Fred Thompson Prepared to Announce Major Plan to Crack Down on Illegal Immigration

Blogs For Fred Thompson ^ | October 23, 2007 | brkcmo

[Hostage]

Thanks for the correction!

[DesScorp]

Just what the doctor ordered. Thank you, Fred.

Now if you’ll just come out against the Law of the Sea Treaty, you’ve sealed the deal.

[PGalt]

Go Fred!

[tumblindice]

“national will will fold like a house of cards”
Only if you say so FRiend.
But if Fred plans a “crackdown”, then of course we conservatives will expect a `Law and Order’ candidate since most law-abiding people—at least in the heartland—have little patience with lawbreakers, especially foreign invaders.
Head `em up, move `em out!

[kabar]

Kris Kobach is Thompson’s advisor on immigration matters. He is very strong on the issue. It was an excellent choice and we will see a comprehensive plan put forth by Thompson on immigration, one that will address not only illegal immigration, but also our legal immigration policies.

[Will88]

“It’s even more problematic than that. Not one of the “round ‘em all up and deport them now!” crowd can put forward a workable plan to do so under the following realities:

* The plan must not infringe civil liberties
* The plan must ensure that not one U.S. citizen or legal resident is accidentally detained or deported”

I don’t think there is a “round ‘em all up and deport them now” crowd, or it’s a very small crowd. That’s mostly an invention of anti-enforcement/pro amnesty types which they use to smear those who think our laws should be enforced. The practical approach most all pro-enforcement advocates support is:

1. Secure our borders by all means needed including fences/physical barriers.

2. Strictly enforce of the law against employers who hire illegals.

3. Allow a natural attrition or self-deporting to progress as much as possible, and enforce the law whenever illegals are encountered during routine law enforcement.

The deport them all approach is just a canard used disingenuously by those who don’t want the law enforced.

[Fishrrman]

"Fred Thompson Prepared to Announce Major Plan to Crack Down on Illegal Immigration..."

Boy, I sure hope it doesn't take him as long to "announce" this major plan, as it did his candidacy!

(Running and hiding)
- John

[kabar]

I agree. Personally I'm pro legal immigration. Instead of the GOP always coming out with positions stating what they are against, which will be portrayed as mean and racist, we need to tell Americans what we are for.

We need to change our legal immigration policies as well. They are far more dangerous to the future welfare of this country than illegal immigration, which is far easier to resolve. Chain migration, anchor babies, and excessive numbers will add 105 million to our population by 2060 due just to immigration. By 2060, we will add 167 million people. We need to go back to the Jordan Commission recommendations and reduce legal immigration to 300,000 a year versus the current 1.2 million today.

[Guenevere]

I was wondering where you were...

In a nutshell...People want something done about illegal immigration....and Duncan wanted to do something.....actually Duncan has been doing plenty about it!

..Duncan took a strong position on this and has been actively working towards a solution....for years!

...But the 'powers that be' could care less what Duncan's doing or will do because he isn't part of their game plan..

.. so they will do everything to ignore & neutralize him...

..but they can't even demonize him, though, because he's a good man and squeaky clean.

..Bottom line....the 'powers that be' will let Thompson lead the charge on illegals.....

..but it will be only as much as 'they' will allow).....smoke & mirrors

**I didn't use to be so cynical or jaded...

[CottonBall]

I’ll go for the guy who has made it a central issue since he came into office, rather than one who says “one day we awoke to find 12 to 20 million illegal aliens” had invaded.

Tancredo?

Just kidding - I saw your tagline. Unfortunately, a real conservative like Hunter or Tancredo won't get the nomination. But I'd love to be able to vote for either of them.

[kabar]

The first thing you do is shut off the supply. When you have a water pipe break in the basement, you shut off the water and then address the water damage. I see no great urgency in rounding up the people already here. Employer sanctions will force many to go home and we can let many of the others fade away due to benign neglect. And if we have more state and local enforcement personnel with 287 [g] authority, it will have a multiplier effect on deportation.

[SpaceBar]

The first thing you do is shut off the supply.

You'll get no argument from me on that point.

[kabar]

Kris Koback is Thompson’s advisor on immigration matters. That is going to make a world of difference on the Thompson campaign on that issue. I have similar reservations to your’s about Abraham, until I learned about Kris being appointed.

[papasmurf]

Are just trolling , or are you serious?

The Mexican card

It's not about Mexicans. You are propagating a myth, and feeding the into dummie's feces trough.
It's about ILLEGAL intruders into our Country! Asians, Russians, Poles, al qaeda, whoever.

The queer card

Sorry, but you're wrong, again. While we may detest acts of homosexuality, we fully understand it's their right, as consenting adults-in the privacy of their homes-with consenting adults to be as perverted as they wish...as long as no laws are broken doing so.
It's about special class rights, it's about their teachings in public schools, it's about them spreading their perversion among our youth...not their "queerness".

The abortion card

While I'm sure the vast majority of Conservatives are strongly opposed to abortion, that's not the main issue here.
It's about Government sponsorship, encouragement, and payment for abortions. It's also about Parental rights over the right of the Government.

I am really shocked at a long time FReeper posting as proxy for the left.

[kevkrom]

I don’t think there is a “round ‘em all up and deport them now” crowd, or it’s a very small crowd.

The original reply that kicked off that conversation was:

They say we can not round up these people and ship them out. BS just do it.

I don't know where you've been reading, but I see this type of thing all the time at FR -- there is a significant mindset out there that will accept nothing less than mass deportations, regardless of the feasibility or practicality of how it could actually be done.

Now maybe it's a very small (but noisy) minority, but that sentiment is out there. It's not an "invention of anti-enforcement/pro amnesty types." As for myself, I'm in favor of strong enforcement measures and against what is commonly called "amnesty" (I'd be in favor of what could be considered a "limited" amnesty that says that the illegal entry would be forgiven/not considered if they leave the country and re-apply through the normal immigration process).

[CottonBall]

A-that those who stay here realize this is America, not Mexico...and while they are welcome to embrace their culture, the US flag stays over the Mexican flag or else...and there’s no need to make multi-generational ghettos of Spanish-speakers that never assimilate or learn our language and culture. My Italian great-grandparents lived in an Italian neighborhood, sure, but their kids (my grandmother and her siblings) were as American as apple pie.

B-they need to learn English

Neither will happen with illegals. It's not like when our Italian relatives came here (my mother and your great-grandparents). They came here legally and that makes ALL the difference. The first thing the illegal alien does when they come here is break our laws. That attitude says it all. There are 3rd and 4th generation anchor babies here - and you can hardly tell them from the ones that just came across the border. They do speak English, thanks to taxpayer-funded schools, but with accents. They didn't speak one word of English until our school taught them - even though their parents also speak English! Mexico and all things Mexican are much more important to them. They have a disdain for this country that they pass onto their generations. Don't make the mistake of confusing illegal aliens with legal immigrants. It starts with their attitude toward this country - taking that oath of allegiance says it all.

[papasmurf]

Very well said.

If I may my .02, those who are here, and are not, otherwise criminals, need to get legal...muy pronto! Es la ley, amigo. I would love to see an ultimatum given, whereby they have x time to do so, or we will run them out, at any cost. And that goes for anyone, regardless of National origin.

It’s time to take back our Country!

[kevkrom]

Given this appears to be a flip flop on Fred’s part (I agree with the post above #38), (not to mention a steal from Duncan Hunter’s playbook), I expect we’ll have to do a lot of reading between Fred’s lines again in order to see through this little dog and pony show. No doubt in my mind, positions don’t change on a dime and anything he’s proposing will equate to Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” = no amnesty AMNESTY and a ‘technologically’ (un)secured border. I’ve no reason to trust Fred Thompson now.

Translation: "I've been distorting Thompson's position on immigration for months; I'm going down with the sinking ship if I have to!"

[CottonBall]

I suppose no conservative should propose anything, since it could not get by a Democrat congress.

Reagan managed. (I don't mean the 1986 Amnesty, but tax cuts, etc.)

[Man50D]

As I understand it, you have just arrived at the nut of Fred’s plan.

It's only part of his plan. Per the article: " Thompson will also call for stronger laws to force employers to verify that workers aren't illegal immigrants".

The existing immigration laws have not been enforced. Passing more laws will do no good so long as the prevailing attitude is not to enforce current laws. The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act(post #9) was enacted in 1996 while Thompson was Senator. The question is why has Thompson suddenly made enforcing current immigration laws an issue instead of when he was Senator?