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

Skip to comments.

Giuliani: Kids of Illegal Immigrants OK
AP via google ^ | November 30, 2007 | JIM DAVENPORT

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; anchorbabies; anchorbaby; elections; giuliani; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 last
To: wideawake; Scotsman will be Free; Waryone

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.


141 posted on 12/03/2007 5:55:51 PM PST by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall
Why did Reagan and everyone else involved in the 1986 amnesty bill call it amnesty if that wasn’t what it was?

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.

142 posted on 12/04/2007 4:17:17 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
You're wrong. There were fines involved with the '86 Amnesty.
143 posted on 12/04/2007 4:22:23 AM PST by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
You're wrong. There were fines involved with the '86 Amnesty.

You are actually wrong.

The fines provided for by the 1986 Act applied to employers of illegal aliens, not to the illegal alines themselves.

144 posted on 12/04/2007 4:31:01 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

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.


145 posted on 12/04/2007 5:02:25 AM PST by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
There were fees/fines involved required of every single application for amnesty (legalized status).

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.

146 posted on 12/04/2007 5:23:09 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

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.


147 posted on 12/04/2007 5:56:53 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

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. ;)


148 posted on 12/04/2007 10:42:20 AM PST by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall

Thank you for your reply, and apology accepted. Take care.


149 posted on 12/05/2007 8:39:31 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 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