will have to pay that interest. You offer a situation that is truly perverse: the illegal profiting from illegal immigration.

[Fatalis]

That's the first I've heard that. I'm skeptical.

[Joe Hadenuf]

This is Amnesty pure and simple!

Of course it is. Some of these neocons and rhino, "party before country" people actually had the balls to urge people not to discuss this epic invasion before the election, telling them, "This is not the time for this". This is one of the most pathetic things I have ever witnessed.

If Clinton were here doing this today, or even suggesting this, the "party before country" sell-outs would be in melt down, right here, right now.....

This is about the most disgusting thing imaginable.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Well that's kind of like the car down the street that I can buy real cheap because the person selling it has no legal right to be selling it. AS your house was built by laborers subsidized by taxes, by all rights I should have part ownership in your home.

[radicalamericannationalist]

But on the plus side, our tax subsidies to illegals did help him get a cheaper house.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

...while those that hire them sit in their back offices counting their profits on the bending backs of the tax payers.

There's nothing conservative about supporting those who are flouting the laws like they're doing, they should be thrown in jail.

[Poohbah]

That's the first I've heard that. I'm skeptical.

It's why US Attorneys do not attempt to prosecute: they know that the defendants will be acquitted. US Attorneys and their offices are evaluated on the number of guilty verdicts they get on those cases that go to trial. If juries were willing to convict, you'd see every possible case of hiring illegal aliens being charged and tried.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are all the same...throw up some pie-in-the-sky BS plan in the air, and believe that if you click the heels on your ruby slippers twice, it will come true.

They are not going to risk not being allowed back in the US...period. Open your eyes.

[FreedomCalls]

He could start punishing companies that employ illegals. He could pull our troops from protecting Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo and protect our borders which Muslims might try to cross in order to kill us. He could lobby to repeal Clinton era regulations requiring the printing of federal documents, including BALLOTS, in foreign languages.

I agree 100% with all three of those proposals.

[FreedomCalls]

Fair enough. Why doesn't he implement them first?

IMO They should have already been implemented.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I am one who doesn't believe that illegals are going to be rounded up and deported"

The people in this country lack the will to round up terrorists in another country, but these idiots in here think we're going to round up ten million people on our own soil.

[radicalamericannationalist]

1. Let's assume your assertion is correct. The mere fact of prosecution is itself costly for the employers of illegal aliens. Getting acquitted doesn;t mean they recoup their expenses.

2. Let's not make that assumption, until you can link to some stats backing it up.

[Steve Eisenberg]

To do that, you need to actually convict the employer of a crime... ...and juries, by and large, refuse to do that.

Can you provide a link to jury trials where employers were tried for an offence related to employment of illegal aliens and were acquited? I'll be shocked if there are more than two or three over the entire ten year or so period throughly covered by google indexing.

The real story is that they almost always get slap on the wrist fines and there is no trial. Pass a law with reasonable employer sanctions -- say, a month in prison for a first offence -- and jurors will usually convict. And your average office manager for a small business is NOT going to want to risk that month locked up in prison with you know what kinds of people. This would be a terrific deterent even if there were a fair number of acquitals, which I question.

A lot of murderers get acquited, but you don't want prosecutors to ignore that also, do you?

[radicalamericannationalist]

Well, then we shall agree to agree. Nice when that happens here.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If Clinton had proposed this you would be having a coronary. "

We all survived Reagan doing it.