Posted on 11/22/2011 3:37:12 PM PST by kristinn
Hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, the theme of tonight's Republican presidential debate is foreign policy and national security.
The debate is being held at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C.
CNN is carrying the debate live at 8 p.m. EST.
Participating candidates are: businessman Herman Cain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Reps. Ron Paul (TX) and Michele Bachmann (MN), former Gov. Jon Huntsman, and former Sen. Rick Santorum.
I have to agree, as much as I DETEST illegals coming here, throwing diapers in the parking lots, living 20 to a house, etc, etc.
I DO feel what Newt is saying is that the above types of immigrants, the undesireables — the ones scrambling over to sign up for welfare — THOSE are the ones who will go.
If we keep the ones here 20 years or longer, AND they profess to want to become TRUE Americans ...I would have no problem with that, especially if benefits end to them as well. I refuse to continue, howver, to let them squat here and live off the fat of this land, continuing in their roles as parasites.
But as for the rest. I’m just tired of seeing the benefits doled out. Who cares if your’e poor, destitute — here for the “better life.” NO MORE BENEFITS!! If you want to come here, great — do it legally and work your way up, like every other immigrant from 200 years past. I’m tired of the special treatment .. .the “Latino” vote, etc ...tired of the spanish speaking gibberish and the free translators etc ...tired of all the SPECIAL BENEFITS going to people who have no intention of ever becoming good American citizens. They want to remain citizens of their own nations ...yet they want to live on our soil and they want our money and to be taken care of. That’s who I want out of this country.
I’m hoping to hear Newt being able to articulate the distinction between the two ..and the steps he would take AGGRESSIVELY remove the latter. If he can’t do that, then forget him.
Noob, you point is the antithesis of conservatism. If the law is truly blind, there must be no ditches.
Those that do that are simply afraid their candidate favorite might not make it. I think you're post was thought out rather than simply jumping on the next wagon that jets by on these threads.
The posts I pay attention to are those where they are truly attempting to find the truth about what's being stated about a candidate...and have something informative to say or an opinion which might clarify a candidates statement. Too often just sound bites are used.
Thank you for your post. CW
Its hype.
“Where’s Newts compassion for the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs and would do most of the jobs these illegals now have.
These illegals are taking jobs that most Americans will now do to survive!”
I don’t think Newt was talking tonight about illegal workers. I think he was talking specifically about at some point down the road having to make some decisions about who stays and who goes, and saying that realistically, a person who’s been here 25 years, has children and grandchildren born here (which would make them US citizens), and is an upstanding member of the community, you aren’t going to be able to send people like that home.
He makes a clear distinction here between people like this, and those who have been here only a couple of years and have no real ties to America. In neither case did he address the issue of workers.
Another thing, I believe he said that this is something we would have to deal with AFTER the border is secured.
Now, I’m not a Newt supporter, I lean toward Perry more than anyone at this point, and Newt has said a lot of things in the past that trouble me. But I don’t think what he said tonight was unreasonable. I think good people can disagree on the approach to dealing with this very complex problem, and what Newt suggested, though I’m not sure I totally agree with, is something that’s worth discussing later after the border security issue has been dealt with.
Lol, you totally avoided a simple question:
What is the line people would go to the back of, and where is that line located.
That’s just another favorite bit of dissembling and diversion from folks who want no enforcement of immigration law.
By the way, Cain was the only one to give a straightforward, conservative answer on illegals ...return power to the states to deal with the issue (and we can see that it works), enforce the laws on the books, and secure the border.
We just fail to do each and every one, every time. Perhaps Cain would be the one to actually DO it.
I hate to admit this, but Huntsman makes some sense in saying that the Fed should cooperate with the states on security.
Of course the risk is that it’s the Feds just pushing the states around on rules.
I think Perry makes sense in privatizing this stuff and getting it out of the hands of the Fed.
A history professor may make a good debater and lecturer, but this one has already shown to be a very poor leader. If he couldn't manage to hold on to the House Speaker position for four years, he is ill-equipped to lead a nation. Newt as President would guarantee a repeat of 2008 in 2016.
The border is irrelevent if there are no benefits.
No benes, they leave quickly.
Compare his answer tonight regarding Syria to Romney’s. Cain was not able to speak authoritatively about the details and in fact was reduced to bringing his answer ultimately back to the economy, which he typically does when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
When he was asked about Libya, all he had to say was that we had no national security interest in Libya and congress didn’t approve our presence in Libya. He could then have pointed out that according the liberal media Bush was a cowboy, but at least in the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan there was a defensible case to be made that there existed a U.S. security interest and that congress approved both wars. If little ole me knows that but Cain can rattle it off on the spot then I conclude he is a lightweight.
Now, he is definitely infinitely better than Obama and I think he would make a good President because I don’t question his decision making ability given that he is made aware of the facts. But in order to win, you have to be damn sure that the MSM is not going to have opportunities to ridicule your lack of in depth knowledge. And the overriding concern is to win and be rid of Obama.
Yes, it is.
You make my point. A magnate would probably assume the compliment. A little play on your magnet strategy, there. I accept your point also, in the exact spirit it was delivered. ;)
Perry has said that those who get worker visas coming in illegally go to the back of the line (And they get mapped)
bigdirty
Since Nov 8, 2011....
So you don’t think I’m a conservative.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind telling me why I shouldn’t think that you’re nothing but some gay-blade Troll?
Congrats to Alabama.
One does not have to be anti-illegal... Just Pro-American
If that illegal is doing a job that a qualified American will, give that
job to the American, so he can provide for his American family, pay for his American Home...etc.
I get it, most here do not understand that illegals may start out picking fruits and vegitables, but they quickly move up the food chain taking jobs American families WILL DO, especially NOW.
I agree, Obama is the loser here.
Those who discount this field of republicans are collaborators.
I served with one guy in basic from NH. He was all worried about me gaming the system as I was “Laundry Queen”. I told him to mind his own business or face a very bad laundry event. He shut his damn mouth.
I could care less if Newt turns out to be a poor leader. The ONLY thing that matters to me is choosing the alternative that gives us the best chance of beating Obama. If he turns out to be poor, how does his “poor” compare to Obama so far?
If I thought Bachmann or Santorum’s chances were only slightly less than Newt’s chances of beating Obama, I would go with either of them because while Newt talks a good game, it is tough to trust someone who has been in bed (however temporarily) with both Pelosi and Clinton. In other words, I think his convictions, while well stated, are not as strongly held as Bachmann’s or Santorum’s.
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.