"Borders? Borders" We don' need no steenking borders!"
Posted on 05/18/2007 10:31:35 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
GIULIANI: And I think that, you know, we're going through a very serious debate on immigration and I think that I look at it from the point of view of how do we create more security for the United States? How do we, in an era of a war on terrorism, which is going to continue for the indefinable future, and then some of the other problems that we have, how do we create more security? And I think that either extreme is not the right answer.
One extreme is what I would call the punitive approach, which is reflected in the House legislation that was passed, which is to make it a crime to be an illegal or undocumented immigrant; it is illegal now but it's not a crime and I believe, if I recall correctly, that it would make it a five-year felony and there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. It would become a law that was honored in the breach and it could not possibly be enforced.
To give you the dimensions that I remember, at least when I was the Mayor, it's estimated that there are about 400,000 people in that category in New York, it could be more now but it used to be about 400,000. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, I believe, deports about 1,500 to 2,000 people a year so I pretty quickly figured out that I was going to have 398,000 illegal immigrants no matter what the federal government did and I had to do something sensible about it rather than something stupid and kind of make it work in the society in which we exist.
Well, that's really the picture for the whole country and to deal with it in a punitive way is actually going to make us considerably less secure than we already are because the problem is that we have such a huge underground that we can't really keep account of who's here, who they are, identify them, and kind of separate the ones that are here for benign or neutral purposes, which we can argue about the competitiveness and the economy and everything else, but they're not really doing damage to our society, might even be making vast contributions to it, and then focus on the people that we have to focus on who are the people that might come here to carry out terrorist acts or to sell drugs or to commit crimes and the reason we can't do that well is that we have a system already that's unenforceable, that's unrealistic given the numbers of people that want to come here, the size of our borders, the number of resources that we could conceivably have to apply to it.
So the right answer is to do the things that have to be done to secure our borders, introduce new technology, require more of people in describing who they are, identify them effectively, fingerprint them or finger image them if you have to, photograph them, come up with cards for them, use the modern methods that we presently have for identifying people but don't try to legislate against the inevitable forces of, you know, social movement and the economy because it isn't going to work. So we have to find a way and I think that the compromise the Senate was looking at something along those lines makes sense.
Give people a way to earn citizenship, give them a way to earn citizenship in which they have to demonstrate facility with English and they have jobs and they're paying taxes and they've put themselves in an entirely legal status, recognize the economic forces that are realistic ones that require people to come into the United States or require people to have people come into the United States, and you identify them and you have them pay taxes and you find out who they are and then you concentrate on the people who are avoiding that and you'll be capable of doing that because it'll be a problem the dimensions of which you can touch and feel and measure and see and it'll be much harder for terrorists to hide in a situation like that.
And I think that the Manhattan Institute, which sort of turns on trying to figure out the logical and sensible answer to a problem, can play a big role in getting us to think about immigration in a way that it is sensible and it gets us to a resolution that makes us more secure because I think that going in either extreme is going to hurt us.
This guy ought to pack it up now & McLame sould be booed out of the next debate.
I’ll see if I can find Romney’s glowing review as well.
Folks, pay attention, please. Duncan Hunter 08
Just one more nail in his coffin. I hope it gets it all nailed up soon, and just goes away.
“it is illegal now but it’s not a crime”
There you have it. Ugh.
Romney's against it.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also blasted the immigration agreement:
"I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new ‘Z-Visa’ does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S."
| Governor Mitt Romney On The Senate Immigration Agreement (He's against it) |
||
| Posted by loreldan On News/Activism 05/17/2007 5:58:23 PM CDT · 82 replies · 1,102+ views MittRomney.com ^ | 05-17-2007 | Mitt Romney Boston, MA - Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on today's U.S. Senate agreement on immigration reform: "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. "Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable... |
||
By August, the race will be between Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. With Rudy a distant third, McCain dropped out, and Hunter still clinging on to the hope of his 1% standing.
I will vote for the F'n witch before those two.
????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????
????????????????????????????
That’s now. He was singing a different not long ago. I will find it.
Of course you will argue he was talking about the 2005 McCain-Kennedy, not the identical 2007 version.
Tell me, despite the misleading headline -- these are 2006 comments by Guiliani, has Guiliani said anything specific about the current May 2007 bill?
Thanks, Rudy. You are helping us weed out the losers.
You and McCain have fun with your third party bid, cause you ain’t getting this Republican’s vote.
Must see POST 12.
Can anyone explain this to me?
I guess you missed where it says “2006” in the headline.
Romney came out against!
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.