Replies

Opposes topic 12: Illegal immigrants earn citizenship

Opposes amnesty in any form: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Nation loses sovereignty if it cannot secure its own borders: Strongly Opposes topic 12
YES on limit welfare for immigrants: Strongly Opposes topic 12

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

MRL: Now, Senator, I’m a little concerned here for a lot of reasons, as I know you are. I’ve read from your outstanding statements here. There have been no hearings on this (immigration) bill... First of all, there’s no bill, as you point out. There have been no hearings on costs. There have been no hearings on a failing bureaucracy’s ability to enforce any aspect of this. What do you make of all this?

FDT: They’re trying to rush something through, I think, in a hurry, before they lose the will, the political will to do it. And I think that they’ve miscalculated badly. I don’t think that they’re going to be able to do it. I hope I’m right; I may be wrong. But, as you say, the bill is not complete in any way. Portions of it are floating around now that have typos, incomplete. Beats anything that I’ve seen. You know, having big thick bills and passing them on voice vote is not uncommon, unfortunately, to the way the Senate operates. But on something of this importance that people have strong views on, I think it is unprecedented, to my knowledge.

MAL: And this potentially... The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Robert Richter, I had him on here last night. He’s saying that the potential cost of this in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will destroy those programs.

FDT: Yes, at a time when we’re looking at about a 76 Trillion dollar shortfall, in the out years, on down the line in those programs anyway.

MRL: Nobody’s thought this through. Nobody even answers questions like that. He tells me he testifies, he brings up these things, and nobody even addresses them. I mean, don’t we have an obligation to the next generation not to bankrupt them?

FDT: Yes, absolutely... absolutely. And it’s something that I’ve been talking a lot about. It’s a part of my interest in politics, really. I mean if you’re not willing to take on the issues that really threaten your nation’s safety or future, there’s no reason to be in politics. And the demographics being what they are... we’re becomming more of an elderly society, with fewer workers proportionately and so forth. Part of it is based on good things - we’re living longer - it’s just something to face up to. It’s not anybody’s fault. But you have to face up to it. And we keep adding entitlements on top of the existing situation because professional politicians look at the short term and figure that the chickens will come home to roost on somebody else’s watch, and this is just another indication of that.

MRL: I have another concern, too, and that is that there’s really no requirement that people come here and they learn English.

FDT: Yeah.

MRL: There’s no requirement that they assimilate into our society. As a matter of fact, we have politicians and special interest groups that advance multiculturalism and bilingualism. How are people ever going to understand the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and ideas about liberty and capitalism and all those things that their societies know nothing about if we don’t at least start fixing internally some of our mechanisms for assimilating people here?

FDT: Of course. That’s part of the beauty of our imnmigration story in this country. The way people have come over here and quickly learned English and wanted to become Americans, and they did become Americans, and most all of us have that heritage. And now, at a time when we need to come together more and more and people are decrying the splits we have and the divisions we have, and the animosity in the county and so forth, they’re promoting policies that seem to want to continue that and make it less likely that we’re able to come together on basic things.

Mark Levin, The Mark Levin Show, May 18, 2007 (Transcript by Sturm Ruger)

http://fredthompsonfaq.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=3

Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens — securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation.

No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests.

We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders — or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty.

- Fred Thompson, National Review Online, May 17, 2007

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjEzYTc5YjA2ZGNiZjlmZDJkMTllYmE4MjE3ZmY1OTY=

He has stated in interviews that he wants the triple-layer fencing proposed last year by the GOP in Congress, but he also wants a “virtual” fence — electronic surveillance, motion sensors, etc. He wants the Border Patrol’s ranks expanded, and he wants someone in charge of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) that will do their job as it is outlined by the law. (Right now, the current Border Patrol Chief, Daniel Aguilera, was handed a vote of “no confidence” by his Border Patrol agents; they believe he is an “amnesty-first” person.) Again, Senator Thompson realizes that national security should come first, and that includes keeping a vigilant watch on our borders.

- Thomas Clark and Marcie Packard, Common Conservative, May 16, 2007

http://www.commonconservative.com/clark-packard/clark-packard051607.shtml

Fred Thompson: “I think the security issue and the border issue has to be dealt with first. Or the American people have to be convinced that it’s being dealt with, that we’re in the process of really addressing that and coming up with a solution before we can get to some of these other things. To me, the main issue has to do with priorities.”

- Total Buzz blog, Orange County Register, May 4, 2007

http://blogs.ocregister.com/buzz/2007/05/oneonone_with_fred_thomspon.html

What would President Reagan do? For one thing, he would not repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of his own administration. He knew that secure borders are vital, and would now insist on meeting that priority first. He would seek to strengthen the enforcement of existing immigration laws. He would employ new tools—like biometric technology for identification, and cameras, sensors and satellites to monitor the border—that make enforcement and verification less onerous and more effective.

- Ed Meese III, Human Events, December 13, 2006

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18399

“Enforcement, and enforcement at the border, has to be primary.”

“I think most people feel disillusioned after 1986 when we had this deal offered to them before, and now we’re insisting that, you know, we solve the security problem first, and then we’ll talk about what to do with regard to other things — certainly no amnesty or nothing blanket like that...”

“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.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html

I see that you intentionally continue to cherry pick sections of FDT's comments on Fox News.

WALLACE: Well, let me put up on the screen something that you said last year about illegals, and let's take a look at it. "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."

Now, you said, "Look, it's just not realistic that we're going to round up 12 million people and ship them all out of the country."

THOMPSON: Well, that's true, as a general statement. 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. I think most people feel disillusioned after 1986 when we had this deal offered to them before, and now we're insisting that, you know, we solve the security problem first, and then we'll talk about what to do with regard to other things — certainly no amnesty or nothing blanket like that.

But figure out some way to make some differentiation between the kind of people that we have here.

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."

Based on the highlighted portions of his statement, there is NO doubt in my mind that in the weeks to come, if FDT has the courage to answer the question directly, he will admit that what he is proposing is, under certain circumstances, to compromise and give some kind of amnesty to the majority of illegal aliens.

There is also NO doubt in my mind that Fredheads will support this, as some freeper Fredheads have already admitted and do.

Fred Thompson aside Sturm Ruger, would you be willing to give ANY illegal aliens ANY type of amnesty?