Jun 29 2007

Remember When All We Had To Do Was Enforce The Laws?

Published by at 11:27 am under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

Like all good PR campaigns that are meant to create a mob-mentality approach, the sound bite is employed to make a complex issue seem so simple – even a caveman could do it. The truth is, sound bites are usually misleading or out and out lies. Seems we have been lied to – we can’t just enforce the laws – according to Malkin and others who said that was all we had to do:

The Executive Office for Immigration Review — a federal agency made up of the U.S. Immigration Court system and its appellate body, the Board of Immigration Appeals — is the centerpiece of a largely unknown permanent amnesty for illegal aliens and criminal alien residents within the U.S. Department of Justice.

With the complicity of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, the EOIR litigation bureaucracy forms the hidden piece of the puzzle of institutionalized mass immigration in the federal government.

Deportation of foreign nationals in the United States is largely voluntary.

The lengthy EOIR system of hearings and appeals enables illegal aliens and criminal alien residents to remain in the United States both legally and illegally.

EOIR and the INS enable the vast majority of detained aliens facing deportation to be released back to the streets on an immigration bond or paroled out of federal custody during the EOIR hearing process, giving every non-detained illegal alien and criminal alien the option of disappearing back into the United States regardless of the outcome of their Immigration Court hearings.

Michelle Malkin agrees that the EOIR and BIA bureaucracy should be abolished — Book Review of “INVASION”

Yep folks, as I tried to warn everyone – we cannot simply enforce the laws. We need to rewrite them. Which was what the Bill would START to do. Again, thanks to Michelle and others we now are stuck with possibly a million illegal alien, convicted criminals on our streets for the foreseeable future. What a victory!

I forgot to add: It must be part of that diabolical Democrat plan to destroy the GOP that made these people mislead everyone – right? Credibility is fundamental in politics. A lot of loose cannons just shot the hell out of the GOP’s credibility and got us – NOTHING!

Update: Folks, I strongly suggest you read the comments. The hypochondriacs are now changing their stories. They knew all along existing laws would not work. Now one claims it was lack of paperwork to congress which drove him to stop the progress and another now says it was never going to work. But the best comment is from reader Crosspatch, who notes that this IS the legal process on the books. THEREFORE, any immigrant who is in this process IS LEGAL!

Yeah, been trying to tell people for a long time that there really is no law to enforce. There is no penalty for being here against regulations UNLESS you have already been deported and come back again by clandestine means. THEN it is a crime. But a person remaining here on a legitimate visa (about 50% of “illegals”) faces no penalty other then *possible* deportation and that usually hinges on them waiving their hearing process. If they go through the hearing process, it can take years to be deported or they might simply be allowed to stay, particularly if they have children who are US citizens.

Legal process makes them legal. And since this is an unending process they can be here indefinitely. Ladies and Gentlemen – it was all a sham! The far right lied to you. We cannot do ANYTHING by simply enforcing the laws. It was a PR slogan. As I noted this was WELL KNOWN by the Amnesty Hypochondriacs. It is not silent amnesty to have torpedoed this bill. It was LEGAL AMNESTY! As long as this legal process is not overhauled – then these people are here LEGALLY if they follow the current process. Shamnesty? Someone’s glass house just shattered.

53 responses so far

53 Responses to “Remember When All We Had To Do Was Enforce The Laws?”

  1. crosspatch says:

    The process, as I understand it works something like this: in this scenario I am selecting a person who is working in a job, has a taxpayer id number (majority of “illegals”), has never been in trouble with the police and has a place to live.

    They are caught in an immigration raid and given a summons to appear before a magistrate or a judge. This is something similar to a “ticket”. During this time, the government can look into a person’s background and see if they are any kind of a threat to the community such as a criminal history, connections to terrorism, etc. When they make the initial appearance, if they are deemed to be a potential threat to the community, they can be remanded to custody pending a later hearing. If they are not a threat and are still working or have dependents who are US citizens, they are given a court date and released. The length of time that passes till that court date can vary according to the work load in the district where the proceedings are taking place but can be up to a year in the future or more in busier districts. In other words *simply* being here on an expired visa or having walked across the border and taken a job is *not* grounds for automatic deportation / incarceration *unless* they waive their hearing process which they are encouraged to do by immigration agents. Immigration groups are working to further clog this process by encouraging them *not* to waive their hearing process causing an even greater backlog of cases in the courts that hear them.

    Once these people have their hearing they could be allowed to stay or they could be subject to deportation. If found to be subject to deportation, they can appeal. If they lose the appeal, depending on their country of origin and particulars about them, they can then try for asylum or refugee status. So a Palestinian or Iraqi Christian or an Iranian Jew (Iran used to have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel until recently) might qualify as for asylum or refugee status.

    Note that “catch and release” doesn’t really apply to these people. That is mainly for people that are caught in the process of crossing he border or migrants with no fixed address who are in transit to jobs. In the past, those people were also given a summons and released but rarely ever appeared because they were on their way to a different region of the country and have no fixed address in order to locate them. THOSE people are now taken into custody and if they do not waive their hearing process are kept in custody until their hearing. As they have no permanent job, no fixed address and likely no US citizen dependents, they are most often deported and most often waive the appeals process to avoid being held for a long time in custody.

    Now, once someone is deported and they are AGAIN caught in this country without approval, they can be jailed as a criminal and again deported.

    There is a difference in the process for people who simply drift around the country looking for available work as opposed to someone who has settled, has taken a permanent job, has kept out of trouble, started a family, and is a part of the community. That is, I believe, as it should be. People like that are an asset to our country and should be allowed to stay. The migrants should be given work permits that allow them to go home when the work is done (winter) and come back when there is more to do (spring). And those who have already been deported once should be incarcerated if they are found here again without having the proper documentation.

    “Enforcing the law” means allowing these people their day in court, taking each one on a case by case basis, and giving them all due process. It does “not” mean simply rounding people up and shipping them off simply because someone doesn’t like them or something.

  2. For Enforcement says:

    From CQ, go there to read it all. Seems as he has perception.

    Winston Churchill once remarked that God takes care of drunks and the United States of America and so it seems to be as we approach the end of a remarkable week in which milestones of success for the conservative movement have come one after another.

    how did he say that again? ” milestones of success for the conservative movement”
    sounds as if he has it feet on the floor and hands on the wheel.

  3. For Enforcement says:

    CrossP, and the point is? I don’t see the difference in your two scenarios, assuming no law other than entering the US illegally is in play. Whether they have a permanent job or not.
    Fake ID, fake SS no. Stolen ID, all those are separate crimes from entering illegally and should be dealt with. All of them should be deportable crimes. But I have no problem with them pursuing the legal process, at THEIR expense

    Had the new bill passed, all this would have been moot, they would all have gotten legal status permanently and that would have been that.

    So, again, the point? Who ever said to not pursue a constitutional process? Just because the LOSERS claim the WINNERS advocated it doesn’t make it true. Sore Losers.

  4. crosspatch says:

    There *is* no such law! There is NO law against entering the US unless you have already been ejected and come back. THAT is what you have having trouble understanding.

  5. For Enforcement says:

    There ‘is’ a law against entering the US illegally, and it’s a civil offense, so no matter how long and hard you shout, you’re not going to change that fact. If you read what I said above, I acknowledged that above. You were so convinced you were gonna say I was wrong, you didn’t even read it. Go back and read what I said.
    When I talked about pursuing a legal path, I was talking about the other crimes, which I listed. But it should be at their expense. Not the US taxpayers. And that is what you are having trouble understanding.

  6. For Enforcement says:

    In case you don’t know it, you are not entitled to legal representation at taxpayers expense in civil cases

  7. satrist says:


    Should we now address you as NFEA (not for enforcement alone)?)

    Be nice now.

  8. satrist says:

    boy, I really know how to bring a thread to a halt don’t I???

  9. For Enforcement says:


    FE Should we now address you as NFEA (not for enforcement alone)?)

    If you can show me I’ve ever said I was for enforcement only, I’ll concede to that,  but I’ve certainly never said I was or was not for enforcement only

    my name comes from the subject of illegal aliens and means what it says   For Enforcement (of existing laws)    It has no other meaning and I never put the word ‘only’ on my name.      So should we now address you    as “Satrist the Clueless”  ? 

     Talking about bringing a thread to a halt.

  10. satrist says:

    good grief. one would think that since you got what you wanted yesterday, you would be a little less nasty today. What would you be like if you had lost?????

  11. For Enforcement says:

    What would you be like if you had lost?????

    It wasn’t life or death to me, I would have been just as nice.

  12. For Enforcement says:

    See Satrist, you made the mistake of reading and believing what AJ said about me as in:
    “FE finally admits he was lying when he said all we had to do is enforce the laws!”

    As I clearly pointed out, AJ was making that up. He was unable to provide a link to any place where I had said anything even remotely like that. and I was just pointing out, basically that you had missed that little clue. Actually I have no problems with you and apologize if I was a little too insensitive. Keep writing.

  13. satrist says:

    I didn’t miss “that little clue” at all. I was just teasing you.

    Apology accepted and I apologize as well. Have a good day.