Posted on 05/20/2010 8:01:36 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
From ABC News...
(snip)
"McCain was supportive of the Dream Act in the past... we saw him as a champion in some ways, and we hope that comes back," said Abdollahi.
Now the next paragraph is the money paragraph and I certainly hope Arizona voters are paying attention. McCain has been on all sides of this issue and now that he is facing reelection he is trying to convince voters that he will protect the borders. Let's see what he says when under pressure from the left.
A McCain spokesperson told ABC News the senator will support the so-called "Dream Act" as part of comprehensive immigration legislation but only after the Southwest border with Mexico is "secured."
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
” There must be areas for the states to have tougher restrictions than the overall federal guidelines, particularly the border states. “
If Arizona had done this, they would immediately be sued, and some flake judge would toss it.
As it is, Arizona hired 2 top legal experts to make sure we didn’t exceed federal guidelines.
Gotta run. Good discussion!
Thanks.
And for the very reasons you laid out, we are trying to dump all the damn incumbents who have permitted this travesty to continue for the past two decades!
ENOUGH.
GO JD!
“She cannot be held accountable for a question she has not been asked.”
She’s been asked...she answered...you’ve seen the answer. Stop calling people liars for pointing it out.
Now, when she says otherwise, and EXPLAINS why she has changed her mind, let us know.
She said clearly..DO NOT deport...give the ones here legalization...that is amnesty.
Now, in case I missed it, please point out where she has retracted NO deportation, NO workplace enforcement, Path to citizenship.
RIGHT! Arizona’s law is perfect. The challenges are useless. Oh, they can judge shop, but the consensus says it’s perfectly Constitutional.
It solves two issues: making people earn their keep and eliminating the 'jobs that Americans won't do', thus, meaning no want for illegals to come here.
It all comes down to state’s rights, once again.
“Well, that amnesty didn’t work in the past, even under our beloved Ronald Reagan, providing amnesty for about 2 million illegal immigrants. That didn’t stop the problem, in fact I think it helped perpetuate the problem. And now we’re up to 11, 13, 16 million people who are here illegally. Let’s learn from history’s lessons and realize that amnesty doesn’t work. And we go from there. I think that talk about amnesty, talk about what needs to happen with those who are here illegally, it’s almost used as a diversion so we don’t have to talk about what are the tools that are needed to secure the border. We take care of the porous borders first, and then we can deal with the other issues...”
If you want to replay the old univision and then the follow-up Larsen radio show interview, you'll have to find another poster.
Been there, done that, too many times to no avail for those who want to believe she's for amnesty and a pathway to citizenship, and you fall into that category.
I have not called anyone a liar, so do not come here to try to inflame, thankyaverymuch.
One last word...the ‘catch 22’ that none of you will admit.
She or McCain will not call a path to citizenship amnesty.
It’s DISHONEST. YES, she says she’s against amnesty.
SHOW me where she says she’ll follow the rule of law and deport them.....and...WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE ILLEGAL ALIENS HERE???
Don’t get snippy with me, onyx. You did indeed call other people liars for repeating Palin’s words. When she says she will enforce the LAW, without letting the illegals stay, you let me know.
“LOL. Sure. It’s a lie about Sarah, so it can be called a hijack, right?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2517454/posts?page=53#53
Oh it's clear most of the powers to be want the border strongly enforced.
It's NOT clear how many of them feel about amnesty or what they want to do about our illegal invaders who are living here. I'm not casting another vote for someone like McCain.
Of course I agree amnesty doesn't work. I'd love to hear Palin go on about it and take a firm stand against it. I might have missed where she said it? Did I?
sw
What if this was the official position of (let's say) Sarah Palin?
Comprehensive reform should also offer legal status to workers already
here without authorization. It would be an economic and humanitarian
disaster, as well as an administrative nightmare, to round up the 12 million
people already here illegally and somehow deport them to their home
countries.
Their contributions to
their employers and the U.S. economy should be recognized and weighed
against their violation of U.S. immigration laws.
Long-standing critics of comprehensive immigration reform will brand
any legalization as an ‘‘amnesty.’’ But amnesty means a general pardon,
in particular for political offenses. Legalization would not be a pardon or
amnesty because, according to the most serious proposals put forward in
Congress, undocumented workers would be expected to pay fines and back taxes.
Legalization would not mean large numbers of new immigrants
but rather the replacement of illegal workers with legal workers.
Nor do immigrants increase the
overall crime rate. Immigrants are actually less likely to commit crimes
than native-born Americans.
Reform would greatly reduce demand
for human smuggling, document fraud, and other underground criminal
activities.
Would adhering to THIS position mean that Sarah is a RINO, or worse?
DG
We finally enforce the existing laws against employing ILLEGALS and fine the employers. At the same time, cut off all welfare benefits to illegal invaders and revisit the 14th amendment (anchor babies).
They are offended at the thought of being profiled and deported in Arizona. If this small step by Arizona is causing ILLEGALS to avoid that State, can you just imagine if the entire country did the same?
If we don't employ them, they will leave.
please who is SJB?
We just had a great free exchange of ideas on how to fix the illegal problem.
>Assuming the border is secured, what would YOU *specifically* do with the illegals remaining within the United States border?
I’m not opposed to considering them invaders and treating them as such; to make the military/militia violence-of-force seem more palatable let me offer up this alternative proposal:
There’s been talks about how horrible and disastrous Arizona’s new immigration law, which has been described as “making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant,” but now there’s something even more radical on the horizon. Representative Duncan Hunter has expressed his support of deporting the children of illegal immigrants. Yes, his solution is to get rid of all the so-called anchor-babies along with their parents.
I can hear the cries of people protesting this radical idea of enforcing our existing laws with the punishments already proscribed for them. It’s truly amazing what a little lack of reading comprehension coupled with an inability to think in terms of logic can do to people. The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which would obviously be brought up, says he following:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The capitalized portion is quite key here, the ‘AND’ is a disjunction operator; speaking in the abstract notion of sets [think Venn diagrams] it is the intersection of two sets and NOT the union thereof. So, we must understand what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. The ‘thereof’ is obviously referring to the United States, so the people in question need to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. ‘Jurisdiction’ means, simply, “legal power”. So we are left with the group of people that are both born in the United States and who are subject to its legal power…
Are illegal aliens subject to the legal power of the United States? Some people would, in an attempt for humor or perhaps just to be jerks, say ‘Only if they get caught.’ But let’s think about this for a bit; if someone is not subject to the legal powers of the US then they could do illegal things with impunity… quite literally getting away with murder. [And some do, that is perhaps the thing that most sparked Arizona’s adoption of the aforementioned immigration law.]
But we have some illegal immigrants in jail, right? So that means they’re under the United State’s legal powers, right? Unfortunately not. Just because a jury acquits someone who is later found to be guilty of that crime does not give the government license to prosecute him again for that crime does not mean that because that individual “got away with it” does not mean that ALL future findings of guilt of that sort of crime are invalid. Likewise, just because one illegal immigrant ‘gets away with it’ does not mean that ten, twenty, a thousand, a million, or more should also ‘get away with it;’ to adopt such a position would utterly undermine any and all conception of “the rule of law.”
In a similar manner, just because one, two, fifty, or a thousand are caught does not mean that they are, as a group, subject to the laws of the United States. Especially if you talk to Border Patrol personnel and hear about people that have been caught multiple times and sent back; yes there IS a lot of repeat offenders in the illegal immigrant demographic.
So, as you can see neither determination of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ is intuitive; as neither work well at all. But let’s look at the effects of the determinations thereof, if the ‘anchor babies’ are determined to qualify as citizens then the state has two options when deporting the parents: either send the American-citizen child with them [to avoid breaking up families], or to make the child a Ward of the State [to avoid exiling American citizens who have broken no law]. Neither of those will be good on the political front; if you avoid breaking up the family you are [in effect] abandoning him and abridging ALL his rights as a Citizen. However, if you forbid the illegal immigrants the custody of their biological child you are “cruel and heartless.”
In the case of non-qualification then the whole family is ‘deportable’ and can be deported as a single unit. This does contain the distasteful contradiction that the deportation thereof IS the subjugation of those involved to the legal power of the united states.
Is there a solution that doesn’t involve a contradiction? Yes; but you won’t like it. People will call the idea everything from ‘fascist’ to ‘heartless’ to ‘insane’ to ‘regressive.’ The answer is a simple reading of the Thirteenth amendment, which says in its first section, the following:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
That’s right, make the punishment for being an illegal immigrant into slavery/involuntary-servitude for some definite length of time [unlike felons being disbarred guns for life, even after serving their sentence]. Perhaps the length of time in the US illegally or the amount of money and services received from the taxpaying citizen should be used to calculate the length of the servitude. This DOES solve the problem of either breaking up families or wrongfully exiling American citizens… but many will find the idea too distasteful to bear.
Me thinks she’s been pulling the wool over people’s eyes.
She’s just a pretty beoch in sheeps clothing.
Assuming the border is secured, what would YOU *specifically* do with the illegals remaining within the United States border?
I want it answered- by every single one of them.
“I’m not casting another vote for someone like McCain.”
She turning into *just another politician* Talking out of both sides of her face, being unclear and not answering question truthfully.
She’s likely getting big bucks from thew country-clubbers in the GOP.
McCain needs to be gone. I live in Arizona and I will be voting for JD Hayworth
I was listening to the Bill Bennett show this morning and didn’t realized he was talking with Juan until a time into the interview. I thought I heard Juan say he would support amnesty sometime in the future, but Bennett didn’t follow up on that and there was no more mention.
Bennett tries to cover for McCain, and that’s probably the reason he let the most relevant statement McCain made in almost a half hour just fall to the floor with no response.
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.