Fred Thompson: No Restrictionist Hero

Latest Politics, New York Sun ^ | 18MAY07 | Ryan Sager

[familyop]

Mitt Romney is rightly being hit for his flip-flop on immigration. However, Fred Thompson's "tough" stance isn't exactly enough to make him the restrictionists' hero, either.

As recently as 2006, Mr. Thompson clearly stated that some sort of legalization — or "amnesty" — would be necessary. He seems to be for a virtual border fence (like President Bush) instead of a brick-and-mortar one. And he doesn't want tough sanctions for employers.

This all puts Mr. Thompson roughly in line with Rudy Giuliani.

On a path to citizenship: "[B]ecause we allowed ourselves to wait until we woke up one day and found 12 million illegals here, there's no easy solution. And I think that you have to realize that you're either going to drive 12 million people underground permanently, which is not a good solution. You're going to get them all together and get them out of the country, which is not going to happen. Or you're going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it's unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On the problems with cracking down on employers: "We haven't enforced the law, in terms of employers. … For 20 years, we've not enforced the law, and that's a part of the problem. You can't enforce it all on the backs of the employers. People falsify information that they give employers and all that. That's not a solution to the problem." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On his skepticism of a brick-and-mortar border fence: FOX's ALAN COLMES: "You don't put up a fence, either, do you? Is that bad neighbor policy, put a fence up?" THOMPSON: "If it would work. I mean, I don't know – that's a technical problem. In this day and age, I would not think you would have to use bricks and mortar to get that job done. But we ought to do everything that we can to get it done to the extent that we can and then, as I say, I think people would be willing to take a look at the rest of the problem, what we do with the problem that we created." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 4/3/06)

On enforcement first: "We woke up one day after years of neglect and apparently discovered that we have somewhere between 12 million and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. So it became an impossible situation to deal with. I mean, there's really no good solution. So what do you do? You have to start over. Well, I'm concerned about the next 12 million or 20 million. So that's why enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

On not rounding up illegal immigrants: "You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 3/11/07)

[DesScorp]

"And of course, they ALWAYS leave out this quote from the Mike Wallace interview: "If we can make it nearly impossible for an invader to get a job and give the border patrol the authority and resources to arrest illegals and send them back where they came from, more than half the battle will have been won.""

Thanks for posting that...I'm a Fred supporter, but he's wrong on the wall. It would be highly effective. Sorry, but i'm not real concerned what Mexico thinks about it, so the "good neighbor" argument doesn't phase me much.

[Lancey Howard]

.....one thing I find maddening is the way the pro-illegal crowd conflates immigration and illegal immigration. It's dirty tactics.

Agreed. What's worse is that you expect this kind of dishonesty from the New York Times, CBS, and the rest of that ilk, but not from the Wall Street Journal. Oh well...

[Politicalmom]

Questioning something is not “wrong”. He didn’t say he was against a physical wall.

[papasmurf]

I believe Israel should not give up one millimeter of land, in fact, they should take more and create a 100 mile buffer!

But, that DOES NOT conflict with my support of FRed, in any way, shape, or form.

You guys who support other candidates, especially a great one like Duncan, are only hurting your candidate by coming on FRed threads and biting his ankles.

Now, why don't you do some good for your guy, and start another Duncan thread, and be positive!

:O)

P America. Together. Again Fred Thompson/JC Watts in '08

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

I'm not real sure where you are trying to go with this.

With the exception of abortion (murder), I don't know what single issue that Rudy is for that is conservative.

Thompson, and I'll include Hunter, support more of the conservative values (please note use of plural), I look for in candidates.

Every body slips up at some point in their life but an uninformed opinion or two early in a career can be overlooked if a period of stability in an issue is demonstrated.

Rudy has not demonstrated ANY conservative values that I look for in a candidate - ever.

In my way of thinking, there is a wide distinct difference between Thompson/Hunter and Macain/Gulliani. A very noticeable distinction.

If I have missed your point, please pardon me as I have been ill for a while.

[kevkrom]

he's wrong on the wall

It sounds to me more like he's not limiting the options to just a physical wall, but is willing to look at anything that works.

[sageb1]

Restrictionist as a buzzword was the creation of the contortionists.

[sageb1]

True. I would go further and say that most Americans have a natural aversion to walls. Reagan was one of them. But he was also a pragmatic soul. And sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

[papasmurf]

That's correct. And that's how it should be legislated. ONE bill to close/enforce the borders.

Then, we go from there. The situation is very fluid and complex, and it will become even more fluid if the borders are secured. That's why we need to seperate the issues, and deal with security first. There are numerous ways to entice people to leave without loading them up in busses, that's what FRed has alluded to, and that, I believe is his plan.

We have a lot of carrots to dangle for Mexico and Mexicans that'll cause them to think about staying home and going home.

Let's not forget, too, that we have somewhere around 3 million illegal Middle Easterners, the same in Asians, and I saw on CNN the other night, 3-5 million illegal Eastern Europeans.

I would rather have Mexicans, any day, than all or any of the others.

:O)

P America. Together. Again Fred Thompson/JC Watts in '08

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

I think I see.

If this hit piece is true and Thompson is flopping around on issues, it will become apparent. Trial by fire is the only way to see everything - Not one candidate are everything to everybody.

It is just my hope, as always to not have to bath after I vote.

[CharlesWayneCT]

"You know, if you have the right kind of policies, and you're not encouraging people to come here and encouraging them to stay once they're here, they'll go back, many of them, of their own volition, instead of having to, you know, load up moving vans and rounding people up. That's not going to happen."

That's not amnesty, that's reality. Under such a plan, they wouldn't be given cards that made them legal. Instead, as legal immigrants were given secure id cards, and we cracked down on employees who didn't check for the secure cards or for citizenship, those illegals would be forced to go home, because they'd have no job, they couldn't get welfare, and we'd make it near impossible for them to get assistance. That's how you get rid of large numbers of illegals -- remove the incentive for them to be here.

[Lancey Howard]

Even this Wall Street Journal editorial uses the word "restrictionist" in the first paragraph.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Hate to bust your bubble, but John Bolton is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Thanks for that. This whole association attack bothers me more and more. We don't argue facts any more, we look for the cheap, easy way out to justify whatever opinions we blindly and emotionally hold.

So if someone likes Bolton, they'll just say that he's a good man to be in CFR to try to clean it up, or to keep it from being worse. But if they oppose Thompson, HIS membership must mean he loves those guys and would sell us out.

It's like candidates and endorsements. If you like a candidate, you get a good endorsement and you claim it bestows that endorser's views on your candidate. If you DON'T like a candidate, you claim that the endorser has sullied himself by being associated with the candidate.

[papasmurf]

Let's face it, who would want a wall, if there was a way to do it without one? I don't want to be walled. But, in some areas, it's the only way. So one has to look at all the options and not just say "let's build a 900 mile wall".

We need to look at ways to take away incentives for illegal immigration, and ways to assist the Mexican government in creating an environment to keep their people home. Oh, no. I forgot, that would entail having a legitimate Mexican government, and not a ruling "junta"./s So, that's where our efforts need to focus second. First-secure the border, second-apply great pressure on Mexico, third-apply pressure on US businesses that hire illegals at the same time, work with them to address their needs, fourth-double our efforts to remove the incentives inherent in our system. Between each step, we need to stop and re-evaluate, then adjust, then take more actions.

:O)

P America. Together. Again Fred Thompson/JC Watts in '08

[CharlesWayneCT]

How is Hunter going to win the swing vote? What is his appeal to independents and Reagan Democrats?

Frankly, that's not my question. I am certain that Hunter's views COULD be sold to independents and Reagan Democrats. After all Reagan did it.

My question is, by what basis other then wishful thinking does a person claim Hunter is "electable"? Electable isn't some esoteric term. It has a real and easily quantifiable meaning -- can your candidate actually get 50.1% of the people in the country to choose them over the opposition. To prove you can get that 50.1% to support you, you have to show that you can get the first 5% to support you, and that you can get people to support you with time and money. Right now, Hunter has failed on at least the first and third counts. Until he can show something, anybody who claims he is "electable" is doing so without evidence, and is just hoping rather than thinking. BTW, I hope he is electable. I wish he was electable. If I had a magic Wand, he would be electable. But wishes are just wishes, magic is for movies, false hope is just delusion.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think some freepers are so “purist” that if they ran for office themselves, eventually they’d find something they did wrong that would make them “unacceptable”.

[kevkrom]

John Bolton is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations

Ditto on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

[LS]

LOL. Like Jonathan Edwards who was so concerned about the sin in others he finally concluded he couldn’t even take communion with his own wife, as he couldn’t trust her salvation!

[LS]

Or, the inverse I should add is Groucho Marx who said he would never belong to any club that would have someone like him as a member!

[CharlesWayneCT]

Some people sincerely believe that part of the punishment for being here illegally should be that you NEVER get to even try to be here legally.

I understand and respect that position, I don’t think it’s stupid, it’s a rational thing. I happen to disagree with them. In fact, I think we should grant “amnesty” to most here illegally, in the sense that we should “forgive” them their illegal trespass, send them home and wipe their slate clean. They can get in line and not have their trespass counted against them.

I know that’s not what most here want, but I think it’s a good incentive to make them come forward.

Of course, I also think that if they’ve been here 5 years, if they held a job during that time, if they paid their taxes, learned english, if a background check finds no fault, if they qualify under the new “point” system as the kind of people we would let get visas for permanent residence, then we should let them pay a yearly fee to “wait in place”.

Realise that is close to what is in the “Z-visa” now, EXCEPT for the following differences:
1) My plan is only for people who have been here a long time, kind of like the more-permanant z-visa. I don’t have the ignorant “probationary 4-year z-visa” that allows everybody to stay.
2) My plan doesn’t “forgive” back taxes, because if you didn’t PAY your taxes over the 5 years, you don’t qualify.

Still, I understand most people here don’t like the plan I just detailed.

Meanwhile, even I oppose the senate plan. I would like in fact to see the enforcement provisions enacted as their own bill, along with the new secure id for legal immigrants, and a “get home to your country” free pass. Legal immigrants would get a new secure id (so that illegals can’t use forged documents).

Employers would be given a way to check for citizenship for real americans. Then the secure ID would work for the legal immigrant non-citizens. If they hire anybody else, they get hit with huge fines and penalties — maybe we put them in jail. Make it an unbearable risk to employ illegals.

But, like I said, offer those illegals a “get out of the country free” pass. If they register, we employ my 5-year plan, and everybody else is allowed 3 months to pack up and leave the country, after which they are allowed to apply for any of the existing programs without prejudice.

I would propose they have to pay a fine and back taxes to get their “free pass”, but frankly if I had to let them go without paying it would be worth it to get them out of here.