Sarah: No, I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules
12 million illegals? You mean in LA County?
"Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules."
In in other words, only some of those who broke the rules will get amnesty? How do you figure that. What rules? What people?
Sarah is being put on the spot and has not thought this out. This is a an UNIVISION interview. Sarah is perhaps courting the illusory "hispanic" vote; a largely pointless effort. McCain and GW talked amnesty until tyhey were blue in the face. How did that work out for them with the "hispanics?"
My details for her White Paper on Immigration:
(1) A closed, tightly controlled border, just like a real country.
(2) An end to "Anchor Baby" citizenship. It is a custom, not a law.
(3) Strict employer sanctions, fines, jail terms, RICO enforcement, etc.
(a) Control of SS#s
(b) Witholding Taxes
(c) Systematic sweeps of work places, much more intensively than now
(4) Massive deportation, starting with
(a)criminals from misdemeanor up, with their families.
Paths to Citizenship:
5 year enlistment:
Recruited in other countries, not here. You want the deal, go home and we'll talk.
Applying for visas in the homeland, not here. Go home, we'll talk.
Here's as far as I would go with amnesty: If the family has been here for 10 years, has paid taxes, and has no criminal record, I might let one family member go home, and apply for legal entry in the home country, for the rest of the family. Since illegal entry is a crime, I would also require them to pay a substantial fine for that original offense, a forfeited bond, with no criminal record.
Now WV, let me get one thing straight with you. I don't give a damn whether the US turns out to be a 30, 40, or 90% ethnically Latino Country. But let's keep it legal and make it everyone's choice, not a wholesale population change by people who have no intention of integrating into our culture. There is nothing wrong with strict immigration controls based on many factors, including our economic needs and ethnicity. I have worked in and out of Latin America for over 30 years, and I know the good, the bad, and the very ugly of Latino culture, which my friend, is NOT a very good fit with our good, bad, and very ugly. And I also believe in the social equivalent of Hobbes' Law.
Furthermore, speaking of laws: if the people's representatives vote for open borders, anchor babies, and amnesty, so be it. I have a vote, too, and if I don't like it here, or here doesn't like me, I can leave, or not.
Apparently, you are convinced that Sarah is the only hope of the Republican revival and are willing to accept any compromise to get her as the candidate. I, although I would certainly support her if she is a candidate, most emphatically do not.
If you are close to her, tell her to avoid the immigration issue for now, it's a minefield being laid out for her by the MSM. Furthermore, she now has enormous political capital from her successful confrontation with Obama on Health Care. Why waste it?
we are going to wind up with a 30% "hispanic" population, no matter what we do
These are not my numbers, but US Census projections, and conservative at that, for 2050. Strict controls, such as I advocate, will make it take just 50 years longer. But my only idea is the successful integration of the Latinos as full American citizens. Karl Rove is right about the possibility of Latinos as the "Republicans of the Future." But that potential is less likely to happen if the Latinos are illegal to begin with, and begin their political careers as ACORN recruits, illegal motor voters,or worse. The huge number of poor illegal immigrants has been the Democrats' Happy Hunting Ground.
PalinPingola