Posted on 03/22/2007 1:08:49 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Rudy Giuliani speaks at Harvard at the Kennedy School of Government on immigration and the 1996 Welfare Reform Act on October 10, 1996.
[Transcribed starting at 1:07]
I don't think immigration, over the last 30 to 40 years, has been a terrible problem for America, as I tried to point out. I think immigration has worked pretty well. I think it has areas of problems. I think the federal government isn't doing enough about illegal immigration--focusing on the right people, the people that are committing crime. But by and large, I don't think the immigration system needs tremendous reforms.
And finally, I don't subscribe to this sort of macro notion that America is too crowded, that we have too many people, that there aren't enough jobs. I don't think America has enough people. I think the challenge of new people will create more jobs. I think it will create more opportunity, I think - uh - you have people - Before, when we were talking at dinner, there was the notion that we should have criteria--that maybe like the investment criteria--where by and large we should focus on the amount of resources somebody has or - .
I think it's been very good for America that we have let a lot of poor people come into America. I think we want to continue to allow a lot of poor people to come into America. Because, when they do, they really ignite things that maybe a lot of rich people can't do. They have a tremendous desire for success. They have a tremendous desire to kind of push themselves and their family up the economic ladder. They put a tremendous amount of emphasis on making their children understand the value of learning, and school, and being disciplined in school, in order to learn, in order to be successful. These are things that we need to remind ourselves of, and you forget them when we become comfortable, not everybody--but some people--forget them when they become more comfortable. And that is part of the human competition that has been a unique thing in the United States.
When I think about Boston, I think of all of that tremendous immigration in the 19th - 20th century - in the 19th and 20th century, basically of very, very poor people. The people selected weren't the few wealthy or educated people in Ireland or Italy or Greece. They were the poorest people who had to leave because they didn't have any food. And when they came here they came here with this tremendous, unbelievable desire to succeed. Not all of them did, but they created a spirit that was tremendous.
That same thing now goes on in Africa, it goes on in South America, it goes on in Asia, it continues to go on in Europe. And of course we need people who can do specific things, who have great talent, that have a lot of money and it's terrific to have more people invest. But if you ask me to make a choice, I would rather see us--and I know this will probably be totally misunderstood--but I would rather have a lot of poor people come into this country knowing why they are coming here.
Then why did he fight the federal government after he let NYC become a sanctuary city? Why did he stick up for the illegals in his city?
Am I wrong? Tell me.
Many would like to think Reagan was an amnesty guy.
That is a wish in some people's mind
As a native resident of San Diego of many decades and as one who worked at Reagan's headquarters here when he first ran for gov. the facts speak for themselves.
1. The Reagan Amnesty granted a blanket Amnesty to Illegal Aliens.
FALSE
The Reagan Amnesty wasn’t for all Illegal Aliens, there were many requirements that had to be met for Illegals to be eligible. Among them were certain residency requirements, no felony convictions, less than three misdemeanor convictions, medical examinations, etc. They can be found in the following subsection:
"Sec. 245A. (a) Temporary Resident Status.--The Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence if the alien meets the following requirements:
2. The Reagan Amnesty granted automatic citizenship to Illegal Aliens.
FALSE
As seen above in Section 245A., the adjustment of status for Illegal Aliens was to admission for “temporary residence.”
3. The Reagan Amnesty granted citizenship to some Illegal Aliens.
FALSE
Again, as seen above in Section 245A., the adjustment of status for Illegal Aliens was to admission for “temporary residence.”
4. The Reagan Amnesty granted automatic permanent residence (green cards) to Illegal Aliens.
FALSE
Once again, as seen above in Section 245A., the adjustment of status for Illegal Aliens was to admission for “temporary residence.”
For permanent residence requirements, one must go to Section 245(b):
"(b) Subsequent Adjustment to Permanent Residence and Nature of Temporary Resident Status.--
The adjustment to permanent residence for legalized Illegals wasn’t “automatic,” they had to be legalized as temporary workers first, and subsequently adjusted to permanent status. For adjustment to permanent status, the legalized-Illegal had to apply between eighteen and thirty months after being granted his temporary residence, under Section 245(b).1.A.
5. The Reagan Amnesty granted immediate permanent residence (green cards) to some Illegal Aliens.
FALSE
And yet again, as seen above in Section 245A., the adjustment of status for Illegal Aliens was to admission for “temporary residence.”
Same 245(b)(1)(A) applies: requirements for all Illegals adjusted to temporary residence, as seen above at Question #4, before being granted permanent residence.
6. The Reagan Amnesty was granted to Illegal Aliens, free of charge.
FALSE
Illegal Aliens had to pay a fee to be legalized as temporary residents, under Section 245(c)(7)(A) :
"(7) Application fees.--
"(A) Fee schedule.--The Attorney General shall provide for a schedule of fees to be charged for the filing of applications for adjustment under subsection (a) or (b)(1).
Bonus Question:
The Reagan Amnesty mentions the word “Amnesty.”
FALSE
Do the word search on Title II, Section 201 yourself.
Or scroll below, where I’ve posted the entire Section of the legislation that is devoted to Legalization of Status for Illegal Aliens.
Double Secret Bonus Question:
The word “Amnesty” is mentioned in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
FALSE
Go ahead; search every Title and Section of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
The Reagan Amnesty didn’t call itself an Amnesty, anywhere in the legislation.
Well, you may be right.
It's going to be very, very hard to actually do anything about the immigration problem, as we've seen for many years.
I certainly don't disagree that immigration is a growing concern, and threatens the welfare of our country. I'm just not sure whether ANY of the realistic candidates are likely to do anything about it, or whether they could if they wanted to against the political difficulties they would face. It will require a large groundswell, and a lot more states and communities lining up in support, before much is likely to be done on the federal level.
It's encouraging that some towns and cities are passing ordinances against illegal immigrants; but at the same time, other cities and states are passing amnesties and forbidding their police to act. Against that background, you are going to need strong leadership and persuasive power, no matter who is elected.
Prop 187 was the last gasp at state level regulation
Yes, that was set up by the former mayor of San Diego, Pete Wilson
In 1970 we had a population of 203 million. In just 37 years we have added almost 100 million people to our population of now 301 million. Since 1990 we have added 53 million people. Since 2000, our population has grown by 20 million people or the equivalent of the total population of our seven largest cities.
The Census Bureau estimates that our poulation in 2030 will be 364 million and by 2050, 400 million. 3/4 of the population increases can be attributed to immigration, legal and illegal. Annually, we are adding 1 million legal immigrants and 500,000 to 1 million illegal aliens. How much money will be required to maintain and upgrade our current infrastructure, i.e., roads, hospitals, schools, prisons, electrial power, etc. to keep up with these huge, unprecedented increases to our population?
Add to these population increases the impending train wreck with our the entitlement systems and you have a very daunting economic future for this country.
The reason there's more concern NOW is that there wasn't ANY back in 1996. We're paying for the sins of the past and some of these guys, Rudy included with Dubya, still don't get it.
Past performance is the ONLY true indicator of future performance.
When I was twelve years-old, I thought eleven years was a loooooooong time.
Now that I'm much older and have seen a few things, eleven years is NOTHING..
Rudy Rooters need to get a better grasp on time. If he'd have cut taxes in 1996, you'd have remembered it and even posted about it.
My guess that's pretty much what we'll get in the Bush-Kennedy non-amnesty reform.
20 years from now president rudy mcromney will be granting amnesty to 30 milion "aliens" from alpha centuri lol
I don't blame him too much for his statements on illegal immigration while mayor of NYC -- mainly because New York City's economy would collapse without illegal immigrants. However, I do believe that his approach to illegal immigration in the aftermath of the 1996 Federal immigration reform law basically disqualifies him from ever holding public office in the U.S. again for as long as he lives.
Actually there was a lot of concern in 1996 about lllegal immigration and some were trying to address it. But the very same big money masters that destroyed that effort are the same ones pushing open borders today.
Stephen Moore, founder of the Club for Growth, has written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he believes the U.S. "should be thinking about increasing legal immigration." Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal aliens.
In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.
Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.
The coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some conservatives.
"I view it as the camel's nose under the tent for a national ID card," said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute who lobbied against the bill. "The theme we played to Republicans was that if you're trying to roll back big government, you shouldn't be instituting this new police-state power."
Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don't see illegal immigration as a major problem.
"Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I'm not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don't think it's going to work very well," said Moore.
He added that spending $3 billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service "probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn't do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, `Well, how can you say I'm not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.' "
What you don't do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.
"Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures," Moore said. "And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that's mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem."
Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the nineties.
And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.
Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidates by funding their opposition.
Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as "a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration."
On September 19, 2005, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional elections.
You can be sure that both Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist are working full time to keep our borders open and promote any and all trade/labor agreements whether they benefit the USA and it’s people or not.
Moore said this about Norquist. "From the moment he gets up to the moment he gets to bed, he thinks, 'How am I going to hurt the other team?"
Whoever the Club for Growth decides to push for president, you can be sure they don't believe it if that candidate pretends to want to secure the border and implement sane trade policy.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/02/club-for-growth-and-2008-presidential.html
Meese states in his NYT article, "The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
The "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986". aka Simpson-Mazzoli was amnesty no matter how you try to spin it. Yes, there were requirements that had to be met, but it rewarded people who illegally entered our country a path to citizenship in much the same way that McCain-Kennedy-Hagel-Martinez proposed. In fact, if you compare S2611 with Simpson/Mazzoli, you will find some of the exact same language, word for word.
You can also check the language of the McCain bill and you will find no mention of the word "Amnesty." If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is a duck, no matter what you call it.
There was no need for Rudy to be "happy" at all. That wasn't an interview -- it was basically a Giuliani campaign ad in which Hannity played the role of a campaign prop.
Hannity had no intention of asking him any tough questions. In fact, the "interview" reached the point of being comical once Hannity started providing answers for Giuliani in the form of his "questions."
pawn vanity is good at being a campaign prop
Rudy is clueless.
pretty much what we'll get in the Bush-Kennedy non-amnesty reform.
One of the many differences if the no amnesty goes through now, over 14 million illegals have entered the U.S. in recent years
"Julie-Yawnee is like a pitbull. He's great to have around when someone's breaking into your house, but you might not want to leave him alone with your kids, 'cause he might just eat'em."
Chris Rock
I wish it weren't the case, but I've no doubt that every illegal here without a criminal (felony?) record will be a legal resident, we'll call them guest workers, with a citizenship path intact by the end of GWBs term, likely by the end of 2007.
I have seen that article many times,
but the former comments stand.
the bottom line, over 14 million have entered the U.S. in recent years and they are killing off the country.
Just spend one day in San Diego.
I don't think the immigration system needs tremendous reforms.
---Rudy Giuliani- March 2007
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.