The laws regarding deportation in this country do not make it possible to just put them on a plane and deport them.

Terrye, read carefully. I didn’t say that’s what the laws were. I said that the law should be changed so that illegals who commit felonies would be deported.

BTW there are 11 million illegals in this country, roughly half of them are border crossers and the other half got here some other way…so 11 million people is about twice the population of the state of Indiana and we are going to just put them all on a plane and deport them to…where?

And where did I say all illegals should be deported? I’ve been very specific about only shipping out the felons. In the future, you might want to respond to what I actually write…there’s enough content in there that you don’t have to make up some.

As for sanctuary cities, we can thank the states rights fanatics for some of this, they forget that the same kind of laws that make it possible for local governments to make laws we support, make it possible for them to make laws we think are stupid. It makes more sense to attempt to cut off their money.

Nonsense. This is a case of cities refusing to comply with Federal law and not being punished for it. It has nothing to do with states rights. Not too coincidentally, just about every ’sanctuary city’ is run by leftists, not ’states rights fanatics’. I do agree with you that cutting off their federal funds is a good idea, but if that doesn’t work, I’d like to apply some legal leverage as well.

judges have to work with the law that is there, and it is useless for people to rail against that law while they make it impossible for changes to made in the law.

That makes no sense. Judges have wide discretion on what sort of bail to set, within parameters of the charges. In this case, the judge knew he had a dangerous, violent, individual in front of him. He chose to set low bail and let him back on the street. Note that this has nothing to do with his illegal status – the judge might not even have known about that. It’s a case of a soft-headed judge letting violent people run loose. It has nothing to do with the failure to pass the “amnesty” bill.

I am not saying I like this decision, but I think we forget that often times judges have to work with the law that is there, and it is useless for people to rail against that law while they make it impossible for changes to made in the law. The hardliners fought to keep the status quo, well this is the status quo.

As for sanctuary cities, we can thank the states rights fanatics for some of this, they forget that the same kind of laws that make it possible for local governments to make laws we support, make it possible for them to make laws we think are stupid. It makes more sense to attempt to cut off their money.

Oh there’s a ton of dispute over that – at least from me, because it assumes that once they were deported, they’d never get back into the US in order to be able to commit crimes.

That’s very close to arguing that there’s no sense in ever deporting an illegal, regardless of the crime, because after all he can just sneak back in again. You’re right that a good number will get back in again. Let’s assume for the moment that you’re right, and that 90% of them sneak in again. That would have given those three kids in Newark a 10% better chance of being alive today. Not great odds, but I like them better than zero. If illegal alien criminals are inconvenienced before they can resume a life of crime, so be it. I don’t care.

I’ve commented on illegal immigration here before and noted three points that I’d start with on this issue – and if any one of the three were adopted it would have helped here:

* robust border security – might have kept him out. No, not 100%, or even 50% success, but better than now.

* automatic deportation for felonies – aggravated assault and rape of a toddler. Over a few years. And threatening the parents of his lust victim. I’d say this piece of filth qualifies.

* outlawing sanctuary cities – if Newark weren’t a sanctuary city, and notified ICE, the Feds could have taken action.

In any one of those cases, three lives might have been saved.

I do agree with ST that Gingrich is off base in his criticism of the President and Congress. Actually there are other villians here, but not the ones he rails again. First, there’s the judge who let this scum back on the street with minimal bail despite his past criminal history. Second, as already mentioned, there’s the sanctuary city policy.

Then we can figure out some way to deal with everyone already here. The priority should be to deport everyone in the clink once their sentences are up. After that we can start to sort through everyone else. But it’s like bailing a leaky boat while ignoring the hole where the water is pouring in.

Just my 2¢

If you want to break down the argument to matters of metaphysical certainty (how I miss the old-school John McLaughlin!), then sure. You’re right. I admit that it’s possible that those two men could have gotten back into the country, back to New Jersey, and killed those two kids.

The likelihood of that happening is so remote, though, that I feel pretty confident in my certainty.

Then you have a lot more confidence in the border control system than I do. It’s not just a remote chance, either, because no matter how much stronger our enforcement laws get,and borders tightened, deported people are still going to slip through and not in small numbers.

But so what? So what if they come back in? Does that mean that we should allow the authorities to abrogate their responsibilities? I can’t buy that. If you follow that logic to its end, you might as well stop enforcing every law because there will be recidivists. That’s just not a tenable position.

That’s a huge strawman. Please go back and read what I’ve posted in this thread as well as the post itself, and you’ll see that I’ve never, ever, not once said that authorities ought to “stop enforcing the law” and “abrogate their responsibilities.” I wrote this in my post:

I’m just as horrified by the murders, too, and also am on board with our immigration laws being both enforced and strengthened.

And in a later comment:

I don’t have an issue with law enforcement going to the fullest extent of the law in order to arrest and deport illegal aliens convicted of crimes other than just being illegal in and of itself (which is also a crime).

I’ve made it clear that the laws should indeed be enforced and strengthened, but took issue with the fact that Newt Gingrich tried to blame Bush and Congress for the murders of the college kids in NJ by implying that if our laws were enforced to the fullest extent that this would not have happened. It’s irresponsible on his part.

We’re just going to have to disagree on this one. When we impress on any authority figure a duty to enforce our laws, and they do not, they have to bear at least some of the responsibility for their malfeasance. I think that’s even more appropriate when folks like the President go out of their way to ensure that certain laws are not enforced and castigate those who insist that he enforce the laws he’s hired to enforce.

The President hasn’t “gone out of his way” to not enforce immigration laws. In fact, it was the vocal-anti-illegal immigration crowd who kept pushing for immigration reform, Bush told Congress to make it a priority, and at least twice now they’ve tried to do something about it in Congress but failed, primarily due to the fact that the bill’s opponents were saying we don’t need a new bill, we need to enforce existing laws.

Well First off I was wondering where in the heck the term”sanctuary city”came from. Then it hit me FOX NEWS. I thought only Dems spewed media driven talking point.

Wrong, tommy.

Also ST I’m still doing the right thing you know what I mean.

Good. Stay strong!

If those illegal aliens were deported, and therefore not in NJ, it is pretty clear that they would not be doing any murders in NJ. How can there be any argument about that? It is true that they might make another illegal entry into the US, but they would at least have to work at it. Just keeping them there and releasing them on the street makes it far too easy for them to do what they did.

It is true that Americans do murder Americans, but let us address that problem, rather than having to deal with murders by illegal aliens who should not even be in the picture. Newt got that much absolutely right!

Who said they abrogated their responsibilities? I do not think that people have any realistic idea of how long those borders are, how many people it would take to actually pick up all these people, how much space it would take to detain them, what changes would have to be made in the law to speed up processing etc. They just assume that since the powers that be have not magically gotten this thing under control with the laws as they exist today and with the resources currently available to them…then it must be because they are just not doing their jobs.

I have never heard a hardliner actually talk about what the cost would be in doing what they demand be done. They just insult other people and make impossible demands.

Oh puhleaze, did people wake up one morning in 2005, look around and say to themselves, My God there are illegals here!

For years and years people have been coming to the US to work the fields. For decades we even had a program, the Bracero program that was in place for that purpose. And then the unions killed it, but the unions did not take to the fields.

For years we have had a policy that says if any Cuban can get to dry land he can stay.

For our entire history we have had open borders, in fact Bush has put more people and more resources on that southern border and into enforcment than any president in history.

I don’t like the idea of sanctuary cities, but I do know that if all the illegals in NYC were rounded up and shipped out of there the restaurant industry in that city would collapse.

None of this happaned over night and it will not be dealt with over night either.

I don’t think sueing cities will ever work.

And btw, if all the assailants had been local gangbangers, would people even really give a damn?

Oh there’s a ton of dispute over that – at least from me, because it assumes that once they were deported, they’d never get back into the US in order to be able to commit crimes.

If you want to break down the argument to matters of metaphysical certainty (how I miss the old-school John McLaughlin!), then sure. You’re right. I admit that it’s possible that those two men could have gotten back into the country, back to New Jersey, and killed those two kids.

The likelihood of that happening is so remote, though, that I feel pretty confident in my certainty.

But so what? So what if they come back in? Does that mean that we should allow the authorities to abrogate their responsibilities? I can’t buy that. If you follow that logic to its end, you might as well stop enforcing every law because there will be recidivists. That’s just not a tenable position.

My issue is with people like Newt Gingrich who wrongly imply that without a doubt if the laws were fully enforced that this wouldn’t have happened, and try to make it look like GWB and Congress were complicit in these murders. As a public figure and an experienced former politician, he should know better than to say something like that. Once again, though, he’s using emotional manipulation where he doesn’t have to in order to advance his ideas.

We’re just going to have to disagree on this one. When we impress on any authority figure a duty to enforce our laws, and they do not, they have to bear at least some of the responsibility for their malfeasance. I think that’s even more appropriate when folks like the President go out of their way to ensure that certain laws are not enforced and castigate those who insist that he enforce the laws he’s hired to enforce.

I remember when the kids were killed on that college campus in VA, there were people who said that if we had stricter gun laws that would not have happened. There were even people who said that if the campus had been a gun free zone it would not have happened. As if a homicidal maniac cares about the law.

Does Gingrich really think that if a bunch of Congressmen and women stay in Washington that people will not find a way to sneak into this country? Well perhaps we should stop giving border agents vacations. Maybe we should stop allowing cops to take time off. After all if they did their jobs there would be no crime.

As far as that is concerned Americans shoot each other every day and while I too want to see laws enforced Gingrich’s use of this incident to further his own political argument is not a lot different than the use of dead soldiers by Democrats who are against the war. It is demagoguery.

BTW, our laws to require a hearing for everyone before they can be deported. I think some people who are complaining about not enforcing the laws do not understand how the system works.

Now the bill that was just killed in the Senate would have made it easier to deport people who have committed certain crimes, but that bill was killed. In truth the people complaining about this are the ones protecting the status quo.