Posted on 08/09/2007 2:40:03 PM PDT by CheyennePress
(CBS/AP) In a surprisingly strong attack, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said Republican rival Rudy Giuliani had turned New York City into a sanctuary for illegal immigrants during his two terms as mayor.
Immigration is a hot-button issue in the GOP and may play especially well in Iowa, an early battleground state where the federal government has raided meat processing plants employing illegals, and where some longtime residents feel their pay is being undercut by cheaper-working immigrants.
"If you look at lists compiled on Web sites of sanctuary cities, New York is at the top of the list when Mayor Giuliani was mayor," Romney said at while campaigning in Iowa. "He instructed city workers not to provide information to the federal government that would allow them to enforce the law. New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country."
Giuliani, also campaigning in Iowa, offered this response: "Frankly, that designation would not apply to New York City. What you got to look at in fairness to is the overall results — and no city in terms of crime, safety, dealing with illegality of all different kinds has done a better job than New York City."
For contrast, Romney has pointed to his own performance on immigration as the governor of Massachusetts. Romney deputized state police to enforce immigration laws and denied driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Romney's attack on Giuliani came just three days before the Iowa Straw Poll, a nonbinding beauty contest among the Republican presidential contenders.
In the days leading up it, Romney is airing a new television ad in the state in which he encourages supporters to attend the event, portrays himself as an outsider to Washington and takes swipes at both Republicans and Democrats on the immigration issue.
"Washington politicians in both parties have proven they can't control spending, and they won't control our borders," Romney says in the ad. "I will, but I need your help to do it."
Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain are not participating in the straw poll.
“Our biggest threat comes from the open border and the illegal aliens and immigrants from enemy countries.”
I agree! A friend of mine sent the list below of 14 reasons to deport illegal aliens.
14 Reasons to deport illegal aliens
Hope these 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are
read by the majority of Americans. Then they will have something to
yell at their U.S. Congress members.
14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens...
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal
aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of
English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers.
http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s
two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge additional crime p roblem in
the United States
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine,
meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into the U. S. from the Southern
border. Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of
mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back
to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex
Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States “.
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is
$338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between
$206 and $230 BILLION DOLLARS, if we send them home, we’ll be ahead
after the 1st year!!!
Please pass this on. Americans need to wake up!
He said this yesterday?
Yes, you’re right. As a matter of fact, Fred will run his campaign from his front porch, like Warren Harding did in 1920. Parties of supporters will come to visit and shoot the breeze with Fred and drink spiked lemonade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_porch_campaign
BTW I plan to be one of Fred’s “Mark Hannas” FWIW.
I guess he didn’t learn anything from the Dole campaign.
I think these were 1990s speeches. Of course his campaign denied he ever said anything like this, but Romney had the transcripts. Romney does his homework.
BTW, thanks for the compliment!
Order the state police to cooperate with ICE and turn in any illegals they ran across. Beyond that, there wasn't much he could do.
I guess I’m a little confused. If Giuliani said this ten years or ago or so, then why is it dated yesterday? And if this single statement is important, why isn’t Fred Thompson’s statement about abortion from the same time period not important?
I have no problem with bringing the track record of any candidate into the discussion, and it certainly leads to any questions of why their positions have changed, but we ought to be reasonably fair in the discussion.
Yes, I think that's a good comparison.
Libertarians don't seem to be bothered by the fact that all social security privatization proposals force people to save for retirement. They're all for them. Why, then, do they get all worked up when people are forced to make sure they can pay for necessary medical treatments in the likely event they get sick?
That's totally true. BUT, he's not running for President of New York City. The day we settle for "conservative for NYC" as our nationwide standard bearer is the day there is no point in the Republican Party continuing to exist.
As for avoiding President Hillary, Rudy is the GOP front runner least likely to defeat her. Hillary will play him like a fiddle. His only issues are crime and terrorism. Hillary will get FDNY and the 9/11 Victim's Families groups to go on the attack. Others will remind the voters that Dinkins appointed Bratton and Rudy fired him when Bratton started getting all the credit.
Boom! The only reasons any conservative has to vote for Rudy are gone. Hillary goes on to make the 1984 election look close.
I think they dated it yesterday as that was when the news broke. The campaign denial that he said this stuff tells me a lot about the campaign character. They did not even know this stuff was out there???
What you say could be true , but if he gets the nomination then he must be doing something right. I’m not a Rudy man but I intend to support the nominee.
The Misians are. see http://www.mises.org/story/2586
Because Thompson's record in the Senate (after he made whatever statements he made) was 100% anti-abortion. In contrast, Giuliani's statements about illegal aliens were crystal-clear, and his record 100% bears out those statements. He fought for welfare benefits for illegal aliens, and vehemently fought against having to enforce immigration laws. He even took the federal government to court to keep NYC a sanctuary city, and when he lost, did it anyway. It is mind-boggling that he would try to deny his mayoral record on behalf of illegal aliens -- as I said before, it shows a clintonian level of shamelessness.
I like Hunter, and agree with you that he’d very accurately represent real conservative values.
Where did he go wrong? Why do you suppose a candidate, who so many of the grassroots likes, and of whom laments the disappointing performance, has failed to gain any traction?
The follow-up question, then, would be, is it too late for Hunter? Can he ever get the support he needs to become a real contender in the primaries?
A second problem is that he wouldn't lead the country or the party in the direction that the media or the party bosses would like us to go. The media doesn't want to anoint someone who would make either the country or the party more conservative. The party would rather have hacks that they can control than a leader who will do what's best for the country. Without the help of the media or the party bosses, Mr. Hunter has a tough time getting the "buzz" that one needs for people to take seriously.
One problem that can be traced to Mr. Hunter is that he doesn't have any real executive experience. He may have run his own law office for a few years back in the 70's, but he hasn't highlighted the entrepreneurial aspects of having his own law office, and people don't see lawyers in private practice as entrepreneurs or administrators. As a legislator, he's not exercised executive authority, and particularly not exercised any kind of authority from an elected executive office. He may be a very effective executive, but we don't know that based on his past.
No one else agrees with me, but I also believe that successful Republican presidential candidates need to have had a real life outside politics for a significant period of time. President (GW) Bush was a fighter pilot, an oil man, and a baseball owner before running for office. I'm not saying that he was a self-made man. His father's connections helped, but he lived a significant portion of his adult life in the "real world" as opposed to being in politics. His father, President (GHW) Bush spent a little less time in the real world, but he flew planes in WWII and was in the oil industry before he ran for Congress and then entered government service as an ambassador and CIA administrator. President Reagan had a pretty full acting career before he ran for office the first time. While Mr. Hunter should be proud of his service to our country both as a ranger in Vietnam and as a Congressman, he's not had as significant a private sector career as most successful Republican candidates have had.
I don't know whether it's too late for Mr. Hunter. I know that if the people who see him as the best candidate don't support him, then he has no chance. Because I see him as the best candidate, I'm going to support him and try to give him that chance. He believes that he can win, and I've talked to some of his campaign people who believe that he can win.
I'm hoping that he will do very well in Iowa this weekend and again in Texas over the Labor Day weekend. If he could make good showings in both of those contests, he would get some attention. Maybe that attention would bring him money and votes.
Bill
Interesting analysis. Thanks.
~”A second problem is that he wouldn’t lead the country or the party in the direction that...the party bosses would like us to go.”~
I’ll have to put more thought into that. Perhaps I’m too idealistic, but I hadn’t considered that as a factor.
I still don’t see how forcing people to pay for something by law is conservative or freedom oriented.
My view of Romney is tempered by his family background noting his father playing the middle between Goldwater and Rockefeller in 1964.
Beyond that I am convinced he will do nothing “extreme” during his presidency like most who have preceded him (except Reagan).
I’m not going to go theological, but practically the LDS Church (Mormons) leaders are get along people who compromise with the world around them (example: Orrin Hatch). The state of Utah has never advanced strong pro-life legislation because it doesn’t want to be seen as a leader in opposing abortion.
Mormons were persecuted before and after they got to Utah leading to this “get along” mentality in my opinion. So I’m not being hostile to their religion as much as saying its led to a certain attitude that seems to show.
LDS attitudes changed with society around them prodding, not any moral revelation.
The US Army pushed Utah to outlaw polygamy so statehood could happen back in the 1890’s.
The change on racial policy (ordination of non-whites) happened in the 1970’s when it became a public embarrassment in my opinion.
This is Mitt Romney’s heritage and I didn’t discuss theology here, just practical observations.
I’m uncommitted right now but see your point.
There’s this push to support someone “electable” early on.
I think there’s time to wait and consider the options.
Mine are for a real conservative candidate and not to be steamrolled into supporting an “electable” candidate.
A lot of blogging is aimed at pushing us into someone’s column and increasing their poll numbers to wipe out opposition including candidates with convictions like Hunter.
My bottom line is that candidate support on this blog and others is often generated by the campaigns themselves (Rudy,Mitt,Fred,etc.). Its not by chance.
Many of us parents are teaching our children to respect the laws. What a horrible example to have rewards for those who break our laws.
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.