Posted on 11/30/2007 3:59:11 PM PST by calcowgirl
BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP) — Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Friday he wouldn't try to change laws that make citizens of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, noting that it's a matter determined by the Constitution.
"That's a very delicate balance that's been arrived at, and I wouldn't change that," Giuliani said in response to a question while campaigning at Sun City Hilton Head, a sprawling retirement community down the South Carolina coast from Charleston.
In Wednesday night's Republican debate, Giuliani and nomination rival Mitt Romney traded accusations of being soft on illegal immigration, and Giuliani took pains to deny that New York was a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants during his tenure as mayor.
While New York has never used the designation, it offers protections — allowing illegal immigrants to report crimes, send kids to school or seek medical treatment without fear of being reported — similar to those in cities that label themselves sanctuary cities.
Children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants already are American citizens, and Giuliani said he would not try to change that.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
Your definition of amnesty is the one that is twisted to suit your pro-illegal stance.
Why did Reagan and everyone else involved in the 1986 amnesty bill call it amnesty if that wasn’t what it was? What they did back then is no different than what you and Bush want done today. That term was used honestly then, and today the PC buzzword ‘immigration reform’ has replaced it.
Because it was amnesty. There were no fines, incarceration or probationary supervision associated with the 1986 Act, no tax enforcement associated with the 1986 Act and no permanent criminal record associated with the 1986 Act.
That's what amnesty is: no criminal penalties, no criminal record. Complete forgiveness.
What they did back then is no different than what you and Bush want done today.
The President's failed plan and my proposal are different in a number of respects.
The President's plan did not call for a DNA database, did not call for deportation on all post-immigration criminal charges, did not call for full back taxes plus penalties, did not call for fines, did not call for probation, did not call for a permanent criminal record, and did not condition naturalization on payment of fines and back taxes.
You would do well to actually learn about these matters before equating things that are not equal or even very much alike.
The 1986 Act was amnesty. My proposal - which calls for criminal and civil penalties and a permanent criminal record - cannot be called amnesty by any honest person who has learned how to read.
You are actually wrong.
The fines provided for by the 1986 Act applied to employers of illegal aliens, not to the illegal alines themselves.
There were fees/fines involved required of every single application for amnesty (legalized status). If they did not pay then they could not receive their legalization as temporary residents.
That's a fee, not a fine.
Perfectly legal immigrants have to pay filing fees too.
I don't consider it a "fine" if you are paying an extra fee to get your paperwork done much faster than a legal immigrant gets his done.
And it certainly wasn't legally described as a fine, but as a fee.
My proposal calls for tax penalties, fines (and not an extra $100 for paperwork costs, but a real fine) and restitution for services utilized
The point of my proposal is that illegals who would rather be deported than pay back taxes, penalties, fines and restitution are exactly the kind of people we do not want in the US anyway.
The remaining core of illegals who actually stay and pay up would be the kind of people to whom US residency matters so much that they are willing to make long-term sacrifices to remain here. My proposal would create the right kind of incentives for the right kind of people.
I have not defined amnesty, have not argued in favor of it, and I’m not pro illegal alien. I would suggest that you address your comments to the correct person in the future.
I was not addressing you, but put you on the recipient list because I was replying to a message that had you on the recipient list as well.
Sorry if it was confusing. We can’t ‘CC’ here, but I didn’t want to be impolite and leave you out of the loop.
Sorry if you thought my comments were addressed to you personally - no insults intended! I know I’d feel the same if I thought someone called me pro-illegal. ;)
Thank you for your reply, and apology accepted. Take care.
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.