Rudy: Illegal Immigration Not A Crime

Ackk!! That's the AP headline: Rudy: Illegal Immigration Not A Crime

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said illegal immigration is not a crime, prompting rival Mitt Romney to accuse him of not taking the problem seriously.

Based upon his appearance with Glenn Beck. It's explainable beyond the sound bite level. But that didn't stop the AP from piling on with the headline. Romney's campaign doesn't miss a beat, or an opportunity to pounce. He's playing to win.

GLENN: Right. But isn't illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

GIULIANI: No.

GLENN: Aren't you saying --

GIULIANI: Glenn --

GLENN: You're protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

GIULIANI: Glenn, it's not a crime. I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's not a federal crime.

GLENN: It's a misdemeanor but if you've been nailed, it is a crime. If you've been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be. I was U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York. 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.

Comments

[edward cropper]

Rudy just doesn't get it. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt he didn't deal with this issue
on Beck's show with the kind of vigor you would really get from someone who actually feels passionate
about illegal immigration.
Rudy is a liberal in liberal's clothing wrapped up in a 9/11 flag.

[Fred Beloit]

Ed, I appreciate your view, but this isn't an issue with no clear answer. Is it a crime or not? This is a legal question for lawyers and judges to answer. Mitt isn't qualified to answer this, Rudy is.

I am not a big fan of Rudy for Pres, but let's be fair. He has called for border security a number of times. A right answer is a right answer. I don't feel it is a good practice to beat up people for giving a correct answer. Would we want him to prevaricate and Clintonize this simple question?

[ajacksonian]

Rudy must come to understand that being President is not being Super-Mayor.

He only looks at the interior and technical parts of the law to try and get around the obvious activity that breaks multiple sets of laws. As Mayor he had to put up with the outcomes from the Federal Government. As President he is more than chief law enforcement officer, he is Head of State and Head of Government. That means enforcing all the Treaties we have, which *also* regulate immigration. That means enforcing our own Sovereignty with other Nations and holding them accountable to what they have agreed to with us.

Illegals are scofflaws of an international sort, willfully breaking their own laws, our laws, the treaties between Nations and the law of nations which requires that individuals actually adhere to the laws within and amongst Nations. Anyone who is willing to do *that* is not someone I want here, no matter how sweet the heart or nice the personality, they do not care about how we run our lives and our out *just* for themselves.

Mayors have very little they can do when the National government is corrupt and unrepsonsive.

Presidents, however, get a smaller and harder suite of things to do. Enforcing laws and treaties is top of the list, along with Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Fighting any war requires *all* of those to be looked after and the Nation preserved from the top spot and *not* concentrating *just* on internal statutes but to the understanding that those statues are a representation of the will of the People. I do not remember the part of the Constitution where individuals from foreign nations get to make their own labor contracts outside of the treaties signed by the US. Nor in US companies to engage in same. I detest that from *both* sides of that work.

Actually ALL the candidates need to actually learn what it is that Presidents get to do. I know they are not serious when they mention a 'legislative agenda'. That is suited to this body known as 'Congress'. Perhaps those wanting same should run for an office there... Mayors and Governors need to learn that their executive powers and outlooks, while learned locally, are not sufficient, alone, to meet the National office.

Which means I find the entire field lacking with no individual actually being able to figure out what it is that Presidents *do*. That was passable during the Cold War where much was by the numbers... today we need a President, not Super- Senator/Governor/Mayor. Even worse we need a War President, and badly so.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks for your efforts and opinion, aj. But if the question is, and it is, is illegal immigration a crime? Rudy, as a lawyer and former federal U.S. Attorney, says no. I believe it and would not want to see him load up the answer with a lot of "nuanced" BS, irrelevant opinions about history and the way the world should be. Are you saying this type of Clinton-like answer is what you would have preferred from him versus a clear and simple answer?

I respect your not supporting him. I'm a little weak on him myself. But see several on the other side and a few on my side that seem much worse choices.

[bloodrage bob]

so let's recap: the "republicans" are trotting out "conservatives" like romney, the guy who presided over the installation of hillarycare in mass. the guy who signed off on the "have a gun, go to jail" billboards. or mccain, the dangerously unstable class act who rolls his eyes & makes faces when other candidates speak. then there's rudy, a police-state totalitarian ("we will have order! no one needs guns but my cops!") who *strongly* believes in the rule of law, except for wetbacks.

no wonder fred looks good. he's not a real conservative by any means, but he's closer than any of the rest. **sigh** gonna be a long election season.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh Oh. It seems Rudy may have made a sap out of me for my thinking he knew what he was talking about. This is from Patterico's Pontifications:

8 U.S.C. Section 1325:

“Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of such an offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months…."

http://patterico.com/

[CK MacLeod]

Illegal entry is a crime is different from being here without permission, Fred. It's like the difference between robbing a bank and being in possession of stolen money, or the difference between dealing drugs and being in possession of drugs. Such distinctions in the law are common. Anyway, Rudy's right, though I suppose he could have analyzed the laws and the language more succinctly and thoroughly.

I suppose he could have been more forcefully judgmental about being an illegal immigrant, but maybe Geraldo was around, and he didn't want to get spat upon.

[rwilymz]

"It's like the difference between robbing a bank and being in possession of stolen money"

I'd have used "the difference between counterfeiting US currency and being in possession of a counterfeit bill". If they simply catch you spending a counterfeit $10 bill, they'll confiscate it say "so sorry, chump".

Be that as it may ...

"Rudy must come to understand that being President is not being Super-Mayor"

Mayors and Prezes serve the same governmental function, just for different jurisdictions. The Mayor of NYC serves the same by-scale executive function as do the Heads of State of half a hundred teeny widdow postage stamps nations.

And while you're right that the US Prez must abide by national treaties, big city mayors must, for their part, abide by city contracts. ...and of course you realize that a treaty is little more than a contract between nations having explicit or, quite often, implicit terms levied upon breaches.

In either case, though, the Chief Executive, irrespective of the size or budget of his jurisdiction, is beholden to follow laws and judicial precedent while undertaking his executive authorities. He cannot, for example, decide on a whim that because the city has had a rash of double parkings which clog the streets that he will prosecute all registered owners of double-parked vehicles as criminals. Unless the law supports that, it cannot be done.

And if he does it anyway, and gets away with it, then something seriously wrong has occured. Why, it'd almost be like "that's a fine ruling; let's see him enforce it."

I can understand why someone calling himself a "jacksonian" might want a loose cannon imperious dictator bending to the political whims of the day, but in the past these things have given us "implied consent", the indentured servitude of modern child support, intrusive justify-your-existence demands that we submit to unwarranted inspections at airports -- long predating 9-11, and Patriot Acts.

Do we really want more?

[Fred Beloit]

"Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers...shall, for the first commission of such an offense, be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months…."

So, I'm a border guard near the Rio Grande and see a person wearing a wet sombrero and serape walking toward me away from the border. I stop him and ask for ID. All he has is a Mexican driver's license and some pesos. Are you guys and Rudy telling me I can't take this guy in and get him six months in the hooscow?

[LOL]

ROFL this is great. I hope you eat Rudi's body when you're done with him. The ONLY R candidate who has any shot in the general.

He says something sensible and refuses to be a jingoist prick like Glenn Beck and all the wingnuts are furious! It's great. I sure do hope you guys pick lazy Fred or phoney Mitt instead.

[rwilymz]

"Are you guys and Rudy telling me I can't take this guy in and get him six months in the hooscow?"

Why would you want to?

Why would you want to waste tax dollars prosecuting this? Talk about a phenomenal waste of money. Simply send him back.

Now ... that's given that the § cited is complete and exclusive. Personally, I have my doubts. Mostly since Giulliani is an ex-federal prosecutor and you are not. Anyone who's had any sort of introduction to law beyond Civics Class is aware that long before you get to the interesting bits of statute [as above] you have normally page after page of exclusion and exemption and limitation as to who it applies to and under what circumstances.

So ... even if federal law has changed since His Mayorness last rang up a drug dealer, do we want to waste millions, nay, BILLions, prosecuting border-runners, stacking them like cordwood in our overly crowded federal pens, and hiring out space in state and local lockups, when we have a relatively cheap manner of handling them already in the books? To wit: stick a postage stamp on their forehead and ship them back?

Really?

Cost-benefit analysis.

[LOL]

rofl it's just that simple! Only for the price of a stamp. These aren't really people either, more like junk ("cordwood" or mail). As if finding, rounding up, and returning ~20 million people is cheap, Okay dumbass, go back to trolling sports forums non stop loser

[rwilymz]

It's cheaper than prosecuting them all
Isn't it?

The answer you're desperately searching for is "Why, yes, I guess so."

And then the follow-on response you're fumbling in your pocket for is, "Geez, I guess I should kept my fingres on my johnson rather than make a public ass of myself yet again."

When will you learn to simply let the voices in your head stay in your head?

[Fred Beloit]

LOL has SOSD, Son of Sam disease. Those bow wows and ruff ruffs between his ears tell him what to say.

[bloodrage bob]

well, *now* rudy's REALLY gotta go. LOLly seems to like him - and it's always a red flag when a liberal defends a republican. rudy's a mean, pro-abortion, gun fearing, wetback embracing, big-government control freak from new york, who's spent most of his working life on a government payroll.

no wonder they like him - he's just like hillary, except he had the guts to dump the spouse he no longer cared for. he's hillary with balls.

[Fred Beloit]

rwily writes: Why would you want to waste tax dollars prosecuting this? Talk about a phenomenal waste of money. Simply send him back."

OK, fine them then under Title 18. But the point remains, it seems, Rudy, lawyer and former U.S. Attorney, was wrong, publicly, stubbornly wrong about whether illegal immigration is a crime. Anybody can make a mistake, and shortly thereafter, admit it. We're waiting Rudy.

[rwilymz]

"OK, fine them then under Title 18"

To what end? What are they gonna pay the fine with? Heads of lettuce? They have no money; that's why they're here, to work @ less than minimum wage because less than US minimum wage is 3x to 5x what they'd get in Mexico. ...or 5x to 10x what they'd get in China. Etc.

"the point remains, it seems, Rudy, lawyer and former U.S. Attorney, was wrong, publicly, stubbornly wrong about whether illegal immigration is a crime."

How do you know?

Giulliani is a loyyer; you aren't. He's furthermore a loyyer practiced in prosecuting federal law; you're just a guy talking about federal law and statute, and quoting one sub-paragraph from what is undoubtedly several dozen [or hundred] pages of a law.

In every law, there are lotsa pages of definitions and exclusions; even if the law says "all persons who do 'x' shall be considered in violation of this act..." it doesn't necessarily mean "all persons". It does, though, mean "all persons who meet the qualifications set forth in this act" many of which are very likely to be prior to the cited subparagraph in that statute.

Now, as a general rule, I respect loyyers about as far as I can throw the ACLU, and as another general rule, I tend to agree with the sentiments of those who wish a little more to be done on illegal immigration than whistle past the graveyard. But in the discussion of who's more accurate on the specific point of the circumstance described in the interview, I'd be more willing to bet on the loyyer being right about the words and effect of the law than a common commentator.