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

Washington Times ^

[MittFan08]

“Now, show me in the Constitution where that is an enumerated federal power.”

Sorry, I don’t do research for those who sympathize with some of La Raza’s most cherished legislation. When it comes to illegal immigration and why it’s the greatest threat to our country, you either get it or you don’t. You obviously don’t. So be it.

[King of Florida]

Sure and you screen name sure makes you open minded

What does one do with a screen name like that after its shelf life expires (as this one may well within the next half year)? Wasn't there a FR poster named RunPatRun?

[dirtboy]

Sorry, I don’t do research for those who sympathize with some of La Raza’s most cherished legislation.

In other words, you can't and instead resort to a ungrounded personal attack. Typical.

I'd personally like it if every last state denied any kind of benefit to illegals. However, I also want the federal government back within a corral in my lifetime. You'd let them loose when it suits you. Hate to tell you this, but the monster eventually turns on those who feed it.

[CheyennePress]

It’s hard to argue that Thompson has accomplished as much as many of the other candidates in this race.

Romney has by far the best resume of any candidate out there.

Giuliani led his city through a major crisis and managed what is for all intents and purposes a state in NYC.

Tom Tancredo helped bring an issue to the forefront of national politics.

Duncan Hunter was a key player in bringing out the border fence and has played a key role in national defense.

Fred Thompson was a small-town lawyer who lobbied in DC, served in the US Senate (with little next to his name save McCain-Feingold), and starred in a television show. Perhaps impressive, though not really in any terms of executive leadership.

I guess it’s nice to be in a TV show. But I haven’t been impressed with the interviews I’ve seen Thompson deliver. His speeches are pretty incredible. That much he deserves credit for. He has quite a few conservative ideals, though I think his brand of screwball federalism ends up adhering to dogma more than common sense and the needs of the nation at times.

He’s a good guy. One I could vote for in the general. But I doubt I’ll be casting a vote his way come the primary.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Until Fred says he has rejected the Z-visa, nobody can trust that it won't be more of the same. Romney has flatly rejected the Z-visa. Why won't Fred do it?

The Z visa is a deal breaker for many people. I'm not sure the McCain team really gets that yet or they are being extremely disingenuous trying to equate the two knowing that the average voter is too dumb to figure out the difference.

“There’s an old rule in Washington that in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it, while the other half fear that people actually do.” —John Fund

-----------------

Governor Romney strongly opposes the McCain-Kennedy approach to immigration reform or other amnesty measures offering benefits to those in the country illegally.

Governor Romney: "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S." "Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority." (Governor Mitt Romney On The Senate Immigration Agreement, May 17, 2007)

Governor Romney: "McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer. As governor, I took a very different approach. I authorized our state police to enforce immigration laws. I vetoed a tuition break for illegals and said no to driver's licenses. McCain-Kennedy gives benefits to illegals that would cost taxpayers millions. And more importantly, amnesty didn't work 20 years ago, and it won't work today." (CPAC 2007 Speech, March 2, 2007)

[dirtboy]

It’s hard to argue that Thompson has accomplished as much as many of the other candidates in this race.

That's part of the problem. Fred's main accomplishment is what he DID NOT do - he did not push new massive federal programs or push for new federal mandates on the states. Most of the rest of the field were activist in their own way.

Romney has by far the best resume of any candidate out there.

Sorry, but I'll pass. Romneycare is on his resume and that is a horrible precedent at the state level.

[MEGoody]

I believe Fred thought it wasn't the fedgov's role to mandate to the states on this matter.

That's fine as long as the public services in question are not funded at all with federal dollars.

[MittFan08]

“What does one do with a screen name like that after its shelf life expires”

I don’t know- it’s already expired as far as I’m concerned since if I do vote for Romney it will be with my nose held a little bit. I saw Romney give a speech on C-Span a long time ago that knocked my socks off- in a moment of enthusiasm I chose this name.

Part of me still thinks the “real” Mitt is likely a true conservative- after how, how many liberal Mormons do you know? But he has proven himself too much of a political weathervane for my tastes. But what are the choices? Rudy is tough on terror, but his statement several years ago about being to the left of Bill Clinton on immigration stuck in my throat and stayed there.

Thompson is intruiging, but my concerns with him are the votes reported on today, his health problems in the past and the fact that he looks kind of sickly even today, and the fact that he has waited so long to get going and even skipped the debate tonight.

Huckabee is very impressive on some level, but once again we go back to immigration- I recall how he was one of the most pro-illegal alien governors in the country. Why can’t we get a candidate who doesn’t have public acts in the past where he gave a big sloppy kiss to the illegal alien industry? Brownback was the same way the first time the illegal alien bill came before the Senate, then he tried to pretend to be conservative. We all know where McCain stands on this- and he’s half crazy to boot. An extremely weak field of candidates when it comes to my #1, #2 and #3 issue.

As far as I can tell about Romney, even in his most waffling past, he hasn’t said or done anything on illegal immigration that is objetionable to me as things that the other major candidates have said or done. And he’s talking a very good game on the issue now- more so than any other candidate. Rudy is being all vague with his talk about “identifying” illegal aliens as if knowing the names of the invaders is our big problem.

Right now I’m most comfortable with Mitt on immigration and that’s my issue so I’m still leaning towards him. But I’m ready to hear Fred out.

[MEGoody]

Now, show me in the Constitution where that is an enumerated federal power.

Where does the constitution outline what is to be done by the federal government to secure our borders?

The wall isn't in the constitution - perhaps we shouldn't build it. What do you think?

[Tarpon]

Found it, here you go ... Fred on AMNESTY here

Fred doesn't state a position on what to do about the illegals here now, but closing the border comes first. I heard him say in another speech that he was not in favor of citizenship for illegals here now, but may go for work visas. He needs to clarify this point a little more for me to be completely happy. He goes much further than anyone else.

Without a real Conservative Leader, we are going to be relegated to the back bench for along time, and that is not acceptable.

[dirtboy]

Where does the constitution outline what is to be done by the federal government to secure our borders?

Gee, that part about preventing invasion of the various states?

[Redbob]

With the number of illegals employed by Tyson’s, a major employer in Tennessee, it’s no surprise that Thompson would take that into account and not vote to penalize the wetbacks.

[CheyennePress]

Yeah, the Yankee liberal Romney who:

1) Opposes the right to citizenship granted to children born in this country to illegal immigrants

2) opposed and vetoed bill granting in-state tuition to illegals

3) favors strong enforcement aimed at fining employers who break the law

4) removing federal funding from states or cities who set up illegal sanctuaries.

5) supports bringing people into this country based upon their skills they bring to the table instead of their family ties.

6) set up a program for Mass State Police to detain, arrest, and deport illegal immigrants during his stent as governor.

7) Actually supports tort reform instead of falling back on a lazy, half-baked excuse of favoring a federalist approach (which is exactly what lawyer after lawyer has been exploiting for decades using venue shopping).

8) Romney supports a fence.

9) Romney supports biometric information and employer verification.

Thompson?

Fred: "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."

"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."

Nuff said with Thompson on the border with that last one. Well, perhaps. Unless Thompson has changed his mind, which frankly I would welcome.

There's not a candidate I will vote for who opposes a fence, a federal marriage amendment, or tort reform. Period.

[MEGoody]

Gee, that part about preventing invasion of the various states?

But it doesn't say HOW that is to be done. Passing a law that prohibits providing public services to those who have 'invaded' the states is one step in accomplishing it.

So the claim that it isn't in the constitution can easily be debated. After all, building the wall isn't in there either.

[redgirlinabluestate]

He goes much further than anyone else

No he doesn't. Hunter, Tancredo and Romney are all much stronger on this issue.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Be sure to check out the link in #42 to help you make your decision.

[CheyennePress]

See my post above. Thompson may advocate closing the borders. But he doesn’t want to do it with a fence.

[MittFan08]

Thanks for the link. Of the very bad candidates we have on immigration, I put Fred above Rudy, McCain and Huckabee because at least Fred is talking tough NOW in spite of his mistakes on the issue in the past.

It seems to me that Romney hasn’t made any really bad mistakes on immigration in the past and he’s much more specific than Fred on the issue so far, so he seems like the candidate most likely to actually VETO amnesty if it passes. Hopefully Fred would as well- if he gives an outright promise to veto any amnesty bill then he’ll probably get my vote since he seems more sincere than Mitt as a general matter.

[redgirlinabluestate]

There's not a candidate I will vote for who opposes a fence, a federal marriage amendment, or tort reform. Period.

Ditto. Well, at least not in the primary. The general is another matter, and I will vote for Fred if he is the nominee, of course.

[dirtboy]

But it doesn't say HOW that is to be done. Passing a law that prohibits providing public services to those who have 'invaded' the states is one step in accomplishing it.

Dictating state policy to states is not an enumerated power. Securing the borders against invasion is. Under the 10th, a federalist rejects just about all federal mandates unless they can be tied to an enumerated federal power that states are violating.