Redstate

I've heard liberals and others throw that canard out over and over. Its ridiculous. The man is not SUPPOSE to be in this county! YOU BET its about immigration. If laws were executed the way they should be, after his first conviction he should have been thrown out of the country. If he WAS, those two girls would be alive.

Don't give me this about "its all about drunk driving." Thats the same bunk that Rivera was trying to pull on O'Reilly.

He was here illegally yet somehow got a driver's liscense, which got him a car, which he then used to kill two girls while drunk. You WOULD be right if the guy hadn't been arrested AND convicted three times beforehand. But how is someone here illegally get THREE convictions and NOT THROWN OUT!!!

This is absolutly about illegal immigration. If the laws of our land had been followed, those girls would be alive today.

-------------------------------------
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason

Geraldo brought up this point, and I haven't looked it up myself but I think it's worth mentioning:

Current grounds for deportation are a felony or a misdemeanor that shows 'moral turpitude'. Now, regardless of personal interpretation, I believe the point is that technically, the individual had not been guilty of any of these.

The fact of undocumented status is not in and of itself grounds in all cases for immediate deportation, and drunk driving as a conviction is not currently grounds either.

We can debate as to whether they *should* be, but the way I'm reading things, the law of the land *was* followed. If you'd like to argue those laws should be changed, then by all means let's debate that instead.

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Finagle

In your comment "Current grounds for deportation are a felony or a misdemeanor that shows 'moral turpitude'."

That is for ****LEGAL*** immigrants only. Are you saying that this rule should be extended to ****ILLEGAL**** immigrants who have already broken Federal statues by their very presence in the country?

Balderdash!

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

If that's the case, then what's the point of this bill, which presumably has been offered in response to this incident?

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2052

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Finagle

Let me make this simple for you.

You are in our country illegally, that's a Federal law being broken that is on the books right now. You get arrested, convicted of any local or state crime on top of your Federal crime. Why should you be released on bond, on parole on anything else, you have already committed one Federal crime by coming here illegally in addition to your local or state crime.

If State and Local authorities would do their job, namely establishing the identity of everyone who is incarcerated, finding out immegration status there would be no question. They run wants and warrants for people who are arrested, why not also check immegration status. You have no real or implied right to privacy once you are in custody, which goes double for being actually convicted for an offense in a court of law.

If there is a need for new laws, there ought to be a law that local and state jailers are required to establish the identity and legal right to be in this country before a person is released from jail.

This is not about going after people or rounding them up when they are minding their own business, this is about once you've caught them, not letting them go.

Not a hard concept is it?

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

...sorry, I'm from Kansas and a mite simple-minded, but it seems to me like you're changing the topic here to folks who have been incarcerated, when all I was pointing out above was that it seems to be the case that under existing law, drunken driving isn't grounds for mandatory deportation.

So, maybe you've made it so simple that I can't really follow it, but since I'm a simple man, maybe you can try to bring it back around to the case under discussion? Because, slow as I am, it seems to me that there are currently some criteria and so on for who is and who isn't a *mandatory* deportation, illegal status or not, and that some crimes committed *while in that illegal status* fall into that penalty, and some don't.

Following on that, it seems to me and my little brain that the law mentioned above is trying to close that gap by ensuring that drunken driving *does* now fall into the "mandatory deportation" bucket.

I know you're all fired up to get rid of the illegals, Steve, gosh! But it shore does seem a little bit more complicated than "just enforce the existing law" when they need to make a new law to take care of this case?

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Here's the background on the illegal alien who was involved.

"Alfredo Ramos, a Mexican national in the U.S. illegally, was convicted of driving while intoxicated last year, but that didn't keep him from being behind the wheel after a night of drinking last weekend – and now two teenage girls are dead because of it."

Are you going to defend the legal system, the prosecutor, the judge and everyone else who let someone free who was a) an illegal alien, and b) a convicted drunk driver. Who promptly went out and killed some people.

Not sure if the laws are the same where you come from, but DUI is a felony out here in CA and even in your lame excuse sited above, a DUI would be a "moral turpitude" as would a felony drunk driving conviction. A legal alien could be forced into a hearing on immegration status hearing.

You also continue to attempt to wrongly apply and grant the standards of conduct we hold legal immigrants to, to a illegal alien. It's a clever ploy, but wrong in fact and wrong on point. Are you trolling on that point or just confused?

The Constitutional standard for all persons in this country (yes even for illegals) is a hearing or a trial, then a rendering of sentence. In the case of an illegal alien who has committed and been convicted of a local crime, the Federal crime should also be enforced forthwith.

The bill you site, I actually went off and read. It's a lame back door approach to forcing state and local authorities to do their job and start enforcing Federal immegration law when they deal with criminal illegal alien.

It's that simple.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

I'm not actually defending the actions of anyone, but just pointing out that it may or may not be as simple as "enforcing existing law." But I think we've got a matter of legal fact here under dispute, which I won't go further into without having done some more research, so I'll end it here.

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Quite a few Legal Beagle types haunt the site, maybe one of them would care to step in and explain the law to you and for that matter me. I have been known to be wrong before.

I think the lack of prosecution of criminal illegal aliens on Federal immegration crimes has nothing to do with the law, more about the girlyman local governments in this country.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

Go back to whatever liberal blog you haunt.

This incident was a horrendous and unnecessary occurence. Because of this tragedy, many people, myself included, who were unaware of the existence of "sanctuary cities" are now aware.

By acting now, people can prevent tragedies like this from recurring in the future. Now is the time to get rid of elected officials who seek to thwart the laws of the land by setting up criminal havens.

Hoosier has been around for over a year. He's not just a drop-in moby.

I'm neutral on this issue though. Sanctuary cities, if they are allowed to exist, should be made so by referendum and not by elected officials. For whatever reason, they're too scared to publicly come out against it. But I feel if the majority (2/3?) of people in a town are willing to go for it, so be it.

Perhaps that's misguided. I'm just naturally uncomfortable imposing federal law on local opinion.

violation because its a national responsiblity to protect the nation. Allowing states and towns to have some kind of a local option to protect people breaking a federal law makes no sense.

of federal law, they should have every nickel of of federal funds cut off. No highway funds, no education funds, no nothing. The "public" radio and tv in their city should lose fed funds.

Let 'em eat cake.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I find your response to this a lot more consistent than a lot of other conservatives when it comes to the issue of the federal enforcement of federal laws on state and local governments.

It seems like an awful lot of the time that when it's civil rights, abortion or gay marriage that conservatives will decry federal enforcement of laws on localities, but then when it's a drug, immigrant, or other 'law and order' issue, we see cries for the harsh enforcement of federal laws.

I'm a bit confused where the principled conservative comes down on this larger issue of federal enforcement, because it sure seems to vary depending on the issue.

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

You need to think about this. Lets say, you live in a nice, suburban community, filled with prosperous law abiding citizens.

By your logic it is OK if the a community in the next county, or even the next town over decides to become a sanctuary city. A place were illegal aliens can rest, plan a prosperous raid, then retreat, before leaving the country to live on their loot.

You assume that illegals come here because they want to settle down. Well to paraphrase Willie Sutton one reason people come into this country illegally is because "that's were the money to steal is".

If a community can be a sancuary for illegal activity, why believe that only certain illegal activities will accepted. Drug dealers need clients with money, and since drug users have a hard time finding regular work, they look to other activities for income. But if the community next to yours is a safe haven for drug dealers, that surely has no effect on you, or does it?

And by your logic, if enough of the citizens are murders and thieves, then as long as they vote for it, it would be OK to commit these crimes, assuming of course, that the crimes are committed in some other community.

If letting a community choose to be a sanctuary by referrendum were acceptable, we could have skipped the whole civil rights movement, and just let the voters in southern communities decide for themselves if they should keep segregation. Something tells me that for at least some people, that might not have worked out as well.

Misguided? I believe that is the right word.

Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum

Here I am haunting again :)

But for all seriousness lets have a rational discussion here not just start yelling at each other and making accusations like Bill did. Lets just say we get rid of all the sanctuary cities here in the United States tomorrow, and then we also deport all the people we find out who are here illegal (this is mainly done if someone is arrested). So what happens? Probably about 1%, and I am being very generous here, will be deported right away. So in the end this method doesn't work. Because it has to be enforced on the business side and businesses (you know one of the Republican bases) want illegal immigration so I really doubt this will.
My argument is hardly a liberal one it is a conservative one actually. First lets not say 1+1 = 5 and come out and say that yes he shouldn't of been here and especially driving drunk, but this happens every day without a riot. Second I have never advocated "amnesty" while I have been at this board (and as GOPaisano I have been here for awhile) so you could check out some of my opinions if you can find them on the subject.

Next discussion:

How about this if we act now and ban all booze and tobacco products we can prevent thousands of deaths each year! No more people dieing of lung cancer because of smoking, a lot fewer drunk driving deaths, no more people getting alcohol poisoning and so on. Of course I will miss my good from Jack but for the good of the nation and our citizens right? My point here is lets not lose sight of the real tragedy here is that many people's children lose there lives because of driving while drunk.

Finally for your benefit:

I have voted for people like Senator Lugar and other Republicans in my time people, but I am not 100% conservative loyal Republican (sorry) like most the people that come to this board. I am more libertarian and I have made this 100% clear many times so not to make people think I am just a troll wanting to destroy the peace at the message board. I have voted for Republicans and Democrats in my time and I will defend each vote to the last. If you talk about gun rights and abortion I am going to most likely side with you. If you talk about some environmental issues or the death penalty I won't period.
I don't like a cheering squad because I really think the purpose of these communities is to discuss conservative topics and perhaps convince each other to change there opinion. So I will join right in on topics, like this one, where I believe my belief will differ from others. There is ALOT of conservatives I do believe here that agree with me so try not to make my argument null and void by saying I am here just to be a liberal. You want to debate the pros and cons with me about illegal immigration I would love that, if not let someone else.

This isn't an illegal immigrant issue...this is a drunk driving issue.

If what Geraldo said was true, that illegal immigrants commit crimes in lower percentages than citizens, then this really doesn't have anything to do with his immigrant status.

Why don't we ship all people who commit misdemeanors/felonies out of the country?

I happen to be a guy who doesn’t get up every morning hating my country. Roger Ailes

illegal immigration problem, you would understand.

California has the burden of providing free education, infrastructure, and health care to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who live within our borders.

Because of that, the liberal legislature has to keep increasing taxes and fees. Which drives businesses and affluent residents to low-tax states like Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas.

Leaving the rest of us to face an increasing tax burden with decreasing resources. California is a lost cause. I'm moving to Texas and taking my tax dollars with me.

It is a case of a double law breaker, federal immigration crimes which this person is guilty of for being in this country illegally, and a convicted CA criminal, which is two strikes in my book, this drunk driving is the third strike in my book.

He should have been out of the country at strike two!

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

is the US expert on any thing the US is in serious trouble.

Illegal immigrants are 100% involved in crime, the crime of being in a country illegally. When you solve an illegal immigrant crime by getting them out of the country, you have solved the 1st crime and the 2nd crime. When you just take action against the drunk driving crime, you're often not solving anything because the chance of reoccurance is so high. Look at the tax bill you are paying, it would go down if the crime of illegal immigration is solved. It will go up if you just try to treat the drunk driving crime.

if they are in the country illegally, we should.

Geraldo is a pompous ass.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Let's start with something simple.

You get caught, convicted of a crime and you're an illegal alien in our country, you are going to be turned over to the Feds for trip back to where ever you came from. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.

One Strike, you're out of here.

There is 0 room for someone who comes to this country illegally and commits a second crime.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

Apparently, 9/11 was not enough to convince them that illegal immigration is a problem.

...since all of the 9/11 terrorists had appropriate visas or other travel authorization.

So I think to link 9/11 specifically to illegal immigration doesn't really show where the security weaknesses lie, nor that it would effectively prevent such attacks in the future.

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

You don't even notice what is happening there. I lived in Va Beach for 20 years and everytime I go back for a family visit, I can't help but notice how much more liberal the media and region have become. My family didn't really think about it until I pointed it out to them. What was once a great beach town and a bastion of conservatism in the 70s and 80s has become a victim of the Northeast creeping down opon them. Too bad.

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

when they go to other work. My wife works for the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, which in its programmatic divisions is very heavy with ex-feds and retired military officers. They have it structured so that there is a layer of "old boys" at about what would be our equivalent of GS-13/14 (State Range 20-22) and they mostly do nothing but travel since they have somebody below them at what would be the GS-9/11 level, usually a woman, who does ALL the work, but who can never be seen or given any credit for anything.

One of her great joys when she was at lower levels was preparing briefing documents for these slugs and putting something in the document that she knew they were clueless about, then watching the fun when some legislator started asking them questions about it. Of course, these guys were all way too busy, smart, and important to ever be briefed on anything, especially not by a lower level female, so the hemming and hawing and stammering could get hilarious.

I've written often here about how important it is for Republican appointees to protect themselves from being sandbagged by the bureaucrats. But having been one of those bureaucrats, I must tell you that it is great fun to do it. There's nothing quite like watching some pretentious a** all red-faced, sweaty, and gasping for breath under the glare of the TV lights.

In Vino Veritas