...found a link to it from the following.
Fred Thompson NOT Good on Illegal Immigration Issue
(Power Line News)
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/18610/
Ryan Sager of the New York Sun goes after everyone in a negative way except Rudy.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
“Restrictionist” is a new one on me.
Where did this word “restrictionist” come from? And what does it mean, exactly? Sheesh. Just when I think I finally have “neo-con” figured out, along comes another buzzword.
Bookmarked.
Will you honor the will of the people.
So we’re all supposed to be mad at Fred now? Wow, I didn’t know he had even declared yet. I was just watching him chewing his cud on “Law and Order” the other night.
PING!
I guess I’m a “restrictionist” since I’m one of those weirdos who believes we should enforce the laws on the books - built the wall that Congress passed, incarcerate or deport the illegals we catch, and prosecute those who employ illegals. According to Kennedy and Bush, I’m a bad man. They just want to obey the laws they like. We restrictionists are just dunderheads lacking nuance.
I like Thompson a whole lot better than Rudy McRomney. However, there are two problems I have which I have posted previously. First, Thompson was very careful with his words when he said that he is more worried about the next 12 million than those already here. He also said enforcement first, then we’ll discuss what comes next. He is a smart man and knows exactly what he is saying. Basically he is tacking to the right of McCain and Rudy, even with Romney, and to the left of Tancredo and Hunter.
My other qualm with Thompson (and this may paint me as a conspiracy theory whacko) is his membership in the Council of Foreign Relations. That is NOT a group friendly to conservatives (just check their membership roster), nor do they care too much for American sovereignty. I absolutely despised papa Bush’s “new world order” crap, and though Bush Jr. has dropped the phrase, he governs the same.
If Hunter gets more traction, he’ll probably get my vote. And there is always my conservative wet dream of drafting John Bolton.
Fred definitely needs to clarify EXACTLY what his plan would be. The whole of his statements on this issue, (as opposed to these selective quotes) lead me to believe that he would pursue the right course of action- but it would be good to hear it concisely.
I’ll wait to hear it from Fred. Nobody is going to be perfect to everyone but I think Fred is going to be our best shot.
Actually, Mr. Thompson’s position may be more “restrictionist” than this author realizes.
Although each year, a large number of immigrants enter our country illegally, it’s equally true that each year, a large number of them leave voluntarily. The current problem is that more enter than leave.
Mr. Thompson’s approach starts with shutting down the border, so that new illegal immigrants can’t get in. Combined with the natural outflow of illegal immigrants, this policy would slowly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in this country. Combined with policies that are hostile to illegal immigrants already here, it’s possible that within a relatively short period of time, a large percentage of illegal immigrants would leave on their own. This is certainly what Mr. Thompson envisions:
“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,...”
Then, that might be a time to figure out to do with the remaining illegal immigrants.
It’s a lot easier to figure out what to do with, say, five million folks than with 12 million.
What is it again I’m supposed to be seeing here that’s going to scare voters away from Fred Thompson?
It’s pretty clear that Fred’s main opposition from the right is coming from protectionists. Well, if you think that’s a winning issue even within the Republican party, go right ahead. We’ll see you in January.
Suggesting that Fred stands with Giuliani on immigration is absurd, however, and good luck getting anyone to buy it.
Listen here -- Southern Exposure or Read here -- Southern Exposure
Listen -- Comprehensive or Incomprehensible or Read -- Compresive or Incomprensible
Watch -- Pre-9/11 Speech on Terrorism
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Fred bashing thread...
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.
But if he is wise enough and learns from what’s happening, he could honestly arrive at the correct position.
I have more faith in him than the rest. He is not perfect, but he is by far the best we have to deal with.
RUN FRED RUN!
There's nothing wrong with that comment. Sounds to me he's saying we need to actually enforce existing laws and beef up security and no wall should be needed. And his other comments remain consistent in that regard - enforcement is necessary.
If we didn't know it before, we've got plenty of examples in this campaign.
So I'd wait until Fred says his last word.
It will be interesting to see how his experiences in New York and Hollywood will affect his stand.
Will they make him more or less pro-immigration than he was before or than other Tennesseans in Congress are?
* Under abortion: He checked the box for: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy." He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states.
Thompson's 1994 Issue Positions
Posted by Ryan Sager
Mon, 7 May 2007 at 2:16 PM
And on abortion, his comments echoed those he gave to THE WEEKLY STANDARD last week, when I asked about press reports from his first Senate campaign in 1994 that identified him as pro-choice. Thompson said: "I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice."(is he, or isn't he??!!) He added: "I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100 percent voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate."
Right, Said Fred Thompson didn't announce, but he said all the right things.
by Stephen F. Hayes
04/19/2007 12:00:00 AM
Is he pro-choice or pro-life? Does Mr Thompson know how to give an YES or NO answer, without political speakese?
If you want to search further, check into his stance during the process of the attempts to impeach Clinton. You will find a compromiser.
Not the kind of strength, backbone, decisiveness needed to run a country, IMHO.
.