By Bradley J. Fikes
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gave a press conference on April 29 that contained a string of lies, non-sequiturs and an eye-popping gaffe about Arizona’s new immigration law.
He began in the spirit of Joe McCarthy by calling the law “unpatriotic” and “un-American”. He also called it “unconstitutional.”
The latter charge was a bit rich coming from Villaraigosa, who failed the bar exam four times and is not an attorney.
Villaraigosa went on to charge that the law required police to “stop anyone suspected of being in our country illegally”. The text of the law (PDF) says no such thing. It says that in any “lawful contact” (since clarified to “lawful stop, detention or arrest”), a police officer must check the status of anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally, “if practicable”.
Villaraigosa’s biggest howler was to criticize the law because it “allows law enforcement to make arrests without a warrant.”
Just read that over and let it sink in. On the John & Ken Show at KFI in Los Angeles, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou had a great time tearing the whole statement to shreds.
You can listen to an abbreviated sound clip I made, about 30 seconds, here. Listen to a longer clip, about 2 minutes, here.
For the entire John & Ken podcast about this (8.5 megabytes), click here.
Most of the media reported Villaraigosa’s egregious falsehoods without challenging them. Here is one such story from Southern California Public Radio.
Digression alert
Here’s a “fact check” Twitter post from KPBS border reporter Amy Isackson, saying the Arizona law “compels AZ police to ask people for their documents if police have any suspicion the person might be in the US illegally.”
I don’t know where Isackson is getting that from, certainly not from the law itself. I Tweeted a question to her about that, and she replied: “SB1070 Section 2.B talks about how police must attempt to determine a person’s immigration status”
Let’s take a look at the pertinent passage (this includes the “lawful contact” provision that has since been clarified). I am boldfacing key words:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
So let’s see, “lawful contact” . . . “reasonable suspicion” . . . “reasonable attempt shall be made when practicable” in the bill becomes in Isackson’s version “must attempt” on “any suspicion”. The term “any suspicion” isn’t even found in the bill.
I fact-checked this on the blog Patterico with an attorney, and click here for the entire reply.
The use of the term “shall be made” is mandatory, not permissive, but IMO the qualifiers (”reasonable attempt” and “when practicable” and “except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation”) make this largely a matter of law enforcement discretion.
If Isackson has some other source for her opinion, she didn’t provide it.
Worst of all, Isackson labeled the tweet “fact check.” If a reporter presumes to do a “fact check”, the facts had better be unquestionably right.
Now back to J&K
The traditional media looks down on John & Ken because of their admittedly histrionic and at times over-the-top antics. But J&K also challenge the lies and misrepresentations that most of the media won’t.
They’ve pointed out the boycott hype (brief MP3 clip) over the Arizona law. That hype involves the city of LA making threats it probably can’t carry out, such as breaking contracts with companies in the state. One of those contracts provides electricity for the city’s Department of Water and Power.
So here’s another sound clip from John & Ken, challenging the media to do better on the Arizona law.
We need real reporters, not inaccurate sob-storytellers and stenographers.
UPDATE: Here’s another example of less-than-stellar journalism, from the Associated Press.
The article, by John S. Marshall, describes vandalism at what he called an “immigrant’s rights march” in Santa Cruz. Nowhere in the story is the word “illegal” or even the absurd euphemism “undocumented” even used to describe the illegal immigrants the protest was held for.
This post represents my personal opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.
Good roundup, Bradley. I’ve been listening to J & K this week cover the whole Arizona situation (and they will be in AZ on Tuesday, May 4th doing their live show…should be very interesting).
What’s really amazing is the meme that is absolutely dominating the media outlets: It’s a racist, xenophobic law and nothing else but that. They’ve successfully reframed the premise and the argument to point the finger of accusation outward toward those who are sick and tired of the negative impact of open borders, instead of seeing it as being on the side of the law, protection of a citizenry, and as J&K point out in the last link, taking a firm position against the drug runners and cartels.
Whoever has the loudest voice seems to win in the framing the argument game.
I agree but note that the LA rally was half the prediction by LAPD. In El Paso, 400 protesters showed up. The big difference is the Mexican drug war. Phoenix is seeing kidnappings every week.
That shootout with the sheriff’s deputy was at I-8 and AZ-84, which is the bypass to Tucson from I-10 used by people who want to avoid Phoenix traffic. My daughter was driving to Tucson Friday night. We don’t let her use I-8, especially at night, but she could have used that bypass if she were there during rush hour in Phoenix.
This is serious business in AZ.
John and Ken have done a good job on the CA budget, too. There is an excellent series on California in City Journal this quarter.
Thank you, Dana and Mike K.
I’m really appalled about the horrible reporting on the law. It’s just fill-in-the-blanks template “journalism” — the actual facts be damned.
“Villaraigosa went on to charge that the law required police to “stop anyone suspected of being in our country illegally”. It is unclear how this law may be construed. Further, a law regarding the ability to stop anyone, for any reason, within 100 miles of the US border is already in effect. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/. Your point about Mr. Villaraigosa’s failure to pass the bar is a classic non sequitur to the matter at hand. He is in excellent company with “more than half are likely to fail, rates from previous years indicate. Some law school graduates, like Alioto, flunk the bar multiple times before finally passing and becoming lawyers.” Lawful contact or the new lawful stop will be open to interpretation, and will only be defined post court challenges. I am not supportive of illegal immigration but I am empathetically inclined toward the children of illegals. Many now are young adults and who will face repatriation to a country without the necessary language skills or cultural finesse to adapt
Irene Adler
“It is unclear how this law may be construed.”
Only to someone who hasn’t read the bill or is willfully misconstruing it. The law gives police discretion in the matter, which Villaraigosa doesn’t seem to understand, or is deliberately lying about.
“Your point about Mr. Villaraigosa’s failure to pass the bar is a classic non sequitur to the matter at hand.”
It’s directly related to Villaraigosa’s presumed status as an interpreter of the constitution. He didn’t even say how it’s unconstitutional.
“Further, a law regarding the ability to stop anyone, for any reason, within 100 miles of the US border is already in effect.”
And your point is . . .?
“Lawful contact or the new lawful stop will be open to interpretation, and will only be defined post court challenges.”
Saying so without evidence, as you just did, doesn’t make it so.
Nice post, Brad. I understand and mostly agree with your criticisms of Isackson’s Twitter post. Your tone seems to imply that she is misconstruing the new law deliberately; I don’t think it’s deliberate or horribly egregious.
Bags,
Good to hear from you.
“Reasonable suspicion” doesn’t mean “any suspicion”.
The section Isackson cited also allows for officers to avoid immigration checks if they are not “practicable.” She didn’t mention that.
Isackson’s misrepresentation and omission substantially alter what the law says.
If Isackson didn’t deliberately write falsehoods about the Arizona law, then she has some peculiar reading disorder that makes her see “reasonable suspicion” as “any suspicion.”
Isackson is evidently personally opposed to the Arizona law, which of course she has the right to be. I think it would be healthy if she admitted it. But that doesn’t mean she can get away with saying things that aren’t true. It’s unprofessional and casts suspicion on all journalists.
And Isackson’s labeling her factually inaccurate tweet a “fact check” was the real kicker. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
“Only to someone who hasn’t read the bill or is willfully misconstruing it. The law gives police discretion in the matter, which Villaraigosa doesn’t seem to understand, or is deliberately lying about. ” Or the whole damn Arizona House! They have already redefined ‘Lawful contact’ to ‘Lawful stop, detention or arrest’ over concerns of racial profiling and to protect crime victims or witnesses. “It’s directly related to Villaraigosa’s presumed status as an interpreter of the constitution. He didn’t even say how it’s unconstitutional.” He, by his law education alone, would be qualified to offer an opinion. Is it the correct interpretation? We will all find out when the courts takes up this issue. And your point is . . .? My point is this law may give Arizonians pause over their 70% approval rating, when they find out, they may not look as born and bred as they thought.
Irene, if you are worried about the behavior of AZ police, I have a little story about the behavior of Federal Officers at check points. That was not an AZ deputy, it was a federal officer and nearly three years ago.
Hello could I quote some of the material from this entry if I provide a link back to your site?
That’s fine. Thanks for asking.
Bradley,
“Saying so without evidence, as you just did, doesn’t make it so.”
Three lawsuits have been filed and more are expected. Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson plan to seek an injunction against the implementation of this law. Police veteran (“overnight patrol officer in a heavily Latino area of Tucson”) Martin Escobar, is seeking relief stating that there’s no way for officers to confirm a person’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates constitutional rights”. In other words, he is seeking interpretation.
//www.legalactioncenter.org/clearinghouse/litigation-issue-pages/arizona-legal-challenges
Michael Kennedy,
I read your experience with the border patrol and It is generally a mistake to tar all with the same brush. Is that not what will occur to many of these illegals? My father had an unfortunate experience with the US border patrol, while diverting though here on his route from Quebec to Saskatchewan. They nearly seized his hunting riffles and he had been a RCMP in his career. Immigration officers can be intimidating and their methods are purposeful in eliciting reactions that are deemed suspicious. My oldest child (at five) was once made to stand 20 feet from me and questioned with: “Is this your mother and what is her name?” She yelled at him “that’s _____ and everybody knows her!” I expect inconveniences at customs and perhaps a child had been expatriated illegally and I fit the profile. Further, my child was subjected to a diaper check on one of our trips to Europe ( #1 method of concealing drugs at the time). My positive experiences with immigration outweigh the negative. Any person in power can employ unnecessarily aggressive and abusive practices. My concern with this law is that power is spread to the general populace. Unquestionably, this law will lead to abuse of illegals by anyone willing to subjugate.
Well, the experience that I described was involving all the federal agents present that night and I don’t know if they were all border patrol or not.
Furthermore a similar thing happened to my wife and I a few months later. I didn’t write any letters or threaten any suits but I thought the behavior toward two 16 year old girls was atrocious and possibly illegal. I have another daughter who is a federal lawyer and was outraged at what happened. She told me that what they did was illegal. A federal officer cannot take a minor child out of sight of the parent.
Your concern with the Arizona law is mostly based on inaccurate news media versions. As for positive experiences with border patrol, how many times have you come back to the US from Europe or Asia ? We now take the I-10 between Tucson and Orange County to avoid all the check points.
M Kennedy,
Without finding old passports, I couldn’t count how many times I have returned to the US. My husband Is European and we travelled every two years and due to the nature of his company I have spent months in Europe and Asia. He travelled extensively in Africa, Asia, Europe, North & South America and had a complication once, when his green card was locked into his luggage (His error). My oldest daughter lives in France (3rd country in three years) and returns to the US often without consequences. Your passports may be flagged when you have unusual amounts of travel, lived in several countries, or like me, admitted I did not pack my own luggage. We can be subject to inconveniences but c’est la vie. My concern with the Arizona law is based on my belief that people of little wealth or education are likely to be railroaded into difficult situations. Can you not see some nefarious employers taking advantage of illegals, with the threat of deportation? Years ago, a friend knew of an illegal who worked in a fast food business and was raising on son in the US. This woman naively let a man into her apartment and was unfortunately raped but would not go to the police because of her status. IIRC, she would not seek medical treatment either. I can’t help think that more women, men and children can be easily put into cruel position, when ordinary citizens can have such power over them. I am well aware that the prohibitive costs of illegal immigration but I believe that the federal and state government could employ fiscal solutions to reduce the debt.
Irene,
I am well aware that the prohibitive costs of illegal immigration but I believe that the federal and state government could employ fiscal solutions to reduce the debt.
Such as what?
Brad,
Two words: 1) People; 2) Suck.
No… not all people… but most people.
People are lazy. They’re stubborn. Half (by definition) are below median intelligence and… umm… median intelligence ain’t all that impressive.
People lie – to others and to themselves.
(Jeez… I’m sounding like Dr. House here!) (*CHUCKLE*)
Brad, what I’m saying is that 99.9% of the folks commenting on the law in question haven’t bothered to read it.
Beyond that… (*SIGH*)… half of the folk who favor the bill are no doubt morons and I’m guessing 95% of the folks opposed to the law REALLY frigg’n scatterbrains!
Oh, Lord… it’s so damned depressing…
BILL
I am referring to rude officers in customs at LAX. As citizens we have little trouble but friends have been treated rudely. If you are not aware of the stories of US customs at airports, you may also not be too well informed on the AZ law.
A friend who owns a large station in Australia’s Northwest Territories was detained when she was asked by a customs officer at LAX what her occupation was. She replied “retired.” She owns a cattle station of about 500 square miles. They finally let her go. Too bad those agents are not assign ed to the Arizona border.
Michael Kennedy , I am not sure if you are referring to me but I am not a citizen. My experience is based on my residency during the last 18 years or so.
Bradley J. Fikes,
The problem with trying to evaluate costs of immigration is that legal immigrants are included in financial statistics. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/
I would start with these basic ideas:
Incarceration:
Legal and illegals should be treated equally with regard to criminal behavior.
Instead of Incarceration, repatriate immediately. Demand sentencing guarantees (in birth country) for murder, rape and serious violent crimes but not for drugs/white collar and minor crimes.
Social services:
Require employment or proof of financial viability to keep residency, for both legal and illegal or be subject to deportation.
Residency conditional upon limited use of social programs.
Addressing issue of illegal’s residency:
Children born to non-residents indubitably ineligible for birthright citizenship. This concept has historical precedence with the birth of Princess Margriet in Canada.
Conversely, illegal citizens who have paid taxes, avoided social programs and have no criminal record, should be fast-tracked to legal residency.
Now, you really have me confused.
I read anew my posts and they are congruent in principle. It is elementary, Dr. Kennedy.;-)
Ms. Adler,
You make excellent points and offer reasonable stop-gap solutions.
As to the FactCheck citation, here’s the bottom line – taken directly from the FactCheck in question:
“So, how much do illegal immigrants cost federal, state and local governments in the U.S.? Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists.”
A more to the point answer would be… A LOT!
Listen… I’m a huge WSJ editorial page fan but when it comes to two topics – Immigration and Trade Policy – I’d recommend the research and writings of Patrick J. Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and if you prefer a more “academic” presentation… the late, great Samuel Huntington’s writings.
Back to your suggestions, though, they fit in line somewhat with my own.
Here’s my bottom line: No “path to citizenship” for those who have entered our country illegally. None!
While I’m open to – indeed, comfortable with – a policy that would not seek (proactively) to identify and deport upon identification illegal aliens who have not “otherwise” broken the law, it seems to me that allowing such people a “path to citizenship” is a “reward” these people don’t deserve.
Here’s the sticking part though: It’s one thing to “tolerate” illegals working in our country; it’s quite another to provide them with educational, medical, and other social services (above and beyond basic police and fire protection) on the taxpayer dime.
Sorry… Jose (or if you’d rather, Igor, Woo-Chang, or Sean) might be a “tolerable” presence if he freely accepts exploitation of his illegal labor here, but I’ve got enough trouble caring for (financially) my own kids and the kids of fellow citizens; I don’t need – nor do I want – to support the children of illegal aliens.
WHICH BRINGS US TO…
Anchor babies.
I’ve done more than enough research to absolutely believe that Congress has the Constitutional authority to untangle the mess they and the courts have made of the whole “automatic citizenship” issue as it applies to the American-born children of illegal aliens. In short, Congress has the power to end the practice of considering children born here to parents who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” (are foreign citizens with no formal allegiance to) of the United States as automatic citizens.
In addition to severing the wrongheaded “anchor baby” lifeline to legal status for parents, I’d also sever “chain immigration.”
Listen… an American citizen marries a foreigner with minor children that’s one thing – the spouse and kids get to become Americans. But grandma and grandpa…? Aunts and uncles…??? Nieces and nephews…??? Three words: No frigg’n way!
Listen… immigration should serve our national interests. Period. Perhaps we do need migrant farm workers… perhaps… but by and large the last thing we need is to increase the poor population of the United States.
Nor – politically incorrect as this assertion is – should our policy be to allow further “heritage” transformation of the United States. If a degree of “mass” immigration is deemed in our national interest I say we return to traditional “Euro-centric” metrics. I’m not hesitant to say that I want America to remain a “Western” nation with deep and abiding links to our Anglo-Saxon history and culture.
Does this mean “non-whites need not apply?” Certainly not. But it does mean we favor English born English… Canadian born Canadian… Australian born Australian – et al – immigration applicants.
(Notice… nothing about color; it’s CULTURE I’m concerned with.)
Japanese…? Sure. Bring ’em on! The Japanese have a long history of assimilating as immigrants. Other Asians…? Again… it depends upon what particular nations/cultures we’re talking about. My concern is that second (and definitely third) generation “ABC-Americans” are culturally in sync with “Anglo-Saxon” American culture in the same way that second and third generation Irish, Italian, and even Greek and Russian Americans are.
Putting this whole question of “mass” immigration aside… back to my original assertion that the purpose of American immigration policy should be first and foremost to benefit AMERICA… while looking for “hard workers” may have a nice ring to it, my greater concern is that America attracts the best and brightest from overseas – those who are ready to hit the ground running and contribute magnitudes more of immediate value (tax revenues, making sure we stay ahead on R&D, etc.) than their presence could possible “cost.”
All in all, let’s call the Barker Policy… er… “Compassionate Selfishness.”
Finally… some (apple!) pie in the sky fantasies:
1) We CHARGE – bill… invoice… charge-back – the nation of origin (nation of the illegal aliens citizenship) for all costs incurred should our local/county/state/federal government(s) have to “deal” with an illegal alien in a way where calculable expenses can be ascertained.
Say Juanita – citizen of Mexico – crosses the border illegally and has a kid in a U.S. hospital.
We CHARGE Mexico for the costs of that hospitalization!
Hey… how do you think Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements happen in terms of the paperwork…?!?! Instead of a bill going to “Medicare” it goes to… er… Mexico.
Of course the Mexican government would refuse to pay, but… hey… remember the good old days of “gunboat diplomacy?”
Seriously… at the very least such a policy would no doubt pressure Mexico (and the other hemispheric nations who “provide” us with the vast majority of “our” illegal aliens) to cooperate with us in ensuring that their citizens don’t illegally cross our border and become a potential drain on MEXICAN as well as AMERICAN financial resources.
2) Let’s say you get a re offender; Jose Igor Kelly of “Country X” has been deported once and has now been caught – again – illegally present in our country.
I say before we deport his AGAIN we tattoo the words “NOT WELCOME IN USA” right on his forehead; perhaps also on his arms!
I gotta tell ya… I’m sick and tired of my government screwing around with these people.
And that’s my two cents…
BILL
Doc,
Your damn spam filter is preventing me from posting yet again!
I’m emailing you my comments. Please post upon receipt.
BILL
Ms. Adler,
You make excellent points and offer reasonable stop-gap solutions.
As to the FactCheck citation, here’s the bottom line – taken directly from the FactCheck in question:
“So, how much do illegal immigrants cost federal, state and local governments in the U.S.? Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists.”
A more to the point answer would be… A LOT!
Listen… I’m a huge WSJ editorial page fan but when it comes to two topics – Immigration and Trade Policy – I’d recommend the research and writings of Patrick J. Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and if you prefer a more “academic” presentation… the late, great Samuel Huntington’s writings.
Back to your suggestions, though, they fit in line somewhat with my own.
Here’s my bottom line: No “path to citizenship” for those who have entered our country illegally. None!
While I’m open to – indeed, comfortable with – a policy that would not seek (proactively) to identify and deport upon identification illegal aliens who have not “otherwise” broken the law, it seems to me that allowing such people a “path to citizenship” is a “reward” these people don’t deserve.
Here’s the sticking part though: It’s one thing to “tolerate” illegals working in our country; it’s quite another to provide them with educational, medical, and other social services (above and beyond basic police and fire protection) on the taxpayer dime.
Sorry… Jose (or if you’d rather, Igor, Woo-Chang, or Sean) might be a “tolerable” presence if he freely accepts exploitation of his illegal labor here, but I’ve got enough trouble caring for (financially) my own kids and the kids of fellow citizens; I don’t need – nor do I want – to support the children of illegal aliens.
WHICH BRINGS US TO…
Anchor babies.
I’ve done more than enough research to absolutely believe that Congress has the Constitutional authority to untangle the mess they and the courts have made of the whole “automatic citizenship” issue as it applies to the American-born children of illegal aliens. In short, Congress has the power to end the practice of considering children born here to parents who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” (are foreign citizens with no formal allegiance to) of the United States as automatic citizens.
In addition to severing the wrongheaded “anchor baby” lifeline to legal status for parents, I’d also sever “chain immigration.”
Listen… an American citizen marries a foreigner with minor children that’s one thing – the spouse and kids get to become Americans. But grandma and grandpa…? Aunts and uncles…??? Nieces and nephews…??? Three words: No frigg’n way!
Listen… immigration should serve our national interests. Period. Perhaps we do need migrant farm workers… perhaps… but by and large the last thing we need is to increase the poor population of the United States.
Nor – politically incorrect as this assertion is – should our policy be to allow further “heritage” transformation of the United States. If a degree of “mass” immigration is deemed in our national interest I say we return to traditional “Euro-centric” metrics. I’m not hesitant to say that I want America to remain a “Western” nation with deep and abiding links to our Anglo-Saxon history and culture.
Does this mean “non-whites need not apply?” Certainly not. But it does mean we favor English born English… Canadian born Canadian… Australian born Australian – et al – immigration applicants.
(Notice… nothing about color; it’s CULTURE I’m concerned with.)
Japanese…? Sure. Bring ’em on! The Japanese have a long history of assimilating as immigrants. Other Asians…? Again… it depends upon what particular nations/cultures we’re talking about. My concern is that second (and definitely third) generation “ABC-Americans” are culturally in sync with “Anglo-Saxon” American culture in the same way that second and third generation Irish, Italian, and even Greek and Russian Americans are.
Putting this whole question of “mass” immigration aside… back to my original assertion that the purpose of American immigration policy should be first and foremost to benefit AMERICA… while looking for “hard workers” may have a nice ring to it, my greater concern is that America attracts the best and brightest from overseas – those who are ready to hit the ground running and contribute magnitudes more of immediate value (tax revenues, making sure we stay ahead on R&D, etc.) than their presence could possible “cost.”
All in all, let’s call the Barker Policy… er… “Compassionate Selfishness.”
Finally… some (apple!) pie in the sky fantasies:
1) We CHARGE – bill… invoice… charge-back – the nation of origin (nation of the illegal aliens citizenship) for all costs incurred should our local/county/state/federal government’s) have to “deal” with an illegal alien in a way where calculable expenses can be ascertained.
Say Juanita – citizen of Mexico – crosses the border illegally and has a kid in a U.S. hospital.
We CHARGE Mexico for the costs of that hospitalization!
Hey… how do you think Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements happen in terms of the paperwork…?!?! Instead of a bill going to “Medicare” it goes to… er… Mexico.
Of course the Mexican government would refuse to pay, but… hey… remember the good old days of “gunboat diplomacy?”
Seriously… at the very least such a policy would no doubt pressure Mexico (and the other hemispheric nations who “provide” us with the vast majority of “our” illegal aliens) to cooperate with us in ensuring that their citizens don’t illegally cross our border and become a potential drain on MEXICAN as well as AMERICAN financial resources.
2) Let’s say you get a re offender; Jose Igor Kelly of “Country X” has been deported once and has now been caught – again – illegally present in our country.
I say before we deport his AGAIN we tattoo the words “NOT WELCOME IN USA” right on his forehead; perhaps also on his arms!
I gotta tell ya… I’m sick and tired of my government screwing around with these people.
And that’s my two cents…
BILL
Bill, you and that spam filter should get a room. It’s embarrassing.
William, I am confident your ‘tattoo’ chaff is not a ploy to increase the stock value of ink, but an attempt to verbalize frustration. The complexity of resolving illegal immigration requires new thinking, but with compassion, and fairness. Truly, I don’t think there is a country in the world, that beats the US in the’ ‘everybody has a chance department’. In that spirit, we need to acknowledge, that taxpayers have been extended to the limit of their capabilities, and I believe in the carrot-and-stick approach. For instance, If social services including birth/hospital costs negated any future claim on citizenship, we would see an increase in fiscally responsible illegals. The carrot would be possible path to legalization, with self-pay, or insurance. The stick, would be permanent loss of eligibility for citizenship, as part of the penalty for free hospital service, and welfare programs. I know that many would choose the former, and those children would have the benefit of growing up with financially responsible parents.