Posted on 11/25/2011 12:41:43 PM PST by TBBT
Congresswoman Bachmann appears to be conveniently forgetting her own views on immigration in order to score political points. During the presidential debate at the Reagan Library on September 7, she said she won't deport all 11 million illegal immigrants here in the United States.
[Full transcript]
HARRIS: A quick 30-second rebuttal on the specific question. The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?
BACHMANN: Well, that's right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.
Sounds almost identical to Newt's position that once we secure the border first, we can have a humane enforcement policy vis-a-vis some of those remaining.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Let the rest of the illegals get in line and apply for Citizenship or let them living under the radar like they have been for the last 25 years. It will cost the taxpayer Billions to correct the situation, including more and more illegals going on the dole.
Can anyone tell me why we need Amnesty? Reagan's policy didn't work. What makes us think we can improve on it in a world that is so PC you can't even say “deportation” without being labeled as inhumane, heartless, racists or hateful?
Well you have swerved into the problem. Conservatives don’t agree on very much. Take you and me. I don’t see any of the candidates including Newt Gingrich as being anything like Mitt Romney. But you do. I see them them as all quite different.
Actually what is going on is a squabble over 2nd place. The math is the math. When you have that many conservatives dividing the vote then the nomination is Mitt Romney’s to lose. The only thing that can stop that is for candidates to drop out and throw their support to remaining candidates. Right now I don’t see Cain, Perry, Paul or Gingrich dropping out. Perhaps Bachmann.
Just curious, because I live in Florida and I do know that many of the grandkids don't love and revere this Country-they want this to be Mexico with all the benefits afforded to American Citizens.
I do not need to convince you of one thing, if you do not believe in enforcing the laws of this country maybe you should start trying to convince, Jim you should be here and not over at DU. Your whole statement from start to finish has been anecdotal, and you ask me to prove mine, now run along back to DU.
Fair enough.
THIS LINK will take you to a website that shows the results of the 2010 census for Los Angeles (city). The Latinos represent 48.5% of the Los Angeles population - about 1.7 million people. Granted, these are not all illegal but a huge percentage of them are. Another huge percentage of them are the legal "anchor babies" who have citizenship by right of birth in the U.S. A very bad law in my opinion but the fact is that the youngest of those anchor babies would be headed back to Mexico if their parents decided to self-deport.
And yes, you right. I don't think self-deportation will work because I don't see the incentive. You might be right. I just don't think so.
And debate is what this forum is all about. I think.
And you are right about Southern California (at least a good share of it) but you forgot San Francisco. Get them out as well and we will have GOP senators, Governors and a GOP legislature forever.
And which candidate is it that you think supports what you want? You crap all over Gingrich, but he says secure the border first, enforce the laws that are currently on the books. Right now, the illegals CANNOT go in the military under current law ... that is the part of the Dream Act that Gingrich said he supported. Gingrich is against amnesty, and he is against giving them citizenship, which is what all candidates that want to do what you want done would have to say. Gingrich is for English being the national language. You keep saying Gingrich is for amnesty, but he never said that. By denying them citizenship, and enforcing current law, benefits would dry up, which would accomplish YOUR goal of getting them to self deport.
Long story short, Bachman purposely lied about what Newt said, and Mittens picked up on it and also tried to put words in Newts mouth. 3 times he clarified HIS message, and they kept trying to call it something else. You have been SCREAMING on here for 3 days now about Newt, and if you would shut up and actually look at what HE has said, not what MB or MR said he said, you would see he is for exactly what you are describing!
an even better one ...
“... John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” - Andrew Jackson.
This is the salient point. Marshall was an SC justice. Congress is congress. Neither of them enforce the law. That is the domain of the President. The reason we are having the problems we are, is because our past presidents have refused to enforce the law.
We do NOT need new laws, we simply need a president with the backbone to enforce the laws that are presently on the books. Newts first point is ... Secure the Borders. Why so many are going balistic on him is baffling ... that is the first step ANY candidate would need to do. I have heard strawman arguements from many on here that for whatever reason, they dont think he would ... OK, if you are not going to believe what he says, then why should we believe any OTHER candidate if they say the same thing. If you refuse to believe him no matter what ... well, then no sense listening to you because I will give the same latitude to you and your candidate.
Rather than seeing all the Newt haters say how much they hate him, I would really like one of them to come off thier soapbox and tell me which candidate has proposed ANYTHING better. If you want to sway the arguement, show us (with a link preferably, so we can read THIER words, not yours) and debate methods of solving the problem.
When it comes right down to it, nobody can do that because no candidate has given a plan with as much detail as Newt has. So, we are arguing about a proposed plan versus the hopes and wishes of FR members, not what thier preferred candidate would actually do. I am sorry, but unless YOUR candidate is willing to put in writing how they will solve the problem, you are just guessing anyway.
and just so you are up to date jorge signed a waver and let over twenty thousand illegals join the military. You can look it up. It is fact.
Look I'm not trying to get banned from FR. I've been here for 11 years and I think my conservative credentials are well established.
And I'm not trying to get into a fight. I'm not in favor of amnesty but the solutions people are offering to the problem are not just not real. 1.7 million Latinos in Los Angeles is not anecdotal. It's real. Go back 50 years and look at the numbers. Those people didn't just sign up for legal immigration status. They just walked across the border. They are nearly all illegal or the now legal sons, daughters and grandchildren of illegal immigrants. I don't think that is anecdotal.
There has been a huge change in the demographics of California and, in particular, Los Angeles. This is killing us in the electoral college. California is lost forever to the Republicans. If this spreads to Arizona, New Mexico (probably already lost), Colorado and Nevada the GOP is in big trouble. If it spreads to Texas then we are, in all likelihood looking at an indefinite string of Obama's sitting in the White House.
I don't want that to happen. I fight that like the plague.
So I'm looking for real plans that really work to reduce the Dem voting population of Latinos because if we don't we are dead as a viable party. That is the Dem plan and it is working. We need a way out.
As are you FRiend, guessing that is. As are all of us (everyone here at FR). Guessing is about all, We the People (the citizens), have left except prayer. That hope and change, left a huge hole in my heart and pocket. If I have to believe in a politician I may as well, simply pray and forget about voting. Good Luck, FRiend. Good Luck to us all!
Excellent thread. Heated on both sides but, in the end, civil.
This is an important problem that needs to be thrashed out and solved. The Dems will never do it. Their demographic plan is working - the Latino population is growing and it votes D much more often than R. Is this a bigger issue than the jobs problem where the Latinos are taking American jobs? I actually think so. We cannot survive as a nation if we are stuck on stupid with a string of Obamas in the White House.
The GOP is going to have at least 2 years starting in 2013 where they have the ball and they need to do something to neutralize the growing advantage that the Dems have with the Latino voting population.
The anti-amnesty group wants to ship them back to Mexico but you can’t ship back the Latino U.S. citizens who are legal voters.
The other side wants some sort of peace treaty with the Latinos that will draw their votes to the GOP. Are they dreaming? Perhaps, but the demographic trends are not favorable to our Party. We have to do something.
None of the trends are favorable to this nation. The moslem brotherhood is now recognized by our leaders on both sides of the aisle. Illegals are being given the store (or country), and the taxpaying citizens are picking up the tab. The politicians are only interested in themselves and the citizens can go to _____ (well anyhow). No problems, none, zero, nada are being addressed because our politicians are working to maintain an illusion which is not sustainable. May God's Will Be Done, and not the politicians' will be done, otherwise I'm guessing, and don't like what I'm guessing. Good Luck!
lol
There may be some practicality arguments with respects to deporting 11+ million illegals. That was not Newt’s reasoning. Newt based his amnesty proposal on some argument that a party that stands for family values should have a “humane” approach to granting certain illegals the right to stay in the states as LEGALS. How he draws this arbitrary line is beyond me (he says some panel), but I suspect at the end of the day the only criteria will be 1) you are an illegal and 2) you want to be a legal.
Newt surprised me with his left of Romney (and quite a few Dems) illegal immigration view. Too important of an issue to ignore.
That's rich coming from a person who posted dozens of anti-Cain articles for the last month.
This is the logical approach— self-deportation. You would think by now that everybody would have gotten the word: you don’t have to deport them you only have to take away their means of support with the e-verify system. This should be used with all social programs as well as many illegals are also getting welfare, foodstamps etc.
Pass e-verify, let large numbers of them leave and then we deal with those that remain. Why should we be tormenting ourselves about what to do with the illegals, it is their problem to solve and not ours. They need to go to immigration lawyers and see what they can do, and of course they need to pay for those lawyers themselves.
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.