Patterico's Pontifications

8/15/2007

Rudy Says He’ll End Illegal Immigration — He Promises!

Filed under: 2008 Election,Deport the Criminals First,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 5:48 am



Rudy Giuliani promises that he will end illegal immigration.

“We can end illegal immigration,” Giuliani vowed to an audience of roughly 300 at a community center in Aiken, S.C., Tuesday morning. “I promise you, we can end illegal immigration.”

Very impressive. There’s just one little tiny problem . . . how he behaved in New York. I’ll yield the floor to Michelle Malkin.

[T]he record is clear. New York City’s sanctuary policy was created in 1989 by Democrat Mayor Ed Koch and upheld by every mayor succeeding him. When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and was nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law.

So, we’re better off with Romney? Nah. The linked article explains how three cities in Massachusetts declared themselves sanctuary cities during Romney’s tenure, and he never said boo. He instituted a program to have local authorities help the feds identify criminal illegals, but the deal

was reached in the closing days of his term, in December 2006, and was immediately rescinded by his replacement, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick. The 30 state troopers initially assigned to receive specialized training from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency never received their training.

Face facts: no candidate is going to change the situation in any significant way. I’ve said before that this is a battle we have already lost. We lost it long ago. There are too many Hispanic voters who will harshly punish any party that tries to do anything major and meaningful about illegal immigration; therefore, no party will risk it. If you wonder why nothing ever seems to happen, that’s why. Pure and simple.

Plus, the Democrats are winning in 2008 anyway.

The best we can do is try to find solutions that are obvious and should appeal to both parties, such as identifying and deporting criminal aliens. This is a simple step that would have saved lives in Newark and across the country. I’ve spoken to liberal friends about this idea and haven’t found anyone yet who objects to the basic idea. The only objection I’ve encountered is that it won’t happen because it makes too much sense, and government doesn’t work that way.

I’m not that cynical. I think we can make that change.

But end illegal immigration?

Don’t insult our intelligence, Rudy.

62 Responses to “Rudy Says He’ll End Illegal Immigration — He Promises!”

  1. Ending illegal immigration is easy – just grant them amnesty.
    Maybe THAT is Rudy’s plan.

    kaf (16e0b5)

  2. Don’t insult our intelligence, Rudy.

    Good luck with that.

    Good post. Newt Gingrich is hollering for the FBI and homeland Security to outsource immgigration status checks on all felons – by 2008. This falls in line with what you’ve been saying for a long time.

    That a focus on summarily deporting illegals who commit crimes, with a relatively more benign approach to noncriminal illegals, has not been significantly aired in Washington, tells you a lot about the decrepit state of our political discourse.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  3. Funny Immigration Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7qKD-Ph7ds

    Nick (e2a052)

  4. It’s unfortunate that santuary cities are using illegal immigrants as fodder for establishing a permanent underclass system yet illegals continue to show up in droves.

    When the government goes bankrupt as the result of over-bloated entitlement programs do the lowly workers honestly believe that the government will provide them the social security net they’ve been promised; AARP is a far more powerful lobby than any union or any race-based organization, such as La Raza,could ever imagine to be and when push comes to shove the government will cater to the needs of those who have the biggest membership and the deepest pockets, not those permanently established as the underclass.

    That said, unions won’t be able to survive amnesty for 30 million illegals since the businesses who employ those in the union will simply go out of business.

    syn (7faf4d)

  5. Pat —

    I don’t know that I’ve ever heard you express an opinion on a topic that many consider analogous to the Sysiphean task of combating illegal immigration: the never-ending so-called “War Against Drugs.”

    Many prosecutors will — behind closed doors — concede that it’s a lost cause, a no-win proposition, one that consumes vast quantities of money, time, and law enforcement resources.

    Do you think that it’s time to revise our strategy here, too, perhaps looking to the way alcohol was treated in the post-Prohibition era?

    Or is your rather downbeat assessment about our ability to deal with this one sector of lawbreakers truly a one-off?

    Mike Lief (e6260e)

  6. Rudy hired that joker Bonner to handle immigration issues. He’s been on local southern California radio. Unfortunately for Rudy, listeners remember when Bonner was doing the same for Bush and trying to shove shamnesty down our throats.

    sam (adbbde)

  7. To end illegal immigration means to reduce it to zero; that’s an impossibility. He might have meant he’d reduce illegal immigration, but that wasn’t what he said.

    Of course, there actually is one way to end illegal immigration — and that’s to make all immigration legal. Good luck running on that theme!

    Dana (3e4784)

  8. The only objection I’ve encountered is that it won’t happen because it makes too much sense, and government doesn’t work that way.

    How about the objection that redistributing criminals may be a no-net-gain proposition, just like redistributing wealth? Deporting criminals doesn’t make them disappear, it just shifts the burden of dealing with them onto other countries (at least temporarily). In a global economy, dropping a bunch of criminals in Mexico won’t even help the U.S. for very long. It’s sorta like saying “there’s this mad dog in my backyard. Mad dogs are dangerous — clearly, I need to put it in my neighbor’s backyard!”

    Of course, I’ve always argued that the reason for deporting the criminals has nothing to do with fighting crime — it’s just pro-deportation folks trying to get at least SOME illegal aliens deported. So even if it doesn’t solve crime in the macro sense (just move it around temporarily) those who want to deport any illegals are still happy with the idea.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  9. Yup, Phil. We should just keep those criminals here. How dare we enforce our own laws. While we are at it, there are a lot of lawbreakers in Europe and Asia, why don’t they just send all of theirs over here too.

    We just likes to deport some brown people.

    JD (815fda)

  10. Face facts: no candidate is going to change the situation in any significant way.

    That’s only true if you fail to acknowledge that Tancredo is a candidate.

    Jcurtis (ecc9cc)

  11. JD, the difference is that Mexico ISN’T sending criminals over here. What we’re doing by sending back just the criminals (out of all the people who slip across the border) is saying “We’ll take all of your law-abiding citizens who come here, because they’re good workers. But you need to take back the ones who break the law here.”

    In so doing, you’re creating a festering, concentrated pool of lawbreakers on the other side of the border. And adding yet another incentive for any law-abiding citizen in Mexico to want to get the heck out.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  12. […] opening parries on immigration. The NYT has the story of record on it this morning and Patterico gives a good feel for how the issue is playing so far in the […]

    Rudy v. Mitt: Immigration | PAWaterCooler.com (2d8ea5)

  13. I love, Phil, how somehow you have made this our fault.

    JD (815fda)

  14. JD, what have I said is “our fault”? The only fault I’m talking about has yet to occur — namely, if we create unintended consequences just because we refuse to rationally evaluate knee-jerk reactions like the idea that somehow deporting criminals will help anything.

    So far, there’s been no harm caused, other than various American xenophobs’ the endless attempts to scapegoat illegal immigrants for everything are unhappy about (and politicians and certain media figures pandering to this impulse). So I don’t see what’s “our fault.”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  15. The whole liberal shift of the past 30 years is at its peak. Right now only those impacted directly are angry about illegal immigration–we will see which way the nation chooses after another terrorist attack by people who are here illegally. Right now we have no enforcement all, from checking on travel visa exits to checking SS numbers.

    I would be satisfied with deporting the criminals, insisting on assimilation (ending multiculturalism), and insisting on equal enforcement of laws, from stealing grocery carts to forged identity documents to gangs.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  16. Phil-

    No harm caused? Tell that to the parents of the students killed in New Jersey. The accused were not first time offenders; had they been deported after their first brush with the law those students would be alive today.

    MartyH (52fae7)

  17. How about just sealing the border with the damn fence + technology and make the employer fines large enough to cause hair to go gray?

    And for those employers, change the rules a little too, use the Treasury Dept/US Customs rule book making the accused guilty until they prove themselves innocent. The fear of huge fines has kept a lot of importers of goods honest over the years, it’ll keep them honest in their employment policies also.

    The message south of the border has to change. It’s got to become: “Looks like we’re not welcome any more.”

    PC14 (f74534)

  18. I don’t understand.

    Rudy is spreading the highest cost fertilizer available to appeal to the Bush supporters.

    You gotta appreciate the gesture, at least.

    alphie (015011)

  19. Face facts: no candidate is going to change the situation in any significant way.

    While I don’t believe Hillary will do it, I believe Hillary would win 40-45 states if she declared she would build a 20 foot high wall the length of the border. She would not lose that many Democrats and she would pick up a large segments of both Independent and Republican voters.

    Perfect Sense (7cbfd6)

  20. hey phil, you don’t want to deport criminal aliens? ok, why don’t you put one up in your spare bedroom?

    assistant devil's advocate (0cf8c5)

  21. Phil

    What’s wrong with deporting illegal immigrants who commit crime in this country back to the country of which they are citizens?

    It seems to me the unintended consequences of ignoring the fact that “illegal” means ‘against the law’ will result lawless anarchy. Is this the type of society in which you would want to live?

    By the way, why are you so against Legal immigration?

    Xenophobe? so now we’re suppose to add this emotional blackmailing word to the collective conscience’s long list of debate killers homophobe, Islamophobe, sexists, racist, class warfarist, and ultimate blackmailer Global Warming Denier.

    syn (7faf4d)

  22. I agree that Rudy can’t end illegal immigration but I’m glad the debate has shifted on this topic. You didn’t hear anyone but Tom Tancredo say that 2 years ago.

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  23. No harm caused? Tell that to the parents of the students killed in New Jersey. The accused were not first time offenders; had they been deported after their first brush with the law those students would be alive today.

    Yeah, that murder should have happened to Mexicans, not Americans. That’s basically what you’re saying — don’t try to stop crime, just ship it to Mexico.

    Of course, that means that Mexicans will try even harder to get to the U.S., as crime rates in Mexico rise.

    The New Jersey murders are tragic. They should have been prevented — but not by deportation of illegal aliens. They should have been prevented by effective prevention of crime, generally.

    It’s scapegoating to blame the murders on illegal immigration. The selective reporting of crimes by illegal immigrants lately is a complete pandering by the media to paraniod, irrational fear of immigration, and nothing more.

    How about just sealing the border with the damn fence + technology and make the employer fines large enough to cause hair to go gray?

    Do that, and I’ll invest even more money in companies that outsource labor to Mexico — they’ll be making a killing once their cheap labor force is completely captive.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  24. Actually, Phil, I think the New Jersey incident involved a Peruvian and a Columbian, not Mexicans, but I get your point. Nevertheless, I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect Peru, Columbia, and any country to deal with their own criminals. America can’t export its own criminal citizens to other countries and expect those countries to handle them for us, but we definitely should return-to-sender all convicted alien felons.

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  25. Phil –

    Yes, those criminals should not be our problem. We deport the criminals into the custody of law enforcement in their own country. I fully support other countries sending criminal American citizens here.

    I am getting disgusted with the Hispanic lobby here. At this rate we should just annex Mexico.

    OmegaPaladin (74426a)

  26. My take on Rudy is a little different.

    In reading several pieces on him written by third parties — some sympathetic and some not so sympathetic — what seems clear to me is that he arrived at his position of Mayor of New York without too much in the way of ideological political beliefs. It seems to be the widely held view that he developed positions on controversial subjects on the fly, and allowed them to be shaped to a great degree by the exigencies of the NYC that he took over. I think immigration, guns, and abortion are the three most obvious issues.

    He took over a city infrastructure that was built over decades by liberal democrats on the belief that the City had no higher purpose than to aid the poor immigrant underclass and provide city jobs to the working class. An profile in this week’s New Yorker says that when Rudy became mayor, one if five New Yorkers was on public assistance of some kind, and one in six was employed by the municipality. He was the Mayor of New York, he had to work with the constituency that elected him, even if his goal was the dismantle the liberal architecture that had rendered NYC almost uninhabitable. He could try to tear it down, but he had to do so from the inside, while protecting it from attacks by the outside.

    On guns, he doesn’t seem to have expressed any doctrinaire objection to the position of Second Amendment advocates, but rather he treated the gun situation he inherited in NYC as a crime control issue. He was all about enforcing gun laws, not necessarily making new gun laws, though he did advocate for the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban. But again, he did so from the position of a big city mayor whose streets were awash in blood when he came into office.

    On abortion — well, lets leave that to another thread. I think its enough to say that the electorate of NYC that presumes a pro-abortion stance in all its elected politicians. Its simply a non-starter in NYC politics to be pro-life. Had Rudy taken some position other than the one he took, he should have packed his bags and run for mayor of Kansas City.

    WLS (077d0d)

  27. America can’t export its own criminal citizens to other countries and expect those countries to handle them for us, but we definitely should return-to-sender all convicted alien felons.

    So when you say “return to sender” are you implying that Mexico is intentionally sending illegal aliens here? That’s one perspective, I guess. I see it as, generally, people choose where they want to be. The illegal aliens have chosen to be in the U.S., just as people who are born here have chosen to stay here.

    If Mexico was actually doing something to encourage criminals, specifically, to come to the U.S., then it would be logical for us to try to kick those particular criminals back into Mexico. Of course, that’s not what’s happening.

    In fact, by making the black market for illegal drugs so lucrative thanks to the drug war, we’re effectively encouraging criminal Mexicans to come here and make big bucks smuggling. We’ve created an industry for criminals to thrive on here in the U.S. — but that’s a whole other discussion.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  28. Phil sez:

    In a global economy, dropping a bunch of criminals in Mexico won’t even help the U.S. for very long. It’s sorta like saying “there’s this mad dog in my backyard. Mad dogs are dangerous — clearly, I need to put it in my neighbor’s backyard!”

    It’s actually quite a big like saying: “My neighbor’s dog has gone mad, and has come into my backyard. Mad dogs are dangerous — clearly, I need to put it back in my neighbor’s backyard!”

    Which most people would find a reasonable position.

    But your position, Phil, is different. Your position is quite a bit like saying: “My neighbor’s dog has gone mad, and has come into my backyard. Mad dogs are dangerous. Clearly, I need to keep it in my own backyard! If I put it back in my neighbor’s yard, it will still be mad. Why should my neighbor be responsible for dealing with a mad dog, just because it’s his?”

    But you know what, Phil? I’ve been at this long enough to know that the fact that my analogy is unassailable will have zero effect on you. You’ll ignore it, or fail to address it in any logical fashion.

    Go ahead, prove me wrong.

    Patterico (5df105)

  29. If Mexico was actually doing something to encourage criminals, specifically, to come to the U.S., then it would be logical for us to try to kick those particular criminals back into Mexico. Of course, that’s not what’s happening.

    Don’t those goalposts get heavy, Phil? Let’s take a look at the Mexican government, their domestic economic policies, etc … why would anyone, criminal or not, be willing to stay there? That is on the Mexican government, not us.

    It does not matter what anyone says, Patterico. Phil thinks we hates us some brown people.

    And, Phil … Patterico’s example is bullet-proof. Having said that, I fully expect you to not reply, or to debate a point made by one of the voices in your head.

    JD (815fda)

  30. Your “analogy is unassailable” only because it’s so vague, it’s practically meaningless, Patterico.

    An illegal alien is arrested for a crime in America.

    Are we supposed to:

    1. Deport them back to their home country?
    2. Prosecute them here first, then deport them?
    3. Prosecute them, have them serve their time here…and then deport them?

    alphie (015011)

  31. alphie:

    #3.

    They don’t get a break due to their illegal status.

    But once they’re released and become the problem of free society again, they become the problem of the society to which they belong: their home country.

    The mad dog goes back to his owner’s yard.

    Easy to understand, for anyone whose mind is open to logic and reason.

    I don’t expect that includes you.

    Patterico (1a9a20)

  32. 1 and 2 would be good with me, so they have a record in our system. Since we are already housing them in our prisons, maybe their country of origin should be doing that.

    JD (815fda)

  33. Phil said:

    “If Mexico was actually doing something to encourage criminals, specifically, to come to the U.S., then it would be logical for us to try to kick those particular criminals back into Mexico. Of course, that’s not what’s happening.”

    Are you sure that Mexico isn’t doing anything to encourage its citizens to come to the US? How about Vicente Fox’s 2000 and 2004 calls to open the US and Mexico borders? Or this 1998 Mexican government initiative calling for open borders for all trucks? Basically, Mexico’s economic problems and with its southern border have fueled a policy of open borders to the north that entices people to illegally cross into the US.

    But, of course, it doesn’t matter whether Mexico and other South American countries are facilitating this or not. These are their citizens and their responsibility.

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  34. 30 Alphie:

    No 3. You got a problem with that? I suspect you do, but I’m baffled as to why.

    WLS (077d0d)

  35. Phil-

    It’s an absurd belief that there is a murderer gene that would have caused these two guys to have killed three people no matter where they are. So I dispute your assertion that we have to choose between murders in Mexico and murders in the States.

    To your mad dog analogy: “It’s sorta like saying “there’s this mad dog in my back yard. Mad dogs are dangerous — clearly, I need to put it in my neighbor’s backyard!”

    If it’s your neighbor’s dog then it’s a better place than your back yard. If it’s not your neighbor’s dog, then put him down, or have Animal Control do it.

    MartyH (52fae7)

  36. You are only truly defeated if you give up.

    Among those who know about the issue, enforcement first wins 70-30.

    Tere are new enforcement measures coming that attacks the core of the problem, i.e. jobs.

    … Most important is the final rule on Social Security “no-match” letters. These are letters sent by the Social Security Administration to employers who’ve submitted W-2 forms for employees whose names and numbers don’t match the agency’s records. Some instances, of course, are the result of clerical mistakes or unreported name changes, but the majority are illegal aliens using fake or stolen Social Security numbers to gain employment.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  37. Alphie-

    I suggest a fourth option:

    Prosecute them here, have them serve out their sentence in their home country (we pay for this, but it will be considerably less than housing them here.)

    Saves us money, reduces our prison poulation, and employs more people in their home country-a win-win for everyone involved.

    MartyH (52fae7)

  38. My only argument with your column is the assumption the Dems are going to win in 2008.

    Forgive me, but I strongly believe the top tier of Republicans are stronger than the top tier of Dems in a general election.

    headhunt23 (9e1243)

  39. Alphie is just a reflexive contrarian but I believe Phil is sincerely opposed to nations and borders.

    nk (119c34)

  40. Are we supposed to:

    1. Deport them back to their home country?
    2. Prosecute them here first, then deport them?
    3. Prosecute them, have them serve their time here…and then deport them?

    I suggest a fourth option:

    Prosecute them here, have them serve out their sentence in their home country (we pay for this, but it will be considerably less than housing them here.)

    How about a fifth option – declaring illegals who commit crimes in the US to be enemy combatants, and render them to the ally with the worst human rights record. I suspect this might be Saudi Arabia

    Horatio (a549f7)

  41. The odd thing is that we DO deport LEGAL immigrants who break our laws. We do it routinely. But not illegal immigrants. Apparently the lack of documentation works in the felon’s favor, as the bureaucracy is too flipping lazy to deal with all those questions.

    At the very least we should document the status of all arrestees so are otherwise unable to show citizenship or residency status. In no way should we treat illegals better that legal immigrants.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  42. That’s only true if you fail to acknowledge that Tancredo is a candidate.

    As opposed to thinking he’s joke.

    amys (216101)

  43. Hey, I have no problem with option 3).

    Except, perhaps, from a utililitarian standpoint:

    Prosecuting, incarcerating and then shipping home an illegal alien probably costs more than they would make in a lifetime.

    Seems like a cheaper deal could be struck somewhere.

    Free development zones here in the U.S. where they could come to live and work for a time, maybe?

    alphie (015011)

  44. Prosecuting, incarcerating and then shipping home an illegal alien probably costs more than they would make in a lifetime.

    What on Earth does that have to do with anything, alpo? Since when do we factor income potential into criminal prosecution and/or deportation?

    Pablo (99243e)

  45. Spoken like atrue “Republican” pablo.

    Wars are pretty pricey, too.

    alphie (015011)

  46. The concept that illegal aliens have earned a path to citizenship, amnesty or even work residency is like saying a burglar has earned the right to keep the stuff he broke into your house and took from you. That will never fly with the majority of Americans who love legal immigrants but despise law breakers.

    The only good thing about Rudy and Mitt is that they are slightly better than Hillary, Obama, Edwards and won’t likely take more of our money to hand out to those people who refuse to work for theirs. I’m still waiting to see where Fred really is on the illegal immigration mess.

    Buzzy (9d4680)

  47. Free development zones here in the U.S. where they could come to live and work for a time, maybe?

    These zones already exist, they are more commonly known as California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, etc.

    Perfect Sense (7cbfd6)

  48. I hope NYC can be viewed as making some amends, with today’s release of a much-needed report on the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism. We must deport as many Muslim non-citizens, as is possible, who are here with no clear purpose. I wish Algore would expound about this clear and present danger instead of his global warming theories.

    allijer288 (c36902)

  49. You think Phil will respond to my analogy?

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  50. Nope.

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  51. What makes Phil assume Mexico does nothing to encourage its criminals to come here? I’d like to test that theory. Mexico is not sending us its best and brightest, that’s for sure. And it does plenty to encourage immigrants to come here illegally, which is a criminal act (hence the word “illegal”).

    allijer288 (c36902)

  52. i don’t think we’ll be hearing from phil again. his apparent willingness to sacrifice american lives in order to protect foreigners from their own criminal fellow citizens was offensive and un-american. i have a mental picture of him being forced to kneel next to the wall of a school building in the dark by a criminal alien preparing to shoot him execution-style, and phil going “don’t shoot me, i’m a liberal, i love you people, go shoot one of the bad guys who favor deporting you…” and then….bang!

    while typing this, it occurred to me that sacrificing american lives in order to protect foreigners from their own criminal fellow citizens is exactly what the bush administration is doing in iraq. my views on this are consistent from one situation to the other: i’m opposed to it.

    assistant devil's advocate (c4e65b)

  53. Phil shares the idea that we are obligated to solve other countries’ criminal problems with Kirsten Powers (see hotair.com). That’s ridiculous! Now we have to take everybody’s murderers because it wouldn’t be “fair” to send them back?!

    And Mexico produces written and DVD instructions on how to sneak into the US. They’re not directed at the upper class! They are quite happy to give us their poor and their criminals, just like Castro did in the Mariel boatlift. We need to return them to the custody of law enforcement in their country of origin.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  54. Phil is confident that Mexico is not sending criminals to El Norte. I suppose he has access to the background checks that INS has done on all of the illegals…OOps. How can we do a background check on someone who sneaks in?
    But then, He has access to the background checks that the Mexican Gov’t has done on its’ own people who have indicated that they are going North?
    Well, that’s not going anywhere, either.

    I guess Phil is just a very ignorant, obstinate, annoying troll!

    Another Drew (33c3dc)

  55. Wow he ls already making promeses he will break after being elected and the election is still over a year away

    krazy kagu (5b69ac)

  56. Rudy isn’t lying, he’s only doing what good NY RINOs do, promise what he will not and can not deliver. Don’t forget he’s sold his soul to special interest groups which explains his behavior and record as mayor.

    Why vote for a fake djhimmierat when you can vote for the real thing.

    Osama Hussein for President!

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  57. Did anyone notice that Rudy did not promise to do anything about illegal immigration in his quote:
    “I promise – we can end illegal immigration.” Just notice that he did not say: “I promise – we will end illegal immigration”…nor even “I promise – we will work to end illegal immigration.”

    steve (9c84f9)

  58. here’s an article about the census bureau asking the immigration enforcers to hold off from doing raids around 2010 that made me angry:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_go_ot/census_immigration

    i was a census bureau canvasser in 2000, not because i needed the money, just for a learning experience. canvassing is the step just before the mail questionnaire. the bureau contracts out to civilian subs in the various regions (who no doubt have connections to get that contract) and the subs contract out to individual sub-subs (like me) with no background screening whatsoever, who are turned loose to traipse around the verdant hills of, e.g., western sonoma county with federal carte blanche to ignore “no trespassing” signs on country gates and march up private country driveways to interrogate whomever we find up there as to number of dwelling units, people, etc. the one i remember most was a blind woman, all alone. even as i asked her the standard questions, i thought what i was doing was obscene. she was just lucky i was a real canvasser. after the gig was over, there was a long delay before payment by the regional sub, i put some pressure on and was ultimately paid in travelers checks! i suspect that some of the other sub-subs who weren’t california bar members never got paid, and i also suspect that some of the other sub-subs were just prospective burglars casing a number of vulnerable joints on uncle sam’s dime.

    now i, too, live up at the end of a rural driveway, but i am not a blind woman. during the half hour or more it would take a sheriff deputy to get here on a 911 call, i am the law, i am the state. census workers and everybody else should reflect on this before they open my gate.

    assistant devil's advocate (d152ff)

  59. hi i enjoyed the read

    Kaylah (df1889)

  60. It is practice for politicians like Rudy to give false promises, to attract the vote bank. It is not much easy to end illegal immigrants, but like Steve said in the comments, Rudy did not promised for anything…
    conservatories tyne tees

    Peter (598438)

  61. Not To Mention Michael Medved Shilling Shamnesty. He still Does By the way..

    David (3e4986)

  62. “That’s only true if you fail to acknowledge that Tancredo is a candidate.”

    Tom “The Bomb” Tancredo? That one?

    Most people are glad to “ackowledge” that Tancredo is a moron. Beyond that, well…

    Leviticus (35fbde)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3447 secs.