Rudy Mitt Huckster's Evolving Immigration Stand (Don Feder: Time To Say Good Bye To Three Amigos)

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.”

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?

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.

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.

I just don’t think illegal immigration was a big issue in Tennessee when he was a Senator. Illegal immigration (and the crime and disease it brings) has always been a major issue for us border states, but just a hassle for the more Northern states. That’s why I have difficulty understanding why both McQueeg and Kyl were for the shamnesty. Well, I can figure out why, but it does not protend well for Republicans in general, now that Kyl is Whip.

You missed or are avoiding the entire point.

BTW, it's pretty clear where Fred really stands to folks that do not have an agenda other than selecting the best candidate for President of the United States. Fred is not a circus act nor is he a one trick pony.

I do not have to "accept" and "move on." Nor does Fred need your absolution from "blame." Such phrases are very typical of liberals, communists and democrats. Which makes me even more suspicious after hearing them from YOU.

What would be advisable for you is to quit distracting folks from what Fred is really saying by claiming you know better than he what is being said.

And again, I trust Fred several orders of magnitude over you.

“At that point I can ask to see your Legal Residency Card...or Green Card. If you can’t produce one....you’re outta here...”

Fake Perm Resident Card costs about $30 and you cannot tell if it is real or fake. Most, if not all illegals have those. Some are even using the name of their kids (so SSN is real).

the thing with Numbers USA is that they are against *legal* immigration as well, so a strong-on-illegal-immigration person who favors legal immigration (Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson) gets dinged a bit. Well, we benefit from measured, regular legal immigration, so don’t agree with that.

The good news is they broke it out on different positions, so for a pro-legal and anti-illegal immigration person, I can see who is for what. I am far more concerned with the giveaways to illegals (McCain and Huckabee were ‘abysmal’), and at the same time like the proposals to focus immigration more on those with the skills to succeed in the work-place here.

” ” 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?”

Such excuses are not going to help the unappeasables. Never mind that Ted Kennedy has made it a crime to ‘inappropriately’ ask those questions, nor that Romney’s not the employer. He needs to be more perfect than the rest of us, even those of us who go eat at restaurants where illegals work. hmmmmm.

I can understand Romney’s situation because I’ve been in it in a few cases where we hired contractors. folks like me who hire contractors and they show up with mexicans speaking little english - what do you say?
Make a stink? So you ask and they say “sure they have papers”. Well, they all do, faked or not. So as a customer, you are in the awkward position of being a racist for kicking a team out on suspicion they are ‘too mexican’ even though they claim they are legal or letting the charade continue.

I’m sorry, but the libs tried that same stuff on Clarence Thomas. He couldn’t speak out on affirmative action because he went to Yale which had AA. With 12 million illegal aliens, most of them working, it means 10s of millions of Americans are interacting with them, directly or indirectly using their labor. Almost all of those reading this among them, and Romney too. So all of us who did that can’t speak out on illegal immigration, is that it? it’s a false standard.

“You want the contract? You provide me with proof of citizenship for every worker that sets foot on my property.”

That’s illegal. You cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin, including country of birth or citizenship status.
You probably meant to say “citizenship or legal residency”.
But even that is problematic. You may want to check with a lawyer on what you can or cannot ask. And curse Ted Kennedy while doing so, it was his idea to throw roadblocks up on such questions.

You are the one they should check a lawyer.

It is NOT discrimination (you sound like a certified lib with that comment) to specify in the terms of the contract that “contractor will certify that all workers and subcontractors are legally employable in accordance with the laws of the United States or any other governing jurisdiction. Failure to meet this requirement will render this contract null and void and the contractor shall be held liable for all damages.”

Verizon is America’s worst offender in this game. They hire hordes of contractors whose subcontractors are overwhelmingly staffed with illegal aliens. They use this to claim that “they do not hire illegals”. If they were serious, they would specify in the contract that the contractor will guarantee that their subcontractors will not hire illegals.

I agree with your post. If I want to stipulate in a contract that every damned subcontractor I hire must wear two left footed shoes...or they will not get the job, I can do so.

Same as stipulating that each and every subcontractor that sets foot on my property must provide verification that all of his employees are “legally employable in accordance with the laws of the United States or any other governing jurisdiction” as you mentioned...I can do so.

“No, I think Tancredo is absolutely correct, and I’m using HIS words rather than mine because he has more credibility on the subject on this board.”

That’s nice, I don’t care about Tancredo or his short term job, you don’t see me bringing up Romney’s illegal painters because I see it as disappointing, but not worthy of a national scandal like the 11 year, twice revealed relationship with his landscapers is, the Romney situation is unique.

“But even that is problematic. You may want to check with a lawyer on what you can or cannot ask. And curse Ted Kennedy while doing so, it was his idea to throw roadblocks up on such questions.”

No the burden is on you for making such an absurd claim.

Show the state where a homeowner is forced to allow people on his property without IDing them and knowing who they are.

Fred himself pointed out that the dangers of illegal immigration only entered the public consciousness a few years ago.

I freely admit I never thought much about it until then and I live in Texas which abounds with illegals.

It is hypocritical to expect candidates to have been on top of an issue like this for years and years when nobody else was.

Fred has been honest, has now recognized the problem and has a coherent plan to deal with it.

Duncan is a good man, Trancredo I don’t know, but they are both fringe candidates and we need to all get behind Fred Thompson, before it’s too late.

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.