May 2011: Tancredo says "Ron Paul now supports amnesty" [Gingrich plan copies Paul's)

World Net Daily ^ | May 14, 2011 | Tom Tancredo

[Notwithstanding]

Unfortunately, it appears that Paul's views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp. ... Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require "splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades." ... As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not. According to Paul, deporting such people would be "incompatible with human rights."...So if we can't enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, "Maybe a 'green card' with an asterisk could be issued." This "asterisk" would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate "automatic citizenship." Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty. I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.

[Notwithstanding]

Gingrich and Paul seem to have very similar views on immigration. In fact, Gingrich's recent debate statements seem to pulled from Paul's own statements, including Paul's 2011 book.

You can read Ron Paul's statements on immigration issues here: http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

[RC2]

I have to disagree with your statement about Newt. He simply wants to open serious discussion about illegals. Putting it off will only increase the problem.

[Uri’el-2012]

Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require "splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades." .

When we convict someone of a crime
and send them to Jail,
are we breaking up a family ?

Fatuous logic !

[Venturer]

I can tell you right now that deporting ilegals who have been here for years isn’t going to happen.

We can cry, and moand and scream our heads off, but they are not going to be deported.

If we can get rid of the criminal element and close the borders that is about the best we can hope for.

Catch a drunk driver that is illegal he should be gone even if he has 50 years here.Criminal offenses, the same.Anyone who thinks any of these candidates is going to deport long time illegals is dreaming.
Even if a president wanted to he couldn’t do it. The Congress won’t let him. A Republican led congress won’t do it. Ity aint going to happen.

Getting rid of Obamacare and closing the border is my main objective in voting for a candidate.

[napscoordinator]

Oh Lord. He didn't say that during this alien lover speech. He didn't say anything about having an open discussion. He said that if you are here 25 years and have a family we cannot send them back because that would be against family values. As if this chump can talk about family values. Hypocrite. Anyway, I really wish he would do something about the double chin. He was on TV today and it looked ridiculous.

[bigbob]

I must be heartless because I don’t have a problem with “splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades.”

They have lived here illegally for decades. Not to conflate the two, but when people who are wanted for crimes committed years ago are identified, they’re required to face justice. Is being forced to face the consequences of coming to this country illegally that much different?

I realize as a practical matter it’s probably not ever going to happen, but I can’t understand why we would ignore, or even do things that minimize or reward prior illegal acts.

[skeeter]

Since there'll be no mass deportations, how about we just stop rewarding them for breaking our laws. No free medical, no free education, no free food, no vote, no home ownership.

Would that be doable?

[Paperdoll]

How nice to see the name Tancredo again! I wonder who he would endorse for Republican candidate?

[Venturer]

Would that be doable?

I don’t know, but I am sure all for it.

[muawiyah]

Two things ~

FIRST ~ thanks to modern forms of transportation and communication getting deported doesn't break up families.

SECOND THING ~ it's not punishment to get shipped back to Mexico! In fact, that's one of the better places on Earth that any human being can live in.

Most everywhere else is much worse!

[mnehring]

Newt still hasn’t gone as far left as Paul, calling a border fence a Berlin Wall too keep citizens in.

[bigbob]

That’s what I was trying to say. At least no rewards, and ideally some consequences for the previous sins. I’d even be OK with a time limit, like no home ownership for 10 years or something, some kind of penalty short of kicking them out of the country.

Lady Liberty may accept the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but no free cookies for those who don’t follow the rules,

[Notwithstanding]

I posted the Paul stuff not because I think it is true.

I posted it to show how stupid the anti-Newt feeding frenzy is.

I don’t think Paul supports amnesty.

I don’t think Newt supports amnesty.

At present I favor Newt as being a proven conservative fighter, well-vetted, a leader, competent, and electable.

I no longer think that is true of:
Cain due to his melting under the spotlight, of
Bachmann as she doesn’t possess the necessary aura of leadership, and
Santorum because he consistently has trouble attracting support from voters.

Mittens can’t be trusted.

Mittens junior (is it Huntsman?) strikes everyone as a rich kid with nothing better to do than run for governor and president.

Paul is too odd to lead the nation and most of his sound bite solutions are not plausible.

And Johnson makes penis jokes on television (”Do I have a grip on this DICK?”) while running for president (he repeated the joke several times while on Red Eye on Nov. 17, 2011). What do you expect from a Johnson?

[org.whodat]

As if paul was a serious person.

[Notwithstanding]

I don’t think Paul is a serious person.
I simply don’t like the anti-Newt feeding frenzy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2812264/posts?page=13#13

[org.whodat]

Dang, just add amnesty by a different name, that is what everyone want when they start talking deporting. If they have no jobs, and no government hand out they will go home.

[Uri’el-2012]

It happened under Eisenhower.

It was called "Operation Wetback"

[jpsb]

"I simply don’t like the anti-Newt feeding frenzy."

On illegal immigration it is an entirely self inflicted wound. He saw what happened to Perry when Perry stepped in it. He saw conservatives sit a home rather then vote McCain largely because of this issue. So what does Newt do? Steps right into it and likely loses all the momentum he had going for him. Really stupid Newt, really really stupid.

[PoloSec]

No amnesty is a basic conservative tenet...you are for amnesty in any way, shape or form, you are not a conservative candidate. IMHO

[Olog-hai]

---

When we convict someone of a crime and send them to Jail, are we breaking up a family? Fatuous logic

---

I would have said "tenuous" to be polite, but really, "fallacious" fits best IMHO. Families that think it nothing to break the law are not good families anyhow.