Although at this time, it appears as though Giuliani is the front runner for the Republication nomination for President in 2008, his position and actions on illegal immigration and illegal immigrants is sadly worse than President Bush. If he gets elected, conservatives and others who believe illegal immigrants are the most pressing problem the country faces will be battling him for 4 years. Story follows:
Based on his record and recent gaffes on the subject, former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani could be a disaster on illegal immigration should he become President.
Last month on CNN, Guiliani asserted to host Glenn Beck that crossing the U.S. border is not a crime. The former-federal-prosecutor-cum-illegal-immigration-zealot showed he needs to brush up on his law books.
Wrong on the Law
Giuliani further displayed his ignorance talking to reporters after the CNN gaffe. “Illegal immigration is not a crime,” he claimed. “Crossing the border and being caught is a misdemeanor. Being an illegal immigrant in this country is subject to deportation, but not prosecution.” Wrong!
You’d think an ex-prosecutor might know that, while Title 18 of the U.S. Code contains most of the federal criminal statutes, many federal criminal statutes appear in titles other than 18 U.S. Code.
For instance, narcotics statutes are in Title 21. Title 8, the immigration code, similarly includes criminal provisions that relate to immigration. Criminal provisions throughout the federal codebook refer to Title 18—meaning the offenses referred to are crimes.
Indeed, Section of 275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1375(a)) states plainly, so even nonlawyers can understand: “Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
In other words, under federal law, any alien who sneaks across our border or comes in by fraud commits a crime. Even attempting such entry is a crime, not a mere civil offense.
The first commission of unauthorized entry is a misdemeanor. But second or more illegal entries each constitute a felony.
Prosecutors don’t often criminally prosecute border jumpers, even repeat offenders. But they clearly could.
Federal officials routinely put illegal crossers into removal proceedings. Such deportation processes afford the alien lawbreakers fewer “rights,” for example not entitling them to a court-appointed lawyer and a jury trial.
These civil proceedings are quicker and cheaper. But the plea-bargain process can get foreign criminals swiftly through criminal proceedings that would hold them more fully accountable for their crimes.
Most Americans consider a felony a serious crime and a felon a serious criminal. Giuliani is out of touch with America on that notion where foreign lawbreakers are concerned.
Some Republicans may think of Guiliani as a tough-on-crime ex-mayor. But on immigration, he stands wholly at odds with the views of the vast majority of the Republican base—and with the vast majority of the general electorate.
Not only does Guiliani continue to flak for illegal immigration, he advocates amnesty for millions. He would secure the border but would deport only illegal aliens who’ve done big crimes.
According to a Washington Times report, “Mr. Giuliani has said he would first secure the borders and deport illegal aliens who have committed major crimes, then offer a path to citizenship to some illegal aliens.”
As mayor of New York City, Giuliani established a shameful record of coddling illegal immigrants. In 1994, his first year as mayor, he said: “If you come here, and you work hard, and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city.”
Common sense would tell you that one doesn’t just “happen to be in an undocumented status” as an illegal alien. Either there is willful, unlawful entry or overstaying of an expired visa (as with many 9/11 terrorists). Visa overstay may be just a civil violation, but it is a willful act of lawbreaking. Such illegals continue to stay in this nation wrongfully.
Sanctuary City
Giuliani thumbed his nose at the rule of law with New York’s sanctuary policy. Not only did Guiliani continue Mayor Koch’s egregious Executive Order 124. Giuliani sued to keep it (federal courts ruled against him).
Giuliani’s sanctuary order violated a federal law enacted in 1996. Congress outlawed state and local policies that restrict public employees from inquiring about immigration status or reporting immigration violators to federal authorities.
But Giuliani litigated to keep city employees’ hands tied, to the advantage of illegal aliens. His sanctuary policy bore evil fruit, most notably in 2002, when Mexican gangsters gang-raped and brutally beat a 42-year-old Queens woman. Four of the five men arrested were illegal aliens. Three of those four had prior arrest records.
But the NYPD did nothing to get these foreign brutes off American streets, inform federal authorities or honor the federal law. Instead, Rudy Guiliani’s “political correctness” toward illegal immigration victimized a mother of two.
Sadly, Rudy Giuliani appears to be an open-borders politician impersonating a law-and-order stalwart.
Mr. Edwards, coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute.
Comments?
Originally posted by MacSwainI really am unsure at this time, it may be a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. Unless Obama pulls some miracle out of his butt, Hillary will be the choice on the Democratic side. Still I'd vote for Hillary before Obama, at least conservatives know her tricks and how to deal.
SMSBear:
It appears if you are not a republican party member, at least you belong to the conservative camp. Everything I read here, indicates Giuliani is the probable nominee.
Based on your post....where does this leave those of your ilk?
I try not to be a one issue person when I vote, but illegal immigration is something thats important to me and alot of other Americans because there are so many other issues it touches.
Final analysis, I'd vote for Rudy and hope that he altered his position. Or then its simply a matter of blocking him on this issue. Conservatives and the Republican base have done the same to Dubya for eight years when it comes to this.
Originally posted by SMSBear716Rudy is a Lib.
I really am unsure at this time, it may be a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. Unless Obama pulls some miracle out of his butt, Hillary will be the choice on the Democratic side. Still I'd vote for Hillary before Obama, at least conservatives know her tricks and how to deal.
I try not to be a one issue person when I vote, but illegal immigr ...[text shortened]... ves and the Republican base have done the same to Dubya for eight years when it comes to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_hunter#2008_Presidential_campaign
2008 Presidential campaign
Main article: Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008
On October 30, 2006, Hunter announced his intention to consider running for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. Throughout 2006, his Peace Through Strength PAC has raised funds and run advertising expressing his issues of border security and fair trade.
Hunter formally announced his presidential candidacy in Spartanburg, South Carolina, on January 25, 2007.[34]
On January 13, 2007, Hunter won Arizona's Maricopa County straw poll, beating Arizona Senator John McCain.
Duncan Hunter (back, left) greets the delegation at the Texas Republican Straw Poll at the Fort Worth Convention Center Sept. 1, 2007, and is applauded by Texas GOP Chairman Tina Benkiser (front).On March 1, 2007, a South Carolina straw poll was conducted in the Spartanburg area, where Hunter finished a close third (by six votes) in a statistical tie with McCain (1st) and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani (2nd). Commenting on Hunter’s showing, Spartanburg Republican Gerald Emory said, “Now we have a true Ronald Reagan conservative that we can support. This is a proud night for the Grand Ole Party.”[35]
In early April 2007, Hunter participated in what was billed as the first online presidential debate, pitted against fellow Republican Tom Tancredo. [36]
On April 17, 2007, Hunter won the Anderson County (South Carolina) straw poll with 48 percent of the vote. He defeated former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (25 percent), Senator John McCain (7 percent), and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani (5 percent). Hunter also tied for second place in Geenwood County and second place Pickens County. South Carolina is the nation's third primary state. "I am grateful to the great conservatives of Anderson, Greenwood, and Pickens Counties for giving our campaign a huge boost. It is clear our message of maintaining a strong national defense, securing our border without amnesty, holding China accountable on trade, and protecting life are resonating with the voters. Our campaign is one of issues, not flash and expense. We don't have a jet or an army of consultants and paid staff. We do have the conservative message that is true. In the end, that will be what Americans want." [37]
On September 1, 2007, Hunter won the Texas Republican Straw Poll with 41 percent of the vote. He defeated undeclared candidate Fred Thompson (21 percent) and Texas Congressman Ron Paul (16 percent). [38]
Despite the campaigning success Hunter has had at the county levels, it has not yet transferred to the national or state levels. Some major polls do not even list Hunter as an option along with Romney, Giuliani, McCain or Thompson.[39]
Originally posted by zeeblebotHe has strong conservative credentials and I like the guy. But for being around for at least 3 decades in Congress, he hasn't got national name recognition and thats a big problem. His constituents in California must love him though, they keep electing him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_hunter#2008_Presidential_campaign
2008 Presidential campaign
Main article: Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008
On October 30, 2006, Hunter announced his intention to consider running for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. Throughout 2006, his Peace Through Strength PAC has raised funds and run ad ...[text shortened]... s do not even list Hunter as an option along with Romney, Giuliani, McCain or Thompson.[39]
Originally posted by SMSBear716I have been researching him and he seems to be a good candidate so far, I liked some of Fred Thompsons remarks on immigration, but that seems to be all he has, when I watched him live, he doesn't seem to have any real knowledge on issues of today. As of right now I would have to go with Hunter.
He has strong conservative credentials and I like the guy. But for being around for at least 3 decades in Congress, he hasn't got national name recognition and thats a big problem. His constituents in California must love him though, they keep electing him.