Funny you used Numbers USA. The seem to take a different view of Thompson now.
Roy Beck of Numbers USA on Fred’s immigration plan:
When Fred Thompson came out with a detailed immigration policy this fall, I knew it was very good but was too busy leading the fight against amnesties in the Senate to give thorough attention.
Reading Thompson’s full proposed immigration policy this afternoon, I am blown away by its depth, its breadth and at how it would so fundamentally change Americans’ future for the better.
It’s true that Numbers USA has been critical of Thompson in the past (mostly over LEGAL immigration issues, as they want a reduction in immigration overall), however Mr. Beck went further in his analysis:
As a Senator from Tennessee in the 1990s, Thompson had a mixed record on immigration. I’ve studied that record and believe it reflects the problem that we saw even in some of this year’s Senate heroes who also were mediocre in the 1990s — most of them just weren’t paying much attention to this issue in the 1990s (just like a lot of you have only become active on this during the last couple of years).
NumbersUSA always gives ample credit to politicians who turn from bad or mediocre records and decide to become our champions. But less-than-stellar past records require us to look for signs of sincerity and assurance that they will follow through on their promises.
With Thompson, we will be watching closely for these signs. One strong point for him is that he finished his Senate career with an A-minus performance in 01/02 term after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. And since coming out with his official stance, he has not been equivocating when asked about immigration in media appearances or in strong immigration ads.
I know it is a stretch for you Raster, but could be you are a bit behind the old curve on this one. If the people you quote to make your point actually disagree with that said point, well, what is your point really...
sensible reply but wasted on the Raster. He would kick a dead horse until it was a pile of mush and still keep kicking.
Obviously, he does not care to listen to reason on this issue.
I suggest we both refrain from wasting any more time with him.
“Nobody’s advocating that these people all be rounded up. Nobody’s advocating that they even be arrested and incarcerated, although they’re in violation of the law”
I suppose you understood his “aspirations of citizenship” for illegals to mean something other than AMNESTY!? If you don't plan to "round them up" for deportation, you plan on allowing them to stay indefinately...which is AMNESTY:
Amnesty (from the Greek amnestia, oblivion) is an act of justice by which the supreme power in a state restores those who may have been guilty of any offence against it to the position of innocent persons. It includes more than pardon, inasmuch as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offence. The word has the same root as amnesia.