Thread: Can you help analyze Wkgn. mayor's illegal alien plan?

Well, okay he's not mayor yet but if he keeps talking about how to deal with our vast illegal alien problem he's got my vote in Feb. '09!

I value the vast knowledge and contacts this board has. If anyone could look at this and offer any suggestions or advice I'd appreciate it.

Do you think anyone would like to interview this mayoral candidate or write an article about him?

For those who don't know last year Waukegan and our county (whose jail is in Waukegan) applied for 287g. And now it's exciting to hear a candidate willing to even talk about this issue -the others ain't touching it!

Here is the first part of his plan;
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Immigration

The number one issue affecting Waukegan is the number of Illegal Immigrants who reside in Waukegan. Just as there are two sides to every coin, so is the case with legal and illegal immigration. My plan’s focus is on strengthening our infrastructure in order to shore up our city. I believe our Waukegan citizens simply want a community where business thrives and property values increase. A community where lawless individuals and known troublemakers do not feel welcome. A community that is not just safe but free from gang violence and graffiti. There is a new Waukegan on the Horizon! I present to you, my Immigration plan.



Wakefield Immigration Bill Proposal;

Following is a portion of my strategic plan, which addresses illegal immigration. Illegal Immigration is a systematic problem that affects our entire country. As a nation, we have permitted well over 400,000 undocumented immigrants to enter our country a year. This number has noticeably increased since 2006. The section of immigration law 287G has not been enacted in our area well after 11 months of applying. I have spoken with several Waukegan police officers to assess their need for 287G at the local level and find out if they felt it would help. Half responded and felt it would, while just as many veterans said they have already deported dozens over the years. I feel like 287G was a way to “treat the symptom and not the problemâ€

It sounds to me (and I am not attuned to the nuances of your local politics) that this guy is really loathe to take a stand, either way. HOWEVER, if illegal immigrants start causing your community financial problems he will expect the feds to pick up the tab. He sounds like a "hand washer" a "buck passer" maybe even an "opportunist." Very elusive and not willing to put his cards on the table.

If he came out in favor of a sanctuary status or of welcoming even illegal immigrants, there would not be a strong basis for pleading for help from the federal government. It would be inconsistent. And he would lose the vote of people such as yourself. If he came out tough on illegal immigration, he has more authority to ask for federal help, but then he loses the liberal vote. So he straddles the fence but doesn't want to lose credibility if Waukegan experiences financial trouble.

But, can he get the federal government to actually put out the money? Hey, everyone is trying to do that: hospitals, border states, etc.

But if as you say he is better than the rest of the pack then people like yourself need to get in serious contact with him and tell him why the immigration laws are a priority. You need to brainstorm as to how you will make the initiatives or policies work and also stand up against legal challenges thrown your way by the opposition. Politics has become a very nasty, tricky undertaking. Conservatives, in particular, IMO, run the risk of frivolous lawsuits. This will take enormous time and commitment.

fedupinw, I'm looking at this too, and will offer some comments sometime this evening or early tomorrow. I haven't forgot about you, I promise....

I agree a lot with what Captainron said.

While he might sound like he is willing to get tough, he really talks around the real 'core' part of the enforcement issue.

A couple of related observations:

1. Why can't he come straight out and say - without qualification - 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien', instead of using parenthetical references or 'undocumented immigrant'.

2. The issue isn't about playing games with city vs. Federal budgets to compensate localities (well, so much, anyway...) about the costs imposed by IAs on local communities, it is about stopping then reversing the flow of IAs into the area. Playing games with numbers doesn't really solve the problem. The compensation idea is nice, and useful - but if you don't stop the flow and harboring of IAs, it is essentially meaningless - he's only shifted the burden to the overall Federal taxpayer, but somebody, somewhere, ...still pays.

3. Why not bulleted points about how he is going to back, support, finance, 287g related efforts? That would actually do a lot more in the short term to most effectively address the overall problem.

4. My gut impression is that he is carefully parsing words and defining terms as he goes - translated.... 'Danger Will!' - he sounds like a lawyer to me.

He needs to be put to a stricter test as to his true feelings and intentions.
Let me think for a bit on how best to deal with that part of the problem.

HTH, for now at least...

Update:

>> How does he feel about the SAVE Act? (yes, I know, it's Federal Congressional legislation, but how he goes on record about that will give you a good idea of his true stand)

>> How does he feel about enforcement directed at illegal employers?

>> Is the IA problem mainly one of local budgets and fiscal concerns, or is it larger and more widely encompassing than that (to him)?

>> How does he feel about greater short-term enforcement which will impose higher immediate costs (as when 287g is implemented in earnest for the first time) vs. longer-term when IAs begin to self-deport and costs to the local community will tend to fall? ( will he argue for and support higher short term costs for longer-term gain)?

I believe our Waukegan citizens simply want a community where business thrives and property values increase. A community where lawless individuals and known troublemakers do not feel welcome. A community that is not just safe but free from gang violence and graffiti. There is a new Waukegan on the Horizon! I present to you, my Immigration plan.

[quote]
I feel like [u]287G was a way to “treat the symptom and not the problemâ€

1. I have found certain legal grounds for the implementation of a federal act in which the federal government will have to aid cities with extreme over crowding of illegal immigrants.

I know how i feel bout this statement . It's not a statement to want me to vote for him . Just my 2 cents

Great, another politician who thinks all of us should be picking up the tab for a local illegal immigration problem. IMO, he should be providing a plan dedicated to getting rid of the illegals, not on how to subsidize city services because of them. I see absolutely nothing that would indicate a strong position against illegal immigration. Actually, this guy sounds like someone that could possibly find having illegals in the community acceptable if he could find a way to diminish their burden on local taxpayers.

Well he at least is thinking about doing something ,which is more than the others, citizens need to question him and get feed back on his positions in other areas, as well as give him suggestions and see how he reacts. AT least he notices illegals are having a negative impact and that is much more than most politicians will notice or admit to.

We will suggest that legal residents who pay taxes, living in these areas (i.e. 60085 60087 60073 etc.) receive tax credits like with the victims of natural disasters (i.e. Katrina). This suggestion happens to be substantiated by a case law. Below is a part of the law for disaster relief for victims and those who aid the displaced victims.

Yes ,we will be footing the bill as usual, however ,American citizens will be reaping the benefits for a change.

Zeezil wrote:

Yes ,we will be footing the bill as usual, however ,American citizens will be reaping the benefits for a change.

What change? IMO, subsidizing the community will have the opposite effect. Covering up the problems, through federal funding, being brought on by illegal aliens will remove some of the burden the community is experiencing. With government relief (our tax dollars) the city will feel less of a need to actively deal with the root problem which is illegal aliens and illegal alien employers. Nope, federally subsidizing communities suffering an illegal alien problem is not the answer (IMO). Does anything I'm saying make sense?

Originally Posted by MW

Zeezil wrote:

Yes ,we will be footing the bill as usual, however ,American citizens will be reaping the benefits for a change.

What change? IMO, subsidizing the community will have the opposite effect. Covering up the problems, through federal funding, being brought on by illegal aliens will remove some of the burden the community is experiencing. With government relief (our tax dollars) the city will feel less of a need to actively deal with the root problem which is illegal aliens and illegal alien employers. Nope, federally subsidizing communities suffering an illegal alien problem is not the answer (IMO). Does anything I'm saying make sense?

Actually MW, the above quote is mine and not Zeezils, any efforts toward change or getting attention about the fact that illegals are invading and over running communities, is a good thing. The reality is American citizens getting tax credits for that is a long shot anyway, but some action toward it might ruffle some feathers and get some attention. I am just going to say judging someones intentions too early is as bad a turning a blind eye until it is too late. Maybe we should just wait and see what shakes out.