LOL!...missed that, Did you know some(s) Western states...
exported Urban / Street people to the (state of) Hawaii, they
even have a name for some of them...Houseless / not Homeless
....Houseless
Posted on 11/27/2011 6:51:43 PM PST by TitansAFC
Herman Cain indicated today that he does not agree with Newt Gingrich’s position on immigration.
“The way I would deal with those that are already here, which has been my stated position: empower the states to deal with the illegals that are already here, not some, big, grandiose, national one size fit-all. I believe that the states should be empowered to deal with the illegals that are already here,” Cain said CNN’s State of the Union this morning.
In response to whether that meant the states could allow illegal immigrants to “be put on a path toward legalization and toward citizenship,” Cain answered, “It would be up to the states as long as they did not break the federal law.”
But when Crowley used the word “amnesty,” inquiring if that it meant it would be “okay” if the states granted “some sort of amnesty to those who are already living here,” Cain vehemently denied he supported amnesty.
“I’m not saying that at all,” he said
“Secure the border for real,” Cain continued, speaking about what his plan regarding illegal immigrants is. “Promote the path to citizenship that’s already there, and the path to citizenship that’s already there doesn’t say anything about amnesty. Thirdly, enforce the laws that are already there, but make it easier for companies to be able to enforce the laws. And fourth, empower the states. Don’t give the states any special things to do, just empower them to do within the law what the federal government is not doing.”
uh huh.
He’s said a hundred times, to enforce the laws on the books. If need be at the state level without interference from the DOJ.
With respect, that’s erroneous. That power can be delegated by the Attorney General or Homeland Security. Pls see post #168.
” He said he’s not in favor of amnesty. He’s said that all along. He said he’s in favor of the path to citizenship we already have, which has nothing to do with amnesty. “ <<<
Mr. Cain complained about the nomenclature. He called HIS rhumba version something else other than amnesty, and pointedly did not want it referred to as “amnesty”, but “selective something-or-other”, which I can’t remember.
By the Cain supporter standards it was called Amnesty when Rick said it.
Actually, while state control is stupid, the states do have a major stake in what happens. According to FAIR 76% of the money spent on illegals.
My wife is a teachers’ aide and this year she was assigned to the school serving the poorest section of the district. Her main job is teaching second grade Hispanic kids things the other kids knew when they entered kindergarten (e.g. how to tell time).
Illegal immigrants and their children really damage the country.
So are illegal residents. Search "Yick Wo" (versus, I forget whom).
Being realistic, all the candidates are for some form of amnesty, but no one wants to use the “A” word.
I doubt that is what Cain was referring to. But if it was, that is a stupid answer. Arizona had to pass that law because the feds are not doing their job.
But assuming the feds WERE doing their job, we shouldn’t have every state having their own idea of how to handle illegal immigrants, especially like Cain said giving the states the right to decide what if anything to do.
We have enough trouble with sanctuary cities, and now we are going to create sanctuary states? Because you know if you let each state be in charge of deciding whether or not to deport illegals, that’s what is going to happen.
We need the feds deporting illegals. States cannot do it (notwithstanding the rediculous claims made here). States can under current law detain illegals, but they can’t send them home, that’s why states keep begging the feds to take the illegals out of their jails and send them home.
States DO have to handle illegals right now, because they aren’t being deported. So you have individual states setting rules up to try to get the illegals to move on to other states. But that is hardly the CORRECT approach, and it’s rediculous to argue that this is what Cain meant, because it makes him look stupid.
It was the Cain supporters who set the standard for defining Amnesty, when it was Rick Perry. Ruthlessly. Then Newt. Now Cain is on stage saying EXACTLY the same we are witness to the presses being stopped a hard slog through spin and reverse.
Well, that’s because it makes no sense. “Illegal immigrants” means they BROKE the federal law. So it makes no sense to say “it would be up to the states sas long as they did not break the federal law”.
Which is the real problem here — Cain’s answer just doesn’t make sense. Cain really needs to stop re-interpreting the questions asked of him, and just go ahead and answer the actual questions, rather than arguing about it.
Sorry...but...who is Crowley???
If Perry is your guy, I would suggest that Perry would be better served here if certain other freepers were NOT convinced to support him.
Pretty sure I'm here Texas, how's the weather there in the State of Denial where you are?
Yep. Never thought I’d see us get around to where Perry actually has the sanest immigration policy of the bunch.
Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related articles.
Crowley is a fat a$$ female political correspondent on CNN.
Thanks for the link. Here is what he said after the gal was confused by him claiming he had not supported amnesty:
>>>>>>
CAIN: ... because it is a package. Secure the border for real, promote the path to citizenship that’s already there. And the path to citizenship that’s already there doesn’t say anything about amnesty.
Thirdly, enforce the laws that are already there. But make it easier for companies to be able to enforce the laws.
And fourth, empower the states. Don’t give the states any, you know, special things to do. Just empower them to do, within the law, what the federal government is not doing. That’s my approach to the whole issue. CROWLEY: I think I’m a little confused but we want to move on. We’re going to take a quick break and when we come back I’ll move to some other issues of the day. We’ll be right back. >>>>
So what I get from that is
1) secure the border;
2) streamline and make easier the legal path to citizenship already in existence - which is not amnesty but the LEGAL entry of immigrants into the country and into American citizenship (from earlier remarks it seems he is saying it shouldn’t take forever for immigrants to be able to enter the US LEGALLY;
3) enforce (apparently at the federal level) already-existent laws, including making it easier for companies to enforce them, and
4) allow the states to enforce current law regarding illegals already here, when the feds don’t get the job done. Don’t specifically give the states the job or let them set their own policy, but just let them do what has to be done to enforce the current federal law if the feds aren’t getting it done.
That is how I understand what he was saying, based on the entire transcript. The part that SHOULD be quoted in articles is the part where he clarifies - AFTER the gal misunderstood what he first said, assuming that he was wanting states to set their own policy rather than simply being empowered to enforce the current federal policy.
This whole thing really reminds me of the abortion interview, where the context was not given, specifically to make it seem like Cain was saying something totally opposite what he was actually saying. And it worked back then so it seems like they’re still trying to do the same thing. I can understand why the interviewer thought what she did. Cain was smart enough to not let her twist what he said, though, and he clarified it. The trouble is that the people who report it are not reporting what he said when he was clarifying it.
Any bets as to why the media would report the more confusing statement rather than the clarification?
Dumbest thing I’ve heard in weeks.
Saved me from saying it.......Still laughing
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.