Posted on 03/22/2007 1:08:49 PM PDT by calcowgirl
I think he is right on immigration - we don't want to be seen as being anti-immigration.
The issue is ILLEGAL immigration and lack of assimilation.
If he said this in 1996, he was right, because the immigration "reform" back then made things much worse.
Also, you might even say the same thing now. Most of the proposals for "reform" that are being entertained in congress would make things much worse. The most urgent need is not reform but enforcement.
Here, here!!!
But, but, that's OLD NEWS !!!
Actually, our immigration "system" isn't as bad as some people think, other than set-asides like "diversity visas".
It's the illegal, unregulated immigration on which Rudy misses the boat.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. It was amnesty in 1986 and it is amnesty now as proposed by McCain, Kennedy, et. al.
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.
We don't know how many have entered the country illegally. And yes, we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction. I don't have to go to San Diego to see it, although I once lived there. I can see it every day in the Washington DC metro area.
In addition to stopping illegal immigration, we need to reform our legal immigration policies, which Kennedy got implemented in 1965. Due to chain migration, the number of legal immigrants continues to rise [except for those categories with caps] and we are losing the diversity in terms of where the legal immigrants come from. Today, about 43% of the legal immigrants come from Mexico. We need an immigration policy that brings in the kinds of skills and numbers that will benefit the country in both the short and long term.
Sure, illegals are all wonderful. Look at the fine upstanding citizens cutting school and work to "demonstrate" in the streets.
I think that was the point I really gave up on California politics. It was a travesty.
I AM stealing that, you know. :)
Uh, you ever been to Corona, University Heights, Fordham, Jackson Heights, Port Richmond?
Rutard hasn't changed his views on immigration. Get a clue!
Again, f-ggot Manhattanites love the Mexicans who bring them food, but I would LOVE to see them walk around the barrios of Corona and Port Richmond on a Saturday night!
Actually, most of the illegal Irish have gone home, Ireland now being one of the top five wealthiest countries by per capita income. This is why places like Norwood in the Bronx are all Dominican and black, even though they were heavily Irish 10-15 years ago.
Crickets.
MRfacts.
MRnot.
OSMR, Heer M crickets?
LIB, MRFacts.
Shamelessly stolen from "them are ducks"...
(mrducks. mrnot. osmr, cmwangs? lib! mrducks!)
Help me with a clue, Why is Rudy leading in all the polls?
Ping!
2. 34% is not what I would call a commanding lead for your liberal hero.
3. The same exact polls had Colin Powell with an even larger lead back in 1999. What does that tell you?
Rutard is a celebrity, media-driven candidate. No charm, no SUBSTANCE.
Again, let's see what happens in the primaries, especially if Fred jumps in. Giussolini may become the next Powell or McCain.
The debate here ISN'T about "immigrants" or "immigration".
Due to the facility with which the mainstream media and politicians refer to both legal immigrants and the invading Goths from south of the Mexican border by the term "immigrant" its not clear to the superficial reader exactly what Giuliani means here.
But his RECORD speaks for itself. Giuliani is talking not about "immigrants" but illegal invaders. When Mayor of New York, he clearly and deliberately REFUSED to cooperate with Federal authorities in the enforcement of
immigration laws against these illegal invaders.
Yesterday, on the Sean Hannity radio show, Sean asked Rudy about guns, abortion and homosexuals. Hannity, whose unqualified admiration for the ex-mayor is becoming wearisome, didn't say a word about the issue of illegal invaders. Rudy gave rather adroit statements about believing in the Second Amendment and supporting the right of individuals to keep and bear arms and also about "reasonable" laws governing them; he said he supported civil unions but opposed gay marriages; he stated he was personally opposed to abortion but supported restrictions on it. These statements were clearly meant to comfort those Americans who are concerned with those issues.
The Second Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution, and is a basic human right given by God to man - the right of self defense. Rights granted by God to man cannot be abridged by the State. While subject to certain reasonable laws, these do NOT include national gun registration or a national test for their ownership - both of which Mr. Giuliani supported in the past. Nor does the Second Amendment permit witch hunts against legal gun manufacturers to please vocal minorities who intrinsically hate firearms - witch hunts Mr. Giuliani has participated in.
Civil unions as opposed to gay marriages is like Clinton defining what "is" is. Most Americans believe in personal freedom, and do not support the government prying into the personal sex lives of individuals. On the other hand, civil unions or gay marriages are merely another "in-your-face action by radical homosexuals who seek public endorsement of their unnatural lifestyle. These are the same kind of actions which are trying to make young children accept homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style in classroom lessons and books.
Abortion is like slavery. You can't be merely in favor of restricting it and hope it will go away gradually. You either support or reject it. Roe versus Wade is bad Constitutional law. There is nothing in the Constitution which supports abortion. Its also bad morality. We are reaping the fruits of abortion by the need to import masses of non-Americans for jobs for which native born or legally naturalized Americans do not exist - allegedly. And as there is a God in heaven, the blood of slain innocents cries out to Him for justice and He is not deaf.
So, Mr. Giuliani has a long way to go to present an apotheosis from northeastern urban liberal to a moderate-conservative - the kind of person who deserves to be the Republican standard bearer and future President.
Perhaps his recent ambivalence on these subjects represents some first steps in that direction - or perhaps not.
So do I.
As I recall a little bit of history poor Italian immigrants came here in huge numbers and did jobs "that Americans won't do." Nevertheless, when those jobs started disappearing many of the immigrants -- and they truly were immigrants in the sense that they had to clear health checks and immigration reviews -- they either went home or moved on to other opportunities in this hemisphere. Why is that, Mr. Giuliana so bad today? In fact, the steam ship traffic going back to Italy exceeded the traffic coming here if I remember correctly. There was no deportation, it was the invisible hand.
Why must ILLEGAL aliens be coddled? Mr. Giuliana, tear off those welfare shackles that bind the invisible hand.
>>"I think the federal government isn't doing enough about illegal immigration--" Rudy Giuliani, 1996
This was the most important statement in the entire article, IMO.<<
It doesn't matter whether YOU thought that was the most important statement Giuliani made. It matters whether GIULIANI would agree that that was the most important statement he made.
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.