O'Reilly overstates obstacles to local immigration enforcement
On the October 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "47 states will not allow local and state police" to arrest undocumented immigrants, adding that "only Florida, Arkansas, and Alabama have empowered authorities to detain illegals." O'Reilly then complained of the "hard time" he predicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) would have passing new legislation aimed at increasing local enforcement of immigration laws.
Yet O'Reilly's statements misrepresented the level of authority already delegated to states for the enforcement of federal immigration policy. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, states are already empowered by the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce criminal violations of immigration law (such as illegally crossing the border) and a limited range of civil violations. Specifically, the Department of Justice expanded local powers to address illegal immigration in 2002 when it introduced the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. As an article in the June 7 edition of the New York Law Journal explained:
In connection with this initiative, the Attorney General announced that information concerning aliens who overstay their visas or attempt to evade registration requirements -- civil immigration violations -- will be entered into the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") database, a system that state and local police officers regularly check during traffic stops and other routine encounters. The Attorney General explained that state and local law enforcement could then voluntarily arrest those individuals on the basis of their immigration violations and transfer them to the custody of federal immigration officials.
O'Reilly also misreported the extent of state and local enforcement of immigration laws. The Associated Press reported on October 6 that states and localities may enforce immigration law but that "[l]ocal officials must first go through training to get such approval." The AP indicated that "Alabama, Florida and Los Angeles County, Calif., have already obtained federal approval to train civilian law enforcement officers so they can arrest suspected illegal immigrants," and Arkansas has initiated the required training phase. As the AP also reported on April 24, "A new law allows the Arkansas State Police director to designate some or all of the agency's employees to be trained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration laws on federal highways in Arkansas."
From a discussion between O'Reilly and Steve Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, on the October 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The "Follow-up" segment tonight: One of the reasons we have about 10 million illegal aliens running around the USA is that 47 states will not allow local and state police to arrest them. Only Florida, Arkansas, and Alabama have empowered authorities to detain illegals because, well, they're illegal. Now there's a new proposed law in the Senate -- federal law sponsored by Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. And the law would deputize state and local police all over the country to arrest illegals for immigration violation.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now I had Senator Hutchison on The Radio Factor today. And I told her, and I think this is true, "You're going to have a hard time getting this passed. You're going to have a hard time."
CAMAROTA: Right. Right. You're right. The ethnic advocacy groups, the immigration lawyers, the business community who want something like open borders will fight it like heck. The only way it will get passed is if she can marshal enough public opinion, because it's common sense.
Let's just CUT through all the red tape and BUILD A DAMN WALL!!!!!
Well I'll let you all CHEW on that, then CHEW me up for saying it.
I'm gonna go pour myself a cup of coffee& watch The O'Reilly Factor--- I watch so you don't have to...just like the Newshounds ;-)
jeter if you're saying stop our wide open borders, we will agree this time.
"jeter if you're saying stop our wide open borders, we will agree this time."...by mefirst
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying...hey mefirst I figured if you&I hung around this site long enough we'd FINALLY agree on somthing ;-)
And I'm NOT just saying our southern (Mexican) border but our Canadian border as well.
I don't believe in walls.
What about putting 5 years in jail someone that hires an illegal?
It's also cheaper.
"I don't believe in walls.
What about putting 5 years in jail someone that hires an illegal?
It's also cheaper."...by hardiel
===========================
I wish we didn't NEED a wall...however it's the BEST solution. BUT until or if ever a wall is erected-- I like your idea. Five years in jail for anyone who hires illegals.
There are already laws on the books to combat employers of illegals. Politicians gladly pass these laws, but rarely want them enforced. This is intentional behavior IMO. They give the appearance of being against illegal immigration (to an ignorant, eager to be fooled electorate), but when the politicians fail to enforce the laws they pass, they end up appeasing their donors, who need (or believe they need) the illegals for cheap labor. The politicians are able to have it both ways.
It would be interesting to see how the political landscape would be transformed if the politicians actually funded enforcement of the laws already on the books.
We all know the last thing these guys want to do is p/o their donors. I don't think they really care what the electorate wants, the electorate has been duped for a long time and still haven't caught on.
- I don't think they really care what the electorate wants - open_mind ================================================================
Amen. In today's perverse political world the only thing most politicians care about is being re-elected at all cost...and that usually "costs" the electorate.
Place a stiffer penalty on those hiring the illegal aliens, Iam tired of always going after the poor and acting as if the problem will go by simply "closing" the border(which is an impossibility). What happened to supply and demand? If there are no jobs people will not come..i know its hard to believe!!!!
"Place a stiffer penalty on those hiring the illegal aliens, Iam tired of always going after the poor and acting as if the problem will go by simply "closing" the border(which is an impossibility). What happened to supply and demand? If there are no jobs people will not come..i know its hard to believe!!!!"...by vegabaja73
Why is closing our borders an impossibility? The SOLUTION is a wall. If people CAN'T sneak in, then businesses CAN'T hire them.
And just think of the jobs we'd create (for American citizens) building that wall!!
Also closing our borders isn't JUST to STOP the flow of illegals BUT also to STOP terrorists from easy access.
We can't just keep talking about this...we have to act.
This is fun; I was agreeing with jeter2 on another thread today, and now I get to disagree with him.
Well, not entirely disagree. There are certainly legitimate security reasons for wanting to control immigration. And there is a legitimate argument to be made that not enforcing the rules we have against hiring illegal immigrants undermines respect for the law.
But I think it's wrong to have these laws in the first place. The strongest impluse behind these laws is a desire to protect U.S. workers against foreign competition, and that is just as wrong-headed as the desire to protect U.S. firms against foreign competition. If a poor, enterprising person from abroad can do a job more efficiently than an American for a lower price, how can one argue that the job should go to the American? Birthright? That's a pretty antiquated and undemocratic concept!
Ichbin,
Until these laws are enforced it is impossible to know just how wrong they are. The problem in not enforcing these laws is that it insulates the electorate from the consequences of their choices of legislators.
In my opinion, people who have made these laws have done so dishonestly. They make the laws in order to pander for votes from the electorate, while accepting corporate campaign contributions from corporations, who benefit directly from illegal immigration.
These laws need to be enforced so the consequences of them can at least begin to be understood.
As long as cities like Denver and Boulder have policies in place prohibiting the police from determining an arrestees immigration status and against turning them over to Immigration when they ARE arrested, this problem will just continue to grow.
I have no idea why MMFA continues to discuss immigration matters, because then I have to spend precious time typing in yet more proof that they have no idea what they're talking about.
For instance, consider Houston's pro-illegal immigration policies. A councilman wants their police chief to help enforce immigration laws, and the chief refuses: "That is our policy. At this time we do not have any intention of changing it."
That's despite 9/11 Commission member John Lehman having stated that the terrorists know which cities have such "sanctuary" policies. When he said that he specifically mentioned Houston.
So, whatever the laws might say there is in many cases local opposition that counteracts those laws.
Los Angeles has a similar "sanctuary" policy called "Special Order 40".
I would generally agree that the best defense is a good offense -- or atleast being proactive.
But a wall? Numbers for this range from 6-9 Billion dollars and that doesn't even include the increased costs in manpower for patrols and annual maintenance.
As for 'terrorists' crossing our porous borders... The ones involved in 9/11 entered legally and I can't find any recent references to this type of issue in any real sense. The best way to NOT get caught (and thus screwing up your plans) is to enter legally. Anyone working covertly against the U.S. already knows this.
Terrorism, while an important factor, is more of a scapegoat arguement than a practical issue.
Of course, if the concrete and razor wire industry had made larger contributions the the GOP, the current administration might have deemed it more important to build that wall.
But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Price estimates for a border wall range from $1.7 billion to a few times that.
Some of the 9/11 terrorists had Virginia driver's licenses that they obtained illegally. And, as discussed in Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Staff Report, past terrorists have taken full advantage of our immigration laws and their loopholes, in at least one case trying to get in on an ag worker amnesty.
Whether or not terrorists have come in over the border is obviously an open question. Here are dozens of posts about immigration and terrorism. I'm sure most people commenting here and MMFA itself are not familiar with those various news reports.
no wall will stop illegal immigration..it might lessen it but we'll never be able to completely shut out people...wall or no wall. there is to much terrain to cover along canada and mexican border..also terrorists will not be discouraged by a wall there not going to get to it look at it and say "oh well, lets go home there is a wall there" thats a nice dream jeter but not a reality.werent the 911 terrorists here legally?
"also terrorists will not be discouraged by a wall there not going to get to it look at it and say "oh well, lets go home there is a wall there" thats a nice dream jeter but not a reality.werent the 911 terrorists here legally?"...by vegabaja73
Please note I said in my post:
"BUT also to STOP terrorists from easy access"
"Easy" being the operative word.
Of course terrorists can find any number of ways of entering this country...legally or illegally...BUT why give them an OPEN border to easily stroll over?
BTW jeter2, why do you focus so much on the people coming here and not on the people hiring them? the argument is about illegal aliens not terrorists..
"BTW jeter2, why do you focus so much on the people coming here and not on the people hiring them? the argument is about illegal aliens not terrorists."...by vegabaja73
Check out my post to hardiel (scroll up) : by jeter2 - Friday October 14, 2005 10:22:39 PM EST -
You'll find I agreed with hardiel about what to do with those that hire illegals.
That aside, MY point was about erecting a WALL...to STOP anyone that doesn't belong here.
Here I go again. Walls don't work. I'm a Spaniard. We still have 2 cities in North Africa (2 fortress). They are surrounded by walls, big a$$ walls.
Last week (twice) a stampede of 500 subsaharian went to the control posts. About 60 made it through. That happened twice in a week. The European Union sent a team of experts to Morocco to check it out. In the desset around there were gathering 30,000 to do the same.
And yes. The figures are correct.
[link to www.cnn.com]
The US has a problem with immigrants but building a wall is not a solution.
Very interesting article. I was not aware of any of this. Thank you.
I'll say it no one else will, the US needs illegal immigration. Farming would stop without them. Keep them out and an orange will cost $4 a piece. You'll be tapping a hole in that wall then.
Second, if I recall I think orginally we were all illegal or at least questionable aliens, if you go back to the theory we pushed some native people off the land to start the first colonies. Sneaking in to this country and grabbing a life is an American tradition. I know people will say that was a long time ago, but you still benefit from it, why should not someone else?
Last, the terrorist will probably always come over as legally as possible -- then allow passports and visas to lapse -- because they want to be in the background as much as possible. No reason getting nabbed cross this border or dying in the desert when you are there to kill the infidel. This terrorism thing is a bit of a red herring, yeah it could happen, but there is no way you can defend the border from a "single spy" a "legion" yes but please there is how many 1000's of miles of border by land and by water God knows.
This is simply a chance for one set of the right to scare people with something no one is going to be able to fix, therefore it never grows stale, like the Cold War. "Damn, Russians if they had the stamina we would not be in this mess, because we could just arrest liberals as Commies." And for another set of intolerant Americans to hate on some people that don't look like them. It's a win-win -- yeah U.S.
Farming would not stop without illegal immigration; The choices farmers make might change, but the thought that food would not reach the supermarket were it not for the near slave labor of illegals is repellent. I might not have as many table grapes on my plate if illegal aliens weren't picking them, but I am sure I would find a way to live on the new diet.
And illegals depressing the wages employers are wiling to pay is not necessarily a good thing.
what everyone chooses to ignore in the immigration debate is the environmental aspect. with present immigration trends we're looking at a population of 400 to 450 million americans by 2050, according to the census bureau. this is not a good thing for the environment and the attempts to stop urban sprawl. not to mention the infrastructure that will have to built to support this amount of people. the sierra club used to favor immigration limits, but dropped that several years ago.
Local law enforcement should not be immigration police. Immiration laws are federal and local police do not know them. Second, because local police have to investigate local crimes, if immigrants fear local police they will not deal with them when it comes to local police matters. I think the police understand this more than O'Reilly and most people who are riled up about immigration. O'Reilly jsut says things without actually examining the facts or really thinking the problem. He's a bit of a dufus or just a right-wing demagogue.
I am sure there is something to the fact that at the END of his show he reminds his audience that the "spin stops now."
If you are going to spend tens of billions MORE on immigration enforcement, why not spend the money instead on aiding economies of the countries where immigrants come from: investment in local economic growth (rather than an import/export emphasized economy), keeping wages up with real unions, not letting large foreign companies kill local business and farms, etc.
Don't be duped into thinking 10,000 more police and a wall is the answer.
Thanks for mentioning the actual reason local police don't enforce immigration laws. It's not something imposed on them because of politics.
The local police forces say they have an easier time keeping order if illegal immigrants aren't afraid to talk to them. You can change the laws to force them to be immigration police too... but apparently they believe it'll make them less effective in catching murderers, rapists, thieves and drug dealers.
IMO – more should be done to stop illegal immigration. Hiring more border guards would be a good start. The minute man project certainly wasn’t the answer – yeah, hundreds of rednecks with guns and walkie talkies in the desert dressed up like commandos is gonna solve nothing but to give a bunch of wannabes a woodie. Illegal immigration is a threat to national security in that potential terrorists could be coming ashore as easy as those looking for a better life. Granted terrorists did, can and probably will come in, but no sense in making it easier for them. Illegal immigration thwarts the checks that are in place to make sure diseases aren’t being introduced into this country. Illegal immigration makes the legal immigrants that went through the proper channels feel like saps – I have a friend from the Philippines and it took her over a year to get her SS and drivers license. And illegal immigration drives down wages and hurts our social programs such as SS, Medicare, welfare, etc because a portion of illegals don’t contribute to those programs. A good method would be to go after those who employee illegals and force them to sponsor legal immigration or hire the unemployed at a decent wage if they want labor. All in all, it is my opinion that more should be done, in a humane way to encourage immigrants to come to the US legally. It doesn’t surprise me that BO misrepresented facts, figures and statistics concerning this issue. That’s what he does. He’s a serial liar. He can’t open his mouth without spinning a issue to fit his agenda.
With a few more far extremist judges on the SCOTUS, minimum wage laws will be declared unconstitutional. Then we won't have to worry about illegals -- we'll all be working for a buck-fifty and hour.