Posted on 10/30/2007 6:04:07 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Wow... and all this time I just thought he was failing to convince me he was a conservative. Pretty clever of him.
Do the real convincing - or are you just a shill.
Governors can't deport anyone. They don't have the power.
Governors can't deport anyone. They don't have the power.
LOL.
Sorry, had life insurance exam this AM. No coffee!
No, the Numbers evaluation was strictly about illegal immigration and they considered EVERY vote he cast when a senator. It’s all in the record. In fact, a few months ago I posted the Numbers evaluation of all the GOP candidates.
You’re right that illegal immigration is his signature issue. But Tom has a 97% rating with the American Conservative Union. He’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, supports a strong national defense, lower taxes, and a smaller less intrusive federal bureaucracy. Compare his record as a conservative with Giuliani’s and Romney’s and you’ll feel much better about him!
Right - he and Hunter are the best of the conservatives - pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, lower taxes, strong national defense, and secure borders defending national sovereignty. And, by the way - it’s interesting now that secure borders is a major campaign issue that these other guys are now trying to beat each other to jump on the band wagon!
NumbersUSA wasn’t rejected on “this site” six months ago because I posted their evaluation of the GOP candidates on illegal immigration. Even the MSM gave them credit for being one of the major factors in defeating the “comprehensive” amnesty bill in June. It’s a non-partisan, non-profit professional congressional voting analysis organization which never endorses candidates. If you don’t like the message don’t shoot the messenger.
Nope, read their website, I did. The grade is for Illegal and legal immigration...sorry...
And how are Fred’s previous statements inconsistent with his new proposed immigration plan?
The NumberUSA item that I posted on FR evaluated the GOP candidates based on their recorded votes on ILLEGAL immigration. sorry.
Yes, it is, and for good reason: both issues are very important. Illegal immigration must be stopped, but our legal immigration policy is insane. We're granting visas to far too many uneducated, unskilled third world peasants simply because they have relatives in the US.
Because they have few marketable skills and little education, most LEGAL immigrants have low incomes, which results in them consuming far more govenment services than they pay for in taxes. That also makes them natural democrats once they eventually become citizens.
NumbersUSA is absolutely correct in docking politicians who support the chain migration policies that perpetuate this madness.
That being said, Thompson, to his credit, has come out against chain migration recently and is supporting reducing legal immigration numbers, as well as keeping out the uneducated low-skill hoards.
His record on immigration as senator hasn't been very good, but as a Romney supporter, I am certainly in no position to fault a man for having a change of heart.
I'll be honest and say that so far, I prefer Thompson on the immigration issue, at least the one he's most recently endorsed. I still support Romney because I think he is better qualified, and he's good on illegal immigration, but I do wish he'd come up with a more specific plan on what he'd do to reform or insane legal immigration policies. So far he's been extremely vague.
My hope is that Thompson will gain some traction in his coming out against chain migration and Romney will follow suit.
I think you make some good points but two things concern me about Fred. First, as you indicate, these are “recent” positions on illegal immigration. Even the RINO’s are now becoming “born again” supporters of secure borders now that it’s a hot issue with the base. Where were they when Tancredo and Hunter were fighting the good fight before it became popular? Second, Thompson is still opposed to stiff penalties against employers who are breaking the law by hiring illegals. This is crucial. If the jobs magnet disappears the illegal invasion will die of attrition. In other words, I’m skeptical about the motives of any politicians who have come belatedly to secure borders now that it’s a paramount issue. Where have they been all these years and what’s their past record?
Look, I'm a Romney supporter too, but we can't escape the fact that our man's positions are also recent. As recently as 2006 he was supporting "path to citizenship" for illegals.
Just about all politicians change their positions on most issues according to the way the political winds blow. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's the way the world works. Our man does it no less than Fred.
But so long as they follow through on their politically-motivated promises, what does it matter that they're not based on conviction? I don't care whether a President Romney or President Thompson curbs illegal immigration and vetoes an amnesty because he really believes it's the right thing or because it's politically expedient. All I care about is that it gets done.
Now you may argue that it's better if he does it out of conviction, because then he'll do it regardless of how the political winds blow. Perhaps, but even there, I don't see much of an advantage. The fact is, without the political winds blowing our way, we can't win this fight even if we are lucky enough to have president who would stick to our side through thick and thin.
Where were they when Tancredo and Hunter were fighting the good fight before it became popular?
There's a reason those two guys, God bless 'em, are destined to spend their whole political careers as congressmen.
Now don't get me wrong. There's a very important place for people like Tancredo and Hunter, and I am very grateful to them for their service to many causes I like. But alas, political reality dictates that people like that almost never make it to higher office.
Second, Thompson is still opposed to stiff penalties against employers who are breaking the law by hiring illegals.
I don't think that's true. Do you have a source?
To answer your closing question first, I’ve heard it from so many sources I thought it was common knowledge that Fred doesn’t want to go after employers who illegally hire illegals. However, I’ll cite just one:
“Thompson said he didn’t favor tougher penalties for businesses who employ illegal workers.” — Atlanta Journal Constitution. October 18, 2007.
Relative to your comment about it being acceptable for candidates to just adapt to current trends with or without conviction, I find that very disturbing. In fact there’s (too much used!) an expression for that: “flip-flopper.” I’m not suggesting that it’s wrong for a politician to change his positions provided it’s based on observation of factually changed realities, maturity, or from genuine conviction. That’s sometimes difficult to discern but I think the best guide is the totality of the candidate’s past public record. I think Romney and some others have a very questionable record on the illegal immigration issue. I’m a Tancredo (Hunter) supporter and I hear it all the time that they “can’t win,” so why bother. I think John McCain gave the best answer to that when he said that “it’s better to lose an election than to lose principles and convictions.” That observation is very apt for conservatives. We’ve chosen the “lesser of two evils” so often that we’ve ended up with RINOs and opportunists who are just liberals-lite, and sometimes not so lite. What’s sometimes preserved is the GOP, not conservatism.
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.