Posted on 04/13/2007 12:28:46 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
From further down the page:
Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in calling Rudy Giuliani the "Tough on terror, national security" candidate if he does this sort of thing?
“Rudy fought for illegal immigrants” ping.
Ping.
Liz, US007 works on ultrasonic speed. LOL
Nope.
But he did sign a law keeping 20-year-olds from buying box cutters.
And sued New Yorker magazine for poking fun at him in ads on buses.
And took guns away from long-term legal permit holders.
While fighting federal law and federal court rulings to end NYC's sanctuary city policy.
He sure did have his priorities straight.
Nice find, Ultra! The money quote: “The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.”
NO!!!
No, you’re not the only one. But expect crickets to any questions about how this reflects on rudy’s supposedly brilliant position in WOT. Or just plain insults.
Remember the defense of rudy and public funding of abortion?
“He has to obey the law! What do you expect him to do, disobey the law that requires this!?!?!?
When I asked them about him and illegal aliens, they oddly refused to answer those questions.
Hmmm, very interesting...
Rudy's speech in Newport Beach, California last month:
On immigration, he told reporters he doesn't support amnesty for illegal immigrants, but he could support a guest worker program if there were adequate border security and tamper-proof ID cards. He said that even if illegal immigrants "can demonstrate that they are lawful, that they are paying taxes [and] that they'll pay penalties," they still shouldn't be put ahead of people who go through legal channels.
"And citizenship here, if it's earned, should be premised on being able to read and write English and understand American history, so we restore assimilation to the process of immigration," he said.
Giuliani is racking up an impressive list of Orange County GOP supporters, but not everyone laughing and raising their glasses to him Saturday has pledged their full support.
"I want to see how this all shakes out," said Dana Point Mayor Diane Harkey, who hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate. "I like Rudy Giuliani. I think he can carry New York, which is huge for the Republican party."
The INS only aims to “terrorize people.” ~Rudy Giuliani
***Oh, my gosh! That is tagline worthy. I’m sticking with my current tagline, but someone like JRios might want it.
JRios1968 (Tagline wanted...inquire within).
They have no defense. Now if we didn't pay a simple traffic ticket in NYC we would be hounded to the depths of hell. Rudy is an elitist and simply felt the law didn't apply to his administration. A dangerous combination with someone who is eerily like Nifong in a lot of ways.
Rudys position now is like putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Take me off your ping list, unless you’d like me to start pinging you to articles and polls which show Rudy’s 61% favorability rating. I’ve asked you before and you’ve not yet complied with my request.
I’m always trolling the: “Rudolph (`Alphabet’) Giuliani is the Answer to Our Prayers”/bygawdit’sinevitable!” threads and raising hell with his tooters . . . but I rarely see them on these threads defending him.
Why is that?
Is it because when the argument involves the conservative credentials of a given candidate, they are defenseless?
For example, this article on the issue of illegal aliens:
“Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end.”
There it is. If he is elected you can be sure he will also continue his assault on the 2nd Amendment.
Finally, how can anyone holding him/herself out as a conservative defend abortion, or partial birth abortion?
They can’t. That’s why.
Rudy’ sure changed his tune, eh?
The problem is that he has a track record of ignoring and refusing to enforce laws he disagrees with, even when he loses in court. This one fact in and of itself, IMHO, makes him completely unfit for POTUS, whose primary responsibility it to enforce the laws enacted by congress, even the ones he disagrees with.
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.