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.
Rudy is soooooooo connected to the needs of average Americans. /sarc
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
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.
Rudy is clueless.
Sure, illegals are all wonderful. Look at the fine upstanding citizens cutting school and work to "demonstrate" in the streets.
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.