Posted on 02/14/2012 9:51:26 AM PST by dangus
Barrack Obama: F-
Ron Paul : D-
Newt Gingrich: D
Mitt Romney: C+
Rick Santorum: A-
Excerpts about Rick's grades STOPPING AMNESTIES Sen. Santorum earned an A+ on stopping amnesties while in Congress. And he has challenged his own Catholic Church leaders as well as other candidates for supporting the legalization of millions of people who have broken immigration laws.
MANDATE E-VERIFY. In 1996, Sen. Santorum voted against creating the program that became E-Verify. But on the campaign trail 15 years later, he has promised to push mandatory verification. He misses an EXCELLENT rating because he continues to talk about there perhaps being a better system that the private sector could run.
OVERALL IMMIGRATION NUMBERS: Sen. Santorum gave mixed signals through 2011 but at the beginning of 2012 he stated directly that overall immigration numbers [N.B.: "Overall immigration numbers," here, refers to legal and quasi-legal immigration] should come down. He misses an EXCELLENT rating because he at this time is advocating only about half the reductions recommended by the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.
END CHAIN MIGRATION: Sen. Santorum had a good chain migration voting record while in Congress and has improved, but not perfected, his stance on this issue. He has made it clear that immigrants should not be allowed to bring in their non-nuclear family, but he has not defined the terms or put forward a plan on how chain migration should be scaled back.
END VISA LOTTERIES: Although Sen. Santorum supported the visa lottery during his time in the Senate, he has since come out against the lottery, even calling it "silly." Santorum receives an Excellent in this category.
LIMIT UNFAIR WORKER COMPETITION: While in Congress, Sen. Santorum worked to bring more foreign workers into the United States and he continued this message early in his campaign. However, he has moderated his stance on foreign workers and has even recognized that economic factors may necessitate reducing the number of foreign workers the United States imports.
END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: [for children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil] Sen. Santorum in 2011 debates has strongly supported building the fence, backing it with sufficient personnel, as well as mentioning the need to stop employers from creating the incentive with jobs.
SUPPORT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT [of immigration law, and deportation processes] Sen. Santorum has come out strong in support of state and local law enforcement agencies that want to help the federal government to enforce immigration laws. For this reason, he receives an Excellent grade.
PUNISH BUSINESS VIOLATORS [who hire illegal aliens] During his time in the United States Senate, Sen. Santorum was not forced to vote on legislation dealing with employers who hire illegal aliens. But during a debate on Sept. 12, 2011, Sen. Santorum said we should enforce existing laws with respect to employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.
Why are we such tough graders? The ratings and grades reflect an urgency about the 22 million Americans who want a job but can't find one (the government's "U-6" unemployment category) and about the federal government continuing to force massive population growth while the nation is unable to meet its infrastructure and environmental goals with the current population size. Refusal to deal with a specific immigration category draws an "Unhelpful" rating. Merely avoiding "bad" immigration positions and drawing an “Unhelpful” in all the categories will result in a “D-minus” grade.
Oops. Two different parapgraphs got combined, losing some content, and creating a strange context:
END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: [for children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil] Unhelpful: During his time in the United States Senate, Sen. Santorum did not take any action on birthright citizenship and has not discussed the issue since leaving the Senate.
SUPPORT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT: Excellent: Sen. Santorum in 2011 debates has strongly supported building the fence, backing it with sufficient personnel, as well as mentioning the need to stop employers from creating the incentive with jobs.
Oops. Two different parapgraphs got combined, losing some content, and creating a strange context:
END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: [for children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil] Unhelpful: During his time in the United States Senate, Sen. Santorum did not take any action on birthright citizenship and has not discussed the issue since leaving the Senate.
SUPPORT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT: Excellent: Sen. Santorum in 2011 debates has strongly supported building the fence, backing it with sufficient personnel, as well as mentioning the need to stop employers from creating the incentive with jobs.
I kinda like the Way Newt handles illegals that have been here for a long time, give them a residency permit (which means they stay and pay taxes, but cannot vote). This would take away power from the demon rat’s “base”.
Basically if you want to stay since you broke such a baisc law by comming here, there are consequences and you cannot vote.
So in essence insteaqd of becomming a citizen, you become a resident alien.
I have one mild disagreement with NumbersUSA. They have a stated goal of reducing overall immigration numbers. I believe such a stated goal is both unnecessary and potentially inflammatory.
If you raise quality standards for accepting immigrants, you avoid the accusations of xenophobia and achieve the same result.
Clearly, their rating system has deep fundamental flaws if they rate Santorum the highest. Obviously they are a bunch of Romney stalking horse, GOP establishment talking point promoting RINOs. < /sarc>
This is a huge issue for me. We need an admin who doesn’t coddle criminals simply because they reproduce.
The pity the grandma thing doesn’t work.
I think their point is to shake up the issue a bit: One of their main themes is that a liberal immigration policy isn’t compassionate, but causes hardship in both countries, the emigrated-from country, and the immigrated-to country. As long as people believe immigration in general is a good thing, they remained inclined to allow some bad (illegal) immigration along with some good immigration; People figure, “Sure, it’s wrong, but it’s good for the economy.”
Numbers counters this by pointing out the ways that immigration is bad for America’s economy, and stifles development oversees. And that’s not their conclusion alone: they use the Barbara Jordan Commission, authorized by the Clinton White House, and the Center for Immigration Studies.
At this point I’m supporting Gingrinch, but will admit that Santorum has staked out far better positions on immigration than any of the other candidates.
Credit to Santorum for that.
>>>I kinda like the Way Newt handles illegals that have been here for a long time, give them a residency permit (which means they stay and pay taxes, but cannot vote). This would take away power from the demon rat’s “base”.
Basically if you want to stay since you broke such a baisc law by comming here, there are consequences and you cannot vote.
So in essence insteaqd of becomming a citizen, you become a resident alien.<<<
The consequences should be deportation at a minimum and perhaps hefty fines and imprisonment prior to deportation.
Why should illegals who have been breaking the law, stealing identities, stealing social services, stealing medical care, evading taxes, etc, for LONGER get a preferential treatment?
If anyting, long-term illegals should be treated more harshly than short-term ones.
Would you go easier on someone who has been committing armed robberies or dealing drugs for 25 years, than you would on somene who has been doing it for only a few months?
Besides that, do you really think that resident aliens, illegal aliens, felons and dead people don’t vote and vote Democrat in huge numbers?
Illegal immigrants are government growth hormone.
If there are 30 million illegals in America, that’s enough to make up nearly 50 new congressional districts (primarily democrat) and all the expenses incurred by them. Anyone who doesn’t work to stop it is a traitor to America.
Well Newt’s plan is certainly a LOT better than Dem-Amnesty that we would get with an Obumma 2nd term.
Santorum:
Voted AGAINST increasing the number of immigration investigators:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00201
VOTED AGAINST HIRING AN ADDITIONAL 1,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS, paid for by reductions in state grants.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00179
VOTED TO GIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00058
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00154
We had at least one chucklehead in the U.S. Senate saying we should award a green card with every U.S. college diploma awarded to a foreigner.
Hello?
The idea that any immigration is a good thing is stupid. The idea that any immigration is a bad thing is equally stupid.
Good to know about this. It’s a big issue for me, and I trust NumbersUSA.
Have you sent this info to NumbersUSA? Just curious if these votes are already factored into Santorum’s score.
Hmmm...and that’s why he broke ranks with the GOP Senators to vote to confirm the Wise Latina, Sonya Sotomayor, as Circuit Court judge?
Too bad his history doesn’t show a tough stand against amnesty.
He’s also pro-unions.
BLECCCH !
ah, e-verify
Can you name the one candidate you listed who can not pass e-verify? Hint, he needs to be removed from the Whitehouse this fall.
When we start hearing about prison for those who ignored immigration enforcement both in federal government and those businesses who employed illegals all these many years, then I will entertain these ridiculous radical measures being piously thrown around against Mexicans and their families.
The problem I have with the bloody rigidity of round up, kick butt, kick out at all costs, language is how oblivious is to thinking or any interest in the whole story.
It’s always the rowdy language of those content to put the entire fault of immigration on the backs of the illegals.
The cause of the mass invasion of Mexicans has been by sheer and open, even begging invitation of your own neighbors, the Feds and American business.
Cash, comfort and eventually even benefits were showered on these people for damn decades, that is if they could survive the trip itself, and now the abuses of physical and sexual assault, robbery and murder, if they would only come and pick that lettuce, and trim those hedges for me, clean that fridge, and at such low pay too! (Chuckle, chuckle, snort.)
The entire cause from the beginning to the end was/is/remains the fault of your trusty government, your neighbor, and Minute Maid, Dole’s Fruit, etc., etc. To lend a monicum of consideration for the facts of the OPEN INVITATION gets you a curse, a poke in the chest, or worse if you’re not on the round up, kick butt, kick out train gang.
For someone to ignore the OPEN INVITATION and cuss the grandmothers for this condition after 30 years of living and working here, whose family was born here, and whose children have kids by now who have likely never even seen Mexico is a circumstance worthy of little consideration. One size fits all won’t even work for a bath robe, and certainly is beneath the concept of applying to a human being.
The feds have scoffed at enforcement for decades, filed it in number thirteen, and thrown away the key to the rules book.
Cry me a river. The perpetrators need to be dealt with before we get foxy on the Mexican, the illegal.
Illegal immigrants are government growth hormone.
You are on a Brilliance roll today, my friend.
Apparently, you know a lot better than the organizations who do nothing but work on this issue. Maybe you should call them up and ask if you could run their group for a while.
Yes, a LOT are complicit in this 21st century indentured servitude and outright slavery for the most vulnerable.
If I were Queen I would spend spend spend for a year or two — on FENCING (whether manned, fenced, electronic surveilled, etc) and CLOSING that border, and on ENFORCING THE HIRING LAWS. I’d put if I had to the National Guard on it. I’d take enough personnel to go around to every factory, home, restaurant, and start fining the employers $1000 a day per employee who did not pass a reasonable background check like E-verify or some such. They will all lose their jobs, and I hate to agree with Romney on this, but YES, they DO self-deport when they can’t find a good life here.
NO MEDICAL OR SCHOOL OR WELFARE PERIOD unless death is imminent, patch em up and send em out. Let police ask suspicius people about their immigration status and REPORT THEM and IMPOUND their cars.
After a couple of years of enforcement, there would be such a small amount of illegals that it would no longer affect our lives as much.
I far prefer to pay more for our teens or just our poor, young, and strong to pick the strawberries than to pay exponentially more for all the kids of illegals in my schools and alleys and hospitals.
And slavery is unspeakable, even if it is the piddle poor care and compensation the factory worker or farm help gets, or the outright slavery of the teen girls tricked into coming here, kept locked up, and taken around to the farm workers to be raped repeatedly.
Political correctness, in its urge to “do right” by minorities, has done the opposite. It has given our poorest “residents” SHANTYTOWNS with no police, little sanitation, and none of America’s promise. Don’t flame me but I have done a lot of research on the early AMerican slavery of Africans — they lived better in many cases than some of these flies-on-dungheaps Mexican shantytowns just outside farm areas in California.
The whole pity the grandma thing is the attitude that has HURT the very people they patronize.
I'm sure he's more believable now than throughout his political career. /s
First of all, there has been no “open invitation”. There has been a lack of political courage and to some extent resources to control illegal immigration, but the fact that these illegals make dangerous crossings, through deserts, often having to pay a coyote a large sum of money to smuggle them in shows that there is no invitation.
Of course there are a certain public officials, businesses and percentage of Americans who have aided and abetted this illegal invasion, but that in no way excuses the illegal activities of illegal aliens, that cause such great harm to the people of our nation.
If a bank teller or security guard takes some cash to assist in a bank robbery, does that mean the bank robbers shouldn’t be punished?
Your grandmother and kids who have never seen Mexico story, is very touching (/sarc) but it is not my problem or my fault, nor the problem or fault of the American taxpayers who are having their wealth and quality of life and children’s futures destroyed by these invaders.
Because these illegals have profitted from their crimes for years, we are some how required to allow them to continue to do so?
Your answer to weak enforcement of immigration laws seems to be “even weaker enforcement”.
I’m all for prosecuting and taking other legal action against the businesses on others that have encouraged and enabled illegal immigration, but the illegals themselves must deported.
Shame on NumbersUSA for not highlighting these changes over time. Is he suddenly more believable on what he says late in the campaign than how he voted?
If you compare the archived page linked above to the ratings in this thread, you'll all notice Santorum is the only candidate to move dramatically in their grade except ... Mitt Romney.
Heck, even Mitt only moved from D to C+.
They look like two peas in an establishment pod from here.
And Newt is on his knees for every pro amnesty group in the country.
“Santorum was RATED F by Numbers USA just a few months ago based on his actual voting record. Shame on NumbersUSA for not highlighting these changes over time. Is he suddenly more believable on what he says late in the campaign than how he voted?”
I haven’t looked back at NumbersUSA earlier records, but I do not doubt for a moment what you say. I don’t know if Santorum is believeable or not on his changed immigration positions; it may be a typical election year conversion on his part for all I know.
I think that NumbersUSA does have a policy of giving office holders the benefit of the doubt when they make a public statement that they are changing positions. Your point is well-taken, however, that it would be more convincing if he had pushed these positions while he was in office.
At any rate, it is beneficial to finally have candidates taking these kinds of positions publicly (even if they are insincere). In the past, it has either been (i) pro-mass immigration positions (Jorge Bush and Juan McCain) or (ii) silence.
Come now, California and the nation could not be seen for all the cash they were rolling in thirty, forty years ago.
It took NO courage of cash when your Federal agents and big business, small business and residents deigned to sign off on employing the illegal housekeeper, nanny and gardener, the field laborers, all knowing full well that enforcement was non-existant and of course that it was acting as a magnet for Mexicans in poverty to answer the clarion call to come, to come and boost our economy and our Anglo contracepted population dwindle.
Thirty, forty years ago there was the wetback who had no need for a coyotte. If he could survive the physical hardship and the river, he and his were in like flint. Those who were around then know it, because they saw it and participated in it. Openly.
Let’s address an evenhanded prescription. Prison for the perpetrators as we yowl for mass deportations for the illegal who answered their call. Neither are going to happen, but for the sake of argument it would recognize the cause for the problem for what it was, rather than dwell on the effect and its results.
Actually, a lot of his bad ratings from then were because he hadn’t spoken about it since leaving the Senate, and they give bad marks unless they get good information.
I assume that since that time, they’ve gotten him to answer questions, and they like the answers he is given.
I went to the July stuff and clicked around and found the reasons for their negative look then, and only a couple of time (like in the “reduce legal immigration”) did they cite legislation as the reason for his bad marks.
Yet he has the best record.
>> Hmmm...and that’s why he broke ranks with the GOP Senators to vote to confirm the Wise Latina, Sonya Sotomayor, as Circuit Court judge? <<
25 Republicans voted for her nomination. He hardly broke ranks.
Santorum's grade as a Senator was a B-, not an F. http://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/683/reportcard/CAREER/
True. Newt is going all in on the open border pandering and amnesty trolling. His grandmother-greencard nonsense is particularly pathetic.
True. Newt’s grandmother-greencard nonsense is particularly pathetic.
Great posts. I wish you were running for President.
This is a major issue for me. Outrageous that Newt plans to give a pass to those who have violated our laws the longest. And he supports this even though he knows it costs him votes.
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.