Replies

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.”

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.

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.

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.