T. Shields: Don't duck immigration issue

The current illegal immigrant situation is a national disgrace. Members of both political parties have ducked when confronted with this serious violation of our laws.

What part of “illegal” don’t they understand?

Illegal immigrants form a large part of the population of several prisons because of the serious crimes they have committed. Giving amnesty to illegals is surrendering to lawlessness.

Why is the U.S. Department of Justice suing the state of Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws? Federal officials should welcome the help.

The feds have put forth the ridiculous argument that illegal immigration is not a state’s responsibility. Arizonians have lost their lives and property because the federal government didn’t do its job. Arizona has a right to defend itself.

Securing the country's borders is the first step, and stop worrying about the opinion of Mexico and the sympathetic U.S. Latinos. Middle Eastern agents have been found in the illegal border groups, showing the danger of terrorists infiltrating into the U.S.

The Washington, D.C., decision-makers are short on political courage.

The solution is to give illegals an opportunity to register for a temporary work permit. Those who are found without it should be immediately deported, with their families. This makes those that remain here legal, identifiable and taxpayers. U.S. citizenship could be a goal under the right circumstances.

Thomas F. Shields, Auburn

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



CRYSTAL WARD's picture

the constitution?

The US constitution gives the power to deal with immigration to the Federal governemnt not to the States . I am sure Dr. Sheilds knows that in Federalism some powers are given to the Federal gov't, some to the State gov't , some to BOTH and some to NEITHER. That is our system set up by the writers of the US Constitution. If any state could just ignor the US constitution and do whatever they wanted our whole system would be in jeopardy. Arizona must follow the US Constitution. (Observation -- when times are good we are happy to have the illegal immigrants working in jobs we do not want to do for below min. wages and everyone looks the other way..BUT when times are tough we need to blame someone so the immigrants are an easy target and farmers can not find people to do the jobs for the low wages. Yes we need to find a way to "fix" the current border issues but lets be doing it for the right reason.

 's picture

E-Verify! Stop this taxpayer fiasco

California—the Sanctuary state, that is suffering terribly from the millions of foreign nationals that have illegally settled there. As if they don’t have enough problems with a senile old Democrat (Liberal) Governor Jerry Brown and a wilting state treasury deficit of $22 billion dollars, the good legal population must now suffer under Democrat Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, is helping to lead a measure, called the ‘California Opportunity and Prosperity Act.’ It would allow if passed 1 million illegal aliens or more to reside and work openly in the state with little fear of deportation under an initiative unveiled Friday by a state legislator and others.
Fuentes explained this measure as a "moderate, common-sense approach" necessitated by the federal government's inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

America has already seen the devastation of what cheap labor has done to the working class, the blue collar jobs, the low income US workers, since the outcome of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Millions more of American workers are without jobs, because of no enforcement at the business level before President Obama—whose great enforcement work has dropped off, mainly because of the ‘usual suspects’ in the corporate world, special interests and penetrated by radical ethic majorities. As the Liberal press holds back the truth, the illegal alien workforce is still stealing jobs, committing heinous crimes and perhaps the abhorrent bloody mayhem on the highways of this country.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a Republican, exploded against the proposal as a s a way to undermine the central governments immigration policies. He envisaged it wouldn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of winning voter endorsement. Donnelly added, "There's a proper process for coming to this country," saying of illegal nationals "Why you don’t respect that?"
Supposedly the proposal would outline the following criteria that the person had settled in California for four years, have no criminal convictions; not being a terrorist, and as most pro-illegal migrant and immigrant politicians who have sided with the Liberal progressive and extremist philosophy of ever increasing government, more taxes to pay for welfare support for the 20 million plus, who arrived by plane and stayed, jumped ship or slipped past the U.S. Border Patrol; and at least another half-million enter this country each year.
Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, Indiana are all weighted down with the foreign nationals that have arrived there, but have facilitated their own laws in reduce the numbers and the unfunded mandates of education, health care and a crowded prison system.
This is why we must succeed in passing the ‘Legal Workforce Act’ or known to Americans as Mandatory E-Verify law. Obama’s presidential orders have been creeping in, which are not following the law and even allowing illegal aliens to remain here. E-Verify will produce the opposite effect, which unlawful aliens will begin to leave as jobs will become less available. Right now E-Verify is just voluntary program, but with a growing number of sponsoring policy makers joining Lamar Smith’s H.R. H.R.2885, the chances are ‘The Legal Workforce Act’ could reach the house floor for that bill to pass. E-Verify and its passage to Congress is well documented on NumbersUSA internet site and information about the negative side if it doesn’t reach the house floor. Already out of the required 100 needed co-sponsors, only 33 are needed to compliment the law. It’s the Public assistance and taxpayer voters, who are contacting their Representatives in the House and Senate, determined not to be ushered to the side and demanding the E-Verify law. Thousands are calling 202-224-3121 to be directed to their federal and state political members and having a nationwide impact.
Michelle Bachmann, a strong advocate for the ‘Rule of Law’ and a TEA PARTY Republican will not be tempted, with the accustomed corruption exhibited within the Halls of Congress. The Tea Party and businessman Herman Cain will remain adamant in opposition to any job or economy killing immigration reform; if Cain lasts the dirty tricks of the other side? Bachmann, Perry have launched their own attacks against former speaker Newt Gingrich who as proposed a similar law to Assemblyman Fuentes in California, with the tirade of paying fines, prior taxes and having no criminal history. In last September debate Perry got pounded for his support for a Texas version of the Dream Act that the TEA PARTY is a strong opponent. Mitt Romney is now echoing Former Congressman Tom Tancredo's who has a huge following and where “amnesty” is a watchword for taxpayers. Tancredo criticizes his rivals, particularly New York Gov. Giuliani for his low key support of a Sanctuary City policy and Huckabee, for both being soft on immigration. Anyone who is to reside in the ‘Oval Office’ must strengthen our immigration laws for American taxpayer first; not pandering to foreign nationals, undocumented immigrants, unauthorized aliens—but none-sanitized, or complicated by the ‘Politically Correctness’ term as they really are—illegal aliens. But most Prez candidates support constructing the fence, and Rick Santorum astonished me when he mentioned Prior President Bush’s ‘Secure Fence Act’ of 2006. Last September Santorum has stated he opposes benefits for illegal aliens, comprehensive immigration reform, and supports a border fence and making English the national language.

Although Santotum has hinted in providing some method for "dealing with" individuals who are already squatting in this country? Senator Santorum also expressed his resistance to any plans to grant social security (a Bush proposal never ratified as yet?) and other discretionary expenditures to illegal aliens who are living in the United States. Every one of the candidates have their ‘Point of view’ which is a powder-keg issue’ that is going to be a strong ticket arising in the presidential elections and stand its ground with both jobs and the economy—as all are major troubles that co-exist together. The bottom line without enforcing immigration laws is the unparalleled encouragement of more illegal aliens coming here without any substantial benefits to an American public other than stealing jobs in all low classes of occupations.

If there is to be a ‘Guest Workers’ program it must be strictly adhered to, with a tracking system of locating absconders’ and able to trace and deport. Whatever the Liberal media says, the TEA PARTY is expanding and growing in extensive numbers and see illegal immigration as a financial liability, but not so with new legal immigrants. The Tea Party would accept I believe a ‘Points System’ like European countries, with the advantage of bringing in the brains from other countries. These would be acclaimed professionals in engineering, science and other future industries that would be perceived as being not relying on the welfare or public assistance from taxpayers.

ERNEST LABBE's picture


If I enter your home through an open window are you going to support me and the rest of my family for the rest of your life. Say thing as entering the U.S. illegally. You either enter through a border crossing with the proper paperwork or you are an illegal alien.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

You living in

a dream world or you better find a new drug dealer cause the eone you have now is selling you some really bad stuff.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

When you say drug dealer, you

When you say drug dealer, you must mean his undocumented pharmaceutical technician, Ernest.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dan, So when did you start


So when did you start supporting corporate welfare and unfair treatment of people?

Many of these immigrant workers come to the U.S. to seek employment, but since they are here illegally many of them work for substandard wages and in unsafe conditions. They are unlikely complain about unfair treatment for fear of deportation. Moreover, any social services, such as health and education, they use comes directly from the taxpayer’s pocket.

Essentially, the taxpayer is subsidization a low cost workforce for their employer.

Dan, if you support undocumented workers, you support corporate welfare and unfair treatment of people.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That's right, Mark and IF

That's right, Mark and IF they do pay any taxes as the libs will tell you, they're doing that under false and illegal pretext as well, since they're using fake social security numbers to do it.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dan, You are correct. You can

You are correct. You can say I was pulling a “Dan” on you. Meaning, I implicitly stated your intentions. Something you do often when you throw down the word “bigot” at the drop of a hat. Not fair is it?

That aside, it is clear in my opinion that providing cheap labor for business is one of the factors why Congress does nothing about illegal immigration. Moreover, it is equally clear that illegal immigration does stress this country’s social system, mainly healthcare and education.
In my mind, the takeaway here is that the taxpayer is subsidizing cheap labor for businesses. Would you agree?

Being that you frequently rail about corporate welfare, I would think you would come out against illegal immigration. Why do you want your tax dollars going to subsidize business labor costs?

Note that I have not even touched on the human factor on how some of these businesses exploit illegal immigrants.

So Dan, where do you stand on this axis of illegal immigration?

John Frecker's picture

Employer sanctions and "deportations" by Obama administration

Yes, the Obama administration has done about as many, or a few more, "employer sanctions" actions as previous administrations. (http://www.iandcsolutions.com/news/141) But, generally speaking, they take a different approach; they do audits of the paperwork rather than worksite raids and notify the employers that "x" number of employees are ineligible to work in the U.S. but doesn't arrest them. The companies (such as Chipotle) fire the employees who then look for work somewhere else.

And there is some debate about the number of actual "deportations" under the Obama administration. (http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/) A "deportation" is a formal proceeding in front of an Immigration Judge. It appears that the administration is counting total "removals", not just deportations. Some of the "removals" counted are apparently "Voluntary Departures" of aliens who are arrested at the border, are not put into formal proceedings and are allow to "return voluntarily" to the country from whence they came.

Their numbers are deceptive, and this administration is weak on immigration enforcement, like all administrations before them. By stopping the removal/deportation of illegal aliens who don't have convictions for major crimes and by ordering ICE agents not to arrest those illegal aliens, this administration has taken it a step further. Most of us who support more immigration enforcement view this as an administrative "amnesty".

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"And when I call someone on

"And when I call someone on being a bigot, it's always valid,"......Any
one who has known you for more than 5 minutes knows that that statement is a total and absolute falsehood. Disliking oBAMA because he is incompetent does not make a person a bigot, although you often call his detractors just that; bigots. BTW--when did you get out?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Calling someone a bigot is a

Calling someone a bigot is a very serious accusation, and should not be levied without substantiating facts.

Calling someone a bigot at the drop of a hat simply because one disagrees with another writer’s opinions is simply childish and should always be challenged.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Absolutely true, Mark, but to

Absolutely true, Mark, but to see how futile that can be, read the 12/5 9:52 post below this one. You'll see my point.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dan, For sake if discussion,

For sake if discussion, let’s agree that bigots rarely know they are bigots, so we can focus on my original statement. My original statement is that you frequently and unfairly call people bigots with little to back it up.

Moreover, it really seems illogical that you can make such claim about someone with reading the smatter of postings on this web-site. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but you are not clairvoyant and cannot see into people’s hearts by reading these opinions.

Any rational adult would backup such claims with facts leading to their conclusion, so should you!

Provide facts, or stop the name calling.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“And when I call someone on

“And when I call someone on being a bigot, it's always valid…”

Wow, how to respond? The idiocy of that statement is extremely transparent to all readers, so I’ll leave it that.

Take solace though, we agree that employers of illegal immigrates should be punished; however, I say with heavy fines to reimburse the taxpayers for subsidizing their workforce.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

And most liberals don't see

And most liberals don't see themselves as the blind fools that they are. You should remember, we're not here to convert you but to enjoy the sport of laughing at you.

 's picture

Then tell them to arrive legally.

There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. The true racist among us is the one who praises an illegal alien over a immigrant, one who follow the rules, learns English, learns civics (more than we demand of resident high schoolers) and strives to become an American. They both work and work hard, but the latter wonders why he bothered to put out the extra effort while the former gets all the benefits by just strolling north across the border.

We don't support them? Tell that to the taxpayers in the southern border states about their schools, hospitals, ... It's easy and hypocritical to pontificate under the safety of a 2500 mile buffer. Tronnie is a master.

Steve  Dosh's picture

T. Shields: Don't duck immigration issue

Tom , 11.12.02 10 : 10 pm ish hst •
" Illegal immigrants form a large part of the population of several prisons "? Where ? They get deported almost immediately back to Mexico where ? 25,000 civilians were killed last year . i can't speak for the rather porous border with Canada ( or New Hampshire :) , the most peaceful National border in the history of forever . You are simply being xenophobic in a reactionary manner like Alabamans . They have the toughest immigration laws right now . Fact
. .uh . i used to do counter narcotics work for a certain agency ( not that one ) in Guatemala for the U S G in my official capacity as a Counselor in the Foreign Service for ? four years . Only got shot at once . The demand is here . Believe you me , drugs , alcohol , and firearms are a - far - greater problem than illegal immigrants and put many , m a n y more people behind bars and six feet under than what you describe
We tend to agree with President Bush . i.e., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007
and would support further legislation along those lines
/s, Dr. Steve Dosh FSO ( ret.)

John Frecker's picture

Illegal immigration

With all due respect to Dr. Dosh, not all of us "restrictionists" (those who want a lot less immigration) are xenophobic. I'm not "afraid" of aliens, but I am somewhat afraid to the negative impacts that the high numbers of immigrants bring. Right now there are about 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs in the U.S. at a time when we have about 22 million Americans unemployed or under-employed.

And the Pew Hispanic Center and the U.S. Census Bureau estimate that the population of the U.S. will grow to about 438 million by 2050, up from about 312 million where it is now. Pew estimates that 82% of that population growth will be due to immigrants and their offspring. We're starting to "feel the pinch" of too much population now; how will we accommodate another 125-130 million people?

There's room for discussion about the number of illegal aliens in prisons, and whether or not they commit crimes at a higher rate than Americans. Some of us wish that they were "deported almost immediately", as Dr. Dosh says, after they're convicted of crimes. And although Mexicans make up about 60% of the illegal population in the U.S., not all illegal aliens are Mexicans and deported "back to Mexico".

Polls consistently show that a substantial majority of Americans want stricter enforcement of the immigration laws. (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls.html) The feeling in "D.C." these days is that there's little chance that any type of CIR (comprehensive immigration reform) could pass through Congress. That could change after the up-coming election, but it appears doubtful. Even with a Democrat congress, President Bush couldn't get CIR passed.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Hahaha....I don't know where

Hahaha....I don't know where you've been but it sure didn't make you any more knowledgeable.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dan, You assert that Dr.


You assert that Dr. Shields is a bigot and is hateful.

What are your facts leading you to this conclusion?

If you are not willing to back your claim with facts leading to this assertion, then perhaps you should lay off the name calling.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...