Deport the Criminals First Deport Them Now Comes to TV
This morniing I pointed you to Michelle Malkin’s “Deport Them Now” campaign, which plans to run a
series of PSAs based on Patterico’s excellent series spotlighting the thugs who have benefited from the criminal alien revolving door. Enough is enough. Time to act.
That was heartening enough, but I was especially pleased to see the campaign spotlighted on FOX News with John Gibson today. Allah has the clip.
I still prefer the term “Deport the Criminals First” — but I care less about labels and more about action.
Am I crazy to think we might actually get something done here?
In sadder news, Allah provides a link to these details about the guy suspected of killing Zina Linnik:
According to the Pierce County Proescutor’s Office , Adhahn was booked into the Pierce County Jail on one count of kidnapping and three counts of first degree child rape for the May 31, 2000 kidnapping and rape of an 11-year-old girl who was found duct taped to a tree at Fort Lewis.
Adhahn has also been booked on one count of first degree rape, three counts of second degree rape and three counts of third degree child rape involving a girl who lived with him between 2001 and 2005.
There are an additional 50 counts of third degree child rape. Tacoma Police would not say what case those counts relate to. Probable cause documents indicate the girl that had lived with Adhahn told investigators that she was raped once or twice a week and that the total number of rapes was somewhere between 150 and 200.
Who knows how many little girls this guy may have victimized?
I don’t think so; the idea has legs. Just last Saturday I attended a blogger convention in Hampton Roads. I asked Virginia AG Bob McDonnell a question about deporting criminal illegal aliens, and got a lengthy answer that made clear he’d been thinking about the issue quite a bit, and pushing the governor on it as well. Unfortunately, no success with the governor to date, but at least it was clear the issue is being talked about.
Xrlq (538859) — 7/18/2007 @ 6:31 pmThat would be John Gibson: “The black man’s best friend”
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/18/2007 @ 6:56 pmXRLQ: That’s good news. I wish I could say the same for Texas.
Patterico: I also prefer “Deport the Criminals First.” It’s clear and succinct. However, I know you don’t intend it as a prelude to “Now Deport All the Rest” but I’m afraid some people don’t know that. “Deport Them Now” is a good alternative.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/18/2007 @ 7:07 pmThough he didn’t spend years behind barbed wire at two U.S. WWII enemy alien internment camps, Adhahn could very easily pass for George Takei.
‘My memories of camp – I was four years old to eight years old – they’re fond memories.’
steve (bf9d5b) — 7/18/2007 @ 7:18 pmGeorge Takei
#3
Good point — in the fight against the bill the sentiment “they are all lawbreakers therefore…” was bandied about quite a bit.
voiceofreason63 (b192ec) — 7/18/2007 @ 7:28 pmNot a big leap from criminals as defined by Patterico to “all of them” if the wrong folks get on the bandwagon about this.
I’d be a lot more comfortable with this if a reasoned dialog explaining the difference instead of a rallying cry were being used.
I also prefer “Deport the Criminals First.” It’s clear and succinct. However, I know you don’t intend it as a prelude to “Now Deport All the Rest” but I’m afraid some people don’t know that.
That is an understatement.
Some certain people still have the “Now Deport All the Rest” idea living even though it has been shot repeatedly with silver-tipped arrows dipped in garlic paste made from holy water.
Paul (0544fc) — 7/18/2007 @ 7:32 pmI wonder if because “Deport the Criminals First.” would no doubt offend and enrage those who believe every illegal immigrant – criminal or not, really, really desrve another chance, blah, blah, that ‘Deport Them Now’ may be better received as it isn’t so in-your-face blunt.
Unfortunately, reality and hard truths are not what a segment of our population want to hear, and many believe these criminals are being unfairly attacked because they are simply poor, vulnerable illegal aliens.
Dana (b8ec4a) — 7/18/2007 @ 8:29 pmWho knows how many little girls this guy may have victimized?
And who cares, as long as as he was doing it to little girls in some other country – which is what would happen if we deported him instead of properly enforcing criminal rather than immigration laws?
Keep pushing to get those criminals out of the U.S., guys — because, you know, they’re so much less dangerous if we make them other peoples’ problem.
Phil (427875) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:25 amgee phil, that’s one of the dumbest things i’ve read on the web in some time. a logical extension of your position would be to invite child molesters from all over the world to come here so we could lock them up, sparing all the children in their native countries.
when public justice fails, when criminal aliens are released among us after committing sex crimes against children due to our pathological, politically correct deference to all things foreign, at some point private justice will step in to fill the void, and private justice carries a rope with a noose at the end. that’s the alternative to “deport the criminals” you’re looking at, buddy. i’m not prepared to endorse lynching at this precise moment in time, but neither am i taking it off the table.
assistant devil's advocate (f804d8) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:16 amBryan Caplan
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:47 amMea Culpa: How I Succumbed to Anti-Foreign Bias
when public justice fails, when criminal aliens at some point private justice will step in to fill the void, and private justice carries a rope with a noose at the end. that’s the alternative to “deport the criminals” you’re looking at, buddy. i’m not prepared to endorse lynching at this precise moment in time, but neither am i taking it off the table.
Well, whether we deport criminals illegals or not, I assume you’re still considering lynching those we can’t deport — the citizens — right? If you can persuade me that lynching is appropriate for criminals who are citizens, then frankly, I’d rather lynch those we CAN deport, too, rather than simply deport them.
Unless you mean you’d like to lynch them for being illegal immigrants, rather than for being ex-cons. Is that what you’re saying?
That’s the part I don’t understand. If there’s something more we need to be doing with sexual offenders, that we’re not doing already — like lynching them — then we should be doing to all sexual offenders, right?
And if you really want to lynch ex-sexual offenders, you’re gonna start doing it whether we deport the illegals or not, right? So shouldn’t we keep the illegal ones around, in case you grow the cajones you need to lynch them?
Again, the question arises: Why are you picking on just the ex-cons who are illegal immigrants? The only reason I can think of is that it’s their illegal immigrant status, not their ex-con status, that really bothers you.
Phil (427875) — 7/19/2007 @ 11:59 amPhil,
As others have pointed out, there are:
a – convicted criminals who are citizens, who should be punished in a manner so as to to reduce crime
b – convicted criminals who are immigrants, who should be punished in a manner so as to reduce crime
For group a, we can consider a variety of tactics, from parole conditions, rehabilitation, anti-recidivism job training efforts, etc.
For group b, deportation is an option. If deported, they have a lower chance of driving drunk or molesting children here. We could also do the stuff we do for group a, but we’re not required to do so, because they have no right to be here in the first place, therefore no right to our tax dollars and programs.
You don’t get this why, exactly?
carlitos (b38ae1) — 7/19/2007 @ 12:25 pmAF, Immigrants are people who have come to this country legally. In part because we do background checks for prior criminality, I’m not surprised that they’re more law abiding than natives.
Illegal aliens, on the other hand, start out by breaking our immigration laws and undergo no background checks. While Political Correctness suppresses properly breaking down the figures (illegal aliens cannot be identified as such, officially), non-official evidence shows them to be massively over represented in crime.
Three of the current Ten Most Wanted Fugitives are aliens (not counting Usama Ben Laden). Since they’re unlikely to be legal immigrants, what does that leave?
LarryD (feb78b) — 7/19/2007 @ 2:03 pmSo am I to understand that once we “deport the criminals first” we give amnesty to the rest?
If it is the case that the “conservatives” here are not for deportation of every illegal alien who violated our laws upon entering this country (criminal convictions or not), I want to know what brand of kool-aid conservatism is being propagated here to permit an invasion of the United States.
Once we “deport the criminals first,” then what?
Also, Branda Walker at VDARE was the first to counter sob stories about invaders by highlighting the most heinous crimes committed by illegals, and it seems that Malkin, Patterico, etc. have stolen her format without giving her credit. Shame on you copycats.
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/19/2007 @ 5:54 pmIt is when you conflate legal immigrants, which the study looks at, with illegal aliens and criminal illegal aliens.
Legal immigrants have more to lose than citizens, and they come here through legal channels because they hope to remain here. IOW, they have some sense of loyalty to and respect for America, which I think is just wonderful, and as it should be.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:12 pmPetty Bourgeois,
I never heard of this woman. Maybe, just maybe, we happened on the same approach independently.
For example, you’re an asshole, but you’re not the first one on the Internet. That doesn’t necessarily make you a copycat. Maybe you’re an asshole independently from all the others.
P.S. I am not for amnesty for the other illegals. But I think we should prioritize. Do this first and then we’ll worry about the others.
Patterico (e74c27) — 7/19/2007 @ 6:18 pmPat:
Brenda Walker is years ahead of the popular outrage about the feds not deporting criminal illegals–long before you and Malkin–like most of the writers at VDARE. Years ahead, my friend.
“For example, you’re an asshole…”
I’ll concede that point, but I know others (personally, not on a webpage) that you (personally) have enlisted who are also anonymous on this page who are also cut from the same cloth as I (e.g., Reagan, Goldwater, and conservative)–so remove yourself from the glass house lest you receive shrapnel. I know someone who posts here who is a total asshole, much like myself. In fact, after reading your post on Hot Air on Compean and Ramos, I could call you an asshole–but I won’t.
Brenda Walker (Sierra Club infidel who was part of the coup against the open borders BOD, democrat, Irish, barfly and 100% patriot) has been doing a “deport the criminals first” series reporting for years now. Malkin is published on VDARE, so you should probably be astute enough to see you and Michelle are not the first. Give Brenda some credit. This was not some “independent” epiphany. This is a calculated attempt to harness popular outrage for the benefit of receiving web hits and the money that flows thereafter, only after the defeat of the scamnesty. It’s political opportunism at it’s ugliest. Take the tip jars off your page so we know you aren’t a sell out (like that will ever happen).
As far as what to do with the rest of the illegals, I think your readers deserve a clear reading of the “banana” (to borrow McKennedy’s semantic obfuscation) you may propose at some later date as to the rest of the illegal population. Something tells me you won’t answer, perhaps, because you are seeking public office or a bench seat. Correct me if I am wrong.
Moreover, being an asshole is not like jumping on the cause du jour for web hits and money, like you and Malkin have done. I am consistently an asshole, not just some of the time. This is your apples versus oranges line of logic. Read a few years of Brenda Walker and get back to me, comrade.
Lastly, my opinion of Malkin is diminished every time I see her supporting partisan hacks uninterested in the American people and who fail to view government as the enemy of the people (e.g., Allahpundit and yourself). But let me tell you that at one time Malkin once said of my blog:
“One of my blog faves.”
Please talk to your boss (MM) and your employees (AClam) on this page before you start attacking my credibility as a commentator.
I don’t come here to shamelessly promote myself. In fact, I demanded to be removed from the BFL webroll out of principle since the Arnold supporters hijacked the CRP. I have integrity and I am not on some hayride like all of you media whores.
So I ask you to think about this question for a moment: what do we do with the rest of them?
Do they remain in my country, or do they get deported?
Your readers deserve to know.
PB
P.S.–That is the most civility I could muster. Be thankful.
Petty Bourgeois (d5b6de) — 7/19/2007 @ 7:12 pmIn response to the commenter that quoted Bryan Caplan above, Bryan is leaving out something important:
See: Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and Second-Generation Young Men
By Rubén G. Rumbaut, Roberto G. Gonzales, Golnaz Komaie, and Charlie V. Morgan
University of California, Irvine
excerpt:
“Second Generation
Incarceration rates increase significantly for all US-born coethnics without exception. That is most notable for Mexicans, whose incarceration rate increases more than eightfold to 5.9 percent among the US born; for Vietnamese (from 0.46 to 5.6 percent among the US born); and for the Laotians and Cambodians (from 0.92 percent to 7.26 percent, the highest of any group except for native blacks). Almost all of the US born among those of Latin American and Asian origin can be assumed to consist of second-generation persons, with the exception of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, whose numbers may include a sizable number (around 25 percent) of third-generation individuals. (Since 1980, when the questions on parents’ country of birth were dropped, the decennial census has not permitted the precise identification of second vs. third or higher generations.)
Thus, while incarceration rates are found to be extraordinarily low among immigrants, they are also seen to rise rapidly by the second generation. Except for the Chinese and Filipinos, the rates of all US-born Latin American and Asian groups exceed that of the referent group of non-Hispanic white natives. ”
pjgoober (12bee5) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:10 pmhttp://www.migrationinformation….play.cfm? id=403
I just read Petty Bourgeois’ comments on this thread. I’m rescinding my XRLQ proxy and casting a “Ban him” vote.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:21 pmI take back my vote again, Your Supreme Censoring Overlord. I like your version of the name too much to see it go.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 8:27 pmNo one answers the question: what do we do with the rest of the illegals once we deport them?
This subject of banning smells like Jim Robinson. You cannot control public discourse on the internet. I dare you to. It is an exercise of futility, no matter how much Pat wants to control the discourse of any “conservative” movement.
So what do we do with them Patterico? I am asking you a simple question. Do not beat up on the L.A. Times for inaccuracy on all matters political then refuse to answer a single question about what you believe. State your policy without being a wimp about it.
What do we do with the rest of them? I’m asking it three times, out of Senator Byrd’s wisdom and deference in speaking with people from Texas.
Teppy Bourgeois (formerly Petty Bourgeois, now Teppy Bourgeois by order of Supreme Censoring Overlord Patterico) (d5b6de) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:00 pmPB,
I don’t want to deport every illegal immigrant.
PS – Don’t Mess With Texas.
DRJ (bea74b) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:16 pm#No one answers the question: what do we do with the rest of the illegals once we deport them?
Try to make sure they don’t come back?
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/19/2007 @ 10:29 pmI don’t want to deport every illegal immigrant.
Me neither. I think somewhere between 3-5% – the good ones with – should be allowed to stay if they pay a fine and forsake any foreign citizenship.
Stolpman (b3f6e4) — 7/20/2007 @ 12:52 amPB,
In a world with infinite resources, and where I could snap my fingers and make anything happen without worrying about convincing others, I would deport them all. It’s the law, and it would make life better here with millions fewer people.
But since we don’t live in that ideal world, I don’t support that. So — assuming we deport all criminal illegal aliens — I would step up border enforcement, work on abolishing the socialist state that draws new illegals here, and maintain the status quo on the rest. I’ve already said this.
Patterico (2a65a5) — 7/20/2007 @ 5:25 amWe live in a “socialist state?”
I’d enjoy get a heapin’ helpin’ of that reasoning.
steve (6830b3) — 7/20/2007 @ 2:44 pm