He and Nanners make quite the DemocRATs.
Posted on 11/23/2011 2:02:09 PM PST by TBBT
Illegal immigration, and the debate that comes with it, isn’t going anywhere. This became clear in previous debates when Governor Perry came under fire and was reinforced last night when Speaker Gingrich spoke these words:
I don’t see how the — the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.
This was followed by Governor Perry:
the real issue is securing that border. And this conversation is not ever going to end until we get the border secure. But I do think that there is a way. That after we secure that border that you can have a process in place for individual who are law- abiding citizens who have done only one thing, as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was, that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together.
Somehow Governor Romney, who here and here was voicing approval of some form of amnesty, has some convinced that he represents the hardline on immigration. Not wanting to chase this rabbit, I will note that this is purely a political move by Gov. Romney rather than a principled objection. After all he’s “running for office, for Pete’s sake…”
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
They don’t want to be citizens. Does anyone see them asking?
They just want the free money.
Isn't it enough that some sort of statute of limitations limits prosecution so they can leave on their own?
The other day I arrived back in the U.S. from overseas. I had to provide my passport to an immigration officer - a man with a gun who coincidentally did not speak very good Engrish - or else I could conceivably be shot while trying to enter the country of my birth and the 12 generations who came before me, the first of whom came long before it was a country!
It's not "optional". There is no right to invade and colonize the United States.
Why should anyone be afforded an administrative amnesty of any kind when no such suffrage for crimes is ever extended for citizens?
Key words that nobody is referencing in Newt’s statement is
“enforcing the law”.
Dems constantly try to enact laws and push lawsuits to make it legal for FELONS to vote. They would redouble their efforts to gain voting rights for “former” illegals who had obtained some sort of “legality” to be here.
Also look how hard Dems fight voter ID laws. Why?
Further:
The lack of voting rights has not been a deterrent to people coming here illegally. So how does this plan reduce the size of the magnet one iota?
The more people are here illegally, the more anchor babies and babies of anchor babies are born. And those people ARE citizens and the CAN vote.
See point above.
As far as I can see, except for the misguided emotional appeals of avoiding “inhumane” and “heartless” actions, the only response to “why give amnesty?” is “it’s too hard to deport everyone.”
But that’s a straw man.
There are plenty of reasonable ways to cause self-deportation.
Yup. And first on that list is certainty of enforcement with high probability of apprehension.
Serious behavior modifier.
Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads.
You mean the law that makes it a crime to enter this country without authorization or not at a designated entry point?
The law the sentences violators to 6 months in federal prison for the first offense and 2 year in prison for a second violation which is a felony?
The law that requires all such criminals be deported?
The law that would prevent such felons from ever legally entering the U.S.?
Are these the laws Newt is keen on enforcing?
If we’re going to “guess” which candidates are lying to which questions, we’re wasting our time. I give each of them the benefit on a yes or no question. If he said he’d enforce the laws (as quoted by you) we have to give him the benefit of the doubt until he categorically misinforms the electorate.
Have you considered that his carefully worded statement was directed at the legal Hispanics who have been for team Obama.
This is going to be a very close election and Obama is a master at divisiveness. Notice that nobody on stage mentioned blanket deportation. (Votes)
Hello Bob.
Just because someone is born here does not automatically make him/her a citizen.
The children of people here illegally cannot claim citizenship as they were not born here under the jurisdiction of the U.S. They therefore have their parents nationality by blood. Enforcing the law already means keeping families together. They’re all deported except for those who are legal residents or citizens of the U.S.
This is not rocket science and furthermore is similiar to the laws as they exist in foreign nations.
No need to guess. If Newt really was going to enforce the laws that I mentioned, he could not have the amnesty program he proposed. They are inconsistent. It's like perjury with two inconsistent statements, you don't have to know which statement is true to know that the person has lied. I don't support liars.
He was trying to turn it into something where he could talk around the main topic without actually saying he favored amnesty, but it didn't work. The reason is his premise was totally offbase.
We are not heartless.
Newt is always posing a false dilemma, then structuring his arguments around it.
He should show up for these dog and pony shows with hay stuffed in his coat and pant cuffs.
>> “If we’re going to “guess” which candidates are lying to which questions, we’re wasting our time.” <<
.
With Noot, there is no need to waste any time; he is always trying to skirt the truth if his lips are moving.
He and Nanners make quite the DemocRATs.
Just because someone is born here does not automatically make him/her a citizen.
While I wish you were correct, apparently birth does automatically make him/her a citizen.
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters4608
Not true.
Only those born here legally are citizens.
That is what the 14th amendment says.
You can find tons of links with bullshit to post, but they are false.
FAIR is not a bullshit link. Here’s their interpretation and philosophy on anchor babies, which by the way, I support.
(and I think you will too)
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/issues/birthright_citizenship_hot_issue
Thank you for pointing that out. Illegals do not want to be citizens. Why should they? They’re getting all the benefits of citizenship, anyway, including, all too often, voting!
That’s what drove me crazy about George W. Bush. He kept saying that his plan wasn’t amnesty because the illegals would not get “automatic citizenship.” Big deal! They’d still get to stay in this country, which is all they want, anyway! It’s like saying, “The squatter who broke into your house is not going to be punished. But hey, it’s okay...we’re only letting him stay in your master bedroom! We’re not giving him the title to your house, so you shouldn’t mind!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.