Posted on 11/22/2011 9:18:40 PM PST by TBBT
“The plan won’t win any Hispanic votes.” The power figure who sponsored the Arizona immigrant bill, Russell Pearce, faced removal with a recall election on Nov. 8th. Votes still to be counted. He was Senate president and the first AZ legislator to ever face recall. (Arizona Central.com) Confirmed removed this week.
Arizonans supported that law by a wide margin. Russell Pearce was apparently from a fairly liberal district and that’s why he was recalled, not because the voters of state didn’t favor the law. They did support it.
You also miss two IMPORTANT points of Cain’s immigration plan.
Enforce the laws on the books (what do the laws call for - deportation)
Empower the states to do what the Federal government won’t do (and Cain supports Arizona SB1070)
It is clear how Cain wants to handle illegal immigrants.
You are trying to hide Newt’s CLEAR support of amnesty tonight, by trying to lump him with Cain.
Illegal entitlement is not an option
Apr 19, 2006
By Herman Cain
The movement to grant amnesty and eventual U.S. citizenship to some 12 million illegal aliens has turned the issue from the sounds of silence to the sounds of entitlement.
The entitlement mentality did not begin in America, but it has flourished here in the last century. The American claim on entitlements to health care, retirement income and seemingly any “right” one can conceive was birthed from the womb of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, reared by Kennedy’s New Frontier and came of age in Johnson’s Great Society. U.S. citizens, fanned by the flames of those who encourage class warfare, are increasing their demands for government-redistributed income and programs that guarantee outcomes, not opportunities. Non-citizens are now voicing the sounds of entitlement to an easy road to citizenship.
The entitlement attitude that has been ingrained in millions of Americans has blinded them to the ineffectiveness and runaway costs of their favorite programs. The fiscal challenge in meeting the future demands of the Medicare and Medicaid programs is well documented, as is the coming bankruptcy of the Social Security system. Yet few elected officials dare to even utter those programs’ names in public for fear of electoral retaliation.
Too many Americans also claim an entitlement to additional health care coverage from their employers. If they do not receive health care as a benefit, they believe the government should mandate it. The Maryland state legislature last year enacted a law requiring companies with over 10,000 employees to contribute 8 percent of total payroll to employees’ health care. The legislature is now looking at ways to require all employers, including non-profit organizations, to pay a percentage of their employees’ health care costs. Other states are considering the same plan.
Illegal aliens know they can receive free health care in hospital emergency rooms, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. A little publicized provision in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act set aside $250 million in taxpayer dollars to reimburse hospitals for costs associated with treating illegal aliens. In a twist of logic only Congress could conceive, hospitals are barred from asking an emergency room patient if they are in the U.S. illegally. The long-run cost of this provision will surely skyrocket as hospitals continue to submit claims on coverage of people who may be illegal aliens.
Illegal aliens living and working in the U.S. have now co-opted the entitlement mentality present in too many Americans. Worse, their demands for the right to vote, guaranteed by our Constitution to citizens only, and access to social services are encouraged by elected officials trying to buy their future votes. At recent rallies Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), to name just two, argued that illegal aliens must be allowed to remain in the U.S. and put on the path toward full citizenship rights. In other words, let’s skip the illegal part.
In addition to demands for voting rights, health care coverage and U.S. citizenship, many illegal aliens feel they are entitled to U.S. soil itself. Two groups that have helped organize the illegal alien rallies across the country, the Aztlan Movement and the Mexica Movement, believe it is American citizens who are in fact on their continent illegally. The Aztlan Movement seeks to create a separate nation comprised of northern Mexico and parts of the American Southwest, including California, Arizona and New Mexico. Members of the Mexica Movement, who waved signs at recent rallies that read “This Is Our Continent, Not Yours”, seek to completely remove Americans from North America and surrender control of the U.S. to Mexico.
The entitlement and class warfare mentality fostered for a century by liberal presidents, congressional leaders, labor union leaders and heads of liberal organizations in fact obscures their real goal. They seek complete government control of our lives and our businesses, which ultimately can only be achieved with your vote. Since the inception of the income tax code in 1913, to the birth of the Social Security system in 1935 and the programs that have followed, the end goal is always bigger government. It is also important to remember that those who occupy the positions of power will try to achieve their goal by any means possible. If it takes convincing the public that our planet is somehow warming because we drive cars with the air conditioner running, then so be it. If it takes increasing entitlement spending programs to 100 percent of the federal budget, so be it. Whatever it takes.
The United States would never have become the United States had the litany of entitlement programs and the unnatural attitudes they foster been in place in the 1800s and early 1900s. This was the time when newly freed slaves struck out to work on achieving their own dreams, when American expansion and settlement headed west, and when millions of Europeans crossed the Atlantic for a hard but better life. The only thing promised was abundant opportunity, given in exchange for assimilation and adherence to the rule of law.
We must demand that our president and Congress secure our borders and our sovereignty as a nation of laws and citizen rights. To those who enter this country legally, welcome to America. Illegal entitlement is not an option.
-—”You also miss two IMPORTANT points of Cain’s immigration plan.”-—
And you are refusing to admit the truth: that Cain won’t deport every illegal alien, either. He, like Newt, believes in selective deportation.
Cain’s immigration plan is roughly the same as Newt’s; that’s the truth, not spin.
Oh my, these Anti-Cain articles are getting so tiresome, yawn...
It is clear that Gov. Perry tanked based on the perception of his stance on immigration.
The sole question is- will Newt tank? Myself, I think he will fall in the polls- because he came across as Bushian/McCain-like-— the compassionate conservative- and that fact transcends the mere matter of immigration.
People were hoping for the conservative Newt— tonight he suggested that he, at any point, might decide to sit back on the Washington couch with Pelosi.
Imo, that's the real significance of this issue- he opened up the question as to whether or not he can be trusted as a true conservative. Why he opened up this can of worms is beyond me.
For 20,000 buses it takes 10 trips each to deport 10 million. At $100 per deportee, that is $5,000 per trip to pay for food, fuel, two drivers and two guards for an average three day trip. Seems like plenty to me. That’s $1 billion to deport 10 million illegals.
Less hassle, though, to send them by plane. One-way airfare from NYC to Mexico City is $400, from LAX to Mexico City is $150, $500 to Guatemala City, $1,000 to China. Obviously Mexico is the home country of the vast majority, so figure $300 avg to get them to Mexico City. I’d think it worth it to get them far from the border so it takes them longer to attempt to return.
I’d also be willing to pay bounty hunters $1,000 per illegal. So $13 billion total for 10 million illegals.
And none of this cost would be to taxpayers, since it would be paid by assessing the employers whose information the deportees provided plus auctioning off the deportees’ property.
We don’t need to prove they are here illegally. The current deportation cost is a stratagem of the open borders crowd and has created an industry around immigration lawyers that should be dismantled. The burden is on them to prove they are legal residents. The existing law REQUIRES them to have their visa, green card (or photo ID which required one of those docs to acquire) on their person at all times. If they cannot give prima facie evidence that they are legal residents, and their prints and DNA do not match any other crimes, then they can be deported immediately at no cost to the courts. They are not legal residents and are not facing imprisonment, fines, flogging or capital punishment — their penalty is simply being returned to their home country — so why give them a court hearing ?
Before recent times, that was not considered or was there a base model to learn from as an example. But, with the Arizona SB1070 and the latest law in Alabama, we now have a model and history of what enforcing the laws will do. In those states U-Haul's business is very brisk and in the case of Alabama, those thought to be illegal overnight pulled their kids from school and many left the state altogether.
Combine that with enforced laws against employers who knowingly hire illegals and the source of their desire to be here would be gone, except those who came just to be on welfare. E-Verify every government source for welfare distribution and the loop is closed. Breaking down doors and forcibly collecting the hard cases would most likely be a side product of a criminal arrest for some other infraction for felony.
Perhaps all the candidates should take a look at Mexico’s immigration laws. I have it bookmarked somewhere but couldn’t find it. Here is a thumbnail sketch.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/lillpop022707.htm
and here’s part of the article:
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
•in the country legally;
•have the means to sustain themselves economically;
•not destined to be burdens on society;
•of economic and social benefit to society;
•of good character and have no criminal records; and
•contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
•immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
•foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
•foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
•foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
•foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
•those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
With all due respect, Newt also pointed out why 1986 failed. Because the two other parts of the law were never enacted, one being securing the border, the other to enact tough laws against hiring them.
He is against any kind of blanket amnesty, period. He did address his thoughts on how to handle those who are productive and contributing only. They have to be registered but not with the rights of citizenship. They would be free to work to that end themselves. The others would have to go, but before any kind of weeding the illegal pool would have to be after securing the border and the enforcement and augmenting the laws against hiring them in the first place.
So now we have come full circle and the answer to you point number 2 is to organize locally and primary out your existing representatives until we find ones that will pass these laws and to have an administration that will sign it. That is how it is expected to work among honorable citizens.
Bingo. As I said before, it is very easy to do, just like Pavlov’s dog, set the right conditions and most will react in a predictable way.
If I understand Palin’s position, which is always a questionable thing because she hasn’t spoken in detail or written a policy paper on the subject, she isn’t supporting “amnesty” per see. Her suggestion was to give them 3 months to register for a new type of card (I wonder if that was like Gingrich’s “red card”), which would then get them in the system. Palin’s position was a lot like Perry’s recent position that was castigated here, and it is much like Cain’s position although the Cain folks trashed Perry, and my guess is they’ll trash Gingrich.
What would be useful would be if each candidate would explain what the “long-term” treatment would be for these illegals.
My preference, since we aren’t going to deport them, would be a Palin-like strategy. Give them a few months to sign up for a temporary work visa. They’d have to prove they had been here working for at least 2 years, maybe as long as 5 years. Then they would get to stay for 1 year, after which they would be re-evaluted for another 1-year green card. This should then be the program for ALL green cards — short-term, re-evaluted.
Then throw in the Perry plan on top of that — use advanced tracking on these green-card holders. Make sure we know WHERE they are, so if they don’t renew and don’t leave, we can track them down and kick them out. Fix the computer system, keep the database, contact busineses employing them.
And make sure that the businesses are advertising the jobs to americans, and only give the jobs back to the immigrants if there are no americans willing and able to do the jobs.
Of the plans that have been offered, I “like” the Perry plan the best mostly because it has more details and seems best for solving one of the BIG illegal problems — those people who come in legally, but then stay too long. Fences don’t stop these people, but a good guest worker program would, by tracking, by ensuring americans get offered the jobs first, and by bringing the illegals out into the open, so companies can’t exploit them.
BTW, I also don’t fault Gingrich for calling me “inhumane”. It’s just a political argument, and it’s absurd for people to get worked up over it like it’s a personal attack. Every time someone here says their position is the “conservative” position, you could say they were calling everybody who disagrees with them liberals.
That would be a false headline. Perry for example fully supported Arizona passing it’s law — he even had his state file a court brief DEFENDING the Arizona law in federal court.
He didn’t want to pass the Arizona law in Texas. That’s an entirely different issue; he clearly “backed” the Arizona law.
I also don’t know that Gingrich or other candidates didn’t back the Arizona law. I’d be shocked if Bachmann didn’t back it.
There point, which is a valid point, is that Cain and Palin both have said that they wouldn’t deport all the current illegals once they had secured the border. That puts them in line with Gingrich (and Perry) on that specific part of the illegal immigrant issue.
The question is, what do we DO with those who we don’t deport. I can’t tell if Gingrich’s plan puts them on a path to citizenship. Palin’s plan didn’t, but was too generalized to tell if she thought they should pay fines. Cain’s comment is just a few lines so we don’t know.
I would like to see a fine involved as part of getting the illegals signed up for a temporary green card. Once they are signed up, we know if they have jobs, and if they don’t, we can boot them out. And then after a year we can evaluate their jobs to see if americans can do them, if so we can kick them out, if not we renew them. If they lose their job we kick them out. If they stop reporting we kick them out.
I would guess that was what Palin’s plan was heading to, since her point was to get them INTO the system and out into the open. I would guess Cain would have agreed with that (this is the Perry plan that he announced and was trashed for).
That is clearly an important first step. I don’t think all the illegals are leaving, but a good number will. IF we do it on a federal level I would expect fewer to leave, since a lot of those “leaving” are just going from one state to another.
We should do it on a federal level. We need to get rid of the transients, those who just come here, crash in group homes, work under the table and send their money back, and who think of themselves as foreigners who dispise our country.
A plan like Newt’s needs to be for the OTHER kind. Those who came here legally but somehow lost their legal status, but were already settled and couldn’t bear to leave. Those who came long ago, and who have roots in the community, and are taxpaying productive people who speak our language, love our culture, and are make positive contributions to our society. Kids who have lived here virtually their whole lives, who grew up, went to college, and couldn’t go “back home” if you forced them to — they have no “home” to go back to, don’t speak the language, don’t understand the culture.
But it starts with securing the border, with getting our guest worker program under control, with cracking down on illegal immigrants, and then getting the ones that are left out of the shadows and onto the books, so we can track them and decide what to do about them. We should fine them, and put them in the back of the line for any citizenship (I’d prefer it be illegal for them to become citizens without first going back to their own country, and then getting in line).
10-4. We are on the same page on this issue. Happy Thanksgiving!
Virtually all of the candidates have talked about a work visa. Visas, by current law, begin in the country of origin. That would mean going home to apply. I believe this should be a minimum.
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.