Hackett's’s remark rattles Democrats-'deport illegal immigrants'

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060...

Article published Friday, January 20, 2006

Candidate’s remark rattles Democrats
Senate contender Hackett stands by call in Toledo to deport illegal immigrants

By JIM TANKERSLEY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER

...U.S. Senate candidate Paul Hackett told a Toledo crowd this week that he’d deport all illegal immigrants if the national budget permitted, stirring another controversy over his candor — this time among Democrats...

Several Democrats in attendance said the comments surprised or disappointed them.

Frank Szollosi, a Toledo city councilman, said Mr. Hackett appeared “to the right of Pete Wilson” — a conservative Republican and former California governor — on immigration.

Mr. Szollosi and Denis Logan, Jr., the chairman of the Fulton County Democratic Party, said Mr. Hackett sounded as if he had not thought through his immigration position. Both also said they liked his style anyway...



Article published Thursday, January 19, 2006

Senate candidate Hackett brings campaign to University of Toledo

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060...

By JIM TANKERSLEY
BLADE POLITICS WRITER

...The answer made several of the young Democrats squirm in their seats. One pushed Mr. Hackett to clarify. “Deport them?” Mr. Hackett was asked.

“If we can afford to,” Mr. Hackett said, “yeah.”

The original questioner began to speak about the racism of Hispanics against whites. Mr. Hackett stood silently. An audience member suggested the discussion move on...

This is an issue Democrats can use to win, I don't see what the problem is

So if I go into Canada illegally will they allow me to stay? I'm sure not. If I go to a store and steal something will they let me keep it? I'm sure not. I could go on....

Just as long as immigrants still get a fair chance to apply for citizenship.

The fact that those democrats were worried about what he says worries me quite frankly. Remember a while back some Iraqi's tried to come through our boarders and they were planning an attack?

At least he's willing to address it rather than pretend it doesn't exist. It's a complicated issue, and there are no easy answers. But it's an issue that's gaining momentum along the southern border of the country--I know some reasonable people who are genuinely angry about it, and the fact that NEITHER party seems to be willing to do anything effective to deal with the problem.

You either enter a country legally or you're an illegal person and pay the proper consequences by sending them back to their original home. Again, if I go to a store and steal something do you think they'll let me keep it?

acknowledge the laws we like, and break the ones we don't like. Simple.

Republicans have accepted stolen money for years and years and yet even if they get caught all they have to do is donate it to their favorite charity which in turn doles it right back out to them....Apparently only Democrats need follow the law.

at least Hacketts willing to address it -
I may have some problems with it, but I admire him
for addressing it so directly

It's a winning tactic. Better our bad guys than their bad guys, I suppose.

Honestly, if "deport illegals" red meat rhetoric is what it takes to get single-payer health care, I say bring it on.

Flame bait? Maybe a little.

and for the unchecked importation of cheap labor on the other.

If the goal is the preserver the value of the American worker, then doesn't it make sense that both things be held in check?

I haven't heard what sounds like a real statement on that. We, the base, are saying that, but only some of the politicians.

As a party the democrats generally endorsed and promoted treaties that facilitated outsourcing in the 90's.

They did this over the objection of organized labor.

Now, the best they can provide us with are driveling mumbles about the need for international labor standards and environmental protections. A need that is very unlikely to ever be met.

Yes, they should stand in line like everyone else that wants to get into this country.

where ever the hell their from, especially the brown ones.

rule of law

and post 18

to come to the US and do it legally? Why should their numbers be reduced do to people breaking the law?

If they're so desperate to come here and make a better life for themselves than why not do it legally? Are they trying to hide something? And can't they still have a duel citizenship to their home country to go back and help other members come here too?

You definitely don't know how hard it is to come here legally.

who DO abide by the rules to come here when we defend ILLegal immigration. We need to change the immigration LAWS. Not justify the the illegal behavior.

Unless they are Cuban.

In fact, well-educated people have to hire lawyers to navigate the immigration laws.

Geez, people talk about legality of being here as though you just apply and voila you're on the boat tomorrow.

My husband is British and we've hired a lawyer back in 2002 and we are STILL working on getting his permanent residency established. And we're married! Have been for 4 years almost. Even with a good lawyer, we barely squeaked through the conditional premanent residency hearing because oops, the lawyer's aid forgot one of his forms.

It's cost thousands of dollars, and years of time. These are desperate people.

"what you're starving? Ok, file out these forms and well get back to you in a couple of years"

I hope things are resolved sooner than later for your husband. It sounds like a huge, legal nightmare. Such a shame that trying to follow the rules s so costly...

As ugly as this thread is, I was expecting a fight on my hands, not a nice comment Thanks.

we need to revise the LAWS to include the poor, hungry folks around the world to come here and work on a documented worker system that enables everyone a fair shot at the labor jobs here in the U.S.

The key word is FAIRNESS and everyone will be documented. But I doubt Agribusiness will ever allow that to happen. But in the meantime, it does not mean that we can allow and justify an open border.

Prohibition for example. And just about every other law that people felt was unfair or unjust began to change when people started to defy it.

Not saying it's right to break the law. But I find it hypocritical for people to condemn illegals and then turn around and congratulate other law breakers because they broke some law thought to be immoral.

For example, I once posted a question. Something like, if your kid got drafted, would you flee to Canada? Fleeing like that is against the law. And just about every single poster wrote they would. Many of whom were among the most vocal anti-illegal posters. Don't you find that hypocritical?

if the war is illegal or there is some immoral issue connected with it, then people have the right to protest it.

however, in the case of immigration laws, it is not illegally done nor does it violate any human rights. Every country has immigration laws. And every country has the right to deny a citizen of another country entry. That is not a violation of human rights. If people from other countries are coming here to escape from violations of human rights in their native country, then those issues need to be taken up with that country.

What I DO find hypocritical is the government's lack of accountability of big business that employs illegals.

ALL wars are not illegal. But people have a moral objection to THIS war. ALL immigration laws are not unfair, but people have an objection to THIS country's law.

Not only that, it is the very definition of hypocrisy to say "Im sorry, Im just for following laws" and then turning around and being willing to break the law when it benefits you.

I never said all wars are illegal. But when people are talking about dogding a draft, it is usually associated with an illegal war. I haven't heard anyone here say they dogded any draft during WW2.

But in the last war where there was a draft, people had objections to it being legal. So, they object to it for moral purposes. The Iraq war committed acts of crime towards humanity. People have every right to object it.

US immigration laws do not commit acts of crime towards humanity. That is why it is not a good analogy.

Either we control our borders or we don't. When 11 million people illegally cross a border into another country, it's usually called an invasion. So, the question becomes one of whether or not to control our borders. If we choose not to control who crosses our borders, then it becomes a question of what rights and entitlements (those are not the same thing, by the way) those people have. Should we distinguish between citizens and non-citizens at all? If so, in what way and how is it to be uniformly enforced? How should we distinguish between people who followed our laws in entering this country and those who have not?

It's really easy to smear others with the racism brush - without actually proposing solutions.

when our ancestors came here.

I get tired of that go to, knee jerking assumption. Just because someone is against illegal immigration does NOT make them against legal immigration. There are hungry, poor people ALL OVER the world that would love to come here too. OR do they not matter?

is OK, but immigration by the powerless who try to take the crumbs falling down from that loaf is bad.

Hey, interesting that race correlates almost perfectly with that powerful-powerless dichotomy!

Oh, and capital is free to go wherever it pleases, which is usually flowing from poor to rich countries.

the rich in indonesia and nigeria do not have problems getting their visas. So, we need to change the immigration laws to make it accessible to the working poor to come to the US on a temporary worker visa basis.

The reality is that those with money, don't stay and that is why it is easy for them to get their visas. They live like kings in their country. They come here to visit, shop, and do business. And then they go home. I've seen it over and over.

That is why the law makes it difficult for the poor to come here on a temporary basis. Current immigration laws require that applicant provide "collateral" or motivation that they will go back home.

We need to address the hiring of illegals and the dependency we currently have on the illegal labor pool.

The expectiation for so called "third world" immigrants is much higher. IE, it's easier for a middle class brit to get in than a middle class mexican. But it might be easier for a very wealthy mexican than a middle class brit.

If you look, you will see that it is mostly the very wealthy and the very poor. That's EXACTLY the problem with these countries. The corrupt governments there tend to line the pockets of a very few and leave the masses impoverished. And the poor people from ANY country will have a terribly difficult time getting visas. They have to get in line because there are so many applicants and as I stated in another post, INS has quotas to fill from every country.

The middle class tends to be present only in well developed countries. And the middle class do have to jump through hoops no matter what country they are from. A very wealthy brittain will have the same green light as a very wealthy Indonesian. It's not both. It's class.

It's not that simple, nothing ever is.

And you're wrong about "no matter what country". Because I know many middle class asians who passed through, but not as quickly as a middle class European.

Middle class Europeans have more wealth than middle class Asians. It is very clear that the money distribution in Asia is concentrated in the hands of a few which will consequently affect immigration rates. As I stated before, wealthy asians have NO problems coming and going into this country. It's a class issue.

it sounds racial and it reeks of bigotry. And in case you hadn't noticed, people from all over the world ARE coming here too.

it is discrimination to say OK to Mexicans coming here ILLegaly and then making someone from Thailand or Sudan jump through endless hoops.

But in case you hadn't noticed, people around the world are NOT coming here in droves ILLegally. But go ahead with the racial and bigotry angle since it makes you feel more righteous in your belief.

This causes me to be very disappointed in Hacket.

I am glad I don't have to vote for - or against - him.

jump through hoops to get legal permanent visa to stay in US
and then wait 5 more years to apply for citizenship. So why
are the other brown people getting a free pass? Not fair!!!

sign of any illegal immigration discussion. BTW, I'm not white, either.

Going through the immigration system legally doesn't make me hate illegal immigrants, it makes me understand them. With the mishap with the lost paper, I know, I KNOW that if my husband was Mexican he would have been turned away right there. But British? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. And it's the same for other legal immigrants I know as well.

The immigration system is an absolute nightmare. And many of the people that go through it understand that.

But individual inspectors are given a certain amount of leeway to make independent decisions on whether to accept or deny entry. They go by profiles, sixth sense, K9 units, etc. to apprehend criminals and make that decisions to accept, inspect, or deny entry.

Again, the system is designed to make it as fair as possible. But you are suggesting that the system is flawed because individuals flawed. There are always bad apples in every bunch. And there are good apples as well. What if there was a mexican american inspector with a bias for hispanic people? There are inherent biases in people that a system cannot erase. There is no such thing as a perfect system. We can modify the laws regarding immigration. But that does not mean justifying an open border nor does it justify an illegal behavior.


But in the case of lost papers, you cannot blame the INS for making their decision. You say that it is based on race. I say have your papers ready, dot your i's and cross your t's. Then you won't be at the whim of any individual's discriminations. Again, just because some individuals are flawed does not make an entire system flawed.

Immigration lawyers are often overloaded with vast amounts of work. Your immigration lawyer screws up and then what? What are you supposed to do? Some of these people barely speak English.

responsibility. Becoming a US citizen is not a RIGHT. It is a priviledge.

And if you think that these people do not talk with others in their ethnic communities to find out which lawyer is good and which is bad, then I don't know what to tell you. I KNOW they do. They are not alone. They immerse in their ethnic communities at first and find the in's and out's of their new country. That's how many survive and then excel.

to death? Or stay poor?

Only those who sneak in illegally? Why not let all wishing
to emigrate apply and select based on skills? Or atleast
run a lottery??

But please dont import all of those 8 billion. I have been poor,
mainly because of over-populated conditions, and don't wanna live
through it again.

Only the brown skinned people? Or should we keep the blonde headed ones out as well?

Decisions, decisions.

that have managed to line the pockets of the few and starve the masses.

Citizens of other countries do not have a RIGHT to come to the US. It is a priviledge.

took the time and effort to enter
the country legally only to find
jobs being taken by those that
chose to the easy way in.

My husband, being British, is going through it now and it is a nightmare. And he's British. I can't imagine the shit they'd give him if he was Mexican.

He would never be allowed to leave his country to come here legally. And if he got here, he would have to wait 18 months just to get the paperwork to apply for legal status.

Instead they looked at MY last name, which is "Ortiz" and made me answer a bunch of questions about my family. And I'm a third generation American.
No racial motivation my ass.

that no one group gets more visas than another. And it's not a black and white system. They factor in economics, education, history of illegal behavior, mental health, etc.

And because of the quotas and the influx of illegal mexican immigrants, they will give anyone with a mexican name or descent a harder time. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

p.s. for what it's worth, EVERYONE gets a hard time unless you know some very powerful people. It's not race. It's more class oriented. I know people from 2nd and 3rd world countries who never have a hard time getting into the US because they are uber rich and know heavy hitters. See my above post re: wealth and how it factors into immigration laws.

But as I said in another post, that doesn't leave the racial element out of it all together.

to keep the racial/discriminatory element out of it. I'm sure it's not a perfect system. But I don't expect it to be as no system is ever perfect.

We shouldn't be allowing people to come into this country illegally, nor should we allow businesses or individuals to hire them.

For one thing, the states are not involved in deportations/border patrol - at all. That is an area that is exclusively within federal jurisdiction. So any arrests/deportations that are done would have to be done by a federal agency. The Border Patrol regulates illegal immigration, but they mostly work on monitoring the actual border areas, and are already understaffed. So who's going to go around rounding up illegal immigrants in Ohio? Can you say - Homeland Security? This would be Bushie's dream come true. This would represent a huge grant of power & authority to the federal government to randomly arrest & deport people w/o real trial or due process. And how are they actually going to do this - raid poultry plants & wheat farms, stop any brown-skinned person who looks poor? Would you feel comfortable w/that? Not to mention the compassion aspect of tearing apart families that have lived here for 20+ years. Such a program would also cost lots of money at a time when the deficit is already sky-rocketing. Some people are saying that he only meant that illegal immigrants who are already caught should be deported - but it doesn't sound like that's what he meant. He said "if we have the money to do it" - meaning if we have the money to pay for a whole new program to arrest immigrants. It's autocratic & a little scary, IMO. I think we're a little close enough to a police state already, thanks.

then we should expect to deport illegal immigrants for exactly that reason. Bullshit to the racist hypothesis.

be deported? It is a slap in the face to those who gain entry legitimately that those who cannot be "bothered" to go through the legal processes, and chose to break the laws of the land to get here, AREN'T deported.

but don't stand by and support anyone breaking it.

Please tell me how you will do this. There are supposedly 11 million or so. They don't wear giant placards to identify themselves.

Are we going to have checkpoints set up where everyone has to show their papers?

Are we going to have massive police sweeps of neighborhoods with brown people?

Are we going to have SWAT teams raiding restaurants, construction sites, and farm fields?

How much of a police state can you tolerate to achieve this goal?

that all illegal immigrants that are caught or identified should be deported. Saying that he's implying door to door searches asking for 2 forms of id as proof you are a citizen and if you don't comply will be shipped off, is a bit of a stretch methinks.