Sarah Palin Is Pro Amnesty For Illegal Aliens - Univision Interview [Old news, 2008]

Diggers Realm ^ | October 24, 2008

[OldDeckHand]

I'm for amnesty too. Instead of jailing them for illegally entering our country, as is the case in Iran and NK, I just propose that when we find them in the country, we stick them on a train to Tijuana, with only a small fine to cover the cost of the trip - but, no jail time. There's my amnesty proposal.

[dragnet2]

To my knowledge, the Univision interview is the only time she has voiced her opinion on a subject the affects the very sovereignty and security of our country, and if she truly opposed McCain, she had the opportunity to do so. In the end, I think it will be made clearer that her position IS the same as Bush/McCain. In the end, it will be interesting to see who continues to support her in spite of it.

Good post.

[Man50D]

OK, somehow I missed the part where you decided that the boys would be chasing illegals down the street.

Then you either have a short memory or haven't read my previous posts.

My Reply #18: ICE wouldn't have to physically round up all of them if our existing immigration laws were strictly enforced. Many would leave the country voluntarily in order to avoid being caught.

My reply #141 to you: You completely missed the point of my previous post. Not all the illegals will have to be physically rounded up. ICE can go after those they do find and the others will get the message it isn't worth remaining in the country.

My reply #418 to you: Federal authorities rounding up illegals at the work force will not only force those not caught to leave the country but punish those harboring illegals with imprisonment, fines and confiscation of property. Dry up the source of income for illegals and they will leave the country.

My reply #480 to you: All my remarks focus on strictly enforcing existing immigration laws. Doing so will scare those who are not caught to leave voluntarily especially since they will have no source of income.

My reply #483 to you: You obviously discussing the law but I have been since my original post in reply #18. To quote: "ICE wouldn't have to physically round up all of them if our existing immigration laws were strictly enforced. Many would leave the country voluntarily in order to avoid being caught."

Notice each reply specifically cites illegal aliens.

I don’t know how you remove 7 to 20 million workers, all at once, without creating a logistical, political, business, and human nightmare. You insist it’s easy to remove them all and by implication to keep them from returning. Good for you. I think you’re dreaming.

Now you are either being disingenuous or dense since it has been explained to multiple time it will not be necessary to round up all of them if ICE deports all they capture and punish employers. Employers are the source of income for illegals. Cut off the source of income for illegals and the they will leave the country.

I noticed you conveniently did not respond to my previous post(reply #500) addressing your remark the law is superfluous. Did you look up the definition or are you standing by your earlier remark the law is superfluous in reply #467?

[org.whodat]

Who are you going to believe me are your lying eyes. Same BS that the McCain crowd dished out. LOL

Not buying it.

[org.whodat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKY2O4KFmMU

[larry hagedon]

A lot of peope have been quick to condemn me. I tend to take people at their word, and there was nothing ambiguous about the quote. What I have not seen yet is one link proving that the quote is false.

Sorry guys, I will not accept your assertions that “Surely she wouldnt say something like that”.

We have a quote from Sarah posted. Now prove to me it is false. Show me any place she said we should prosecute and deport illegals.

[larry hagedon]

A lot of people are assuming Sarah surely would not ever say what she was clearly quoted as saying.

I have a quote, what do you have to refute it?

If the quote is false, show me a quote from her that gives me a reason to believe so.

Before you folks go off judging me, give me some reason to believe you.

[larry hagedon]

Can you prove the quote is wrong, or are you just assuming it is wrong?

So far no one that is attacking me has one shred of evidence on which to base their attacks.

[Leonard210]

“I noticed you conveniently did not respond to my previous post(reply #500) addressing your remark the law is superfluous.”

I didn’t say, “The Law Is Superfluous.” I said it was superfluous to a conversation about logistics. Maybe I should have said enforcement. We agree that there’s a law. We even agree that no one should break the law. I’m having trouble understanding how you intend to enforce the law when the numbers, which you are conveniently avoiding, are not hundreds, or thousands, but millions. You think it’s simple, I don’t.

“Then you either have a short memory or haven’t read my previous posts.”

Seems you’re correct, I had missed your intent.

[Man50D]

I didn’t say, “The Law Is Superfluous. I said it was superfluous to a conversation about logistics.

You should quit while you still have a little dignity remaining. You specifically referred to the law being superfluous in a past reply.

Your reply #467 "Oops, sorry, I missed your point way at the bottom of the superfluous legal info you posted.

You're pattern of denying statements you made in previous posts only weakens your position and reaffirms the disingenuous nature of your comments.

Obviously you haven't checked the definition yet. I suggest you do so before you embarrass yourself further. Do you insist on maintaining your position in reply #467?

[GSP.FAN]

i checked out DD.
Thank you that was very interesting.

[Leonard210]

The legal info was and still is superfluous to the discussion we were clearly having about logistics. Making big letters doesn’t change that. You have been avoiding the numbers and think that because you cite a law you have solved a problem. You haven’t.

[larry hagedon]

The people freaking out over this are the ones that have believed on blind faith that Sarah is anti illegals amnesty. They are the ones attacking me for taking her at her word.

In fact Sarah has generaly been very careful to keep her position a secret. This is why no one attacking me or the post can post a quote to support their position.

The only pieces of evidence are that she opposes drivers licenses for illegals, and she did nothing as governor to close or oppose sanctuary cities in Alaska.

She did say she was against amnesty, but then she said she was for a pathway to citizenship, so go figure, sounds just like pro amnesty Bush and McCain.

[Man50D]

The legal info was and still is superfluous to the discussion we were clearly having about logistics.

Oh so now you admit to stating the law is superfluous after denying it in you previous post! LOL!! Don't look now but you're up to your eyeballs in self contradiction. Let me know when you find the definition.

You have been avoiding the numbers and think that because you cite a law you have solved a problem. You haven’t.

Now you're actually implying immigration law enforcement is irrelevant! Here's a little common sense for you to consider. The number of illegal aliens is high precisely because we have not enforced the immigration laws and now you take the position we should further ignore the immigration laws as a solution to the problem lack of enforcement has caused! Congratulations! You just hit a new low in common sense! LOL!!!

[Leonard210]

Still can’t address the numbers? Brilliant.

[budwiesest]

make sure we get behind the right person and that that person does right for our country.

Trust your enemy's insticts, grasshopper. I know, she's a work in progress, but her love of country and liberty she wears on her sleeve making her a target of the Left. With no regrets, I might add.

Like a good wine, she'll 'age' to perfection, perhaps. 'Till then, her ability to raise a conservative Armada will have to do.

That's all she really has to do when you think of it. It's up to us to make things happen locally and statewide. Man your station, man your cannon soldier, this gal means business.

Additionally, the truth she lives, and the truth this country so badly needs to return to, may be found on her shoulders. A huge undertaking, but one that would have such a following that most would forget she'd also be the first female president ('cause that's not why they're supporting her). I hope she takes the gig.

Obama's ships are in the harbor, Sarah needs to draw him out into open water where her 'crew' can take him apart, one lying vessle at at time. She's got about two years to put together a fleet. That's plenty of time, in my book.

She'll be busy constructing a resistance while Jug-ear wastes precious ammo on Health Care, all the while taking pot-shots at cops in Cambridge, plumbers in Ohio, etc. to amuse himself and his 'crew' with his 'fire power'.

2012 is gonna be fun. Biggest Blow-out in History will repudiate collectivism, communitarianism, socialism, communism, and all forms of Big State interference in our lives- ever. Like putting out an oil-rig fire, the 'explosion' of freedom will snuff this menace for some time.

That's where this is headed, boys and girls. Obama's gonna bring Change to America like he never imagined: we'll break the chains these socialists have put on us, for sixty years or more. Not sure about you, but I'm ready to leave the 'plantation'.

Weaning folks from the public 'teat' may take time. But that's where America has to go if she's ever to meet with her destiny.

We aren't Americans because we're afraid, we're Americans 'cause we will meet any challenge with the courage of conviction and a resolute faith in individuals and the freedoms they possess, by law.

[Illinois is a Red State]

Looks like this Rebel is yelling a bit too loudly for Mittens... sayanora to his candidacy, he doesn’t stand a chance against Sarah!

[Quickgun]

She says she is against it. You say she is for it. Until she proves different, I take her word. She says there is a pathway to citizenship. There is. Your own ancesters probably used it if you live in the US and are not a native Indian.
And that was mean’t exactly the way she said it. The headline of this article completely contradicts what is in the article itself.
Are you opposed to legal immigration? If you are, then I can see how you would fault what she said. Legal immigration, going through the processes to become a citizen is exactly what she meant. That is what the “pathway” is. Tell us how she could have worded what she said to better convince you that she is opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.
Sarah was the governor of Alaska. Federal Immigration officials are supposed to be responsible for enforcing existing law. As another poster said, she wasn’t the dictator.

[Mr. Peabody]

Give me a break. Of course she had to support McCain’s policies as his running mate. This is from the 2008 campaign. Why post it now?

[PhiKapMom]

I am not defending it one way or the other — it is an old quote while she was the VP for McCain which puts it in the category of supporting the person who put you on the ticket which is why I gave no credence to the statement. She could not embarrass McCain in the middle of the race so I ignored her answer then and do so now. It carries zero weight with me.