Romney: Give troopers power to arrest illegals

This is a great idea and common sense. A law is a LAW and a cop is a COP... what do Police Officers do? THEY ARREST LAW BREAKERS... So instead of just arresting these people for using a fake ID or whatever, it would be nice to also tack on a immigration charge as well.

And no, just because he came up with this idea, that I already had and many others, I wouldnt use this alone to consider him for president. I dont even know much about him but if hes a Republican then I can tell you NO NO NO NO I wouldnt vote for him.

wait a minute... only TROOPERS/STATE POLICE can enforce immigration? WTF kinda insult is that to municiple Police, they are all the same except for different uniforms.

I think it's about time for states and municipalities to start helping enforce the nation's immigration law. Immigrants are fine, have no problem with anyone coming to this country (except for certain Canadians) to contribute if they do it legally . But, if they're here illegally, they need to be sent back to their country of origin and start the legal process to be here.

Good article, greg.

Oh, I almost forgot.

His position on illegal immigration would make me take a very serious look at him for 2008.

They still need to go after the corporations and companies that offer jobs to illegals as it is the reason they come here in the first place.

James you are a Canadian, mind your own national immigration laws.

Jeff, the Canadians are pretty tough on illegal immigration and have none of this crap about which police force can enforce the laws. Also, they allow a certain number of migrant workers in every year to fill the open jobs but the people are closely tracked and made to leave after the season is over. James is just jealous that we have a problem to complain about.

I think it is a great idea unless the state sends the Feds a bill at the end of the year to cover the costs. And I don't need another reason to look at Romney for Pres.

It's 8:22 p.m. Eastern time right now, and I want to thank everyone who has commented so far. Further, I look forward to other comments (see article for questions on which I hope to get your feedback) you may have.

Just out of curiosity, Nanci B., what did you mean by "I don't need another reason to look at Romney for President"? Good?/Bad?/Otherwise?

Good Greg - I think he makes an excellent alternative to some of the wannabees out there.

Well then why aren't the Canadians letting them stay once they come in to work?

Absolutely, they are people, many of them are decent ones. But like every country, especially Mexico, we reserve the right to decide who is allowed to set up housekeeping in our country and whether an individual meets our requirement. We also frown on line jumpers when there are already millions who already want to move in.

The difference between Canadians & Americans on Immigration is that the USA is prejudged against Mexicans.
James Stewart commented Dec 4, 2006

James;

That is a serious mischaracterization of what most Americans believe. Most Americans do not have a problem with Mexicans coming to our country to fins work. What we have a problem with is them coming in violation of our laws. That's not a tolerable situation.

As to joining into a North American union with Canada and Mexico. Why would we want to do that? What in the world does Canada have to offer us? At least the Mexicans are hard workers. The United States doesn't need Canada, Canada needs the US.
==============================
Jeff:

I agree with you, we need go after the employers as well. I've proposed in other articles we handle Mexican workers in a much more efficient way by eatablishing processing centers (10 or more) aross the southern border, where American employers can set up booths to hire the temporary workers they need, The US can get the information we need to track the workers' employment and living accomodations and when they're sure to return home.

Once the centers are set up, the US then fast-tracks the building of a tall double fence and anyone caught sneaking in will be permanently banned from working in this country.
========================
Nanci

Excellent point! Wait their turn.

I know that there is an effort to discredit the idea that illegals are performing jobs that Americans don't want, but in California we know that in the fields which contain groups of workers bent over in back breaking labor to produce the affordable crops, that is true...and in the sweat shops in the garment districts that produce the clothing eventually destined for our "innocent" major retailers, it is also true.

Although I like Mitt Romney and believe he could be the dark horse that eclipses McCain and Giuliani, as far as this idea is concerned, I'd be concerned primarily for the children (who in many cases would be Americans). You take away the breadwinner, legal or illegal, and you have a family in trouble and a potential problem for the state.

It seems to me that our major efforts ought to be aimed at preventing further illegal immigration, and that's where the emphasis should be.

Interesting points, David -- I think I'll sleep on them.

Lets face it. Illegal labor from around the globe is part and parcel of our economy -- witness the pear crops that rotted on the ground in Calif because in spite of the fact that construction isn't exactly a booming industry right now, workers [including legal American citizens] wanted those better paying jobs [$25-30/hr vs $8-10 for pear picking].

We all look the other way while we reap the benefits of, heretofore, cheap labor and now we want to "look like" we're sending them back where they came from because they're "illegal." And, a "guest worker program" sounds and looks a little too much like guest worker programs throughout Europe, and everywhere else in the world. Cheap labor anywhere has its definite downside--next thing you know you have a population of immigrants, legal or otherwise, who don't like you so much. Guest workers, on the other hand, could be expected to pay taxes and be sent packing when the job is done. [is that how it was supposed to work out in Europe?] When the very word "tax" is forbidden and you can't otherwise raise taxes, that could look rather attractive.

I suspect that the candidate, on either side, who wins on this issue will be the one who manages to make it sound and look good for both our pocketbooks and our conscience.

Romney "looks" very presidential, and let's face it that counts for a lot, and he's articulate and obviously intelligent [not that the latter characteristic seems to be big with the electorate] but his stand on "wedge" issues [e.g., gay marriage ban] will make him too devisive overall. He'll look good in the primaries; but someone like Chuck Hagel, just for example, has a better chance overall and to my mind is the only one on either side who has "it," aside from Barak Obama and perhaps Hillary, depending on whether men will vote for her [and whether Rupert Murdock and others believes she'll stick to the center.]

I think the key here, Missy, is the word "illegal". The words you say or imply are all true -- "these people" (my quotes) are part and parcel of our economy, etc. But, why should we just ignore the law? There are certain things (rightfully) that we and any other country do and should allow its citizens. In order to reap some of these fruits (no pun intended), illegal immigrants should have to become legal -- citizenship, green card, whatever. Like it or not, the ability to kepp a country free of illegal people (no matter how good the illegal immigrants may be) is a necessary aspect of national defense.

You made two excellent points:

1) Unjustified stops and harassment, regardless of documentation and thus legality, if of course absurd and inexcusable. I don't like the term "racial profiling", however. It is natural, albeit unfair, for all of us to make initial judgments about people we encounter.
2) Also, employers shouldn't get off the hook either. If they didn't make illegal immigration inviting, the "market" for illegal immigrants would certainly subside.

Look forward to more comments from you, Barry, and others!

Greg,

Guess I didn't actually say what I thought was the obvious; i.e., yes of course the practice of hiring undocumented workers is ILLEGAL and has been for quite a long time. Why the big fuss now? Because it's mushroomed into something that can';t be hidden any longer. I believe we'll have to find a way to not unfairly penalize those who have settled in and become a contributing part of the culture, pay their taxes, etc., etc. The big elephant in the room is not looking the other way at the border in the first place -- and I don't think real or virtual fences are necessarily the answer -- rather, a willingness to confront the issue squarely, without hysteria and finger pointing. But you know there is now and will be plenty of that.

Gregg,

Like your non-pun -- seeing as how a lot of the fruit to be picked is here in the so-called land of fruits and nuts -- and a lot of people still boycot grapes, but hold their nose and buy all kinds of other things picked or created by illegals. Yes, make it legal and fair.

Missy, you're obviously very smart -- you're the only one to pick up on that. I enjoy your comments and thoughts very much. (Just as long as you realize that, no matter what I say, I'm always correct. :) :) My wife would agree with what I said. Maybe. Okay, no -- you forced it out of me.)

I didn't read the comments yet; I'm responding to the post here.

Yes, this is a good arrangement, though it may have some court challenges, on reasonable grounds. I believe local law enforcement should have this authority as well, but that would appear politically as a "round up." This is a first step in enforcement of immigration law that has been deficient in the past.

This makes me like Romney more. Giuliani is my hometown guy, but like the Giants and Jets, he might not make it to the Superbowl (though he has better odds). Giuliani is also weak on illegal immigration, making NYC a "sanctuary city" in the '90's. That's my biggest problem with Rudy, but it is outweighed by his knowledge about the enemy we face in the war on terror. I'd gladly support Romney, if he wins the nomination.