Q&A with Ken Blackwell, Candidate for GOP Chairman

CNSNews.com ^ | January 5, 2009 | Penny Starr

[St. Louis Conservative]

(CNSNews.com) - Former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who is running for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, told CNSNews.com in an interview that he hopes to revitalize the grassroots of the party in all 50 states.

A longtime conservative activist, Blackwell served as mayor of Cincinnati as well as Ohio state treasurer and secretary of state of Ohio. He was the first African American to win statewide executive office in Ohio, and, in 2006, was the first African American to be a major party-candidate for governor in that state.

He is currently a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, chairman of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority and a commentator for Townhall.com.

He was vice chairman of the platform committee at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

A lifelong resident of Cincinnati, Blackwell has been married to his wife, Rosa, for 39 years. She recently retired as the superintendent of Cincinnati Public Schools.

[wk4bush2004]

I like his pro-life and pro-marriage positions!

[kabar]

What is your solution for the 12 million people who are here illegally?

Blackwell: First, I think what we have to do first is stop the bleeding, meaning protect our borders. We then must have a reasonable--within the construct of our budgetary limits--have a program that basically says we will go after illegal immigrants, particularly those we suspect are engaged in criminal activity and we will prosecute and deport them. We then will have a system that puts folks who have come here illegally but haven’t engaged in criminal activity at the back of the line. So, the message we must continue to send is that we will strengthen, at every turn, the rule of law.

Bad answer.

[CPT Clay]

says you

[St. Louis Conservative]

I think Ken’s answer is pretty reasonable, personally. We’re not going to deport 12 million people.

[Al B.]

Forcible deportation of 12 million people ain't gonna happen. We can encourage them to leave which Blackwell's approach seems to do.

Fanciful notions (in the form of formal party positions by the GOP) that we will force these people out of the country is a recipe for political disaster far worse than we already have on our hands. Even solid conservatives like Blackwell understand that.

[Will88]

at the back of the line.

At the back of what line? That's been a popular phrase since the immigration debates became heated a couple of years ago. But just where is that line the illegal aliens must go to the back of?

I'm afraid this is a mealy mouthed, chickenpoop phrase used to sound as if something substantial has been said when, in reality, nothing has been said.

Are all the illegal aliens going back home, to get in line in their home countries, and wait until they can make it to the front of the line of all those who've applied to come to the US legally. If so, they'll never make it back to the US.

Or, is that line right here is the US, and all the illegals will do is become legal, continue their lives as normal, and be given preferential treatment by being put on a path to citizenship that will simply take a few years longer than if they really were taking the legal route from the start.

Disappointed to hear Blackwell mealy mouthing like so many other politicians.

[kabar]

Attrition thru enforcement is the answer. It works. You don’t reward illegal behavior by allowing those who broke the law entering our country, committing ID theft, and other crimes to remain here. They are not getting to the “back of the line,” they are getting to the head of line.

[kabar]

I am a conservative who is an grassroots activist in the immigration movement. Blackwell’s answer is unsatisfactory. It is similar to McCain’s position and all of the other amnesty types. If you allow those who broke our laws to remain here by legalizing their status, that is amnesty.

[kabar]

Immigration Enforcement? Yes, We Can!

"What to do about illegal immigration? Too many people are paralyzed by the magnitude of the problem, and figure that since we can’t deport them all, we’ll have to bite the bullet and let them all stay legally — i.e., give them amnesty.

But this is a digital (on-or-off, one-or-zero) approach to an analog problem. Our goal should not be a magical solution that eliminates illegal immigration, but rather a real-world solution that reduces it over time.

This approach — which has come to be called “attrition through enforcement” — involves a program of consistent, comprehensive application of the immigration law (something we have never attempted), not only at the borders, but also at our consulates overseas and at worksites and elsewhere inside the country. The aim is to reduce the number of foreigners sneaking in to the country (or overstaying visas) and at the same time increase the number of illegal immigrants already here who go home — some forcibly through deportation, but most voluntarily, through what might be called self-deportation. By engineering a steady decrease in the total number of illegal aliens, instead of the continual annual increases we’ve permitted over the past two decades, we can back out of a problem that has taken many years to develop.

[BufordP]

ping

[AuntB]

Translation: AMNESTY

Why can’t we have a conservative to head the GOP?

Nevermind...because the GOP doesn’t want one!

[Will88]

It is similar to McCain’s position and all of the other amnesty types.

I think it is the McCain position, but instead of arguing whether or not amnesty is being granted, the argument would be whether the illegals were really going to the back of the line.

Same old nonsense we heard from McCain, just a different meaningless term to debate.

[kabar]

What is disturbing to me is that David Keene, head of the ACU, is supporting Blackwell.

[kabar]

I think it is the McCain position, but instead of arguing whether or not amnesty is being granted, the argument would be whether the illegals were really going to the back of the line.

I think it is very relevant. McCain and Obama have said that their plans are not amnesty, i.e., the illegals would have to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship. This is Orwellian use of the language in order to fool the American people who are against amnesty. The use of the "A" word hurts their efforts. We must use it to define what "getting to the back of the line" really means.

[Sybeck1]

I wonder how different his answer to this question might be compared to Mike Duncan? Probably no big difference.

[kabar]

Of course that is the problem. Our current legal immigration policies will ensure that the Dems are the permanent majority party for generations to come and will lead to the destruction of this country as we know it. Demography is destiny. Any amnesty will just hasten the process.

[gubamyster]

ping

[rmlew]

What exactly does " We then will have a system that puts folks who have come here illegally but haven’t engaged in criminal activity at the back of the line." mean?
If it means, we will force them to leave the country, allow them to apply for re-entry, and place their proposals behind those who have never broken our laws, that's great.
If it means, they remain in the US, and their applications for greencards are placed at the end of the pile, what is the benefit over out current system?

Blackwell's statement can be read either way. We need clarification.

[kabar]

We know what “back of the line” means just like we know what “undocumented workers” means. When Blackwell makes a distinction between “folks who have come here illegally but haven’t engaged in criminal activity” and the criminals, it is patently obvious what he means.