Giuliani: Not Impossible to stop Illegal Immigration

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/giuliani.immigration.ap/index.html

Giuliani: I could end illegal immigration in three years

DAVENPORT, Iowa (AP) -- Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that if elected president he would end illegal immigration in as few as three years by employing the same police tactics he used to reduce the crime rate as New York mayor.

"It can be done. It is not impossible," Giuliani told his audience at a town hall-style meeting. "You can do this, you can stop them at the border."

Giuliani said he would boost the number of border security agents to 18,000 from the current 12,000, and build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border with technological monitoring to reduce illegal immigration.

More at link...
 
I propose that we put 10,000 snipers at the border, as well as mines everywhere, and we hang our glorious bounty, those mexican animals, on the New Berlin Wall whenever the trip one. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
 
"We're never, ever going to be able to totally control immigration to a country that is as large as ours, that has borders that are as diverse as the borders of the United States, and as a society that wants to be a country that values freedom -- that values freedom of movement, freedom to do business.

"If you were to totally control immigration into the United States, if you were to totally control the flow of people in the United States, you might very well destroy the economy of the United States because you'd have to inspect everything and everyone in every way possible. I don't know that there's any technological way to totally control it. There's no doubt much better ways to get more of a reasonable degree of assurance about who's coming in, to get more control over it, you're never totally going to control it. So we just have to accept that if we want to be the kind of country that we are."
 
This is a position change
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/rudy_giuliani_illegal_immigration_isnt_a_crime/
Friday, September 07, 2007
Rudy Giuliani: Illegal Immigration Isn’t A Crime
By Rob on September 7, 2007 at 06:53 pm 9 Comments
I guess he doesn’t really want to be president after all.

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said illegal immigration is not a crime, prompting rival Mitt Romney to accuse him of not taking the problem seriously.

The two have clashed for weeks over illegal immigration, an issue that inflames GOP conservatives who influence primary elections. The irony is that both candidates have in the past taken more liberal stands on the issue.

“It’s not a crime,” Giuliani said Friday. “I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.”

Giuliani’s comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck.

“I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York,” he said. “So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.”

Giuliani is undoubtedly making some obscure legal point here, but for the average citizen there is one overarching trough about our immigration laws: Crossing the border into this country without going through the proper customs channels is against them. Why Giuliani would argue against that, especially given that most of his base is guaranteed to disagree with him, is beyond me. What a stupid, stupid thing to say.

But the really odd thing is that Giuliani isn’t just being a pedant, he’s actually saying that illegal immigration shouldn’t be a crime.

Illegal immigration shouldn’t be a crime, either, Giuliani said: “No, it shouldn’t be because the government wouldn’t be able to prosecute it. We couldn’t prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million.”

Of course, we don’t put illegal immigrants in jail in this country. We deport them. And we absolutely can prosecute 12 million people. The only way Giuliani’s absurd point might be relevant is if we tried to prosecute all 12 million at once. As it is, we should prosecute them (or otherwise provide for due process in the legal system) as they’re taken into custody. And then deport them shortly after that.

Giuliani is using a variation of the “we can’t deport 12 million people” argument, and they’re both bogus because as I just explained they’re predicated on the idea that we’d try to deal with all 12 million illegals in this country at once. We wouldn’t. We’d deal with them over the course of years and years as they’re taken into custody.

Regardless, there is no way I’m voting for Rudy Giuliani in this election. I had my doubts about him before, but this seals the deal. If he becomes President I may support his policies on a case-by-case basis (which I’d do with any President anyway), but he clearly doesn’t take the immigration issue seriously.
 
But AssHat, Giuliani is correct that illegal immigration is not a criminal offense. It isn't a crime. It's fairly simple. Of course, it could be a criminal offense and there have been several pieces of legislation that have attempted to make illegal immigration a felony, but as it stands now illegal immigration is not a crime.
 
Dungheap said:
But AssHat, Giuliani is correct that illegal immigration is not a criminal offense. It isn't a crime. It's fairly simple. Of course, it could be a criminal offense and there have been several pieces of legislation that have attempted to make illegal immigration a felony, but as it stands now illegal immigration is not a crime.
Click to expand...
Dung, I asked for a link. Why are you so afraid to give your sourcing? Is it only available on superleftwingmisrepresentingblogspot.com in every case?
 
AssHatZombie said:
This is a position change
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/rudy_giuliani_illegal_immigration_isnt_a_crime/
Friday, September 07, 2007
Rudy Giuliani: Illegal Immigration Isn’t A Crime
By Rob on September 7, 2007 at 06:53 pm 9 Comments
I guess he doesn’t really want to be president after all.

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said illegal immigration is not a crime, prompting rival Mitt Romney to accuse him of not taking the problem seriously.

The two have clashed for weeks over illegal immigration, an issue that inflames GOP conservatives who influence primary elections. The irony is that both candidates have in the past taken more liberal stands on the issue.

“It’s not a crime,” Giuliani said Friday. “I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.”

Giuliani’s comments came in an interview with CNN Headline News and radio talk-show host Glenn Beck.

“I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York,” he said. “So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.”

Giuliani is undoubtedly making some obscure legal point here, but for the average citizen there is one overarching trough about our immigration laws: Crossing the border into this country without going through the proper customs channels is against them. Why Giuliani would argue against that, especially given that most of his base is guaranteed to disagree with him, is beyond me. What a stupid, stupid thing to say.

But the really odd thing is that Giuliani isn’t just being a pedant, he’s actually saying that illegal immigration shouldn’t be a crime.

Illegal immigration shouldn’t be a crime, either, Giuliani said: “No, it shouldn’t be because the government wouldn’t be able to prosecute it. We couldn’t prosecute 12 million people. We have only 2 million people in jail right now for all the crimes that are committed in the country, 2.5 million.”

Of course, we don’t put illegal immigrants in jail in this country. We deport them. And we absolutely can prosecute 12 million people. The only way Giuliani’s absurd point might be relevant is if we tried to prosecute all 12 million at once. As it is, we should prosecute them (or otherwise provide for due process in the legal system) as they’re taken into custody. And then deport them shortly after that.

Giuliani is using a variation of the “we can’t deport 12 million people” argument, and they’re both bogus because as I just explained they’re predicated on the idea that we’d try to deal with all 12 million illegals in this country at once. We wouldn’t. We’d deal with them over the course of years and years as they’re taken into custody.

Regardless, there is no way I’m voting for Rudy Giuliani in this election. I had my doubts about him before, but this seals the deal. If he becomes President I may support his policies on a case-by-case basis (which I’d do with any President anyway), but he clearly doesn’t take the immigration issue seriously.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with whether or not you could stop illegal immigration at the border. It has everything to do with whether or not it is a crime and whether we should try to put 12 million people through our already overloaded court system.
 
Damocles said:
Dung, I asked for a link. Why are you so afraid to give your sourcing? Is it only available on superleftwingmisrepresentingblogspot.com in every case?
Click to expand...

Google is your friend. In any event:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/08/rudy_in_1996_well_never_ever_be_able_to_totally_control_immigration.php

Further, the fact that a direct quote comes from a blog of any kind is no reason to question the source. In most cases the blogs provide more context than you would find in a traditional news story because they are not constrained by column inches and can link to a transcript or, as in this case, to a video.
 
So they ARE all leftwingblogspot.com...


A site with actual talking points memos. Nah, they never take anything out of context or misrepresent anything!

:D
 
Damocles said:
So they ARE all leftwingblogspot.com...


A site with actual talking points memos. Nah, they never take anything out of context or misrepresent anything!

:D
Click to expand...


Listen old-timer, you should at least do some background research on the sorces you are attempting to discredit before you attempt to discredit them. You wouldn't end up looking foolish.
y
I know that these "blogs" are a bit newfangled but given that you run a political message board, perhaps you should learn a little but about them.

BTW, did you watch the video of Giuliani saying exactly what I said he said?
 
Dungheap said:
Listen old-timer, you should at least do some background research on the sorces you are attempting to discredit before you attempt to discredit them. You wouldn't end up looking foolish.
y
I know that these "blogs" are a bit newfangled but given that you run a political message board, perhaps you should learn a little but about them.

BTW, did you watch the video of Giuliani saying exactly what I said he said?
Click to expand...
I did, my point was the reason for your embarrassment to post the link of your sourcing.

IMO, it isn't much of a position shift. He speaks to the issue of immigration being needed in the new position he puts forward. And I agree we would never be able to stop illegal immigration entirely, just as we would never be able to stop all crime. He states that you would have much the same result as he had stemming crime in NYC. He never ended it, but he certainly curtailed it quite a bit.
 
Damocles said:
I did, my point was the reason for your embarrassment to post the link of your sourcing.

IMO, it isn't much of a position shift. He speaks to the issue of immigration being needed in the new position he puts forward. And I agree we would never be able to stop illegal immigration entirely, just as we would never be able to stop all crime. He states that you would have much the same result as he had stemming crime in NYC. He never ended it, but he certainly curtailed it quite a bit.
Click to expand...


There's nothing embarrassing about the source. TPM was the first to report on it so I link to them. I could have very easily provided you an AP link but since the mainstream sources were the followers here, I linked to the original reporters. Additionally, as I said originally, the mainstream sources generall provide less context than the blogs do, as is the case here.

For example:

AP - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070817/D8R2G2L00.html

The very idea that you think it embarrassing to link to a blog source shows how out of touch you are, nothing more.

Back to the original point though that Rudy changed his mind, you're twisting in the wind on this one:

First he said:

We're never, ever going to be able to totally control immigration to a country that is as large as ours, that has borders that are as diverse as the borders of the United States, and as a society that wants to be a country that values freedom -- that values freedom of movement, freedom to do business
Click to expand...

Then he said he could end illegal immigration saying

It is not impossible. It can be done.
Click to expand...

Those are in direct contradiction. Spin away if you want but I don't know why you bother.
 
Damocles said:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/giuliani.immigration.ap/index.html

Giuliani: I could end illegal immigration in three years

DAVENPORT, Iowa (AP) -- Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that if elected president he would end illegal immigration in as few as three years by employing the same police tactics he used to reduce the crime rate as New York mayor.

"It can be done. It is not impossible," Giuliani told his audience at a town hall-style meeting. "You can do this, you can stop them at the border."

Giuliani said he would boost the number of border security agents to 18,000 from the current 12,000, and build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border with technological monitoring to reduce illegal immigration.

More at link...
Click to expand...

sounds like Ghoulaini may pick Tancredo as his running mate if he gets the Republican nod.
 
A blogsource giving Talking Points Memos for a specific position and party? I'd be embarrassed to link to something like that. As I said, on a site where people consistently ask for sourcing you didn't link because you were embarrassed, I understand.

I do like the AP article much better, at least it isn't specifically a Talking Points Memo for the party of your choice. It also covers far more ground giving an actual perspective to what context he gave this opinion in.

Amazingly, even without reading his remarks in the AP article I came up with the above post which basically stated what he actually says about the position.

On Thursday, Giuliani told reporters the statement is not inconsistent with his views today that he wants to end illegal immigration and expand legal immigration.
Click to expand...

It is weak to post talking points memos specifically as a source for your position, it shows a lack of curiosity and a ready belief of whichever position supposedly backs up your opinion without regard to the context or meaning of the positions.
 
uscitizen said:
This from the guy whom I remember razzing about Gores "I invented the internet" remark...
Sooo Partisan...
Click to expand...
Wow, you have to go back over 7 years to come up with something you "remember" razzing me about? Get real. First, I never cared about that remark, other than I thought it was funny. Second, even if I had, I had barely started posting on any board at that time and hadn't learned all the linkage and protocol, or sourcing that I have at my fingertips today. I expect people to advance rather than go backwards towards partisan sourcing.

Most people link when they are asked for a link, when they don't it is because their sources are questionable, or at best hugely partisan.

Especially one that gives "talking points" for a specific party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top