The New York Times story pitches it as a bad thing, but bad or good, deportations of illegal immigrants is rising:
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, facing intense political pressure to toughen enforcement, removed 221,664 illegal immigrants from the country over the last year, an increase of more than 37,000 — about 20 percent — over the year before, according to the agency’s tally.
While President Bush and many Democrats have called for a path to legalize some 12 million illegal immigrants, a significant number of Republicans in Congress reject the plan because they view it as amnesty for lawbreakers. They advocate a broader campaign of deportations that would expel many illegal immigrants and, they say, drive millions more to give up and go home.
“We are not calling for I.C.E. to become the Gestapo knocking on doors in the middle of the night,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group in Washington that seeks to curb immigration. “But we have to increase the likelihood that if you are here illegally you will be caught.”
So far, many of the deportations have caused illegal families to hunker down and plot ways to avoid detection and resist deportation, not run voluntarily for the border, immigrant advocates said. In Massachusetts, immigration agents have been challenged by lawyers, labor unions and state officials who question their raid tactics and are fighting trench by legal trench to block deportations.
Mr. Mancía was amazed at the offers of help he received, including from the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, the state’s Department of Social Services and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts.
In a nutshell, what we've got on one hand are anti-immigration GOPers who condemn the President for not doing enough while on the other hand we've got open-borders liberals who condemn the President for doing too much - once again, President Bush is in the middle, trying to do right by everyone concerned and getting hardly any support from anyone. I wonder if anyone on both sides of the issue is ever going to start thinking that, just perhaps, a course of increased border security plus a well-regulated guest-worker program is the way to go? Nah...won't happen; not enough sex appeal in such a common-sense approach to a thorny issue. Much better to just keep the rhetoric boiling over 'cause that keeps the donations coming in. Meanwhile, nothing gets done and everyone involved suffers to some degree and only the criminal smugglers fully benefit.
I don't wonder if we can come up with a good or great President these days - but I do wonder if we can come up with a mere 250 House and Senate members who have the wit, courage and generosity to work with a good or great President for the benefit of the United States as a whole. Right now, our political class is shot through with corruption and cowardice - more corruption on the Democrat side, more cowardice on the GOP side, but the net result is pretty nasty, no matter how you slice it.
Immigration is a tricky issue, but it is not insoluable for people who have good will, a bit of common sense and the understanding that the primary issue is people - living, breathing people in the United States, citizens and illegals, who all have a claim on our mercy, generosity and justice.
Posted by Mark Noonan at May 1, 2007 03:53 AM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
I believe we ought to enforce the laws already on the books, tighten border security, and find a way to legalize who's already in the country. I realize that they came here illegally, but nothing's been done about it so far. It's hardly fair to deport someone who's been here for years, and is working and paying taxes. However, all criminals, that is to say, those illegals who have committed serious crimes here in the U.S., should be immediately deported to their country of origin. And if they're captured again in the U.S., they should be locked up for no less than 30 years, in a high-security federal prison.
Just talking about this issue during every election cycle isn't gonna solve anything...
Posted by: keefer at May 1, 2007 05:20 AM
I believe we ought to enforce the laws already on the books, tighten border security, and find a way to legalize who's already in the country. I realize that they came here illegally, but nothing's been done about it so far. It's hardly fair to deport someone who's been here for years, and is working and paying taxes.
Posted by: keefer [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 1, 2007 05:20 AM
Wow!, an honestly humane response from keefer. I didn't think you had it in you, but I'm glad to see you still possess a bit of compassion. Well done.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 1, 2007 07:38 AM
Posted by: Christian Wright at May 1, 2007 08:45 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with you Keefer.
Posted by: zachster at May 1, 2007 08:55 AM
President Bush has done more to enforce the immigration laws, has done more to push alternative fuels and pro environment polices, has done more to protect this country from attack then any other president. However, he gets nothing but criticism from all sides. Deporations are up with soldiers at the border, alternative fuels are becoming a reality and we haven't been attacked in 5 1/2 years. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.
Posted by: james allegro at May 1, 2007 12:41 PM
This should be the plan:
1. Keep illegals out.
2. Imprison or deport illegals that are felons.
3. Change immigration laws so they meet the interests of the U.S.
The country needs a constant flow of immigrants, however, WE should SELECT those that can become citizens. We do NOT need 20 million illiterate landscapers. We DO need doctors and nurses and engineers. We need to accept people from AROUND THE WORLD, not just those that can physically get here.
They need to come on OUR TERMS:
1. They must be willing and eager to learn English.
2. They must embrace our government and our society and work to assimilate.
3. They must be able-bodied with a skill and work ethic that will strengthen our country. They cannot come to live off our welfare system.
Why is this so damn hard to agree on and do something about???
Posted by: LaMano at May 1, 2007 01:01 PM
I agree with LaMano but would like to add the need to change the policy that if you are born here you are a citizen even when your parents are not legal residents.
Posted by:
Bob at May 1, 2007 01:25 PM
LeMano,
Justice demands that we protect our citizens from illegal crossings - especially those citizens who live closest to the border and who therefor suffer the most from illegal immigration.
Justice demands that those who have crossed illegally pay a price and be put behind all those who came legally.
Justice demands that business who have turned a blind eye to hiring illegals pay a high price for encouraging lawbreaking.
Charity demands that those here illegally be shown some mercy as those from Mexico (by far the largest contingent) are more and more encouraged to come north by their corrupt and incompetant government.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 1, 2007 02:18 PM
Mark-
I live in Arizona, we've had shootouts on I-10 between coyotes a few miles from my house. Few understand the problems more than me. My first point was to keep illegals out. That puts the coyotes out of business and eliminates those that would die in our deserts. We are a sovereign country, contrary to the open borders crowd, and must secure our borders.
As for the businesses, how can they ensure that people they hire are illegals? If you are running a little pizza shop what proof is needed? Is it more proof than what is needed for obtaining public assistance, law enforcement, emergency room care, etc? The entire identification process needs to be detailed. Don't even get me started on 'sanctuary' cities. Yet businesses are supposed to do more than our own governments do. I don't mind making them responsible but they must have the ability to confirm citizenship. I run a business, I have dozens of I-9 files as is required. I have NEVER had any government employee ask to review those files as long as they've been required.
I don't mind the illegals already here, that don't have criminal records, pay some price in order to stay. The country will never stand for 12 million people to be deported. It will be difficult enough deporting the illegals that are felons.
Charity is okay but it must have limits. A vast majority of the 6 billion people on planet earth are much worse off than those of our great country. We cannot help them all by having the COME HERE. Our country's security and interests are most important. We should provide assistance to those around the world with hope that we can make their governments and economic systems better.
First, we need to outline and agree on the large goals, which is what I was pointing out. The devil is always in the details, but, I don't know why we can make progress faster.
Posted by: LaMano at May 1, 2007 02:43 PM
WE have great laws on the books that need to be enforced. Deport illegal aliens and make them a misdemeanor offender. Fine the employers who hire illegal aliens. Confiscate their property and sell at public auction and use proceeds to deport illegal aliens. We do not need to reward them anymore that a shoplifter or any other criminal just because they pay taxes. They are taking more from the system than they could ever give.
When they get here legal they must prove loyalty to America and our customs, laws, and Flag. They pass an English test, history test and pledge allegiance to America.
They should be required to prove they can provide for their own needs and not depend on the government for freebies.
Posted by: denny rosson at May 1, 2007 04:05 PM
I think everyone here is pretty much on the same page--enforce the laws already on the books. This was the objective back when Reagan did the amnesty thing some 20 years ago. However, nobody from any political party acted on the laws, and here we are.
CO, contrary to what you believe, I'm a very reasonable person. BDS'ers just set me off, especially you Canadian pukes who don't have a dog in the hunt.
Is that a more keefer-like response, or what? lol
Posted by: keefer at May 1, 2007 04:46 PM
BDS'ers just set me off, especially you Canadian pukes who don't have a dog in the hunt.
Posted by: keefer at May 1, 2007 04:46 PM
We may not have a dog in the hunt, keefer, but whether you like it or not, we are also inhabitants of this planet. Canadian pukes are affected by misguided and dangerous American foreign policy, as is the rest of the world. When a country acts in an unlawful and aggressive manner, it is our duty, as global citizens, to speak out loud & clear; and when that country has long been a valued neighbor, well, it hurts to see that friend go astray.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 1, 2007 06:58 PM
So, the times spins it as a bad thing? I don't see it in the article. Could somebody point it out to me?
ThELefTYFoOL
Posted by: the_lefty_fool at May 1, 2007 07:40 PM
So, what's the "unlawful manner", CO? Enlighten us.
Posted by: kimberly4bush at May 1, 2007 09:33 PM
kimberly4bush
Waging a war on a soverign nation that did not attack or threaten your country, if not unlawful, is unjustifiable.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 1, 2007 09:55 PM
CO, I was attempting humor, in light of your earlier "compliment." However, your reply to kimberly warrants a response. All the reasons we invaded Iraq were valid and lawful. In fact, some of you kooks claim that Bush went in to get "revenge for daddy." Guess what? When a leader of a sovereign nation threatens the life of a leader/former leader of another sovereign nation, that nation is entitled to act. So, if this were the reason, and it wasn't, for us to invade Iraq, it was a valid reason.
Also, the Bush Doctrine, after 9/11, gave us the right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. The dozen or so U.N. resolutions Saddam thumbed his nose at were justification, too. I would've hoped that Canada would've acted first, but with three Cessna's, a rowboat, and a VW bus, Canada's military just wasn't up to the task.
My friend, I know this is all redundant, and I won't repeat it again. But with you, Dr. Rerun, and cardick constantly repeating three-year-old b/s talking points, I felt entitled to repeat a few facts.
Now have yourself a nice day, hozer...
Posted by: keefer at May 2, 2007 05:29 AM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
I believe we ought to enforce the laws already on the books, tighten border security, and find a way to legalize who's already in the country. I realize that they came here illegally, but nothing's been done about it so far. It's hardly fair to deport someone who's been here for years, and is working and paying taxes. However, all criminals, that is to say, those illegals who have committed serious crimes here in the U.S., should be immediately deported to their country of origin. And if they're captured again in the U.S., they should be locked up for no less than 30 years, in a high-security federal prison.
Just talking about this issue during every election cycle isn't gonna solve anything...
I believe we ought to enforce the laws already on the books, tighten border security, and find a way to legalize who's already in the country. I realize that they came here illegally, but nothing's been done about it so far. It's hardly fair to deport someone who's been here for years, and is working and paying taxes.
Posted by: keefer [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 1, 2007 05:20 AM
Wow!, an honestly humane response from keefer. I didn't think you had it in you, but I'm glad to see you still possess a bit of compassion. Well done.
Deleted - off topic
I wholeheartedly agree with you Keefer.
President Bush has done more to enforce the immigration laws, has done more to push alternative fuels and pro environment polices, has done more to protect this country from attack then any other president. However, he gets nothing but criticism from all sides. Deporations are up with soldiers at the border, alternative fuels are becoming a reality and we haven't been attacked in 5 1/2 years. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.
This should be the plan:
1. Keep illegals out.
2. Imprison or deport illegals that are felons.
3. Change immigration laws so they meet the interests of the U.S.
The country needs a constant flow of immigrants, however, WE should SELECT those that can become citizens. We do NOT need 20 million illiterate landscapers. We DO need doctors and nurses and engineers. We need to accept people from AROUND THE WORLD, not just those that can physically get here.
They need to come on OUR TERMS:
1. They must be willing and eager to learn English.
2. They must embrace our government and our society and work to assimilate.
3. They must be able-bodied with a skill and work ethic that will strengthen our country. They cannot come to live off our welfare system.
Why is this so damn hard to agree on and do something about???
I agree with LaMano but would like to add the need to change the policy that if you are born here you are a citizen even when your parents are not legal residents.
LeMano,
Justice demands that we protect our citizens from illegal crossings - especially those citizens who live closest to the border and who therefor suffer the most from illegal immigration.
Justice demands that those who have crossed illegally pay a price and be put behind all those who came legally.
Justice demands that business who have turned a blind eye to hiring illegals pay a high price for encouraging lawbreaking.
Charity demands that those here illegally be shown some mercy as those from Mexico (by far the largest contingent) are more and more encouraged to come north by their corrupt and incompetant government.
Mark-
I live in Arizona, we've had shootouts on I-10 between coyotes a few miles from my house. Few understand the problems more than me. My first point was to keep illegals out. That puts the coyotes out of business and eliminates those that would die in our deserts. We are a sovereign country, contrary to the open borders crowd, and must secure our borders.
As for the businesses, how can they ensure that people they hire are illegals? If you are running a little pizza shop what proof is needed? Is it more proof than what is needed for obtaining public assistance, law enforcement, emergency room care, etc? The entire identification process needs to be detailed. Don't even get me started on 'sanctuary' cities. Yet businesses are supposed to do more than our own governments do. I don't mind making them responsible but they must have the ability to confirm citizenship. I run a business, I have dozens of I-9 files as is required. I have NEVER had any government employee ask to review those files as long as they've been required.
I don't mind the illegals already here, that don't have criminal records, pay some price in order to stay. The country will never stand for 12 million people to be deported. It will be difficult enough deporting the illegals that are felons.
Charity is okay but it must have limits. A vast majority of the 6 billion people on planet earth are much worse off than those of our great country. We cannot help them all by having the COME HERE. Our country's security and interests are most important. We should provide assistance to those around the world with hope that we can make their governments and economic systems better.
First, we need to outline and agree on the large goals, which is what I was pointing out. The devil is always in the details, but, I don't know why we can make progress faster.
WE have great laws on the books that need to be enforced. Deport illegal aliens and make them a misdemeanor offender. Fine the employers who hire illegal aliens. Confiscate their property and sell at public auction and use proceeds to deport illegal aliens. We do not need to reward them anymore that a shoplifter or any other criminal just because they pay taxes. They are taking more from the system than they could ever give.
When they get here legal they must prove loyalty to America and our customs, laws, and Flag. They pass an English test, history test and pledge allegiance to America.
They should be required to prove they can provide for their own needs and not depend on the government for freebies.
I think everyone here is pretty much on the same page--enforce the laws already on the books. This was the objective back when Reagan did the amnesty thing some 20 years ago. However, nobody from any political party acted on the laws, and here we are.
CO, contrary to what you believe, I'm a very reasonable person. BDS'ers just set me off, especially you Canadian pukes who don't have a dog in the hunt.
Is that a more keefer-like response, or what? lol
BDS'ers just set me off, especially you Canadian pukes who don't have a dog in the hunt.
Posted by: keefer at May 1, 2007 04:46 PM
We may not have a dog in the hunt, keefer, but whether you like it or not, we are also inhabitants of this planet. Canadian pukes are affected by misguided and dangerous American foreign policy, as is the rest of the world. When a country acts in an unlawful and aggressive manner, it is our duty, as global citizens, to speak out loud & clear; and when that country has long been a valued neighbor, well, it hurts to see that friend go astray.
So, the times spins it as a bad thing? I don't see it in the article. Could somebody point it out to me?
ThELefTYFoOL
So, what's the "unlawful manner", CO? Enlighten us.
kimberly4bush
Waging a war on a soverign nation that did not attack or threaten your country, if not unlawful, is unjustifiable.
CO, I was attempting humor, in light of your earlier "compliment." However, your reply to kimberly warrants a response. All the reasons we invaded Iraq were valid and lawful. In fact, some of you kooks claim that Bush went in to get "revenge for daddy." Guess what? When a leader of a sovereign nation threatens the life of a leader/former leader of another sovereign nation, that nation is entitled to act. So, if this were the reason, and it wasn't, for us to invade Iraq, it was a valid reason.
Also, the Bush Doctrine, after 9/11, gave us the right to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. The dozen or so U.N. resolutions Saddam thumbed his nose at were justification, too. I would've hoped that Canada would've acted first, but with three Cessna's, a rowboat, and a VW bus, Canada's military just wasn't up to the task.
My friend, I know this is all redundant, and I won't repeat it again. But with you, Dr. Rerun, and cardick constantly repeating three-year-old b/s talking points, I felt entitled to repeat a few facts.
Now have yourself a nice day, hozer...