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.”
Didn’t see it. Where?
Of course, that is similar to the issue I have with Gingrich’s proposal for local boards deciding what to do — it makes it so that your outcome is based on where you happen to be located, which is an odd way of handling the issue.
BTW, I don’t get hung up on specific proposals, because I generally assume that anybody’s specific plan will get corrupted by the political process anyway, either for good or more likely bad.
So in fact, I worry about anybody who has a proposal right now, because it just opens up the can of worms — once you ask the congress to legislate new immigration law, you might well end up with something really bad.
Better just to enforce the law that exists. But I know everybody wants to tweak it someway or another. I’m pretty much stuck with that no matter what candidate we pick.
Forgive me Rita, confusion does not make you a liar. There has been a lot of confusion on this forum lately and I believe a lot of it is intentional.
I am not confused about Cain’s stand because I have been listening to Cain for some time and there is no confusion coming from him. He has stated the same things time after time. There are however some liberals, including Ms. Crowley, who would like him to be confusing. His plan is simple. Do something that has not be tried. Secure the borders and enforce the law on the books. Use only the current path to legality — no special laws for the illegals and finally allow the states to assist in solving the illegal situation. It’s really simple. No new layer of govt. just the current govt. and legal consequences and remedies that already on the books.
Unfortunately there are amnesty lovers who want to solve the illegal problem by passing a magic law wand over the illegals heads and saying — “now you’re legal. Maybe you can pay us a fine sometime later.” The idea of illegals being deported makes them apoplectic. They will say and do anything to keep that from happening. But it needs to happen because our country needs to belong to it’s citizens. We need to take control of our borders and make sure the people who are here are the ones we have invited not the ones who have invaded.
Which explains why posters on this site are so divided.
No one candidate has emerged as the one who can unite.
I would not be surprised if some other names pop up at the convention.
OK, normally I’m big on the 10th Amendment and more power to the states, but under our Constitution, control of the borders, immigration (legal and illegal), citizenship, and national defense are national and federal government issues. Come on, Herm. Come on.
I understand your frustration with the whole mess. I’m with you on that but Cain doesn’t seem to have the zeal or even the understanding on many issues this being just one and with no record it’s hard for me to just trust him, or like he said, his advisers, whomever they may be.
Very clear that Cain is not qualified to be president. It is not a hatred of him as a person it is a observation of him as a candidate. He makes one guffaw after another and he so lax in his knowledge of foreign affairs it is scary.
As for Newt’s policy on immigration/illegals..it is out there and it is doable. It is the plan Tony Snow wrote on Myths and Facts on Amnesty..a must read on a critical issue. I do believe Perry shares the same plan as Newt but would not swear to it.
Cain could not win the senate seat in Georgia...he won’t win the gop nod for president.
I’ve never held the Morgan interview against Cain. Morgan did a not-so-subtle switcheroo and apparently Cain caught him at it. Morgan asked about exceptions for rape and incest and asked, if that happened to your relative, you’d want her to raise that child?
There’s a big, big difference between abortion and “not raising a child,” or between giving birth and raising a child.
Cain’s answer was that THAT decision was for the family to make.
Nevertheless, no such trap was laid for Cain in the Stossel interview or the one with the Fox interviewer. And in those two, particularly in the Stossel interview, nobody was talking about raising a child. Cain’s reply (especially to Stossel) was bizarre, completely illogical, and damning. (Search youtube for Stossel Cain, I’m sure it’s there.)
Well after all, Cain kicked off his campaign with the words, “Shucky Ducky!”
Quite appropriately, these words mean whatever one wants them to mean — as do most of his garbled interview responses.
This morning he was doing the Shucky Ducky, telling Fox that his campaign is successful due to his specificity!
Specificity will come if he ever answers yes or no to:
Deport all illegals, yes or no?
You crack me up friend:))) love your snickers and bwaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas. The Cainiacs have been viscious in their attacks on other candidates...heck, did Cain ever apologize to Perry for his “FALSE” allegations that he was accusing others of making “FALSE” allegations against him? guess you won’t sport one of those “Honkies for Cain” stickers on your car...or the “crackass” for Cain...rather derogatory against whites imo and very tasteless.
By putting the onus on the states then the states will take more interest in making sure that illegals do NOT get benefits of any kind since the states will NOT be getting reimbursed. I think this is a good idea. If you or your state wants to harbor illegals then fine, YOU pay for them.
As each state takes control and heavily fines ALL that hire illegals, not just large corporations but private households as well, when the jobs dry up, the health care disappears, the free education disappears and changes to do away with anchor baby status, the illegals will self deport and those not here yet, won’t bother.
The beautiful thing of it is that it won’t cost much at all. Once they self deport we can work on sealing up the tunnels and putting up the fence where plausible.
With self deportation, no one has to feel guilty about breaking up families. Many of those that came here illegally, broke up their own families all on their own when they came here. No one seems worried about those family members still in Mexico or elsewhere, so when they self deport, they will reunite with them, in their country of origin!
He will have to do the squirm around in the chair routine and finally state, “ I will surround myself with great advisors to resolve this issue” is the shucky ducky a new dance? kind of like the funky chicken?
” Unfortunately there are amnesty lovers who want to solve the illegal problem by passing a magic law wand over the illegals heads and saying — “now you’re legal. “ <<
Thank you for your kind reply which I apprecite. No one disagrees with enforcing the laws on the books and locking down the southern border. FR has its amnesty definers saying that all who entered illegally, maybe as long as twenty five years ago, must now ship out, and that anything less is AMNESTY. This would mean families real jobs, churches and citizen children get carted away just like they were illegal Mexican drug runners, human traffickers and gun runners. This is the government’s doing in the first place for ignoring enforcement and encouraging the crossings for the usual Chamber of Commerce reasons. Whose fault is that? The illegals are not wholesale going to be treated like criminals. If you want to call that Amnesty, so be it. Now we find all the candidates lined up addressing the question, and only a Fandango away from what Rick Perry said outright in the first place. When Cain says it, he’s a genius. If it has Perry’s name on it, he’s La Raza Rick. It is VERY hard to swallow. La Raza Cain.
It is the responsibility of the feds to ensure our borders are secure..not the states. It is a national security issue. Cain’s plan is weak and ill informed. Cain also stated it is up to the states not to deport.
The best plan is the one Tony Snowe wrote for Bush on Myths and Facts on Amnesty which clearly outlines a very doable solution. It is the plan Newt supports. Once again..Cain needs to do his homework
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.
(still answering the second question about whether to adopt out or keep the child)
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. (Still answering the second question, though Morgan is taking the answers as part of the first question.)
And what good would it do to sit out the 2012 election? It’s a funny thing, the Democrats try to get everyone of their voters out to the polls whereas some Republicans are always threatening to boycott elections when there is no candidate that they like. Doesn’t the side with the MOST votes win? Isn’t the point to get as many people from our side out to the polls? The Democrats are playing hardball and we are playing softball.
Pick the candidate you like the most during the primaries and then vote for the Republican in the final election, regardless of whether you like him or not. I am voting for Michele Bachmann in the primaries, if she is still on the ballot by then, but I will vote for any Republican who is on the final ballot.
Even a rino will have to make concessions to the conservatives but will Obama make any concessions if he wins again? When he has no election to lose?
Even if we only have a rino to vote for in November, remember that the rino establishment has been in control for many years and it will take some time to work through the Republican party with conservative and Tea Party people. Voters are just waking up to the fact that our leaders are not truly conservative and that is why somebody invented the term *rino*, that shows that people are waking up but we have to be patient and persistent. It doesn’t end the day after the November 2012 election, we still can have influence every day by making our voices heard and joining conservative citizens organizations. And it isn’t only about the Presidency, we need to grow a powerful grassroots movement supporting representatives who really speak for us. Please let’s stop shooting outselves in the foot.
That answer makes no sense if you think he was answering the question was "if your daughter got raped, would you want her to raise the child?"
If he thought he was talking about raising the child vs adoption, he wouldn't have had an "opinion" to keep to himself, or be thinking about a directive to the nation. The answer would either be "I would want my daughter to decide about raising the child, and I wouldn't HAVE my own opinion", or, if he didn't want to talk personal, "why would anyone think the government should tell them whether to raise a child or put it up for adoption?"
His answer was clearly about a situation where he thought SOME people would expect government to do something, and he was expected to have an opinion on that something -- which doesn't match the "adoption" question.
And no matter how many times you re-quote Cain's answer, it won't change the FACT that Cain issues a PRESS RELEASE to explain what he was talking about, and it wasn't about ADOPTION.
The problem now is some states do try to enforce and the Feds block them
and some states are havens and sanctuary for illegals
nope...sorry Hermann but this is a Fed issue legally and Constitutionally
now you can disagree with Newt but not about whether the Feds should be the arbiter
that is without question
When Villa invaded Columbus NM in 1916(?) did New Mexico chase after him or Pershing and the (Pre) Expeditionary Forces?
with my grandpa along too btw..
I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. I could care less about the party, it doesn’t mean squat to me. If they fail to offer candidates worth voting for, that’s their fault.
But where else would you go? What is your strategy?
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.