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.”
What wasn’t clear about him saying he believes life should be legally protected from the moment of conception, no exceptions?
What part of that did he tap-dance on? The part where he said the family would have to decide whether a raped granddaughter would raise the child as her own, because that’s a decision to be made by families?
You’re not watching the videos. These are Cain’s own words. http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/do-we-really-know-who-herman-cain-is/
Cain didn't say 'deport them all". The states that are making laws against illegals have the illegals leaving. There are already laws on the books for a legal path to citizenship that should be followed.
Illegal means illegal!! Breaking the law is NOT what Cain is condoning! Read what HE 'actually' said & not what YOU said that 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.”
See 418 and watch video.
I have watched that video many times. What part of that are you saying is not pro-life? He was asked whether he would want his raped granddaughter to bring up the child as her own. He said that Piers was mixing the issues, and that the particular question (whether the girl would raise the child as her own) was an issue to be decided by the family - and that what his family decided does not mean that everybody has to decide the same thing. He had already said, and I quote, “No abortion.” So the question was whether to keep the child or put the child up for adoption, and he was saying that choice is for families, not government.
What about that is not pro-life? What part of “no abortion” is unclear? You look at that and see it as waffling. I look at it and see it as clear. What is unclear about it, to you?
You called him clueless or don’t you remember?
You still never answered what he has said that is unconstitutional. Making blanket statements may work in the courtroom but not here.
Pray for America
I respect your attempt to openly think this problem out and deal with the illegals now here. My problem with Cain is he refuses to do that himself. People want details not "periods" or obfuscation. Newt has bravely begun to flush out the finer points of the matter. Leaving it to the states is really no answer at all, it's a cop out.
Nowhere did he say he would not deport them. What part of by enforcing existing laws and getting out of the way of the states that are already trying to enforce them; the illegals self-deport for much less cost is not understood by the Rino supporters?
It would make it a lot easier for all these guys to take on the issues if they knew that the masses would actually listen to what they have to say. And I will admit that I haven’t checked closely into whether or not my perceptions of Perry and Newt are misguided so I need to correct that. But I do know that the media is butchering what Cain is actually saying, and even conservatives are swallowing the media sausage with no qualms or skepticism. As long as that is the case, we’re never going to get these guys talking candidly about this issue. There’s too much of an agenda.
I do appreciate Newt taking it on. They all need to do that. I just don’t agree with Newt on it, and I don’t think he grasps the issue of lawlessness within our government, which I see as the most critical issue we face.
I am incredibly tired of gotcha politics. I wish we were all fighting the right enemies. A lot of our enemies are right within our government offices, and I am desperately looking for somebody who realizes that and takes it seriously. If whoever is in power simply ignores laws they don’t like, and the people have no way to force the law to be obeyed, the people will always be screwed pawns regardless of who we elect.
Newt (or any of the others) could be the most wonderful POTUS ever, but if he doesn’t have the wisdom to see how dangerous the failure of the checks and balances is and work to correct that culture of lawlessness and of denying the people standing to hold government accountable, we’re still on a path to this country’s destruction.
OK, my time quota is up. I really have to get to work now.
You said that, grandma! Apparently Mr. Cain just speaks over your little white head. I am a great grandmother, too. Only I am a conservative who knows what is good for my country, and will fight to the death for it! Mr. Cain is against abortion and gun control. I am unaware of what he may have said about TARP.
I will take this opportunity to ask everyone to please send your generous checks to ensure a better U.S.A. to:
Herman Cain, Inc.
Friends of Herman Cain, Inc.
P.O. Box 2158
Stockbridge, Georgia, 20181
Thank you all so much! Go Herman Cain!
But he said it would be their choice. If Cain was President, I would expect the feds would be deporting them all. We wouldn’t want to let some states decide NOT to deport illegals, while other states DID.
How would that work? Would it just be luck-of-the draw, if you were illegal but happened to be in a “good” state, you’d stay, but if you were in the “wrong” state you’d get deported? Or could a state allow you a week to clear out to another state?
So what is the difference between profiling and “targeted identification”?
” He did not complain about the nomenclature. You are lying. Complaining about nomenclature and changing the meaning of words as well as outright lying is what amnesty libs like you and Newt like to do.”
You are absolutely correct. The nomenclature issue was on an issue that surfaced in reference to a totally different subject than immigration, in the Cain-Crowley interview. I kept wondering why the “targeted” word was left out of the first FR immigration transcript. In the second transcript posted on FR, the word “targeted’ was there but it was on another question entirely, and not on immigration. My bad.
However, you people running with your hair on fire, in full blown panic, need to chill on calling other posters liars. I erred. I was mixed up on the facts, and certainly don’t mind admitting it when something is called to my attention. It happens. You on the other hand are stuck waiting to see how Cain unties his tongue on immigration and amnesty—the same term you so eagerly applied to Perry. The other candidates are now all lined up behind him, adding nothing different but a little rhumba to the EXACT same thing Perry said.
-—”How would that work? Would it just be luck-of-the draw, if you were illegal but happened to be in a “good” state, you’d stay, but if you were in the “wrong” state you’d get deported? Or could a state allow you a week to clear out to another state?”-—
Simple, they just flee to sanctuary states, which Cain is okay with, and they all get to stay!
“Lightweight”?
The same was said of Ronald Reagan, that he lacked foreign policy experience, that he wasn’t that smart, that he was just an actor.
Maybe we don’t need a legislator to fill the position of President. Maybe we need a proven business leader who knows how to surround himself (or herself) with wise counsel.
” You have fallen into their clutches and show yourself to be no better than the creeps we are trying to oust from our government. “ <<<
I don’t know what Rick Perry’s future will be, whether he can re-boot his poll numbers or not. His JOBS record and his capture of business and industry into Texas is unmatched, but no one cares. Perry has defined conservative principles at work, in the freedom to compete. For his stand on illegal immigration he was called La Raza Rick. Now all the other candidates are found saying the same dang thing, except for parting their hair differently.
Newt also has a conservative bona fidis and the baggage he carries is for the times he wondered off the reservation, but basically he has always been a proven conservative.
The rest have no broad accomplishment but for Rick and Newt.
Lack of broad experience and poor poll numbers hurt the others, except for Cain whose poll numbers are now wobbling.
The rest have no poll numbers whatsoever.
Cain is not who you think he is according to those who transcribe his actual thoughts...
his position is to secure the borders and allow the states to fight illegal immigration since the fed is not...
i am for CAIN and Cain not wait til he beats obama.
you don’t have to like him... but actually look at what he says and not what the others say he says.
teeman
Ronald Reagan was a two term governor of California. He had plenty of governing experience. Cain has zero.
If Cain surrounds himself with the likes of Mark Block, then I pray he gets nowhere near the nomination.
Interesting reversal. Not that it matters. Pier’s question COULD have been interpreted as asking if the kid would be raised by the mother, but Cain issued a press release later which clarified his statement, and told what he meant by his answer — and it was about government power and people committing illegal acts, NOT about adoption.
And it was pretty clear from Cain’s answer that he wasn’t really talking about the choice of raising a child or giving it up for adoption (not just because he didn’t simply say “That’s up to the mother, she could raise the child or give it up for adoption — it’s not like it’s hard to make things clear here).
But if we just continue your “second question” transcript, it’s clear Cain wasn’t talking about adoption.
CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.
Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.
MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively — you might be president. You can’t hide behind now the mask, if you don’t mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.
CAIN: No they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.
MORGAN: That’s a very interesting departure —
CAIN: Yes.
MORGAN: — from the normal politics.
CAIN: Exactly.
Why would Piers ever think that it was the President’s job to tell people whether to raise their children or give them up for adoption? That would make no sense. So it seems clear Piers didn’t think Cain’s answer was that Government shouldn’t tell women whether to raise or give up their children.
And then Piers said Cain’s views were not the norm, and Cain agreed. Cain certainly knows that NOBODY thinks Government should tell women whether they have to raise their children instead of giving them up. So it would make no sense for Cain to make a big deal of it, or for Piers to make a big deal of his answer or Cain to agree that his answer isn’t the norm.
But I will agree Cain’s entire answer is confusing, in part because Piers asked his question oddly, in part because sometimes Cain just decides he’s not going to answer a question, and then he answers some different question instead. That’s what happened here — the QUESTION was what Cain as a father would WANT his daughter or granddaughter to do, and Cain talked about what GOVERNMENT would do. Cain appears to not have wanted to answer the personal question, which was fine. But he didn’t answer it as asked anyway, because the correct answer to the “would you force women to raise a child of rape” is “Of course not — nobody has ever said that women should be forced to raise their children, and every state has safe haven laws which allow women to give their children up for any reason”.
But the reason I say this is all academic is that we know what Cain was trying to say, because he put out a statement:.
CAIN: “Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President. I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion. My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.”
And remember, the Piers interview was only really a problem because Cain’s previous interview on the subject was even worse (Stossel):
Cain: I’m pro-life from conception, yes.
Stossel: Any cases where it should be legal?
Cain: I don’t think government should make that decision.
Stossel: People should be free to abort a baby?
Cain: I support life from conception. No, people shouldn’t just be free to abortbecause if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception, we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.
Stossel: So I’m confused on what your position is.
Cain: My position is I’m pro-life. Period.
Stossel: If a woman is raped, she should not be allowed to end the pregnancy?
Cain: That’s her choice. That is not government’s choice. I support life from conception.
Stossel: So abortion should be legal?
Cain: No, abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life.
Stossel: I’m not getting it. I’m not understanding it. If it’s her choice, that means it’s legal.
Cain: No. I don’t believe a woman should have an abortion. Does that help to clear it up?
Stossel: Even if she is raped?
Cain: Even if she is raped or the victim of incest because there are other options. We must protect the sanctity of life and I have always believed that.
Anyway, I believe Cain is pro-life, and I am not convinced that he would actually support government telling people they couldn’t have abortions. And I guess that once that was the law, he’d actually enforce the law, which I don’t get from his statements about presidential power but I have to assume he’d figure out eventually what a President actually does.
Unfortunately, until we can force the courts to see that illegal aliens and their anchor babies are not “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” and therefore NOT protected by the 14th Amendment, they (the courts) will not allow that.
Also, some border states that have been all but overrun might have an issue with that, too.
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.