Giuliani speaks out about Immigration [Harvard Kennedy School of Government 1996]

YouTube ^ | October 10, 1996 | Rudy Giuliani

[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.

[Cicero]

I won't defend Giuliani, but I'll just point out two things: 1) In 1996 there was a lot less concern about illegal immigration than there is now; 2) In 1996 Giuliani was Mayor of New York, where immigration is not a big problem.

I don't think he could be worse than Bush has been, but I don't guarantee it. I just don't think all these early remarks necessarily indicate the positions he would take now as POTUS, which has very different responsibilities from being mayor of NY. He did a first-rate job as mayor. I'm still waiting and thinking about some of the issues if he continues to lead in the presidential race.

I'm more and more concluding that Romney is a flipper flopper. Giuliani is not, but that's not necessarily a good thing if he sticks to bad positions. They weren't much of a problem when he was mayor, but they would be a problem if he were POTUS--unless he understands that and changes accordingly.

[snowrip]

Rudy is soooooooo connected to the needs of average Americans. /sarc

[AuntB]

Here's a good article about McCain and immigration with a good list of questions that should be asked of all candidates.

Questions spark McCain flip on illegals

ELECTION 2008 Questions spark McCain flip on illegals Schlafly program trains volunteers to pin candidates down on issues Posted: March 22, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. John McCain's new attention to, and possibly new position on, illegal immigration is being credited to a grassroots program implemented by Phyllis Schlafly, who is training Eagle Forum leaders how to question presidential candidates on key national issues.

McCain has expressed surprise by the intensity of immigration questions he has received in Iowa at town hall meetings and as his campaign bus, named the "Straight Talk Express," has toured the state.

It's because of Eagle Forum's work, Schlafly told WND.

"The town meetings that presidential candidates visit this year give grassroots Americans the opportunity to ask follow-up questions so the candidates can't evade and obfuscate their views on vital issues," Schlafly said. "We want to know what presidential candidates plan to do about the problems we care about."

Schlafly has published a detailed list of questions she is encouraging Eagle Forum leaders to ask presidential candidates as they tour primary states seeking votes.

Schlafly's list includes 22 hard-hitting immigration questions designed to deny presidential candidates the luxury of hiding under answers crafted by political wordsmiths.

Among the questions are the following:

* Do you consider it a presidential duty to prevent illegal entry into our country?

* Will you use whatever means necessary to close our borders to illegal aliens and illegal drugs, including electronic fences and National Guard troops?

* Since most illegal drugs come across our southern border, will you require visual inspection of the contents of at least 50 percent of trucks coming across our border (instead of just 1 percent to 2 percent)?

* What is your plan to stop the entry of 85 percent of illegal drugs that come over our southern border?

* Will you pardon the two Border Patrol agents who stopped an illegal alien from bringing in a million dollars worth of illegal drugs, and now face 11- and 12-year sentences while the drug smuggler was given immunity from prosecution?

* Last year, the Senate passed the Secure Fence Act 80-19, the House passed it 283-138, and we saw President Bush on television signing it into law. Now we are told the fence will never be built. Do you intend to obey the Secure Fence Act and order a fence built on our southern border?

* Will you veto any plan to put illegal aliens on a path to citizenship without going home and getting in line for lawful immigration?

* Will you veto any plan to put illegal aliens into our Social Security system under the State Department plan called "totalization"? That would bankrupt the system just when baby boomers are retiring.

In the 109th Congress, McCain co-sponsored with Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, S.2611, a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill supported by the Bush administration that included provisions calling for "guest workers" and a "pathway to citizenship."

But after facing intensive questioning in Iowa about immigration issues, McCain is widely reported to be considering a change in his position, requiring illegal immigrants to return home before applying for citizenship, suggesting a compromise measure similar to that proposed by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

"The national media were generally favorable to the Kennedy-McCain bill last year, as well as to McCain himself," Schlafly explained to WND, "so before the Iowa meetings, McCain only had to respond to softball questions."

Eagle Forum in Iowa made sure that situation for McCain changed.

"What McCain probably has not realized," Schlafly told WND, "is that Eagle Forum has made sure that the grassroots are well informed about immigration and other issues. It may be a surprise to presidential candidates like McCain, but the Eagle Forum grassroots are not going to accept the typical politicians' platitudes."

WND asked Schlafly if she thought the questioning from Eagle Forum leaders was the reason McCain appears to have shifted his immigration position.

"Yes," she responded, "because I doubt McCain has been asked these specific questions. The specific questions force the candidates to face up to the issues in a practical and meaningful way."

"Schlafly also noted that Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., also was startled by the tough line of questioning he faced in Iowa about immigration. "After 30 minutes, Brownback pleaded for questions about something other than immigration," Schlafly told WND.

In the 109th Congress, Brownback added his name as a co-sponsor to S.2611, the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill advanced in the Senate by Kennedy.

WND asked Schlafly if the Eagle Forum leaders intended to ask her question list to both Democratic and Republican candidates.

Of course, she said.

"All Republican and Democratic Party candidates for president should answer the Eagle Forum questions," Schlafly told WND. "That's why I published the list. We have a right to know what the candidates plan to do if elected."

The Eagle Forum list of questions for presidential candidates includes a variety of policy issues besides immigration – including "supremacist judges legislating from the bench," North American integration under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, jobs and the economy, as well as "respect for life."





http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp? ARTICLE_ID=54824

[neverhillorat]

WE must see what Rudy thought on gun control, illegals, abortion and Wheaties in the 8th grade!

[ikka]

I will point out that the book by Peter Brimelow, called "Alien Nation" came out in 1995 and was in paperback in 1996. If you have read this book, as I have, you will thus be aware that the problem of illegal immigration was something that people were well aware of in 1996.

[lonewacko_dot_com]

In the Hannity "interview", I could tell at least two things: a) Rudy was very happy that Hannity wasn't going to ask him any tough questions, and b) on immigration, Rudy is full of it and he knows it. His immigration spiel in the "interview" was the same we've heard time and again from Bush and the rest.

[SoCalPol]

Rudy's views on immigration, especially illegals has not changed. NYC is a sanctuary city for illegals.

Cicero, I live in San Diego, the population of my city and county is far more than your entire state.

The southern border of San Diego runs along Mexico.

We have tens of thousands of illegals in San Diego costing us mega millions of dollars a year, not to mention
seeing southern CA turn into an annex of Tijuana.

California is Mexico's HMO

[pissant]

At least McCain flipped. Rudy is still holding out for the illegal alien vote.

[Cicero]

I sympathize. But Rudy had nothing much to do with it. Actually it was Ronald Reagan who was persuaded to give amnesty to illegal aliens, and then every president since. Plus the decision of congress way back when to change the immigration laws so as to let in revised quotas.

In 1996, it was clinton, and I think Gray Davis. California has a bad immigration problem, but you have to lay it primarily on the Feds and the California State government.

I agree that if Rudy refuses to change his position, it will be a negative. But he couldn't possibly be worse than clinton and Bush. And I'm not sure if any other major candidate will be a lot better. It's still early, and I suspect the candidates will mostly avoid talking about this hot button issue, for fear that their political enemies and the media will use it to bash them as bigots.

[KATIE-O]

"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. I would like to have a more updated statement from Mayor Giuliani on this national problem. I'm supporting him for President, unless I hear he's another McCain on illegal immigration and believes in copping out by giving millions of law breakers "amnesty."

[Cicero]

It depends which people. I read Jean Raspail's "The Camp of the Saints" in 1973, when it came out. I was also concerned way back when they changed the immigration laws. And I didn't like Reagan's amnesty.

But if you are talking about ordinary people, and the great majority of voters, then I think they have only recently started to become aware of the problem.

Obviously it also depends where you live. Immigration used to be a problem for California and the Southwest, but now it's all over the country.

New York mainly had a Puerto Rican problem, which is a whole other kettle of fish. On the whole, it's less bad now than it used to be.

[raybbr]

I will point out that the book by Peter Brimelow, called "Alien Nation" came out in 1995 and was in paperback in 1996. I

Read Lawrence Auster's essay on immigration coupled with multi-culturalism and their combined effect on our culture. It's a long read but very prescient.

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

Excerpt:

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[Kewlhand`tek]

Duncan Hunter and Tom tancredo certainly wont duck the issue. so you are say rudy wont back off his posistion be cause he would look like a flip flopper to you rudybots?

[Cicero]

See #10.

[Cicero]

Oops. I meant see #12. Sorry.

[AuntB]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1796933/posts

But what about immigration?

Giuliani strongly supported a guest worker program supported by President Bush and said during a newly interesting appearance on Meet the Press the following: "There isn't a mayor or a public official in this country that's more strongly pro-immigrant than I am, including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti-immigration legislation about two or three years ago, which we got some amendments of to protect the rights of immigrants."

[SJackson]

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.

Presuming he includes illegal immigrants amongst those the federal government hasn't done enough about, he's essentially correct. Of course as you point out, this isn't 1996, and there's the problem of th 10-20 million illegals the government hasn't done anything about which Rudy has to address. In fact most issues likely to face the country in 2008 he hasn't really addressed in any detail. Including the war in Iraq and the war on terror, which are said to be his strengths.

[calcowgirl]

In 1996, imigration may have been less of a concern, but it was certainly a major concern. California had taken steps to pass Proposition 187 to try to head off the fiscal crisis that would ensue. His vision on this issue was nil.

As to Giuliani being Mayor of New York city, where immigration wasn't a big problem, that may be true. But he was speaking out on federal legislation and federal policy, not New York city policy. And he was talking about what he thought was good for America, not for New York. To me, it demonstrates that he had a narrow, short-sighted view of what was happening in the country, relying only on his view from NY. His comments about immigrant school children was equally lacking in knowledge of what was happening across the nation. The days of children of immigrants being the most disciplined and hardworking ended a generation ago, IMO. Schools are ridden with violence and immigrant gangs (and others) and the quality of education for all students is declining due to language diversity. This has been the situation for at least the last decade, not just today. Giuliani's lack of vision and foresight on this issue is disappointing.

"I think we want to continue to allow a lot of poor people to come into America." WHAT?!!?

[WalterSkinner]

Prop 187 was the last gasp at state level regulation--shot down by the courts.

The Federal govt. must finish that fence...