Posted on 07/11/2010 9:32:45 AM PDT by GonzoII
Sarah Palin made an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor last night to test her mettle on one of the biggest issues in the political sphere today: illegal immigrants. Bill O’Reilly grilled her on specifics to finding a solution to the problem and, in her responses, Palin made it very clear that immigration may be the one substantive issue around which she has a tight grip. Palin was adamant that illegal immigrants should not be “rewarded the bad behavior” and continued along in this vein until O’Reilly stopped her, in a very similar manner to how he stopped Univisión anchor Jorge Ramos in a debate earlier this week, and asked for concrete reactions to the problem. Palin responded that she would like all illegal immigrants to register and that, in an ideal situation, “you deport them. you have to get them out of here.”
...snip
Palin then tried to harken back to the days of Ronald Reagan– who was in favor of amnesty– and O’Reilly once again challenged her. “He botched it,” O’Reilly told her. Surprisingly to some, she agreed.
Last night’s segment below:
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Palin is talking about enforcement and amnesty. We need the former and not the latter. Our legal immigration policies are just as destructive to our electoral process as amnesty and the illegals.
You wrongly blame Reagan for the failure of the 1986 IRCA. While at the same time you allow the Democrats led by Ted Kennedy to get off scot-free.
>>>>>By your definition, the Hagel-Martinez and McCain-Kennedy bills were not blanket amnesties either.
No, those are your words, not mine. I'm simply correcting your inaccurate remarks with the truth and not allowing you to get away with revising the Reagan record with a bunch of BS.
LOL. No I blame Reagan and Kennedy for the passage of a flawed bill even if properly enforced. Why was it necessary to legalize [read amnesty] the estimated 4 million illegals if enforcement would work in the future? Why not just implement an enforcement bill and address the problem that way? The bill actually caused a land rush of illegals to get into the country before and immediately after the amnesty bill went into effect. And now we have 12 to 20 million illegals.
I suggest you read the testimony of Rosemary Jenks, NumbersUSA on the Shortfalls of the 1986 Immigration Reform Legislation
No, those are your words, not mine. I'm simply correcting your inaccurate remarks with the truth and not allowing you to get away with revising the Reagan record with a bunch of BS.
I am providing facts not BS. I admired Reagan. I served as part of his Presidential Advance Team on two visits to Rome, one to Bitburg, one to Helsinki and to Berlin. I shook hands with him four different times and treasure the autographed picture he gave me. He was a great man. But he made a serious mistake in signing the 1986 amnesty bill. We must not repeat that mistake again because it will destroy this country.
I work on the immigration issue 7 days a week and have done so for the past four years. I lobby on the Hill and in Richmond. I don't get paid for it. However, I do know the issue far better than you do. Wake up and smell the coffee. This isn't about Reagan, it is about the survival of this country.
“Whenever someone voices a legitimate opinion on Sarah that doesn’t fit the idealized portrait that Sarah Worshippers adhere to - they are called “Palin-haters”.
Personal attacks on her by some in FR match or even exceed the vitriol by the State run media and DemCrap hacks. Some in the RINO on the brain paranoia call her a RINO because she supported some people they don’t like, but conveniently avoid acknowledging that other legit conservatives endorsed the same candidates.
BTW what is the difference between a legitimate opinion and an illegitimate one? Your use of the term “Sarah Worshippers” may qualify you for medical benefits for PDS. I think you will have to agree that Palin has conservatives 10x more energized than the next closest candidate. Those of you that want to criticize her should criticize her positions and how she handles herself with the media. Lay off the personal attacks and who she endorsed. If you don’t, we’ll be ringing your doorbell.
“The whole “she owes him” argument is so sick. Does an abused wife “owe” her husband for anything”
The only thing that is sick is that analogy. Using that disjointed line of thinking, I guess if your significant other supported McCain, you would dump him/her.
I’ll bet that well over 75% of the people that are criticizing her for that are not even Arizona voters. The use of her endorsement of McCain has been run in the ground. It’s now akin to DemCrap talking points. Find a more astute argument.
I agree...
That is reality like it or not...and Sarah is smart enough to know it...
“an end to government services for illegals and the automatic citizenship for children born to illegals in the future.”
Unfortunately, you’ll have to repeal the 14th amendment (not a bad idea since it was not legally ratified to begin with) or supersede it with another amendment. Like it or not the language is:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The language doesn’t say “ all persons legally born in the US” or in any form or fashion exclude the children of illegal aliens. The only good thing about the 14th is that it was used by SCOTUS to apply 2nd to the states, but even that is being Daleyized.
Any new law will have to include removal of the courts jurisdiction by Congress or the courts will legislate from the bench and keep the wets on the dole.
Just need to clear up that subject to the jurisdiction of the USA does not include people who are here illegally. Their jurisdiction for the purposes of citizenship is the country for which their parents are citizens.
“Elimination of birthright citizenship”
As I mentioned in another post, the 14th amendment is not ambiguous about that so it would have to be repealed or superseded by ANOTHER constitutional amendment. Other than omitting stiff fines for employers that hire illegals, much of what you had to say has merit.
Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.
While immigrants (illegal and otherwise) are here, they ARE subject to the jurisdiction where they reside. When they are in Mexico, THEN they are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico. I wish you were right, BUT you are not.
I heard on TV the other day, that the sponser of this amendment stated specifically that this amendment did not apply to illegal aliens. The INS just interprets it differently.
It seems to me that Congress can flesh out the definition of the term jurisdiction to state that such children are not considered under the jurisdiction of the USA for the purpose of citizenship.
The fact that people are under the jurisdiction of USA laws, does not always mean they are citizens. Indians for example, while subject to jurisdiction with respect to USA laws, were not considered citizens, as they were under the tribes jurisdiction with respect to that.
Congress can also propose a constitutional amendment, I really don't care which method is taken as long as it is taken.
You’re wrong. Look up the word “amnesty” in the dictionary.
Get this through your thick skull: Legalization is inevitable. We can either gain from it as Sarah wants or we can allow it to destroy our party. And legal immigration is a hallmark of our country. To even suggest otherwise is down right anti-American.
WTH is that supposed to mean? You're going to come after me if I don't fall in lock-step with Sarah???
Do you people even LISTEN to yourselves? Do you even know what a personal attack is?
Many of them say they hate Obama, yet cannot see they resort to the same tactics as an Obama kool aid drinker.
This isn’t the 1st time or the 1st Palin person to send a vague threat to a poster that doesn’t walk in line. I don’t think the Rudy folks resorted to that.
Anyonee that has misgivings about Palin due to what is her own record is personally attacked and demonized.
Yes. These people get absolutely hysterical if someone says anything against Sarah Palin. They’re going to “ring my doorbell” if I don’t lay off the attacks???
...shaking my head in disbelief.
It appears the “treatment” is spreading. Now alicewonders is attacked.
Elimination of birthright citizenship may require a constitutional amendment or a SCOTUS ruling based on the 14th amendment. It has never been tested in the SCOTUS. Either way, it must be eliminated.
In analyzing the 2007 CIR bill, Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation stated, “The main fiscal impact…will occur through two mechanisms: (1) the grant of amnesty, with accompanying access to Social Security, Medicare and welfare benefits, to 12 million illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly low skilled; and (2) a dramatic increase in chain immigration, which will also be predominantly low skilled. The bottom line is that high school dropouts are extremely expensive to U.S. taxpayers. It does not matter whether the dropout comes from Ohio, Tennessee, or Mexico. It does matter that the Senate immigration bill would increase the future flow of poorly educated immigrants into the U.S. and grant amnesty and access to government benefits to millions of poorly educated illegal aliens already here. Such legislation would inevitably impose huge costs on U.S. taxpayers.”
Heritage research has concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen. Amnesty is forever.
And legal immigration is a hallmark of our country. To even suggest otherwise is down right anti-American.
We need a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration. We take in too many legal immigrants, most of whom are poor, uneducated, and unskilled. 53% of immigrant headed households are on welfare. 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989. Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 309 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.975% (2009 estimate), principally due to immigration.
Immigration, legal and illegal, has had and will continue to have a major and far-reaching impact across a broad spectrum of existential challenges that confront this nation, e.g., national security, the economy/global competitiveness, jobs, health care, taxes, energy independence, education, entitlement reform, law enforcement, social welfare programs, physical infrastructure, the environment, civil liberties, and a continued sense of national identity/shared sense of endeavor. Immigration is the defining issue of our time with enormous implications for the future of this nation and the preservation of our patrimony. Yet, seldom will you hear immigration mentioned by our political and intellectual elites in connection with these challenges.
The Republican Party must take the lead on the initiation of a dialogue with the American people on immigration. The status quo is not an option because the demographic changes wrought by immigration will slowly strangle the Republican Party and an amnesty will just hasten the process putting the final nail in the coffin of this country and the GOP. Americans should have an opportunity to decide whether our immigration policies are to serve the long-term interests of all Americans or the short-term interests of corporate and special (often political, religious and ethnic) interest groups. Legal immigration is a controllable variable that can be adjusted in the national interest if we have the political will to do so. And illegal immigration can be stopped and reversed if we as a nation make a resolute commitment to secure our borders and enforce our existing laws.
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.