Giuliani: Illegal Immigration Is The Federal Government’s Problem

Ken McCracken • October 31, 2007

Some pretty smooth maneuvering from Rudy on the illegal immigration issue.

WASHINGTON – Responsibility for stopping illegal immigration belongs to the federal government and not to cities, states or businesses, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Tuesday.
Giuliani told small-business owners he would not punish them for unwittingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Federal officials are “trying to put the responsibility for this on employers, on city government, on state government,” the former New York mayor said during a conference call arranged by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
“The simple fact is, nobody but the federal government can stop people from coming into this country illegally, and the federal government does a very bad job of that,” Giuliani said.
He said no other presidential candidate will solve the problem.
“If you elect a Democrat, they’re just going to open the borders, and more illegals are going to come in,” he said.

The problem with Rudy’s pitch is that as Mayor of New York he fiercely defended, and maintained, that city’s status as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants. He refused to allow municipal employees, from police officers to social workers, the opportunity to turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities. Or even report their existence.
So when he says that he wouldn’t hold businesses responsible for hiring illegal immigrants, he means it. He won’t hold them responsible because he doesn’t really have a problem with businesses hiring illegals. And while he’s carping now about the Democrats opening the borders for more illegals to come in, he’s not acknowledging that his tolerance of illegal immigrants as a political leader in the past, as well as his refusal to work with federal authorities to get illegal immigrants deported, is exactly the sort of thing that attracts millions of illegals across the border every year.
Put simply, Rudy has absolutely no credibility on the illegal immigration issue.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Politics

http://Array robert108

(and I like to play devil’s
advocate)

Why? Because you don’t really believe what you write?
robert108

While I don’t like Rudy for a number of his social policies, he has it right on this one, at least in what he’s now saying. When we are already paying for federal enforcement officers to protect the integrity of our borders, it is completely wrong to expect employers to function as unpaid law enforcement. If the feds were doing their job, employers could correctly assume that anyone who wants to work for them is a legal citizen, and they should be able to make that assumption. The root of the problem is the feds not doing their jobs, not employers.
TW, it’s not just the prospect of jobs that “draws” them in; it’s the overall freedom and prosperity of our country that draws them here, and only massive reform in Mexico will change that. In the meantime, border enforcement is the key, and that is a federal mandate. If I’m not mistaken, it’s in the Constitution.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

but then how will anyone know exactly the points you are trying to get across?

I thought I was being clear by stating that I was playing devil’s advocate that the points weren’t ones that I agreed with. Obviously, I wasn’t clear enough.

And you certainly won’t avoid an argument because you will get responses from those that disagree with you.

Are you saying that the members of this site aren’t able to hold a conversation about things they disagree with without it becoming an argument?

I think we’ve hijacked this thread long enough with this off topic bit, so I’ll say this final bit to end my side of things.

I obviously didn’t make it clear enough what my intentions were by saying the devil’s advocate blurb. It caused confusion and argument. Not argument on the topic at hand, but argument as to what the point of my comment was.

I’ll keep all of this in mind for further comments here.
robert108

Perhaps that was not the right way to do it. I’ll be sure to ask you what the appropriate way to do that is next time, robert108.

Just be honest about what you believe, not what you think will get attention for you. The “discussion” you claim to have created was all about your dishonest tactic, and was really a waste of time.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

Forcibly transferring money from the private sector to the public sector kills economic growth and is inflationary. Just have the law enforcement agencies do their jobs. We already pay for them to do that.
You just want to target business for not cleaning up the mess created by slack law enforcement.

And lack of income taxes and social security taxes because those employees don’t pay makes economic growth better?
Yes, we do pay them to do their jobs. Yes, they don’t do that job. They should. But they aren’t going to overnight or anytime soon.
I don’t want to target businesses. I do want to hold them accountable for hiring illegals. If you leave the front door of your house open and I go in and steal your tv, is it the law enforcement’s fault because they didn’t do their job in preventing it? I am no less the thief and you would want me held accountable for my theft wouldn’t you?
Just because we left the front door open doesn’t mean that the thief that is shortchanging the tax system should go off scot free. If businesses know that they will be held accountable, the number of illegals employed will drop.
Stop coddling our businesses. They are undeserving of it. They’ll find any excuse to cheat, lie, and steal their way to bigger profits. Even if they have to steal a few tvs to accomplish it.
robert108

What does that have to do with playing devil’s advocate?

A “devil’s advocate” takes a position to create argument, not because he actually believes what he is saying. If I say “yes”, you say “no”, reflexively.
It’s also known as “trolling”.
Why not simply represent your own ideas and values?
That is called “honesty”.
robert108

We need some mechanism to catch them when they are here. The best bet is to have methods for the police and other governmental employees to spot them.

Exactly, which is what State and local law enforcement is supposed to be doing.

I also see a HUGE difference between unwittingly hiring an illegal and doing it knowingly.

I think you’re into “thought crime” territory here.
If you must go after employers, go after the ones who have actually imported invaders in some way. Otherwise, it isn’t a crime, IMO. Once they’re here, it’s still not up to businessmen to enforce the laws that the paid law enforcement personell have failed to do.
robert108

Political double talk to get yourself elected. Or “tell em what they want to hear”

It works for the Clintons.
docdave

I can’t argue that definition, but I would add that one can also play devil’s advocate merely to express another side to the discussion without doing it to create argument

You can do that but then how will anyone know exactly the points you are trying to get across? And you certainly won’t avoid an argument because you will get responses from those that disagree with you. Best bet – be intellectually honest and don’t play games with what you presume to be the facts.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Most everyone thinks that employers should be held responsible for illegals they hire as that draws illegals in.

That may be true, but I’d say that sanctuary cities are far far more of a draw to illegals.

Plus I as a private citizen have a relatively weak duty to turn people in when I see a crime committed. However government employees at all levels have a much higher duty to do so.

As far as I’m concerned any time an illegal isn’t arrested and deported when they come into contract with public employees then those public employees are morally responsible for any crime committed by the illegal.
robert108

But I’ll assume that you pay taxes, so it’s really you that’s getting shortchanged. Whether
you like the system or not, taxes will go up if not everyone pays their taxes. If only three people pay for 5 those three people will pay much more than the 5 would if all 5 were paying.

Completely wrong. It’s only govt spending that creates the demand for tax money. With the present tendency(unchecked by the electorate) for politicians to use our money to buy our votes by promising graft to special interest groups, there will never be enough tax money to satisfy them, since they always want more than they have.

I just believe that they should be held responsible when they break the law. Of course, but hiring people to work for them isn’t “breaking the law”, unless they brought those people into the country themselves. Since we pay taxes for border enforcement, shouldn’t we have the expectation that people in this country are here legally? But, I guess since it’s the homeowners fault for having his tv stolen,You really missed it; it’s the border enforcement people who “left the door open”. they aren’t breaking any law of yours.
Hoss

Worked for the Nazis.

When this quote pops up, you know you’ve won the debate: Godwin’s Law.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Sorry, since you’re pretty new here I didn’t take that as irony.

Still, doing those things would only catch a percentage of the illegals. What do we do about the rest.

Well we didn’t get here overnight and we won’t fix it overnight. I’d also make a better ID and a fail safe provision for employers to make sure they hire the right people.

I think that’s the way to go. Every year it’ll get better.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

A “devil’s advocate” takes a position to create argument, not because he actually believes what he is saying.

I can’t argue that definition, but I would add that one can also play devil’s advocate merely to express another side to the discussion without doing it to create argument. Of course, I guess that depends on your definition of argument. If you define it as any discussion that might have a point of view other than your own, then I guess I’m guilty.

I happen to find the immigration issue an interesting one. When I said that I was playing devil’s advocate, I did so to mark the statement as one I wasn’t all that serious about and as one that shouldn’t be taken seriously. I wanted it to act as a prompt for further discussion, which it did.

Perhaps that was not the right way to do it. I’ll be sure to ask you what the appropriate way to do that is next time, robert108.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

I’m not surprised that your side has to try to play the racism card because you don’t have a legitimate point.

I’m not sure where your coming from Whistler. I think it’s pretty clear that was meant as a devil’s advocate statement.

I do agree with your points. Still, doing those things would only catch a percentage of the illegals. What do we do about the rest.

Why? Because you don’t really believe what you write?

What does that have to do with playing devil’s advocate?

When this quote pops up, you know you’ve won the debate: Godwin’s Law.

Not sure what Godwin’s has anything to do with winning the debate…

Godwin’s Law:”As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

How about they check people who

1)Are stopped by the police for traffic or other criminal investigations with probable cause of course. If they don’t have valid ID keep checking and check with INS.

2)When someone applies for government benefits of any kind then check to see they are legal. My school checked my kid’s birth certificates. Hardly racial profiling.

3)Certainly ensure people who are voting are citizens.

These are common sense things to do. I’m not surprised that your side has to try to play the racism card because you don’t have a legitimate point.
robert108

…I would add that one can also play devil’s advocate merely to express another side to the
discussion without doing it to create argument

No, you can’t. By taking “another side”(actually the opposite side), you automatically set up an argument, if the other person is stupid enough to reply to your dishonest input.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

No matter how effective we make the border some illegals will still slip in.

We need some mechanism to catch them when they are here. The best bet is to have methods for the police and other governmental employees to spot them.

I also see a HUGE difference between unwittingly hiring an illegal and doing it knowingly.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

Yet another reason to not vote for the guy. He also was a very staunch gun control advocate while Mayor, and now is trying to portray himself as anti gun control.

Political double talk to get yourself elected. Or “tell em what they want to hear”
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

Rudy is right on this one. I am not a big fan of BIG GOV for the most part. BUT if we ever needed the fed gov to come through for us??? It is on illegal immigration. Especially because alqaeda operatives would Love nothing more than to sneak in and sabatoge the USA.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

We need some mechanism to catch them when they are here. The best bet is to have methods for the police and other governmental employees to spot them.

Not possible. What would you suggest? Racial profiling?

If I were to play devil’s advocate here,(and I like to play devil’s advocate) I’d say the best mechanism to do that would be to have all legal citizens of Hispanic, Islamic, and Canadian origin to wear nice big yellow stars on their left lapel. Worked for the Nazis.
robert108

The idea is to make it less profitable to hire
cheap labor, not put the company in financial troubles.

Forcibly transferring money from the private sector to the public sector kills economic growth and is inflationary. Just have the law enforcement agencies do their jobs. We already pay for them to do that.
You just want to target business for not cleaning up the mess created by slack law enforcement.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

@whistler

I don’t think I know what you mean by “fail safe provision”, but I’ve always looked at the employer part of it as a pocketbook issue. They hire the illegals because it’s cheaper labor, so a fine to offset that cheaper labor might help with adherence to the law.

I’ve heard some companies argue that they didn’t know they were illegals, and you can decide whether you believe them or not, but I don’t think the fines should be excessive. The idea is to make it less profitable to hire cheap labor, not put the company in financial troubles. I think the fine should be something along the lines of slightly more than the payroll cost it would have taken to hire a non-illegal.

I also think we need to find a way to make it easy for employers to check a prospective employee’s status. We run financial accounts against databases looking for terrorists, why can’t we provide a database to check employees against.

There are certainly many improvements to the current system that could help and we tend to focus on the jobs aspect but eliminating the jobs most likely isn’t going to eliminate the problem.
http://www.donkephant.net/ donkephant

It is border enforcement who has “left the door open”, isn’t it? They are responsible, like a homeowner would be if he left his door open.

Mind telling me where you live? I need a new tv. And since you’d hold yourself responsible instead of me, what better place to get one.

BTW, no one is “shortchanging the tax system”; that is economically inaccurate in several ways.

They aren’t shortchanging the tax system literally. But I’ll assume that you pay taxes, so it’s really you that’s getting shortchanged. Whether you like the system or not, taxes will go up if not everyone pays their taxes. If only three people pay for 5 those three people will pay much more than the 5 would if all 5 were paying.

Everything else starts there, and that is where the problem can be solved.

I couldn’t agree more. I just can’t see a logical way for that to get fixed short of putting up walls. So I guess we’ll have to work on some of the symptoms as well.

This anti-business screed identifies you as a leftie who believes in Marxist ideology. It’s not “coddling” business to enforce the border. You must be crazy to think that.

Crazy? Ok, Mr. Kucinich. I’m not anti-business at all. I just believe that they should be held responsible when they break the law. But, I guess since it’s the homeowners fault for having his tv stolen, they aren’t breaking any law of yours. No, it’s not coddling to enforce the border. Enforcing the border has nothing to do with business. The hiring of illegals that results from a lack of enforcement on the border does have a lot to do with business.

Do me a favor and read my comment thoroughly a couple of times before you respond. I’m tired of having my words skewed by your ultra-conservative reading skills. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t make me a leftie or a marxist, but believe what you will.
robert108

Stop coddling our businesses. They are undeserving of it. They’ll find any excuse to cheat, lie, and steal their way to bigger profits. Even if they have to steal a few tvs to accomplish it.

This anti-business screed identifies you as a leftie who believes in Marxist ideology. It’s not “coddling” business to enforce the border. You must be crazy to think that.
robert108

And lack of income taxes and social security taxes because those employees don’t pay makes economic growth better?

That has nothing to do with economic growth. Do you know what “economic growth” means?

If you leave the front door of your house open and I go in and steal your tv, is it the law enforcement’s fault because they didn’t do their job in preventing it?

Thanks for making my point. It is border enforcement who has “left the door open”, isn’t it? They are responsible, like a homeowner would be if he left his door open.
BTW, no one is “shortchanging the tax system”; that is economically inaccurate in several ways. Govt isn’t entitled to our earnings; they should justify their spending to us, but we don’t hold them responsible for that. None of this has anything at all to do with the invasion of our country by foreigners, though. That is an enforcement problem. Everything else starts there, and that is where the problem can be solved.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Giuliani: Illegal Immigration Is The Federal Government’s Problem

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments