Posted on 11/27/2011 6:51:43 PM PST by TitansAFC
Jeez, Cain said THAT?
In that case, I’m voting for Obama.
/SARC
LOL! True!
buzzzz—WRONG ANSWER
Are you kidding? We are not loony nuts who think immigration is a states issue or states rights issue. Cain certainly is that looney nut. I hope you are not supporting his policy position on this issue, but just defending him.
Good point.
OMG...best laugh I’ve had in days! LOL!!!
that sounds good...no jobs and most will return home.
Rick Perry also overdid states’ rights, even delegating powers that should be reserved to the people to the state. Maybe Cain thinks we can let the states sign foreign treaties and go to war on their own too?
Texas invades Nicaragua...... California invades Utah...
No comprehende!
Stop what a BSer..
yes...Cain needs to read Judge Blackburn’s ruling on AL56 to understand.
Opinions, opinions. He correctly identified the pathway to citizenship he talks about is the one that currently exists as law. Why create something new when we already have the laws, that are not being enforced, to be enforced and everyone must abide by them. Crowley tried to change it to the perceived liberal/RINO wisdom as something new. He corrected her again by being specific in countering her insinuation that it was only what the current laws provide for ANY immigrant wanting to become a citizen.
For you Newties, I defended what he said and even further clarified the issue and I will do the same for Cain and any other candidate with the exception of Bachmann. She said one thing on September 7th that was almost entirely the same as Newt said in the last debate. Then her campaign came out before the debate was over with an issue statement calling his comments as amnesty.
So how about everyone who is honestly trying to be objective, do it in full context of the Cain interview and not just a few soundbites as the whole story to fit your agendas. By doing so, you are no better than the liberals, Democrats, MSM and the other bottom dwellers determined to make sure we lose this election. But then again, I can interject the hyperbole and say you are really them. Trolls. But that would be disingenuous so I leave it for everyone else to make judgements as to your agendas.
-—”...And you did not see illegals working in restaurants in 1995...”-—
Dumbest thing I’ve heard in weeks.
Wiping tears from my eyes!!! omg! BWWWWWWWWWAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!
Pretty hard to misunderstand that.
A piece-meal approach to the invasion of our country isn't constitutional, and it isn't workable. It's a loony idea, frankly.
And, by the way, the states already have the legitimate power to protect themselves if the general government will not do so, as the Constitution requires. The right to self-defense is intrinsic.
In the case of invasion, the Constitution explicitly acknowledges that.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." - Article I, Section 8.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Never was, never will be.
Where’s Liz and her/his Cain ping list? LOL!
They cant read. Like article 1 section 8.
Not one of them has a clue. NOT ONE!
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
Therefor..immigration is left to the states and naturalization to the feds.
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.