Napolitano is refusing to enforce law aimed at returning criminal aliens to their home country

Heh, obviously the answer is that she sees them as potential voters :smiley:

  1. I don’t see what any of this has to do with Janet Napolitano. Shouldn’t the questions be directed to Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder?

  2. Talk about unfair. Your lame-ass government won’t do the right thing, so you get the shaft?

It’d be nice if your cite supported your topic. There’s a huge difference between someone refusing and someone else claiming they refuse.

Aw, poor Chen. Destroyed within 5 posts yet again.

longer post needed

Some reason for it being in the Elections forum might be helpful, too.

I read the law as leaving it up to the Attorney General whether to ask the Secretary of State to suspend issuing Visas. According to Alien Vessel’s cite, the US has successfully deported something like 200,000 illegal immigrants after they committed crimes, while according to this, only something like 2000 were released over three years because their home countries wouldn’t take them back.

So in short, I expect Holder is within his rights to not refer the cases to the Sec of State, and he hasn’t done so because its not that big a problem, affecting only some .3% of cases, and the legal remedy would presumably effect large numbers of legal visa holders (some portion of which would become illegal immigrants when faced with being unable to renew their visas, possibly causing a bigger problem for INS then it sovles).

And I agree that it doesn’t seem to have much to do with Napolitano either way.

That part won’t be necessary- this seems to be more about immigration law than any specific politician, so I’ve moved it to Great Debates.

wtf? This was just a quick post in the elections thread. Can you provide some examples of other occasions where you consider my arguments have been refuted?

Otherwise, I’ll have to say you’re full of it. You can post your response here.

True, it isn’t clear from the article whether Holder has made the notification. So you’re right, the query should be directed to him.

If you could go ahead and cite the actual problem (documented, of course) of alien immigrants voting, that would be helpful.

That was a tongue in cheek comment, I’ll use the correct emoticon next time.

As pointed out above, my comment was mainly in jest but it appears that illegal immigrants are in fact voting in the US. So there you go.

Of course, the information in the first link simply waves around the dishonest tripe from “former recess-appointed FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, whose troubling record on voting rights caused him to withdraw his name from consideration for a permanent FEC seat,” that has been pretty soundly refuted in the report to which I linked, including documentation of von Spakovsky’s distortions and lies.

Similarly, the second link is to a claim made by a Republican advocacy group that has not been supported by any actual evidence.

As it is usual, I expect the cite to have an item that Chen019 deftly ignored.

Notice how Gessler avoided answering the question.

Best educated guess, if there is an investigation, very few will be found to be breaking the law as in previous “wake-up calls”.

I thought the evidence was that 12,000 were registered to vote? Also, the system seems remarkably lax:

While I note that the “methodology” of the study was seriously flawed and that the author refused to even attempt to defend it, changing the subject as soon as it was challenged.

I doubt that their claims have any validity.
(And citing a separate news item that simply tells the same story with the same lack of factual content fails to establish much support for your position. It is rather like simply repeating the same claim over and over in the hope that repetition will make it true.)