Republicans Believe Illegal Immigration 'Should be a Crime'
 

Heaven's forbid that a crime should be called a crime!

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced Republicans last week for believing illegal immigration “should in fact be a crime.” “I think the president was clearly articulating that his position--the Democratic position--is that we need comprehensive immigration reform,” said Wasserman Schultz at a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast on May 26.
“We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity," she said. "And that it would be harmful--the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrested them all.”

The comment has drawn attention among conservative commentators and bloggers. During the comments, the chairwoman referred to legislation in 2006 by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) that would increase border enforcement and make illegal immigration a criminal offense instead of a civil matter.
However, the Senate bill immunized illegal aliens from being prosecuted for document fraud, a felony, and did not stop the practice of allowing illegal aliens eventually granted legal residency to go back and claim credit with the Social Security Administration for work they did as an illegal. These provisions were in sections 601 and 614 of the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill.


The new chairwoman has made a number of attention grabbing comments. In an April 6 interview on MSNBC, Wasserman Shultz voiced her opposition to the proposal by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to reduce the deficit by $6 trillion in 10 years.
Last week she said on MSNBC, that the passage of the health care law has strengthened Medicare.
“In fact, we added 12 years of solvency to Medicare and ensure that it would be better for senior,” she said on Andrea Mitchell Reports on May 25.


SOURCE

I'm really conflicted about the whole situation. I used to be in the hardcore "kick them all out" camp. I've done a bit of research and reading and found that the economics of illegal immigration make that position shaky. In a pure supply and demand sense, imagine if you took away a large amount of the supply of labor - the remaining labor would become more expensive. While it's true we have a lot of people out of work in this country, a lot of the people out of work are highly skilled and highly educated and they would not be a one for one replacement of the supply of cheap illegal labor. Cheap labor costs keep the cost of many goods and services in this country low. If the cost of labor inputs increase, firms will be forced to increase the cost to the end consumer.

As I said, I'm not sure how I feel about it. If you bring the illegals into the system and move away from under the table pay, then we've just increased our tax base substantially. That's got to be a positive.

I think we need a two pronged approach - something that both political parties seem to lack. We should identify the places where our immigration laws need streamlining in addition to stricter enforcement of immigration laws and border control. Reliance on cheap labor is a reality in this country, and any solution needs to recognize that.

It's late, I'm sleepy and rambling. Carry on.

I don't think this is a question of belief at all.

The bigger issue is how you deal with it, whether you choose to prosecute it, or whether there is amnesty to be considered for those who previously did it. But debating whether or not it's a crime is just stupid and distracts from the main issues at hand. Cause "Illegal non-crime" or "Legal crime" are kind of oxymorons...

Argue about the technicalities all you like (and I'm not saying we shouldn't), but the point here is that we have someone in a position of power who takes others to task because they wrongly believe that something "illegal" should be a crime? Maybe she needs a dictionary for her birthday.

@Steve: there are also infractions and felonies ;)

Well, if there is a demand for cheap, unskilled labour, why not hand out work visas or raise the number of legal immigrants, if they are really the "backbone of the economy" like the article states. Don't wonder however if you folks will encounter some problems if you let masses of uneducated and unskilled people into your country.
Germany did this in the 60s/70s and many problems we have today root from there. One former chancellor stated some years ago, that this encouragement of unskilled immigration was to keep domestic wages low - and, in hindsight, regards this as a mistake.

The demand is there for cheaper than cheap labour. People who are too cheap to pay normal wages have this demand - the demand of the consumer is always to have a product to the lowest costs.
However it is shortsighted if you only look at the price of products or services. Indirectly you pay higher taxes for federal/state services that these people use, for people who get umemployed because they can't compete with this cheap labour and anopther interesting aspect, that Armistead mentioned, are also enviromental costs. He mentioned it in an example, that illegal workers often dump their waste from their work just into the nature - it's the same here.
As I see it is that by all this this the taxpayer subsides these employers who are too cheap to pay minimum wage and taxes - and it is a slap in the face of the millions of legal immigrants who often went through considerable efforts to immigrate into the country.

And crimes against nature;)

How can a workforce that doesn't pay taxes and it's employer doesn't pay taxes be a backbone of the economy. OK, sure, more profit more sales tax, but still. More work visas. We built our highways on work visas

Well, to be honest when caught, most illegal imigrants are treated like criminals already, they usually get locked up until arraangements can be made to deported them back from where they came.

So what is the advantage of prosecuting them in the country in which they illegally tried to enter? if you still deport them anyway, why would they really care that they now have a crimminal record in that country?
If they decide to come back, again it will be illegally and under the radar.

I fail to see how this is going to make any impact on the issue what so ever.

oops double post

in reality it is counter productive, if you look back at the arizona immigration debate their proposals on prosecution were just about the dumbest idea anyone could imagine

Of course it should be a crime. Any illegal seeking any services paid for by me should be arrested and deported. Any illegal in ANY interaction with the government should be deported immediately. Straight from where they are grabbed, too. All assets confiscated, etc. Sent home with the clothes on their back.

I'm all for grossly increasing LEGAL immigration, but being illegal should be disqualifying for future legal status. If you sneaked in, and quotas are raised, you should have to sneak OUT, then come back in legally. Any government record of their existence at all here before trying to get in legally should be disqualifying.

We NEED the labor, actually, and the situation will require more, not less immigration moving forward. Still, it needs to be the way we want it to be. Legal, orderly, and not letting in people we don't want to let in.

Also, the type of people who are illegal are also not net contributors to taxes. Only the top tier of taxpayers even pull their own weight, everyone else is a drag on the system (entitlements). The US should consider attracting more of the high end (the ability to buy a place at the front of the line via investment in the US—start a business with several hundred grand or more, and buy a house, and you can enter immediately).

:yep:

But what sort of crime, that is the question.:yep:
By who?
How?
Really????? How does that work exactly?
Errrrr...how do you do that if you are deporting them immediatly straight from where they are grabbed?
Tater takes a "tough" knee jerk line on illegal immigration and creates for himself unworkable proposals bigger government and even more government expense funded by the taxpayers who according to him are nearly all on a free ride anyway:doh:

It is already supposed to get you deported or charged now, it's just not enforced enough (BTW, the whole point of the OP article is the absurdity of NOT thiking they are criminals).

In the US, INS, though state laws could allow city/state employees to do so. This is the benefit of the plans like Rhode Island (which is nearly identical to AZ, and has been for years, but they are "blue" so the press didn't notice).

There are many cases where the nationality of the person can be established if the authorities are empowered (and required) to do so. Show up in the ER and you are not paying for the care? Check out who you are. They damn well do to bill everyone else (the billing people know). Here in NM they have a driver's license as KNOWN illegals. Any traffic accident (MANY involve illegals here in NM) should check. Any police interaction at all, ditto. Show license, if it is for illegals, deport them—better to deport the when they ask for license, but the democrats what them to VOTE here (and they do, illegally, it's proven now). You'll say, "how can the dog catcher, or the water utility, or hospital staff report illegals, it's not their job!" Guess what, docs are already required by law to report any injury that might be child abuse, for example. MIGHT be. They are not law enforcement, but they are required by law to do so. Guess what, my wife is just as expert in knowing an illegal when she sees one (yeah, there is a lot of cross over with legal mexicans, but right now most immigrants from mexico are illegal by far so it's a safe bet that a mexican is illegal (not a mexican-american, a mexican. Anyone here in the border states knows what I'm talking about even if someone in ireland doesn't—it's like a european spotting a US tourist on the street there, or us spotting a euro tourist (the ghey jeans are always a good sign).) Would you catch all? No, but you'd catch a lot.

Oh, and interstate (and international) commerce and banking laws might be used to monitor sending money abroad. Much of the income earned by illegals is in fact sent back home. Mexico supports illegal immigration because it brings billions of US$ to Mexico (money wired home). Anyone wiring money abroad should have a check on status. Have a status check to open a bank account, or to cash a check for anyone without an account (legit tourists will have passports and will leave a paper trail).

Huh? Police pull over car for not being registered or whatever. They check status, and Juanita is illegal. She goes to holding, then off to Mexico. If she was guilty of any other crime, or had a warrant this would be no different, pulled over, or however caught, and taken to jail. The cops don't bring perps home to grab an overnight bag. They can run a check (and search her) for bank account information, etc tied to her name/address, and that money all gets taken, too.

Many would be grabbed in cars. Impound car, send criminal (illegal) home. Yard has weeds, and city come knocking (happens all the time here). Worker suspects illegals and is required to call authorities who check. Indeed illegals. They get rounded up, and contents of house removed (unless one person there is legal, then they take possession of all I guess (though charging them with aiding a criminal activity makes sense (same for anyone employing said illegals, mind you).

Your argument is what? That since illegals are a net drain, spending any more to arrest them puts us farther in the hole so we should ignore them?

Hiring illegals should be fiscally dangerous enough that no one wants to do it.

Being illegal should be unpleasant enough that no one would want to.

Legal immigration should be increased, but anyone here illegally already should be disqualified if known (so get out, then come back in properly, in a line, like civilized people).

It's important to note that many places in the US have democrat leaders who have made it ILLEGAL for government employees to report suspected illegals. Santa Fe, NM, for example. So a fire marshall can cite an apartment for being overcrowded (10 illegals living in a 2 bedroom apt, say), but is not allowed to call INS on them.

Same with the police. It's ridiculous.

It's always funny when a non-american wants us to have less strict laws than everywhere else on earth for our borders. Frankly, I don't care even a little what the opinion of anyone not a US citizen is regarding US immigration law. It carries zero weight.

No it isn't so no it doesn't.

Someone with a faulty light on a bicycle is a criminal, so they the same as an illegal immigrant who is the same as someone who didn't put enough coins in the parking meter who is the same as a murderer, after all they are all criminals so its all the same and it would be absurd to view their crimes or their criminal status any differently:doh:


Its international relations so it isn't the State its the United States, so the State has to go with INS.
Would you care to look at the "nearly" bit which makes all the difference?
So you want thousands of local national government bodies and many many thousands of private companies to take on federal powers, which will of course require huge oversight and a comprehensive system of training and checks and balances
:har::har::har::har:Prove my point why don't ya:up:

Ah, a problem there, can the police legally require an American to prove his citizenship, hey can they even ask him if theyu are not acting as federal immigration agents:doh:

Asking for a pile of lawsuits are ya:yep:
Besides which you don't even begin to address the issue.
So a police car stops someone in say New Jersey and finds out they are illegal, you say ship them straight to Mexico. Can you see the huge gaping hole in your "idea"?

Hey make every corner store a federal agency.:rotfl2:
Well done tater, you just expanded the government payroll tenfold and started an expensive trash storage agency .

So is that because it isn't their job, they do not have the federal authority because they don't have the training or is it because they don't get paid to....or any combination of them:yep:
Though I know you think it is because of the magic "voters" who miraculously will buck the trend as part of a secret conspiracy:rotfl2:

So is that a reading problem making you create that strawman or is it just your inability to address the issue which makes you makes it?
So to give you a chance to show you are not just blowing it out your hole with your fairytale version of the world...... can you find any examples here of someone calling for less strict laws ?


Which is a very silly attitude as non-US citizens and their opinions are key to any issue regarding illegal immigration to the US.:yep:

Illegals are now taking the bulk of social service programs, free hospital, etc.

If it's not a crime, let's just open the border and have a free for all anyone comes.

Illegals have driven down wages in skilled and non skilled trades. In most construction trades wages have been dormant for 12 years. Many americans did these hard jobs before, but refuse to do them for $3 an hour.

Owning a large commercial paint contracting firm in the past, I'll explain how illegals ruined the trade down south. In the 80's many large in house firms existed. These provided safety training, followed OSHA, haz waste laws, had benefits and paid a living, yet lower wage.

As illegals came, they did none of the above. Basically one legal mexican would hire 50 illegals. He would be legit on paper, but illegal in every aspect. Maybe a few legals were covered by work comp. I know one legal mexican that owns a trailer park of run down trailers. He packs his workers in there. He pays them $5 per hour cash, then charges rent. He has no shop, just meets workers at the paint store. Hard for legals to go in and get service in the mornings as stores are often filled with mexicans, forget getting to the coffee pot.

Do they work hard, yes and with cheap wages, no taxes, no benefits, no following any laws most large legal firms couldn't compete. Over years legal firms dropped wages, cut all benefits, etc. Most now are gone. You find very few large in house pro paint firms.

An illegal gets hurt on the job with no work comp, they take him to a hospital and lie. They dump 1000's of gallons of haz waste on the ground.
Illegals aren't gonna set up as a haz waste generator with the Feds. They pay lil to no taxes.

This is the crime people. If I do these things I would go to jail. Illegals simply move or go back to mexico if caught, then come back with a different name and SS number.

This is the world now of most skilled and non skilled trades down south.

The sad thing is General Contractors will use them due to there low numbers. Many illegals use to stay away from large commercial work, just out of their brain realm, now GC's will walk and hold their hands through the process, do their paperwork and basically use them.

Yes, many legal white americans now use illegals, I did for years. I didn't hire them, just sub contracted my work to them as long as they had the proper paper work, but I know how they do business, but that's the game if you wanna be in business today.

Why not?

Quite true. Each type of crime, however, has its own punishment, from minor fines for minor infractions to lengthy incarceration for major felonies. What do you think the punishment for illegal imigration? You're busy criticizing others, but you don't seem to have any real input. So what is your actual contribution to the conversation? I think that immediate deportation is the proper punishment for this crime. You?

Between that point and the last you do make some good arguments. On the other hand you do so in your usual superior and antagonistic manner.

And now we're back to the pot calling the kettle black. You know very well the difference between non-US citizens referring to the people who cross the border illegally and an outside agitator expressing a political opinion.

You like to play games with people in these discussions, which makes a lot of your input dishonest, which puts you right back in the "troll" category.

Because illegal immigration covers a wide range of circumstances each with a variety of processes.
It depends on the type of illegal immigration, one thing is for sure, deportations need non US input and agreements and imprisonment for illegal immigration(unless it is for human trafficking which itself is already covered seperately) is a pointless expensive exersize.
See above, but mainly yes with terms and conditions. One main hang up on immediate deportation from the US for plain simple illegal immigration is the complications and expense if the illegal immigrant isn't canadian or mexican.
Another problem is of course dependants, now you could of course amend your constitution just like Ireland did as a "tough" reaction to illegal immigrants, but it isn't effective and can cause all sorts of long running very complex problems for legal immigrants as well as making some deportations impossible

Not in the slightest as the operation of any workable immigration/deportation policy is hinged on non US involvement. If it were a purely domestic matter involving only the US authorities and only US citizens then tater would have had a point, but it doesn't so he didn't .
So it was safe to take it that his statement about foriegners was due to him being unable to deal with the issues raised or to defend his own statements

If we are going to discuss the legality of this topic, it might be useful if we knew what laws were were talking about.

Can anyone find the federal law that addresses this? What law is someone breaking if they are already inside the United States and not a registered alien?

Seems to me that would be a good place to start.