Posted on 01/06/2008 4:13:42 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 6th, 2008
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.; former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.; Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S.
If your a serious contender for the Presidency you play in NH. I dont care what people around here say.
I couldnt imagine Reagan of Bush Sr. bypassing NH.
That’s great NN! Glad to hear it.!!
Keep me posted on any good points and foulups made during the shows. Thanks in advance.
Georgia [not SC] was the first state Clinton won in 1992.
George Bush hasn’t gotten Osama, says Timmy, so how can you?
McCain suggests we have passed up several opportunities to do so.
Thanks, Rod.
I’m watching Romney on FNS. I now understand why it’ll take McCain and Huck working together to take him out.
McCain is not worried about destabilizing Pakistan by going in to get bin Laden because of his special relationship with Musharraf.
Sure.
Exactly.
Where’s Joe Biden? Do they think that just because they have John McCain twice they can leave out Joe Biden?
Says who? We haven't seen that guy's face in a bona fide video in 3 years. We've had audiotapes that purport to be from bin Laden and one "freeze frame" video. Besides, would we really want to proclaim to the world he's dead only to have Zawahiri launch a big attack?
I’ll try but I will be off for much of the thread today. Sorry.
From your link to an article by Byron York: McCain delivered “cheap shots,” said one Romney adviser. Another called McCain’s criticisms of Romney “snide remarks” and “name calling.” Yet another said they were “unbecoming.” All of which caused Mark Salter, McCain’s closest aide, to go off.
******
LOL!
Getting insulted by being called “unbecoming” must mean that the word hit the target. I love it when a gentleman scores a real insult.
I see Huckabee’s face on the screen and I scramble for the remote.
He’s an Obama wannabe.
In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened -- in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.
Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. Sound familiar? These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country."
Like the amnesty bill of 1986, the current Senate proposal would place those who have resided illegally in the United States on a path to citizenship, provided they meet a similar set of conditions and pay a fine and back taxes. The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
There is a practical problem as well: the 1986 act did not solve our illegal immigration problem. From the start, there was widespread document fraud by applicants. Unsurprisingly, the number of people applying for amnesty far exceeded projections. And there proved to be a failure of political will in enforcing new laws against employers.
After a six-month slowdown that followed passage of the legislation, illegal immigration returned to normal levels and continued unabated. Ultimately, some 2.7 million people were granted amnesty, and many who were not stayed anyway, forming the nucleus of today's unauthorized population.
So here we are, 20 years later, having much the same debate and being offered much the same deal in exchange for promises largely dependent on the will of future Congresses and presidents.
Biden left the race after Iowa. We won’t be seeing him any time soon...
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.