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.”
I was at DLI as a student many, many years ago in the Vietnam era. The east coast branch was at that time in Crystal City, Washington, D.C.
Thanks for the good memory.
Then why doesn't Cain say that instead of uttering Canned Cain Cop-out about the states?
He'd be leader of the fed govt, but he won't say he'll order deportation.
"Enforce the law" is very broad, as is the law. The law nowhere says "SHALL deport," but merely that it is an authorized act.
So the question remains, what would Pres. Cain do? And he takes extreme care to avoid answering. Why?
You lie!
Qualified and eligible are two different things.
Cain is only eligible.
Cain’s position is that feds and states need to actually ENFORCE the current non-amnesty immigration law.
He’s not talking about states being able to make up their own immigration policy. He’s talking about them being empowered to enforce existing federal immigration law even when the feds try to keep anybody from enforcing it.
The headline on that article was totally deceptive. You have to read the whole thing to see what Cain actually said. The media did this crappy stunt on Cain’s abortion stance and now they’re doing it on this as well. Probably because they saw that it worked; as the interviewer pointed out (without saying it directly) the media was so successul with that strategy on the abortion issue that the Iowa king-makers won’t even consider Cain - so the interviewer (and now this person who wrote the article we’re discussing) proceeded to do THE SAME THING to Cain.
People, people, people - as long as we let the media get away with this by not fact-checking every stupid headline they put out there, they will do this until the cows come home, or until America dies from sheer ignorance, whichever comes first. First with Cain, or Perry, or whoever, until they’ve chosen our primary winner for us. And then with whoever our candidate is so they will choose the POTUS for us.
We CAN’T let them get away with this. The process matters, and a truthful press is critical. If we want to win the 2012 election - or any election - we HAVE to make the general public aware of the lying sabotage being conducted by the media. If we allow this in the primary we have nobody but ourselves to blame when the same thing happens to get Obama re-elected.
This is serious, serious business. I know it takes extra time to look up the original sources and read the actual entire transcript. But it is our civic duty at this point. We are the only people who can hold THE MEDIA accountable to the truth. If we don’t do it, we are signing this nation over to death. Literally.
Lady Lucky, do you think one person as POTUS is going to fix the entire federal government?
Do you trust anybody to be the POTUS if they think that them stepping in for 4-8 years is going to fix the whole federal government permanently?
What importance do you place on there being a system of checks and balances so that no matter how corrupt the current federal leaders or bureaucrats are in how THEY want to enforce (or not enforce) current law, there is somebody with the power to ensure that the laws are actually obeyed?
But the law doesn't demand specific penalties. It does not say that illegals MUST be deported. It says they MAY be. It's up to some judge or other official, to apply the law and enforce it as he sees fit.
How does Herman Cain see fit?
Why won't he answer that simple question and lay off the platitudes?
No, when he gives an interview people who are interested in the truth of what he is saying have to force people to see what actually DID say. Cain made his first statement, the interviewer said that was amnesty, and then Cain explained what he meant - specifically federal and state enforcement of existing immigration law.
But the headline and article totally bypassed his explanation of what he meant and only quoted the part that the interviewer also misunderstood.
That’s dishonest, and EVERY TIME the media does that to a candidate - whether it is with Cain, Perry, Newt, Romney, Bachmann, or whoever - we have to call them on it. Because if we don’t they will butcher the whole election process with cleverly-devised half-truths.
Does anyone? Is that now a reason to vote for Herman Cain? "Vote Cain: He can't fix the entire federal government."
You're doing a bait-and-switch here. The issue is not "fix the whole fed govt."
Mr. Shucky Ducky has no plan for anything, just platitudes, dodges, cop-outs and a great big fog machine for a playbook.
Bah humbug! These days "WE" can't even hold people on FR accountable to the truth!
If the law doesn’t demand deportment then the problem is the law. You could ask Cain, Newt, Perry, etc if they support a law forcing deportment, amnesty, or whatever, but the POTUS can’t tell judges what they have to do. The judges enforce the laws. If we want different enforcement of the existing law, we need to change the laws. A person who wants to do that should be running for Senate or House.
Perhaps the issue we’re all tangling with is whether there should be any discretion regarding who - if anybody - can stay in the US after coming here illegally. Are there ever circumstances in which it would be OK for somebody to stay here if they came illegally? That’s what the nation has to deal with. Do we allow judicial discretion for individual cases? Maybe that is the question Newt is answering, but Cain doesn’t think it’s the question he’s been asked.
They all should be asked the question directly so we can compare apples to apples when we compare their answers.
What do you think? Should there be any discretion for individual cases? If so, should it be clearly stated what kind of circumstances could be an exception to deportation?
Exactly, Titan.
Cain gets to say all this stuff contrary to the Constitution, and his ardent followers just compensate and drive on with nary a thought 'cause they're following their messiah.
If immigration is a states rights issue, then why not amend the Constitution first since naturalization is listed as a power of Congress.
And why not turn back to Perry whose argument was that Texas can give education credits to illegals if Texas wants to do that. Isn't that states rights?
But, no. Bring up Perry and they'll be all over him for those education credits.
Bring up Gingrich and they'll say he's for amnesty even though he says he's not for amnesty. But Cain can say this inane stuff, but say he's not for amnesty, and that's all they hear from him.
This whole thing is about following a messiah and not picking a conservative candidate who can govern. The Manchester Union Leader had that part right.
I don't want a messiah. I already have one thank you.
Candidate, hell newt cannot get on the ballot in several states, no organizations other than buying a few made up polls.
Cain has said that the states should be able to enforce the current law even if the feds want to keep anybody from enforcing it. He is proposing that the states should serve as a check and balance to a federal government that is so easily corrupted and that the people have no recourse to correct. He’s talking about long-term solutions to the people’s inability to make SURE that the law is actually enforced.
That is EXACTLY what we need - somebody who believes the system of checks and balances on the federal government between elections is broken. That’s how we stop crap like Fast and Furious. That’s how we stop crap like a usurper in the White House. That’s how we protect ourselves from an Attorney General who will not let any federal law enforcement investigate or prosecute “his people”.
That’s how we the people can be empowered by having a REAL advocate for the rule of law that is close enough to home that it’s not going to be automatically corrupted by the DC political-media meat market.
Whether he meant to or not, Cain has brought up the corruption in the federal law enforcement system and agency bureaucracies. The elephant in the room. I welcome that because that issue is the single most important issue this country faces, IMHO.
My question is: What is the path to citizenship that's already there? Does he mean the path open to those who came here legally? If so, he's extending a legal path to the illegals. If he means any path that was made for illegals, that is amnesty, even if he doesn't want to use the word.
Please clarify, anyone, if I'm not getting this right.
We’re doing it right now.
The above line from the article proves your point wrong about Cain not saying states get to decide those things.
1. It proves he doesn't know the Constitution gives the entire process of naturalization to the Congress, and the laws to implement and run it. The authority to execute those laws it gives to the President.
2. Cain can't go letting states decide who is a citizen and who isn't. Again the U.S. Constitution that Cain seems to know so little about: "Acticle IV, Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." In otherwords, if Ohio makes you a citizen, then you're a citizen everywhere.
Cain is just making it up as he goes. He doesn't have a clue. I expect his followers again to totally ignore these inane comments of his and twist and tap dance as necessary to keep on following him to the quadrennial kingdom. (Uh...it's not amnesty....California can let in a gazillion turks, but states rights...Cain said that's not amnesty so it isn't cause he said so...uh...who cares there's a gazillion more people here...)
In the meantime, he has again made himself unelectable by target practice on his own foot.
If you look at the context, he was talking about making the border secure and making it not so difficult to get here legally. I think that answers the question of what he meant by the path to citizenship that is already here.
I wonder how many illegals would go back to Mexico and come in the legal way if they knew that they would be deported and disallowed from coming back if they are caught now but that the wait time will be relatively short for them to come in legally with all the proper safety checks and documentation - specifically if our government stops arming the drug cartels that are butchering whole towns in Mexico which then flee to the US for refuge.
I think a realistic look at the whole situation is very much in order.
BEARS REPEATING:
“Did you actually read the article, or better yet, go to the transcript?
“My position is: Secure the border for real. Promote the path to citizenship that already exists. The problem is the bureaucracy in getting people here legally. Now then the fourth — 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-fits-all.”
The Feds to empower the states (help them) deal with those here already. Nothing in it about allowing states to grant amnesty or path to citizenship outside the legal paths already established.
Every time he tried to state something about the states deciding how best to round them up, or deal with them within the law, Crowley tried to call that allowing amnesty, to Cain’s protestations that Crowley was not understanding what he was saying.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1111/27/sotu.01.html";
“What do you think?”
I think presidential candidate Herman Cain ought to tell us clearly what HE thinks, not wait to be asked by some interviewer (most of whom aren’t as informed as 90% of freepers).
And I think he’s a shucky ducking fog emitting tin plate phony.
Everyone’s sitting at their keyboards, trying to parse his emissions and tweak out the meanings, like a college of theologians engaged in...what do they call that? Oh, yes: hermeneutics!
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.