Posted on 11/30/2007 5:43:44 AM PST by dano1
As rivals who consider Mike Huckabee soft on immigration ramp up their attacks, the former Arkansas governor acknowledged Thursday that his position on the issue may cost him votes.
Huckabee for weeks now has been criticized for his 2005 support of state-sponsored scholarships for illegal immigrants. Legislation to provide the tuition aid failed in the Arkansas Senate.
Huckabee admitted his stance is unpopular among a GOP voter base that has made immigration the No. 1 issue of the campaign.
"If it costs me the election, it costs me the election," he told reporters at a luncheon on Capitol Hill.
But Huckabee said voters should direct their anger toward a government that has neglected the immigration problem.
"Be mad at the government, be mad about immigration," he said. "I'm mad about it, too. But let's punish the right people for breaking the law. A 6-year-old crossing the border doesn't know he's breaking the law."
One opponent, Mitt Romney, has accused Huckabee of misleading voters when he discusses support for scholarships, but fails to mention he also backed guaranteed in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants.
And former state Sen. Jim Holt, R-Springdale, said Thursday that Huckabee "has his head in the sand" when it comes to immigration policies.
Huckabee said he supports construction of a border fence, opposes amnesty for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country and backs penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
He said the federal government had thus far failed to solve the problem.
Holt said Huckabee is to blame, too.
"In 2005, he told me personally in his office there was no illegal immigration problem," said Holt, who introduced legislation two years ago that would have denied all government benefits to illegals.
Since then, Huckabee has flip-flopped on the issue, Holt added.
"Huckabee would not lose the presidency because of his stand on immigration, he's losing it because he's making such a blatant 180-degree turn on the issue," Holt said. "That's what's going to cost him, he's changing his tune."
Romney called out Huckabee on the scholarship issue in a debate Wednesday and has repeatedly criticized him for his position.
Romney's campaign Thursday said Huckabee fails to mention that legislation in Arkansas included tuition breaks for illegal immigrants. The original bill contained provisions for both academic scholarships and in-state tuition breaks.
Huckabee and Romney are in a tight battle for first place in Iowa, which holds its first-in-the-nation caucuses on Jan. 3.
A survey of Iowa voters Wednesday showed Huckabee ahead of Romney 28 percent to 25 percent, statistically within the margin of error.
"Mitt Romney is just plain wrong and I think he knows he's wrong when he says what I proposed in Arkansas was a special break for illegals," Huckabee said. "There was nothing special about it. These were the children who by law we educated in our schools."
Huckabee said students who meet high academic standards are worthy of scholarships.
"Our country is better than that, to punish children for what their parents did in breaking the law," he said.
But Holt on Thursday countered that children are constantly affected by parents' actions. A $200 speeding ticket, for instance, means a child may be deprived of a favorite toy or a restaurant meal, he said.
"We don't want to punish the child, nobody does, but there has to be a rule of law," Holt said.
Illegal immigrants should not receive the benefits offered to American citizens, but not face some of the risks, such as the possibility of being drafted.
Huckabee, whose national profile has surged recently, campaigns this weekend in New Hampshire. The state's primary is Jan. 8, five days after the Iowa caucus.
He trails Romney and several others in New Hampshire.
Joining Huckabee on Thursday for the roundtable with reporters was actor Chuck Norris. The star of TV's "Walker, Texas Ranger," has endorsed Huckabee.
The two men starred together in Huckabee's first television advertisement, and Norris was Huckabee's invited guest at Wednesday's debate in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Perhaps not. But rather than throwing taxpayer dollars his way for the rest of his life just send him back home. You know, enforce the law. Best to familiarize yourself with that concept, Huckster.
I am confident Romney will not do anything that will jeopardize the country or the lives of his children and grandchildren.
This is a great analysis on the Huckster:
Huck’s sleight of hand here is classically left-wing, equating the denial of benefits to which the recipient was never entitled with “punishment,” the confiscation of a right already held. He insists the scholarship program would have been a revenue-generator by turning tax-takers into taxpayers, in his formulation, but of course he doesn’t factor in the expense generated by the incentive it gives to further “tax-takers” to come to Arkansas and settle. The taxpayer/tax-taker thing’s a red herring anyway; this is obviously about charity for him, in which case it’s hard to discern why these scholarships should be limited by anything so mean as geography.
If we’re going to spend American citizens’ money on scholarships for bright foreign students, why not just send money to Canada or Mexico for that purpose? The only difference between the talented 17-year-old illegal alien in Little Rock and the talented 17-year-old in Mexico City is that the parents of the former broke the law and got away with it. If Huck’s hung up on that promise to seek citizenship that he mentions as being one of the requirements, no problem: I’m sure the kid in Mexico City will be willing to promise that too in exchange for a free education.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/29/video-romney-and-huckabee-clash-over-scholarships-for-illegal-aliens/
We are not going to have Gestapo type Round ups of millions of illegals in the dead of night. Its not necessary.
If we simply stop providing them with the same benefits available to legal resident aliens and American citizens, make English the official Language of the U.S., stop the tripe about becoming an American Citizen merely because you are born here, put individual employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens out of business and seize their assets, seal off the Mexican border, cut off all Federal Funds to those local jurisdictions which refuse to cooperate with the Federal Government (including the incarceration of public officials who knowingly aid, abet and assist illegals), and penalize those organizations which openly support illegals, those here will eventually be forced to leave. That is the only fair and logical way to deal with this issue.
This is not bigotry. It is a fact that the majority of illegals come from Mexico or across the Mexican Border.
The Mexican government has been actively collaborating with illegals who want to come here and organizations which aid and abet them. The Mexican government and a sizable number of these illegals feel the American southwest was “stolen” from Mexico and rightfully belongs to it. A sizable number of these illegals are not interested in American citizenship or learning English.
If we need more citizens to fill jobs in America - and I’m not sure that is the case (the situation is, I believe, that certain employers want to hire individuals at slave labor rates with no benefits) we can always increase the number of legal aliens we allow in here who WANT to be American citizens, instead of those who force themselves on us, conspiring to seize our property and impose their
culture and language on us.
As for your assertion that by defending our borders and ridding our country of unwanted invaders having an adverse impact on the votes of American citizens who are of Hispanic background, that in itself is a bigoted assertion. I’m sure there are a lot of Americans of Hispanic origin who would take umbrage at what I am proposing. But by and large I believe the MAJORITY of them are motivated by the same objectives that motivate most American voters. And if I were a legal resident alien or naturalized citizen from a Spanish American nation I would be particularly incensed that “line-jumpers” are getting away with securing their status here as legalized residents without having to jump through all the hoops and wait all the time it took for me to get my citizenship.
I do not believe the majority of these people feel they are any more connected with whatever nation they or their ancestors’ came from than you or I am, and to imply the same is to question their patriotism. And I have Latin ancestors also. My ancestors all came here legally, WANTED to be AMERICANS, learned English and absorbed American culture. My first, last and only allegiance is to the United States of America. If anyone else feels otherwise, I suggest they go back to wherever they or their ancestors came from and STAY there.
One of the basic responsibilities of any nation to DEFEND ITS BORDERS AGAINST INVADERS. A nation which does not will be a nation for very long. This nonesense MUST stop and apparently the American People have to take action. The prostitutes we have put in office clearly have no intention of doing anything unless we hold their feet to the fire and make sure they face the political consequences for their treasonous behavior.
Well stated. The other candidates would be wise to publicly confront the Huckster on this exact point.
No Mr. Huckabee... You obviously have a problem with your convictions or ethics or a combination of all. Just because someone does something wrong, it does mean it's allright for me to do it.
I think you just took the easy way out in dealing with this issue, just like democrapps do.
The issue is very simple, IMMIGRANTS are fine!... ILLEGAL immigration is NOT. Any Republican who cares about this country should do their most to SECURE THE BODERS
FIRST!... FIRST!!!!.... FIRST!!!!!!!!!! get it?
Then, after accomplishing that, THEN and only then, we can engage into a thoughtful conversation as to how deal with the illegals we have here already.
Because you see Mr Huckabee, if a water leak is not sealed immediately... don't you think it's kind of stupid bailing out the water first? :)... seems simple to me :)
Governor Romney: In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants "Would Be A Mistake" Conflicting With Federal Law. "Mr. Romney said he was not prepared to provide 'special benefits' to illegal immigrants in the state. 'Our desire is to help legal immigrants,' he said. 'I do not believe that, out of respect for the law, that we can provide special benefits to illegal immigrants. We have a responsibility to uphold the law, and providing special benefits to those who are here in contravention of the national law, in my view, would be a mistake.'" (John J. Monahan, "Immigrant Tuition Bill Defeated," Telegram & Gazette, 1/12/2006)
Governor Romney opposed efforts to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. "Those who are here illegally should not receive tacit support from our government that gives an indication of legitimacy," the governor said, echoing arguments that opponents have voiced in the Commonwealth and in other states considering similar license measures. "If they are here illegally, they should not get driver's licenses," he said. (Scott S. Greenberger, "Romney Stand Dims Chances Of License For Undocumented," The Boston Globe, 10/28/2003)
IMHO, the above statement by Zulu typifies the unrealistic simplicity being used by many FredHeads and others to unfairly bash Huckabee on this issue.
Zulu blithely opines that we should "stop the tripe about becoming an American Citizen merely because you are born here" as if this were as simply said as done.
I myself agree that children born to mothers in the U.S. illegally should not automatically be U.S. citizens. However merely wishing for an end to birthright citizenship in the U.S. will not make it so. As a Governor, Huckabee had to deal with the existing political and social realities he was faced with at the time.
A major fact that most of the wild Huckabee flamers seem to simply want to ignore is that some of these children Huckabee is criticized for helping actually were U.S. citizens already by birth.
No candidate is perfect, and I myself don't agree with Huckabee 100% on every issue. However I am at least trying to be realistic enough to look at all candidates objectively and compare them to one another, (and not in the context of some political fantasy land as Zulu seems to be doing). Objectively weighing the pros and cons of all the major candidates has caused many to conclude that Huckabee is the best alternative from among the current GOP frontrunners. Huckabee is a strong fiscal and social conservative, and Huckabee demonstrates the excellent communication skills and leadership skills we need in a President. The more people get to know Huckabee, the more support he garners.
So, Zulu, who do you support?
“So, Zulu, who do you support?”
I’m voting for Hunter or Thompson in the Primary and actively campaigning for ANY Republican who gets nominated.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, the team most likely to “do a job” on Hillary at this point would probably be Huckabee and Giuliani or Thompson and Giuliani. Not sure which would be best for President or Vice President, but one of those teams would kill her. Giuliani would pick up some liberal Blue states and Thompson or Huckabee would assure support of southern States.
I think Romney shot his foot off with that tirade about the Confederate Flag.
The only two Candidates I categorically refuse to support, even if they are unlikely enough to get nominated are McCain and Paul.
Regardless of WHO gets elected, the American people have made it pretty clear they expect a) the border to be defended and b) amnesty NOT to be extended to illegal invaders. Any President or Congress which ignores that does so to their own political peril.
We do have to be realistic; of the electable front-runners, who are the pure ‘conservatives?’(I’m not seeing any). So we have to decide who we will trust. I see Huckabee as an out-of-the-beltway guy with gubernatorial experience (a must) and solidly consistent positions. They may have adapted over time, but they are not monster 180s like Holt has claimed. No, they are not perfect, either.
I also have to agree that the level of enforcement that has been mentioned in zulu’s post is not practical under the present political landscape. There are no easy answers to the problem, not one, but if we get a Hugo Chavez running the Mexican government, we will wish we had these people as friends and not enemies. It is a very dangerous time to make choices without looking at their long-term impacts, and I think Huckabee can win this with his message plus prove additional viability to the right with the proper running mate.
I am just curious, I have a friend looking for side work. He is not very conservative politically, so this maybe right up his alley...
Surely this party has seen the error of supporting “compassionate conservatives” They are neither “compassionate nor conservative. There are no left wing domestic programs they can’t fail to throw more billions of taxpayer dollars. They tolerate the millions of law breaking aliens coming into the US by generously throwing our taxes to support every conceivable benefit imaginable to hopefully secure the vote of these products of socialism in the future.
So many things he has said in the debates, comes out later as he made mistakes. So you end up not knowing whether anything he says is the truth or can be relied upon. Or perhaps he doesn’t have a good memory or perhaps he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Whatever, there is no way I can listen to anything from him unless he can show himself to be truthful or knowledgeable.
We don’t PUNISH children for their parents wrongs - but we don’t reward them, either.
We don’t lock up a bank robber’s child - but we don’t let the child keep the money.
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.