Wiggly words on Immigration policy from 2016 GOP contenders

AP / Yahoo News ^ | March 28, 2015

[Din Maker]

Thanks to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, it's becoming even clearer that immigration is the banana peel of 2016 Republican presidential politics.

Just ask Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. He stepped up as a Senate leader on immigration only to slip and fall in a tea party ruckus over the issue. In a moment of candor, Rubio remembered the months of trying to get back up as "a real trial for me."

Now it's oops for Walker. In 2013, Walker said it "makes sense" to offer a way to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally. Early this month, however, he said he no longer supports "amnesty."

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that he actually said he favored a path to citizenship, though Horn denies Walker said that.

Even former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has a strong voice — and a book — on immigration, has wiggled.

"All the candidates have mixed statements — they have statements that seem to support amnesty and they all have ones that seem to oppose it," said Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA, which seeks to reduce immigration. "They're torn between the big-money people who gain from high immigration and the voters who oppose it."

Luis Alvarado, a California-based GOP strategist, said most Republican officials privately acknowledge that the country has to legalize the status of people who are here unlawfully while also bolstering border security. "They believe that no one in their conscious mind can deport 11 million people from this country," Alvarado said. "But, politically, they have to play word games to be elected in the primary."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the only declared candidate so far, has kept a fairly consistent tough line on the issue.

[Din Maker]

FROM THE ARTICLE: "Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the only declared candidate so far, has kept a fairly consistent tough line on the issue."

Folks, 2016 is the supreme test for Conservatism. Can a candidate who is truly a Conservative, and stands true to Conservative principles, ever be elected again or was Ronald Reagan the last one?

[SunkenCiv]

• Rand Paul: I think Republicans may have over-emphasized voter fraud
• Rand Paul: Republicans Need to Soften on Social Issues
• Rand Paul: Time for GOP [gay marriage]
• Rand Paul Wants Bigger GOP: 'You Go to a Republican Event and It's All White People'
• (Rand) Paul: GOP Needs to 'Look Like the Rest of America' to Win Again (again)
• Rand Paul slams Cliven Bundy's racist rant
• Rand Paul: Bundy's racist remarks are 'offensive'
• Rand Paul: I'm Open to Voting for Immigration Bill
• Paul: Still hope for immigration reform this year

Rand Paul's immigration speech

...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...

This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.

Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.

[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]

---

Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform

Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...

[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]

---

[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]

[Paine in the Neck]

With 600 million people south of our porous non-existent southern border and untold millions outside the Americas who might also avail themselves of easy access, there can be only one immigration policy - take away the incentives to cheat the system and enter illegally. Stop giving prizes for illegal entry. Reverse the incentives in order to make legal entry the more attractive path.



A ny measure that permits those who entered illegally to benefit from that illegal act is amnesty.

Right-click this image and save it. When you get fundraising solicitations, include a copy. Send a copy to your Senators and Reps. Send copies to your friends and family and ask them to do likewise.

[norwaypinesavage]

Note the source: AP/Yahoo News. This is clearly the liberal press giving you your marching orders. Line up in your circular firing squad, and start shooting.

[Gaffer]

In my world NOT ONE PERSON who is here illegally would ever be able to become a US CITIZEN. Nor should they be allowed to receive public entitlements or vote.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Now it’s oops for Walker. In 2013, Walker said it “makes sense” to offer a way to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.”

I’d love the chance to ask Walker face to face if it ever crossed his mind that maybe it makes sense to take away the magnets and try to get rid of as many illegals as possible. Or why does it make sense to offer these criminal backdoor immigrants a path to citizenship. but I already know the answer.

[SatinDoll]

“Luis Alvarado, a California-based GOP strategist, said most Republican officials privately acknowledge that the country has to legalize the status of people who are here unlawfully while also bolstering border security.”

‘Unlawfully’ - what part of illegal don’t you get, Luis!

We either have a nation built on laws, or we end up like Mexico.

[Theodore R.]

Yea, but, Reagan despite warnings from the stronger conservatives at the time installed Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor to vote against his own policies.

[Theodore R.]

It’s odd though that tens of millions of uninformed American citizens who can’t pay their own bills want the U.S. government to foot the bills for illegals.

[amihow]

Illegal aliens don’t care about citizenship, just our perqs and jobs. Their loyalties are to their country of origin. E-verify enforced will get them out and mostly close the border.

[Norseman]

>>It’s odd though that tens of millions of uninformed American citizens who can’t pay their own bills want the U.S. government to foot the bills for illegals.<<

It’s the group that doesn’t have to pay their own bills that don’t mind if the government foots a few more payments, or a lot more.

[Norseman]

>>Any measure that permits those who entered illegally to benefit from that illegal act is amnesty.<<

Yes, it is, which is exactly why the eventual resolution to the illegal immigration issue is going to involve at least some limited form of amnesty.

We simply aren’t going to send every single person here illegally today back across the border someday, nor are we going to see a bill passed that results in every single one of them “self-deporting” via, say, removing all employment opportunities for them. People can argue tell they’re blue in the face that we need to do exactly that, but it’s not going to happen.

Our presidential candidates are forced to tie themselves in knots trying to avoid stating the obvious so they don’t tick off the “No Amnesty” crowd amongst the base. Hillary destroys her email records and her base applauds her aggressiveness in taking on her opponents, while we force our candidates to declare support for an unattainable goal lest we cross them off our lists.

Again, every single GOP candidate is for amnesty in at least some form when their views are compared to a strict “no amnesty” demand. Every single one of them, including Senator Cruz. You will have no one left on your “list” so what’s the point? If you ever do happen upon a candidate who truly believes in a complete “no amnesty” position they wouldn’t win a single state; they’d be destroyed by ads demonstrating their clear heartlessness, if only in a dozen or so cases overall. Could they concede those dozen cases? Not without losing the “no amnesty” crowd, they couldn’t.

Good luck coming up with such a candidate.

[hlmencken3]

Amnesty means past crimes are ignored, and being henceforth law-abiding is required. Most “amnesty” proponents don’t really mean amnesty, they mean open borders, as no future crimes will be prosecuted either.

[Norseman]

The biggest problem faced by the GOP candidates is the confusion generated by the “no amnesty” demand of many in the base. That term keeps getting conflated with the far more rational “no citizenship” demand, which is actually quite rarely heard in isolation; usually it’s part of a longer list of requirements, such as no welfare, return to home country and get in line, etc.

Walker, for example, retreated on citizenship, but he, like every other GOP candidate, is unlikely to retreat all the way to a position of absolutely no amnesty. Even Cruz advocates amnesty in some circumstances, but not citizenship.

We would be respecting our candidates, and helping them, if we would instead settle on a “no citizenship” stance across the board for those here now illegally, and then get down to the more serious discussion of policing the border and establishing just who should, and who shouldn’t, be allowed to enter our country for purposes of work alone, or for the purpose of eventually becoming a citizen.

That discussion would be highly productive and might even result in abandonment of birthright citizenship at some point. The current discussion only smears our candidates, one by one. The Left loves writing articles about GOP candidates flip flopping and the “no amnesty” demand assures that such articles will continue to be written.

[Norseman]

>>Most “amnesty” proponents don’t really mean amnesty, they mean open borders, as no future crimes will be prosecuted either.<<

Assuming you’re referring to Republicans in the above remark, and not Democrats, I couldn’t disagree more. Most GOP amnesty proponents simply acknowledge that at least some people, and possibly a great many people, here illegally today are going to receive some form of amnesty in any resolution of this issue.

Going from that, to claiming that people like myself advocate open borders and not prosecuting future illegal entrants is, frankly, insulting. We have a problem that we need to fix, and fix permanently. To the extent the “no amnesty” group is succeeding in pulling candidates to a “no citizenship” stance, it’s useful. Beyond that, I have my doubts. Such an unreasonable demand will simply never be met.

[central_va]

The problem goes away if the laws on the books were enforced. No amnesty, all illegals will self deport if economic life lines are cut. The will go home the same way they got here.

All any candidate has to say he is for enforcement.

[glennaro]

In my world NOT ONE PERSON who is here illegally would ever be able to become a US CITIZEN. Nor should they be allowed to receive public entitlements or vote

Well said ... and 100% in opposition to the Democrat Socialist Party position and only slightly less so to the U.S. Chamber's/GOPE's shared position.

[Norseman]

>>No amnesty, all illegals will self deport if economic life lines are cut.<<

You’re of course correct that enforcement of labor laws will result in a lot of illegals returning home, but there are at least two issues you overlook:

First, there are inevitably going to be cases where kids brought here illegally have grown up here and become productive residents, although not citizens. This feels to them like their country because it’s all they’ve known. Any solution to this mess will consider them, whether you agree with it or not, and any candidate you will be given the opportunity to vote for is going to feel the same.

Second, although you might disagree, it’s unrealistic to think that we don’t need some foreign labor in this country today. What we need to do is make it legal labor instead of illegal labor. What purpose does it serve to send those back home that are here now voluntarily, and illegally, only to turn around and encourage an equal number to return with green cards? Just issue green cards to those already here of their own accord. At least then we know who they are and where they are.

And if you want the law to read that each of those new green cards have stamped on it “Will never, ever, be eligible for U.S. citizenship” that’s fine with me.

We just need to straighten out the immigration mess that’s occurred under both GOP and Dem administrations and proceed legally from then on.

[Norseman]

Not well said at all, for one reason: There really are some people in this country illegally who both want, and should be considered for, full citizenship at some point. The most obvious case is the productive adult who was brought here as a young child long ago and knows no other country as his home, but I suppose other examples could be cited as well.

While you might feel justified somehow in returning such a person to his “home” country, or more accurately, kicking him out of the only home he’s ever known, most people would disagree with you and you would be committing political suicide to take such a position as a candidate (which is why you can’t find any candidates doing so.)

Drop the absolutism, however, and you probably have a winning political stance, as illustrated by how the present candidates are heading in that direction, dropping any previous positions where they thought a pathway to citizenship was a good idea. In most cases, it’s not; just not in all cases.

[glennaro]

Good points all ... I just have a problem getting past the word “illegal” ... but absolutes don’t prevail in politics (unless you’re on the Left).