Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thompson Soft on Illegals in Senate Votes (Wash. Times)
Washington Times ^

Posted on 09/05/2007 10:15:05 AM PDT by MittFan08

As Mr. Thompson prepares to announce tomorrow that he will officially seek the Republican nomination for president and voters begin to take a closer look at him, his maverick streak and his voting record will be front and center.

Some votes are likely to draw scrutiny, particularly a series of votes in the 1990s against cracking down on illegal aliens. Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens — he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal — and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system to help businesses filter out illegal aliens who apply for jobs.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2008; aliens; elections; fredthompson; illegalimmigration; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: MittFan08
If it was coming before the US Congress for a vote, it’s a safe bet that it was FEDERAL, not state, benefits that were being discussed.

Really? And all those Federal laws mandating how States must spend education dollars, or withholding Highway money if the State fails to adopt a 21 year old drinking age, are legitimately Federal?

21 posted on 09/05/2007 10:43:14 AM PDT by jdub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
If it was coming before the US Congress for a vote, it’s a safe bet that it was FEDERAL, not state, benefits that were being discussed.

Man, have you been asleep for the last seventy years or so? The feds ROUTINELY dictate state and local matters to the states, the 10th Amendment be damned. Given that the bill dealt with emergency medical care and public education, those are NOT federal matters - or at least should not be.

22 posted on 09/05/2007 10:44:47 AM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“Fred is the real deal, the rest are just pretend.”

Ok, now that’s the attitude regarding Fred I just don’t get. Am I safe in assuming that you are a conservative Republican who wants a similar, ELECTABLE (sorry, Duncan Hunter fans) candidate? Well so do I.

So a conservative newspaper publishes a story saying that Fred was one of only 6 Senators who wanted illegal aliens to get more than basic benefits, and you don’t have any questions or doubts at all about Fred?

I may well vote for Fred. Doubt me if you want based on my handle (I chose it many months ago when I was much more enthusiastic about Romney than I am now) but it’s the truth. But I certainly won’t vote for him without critically examining his record, votes, views expressed in debates, etc. It seems to me that Fred has done so little publically in the last several months that it would be impossible for anyone to have a firm opinion on just what he’s about. Especially in light of reports like the one today.

Let’s have a debate, not a coronation.


23 posted on 09/05/2007 10:45:28 AM PDT by MittFan08 (Anybody but McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jdub
The problem with statements like these is they usually only tell a small part of the story. What else was in the bill? Was it full of unpalatable earmarks that made it worth voting against a measure you might otherwise support in order to block a bunch of things you don't?

Or, like a lot of articles on a lot of candidates, they choose to pick and choose votes that fit the story line instead of looking at the entire record or they take procedural votes and make them look like bill votes,.. (or worse, use bad information like what NumbersUSA posts..)

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Immigration.htm

24 posted on 09/05/2007 10:47:05 AM PDT by mnehring (Cox/Craig 2008! Don't stall!!! (At least it makes more sense than Ron Paul.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
So a conservative newspaper publishes a story saying that Fred was one of only 6 Senators who wanted illegal aliens to get more than basic benefits, and you don’t have any questions or doubts at all about Fred?

Talk about jumping to conclusions. Someone can vote against a bill without "wanting" aliens to get more than basic benefits - they can instead believe that the fedgov should have no say in the matter under the 10th Amendment.

25 posted on 09/05/2007 10:48:00 AM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
Those include a 1995 vote against limiting services other than emergency care and public education to illegal aliens — he was one of just six senators to oppose that proposal — and a 1996 vote against creating an employer verification system

The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

26 posted on 09/05/2007 10:49:11 AM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdub

Ok, let’s assume that what you say is true. I don’t think it is, but let’s assume it is.

Does that mean that you agree with Fred and 5 other Senators that the states should have the right to give illegal aliens public benefits above and beyond emergency care and education (I personally don’t think they should even get that)?

I say heck no- giving an indivual state the right to give even state benefits to people who have broken federal laws is a terrible idea. If serves as a magnet for illegals to cross the border, and it allows states like California that have a Latino majority to force law-abiding non-Latinos to subsidize the invasion.

Do you disagree?


27 posted on 09/05/2007 10:49:22 AM PDT by MittFan08 (Anybody but McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
But his membership in the CFR is troubling as are the votes mentioned here.

Yes, it's a bad thing to have conservative voices as members in a think-tank. It is much better if we make sure that all the contributions to their policy papers and studies come only from a liberal view point.

28 posted on 09/05/2007 10:49:22 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Fred Thompson 2008! Taking America Back for Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
So a conservative newspaper publishes a story saying that Fred was one of only 6 Senators who wanted illegal aliens to get more than basic benefits, and you don’t have any questions or doubts at all about Fred?

The story said he voted against a measure, it didn't say he was for them getting more benefits. Though that was the conclusion intended for you to reach. Unless you are familiar with the actual bill and what it contained, beware of other people's agendas when they make conclusory statements like the author did.

29 posted on 09/05/2007 10:50:10 AM PDT by jdub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
Does that mean that you agree with Fred and 5 other Senators that the states should have the right to give illegal aliens public benefits above and beyond emergency care and education (I personally don’t think they should even get that)?

Read the 10th Amendment and get back to us.

30 posted on 09/05/2007 10:50:53 AM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Law & Order is a TV SHOW!


31 posted on 09/05/2007 10:50:54 AM PDT by bethtopaz (A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you hav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
Let’s have a debate, not a coronation.

Debates work best with vetted facts instead of emotionally-driven conclusions from incomplete information.

32 posted on 09/05/2007 10:52:04 AM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bethtopaz
Law & Order is a TV SHOW!

So is most of modern politics, quite frankly.

33 posted on 09/05/2007 10:52:41 AM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: MittFan08
If that’s the case, then God help those actual Americans in states like California and Arizona that have Latino majorities. A deference to the states on this issue will allow the Mexicans to come over, have a bunch of US citizens kids and then those kids vote and elect a bunch of state legislators who will tax the heck out of the productive citizens to subsidize a huge state welfare system.

Ah, so who cares about the 10th Amendment? Let's disregard the tenth when it suits us, and then the liberals will disregard the 10th when it suits them, and we instead grow the entire federal government into a behemoth that will tax the heck out of productive citizens to subsidize a huge federal welfare system. And then it won't matter whether you live in California or South Dakota. At least under federalism, if California is being stupid, you can move elsewhere to get away from the stupidity.

35 posted on 09/05/2007 10:56:15 AM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
If that’s the case, then God help those actual Americans in states like California and Arizona that have Latino majorities.

So Latinos aren't actual Americans? Could have fooled my wife. She's Latino and is also a native-born citizen of native-born parents.

36 posted on 09/05/2007 10:57:51 AM PDT by dirtboy (Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
Show me where Fred intended to give extended benefits to illegals, instead of jumping to the conclusion, and I'll agree with you. Hint; you are going to spend a lot of time searching for a non-existant needle in the haystack.

Did you notice these other parts of the article?:

An adviser to the campaign on immigration matters, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Thompson had concerns about how broadly the public-benefits provision was drawn. As for the employer verification system, the adviser said Mr. Thompson joined a majority of Republicans in the chamber in opposing it, with many of them thinking the new system would lead to a national ID card.

37 posted on 09/05/2007 10:59:04 AM PDT by jdub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Pretending you’re accomplishing something on a television show is a lot different than actually accomplishing something in real life.

Look, I like to watch drama on t.v. just as much as the next person, but the actors are just acting.

It’s scary to think that even Republicans are having a hard time telling the difference between fantasy and reality. No wonder we’re in so much trouble these days.

This discourse confirms one of my suspicions — that many FredHeads are fans of his t.v. show. Personally, I have never seen Fred Thompson in anything on t.v. and I am unimpressed with the real man. Maybe if I was a faithful fan of Law & Order I would be a FredHead, too.

38 posted on 09/05/2007 10:59:09 AM PDT by bethtopaz (A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you hav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
I really wish that the WP article gave bill numbers because there are a couple of bills out there that have been repeated over and over incorrectly.

One website that a lot of articles refer to (NumbersUSA) shows Thompson voting for S1556 when he actually opposed: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00265

Another bill, S1664 never made it to a vote, it was killed in committee: ( http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V907&can_id=53292 )-they take a procedural vote to move a bill from one committee to another committee and label that as supporting the bill.

39 posted on 09/05/2007 10:59:24 AM PDT by mnehring (Cox/Craig 2008! Don't stall!!! (At least it makes more sense than Ron Paul.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MittFan08
We don't have a perfect candidate, and we'll have to choose the one who is the least imperfect. Maybe that's Fred, but if so, he's got some explaining to do to get my vote.

Sure and you screen name sure makes you open minded . LOL,

What a crock!

40 posted on 09/05/2007 11:00:53 AM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson