Michele, you %%%.
The title of the article doesn`t match what she said.
If you are looking for amnesty, take a close look at Gingrich`s Red Card Amnesty plan.
Time and time again, Gingrich has teamed with immigration activists like Linda Chavez and Grover Norquist to push for these programs.
Yeah, make it ILLEGAL to hire ILLEGALS with a stiff penalty as well as ILLEGAL to get govt benefits and guess what...they will self-deport..kinda like AZ??????????
Let’s do what the anti-Neuters do... Ill go first.
Michele Bachmann is for amnesty!!!
There is no serious candidate that differs with Perry. He just says it like it is and the others add a little rhumba to the truth of the matter. Basically Perry set the table and the rest are the choir.
How exactly is this breaking news?
Does anyone here at FR or anywhere else in the sane world really believe that someone is gonna be elected president who is then going to deport 11 million people?
The formal debate standard known to those who debated formally as “ought to but not necessarily will’ (aka SHOULD) is very much in play on an issue like this.
Even if they all SHOULD be deported do you believe they WILL be??
Ever??
Really?
Who running for president would deport 11 million people?
And how would they do it?
At gunpoint—like Clinton and Reno did it?
Using cattle cars like uknowwho?
Really?
Can’t we just get our border sealed. (I think Rodney King said that.)
I don’t have a problem with the initial approach offered by Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum and Cain. They are all saying “secure and enforce the border FIRST.” That’s the primary objective.
After that, they all have suggestions for what to do about illegal residents. The least forthcoming candidates out of the five were Santorum, who coyly said, “We can have that discussion” later, about the 12 million already here; and Cain who hasn’t said anything substantive about it since 2007 when he mentioned the temporary worker program and some “reasonable” program for those now here.
Is it amnesty? IANAL, but perhaps illegal residency is a civil rather than a criminal offense; nobody is suggesting they go to jail. Gingrich proposes a fine and possible deportation after review of individual cases, and it would seem senseless for any candidate to say “no review of anyone’s case!” and none has said that.
Even in the case of non-citizens, I do believe that one should be judged as an individual, not collectively. Mitigating circumstances are always a factor in civilized law. I don’t think anyone can disagree on those two points: don’t judge anyone collectively, and don’t refuse to consider individual circumstances.
If there’s to be amnesty, it should not be collective amnesty without regard for individual circumstances; and if there’s to be no amnesty, it should not be collective deportation without regard for individual circumstances.
Review is fair and would have been approved by our Founding Fathers and their ancestors back to the days of the Magna Carta.
If there is not to be review on a case-by-case basis, there will be many instances where justice will be unequal.
Also, when a judge finds you guilty of an offense and tells you to pay a hefty fine rather than go to jail, is that amnesty? Because the penalty is not heavy, is it nothing?
To me, amnesty means saying “They shall not be prosecuted, they shall not be held responsible.” I don’t hear any of these five candidates saying that.
Yet to some here on FR, the proper course is medieval: dispatch them all and let God sort ‘em out!
It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Indeed, I would call it barbaric.
We should sort them out. When all five candidates are asked that directly, I doubt very much that any of them will disagree.
Wait just a minute, hold on to your horses, what you fail to realize is that was all the way back in September, when she said that...so get over it, that was then, and this now, stop living in the past................./s