Replies

First, I am using the real definition of amnesty, i.e., any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here, the object of their crimes, is amnesty.

Univision - Interview with Sarah Palin October 26, 2008

Q: Should undocumented immigrants all be deported?

A: There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant--there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants--not only economically is that just an impossibility but that's not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue.

Q: Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 million undocumented immigrants?

A: No, I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. We have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

Q: So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

A: I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

O'Reilly 2010 interview

There are other links including her conversation with Lars Larson. The bottom line is that she supports allowing them to stay and work here if they "play by the rules."

I like Sarah Palin, but she is wrong on this issue. The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between mass deportation and a blanket amnesty. We have other alternatives. Attrition thru enforcement works.

She has improved on the issue since then, but I wish she’d be a leader on it.

Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin deserve major kudos for Brat’s win.

Thanks, I appreciate the response. Wondering though, is this her current stance or has she shifted on this?

I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

I have a problem with this line of rhetoric. This means that we are to become a majority Latino country at some time in this century. How is this construed as a good idea? If my immigrant grandfather wanted to go to Latin America, or wanted me to become a Latin America, or wished our family to live without the benefit of the English law, why then, that's where he would have gone. Millions did, you know?

To fundamentally change the demographic of the nation in less than 100 years will be to destroy it as a Republic. We cannot assimilate a new population that outnumbers us. We can be assimilated after a while by a new majority.

¿Es que no comprendeis os?