Posted on 12/11/2007 8:12:09 AM PST by goldstategop
For the connoisseur of political hypocrisy, the shifting immigration stands of three GOP candidates are a veritable banquet.
Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have started doing passable impressions of Lou Dobbs. But can you trust a candidate whose record contradicts his campaign rhetoric? (That was a rhetorical question.)
The CNN/YouTube debate was a hoot. Romney and Rudy squared off on what’s shaping up to be the defining issue of Campaign 2008 -- with the dignity of a couple of rabid mongooses.
Rudy – who wants to “secure the border” (is there anyone, including Hillary, who says they don’t?) – bragged that as mayor of New York he reported to the feds every illegal who committed murder, rape or child molestation.
Oh, big bleepin’ deal, Romney shot back. If they’re here illegally, they’re already criminals. At the same time, the former Massachusetts governor admitted he doesn’t favor deporting all illegals who are caught, but – gosh darn it all – they shouldn’t get government benefits, he resolutely declared.
Romney accused Giuliani of operating a sanctuary city (true). Rudy accused Mitt of running a “sanctuary mansion” – employing illegals to do yard work at his Belmont home. (Romney has pledged that, if elected president, he’ll build an extra fence around the White House, to keep border-jumpers from watering the lawn.)
Earlier, Mike Huckabee – who also says he wants to secure the Southern demarcation, and opposes amnesty and sanctuary cities – unveiled a comprehensive plan (you should pardon the expression) for immigration reform – which consists of sending his most prominent supporter, action star Chuck Norris, to the border. That’s how serious the debate has become.
Well, excuse me (while I get physically ill), but just a few years ago, all three were singing a different tune – which harmonized like the Three Tenors, and sounded a lot like Steve Martin and his buddies in “The Three Amigos.”
Giuliani:
Ran a sanctuary city and was darned proud of it. “There are times when undocumented workers (code for illegal aliens) must have protection,” he insisted then. He praised the “courage and ambition” it takes “to leave your native country and start a new life in a new land” – and to begin by breaking the laws of that new land, refusing to learn its language, scarfing government benefits, taking jobs from those who are there legitimately (immigrant and native born) and perhaps committing a more serious crime or two.
In 1994, the Huddled Masses Kid told an audience, “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city.” On 9/11, some with an undocumented status accepted his invitation.
In 1996, Giuliani compared immigration reform advocates to the Know Nothing Party. “The anti-immigration issue that’s now sweeping the country in my view is no different than the movements that swept the country in the past. You look back at the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement – these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different, and to stop immigration.” Besides the smear – comparing a majority of concerned Americans to racists and xenophobes – we should fear those who infiltrate our borders, who may have criminal records or terrorist ties. We should also fear the effect on national unity of those who don’t learn English and won’t identify with America (witness all of the Mexican flags at illegals’ demonstrations last year).
In 2000, Rudy boasted, “There isn’t a mayor or a public official in this country that’s more strongly pro-immigrant (another euphemism) than I am, including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed anti-immigrant legislation (cutting off a few benefits to some illegals) about two or three years ago, which we got some amendments of (sic.) to protect the rights of immigrants.” Did that include flying lessons? How do you say “I love New York” in Arabic?
Then there’s Mitt (please, tell me what I think) Romney:
As Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby notes, Romney generally ignored illegal immigration when he ran for the Senate (1994) and governor (2002), probably because he was too busy touting his pro-abortion, anti-gun positions.
However, in 2005 he did pause to remark that undocs “contribute in many cases to our economy and our society.” Yep, in a technology driven, information economy, we certainly need more unskilled workers with 6th. grade educations.
“I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country,” Romney informed the Lowell Sun in 2006. How about forcing out those we catch? No? Then you believe that some laws (including those safeguarding our national sovereignty) shouldn’t be enforced, Governor.
In November 2005, Romney didn’t oppose the McCain plan, which went down in flaming defeat in the Senate this spring. (He then described it as “very different than amnesty.”) Now, he was always against it – after he was for it.
So, what to do with 12 million to 15 million illegal immigrants? First, Romney wants to register them. (What makes him think they’ll comply?) Then, some will be repatriated and others will begin “the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status.” Sounds like qualified amnesty, which Mitt swears it isn’t.
Who goes and who stays? “Those that have committed crimes should be taken out of the country. Those that are in our jails should be taken out of the country. Those on welfare, require government assistance, should leave the country.” And the rest get a stay-in-the-country free card?
The foregoing notwithstanding, the candidate immigration-reform advocates fear most is none other than Send-Chuck-to-the-Border Huckabee:
“He was an absolute disaster as governor” of Arkansas, Roy Beck of NumbersUSA told The Washington Times (as reported in a November 30th story). “Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of illegals.”
“Huckabee is the guy who scares the heck out of me,” says Peter Gadiel of 9-11 Families for a Secure America, a group the Times described as “instrumental in fighting for the REAL ID Act that sets federal standards for driver’s licenses.”
When a measure to require verified identification for voting and to deny taxpayer-funded benefits and services to illegals came before the Arkansas state legislature while he was governor, Huckabee described it as “inflammatory… race-baiting and demagoguery.” He’s also compared opposition to illegal immigration to the die-hard segregationist response to the Civil Rights movement.
I still get a lump in my throat whenever I recall the Huckster’s explanation as to why he supported (and still supports) government benefits for the children of illegal aliens: “I looked into the eyes of immigrant Mexican children and was moved.” He should look into the eyes of those killed by “immigrant drivers” or the families of the three college-bound black teens who were murdered, execution-style, by illegal aliens in Newark in August, or the blue-collar worker who lost his job to an illegal.
Despite his current attempts to blend with the national mood, Huckabee’s true colors shone forth in the CNN debate, when he tried to defend his support for scholarships for illegals. The Huck: “In all due respect, we are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did.” The alternative is to reward them for what their parents did – with welfare, subsidized housing, free medical care – and taxpayer-funded higher education. Does Huckabee really expect Mexicans to stay home, after they learn about all the swell, free stuff their kids will get if they come here illegally?
One man who can’t hide from his record is Senator John McCain – but that hasn’t stopped him from trying to rationalize it.
“The reason most Americans want border security is that they want to cut off the flow of people coming to the country illegally, and then address the issue of a temporary worker program,” McCain recently told a student in South Carolina.
What McCain resolutely refuses to understand is that border security doesn’t stop at the border. If there’s enforcement at the border, but nowhere else, it won’t stop the flow of people coming to the country illegally.
If we build an electrified wall 50-feet high (with sensors, watchtowers and gun-turrets) at the border – but once you get past the border there’s a chance you’ll be amnestied or guest-workered or put on the proverbial path to citizenship -- that won’t stop the flow of people coming into the country.
“You’ll have to explain to me how you round up 12 million people. There’s not 12 million pairs of handcuffs,” McCain glibly observes, waving his favorite red herring.
So, let’s stop raiding the employers of illegals. Because we can’t catch all 12 million who are here illegally, let’s stop all internal enforcement.
There are somewhere between 90,000 and 130,000 forcible rapes in this country each year. Most of the perpetrators are never caught. We probably don’t have 100,000 pairs of handcuffs, so – what the heck – let’s stop trying to apprehend rapists.
In reality, enforcement is the essence of simplicity – Every one you catch, you send back. Each illegal immigrant repatriated won’t commit a crime, scam government services, contribute to language fragmentation or take away the job of a low-wage earning American.
In explaining the need for a “temporary worker program,” McCain confides that “Hispanic workers” rebuilt the Gulf Coast states in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. “It’s just a fact. And there are jobs Americans will not do in this country.”
Wait, $20-an-hour construction jobs would go begging if it weren’t for illegals? Apparently, they don’t teach economics at the Naval Academy.
The reason companies that employ illegals got most of the reconstruction work after Katrina is because they were able to undercut the competition by paying their workers less – not because Americans don’t want construction work.
So, who’s good on immigration? How about the unassuming guy from Tennessee?
According to The Washington Times story mentioned earlier, “On Thanksgiving, Mr. Beck wrote an e-mail to his supporters (at NumbersUSA) praising the immigration plan of Fred Thompson … who has called for attrition through enforcement.”
Thompson is opposed to amnesty and a guest worker program. He wants to end chain migration.
He’s the only credible GOP presidential candidate who has a realistic immigration-control plan. Duncan Hunter is great. Tom Tancredo is a hero of the borders-enforcement movement. Each has as much chance of being the next president as Ramos and Compean – the martyred Border Patrol agents – have of getting a presidential pardon out of Bush.
Thompson’s plan includes attrition through enforcement, double the number of ICE agents, increase the Border Patrol to at least 25,000, increase detention space for captured illegals (instead of catch-and-release, pending a hearing), implementing an expedited deportation process already allowed under federal law, and enabling the Social Security Administration to share information with immigration and law enforcement agencies.
More importantly, unlike Rudy Mitt Huckster, Thompson’s current positions aren’t contradicted by his record in office.
In the spring of 2006, I warned that the president’s amnesty plan would result in his party’s loss of Congress. (Welcome Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid.)
The amnesty act was overwhelmingly defeated not by talk-show hosts or immigration activists (though both played a part), but by the American people – whose frustration and rage turned around 17 Senate votes in 72 hours.
Michael Barone, a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report, observes that if you listened carefully to the public during the Senate debate, you didn’t hear racism, or anti-Hispanic hysteria, “you heard something else. They want the current law enforced. It bothers them that we have something like 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. It bothers them that most of the southern border is unfenced and unpatrolled. It bothers them that illegal immigrants routinely use forged documents to get jobs – or are given jobs with no documents at all.”
Their votes will not be won with talk of border enforcement alone. They will not be won with proposals for guest-worker programs or plans to “register” illegals so we can then proceed to deal with them. And they won’t be won by “conservatives” who demonstrate their compassion with scholarships for the children of illegals.
The outcome of the 2008 election could hinge on the GOP choosing a candidate who can credibly address the illegal immigration crisis. That means – adios, Three Amigos.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Don’t give up on Thompson/Hunter....
New Immigration Ratings on Presidential Candidates in 16 Categories
NumbersUSA ^ | Dec. 8, ‘07 | Roy Beck
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937699/posts
“The only candidates who don’t sound like converts are Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.”
Are you on drugs?
Tancredo and Hunter have real track record, but Thompson is even worse than the 3 above mentioned. Thompson has been tough enforcement guy for what..4 or 5 months?
His senate record is awful, he generally sided with big business against enforcement and he didn’t introduce a single bill to combat illegals. More important, last year he promoted that illegals must have “aspirations of citizenship”. Yeah I know, generally supporting some sort of “comprehensive immigration plan” was popular last year, and all 3 front-runners and Thompson all more or less supported something like it, even though all stated that they don’t support amnesty.
ROMNEY RUNS HIS OWN SANCTUARY MANSION FOR 11 YEARS. GIVES IT UP ABOUT 10 DAYS AGO.
For about eight years, Rosales said, he worked on and off landscaping the grounds at Romney’s home, occasionally getting a “buenos dias” from Romney or a drink of water from his wife, Ann.
“She is very nice,” said Rosales, 49.
About 6 miles away in Copado, a 37-year-old man who recently returned to Guatemala from the United States told a similar story, describing long days tending Romney’s 2 1/2-acre grounds.
“They wanted that house to look really nice,” said the worker, who asked to remain anonymous. “It took a long time.”
As Governor Mitt Romney explores a presidential bid, he has grown outspoken in his criticism of illegal immigration. But, for a decade, the governor has used a landscaping company that relies heavily on workers like these, illegal Guatemalan immigrants, to maintain the grounds surrounding his pink Colonial house on Marsh Street in Belmont.
The Globe recently interviewed four current and former employees of Community Lawn Service with a Heart, the tiny Chelsea-based company that provides upkeep of Romney’s property. All but one said they were in the United States illegally.
The employees told the Globe that company owner Ricardo Saenz never asked them to provide documents showing their immigration status and knew they were illegal immigrants.
“He never asked for papers,” said Rosales, who said he had paid smugglers about $5,000 to take him across the US-Mexican border and settled in Chelsea.
The workers said they were paid in cash at $9 to $10 an hour and sometimes worked 11-hour days.
Romney never inquired about their status, they said.
In addition to maintaining the governor’s property, they also tended to the lawn at the house owned by Romney’s son, Taggart, less than a mile away on the same winding street.
Asked by a reporter yesterday about his use of Community Lawn Service with a Heart, Romney, who was hosting the Republican Governors Association conference in Miami, said, “Aw, geez,” and walked away.
Until the Republican elites realize that the 2008 election will be won or lost on the ILLEGAL immigration issue, a President Hillary is inevitable.
Knowing their past track record on illegal immigration, voters are not convinced that they won’t see recidivism by these guys once they are in office and are more interested in getting favorable “compassionate” ratings and articles from the Washington Post and New York Times rather than answering to the will of the people.
George Bush and Karl Rove were willing to sacrifice approval of the war effort by turning off the supporters of that effort with their hell-bent strategy of open borders and amnesty. Why fight for our security in Iraq when we have given up on it here along the Rio Grande?
The RNC and the others in top positions in the Republican hierarchy are still working for the open borders and amnesty agendas, hoping that the public will soon forget or tire of the battle.
As long as the Republicans, especially the candidates, continue to be ambiguous on illegal immigration, they give the Democrats a pass on having to answer for their total support for illegal immigrants and voter fraud.
This is total BS story from liberal media. He used legal company and it is not possible or legal to check the immigration status of people working for external companies. Heck, even White House had illegal working for them (for a legal company that provided service to WH).
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
A scandal of this magnitude cannot be simply ignored. Romney was busted a year ago after ten years of using illegals at his property, the true believers tried to shut down discussion of that revelation.
The day after Romney was outed on national television for running a “sanctuary mansion”, reporters see illegals still working at Romney’s mansion.
More than a year after the original scandal broke we learned that Romney was still using the same Columbian immigrant and his illegals from Guatemala.
Tancredo would be the best candidate. But his chances do not look good. I hope Fred and Mitt truly have changed their position on illegal aliens - I tend to believe them. But Rudy/McCain/Huckabee admit favoring illegal aliens. Huckabee's so called change is merely babble.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Great piece. looks like Hunter is the only choice left. Conservos had better get behind him quickly. Without a real choice America will go Crat.
you just don’t get it. It is not possible or legal to check the immigration status of external company employees. People working for that company show up once or twice a week at customer’s place (customer does not even know which employee) and carry out his job.
As for Fred: I like his current immigration policy and I don’t think there is anything to be shamed on regarding his past positions. That was dominant position within the party and I believe that he realized the importance of it within the last year or so. I’m fine with it and I believe he would be tough on illegals, if elected. It is just the fact that some fredheads try to claim that he has been tough on this always that really piss me off. It is just not true so why try to claim so? It just distracts people. It would be more productive to focus on the fact that his current position is better than others have.
“If Romney is not serious about who he hires to work on his mansion, why should any one take seriously his pledge to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws?”
Here is Romney in an 11 second video on immigration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpUNVRNVk-E
” Romney is not serious about who he hires to work on his mansion, “
Let’s try it again. Romney ordered a service from a company, and one employee shows up 1-2 times a week. Romney (if he happens to be at home) does not have a legal right to check the immigration status of that employee. Got it?
It just might be you that needs to curb your intake...
Thompson Against Anchor Babies
15 September 2007 Written by: WTH Posted under Uncategorized, Fred Thompson, In the News, 2008 Elections, Illegal Immigration, 2008 Presidential Elections, Thompson's Record, Media Coverage Here is a great one to discuss. The so-called anchor baby is where an illegal immigrant comes here just to have their baby so that the baby is an automatic citizen. It has been so badly abused and Thompson has announced his willingness to revisit this law.
——-
Fred Thompson speaks out on immigration issues
On his campaign swing through Florida, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has hammered away illegal immigration, saying that America must secure its borders to ensure national security.
Friday, he went a step further.
Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee, said it might be time to reconsider the country’s long-standing practice — one prescribed by the Constitution — of granting citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil.
“That law was created in another time and place for valid reasons,” Thompson said during a campaign stop here. “It probably needs to be revisited.”
The granting of citizenship to anyone born in the United States is included in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
It says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that in an 1898 court decision involving a Chinese man born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens.
Since then, anyone born in the U.S. has been automatically granted citizenship apart from rare exceptions involving the children of foreign diplomats.
Friday, Thompson – for the second day in a row said he was willing to reconsider that.
“The question is whether or not it would require a constitutional amendment or change in law,” he said. He also said he wasn’t sure such a provision would ever pass.
“That one, I’m not sure about.”
Thompson said that the issue of automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is not his primary concern.
“It’s not their fault,” he said. “They don’t determine where they’re born.”
A bigger problem, he said, was so-called “chain migration” – the practice of giving preferential treatment to the immediate family members of children who are born here.
Thompson said under current law, those children can “grow up and be used as anchors to bring in other people.”
He said he was “dead set” against that.
Thompson’s willingness to entertain the idea of withholding citizenship for children born here illustrates how important the immigration issue has become to Republican presidential candidates.
All have taken a hard line against illegal immigration but as of Friday no other contender has gone as far as Thompson
So, looks like Fred was first to get to the HEART of the matter which is the giveaway of American Citizenship just because an illegal alien blows one out on US Territory. AND he is saying NO ANCHOR BABIES. The reason? CHAIN MIGRATION. Which is the monster that will kill this nation.
Now when FRED says he is "Dead Set Against It" I tend to believe him. Unlike other candidates that are still trying to chase off the illegals from their own landscaping service just two weeks ago.
“and one employee shows up 1-2 times a week. Romney (if he happens to be at home) does not have a legal right to check the immigration status of that employee. Got it?”
That is a lie and you have been called on it many times.
Multiple illegals worked there, sometimes for up to 11 hour days.
Every homeowner is obligated by common sense to require acceptable and legal identification from every worker that comes to his home.
Why do you continue to spew the same horse crap every time Mitt’s illegals is brought up?
Romney had the illegals working at his house for 10 years.
A year ago it was out in the media that he had illegals working there. He admitted it.
Now its back in the media that he STILL has illegals working there. Again he admitted it but fired them.
He tried to explain it away by saying the guy that ran the lawn service was a close friend and went to his church.
Are you going to continue with the BS that he couldn’t get his “Close Friend” to get the freaking illegals off his property?
I don’t know how much Romney pays his trolls but it must be alot to post such stupid BS.
Quoting Rudy Giuliani now.....
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.