Confirmed: The Huckabee Immigration Plan Does Not Have A Touchback Provision In It

Right Wing News ^ | December 21, 2007 | John Hawkins

[keepitreal]

For what it’s worth:

Wednesday, 09 January 2008

National Deception: Mike Huckabee and Jim Gilchrist Lie To America

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Minuteman Co-Founder Jim Gilchrist have been documented lying to America by the Washington Times today after false headlines ran on Tuesday proclaiming Mike Huckabee would try to remove birthright citizenship from the Constitution.

The article confirms that Huckabee lied on CNN about his campaign being contacted about Gilchrist’s false statements and Gilchrist lied in a release about Huckabee’s immigration stances.

Gilchrist put out a press release on Iowa’s election eve, under the fake name of “Perry Emerson” that contained several false statements and embellishments of Huckabee’s immigration stances. The release claimed Huckabee would try to reverse birthright citizenship laws, which are widely exploited by illegal aliens.
We are doing our best to get the truth about these lies, and the hidden amnesty component of the Huckabee immigration plan to the public,” says William Gheen of ALIPAC. “So far, the majority of the national media is not reporting these facts and voters wonder why they are hearing the news from us instead of CNN and Fox. This is a grand national deception in motion and it is absolutely blasphemous that voters are being deceived on a massive scale.”

ALIPAC launched a campaign to warn voters about Huckabee’s statements on Fox News on Dec. 9 2007, where Huckabee stated illegal aliens could leave the US and return within days permanently and legally. This information was only reported once on Fox and is not included in Huckabee’s distributed immigration plan. The national media is not telling voters that over 84 immigration enforcement organizations, including multiple Minuteman groups, have rebuked Gilchrist’s endorsement of Huckabee.

“When lies of this scale go unchecked by the media, it is no wonder that our nation is in such great peril today,” said William Gheen. “The Huckabee and Gilchrist immigration deception is a national disaster in motion that will have far reaching negative ramifications for America. Mike Huckabee and Jim Gilchrist are successfully deceiving American voters and they must be exposed and stopped.”

Jim Gilchrist’s fake name false info press release about Huckabee

HUCKABEE VIDEO! ILLEGALS COME BACK IN A DAY!

84 Immigration Enforcement Leaders Rebuke Gilchrist Endorsement of Huckabee!

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC

http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/national-deception-mike-huckabee-and-jim-gilchrist-lie-to-am.html

[FreeReign]

It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home. But that pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.

The above Huckster plan is a work visa amnesty.

The correct way of doing it is for them to go back to their country, apply for a work visa and then they should wait their turn in the visa line.

What the Huckster is describing is line-jumping work visa amnesty.

[cinives]

So tell me again why we want everyone who wants to come here, to come here ?

I really don’t want this country to lose its character thru allowing in millions of immigrants, legal or not, each year.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>It shouldn’t take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders. You don’t have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home. But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce.<<

It sounds like amnesty.

So you don’t believe the interpretation from the Huckabee staffer in the article, “....Huckabee was moving on from talking about amnesty into talking about how his plan will deal with speeding up the legal immigration process. That’s the last part of the 9th plank of his plan....”

After all the lies that pro-amnesty politicians have thrown at us, it’s hard not to be skeptical. And even if we was talking about legal immigration, as I said above, processing visas in a hurry is unrealistic and dangerous.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>So tell me again why we want everyone who wants to come here, to come here ?<<

I don’t want “everyone who wants to come here” to get in. Some, yes. Everyone, no. And we need to be more careful about who does come in.

[Norseman]

>>”We don’t need more legal immigrants, we need less.”<<

Ah, finally someone concedes the real point to all the immigrant bashing on this forum. (I know, you all love immigrants....it’s the system you’re disgusted with....trouble is, too many of you sound like kabar and Sean Hannity as you explain yourselves, whether you mean it to come out that way or not.)

What we actually need are less illegals and a lot more legals. You think the housing market sucks now? Watch what happens if you kick out 12-20 million working people and don’t let any back in via legal means. On the other hand, if you’ve got a huge investment in produce, it should be rising in price quite nicely.

And the next election? After Republicans make it clear they don’t even want all the legal immigrants we currently have (per your post, kabar), we can pretty much write off a Republican majority for oh, say, fifty or sixty years.

I’m serious, by the way. I’ve only heard three national Republican figures frame the discussion of how to solve the border problem in terms that will be acceptable to the growing Hispanic population: Bill Kristol, George Bush and Mike Huckabee. The rest will condemn Republicans to minority status for the duration. Pete Wilson did it for California, so we already forfeit 20% of the votes in the electoral college each election. Why not go for 100%?

We need less legal immigrants? Sheesh...glad you weren’t in control when my great-grandparents came over (seven of the eight were legal immigrants.)

[kabar]

What we actually need are less illegals and a lot more legals. You think the housing market sucks now? Watch what happens if you kick out 12-20 million working people and don’t let any back in via legal means. On the other hand, if you’ve got a huge investment in produce, it should be rising in price quite nicely.

If you want an America of almost half a billion people by 2050, you can keep the same immigration policies. I suggest you educate yourself about the subject and move away from this myopic view that we need over a million legal immigrants a year. Here are some materials that contain real data, not emotional rhetoric. I am not suggesting ending all immigration, just reducing it to 300,000 a year. And we should move away from a kinship based system to a merit system.

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. If immigration continues at current levels, the nation’s population will increase from 301 million today to 468 million in 2060 — a 167 million (56 percent) increase. Immigrants plus their descendents will account for 105 million (63 percent) of the increase. The total projected growth of 167 million is equal to the combined populations of Great Britain, France, and Spain. The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to 13 additional New York Cities. If the annual level of net immigration was reduced to 300,000, future immigration would add 25 million people to the population by 2060, 80 million fewer than the current level of immigration would add.

Immigrants in the United States, 2007 A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population:The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007. Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. verall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal. Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts by Robert E. Rector:Today’s immigrants differ greatly from historic immigrant populations. Prior to 1960, immigrants to the U.S. had education levels that were similar to those of the non-immigrant workforce and earned wages that were, on aver­age, higher than those of non-immigrant workers. Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population. Recent immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum.

We need less legal immigrants? Sheesh...glad you weren’t in control when my great-grandparents came over (seven of the eight were legal immigrants.)

My wife is an immigrant and so was my paternal grandmother. You seem to believe that what is happening today is normal and historically consistent. You couldn't be more wrong. Within a decade, one in seven residents of this country will be foreign born, the highest in our history!!!

[festus]

Huckabee is an open borders freak!!

And a tax raising freak

And a socialized medicine freak

And a "trust the bad guys" freak ( which works well with Al Qaeda /sarc )

[stephenjohnbanker]

BTTT

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>Ah, finally someone concedes the real point to all the immigrant bashing on this forum.<<

“...immigrant bashing...” Nice politically correct language. You might be happier on a La Raza website than FR. Just because a person thinks the quotas may be too high doesn’t mean that person is (racist/xenophobe/bigot... pick your term).

>>After Republicans make it clear they don’t even want all the legal immigrants we currently have (per your post, kabar), we can pretty much write off a Republican majority for oh, say, fifty or sixty years.<<

There are a lot of people in this coutry who don’t agree with the Bill Gates’s idea that there should be no limits at all on legal immigration, nor with companies that do not want to hire legal workers. Kabar didn’t say we should not have any legal immigrants.

>>I’ve only heard three national Republican figures frame the discussion of how to solve the border problem in terms that will be acceptable to the growing Hispanic population<<

Oh, there are lots of RINOs who will pander to illegals, er, I mean, “frame the discussion of how to solve the border problem in terms that will be acceptable to the growing Hispanic population.” Either you haven’t been paying attention, or Trent Lott and McCain aren’t pro-Raza enough for you.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>My wife is an immigrant ....<<

Mine too.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

"nor with companies that do not want to hire legal workers US citizens." What I said was correct but not what I intended.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Do you think “Norseman” is Dane?

[Norseman]

>>”If you want an America of almost half a billion people by 2050, you can keep the same immigration policies.”<<

Sorry, but you’re assuming what I want. I’d prefer you let me tell you what I want. What I don’t want is a Republican party that takes the position that we don’t want any more LEGAL immigrants because we already have too many LEGAL immigrants, which is what you specifically said in your previous post. I disagree, and think your position is not only disgraceful, but a real loser politically.

>>”You seem to believe that what is happening today is normal and historically consistent. You couldn’t be more wrong. “<<

Again, you assume you know what I believe and then proceed to tell me I’m wrong. You also assume that I agree with our present border policy, which is absolutely incorrect. All you’re doing by putting your words in my mouth is arguing with yourself. Try actually asking me what I think before teeing off next time.

[kabar]

Sorry, but you’re assuming what I want. I’d prefer you let me tell you what I want. What I don’t want is a Republican party that takes the position that we don’t want any more LEGAL immigrants because we already have too many LEGAL immigrants, which is what you specifically said in your previous post. I disagree, and think your position is not only disgraceful, but a real loser politically.

I never said that I wanted to eliminate all legal immigration. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Again, you assume you know what I believe and then proceed to tell me I’m wrong. You also assume that I agree with our present border policy, which is absolutely incorrect. All you’re doing by putting your words in my mouth is arguing with yourself. Try actually asking me what I think before teeing off next time

LOL. I can see from your response that you didn't read any of the links I provided to you. You prefer name calling and emotion to rationale discourse on facts and data.

[Norseman]

>>”“...immigrant bashing...” Nice politically correct language. You might be happier on a La Raza website than FR. Just because a person thinks the quotas may be too high doesn’t mean that person is (racist/xenophobe/bigot... pick your term).”<<

I’m quite happy here, thanks. But seriously, you really don’t think there’s “immigrant bashing” going on here? Give me a break. Kabar actually said we already have too many LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL immigrants! Send them packing, right? My language wasn’t PC; it was accurate. There’s a big difference.

>>”There are a lot of people in this country who don’t agree with the Bill Gates’s idea that there should be no limits at all on legal immigration, nor with companies that do not want to hire legal workers. Kabar didn’t say we should not have any legal immigrants.”<<

So, are you putting Bill Gates’ words in my mouth too? I doubt that 1% of the country would agree with that position, including most LEGAL immigrants. Kabar DID say that we already had too many LEGAL immigrants. That’s pathetic, and those ARE my words, so you don’t need to make more up for me.

>>”Oh, there are lots of RINOs who will pander to illegals, er, I mean, “frame the discussion of how to solve the border problem in terms that will be acceptable to the growing Hispanic population.” Either you haven’t been paying attention, or Trent Lott and McCain aren’t pro-Raza enough for you.”<<

I actually said: “I’ve only heard three national Republican figures frame the discussion of how to solve the border problem in terms that will be acceptable to the growing Hispanic population.” Implicit in that statement is that they actually SOLVE the problem.

You seem to think that anyone that disagrees with the anti-immigrant rhetoric in here must be in favor of blanket amnesty. I’m not, and I suspect my position is close to the consensus position in here. What I object to is the rhetoric. We WILL lose the Hispanic vote for decades if we’re not careful. Hannity has already done enough damage.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>But seriously, you really don’t think there’s “immigrant bashing” going on here? Give me a break. Kabar actually said we already have too many LEGAL immigrants. LEGAL immigrants! Send them packing, right? My language wasn’t PC; it was accurate. There’s a big difference.<<

In your mind, what you say is "accurate," but it is really a difference of opinion. Saying that the position that our immigration quotas are too high (and consequently the number of legal immigrants is too high), in my opinion, is not "immigrant bashing." Every nation in the world has its immigration policies, and as citizens we have a right to try to influence our government to change its policy.

If kabar said something like "All legal immigrants are scum," I would agree that he would be an "immigrant basher." I think it's likely that some posters have made comments like that on FR, but I have not seen kabar do so.

Bill Kristol, George Bush and Mike Huckabee. (Do you want to throw in Ted Kennedy too?) I don't know what Kristol's position is, but if it is similar to Huckabee and Bush, I don't think there is any way in hell he would solve our immigration problems, although I'll bet his solution would be "acceptable" at least to the open-borders faction of the "growing Hispanic population."

Bush has pushed and lied to us about amnesty so often that he and his RINO buddies may have doomed the Republican party.

Huckabee said something on Fox News Sunday on Dec. 9 that sounds like he is contradicting himself on amnesty in a shorter span of time than Hillary's infamous "licenses for illegals" screwup:

"You don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway that gets you back home. But that pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce."

So two of your immigration policy heroes are, in my view, untrustworthy (to put it kindly).

>>You seem to think that anyone that disagrees with the anti-immigrant rhetoric in here must be in favor of blanket amnesty. I’m not....<<

The way you express yourself using "anti-immigrant rhetoric" makes me wonder what you mean by the phrase "blanket amnesty."

I have seen posters here say things like "Last year's Comprehensive Immigration was not actually amnesty."

Compare "I take suckers' money when they play my 3-card monte game, but I don't actually swindle them."

>>What I object to is the rhetoric. We WILL lose the Hispanic vote for decades if we’re not careful. Hannity has already done enough damage.<<

What did Hannity say? There are a few posters here who go over the line, but you will find a few extreme voices in any group. We will also lose some votes from Americans who lose their jobs if we are too loose on immigration.