Posted on 11/26/2011 8:22:01 AM PST by katiedidit1
Edited on 11/26/2011 9:03:55 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
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 from New York Times]
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.
Michele, you %%%.
The title of the article doesn`t match what she said.
If you are looking for amnesty, take a close look at Gingrich`s Red Card Amnesty plan.
Bachmann is beating around the Bush..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.
Time and time again, Gingrich has teamed with immigration activists like Linda Chavez and Grover Norquist to push for these programs.
Yeah, make it ILLEGAL to hire ILLEGALS with a stiff penalty as well as ILLEGAL to get govt benefits and guess what...they will self-deport..kinda like AZ??????????
Sounds like selective amnesty to me...and from the most conservative candidate in the field tsk tsk tsk. FLOG HER WITH A WET NOODLE!!!
Let’s do what the anti-Neuters do... Ill go first.
Michele Bachmann is for amnesty!!!
There is no serious candidate that differs with Perry. He just says it like it is and the others add a little rhumba to the truth of the matter. Basically Perry set the table and the rest are the choir.
How exactly is this breaking news?
Does anyone here at FR or anywhere else in the sane world really believe that someone is gonna be elected president who is then going to deport 11 million people?
The formal debate standard known to those who debated formally as “ought to but not necessarily will’ (aka SHOULD) is very much in play on an issue like this.
Even if they all SHOULD be deported do you believe they WILL be??
Ever??
Really?
Who running for president would deport 11 million people?
And how would they do it?
At gunpoint—like Clinton and Reno did it?
Using cattle cars like uknowwho?
Really?
Can’t we just get our border sealed. (I think Rodney King said that.)
Its a simple fact that some will get amnesty like they’ve always gotten. Stating that fact is a far cry from Newt’s foray into extraconstitutional territory to create citizen/non citizen hybrids that put the ball on the tee for the supreme court.
That’s right, she didn’t say she wouldn’t deport them. The video cut off after she gave part of her answer. There was more to it, and she had more to say prior to that. Her answer was typical politico-speak, not really answering the question, just saying things that people want to hear.
None of the candidates really said what we should do with the illegals who are already living here. I thought Herman Cain gave the best answer of all. Ron Paul’s train went off the rails and he started speaking in tongues, so I’m not really sure whose question he was trying to answer.
Here’s a transcript of the immigration portion of the debate:
http://24ahead.com/gop-debate-september-7-2011-immigration-rick-perry-romney-ba
Here’s a comment from “machine” after the townhall.com article:
“Conservatives remember - when you are on Townhall you are in the heart of RINO Land - just be aware of your surroundings.”
“And how would they do it?”
When you cut off the freebies, they self-deport, when you put in place e-verify, they self deport, when you don’t promise amnesty, they self-deport.
There are plenty of success stories from Alabama and Arizona to support this. On the other hand, amnesty has been tried before and it failed.
I don’t have a problem with the initial approach offered by Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum and Cain. They are all saying “secure and enforce the border FIRST.” That’s the primary objective.
After that, they all have suggestions for what to do about illegal residents. The least forthcoming candidates out of the five were Santorum, who coyly said, “We can have that discussion” later, about the 12 million already here; and Cain who hasn’t said anything substantive about it since 2007 when he mentioned the temporary worker program and some “reasonable” program for those now here.
Is it amnesty? IANAL, but perhaps illegal residency is a civil rather than a criminal offense; nobody is suggesting they go to jail. Gingrich proposes a fine and possible deportation after review of individual cases, and it would seem senseless for any candidate to say “no review of anyone’s case!” and none has said that.
Even in the case of non-citizens, I do believe that one should be judged as an individual, not collectively. Mitigating circumstances are always a factor in civilized law. I don’t think anyone can disagree on those two points: don’t judge anyone collectively, and don’t refuse to consider individual circumstances.
If there’s to be amnesty, it should not be collective amnesty without regard for individual circumstances; and if there’s to be no amnesty, it should not be collective deportation without regard for individual circumstances.
Review is fair and would have been approved by our Founding Fathers and their ancestors back to the days of the Magna Carta.
If there is not to be review on a case-by-case basis, there will be many instances where justice will be unequal.
Also, when a judge finds you guilty of an offense and tells you to pay a hefty fine rather than go to jail, is that amnesty? Because the penalty is not heavy, is it nothing?
To me, amnesty means saying “They shall not be prosecuted, they shall not be held responsible.” I don’t hear any of these five candidates saying that.
Yet to some here on FR, the proper course is medieval: dispatch them all and let God sort ‘em out!
It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Indeed, I would call it barbaric.
We should sort them out. When all five candidates are asked that directly, I doubt very much that any of them will disagree.
When you cut off the freebies, they self-deport, when you put in place e-verify, they self deport, when you don’t promise amnesty, they self-deport.
There are plenty of success stories from Alabama and Arizona to support this. On the other hand, amnesty has been tried before and it failed.
And this is the most any serious candidate should ever promise. No Pliney the Elder type proclamations. It’ll be miracle enough if the incentives (to invade) are ever removed. Forget deporation schemes. Won’t happen. Not ever.
Seal the border.
No one cares about the border and how dangerous it is. Even Houston has started to get a taste of what is going on in MX.
This issue is not about Jose the dishwasher in Mass.
This is about, Terrorist from Iran, Paki,etc etc. Muslim Brotherhood, Aryanbrotherhood/Zeta Cartel.
I get furious when I here people say deport them all. That border MUST be shut down. I don’t see anyone but Perry actually doing it. He has the experience dealing with this threat. How does anyone expect the economy to recover with a WAR at our OWN border? Bring our troops homes, put them on the Southern Border
I think we need to concentrate of 4 areas. Iran,Syria, and now that the Obama Administration is backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. EGYPT.
But foremost is closing the Southern Border no if’s, and, or, Buts.
Wait just a minute, hold on to your horses, what you fail to realize is that was all the way back in September, when she said that...so get over it, that was then, and this now, stop living in the past................./s
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.