http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=TN&VIPID=743&retired=1
I would have gotten an F in the 80s. Then I realised “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. I trusted the government would secure the borders back then.
Oh, no, the man voted for LEGAL immigration!! How COULD he!!
Many are jumping on the FThompson bandwagon and saying he is a conservative. His record seems to make him more of a moderate who followed the party line.
I still haven’t heard must from Thompson that makes me fawn after him. He has talked around some of the major issues, but he hasn’t given much in the way of details of how he would deal with situations. Allot of the bots try to fill in the details, but I want to hear them from Thompson, himself; not from some bot saying this or that is what he would do.
As I’ve posted before, I wish Fred Thompson were a little further to the right on this issue. He has been saying good things about enforcing the borders, but he has said NOTHING about what he will do with the illegal aliens who are already here - they are the primary cause of violent crimes in border states, they are draining resources from our social programs, they are putting doctors and hospitals out of business (since they are forced by the government to treat these people for free), and they are taking jobs away from hard-working, low-skilled Americans (every time Bush say “jobs Americans won’t do”, I want to barf). I’m pretty much a Fredhead at this point, but this one issue sticks pretty hard in my craw.
Fred is also a member of the CFR, unfortunately. So there is also the possibility that he is yet another one-worlder RINO (like the Bushes) in conservative clothing. Let’s hope not. Still, he is a whole lot more palatable to me than Rudy McRomney.
Personally, I like Fred but he is too much an insider in DC. I think we need someone from outside and not the same old business as usual. BTW, the outsider I favor is Romney.
I’d like to hear Fred’s feelings on this NOW, and not how he has felt about it over the years. It should be obvious to anyone that much has happened on this issue in the last few months, and I’m sure many will be watching.
So far, the only candidate I would feel good about voting for is Duncan Hunter.
I was waiting with baited breath for Fred Thompson’s comments on the Immigration reform bill. Will he hit a home run? Will he join the others and call it a good compromise, Will he alienate himself by agreeing with the likes of Tancredo who favors nothing less than placing machine gun nest along the border after dragging all 20 million ilegals back to Mexico?
Reading his editorial, I think he hit one out of the ballpark for sure.
I love his best line, “No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests.”
Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?
By Fred Thompson
Editor’s note: Click here to listen to the original radio commentary this transcript is based on.
Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem – secure our nation’s borders.
But there’s an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday.
I’d tell you what was in the legislation, but 24 hours after the politicians agreed the bill looked good, the Senate lawyers were still writing what may turn out to be a one thousand page document. In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed. That may come five days from now. That’s like trying to digest an eight-course meal on a 15-minute lunch break.
We’ve tried the “comprehensive” route before to solve the illegal immigration problem with a bit more care and deliberation, and the results haven’t been good. Back in May 1985, Congress promised us that it would come up with a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration and our porous borders. Eighteen months later, in November 1986, that comprehensive plan was signed into law.
Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do — secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new “comprehensive” plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t.
The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated?
Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens — securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.
No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier — at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business.
We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders — or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty.
— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.
Why look for someone who is becoming more “Hunter-esque, when you already have the real thing?