Posted on 05/19/2007 3:49:31 AM PDT by Josh Painter
(Begin transcript)
MRL: Welcome back. This is Mark Levin, and it's an honor... I can call you a friend, can't I, Senator?
FDT: Well, I hope so. How are you doing?
MRL: You're a good man, Senator Fred Thompson. How are you doing?
FDT: I'm doing great, doing great.
MRL: I need you to get into this race fast, okay?
FDT: (laughs)
MRL: I'm gonna have another heart attack.
FDT: (laughs) What do you you consider fast?
MRL: Like, uh, one or two months?
FDT: (laughs) Well, we'll talk about it.
MRL: Okay, we'll talk about it. Now, Senator, I'm a little concerned here for a lot of reasons, as I know you are. I've read from your outstanding statements here. There have been no hearings on this bill... First of all, there's no bill, as you point out. There have been no hearings on costs. There have been no hearings on a failing bureaucracy's ability to enforce any aspect of this. What do you make of all this?
FDT: They're trying to rush something through, I think, in a hurry, before they lose the will, the political will to do it. And I think that they've miscalculated badly. I don't think that they're going to be able to do it. I hope I'm right; I may be wrong. But, as you say, the bill is not complete in any way. Portions of it are floating around now that have typos, incomplete. Beats anything that I've seen. You know, having big thick bills and passing them on voice vote is not uncommon, unfortunately, to the way the Senate operates. But on something of this importance that people have strong views on, I think it is unprecedented, to my knowledge.
MAL: And this potentially... The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Robert Richter, I had him on here last night. He's saying that the potential cost of this in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will destroy those programs.
FDT: Yes, at a time when we're looking at about a 76 Trillion dollar shortfall, in the out years, on down the line in those programs anyway.
MRL: Nobody's thought this through. Nobody even answers questions like that. He tells me he testifies, he brings up these things, and nobody even addresses them. I mean, don't we have an obligation to the next generation not to bankrupt them?
FDT: Yes, absolutely... absolutely. And it's something that I've been talking a lot about. It's a part of my interest in politics, really. I mean if you're not willing to take on the issues that really threaten your nation's safety or future, there's no reason to be in politics. And the demographics being what they are... we're becomming more of an elderly society, with fewer workers proportionately and so forth. Part of it is based on good things - we're living longer - it's just something to face up to. It's not anybody's fault. But you have to face up to it. And we keep adding entitlements on top of the existing situation because professional politicians look at the short term and figure that the chickens will come home to roost on somebody else's watch, and this is just another indication of that.
MRL: I have another concern, too, and that is that there's really no requirement that people come here and they learn English.
FDT: Yeah.
MRL: There's no requirement that they assimilate into our society. As a matter of fact, we have politicians and special interest groups that advance multiculturalism and bilingualism. How are people ever going to understand the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and ideas about liberty and capitalism and all those things that their societies know nothing about if we don't at least start fixing internally some of our mechanisms for assimilating people here?
FDT: Of course. That's part of the beauty of our imnmigration story in this country. The way people have come over here and quickly learned English and wanted to become Americans, and they did become Americans, and most all of us have that heritage. And now, at a time when we need to come together more and more and people are decrying the splits we have and the divisions we have, and the animosity in the county and so forth, they're promoting policies that seem to want to continue that and make it less likely that we're able to come together on basic things.
MAL: I don't want you to take a shot at anybody. I know you're a gentleman. Leave that to me...
FDT: (laughs)
MAL: But I just have a question which is this: John McCain is one of the architects of this. Rudy Giuliani today has been fairly quiet. He put out a statement yesterday. As I read it, I started to think, "Now wait a minute." He's saying, "Security first," but he's not actually taking a position on this bill. By the way, I have a theory about that. My theory is that he doesn't want to tick off the governor of California, who probably likes this bill and is leaning toward supporting him potentially. So he's trying to work through that. But having said that, Romney has taken a very strong position against this bill. It's a little bit of confusion with the top three there, don't you think?
FDT: It seems to be. It seems to be. I was disappointed... you know how much I admire John McCain as a person. I sat next to him on the Senate floor. I know his personal story, and he's an American hero, and I tip my hat to him. I was disappointed months ago, really, when I saw he had joined the group up there that was moving in this direction. I just didn't really understand it. I never talked to him about it. But that's where he is. I know he thinks he's doing the right thing. I just respectfully disagree on that. As to the others, I don't know what their motivations are. I know that New York has its own situation up there on immigration issues. It's one of ten states that grant in-state tuition treatment to illegal immigrants.
MRL: Boy, you've done your homework, haven't you?
FDT: (laughs)
MRL: You've done your homework.
FDT: Part of our problem is the inducements that we give folks here. You know, I've pointed out that I don't think that we have to have a choice between amnesty on the one hand, and trying to arrest everybody and put them on buses. Practically, that's not going to happen. But you don't have to choose between those if you can have attrition through enforcement, if we enforce the law with regard to employers - and we have an eligibility verification system out there that's voluntary; it should be mandatory - if we made arrests, if we reduced the inducements that especially some of these states give - some of which is against federal law incidentally, and some of that is not being enforced - if we talked a little straighter to Mexico - and the fact that their national policy is dependent upon the exportation of their own citizens - for their own economic benefit, sending money back and so forth - there are plenty of things that we could do, I think, to take care of this problem. If we could do it, but part of it has to do though with the states that are doing these things.
MRL: Is it also part of the problem - putting these Republicans aside - that you have a Democrat Party that thinks by doing this that eventually they will so change the makeup of the country in terms of politics, in terms of political allegiance, they they'll increase Democrat voters. Because, let's face it - poor people coming from the Third World into this country, most of them don't vote Republican. Because, you know, most of them are not conservative in terms of philosophy. Because if you give them a choice between "Hey, you have a right to national health care," and "Let's step back and talk in terms of cost effectiveness," what are they going to respond to? And the Democrats know this. Wouldn't this be a potential destruction of the Republican Party?
FDT: Well, I would hope not because I don't know how this thing's going to turn out. But we're in a danger zone here because we're playing the Democats' game. The Democrats have decided that the politicians that make it the easiest for people to come into this country are going to get their votes. And some of the Republicans are looking at that and saying, "They may just be right, and we want to get in on the action." I think that's driving a lot of this. You know, I don't know the answer to that, but if you study history, you come to the conclusion that doing the right thing often times works out. We can't predict how this is going to work or how that's going to work, but when the rule of law is at stake, when national security is at stake, when you're doing some things that's unfair to good people who are standing in line waiting their turn to be good United States citizens legally, then you have to put that aside. And as Republicans we have always been more likely to take that position. And I'm hoping that at the end of the day that's still where most of our legislators are going to be on this, and we can get back to where we need to be, focusing on border security.
MRL: One of the things that I'd like to see in our focus on immigration is outreach and effort to import the geniuses of the world - the producers of the world, the scientists, the doctors, the inventors - why don't we make an effort to seek out those people and bring as many of them as we can? We used to do that. And why don't we make it streamlined and more efficient for the very people that you're talking about - the honorable people, the law-abiding people who get in line and do it the right way? Why aren't we focused on that side of it?
FDT: Yeah, that's exactly right. Peggy Noonan wrote an article not too long ago, and she said, "I think about what my grandmother would say. And I think my grand mother would say, "Let's have a wall, but let's have a door in the wall.'" Taking off from that, it occurred to me that we control the door. We have a right to open the door and decide when we want to, how long we want it to be open, who goes through the door, and then we have a right to close it. And that's what you're talking about, and the H1B Visas and so forth. There's no question that we need a more intelligent approach in terms of immigration in general. Oviously, we need good, solid potential citizens, folks coming in here as legal residents, and we need highly skilled people. We're competing now in a global economy with some of the most skilled people imaginable coming from some of the places in the world that didn't used to be competitive. Well, they're very competitive now. They're coming over here and studying at our universities and going back home and doing remarkable things. Absolutely, we've got to open that door in responsible ways, but have the right to close it when we want to.
MRL: Do you have a few more minutes or do you need to go?
FDT: Yeah, absolutely.
MRL: I mean, I'm your buddy. You can give me a few more..
FDT: And I'm YOUR buddy.
MRL: Do I have to come to your house for dinner if I have a few more minutes with you?
FDT: (laughs)
MRL: I'm just kidding.
FDT: As long as you reciprocate.
MRL: I'd love to.
FDT: (laughs)
MRL: Senator Fred Thompson. We'll be right back.
(Break)
MRL: Former Senator Fred Thompson with us. We only have a few minutes. I wanted to ask you a question about the war. What's going on in Congress now is really unprecedented. We have men and women on the battlefield. They're listening to all this nonsense. The Dmocrats in Congress know they're not going to get timetables, and yet today they go to the president, Harry Reid and yet again, "We'll cut out all the pork in this if you'll agree to our timetable." What's going on here?
FDT: Well, part of what's going on is the Democrats are grossly miscalculating politically again. I don't know if they're going to be bad enough to save us from ourselves in some of these respects or not, but the American people are not going to turn the keys over to people who have declared defeat and who are trying to cut the legs out from under our fighting people while we're over there. We've got to maintain the situation. This is part of a bigger problem, a global effort. The game plan is well-known. We've intercepted it. It has to do with the Middle East, and then Israel, and then our allies and us. We've got to decide, not whether we want to fight, but where we want to fight because we're going to fight. We're going to have to. And I'll tell you one thing about this immigration situation, Mark, that bothers me above all else. I think that President Bush, as much as I admire him personally, has made a mistake here that is going to make the war effort more difficult. I'm afraid that with regard to the support that's been with him and has supported him all along, especially this effort in Iraq, is going to be very, very disappointed. And I'm hoping that it doesn't result in lack of support for the president accross the board, but I'm afraid it might. This immigration issue is tied to the war issue. And I must say that I've noticed here on the net the last little bit that some of my worthy opponents have been taking some of my comments out of context on this immigration thing and pointing out that I said as much of a problem as the 12 million illegals were that it's not as big a problem as the next 12 or the next 12 after that. They didn't put it into context of the security point that I was making. I thought I was stating the obvious. That is, if we don't stop the situation now, if we don't maintian border security, and the people that we've already caught over here, like the guy in the World Trade Center bombing who was an illegal and was given amnesty, we're going to have a constant flood. And obviously, 50 million is worse than 12 million. That's why border security is so important, and as I say, I think it is unfortunate that this fight has ramifications for our war support. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I'm not.
MRL: Well, I know you're right, and Senator, I want to thank you for taking time to come on the show, and I hope you'll come back, my friend. God bless you. Senator Fred Thompson. We'll be right back.
(Break)
MRL: Let me ask you something. Is that a plain-talking, straight-shooting, solid conservative or not? A few months ago we had Senator Thompson on here to talk about the Lewis Libby matter, and my audience went nuts. they were very excited about him, and they wanted him to run for president. And in many ways, that started right here on this show. And he's very solid. If you read what he's writing on National Review Online and other places, if you listen to what he's saying on the ABC Radio Network, he's a thoroughly conservative man, he's a thoughtful man, he's smart as hell. How many candidates who are running for office can easily talk about Federalism and even debate it? And yet federalism is a crucial part of our constitution. No nuanced position on illegal immigration, no nuanced position on this bill. He's respectful and he's civil, but he rejects it. That's good. And you know where he stands on judges. He was the man who helped John Roberts reach the Supreme Court when that task was offerred to him. And I know a lot more about him, too. So, I'm impressed.
(End of transcript)
Transciption by Ruger
That is one reason why Hunter is not in the top tier. I know he served in the military, and in Congress, but what other experience does he have? I think we need someone with some kind of leadership experience.
I did hear Thompson fill in for Paul Harvey yesterday.
His no nonsense approach, and down home manner is just what this country needs right now.
I think a Thompson/Watts ticket would be good. With Jeff Sessions as the attorney general, Hunter as national security or Defense sec., and john bolton as sec of state. :)
What do you think?
It kind of makes you wonder what else Kennedy snuck in it.
Don't forget the Dems control the Senate now along with the House.
Incorrect. It is our fault that we are becoming an elderly society. This aging generation made its bed when it cut off the growth of the next generation through abortion. 50 million dead in this country alone from infanticide is the reason we are ignoring our laws to allow illegal immigrants to pick up the slack. We have literally cut off our legs as a society and the price will only escalate into full blown social decay. The mark of the beast is everywhere - the growth of gang culture, the failure of government programs, the steady influx of terrorists, the breakdown of morality and civility. That is the message I am not hearing from any candidate.
BINGO!
How about making it REALLY PAINFUL on those who would dare hire an undocumented alien?
Drain the swamp.
Enact $500,000 fines and 5 year mandatory jail terms/count for CEOs/business owners who dare employ illegals. Require that business owners/CEOs/presidents personally certify on an annual basis(as CEOs now have to do with financials)their staffs are either American citizens or legally documented green card holders.
Then when the inevitable violations occur, frog march the violators off to jail ala John Regis, Dennis Kozlowski, Bernie Ebbers, Jeffrey Skilling, Ken Lay. A crackdown seems to have worked pretty well and gotten the message across in that sector.
We’ll never solve the illegal immigration problem until we remove the motivation for coming here.....jobs. Once it becomes too dangerous to one’s executive position or way of life as a business owner to consider hiring an illegal, the jobs for them will over time dry up and the illegals already here with no chance of any continuing income will self-deport. The ones considering sneaking in will have no further motivation.
The swamp will be drained without a need to “round anyone up”
I did my small part last year. We moved from Louisiana to coastal Alabama and the new house needed extensive landscaping in the back yard. When I took bids on the project I requested documentation from each bidder(3 total) that all of their employees were legal to work in the U.S.
Only one was able(or willing) to provide that. Guess who got the work? He had the 2nd lowest bid.
Additionally, I informed the other two that they might want to get their ducks in a row because they just might be getting a visit from ICE. The reactions were priceless.
Everybody could help out if they’d do the same.
___________________________________________________________
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Toll Free: 1 (866) 347-2423
1-866-DHS-2ICE
Visit ICE Website.
Contact ICE Field Offices.
Contact ICE to report illegal aliens, employers that hire illegal labor, smugglers, document fraud, and other crimes by illegal aliens. Bilingual services are offered. Confidential reporting is allowed. ICE operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Exactly correct.
Illegals are paying into the Treasury and are not on the benefits list.
This is from an article from the Washington Times, March 29,2007
Uncredited contributions to Social Security grew by nearly $300 billion from 2000 to 2004, a giant increase attributable mostly to illegal aliens using erroneous Social Security numbers, and one seniors group said this will become a major liability if those aliens are legalized. "Our government would willingly bankrupt the system even sooner by giving billions of dollars to people who broke the laws of the United States," said Shannon Benton, executive director of the Senior Citizens League, which is releasing a report today based on the Social Security Administration's numbers....
In 2004, "uncredited earnings" -- Social Security tax payments that can't be matched to valid Social Security numbers -- totaled $65 billion -- about 10 percent of the program's total income. The amount of uncredited earnings stood at $301.8 billion in 1999, but had grown to $585 billion by 2004, according to the Senior Citizens League report. ..
Follow the money
Great post Sturm.
Notice that FDT mentions up front about the policy of attrition, a policy I have said all along was the key to getting this problem under control.
And FDT indicated he understands the details of the policy.
There should be no doubt now where FDT stands on the issue of illegal aliens.
He’s for securing the borders and establishing a policy where illegals go home on their own.
The way that is done is to cut off the ability to send money by wire unless the person can show proper ID.
Making it mandatory that employers use the employment verification system is something I am a tad leery of because it smacks of national ID issues.
Having a crackdown on employers who hire illegals is also something to frown on. I am against anything that increases the police state in America.
We want to stop the flow of new illegals into the USA by having secure borders.
The question is how to get rid of the illegals that are here now.
Once the ability to wire money by illegals is shut down then they have no place to put their money except under a mattress. They should not be able to open a bank account without showing legal presence.
Their only recourse is to walk their money back across the border. Putting money in the mail is too risky especially if random scanning of international mail is part of the attrition policy. Having someone else walk the money across the border is also risky.
Without the ability to bank or wire money, the life for these folks in the USA is going to be unpleasant. The downside in that context is the creation of an underclass that liberals can use as a club to beat conservatives with. Pictures of poor Hector and his wife and five children living in a homeless state will be shoved in everyone’s view.
My suggestion to the underclass problem is to have the Federal government contract with Greyhound, Trailways and others to provide transportation to Mexico for the underclass that have finally decided to go back home. No arrests, no incarceration nor long drawn out court cases, just a bus pass to go home.
Those illegals that continue to hang around the street corners can be picked up on loitering and vagrancy charges. Once determined to have illegal presence they can be offered a police bus.
Another local policy that should be strengthened is density enforcement. No more allowing 35 people or so to live in a two bedroom bungalow.
When illegals cannot bank, cannot find a decent dwelling to live in, cannot send money, cannot get back and forth across the border, then they will eventually get on the bus or be picked up and be put on a bus.
I think FDT will not force states to reduce inducements because of his Federalist philsophy. The proper way to handle states that offer inducements is to reduce the socialism that flows from the Federal level to those states that provide inducements to illegals.
isnt fred thompson a member of CFR? I like him too, but I am concerned about any member of CFR
Fred for Pres!
Mark for Veep!
Enjoyed yor post but have to disagree on your following point.
“Having a crackdown on employers who hire illegals is also something to frown on. I am against anything that increases the police state in America.”
No one can deny the fact that every employer who hires an illegal is a co-conspirator in illegal activity.....a crime.
I believe a significant ratcheting up of the penalties for hiring illegals and A FEW well-publized high profile frog marches to jail would get the point across...as it did with the corporate scandals.
Nothing will change until we completely remove the easy access to a job and income
Sign the Fred Thompson for President Petiton
If you'd like to be a FRedHead let me know.
CAUTION: This is a very high volume ping list. You may receive between 5 and 10 pings a day. If you'd rather not receive so many pings, let me know and I'll only ping you once a week.
Please use the keyword 'fredthompson' to index articles relating to Fred.
I had said that in a thread a while back about JC, but I was told that he may have some skeletons in his closet regarding some stuff in Oklahoma, not sure what, but I still love the idea.
I would calibrate your concern about the CFR as to a concern about the agendas of some members of the CFR.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy_Institutions/Behind_Drive_War.html%20
Membership in CFR is a sign of importance and prestige. It is an influential body and will always be influential because its members are some of the most influential and wealthy people in the world.
The wealthy elites that make up the CFR give alot to foundations and think tanks. The academics in those foundations and think tanks are tasked to think about the direction the world’s nations should go in. So this is to a large extent where all the ‘New World Order’ and ‘Globalism’ policy comes from, and some of the people pushing these idealistic one-world plans are indeed not practical. It all sounds good on paper.
Fred Thompson as a member of the CFR is able to stay in the loop with these influential people and to keep tabs on what they are currently thinking. When he can he should be able to address the CFR groups and let them know his viewpoint.
Will FDT succumb to the agenda of some of the Rockefeller type members of CFR?
Will he sell Americans out on some impractical globalist agenda from CFR?
Let’s ask him. Ask him what he thinks about CFR and the globalist agenda of some of its members.
I read somewhere on FR that over half a million were deported last year.
More and more, I want FDT to get into the race and, hopefully, continue on to the presidency. He gets it. He understands the issues and sees what needs to be done. If he can’t run, then it’s Mit Romney.
Forgive me if my memory fails - it seems to do that more often than not - but wasn't Bush 41 once a congressman? (I concede he wouldn't have been the last one) Or perhaps I'm thinking of Gerald Ford, though he was not on the ticket to be either veep or POTUS when he served in both posts.
of all the lot I like FDT best, now I like Hunter and tancredo too. But I dont think the rest of the sheeple would vote for them. and IF some bone head like julie annie or mccain gets the nomination, I will write in Hunter
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.