Giuliani: Illegal immigration no crime

[ethics]

"It's not a crime," Giuliani said Friday. "I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime."

He added: "My solution is close the border to illegal immigration."

Bad RUDY! He wasn't there on 9.11.01!!! ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070908/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_immigration

[cdw]

"My solution is close the border to illegal immigration."

And his proposal for that is....?
And what of those that are already here? And, ok, report illegals suspected of doing crimes but we see that those people are put right back in to the mainstream and often not deported, so what the hell good is that?

Oh my.

[ravital]

The irony is that both candidates have in the past taken more liberal stands on the issue.
{snip}
Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson said: "Mitt Romney's position of the hour probably shouldn't be taken seriously considering he rewarded four Massachusetts sanctuary cities with hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid and allowed the illegal population to skyrocket.


"We'll wait a minute and see if he changes his mind again," she said, alluding to criticism that Romney has changed his position on several issues.
At least Giuliani is consistent :thumbsup:

"I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York," he said. "So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding."
Anyone is, of course, free to make any political point they care to, Giuliani is simply stating a point of fact as to the law as best he knows it.

And his proposal for that is....?
And what of those that are already here? And, ok, report illegals suspected of doing crimes but we see that those people are put right back in to the mainstream and often not deported, so what the hell good is that?

Yes, excellent questions to ask someone who is running for president. Yet I have to wonder what the point is, if the specifics, once stated by the candidate, are going to be rejected anyway (which I know is not your intention), if it's not a bit disingenuous.

[cdw]

Well, I also understand that the president doesn't have control over such things so I guess the point is moot. I also would like for all of them to tell us who their cabinet would be but I understand I'm not going to get that out of them either. So, I'll just do my part and blindly vote, lol.

[ravital]

Well, I also understand that the president doesn't have control over such things so I guess the point is moot. I also would like for all of them to tell us who their cabinet would be but I understand I'm not going to get that out of them either.

Well the president may not have complete control, but the president certainly can write laws that make sense and submit them to congress.

As to telling us who the cabinet will be - that's an interesting one! Not sure though, it would have the effect of all of us voting for/against an entire cabinet, or a list of people, when in fact it's the president and the congress that are supposed to nominate/confirm, not the voters. Still, nothing keeps a candidate from saying "Joe Blow will be my sec. of State" or whatever. Interesting question.