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.”
Your Cain hatred is beyond reasoning or logic. I tried it already, and all I got was shocked and amazed at your inability or unwillingness to deal w facts.
One thing struck me as notworthy, though. You said Cain ‘lost’ you on abortion. You can’t ‘lose’ somebody who was never for you. Iow, Obama never (for instance) ‘lost’ me, because I was against him from the beginning.
So, since you said Cain ‘lost’ you, kindly link me to some posts you made when you were still on the Cain train. This is an honest, sincere request. I would love to read the pro-Cain comments you made prior when he ‘lost’ you.
Thanks.
It sounds like you get easily lost in the details.
Maybe you should look for the best leader, the man or woman of most conviction, whose philosophy is closest to yours, and stick with that person. Leave the detailed analysis to others.
What IS the path that is already here? Thank you for your answer, but it didn’t clarify anything for me. I guess you mean for illegals, but what path is there for illegals? To go back home and try again legally? Or is there another path?
Cain is not saying that states can set immigration policy, only that they can enforce already-existing federal immigration policy. Federal law currently gives discretion to either deport or not. All Cain is saying is that the states should be able to enforce what the law is.
If the law allows illegals to be handed over to the feds for naturalization, that is not violating the Constitution. We’re not talking about states being able to naturalize anybody. We’re talking about what happens when an illegal is discovered - whether they are deported or whether they are allowed to stay in the country. No state can naturalize US citizens; that is a fed function, and Cain has not said that states should have that ability. If the states want to hand illegals over to the feds who then put them on a path to citizenship (if the current federal law allows it), they can do that. OTOH, if a federal law is passed requiring deportation then CA would be required to enforce that law.
Seems to me that Cain is saying we need to let the law determine what happens to illegals, with no discrepancies between what states do. IOW, it seems to me that Cain is saying the exact OPPOSITE of what the headline is saying. He’s saying states should obey and enforce current federal law, which doesn’t require deportations but also does NOT grant amnesty or a “path to citizenship”. The states can enforce that law themselves or they can hand illegals over to the feds, but both the feds and the states need to actually obey the law in existence and not just do their own thing.
The law is silly though, in its current state. Unless there are real penalties for people being here illegally, what’s the point in even trying to catch them? In even having a border patrol or ICE?
That’s what we want Cain to say, and I do wish he would also say that.
Not necessary but thanks. Just trying to figure out how allegedly smart conservatives are suckered by a lightweight like Cain.
Looks like you evaded the question just like you accuse Cain of doing. The difference being that you were asked the question directly and Cain was not.
Cain has outlined his four problem solving - including empower the states to do what the federal government can't and won't do - as FAR BACK AS 2007 and has reiterated it ALL ALONG In this election cycle.
Solve FOUR problems: 1. Secure the border 2. Enforce the laws on the books 3. Encourage the path to citizenship already in place - starting with entering the country LEGALLY. 4. Empower the states to do what the Federal government can't
What is so hard for you all to understand the need for state involvement in the deportation process? Cain is not asking states to CHANGE the federal law
Here is a comprehensive look at Cain's immigration stance:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110508174404
Get real!
When asked about immigration and citizenship Cain made the above italicized comment.
I expect a tap dance, a game of twister.
Ah but Cain is for Fence and will start work on one as soon as he is worn in.
Amen! Amen! And Amen!
No, I did not evade the question as Cain does. The difference is: I am not running for president and I don't owe you an extensive dissertation on my views of immigration policy. That is irrelevant to the discussion. Cain's views are not.
Not to see that difference would suggest ignorance; to see it and say gotcha, would suggest dishonesty.
I don't keep communicating with posters who are either ignorant or dishonest, so if I should disregard your posts to me at some point in the future, you may refer to this post for guidance.
I don’t know for sure, but I think the only current path to citizenship is to go back home and try again legally. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable can set us straight on that.
It does sound to me, though, that it’s what Cain is saying we need to hold out as an alternative. And I think it’s an important question to find out how many people have come here illegally because the wait is so long, and how many would willingly go back home and do it the right way if the border was closed and we could put our energies into streamlining the LEGAL process rather than dealing with an unchecked flood of illegals.
Imagine if at football games we didn’t have any gates where people had to show their tickets to get in, but we just spent all our resources chasing after people who walked in and sat down. Given the situation we’re in, I think it would be reasonable to tell everybody that walls will be constructed and gates opened where only ticket-holders can get in quickly, but anybody who is found inside without a ticket will be kicked out and not allowed to get a ticket to get back in. So they can either take their chances and lose everything, or else they can leave the stadium they entered illegally and get in line for tickets.
I have no earthly idea. Maybe you should ask him.
My statements were only to show that, IMHO, he is Constitutionally correct.
It is the purview of the States to deal with its own denizens.
Cain has specified on several occasions the path to citizenship STARTS with coming here legally.
He couples that with enforcing the laws on the books.
So yes, they have to leave and come back LEGALLY.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110508174404
I saw Cain on CNN yesterday trying to insist there is a difference between profiling and his “targeted identification”, whatever that is. This guy takes every possible side of every issue.
Cain has outlined his four problem solving - including empower the states to do what the federal government can’t and won’t do - as FAR BACK AS 2007 and has reiterated it ALL ALONG In this election cycle.
Solve FOUR problems: 1. Secure the border 2. Enforce the laws on the books 3. Encourage the path to citizenship already in place - starting with entering the country LEGALLY. 4. Empower the states to do what the Federal government can’t
What is so hard for you all to understand the need for state involvement in the deportation process? Cain is not asking states to CHANGE the federal law
Here is a comprehensive look at Cain’s immigration stance:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110508174404
This is a craven evasion of the issue. Immigration is a federal matter; someone who wants to be President of the United States needs to have a policy for dealing with it.
Cain has outlined his four problem solving - including empower the states to do what the federal government can’t and won’t do - as FAR BACK AS 2007 and has reiterated it ALL ALONG In this election cycle.
Solve FOUR problems: 1. Secure the border 2. Enforce the laws on the books 3. Encourage the path to citizenship already in place - starting with entering the country LEGALLY. 4. Empower the states to do what the Federal government can’t
Cain is not asking states to CHANGE the federal law but enforce the laws on the books. The laws on the books are NOT AMNESTY.
Here is a comprehensive look at Cain’s immigration stance:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110508174404
That one was supposed to be a Federal duty I thought.
Unless I am wrong here, Cain blew it on this.
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.