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.”
HE IS THE FEDS! IF HE IS ELECTED PRESIDENT HE HAS TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS! IT WOULD BE HIS JOB! THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT DOES!
MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own? (2nd question)
CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?
MORGAN: Why?
CAIN: You’re mixing —
MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.
CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. (answer to second question)
(question one for those following along at home)
MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?
CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —
MORGAN: No circumstances?
CAIN: No circumstances.
MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.
CAIN: They qualify but —
MORGAN: Rape and incest.
CAIN: Rape and incest.
MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.
CAIN: Ask the tricky question.
So Now ? the Newt supporters are for Deportation where before they were against it.... the Mexican 2 Step Dance..
I have said repeatedly Cain is no different than any other candidate concerning immigration, it's just people wanted to believe he was.
Now, who knows how to secure the border with the conviction to do it? Who has the stats to win this election against Obama.
Who is provably the best in gun rights?
Who is provably the best on abortion?
Who is provably the best on job creation?
Who is provably the best on Israel?
Who is ex-military?
Who is continually proposing bold changes to Washington?
Who is provably willing to take on the responsibility of leading as an executive?
Who is suing the EPA?
Who is backing the state of Arizona against the attack from the Feds.
Come on people, it's Rick Perry.
This election will be about stats and job creation. That is it. Perry has those, no one else does.
First, it isn't an 'invasion', it's a migration. An invasion would be a foreign military attacking on American soil.
Secondly, the Constitution does not give the feds the ability to arbitrarily patrol the borders, only to establish ports of entry for the purpose of collecting taxes.
The first part of this clause:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
simply prevents the feds from favoring one State over another should there be an attack on American soil.
The possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government in affording it's protection to one part of the union in preference to another, which may be invaded at the same time, seems to be provided against, by that part of this clause which guarantees such protection to each of them. So that every state which may be invaded must be protected by the united force of the confederacy.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
-------
Conservatives constantly complain about overweening federal power, yet they cling to this clause as if it suddenly bestowed a carte blanche power on the feds....it does not.
The general rule was that the States were to protect themselves and call for federal assistance only if needed.
Giving the feds authority over denizens that reside in the States is not only unconstitutional, but suicidal as well.
-----
Again, Cain is right.
The only way to properly deal with unwanted visitors is to let the States decide if they want them there, and if not, to toss them out.
Newts plan is more big government more government employees empower government. And it is spelled amnesty.
His point "secure the border for real" is silly since he doesn't even know where to start and has basically taken Perry's thought out, planned out, border security plan and bungled it into and inarticulate catch phrase.
Cain doesn't seem to grasp, whether it's abortion or the border, that he is President and he is the Feds. It's called leadership.
His terrible states rights position seem like a bad attempt to steal issues and that he doesn't understand.
I know you don't care for Perry but it seems clear he has the plan with the most conviction behind it.
His campaign staff sucks! I would love to see his cabinet if elected POTUS!--not.
We need experience in the WH to follow what's there now!
Leaving aside for now what he means by "empower" (lovely word!) -- Mr. Cain is running for president. He would like to be the leader of the federal government. Therefore whatever the federal government is not doing now, we may presume he would have it doing that.
Would you say that's a logical assumption?
But if Cain became POTUS, he'd be leader of the fed govt. Why isn't he saying he'll just make the fed govt enforce the fed laws?
Ah, that’s January of 2013, not 2012. But yes, if Cain acquired the position of leader of the fed govt, presumably we wouldn’t need to involve states. He says he’s for enforcing the current law, yet there’s a lot of current law, he won’t be specific. Does he mean he’d go after every illegal and deport them regardless of individual circumstances?
Why can’t anyone pin down Mr. Fog Machine?
Because he’s just making this stuff up on the fly. Every time he gives an interview his supporters have to go into full spin mode to try to explain that he didn’t mean what he said.
I TRIED!
clear as mud!
I believe that was his intent. The "states rights" cop-out is really old. He'd be the head of the fed govt, why fob it off on the states?
I have concluded that Cain's approach to all pointed questions is to befog the interviewer and provide a heap of undifferentiated parts of speech for listeners to pick over like necromancers reading sheep entrails.
When he announced his run for president, one of the very first things he said was:
SHUCKY DUCKY!!!
His interview style seems to be what he was christening there.
FWIW, according to wiki, "shuck" is Af-Am vernacular for fraud, phony, scam, hoax.
Then that state gets a serious cut in federal funding. What branch/arm/whatever of the federal government do you want to empower to roam the entirety of this country to hunt down, arrest, and deport illegals? Right now none of them can do it, so the power currently does and always will reside with the states. If you think the FedGov can and should do this job, you’re delusional.
Of course Cain would enforce it while he is in charge. But it seems to me that he doesn’t presume to believe that he will be able to ride herd on every single immigration enforcer in the whole federal system. And he doesn’t presume to believe that he would be President forever, or that he would be totally invulnerable to corruption himself.
And that is the thing that is appealing to me about what Cain said. If I’m understanding him correctly, he is saying that the people need to have a way of holding a lawless federal government in check between elections, and state law enforcement officials can be the advocate for the people, to ensure that the feds are held accountable to obey the rule of law.
IOW - FOR ONCE, after spending the last 3 years with all the courts, media, law enforcement, and so-called conservatives telling us all that the rule of law is none of our dang business because we are the little peons whose only power is to decide which lawless, unaccountable politician we elect every four years.... we FINALLY have somebody who recognizes that him being President is not going to automatically fix everything in the federal system. We have somebody who recognizes that ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.
That is the biggest thing I am looking for in a Presidential candidate, because nothing is going to get fixed for real until we recognize that the people have to have a way to keep government accountable to the rule of the law. That is the most critical issue of all, because until we have that avenue, it doesn’t matter one bit what Congress passes and POTUS signs - because they will all just do what they want to do anyway, while we have NOBODY to be an advocate for the rule of law.
Herman Cain isn’t looking to be the sole solution to the immigration situation because he knows he is not going to be POTUS forever and he knows that even he himself is fallible. At least that’s what it seems like to me. We’ll see how he responds to the criticism that’s sure to come. But at this point what he said is, to me, a breath of fresh air because he seems to get it.
It could be that Perry also gets it. I did see that he supported AZ 1070 so maybe he also believes that the states should be able to make sure that current federal law gets obeyed. If so, fantastic.
spell “dishonesty in posting’
you live for bashing Newt.
I still have never seen your explanation of which candidate has which better fleshed out positions on ANY issue and, also, how they would defeat obama.
go ahead. Give us the benefit of your expertise. We’re waiting with baited breath - (not.)
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.