Absolutely. Furthermore, people continue to forget there are national security issues with an unsecured border.
Posted on 11/27/2011 6:51:43 PM PST by TitansAFC
Herman Cain indicated today that he does not agree with Newt Gingrich’s position on immigration.
“The way I would deal with those that are already here, which has been my stated position: empower the states to deal with the illegals that are already here, not some, big, grandiose, national one size fit-all. I believe that the states should be empowered to deal with the illegals that are already here,” Cain said CNN’s State of the Union this morning.
In response to whether that meant the states could allow illegal immigrants to “be put on a path toward legalization and toward citizenship,” Cain answered, “It would be up to the states as long as they did not break the federal law.”
But when Crowley used the word “amnesty,” inquiring if that it meant it would be “okay” if the states granted “some sort of amnesty to those who are already living here,” Cain vehemently denied he supported amnesty.
“I’m not saying that at all,” he said
“Secure the border for real,” Cain continued, speaking about what his plan regarding illegal immigrants is. “Promote the path to citizenship that’s already there, and the path to citizenship that’s already there doesn’t say anything about amnesty. Thirdly, enforce the laws that are already there, but make it easier for companies to be able to enforce the laws. And fourth, empower the states. Don’t give the states any special things to do, just empower them to do within the law what the federal government is not doing.”
Live Action Redaction!
whatever... LOL LOL LOL!
You’re dealing with some of the most moronic people in this forum, Fred. Good luck getting any reason out of them.
My head is dizzy from all the spinning.....LOL
Absolutely. Furthermore, people continue to forget there are national security issues with an unsecured border.
does SB1070 confer citizenship on anyone? All it does is enforce federal law. Nothing wrong with that.
Well, yes. He says that if the Feds won’t do it, then the states should do it.
But he’s running for President. If he’s elected, I sure as hell hope he plans to FIX things at the federal level, so the Fed DOES do it.
That’s one of many things that simply needs to be reversed at the Federal level, after a history of decades of going in the wrong direction. Which means that many departments and agencies need to be cleaned out, or shut down, something that previous Republicans have failed to do. We can no longer afford to have huge federal bureaucracies dedicated to doing the wrong thing.
And it only took one... but today he would be sued!
Where is that link, for only feds can deport. If a state law enforcement office arrests an illegal for a crime and turns him over to the feds for completions of deportation, is the state not deporting.
When law is administered by precedent, then there is no law.
These people on here that think-THINK, that precedent is law, are not conservatives and are not true republicans..as in republican form of government.
The whole dam thing started right after the constitution was ratified. They promptly went out to defy it as soon as it was ratified. Hamilton should have been shot way before he was. The man was despised by his fellows.
And they say that Andrew Jackson was a SOB? Read Jacksons statement on his veto of the national bank where most/all of our problems come from.
It’s a hoot! Like I said I haven’t laughed this hard in several days...
*snicker*
Because the Feds rarely deport them, they give them a court date and then cut them lose.
SB1070 is exactly what Cain s is referring to. However if Cain were president there would have been no need for SB1070. Cuz the feds and local law enforcement would have ENFORCED THE CURRENT LAWS.. Unlike Newt who can’t wait to create more laws that will never be enforced.
Yes, but that is changeable by executive order.
The SC ruling (about 1982) was posted on FR a few weeks ago and I don’t remember anything about deportation, just that we had to provide free public school education.
Cain needs to check his shoes. He keeps stepping in it.
While the Constitution allows the federal government to make a rule for foreigners who immigrate here to become citizens, it has no authority over foreigners who are NOT citizens....what we call 'illegals'.
These are what the Founders referred to as denizens, and they are under the authority of the states.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle
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.