Even my nanny agrees: Deport illegals!
By Andrea Peyser

Last Updated: 6:33 AM, May 3, 2010

Posted: 4:09 AM, May 3, 2010
Comments: 5

No one walks into the motherhood minefield intending to become an outlaw. But with no pre meditation and very little thought, I did.

I had in my employ a nanny who lived in this country illegally. Or rather, the energetic, experienced mommy substitute whose services I needed to get my family through the day had lived and worked on these shores for years without benefit of a green card. It was her choice.

Was I harboring a criminal? Probably, though we paid her taxes in an effort to make her presence legit.

Did anyone, save for those vetting candidates for federal judgeships or Cabinet posts, seem to mind? Not a bit.

This weekend, several thousand New Yorkers -- many of them union members or professional "activists" -- braved the sunshine to protest laws like the one in Arizona. They insist that anti-immigrant laws, which several states are now considering, will result in the rounding up and deporting of brown-complected people based on the color of their skin.

"This is racial profiling, plain and simple!" said union worker Sandy Cohen of Queens, at a rally in Union Square. Then came the chants, "Power to the people!"

But it is those such as -- surprise! -- my former nanny who found the marchers all wet.

"They just want to take from this beautiful country," she told me. "They don't want to work. They want to commit crimes or whatever." Wow.

We are a city of hypocrites. And we'll never come to terms with illegal immigration until we face who we are.

Secretly, we like illegals -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink -- at least when they perform jobs that citizens either abhor or are not willing or qualified to do. Such as changing diapers or busing tables. Washing dishes or hauling machinery. We look the other way. Or worse.

"Are you kidding? If they deported every illegal nanny, no one would get to work on Wall Street and the city would crumble," said a pal who has hired two illegals herself. Hiring aliens was enough to scuttle the attorney-general prospects of Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird, not to mention that it set in motion the crash and burning of Bernie Kerik. But deporting people is such a lengthy process, the government doesn't even go after non-lawbreakers.

It's business as usual.

But the crisis in immigration cannot be protested away. We like immigrants, until they overburden emergency rooms. Or crimes are committed by those who have no stake in this society. Predictably, The New York Times was hysterical over an alien crackdown. Columnist Linda Greenhouse wrote a breathless piece in which she vowed to boycott Arizona, much to the state's relief.

But had Times reporters walked into Brooklyn or Queens or even onto 43rd Street and talked to immigrants, they would have heard another view. Rose Molitemi of New Jersey, for instance, was ready to march -- in favor of a crackdown.

"It's a privilege to come to America," she said. "A lot of people coming over the border are drug dealers, and that bothers me. They should not be given a break more than anyone else gets."

The answer is simple -- and elusive.

Lawbreakers should be deported, swiftly. No appeals. No civil-liberties lawyers. Out.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/e ... z0msYXj4jZ


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/e ... J#comments#ixzz0msYG3ath


I posted a comment:

Ratbstard

05/03/2010 10:55 AM

We had a national debate about Illegal Immigrat5ion that started around 1982. Seems we had a problem with over one and half million people being present in the USA illegally. The debate raged for a few years with one side proposing an amnesty while opponents said an amnesty would only encourage more illegal immigration. The proponents of amnesty won out because of the inclusion of strict laws that were intended to make it very, very hard to live and work in the USA as an Illegal Alien. The "One Time Only Amnesty" would fix the broken immigration laws of the USA and prevent it from ever arising again. A young Senator from NY, Charles Schumer, was very involved in the formation of the 1986 IRCA laws.

So what happened? Well certain cities and then entire states began to declare themselves "Sanctuaries" from the 86 IRCA laws. Mayor Koch of NYC being one of the first in 1988. The federal government's response to such blatant conflict? Absolute silence! Did Sen. Chuck Schumer address the media in 88 declaring such sanctuaries amounted to the betrayal of American citizens (I being one) who agreed to the 86 IRCA only because of the promises of tough enforcement measures?

So here we are in 2010 and the exact same debate rages again. The arguments from both sides are are also exactly the same. The only difference I can see is in the number of IAs living in the USA today. Estimates range from 10 to perhaps as many as 30 million.

This debate has been much longer than the one in the early 1980's with no end in sight. AZ steps to the plate and declares enough is enough and passes a state law the quite simply declares ALL SANCTUARY POLICIES in their state will no longer be tolerated. The 86 (and later 96) Immigration Laws will be enforced. That my friends is the entire tempest in a teapot. LAW IS MEANT TO BE ENFORCED.