‘It’s not a crime’

September 8, 2007

I think it’s safe to assume the right will be less than pleased with Rudy Giuliani’s interview with Glenn Beck yesterday:

GLENN: [I]sn’t illegal immigration a crime in and of itself?

GIULIANI: No.

GLENN: Aren’t you saying —

GIULIANI: Glenn —

GLENN: You’re protecting criminals by saying that being treated as a criminal is unfair.

GIULIANI: Glenn, it’s not a crime. I know that’s very hard for people to understand, but it’s not a federal crime.

GLENN: It’s a misdemeanor but if you’ve been nailed, it is a crime. If you’ve been nailed, ship back and come back, it is a crime.

GIULIANI: Glenn, being an illegal immigrant, the 400,000 were not prosecuted for crimes by the federal government, nor could they be…. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding.

Beck followed up by asking if illegal immigration should be a crime, prompting Giuliani to argue, “No, it shouldn’t be because the government wouldn’t be able to prosecute it.”

Now, Giuliani isn’t wrong. Illegal immigrants aren’t imprisoned for being in the country; they’re deported. There’s simply no practical way to incarcerate every single person who enters the U.S. illegally.

But as far as the Republican base is concerned, the former NYC mayor, whose record on immigration was far too liberal for GOP tastes anyway, has given far-right activists just another reason to question his conservative bona fides.

Here’s a sample of how conservatives responded to the interview:

Giuliani is undoubtedly making some obscure legal point here, but for the average citizen there is one overarching trough about our immigration laws: Crossing the border into this country without going through the proper customs channels is against them. Why Giuliani would argue against that, especially given that most of his base is guaranteed to disagree with him, is beyond me. What a stupid, stupid thing to say. But the really odd thing is that Giuliani isn’t just being a pedant, he’s actually saying that illegal immigration shouldn’t be a crime.

And another:

So he says that crossing the border illegally isn’t illegal. Not a crime. And even if it were, why there’s too many of them to prosecute so why should we bother? … This coming from Rudy, who has done nothing but tout his “tough on crime” record while mayor of NYC. Unbelievable. And people wonder why I say he’s not a conservative…

And one more:

Okay, forget Rudy as even a Veep possibility…. Giuliani’s immigration views make him a net liability in a way almost nothing else could.

This one might linger a while.

No, it shouldn’t be because the government wouldn’t be able to prosecute it. We couldn’t prosecute 12 million people.

So, Rudy, what’s your take on the War on Drugs?

  • Republicans (those in my extended family anyway) have only one response to illegal immigrants: string ’em all up from the nearest lamp post.

    You see what kinds of legal knowledge and rationality, not to mention Christian kindness, we’re dealing with here.

  • Say what you want about Giuliani (and most of what I want to say about him is unprintable), you do have to give him some credit for avoiding the opportunity to take the easy demagogue route here, and for showing both an understanding and respect for the letter and spirit of the law. In conservative circles these days respect for the spirit of the law, let alone the letter, is rank heresy. And understanding the letter of the law, let alone the spirit, is a career-ending move (the fired US attorneys being exhibit A).

  • Poor Giuliani. Of course he was a federal prosecutor before he was mayor of NYC. So unlike most of the right wing, he actually knows what he’s talking about when he talks about this stuff. That’s going to cost him. LOL!

  • Glad to see Rudolf inserting his foot into his mouth in the eyes of Das Base.

    But as far as the merits of his argument –I couldn’t care less– the whole immigration debate is manipulated to divide us.

    Case in point: The Secure Fence Act of 2006, enacted October 26, 2006. A 700-mile double-fence along the United States-Mexico border sounds great (or doesn’t sound great, according to your perspective). But the, then Republican, leadership of our corporatocracy decided that they would vote on this wedge issue, but not allocate the funds to “get the job done.” So what was the purpose of the Secure Fence Act if not to manipulate the prejudices of the American People?

    I’m not saying that reasonable people cannot have substantive arguments for or against the Big Fence (or on different ends of the continuum of the immigration debate). I’m just saying that I think the entire debate is a loaded question designed to breed derision and division –not to address a perceived problem.

    I also think that the Big Fence buttresses with something we talked about yesterday –catching OBL. Like I mentioned then, look at the consumer technology of Google Earth and then contemplate what advanced technology our Corporate Government has access to (say, for instance, satellite technology). With that in mind, I think that our borders could be controlled without a Big Fence. But again, like I said, I think the entire debate is manipulated to divide this country, not to actually solve a problem.

  • How this lying demagogue is still in the race is a true mystery. This 9/11 profiteer is ignorant on all the issues, lies to the press consistently, is not a liberal or a conservative whose main platform is name calling and fear mongering. When he entered the race I just laughed and said he will never stand up to scrutiny but it seems there are many who just close their eyes to his fatal flaws and give him money anyway. He must be promising a lot of favors to his donors because to the open minded observer the guy’s a joke. An ego maniac who must practice being president in the bedroom mirror…probably in drag.

  • What has Rudy been smoking?

    It is a crime to enter the USA illegally. First offense is fine and up to 6 months in jail, second offense up to two years in jail. 8USC, 1325, Title 18USC.

    This is not the first time Rudy has been caught lying. But he probably wants justification for his view that there should be amnesty. It is beginning to look like he might have signed on with Bush and big money for the North American Union. Hilliary with her open borders might have signed on to.

    Judicial Watch has sued to try and get some info to the American people. They have a Bush gov document that says as Americans will resist North American integration, it has to be set up in secret, by “evolutionary stealth:
    Have you heard of any treaty ratifcation? Bet Bush is doing it step by step so he can try and claim it is not a trearty and needs no ratification, even it is is the disssolution of the USA. http://www.stopnorthamericanunion.com

    Call your Senators and Congressman and demand full disclosure. If you get a chance ask Rudy and Hillary about their positions.

  • Why do those right-wingers get so fucking bent out of shape over people coming into this country, but don’t give a shit about jobs and capital leaving it?

    If all these immigrants were tax accountants flooding in from the Cayman Islands, would they be frothing with anger about it?

  • I’m just amazed that Giuliani was forward and straight about this. It’s something he does know about, like law enforcement, and I didn’t expect him to say anything honest since he threw his hat in the ring.

    What could he have been thinking? No rabid R will vote for him now.

  • Maybe Rudy is more politically astute than we give him credit for. Americans tend to elect their presidents from the middle of the ideological spectrum. He knows that Americans, even Rupugnicant-Americans, prefer to consider themselves reasonable people with rational arguments on an issue like this, not as bigots.

    Rudy is going to be next year’s “compassionate conservative.”

    • Comments are closed.