Posted on 12/12/2007 7:09:55 AM PST by SJackson
|
Rudy Mitt Huckabee |
|
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, December 12, 2007
On the issue of illegal immigration, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney have begun doing passable impressions of Lou Dobbs. But can you trust a candidate whose record contradicts his campaign rhetoric?
At the recent CNN/YouTube debate, Romney and Rudy squared off on what's shaping up to be the defining issue of Campaign 2008 -- with the ferocity 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.
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 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. (Who knows?)
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.
Just a few years ago, all three were singing a different tune -- which harmonized like the Three Tenors; call them The Three Amigos.
Giuliani:
Then there's Mitt Romney:
The foregoing notwithstanding, the candidate immigration-reform advocates fear most is none other than Mike Huckabee:
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, lets 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 candidate who has a realistic immigration plan. (Duncan Hunter is great. Tom Tancredo led the charge in Congress. Both have as much chance of becoming president as Ramos and Compean -- the martyred Border Patrol agents.)
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.
This column originally appeared on GrassTopsUSA.com and appears here with the author's permission.
That’s Rudy McRombee.
“Thompson is opposed to amnesty and a guest worker program. He wants to end chain migration.”
uh. Every candidate, even Fred’s buddy McCain is now against amnesty. I agree that Fred has a very good plan now but he is a recent convert, as much as everybody else (except Hunter and Tancredo). He voted against a bill that would have mandated employers to check immigration status, but now fred-supporters imply that even the customers for those companies must check the immigration status (never mind that every illegal has good-looking green card and SSN, bought for $30). And don’t even get me started wrt to his aspirations for citizenship to illegals message from 2006.
Anyway, that is in the past, and I’m willing to believe that he would be at least as tough as the rest of the guys now.
The challenge is that it is very difficult to find any real policy differences between current positions of top-tier candidates and second-tier candidates. Even Huckabee seems to have now a good plan (I didn’t go it through, though).
Who is the candidate who has actually done something in this area when in office? I know Romney vetoed a bi-lingual education, and funding for illegal in education bills in MA early in his tenure, and he introduced a arrangement to enable local law enforcement to check immigration status (Bush admin and local dems delayed this for almost 2 years).
No.
That was easy.
Yeah. I love the Senate. Sure I do.
No. And this is just one "deal killer" issue. Add in their general philosophies about the size and scope of government, RKBA issues, and taxes?
Not a friggin' chance...
In all fairness though, the Huckster is better than Rudy McRomney on RKBA issues.
Huckabee Picks Up Minuteman Founder Endorsement:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/11/huckabee_picks_up_minuteman_fo.html
IMHO, the fact that Huckabee's anti-illegal-immigration plan has earned the approval of Jim Gilchrist and Mark Kirkorian shows that Huckabee has the best plan for solving this crisis.
On the 12 to 30 million illegals in the country:
Guliani says we have to “gulp them down”.
Huckabee’s solution is essentially the same as Guliani’s.
Mitt says they need to leave.
Get THAT GUY OUT OF THERE!!
They really do think we are THAT stupid.
Shame on them.
Dont they remember what we did to Dan Rather?!
Eagles UP! Three Weeks and Counting.
An excellent, self fulfilling prophecy.
The MSM has succeeded in it's objective.
Columnists tell us who not to vote for because they have been told by the Old Media who to not vote for.
Isn't that just special.
Interchange between the four of them, if necessary:
Rudy, Mitt, Huck, JohnnyComeLately McCain. Big fun. Arriba!
Or, alternately, it proves that Gilchrist is a moron.
Huckabee's record (actions)--based on historical reality.
vs.
Huckabee's plan (words)--based on future projection.
Please expand.
Do you chose your candidates based more on what they did/signed/voted/funded, as opposed to what they promise they will do in the future?
This is a key point. I am curious, sir (or ma'am).
“An excellent, self fulfilling prophecy.”
I agree that these two guys are the strongest wrt to illegals and the only ones who have a real track record.
However, there are many reasons why Hunter and Tancredo have zero chance of winning the nomination (VP slot is a different case - Hunter may have a real chance for that). It is not enough that they are totally right on this - I guess most of the forum members here have similar policy yet they have zero chance of winning. The right candidate must have decent executive experience (read: governor or similar) etc. Still, Hunter and Tancredo have helped the cause a lot. Now, current governors have hopefully learned their lesson and act accordingly and in next elections they will be top-tier candidates (VP Hunter would be ideal to follow Romney)..
Just curious. When you joined FR just last month, if I recall correctly, was it primarily to support and promote any particular candidate? Just wondering. Very best wishes, T76
NO!
probably for the same reasons as you. As a recent new citizen (who followed every %&^* rule and paid every fee ever created), I feel strongly about WOT and illegals but there isn’t much to debate wrt WOT as everybody here and every candidate agrees on that. Yeah, I support now Romney but my ideal candidate would probably be Santorum (actually John Bolton). Initially, when I heard rumors about Fred running (I didn’t know much about him then) I was very interested, but pretty soon I realized what he was about. I also can’t stand some of the untrue statements, such as Fred has always been tough enforcement guy. Only Hunter and Tancredo have real track record on that and all current candidates have pretty similar plans and policies (of course, trusting e.g. McCain on this is quite a leap).
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.