[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: A GUIDE TO 2016 REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES’ POSITIONS ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION With Republicans in Congress split over the best approach to President Obamas executive amnesty and with many establishment Republicans splitting from grassroots Republicans on the issue of illegal immigration more generally its clear that immigration will be a hot-button primary issue in 2016. Thats nothing new: Governor Rick Perry of Texas saw his campaign flounder not on his oops moment, but on his proclamation that those who didnt back in-state tuition for illegal immigrants were heartless. But the bases passion on the immigration issue has only escalated thanks to President Obamas precipitous and illegal actions in failing to enforce American border law. So where do the potential candidates stand? Heres a rundown: Jeb Bush. While Clint Bolick, a longtime Bush ally and Bushs co-author of Immigration Wars, writes in the Wall Street Journal that Bush is passionately pro-rule of law with regard to illegal immigration, hes fibbing. Heres Bolick in the Journal just two weeks ago: He would greatly strengthen border security, linking any legalized status for illegal immigrants to tangible progress on objective border security metrics
Mr. Bush does believe that children who were brought here illegally and some adults should be eligible for legalized status once certain conditions are met. That is not closing the border before dealing with illegal immigrants who are here already. Nor is it a case-by-case assessment of whether it is appropriate for individuals to gain American citizenship, rather than a group-based assessment. Bush backed the 2013 Gang of Eight immigration bill opposed by most conservatives. After Obamas executive amnesty, he said Congress should pass comprehensive immigration reform to stop Obama. He knows that his position is controversial with the base, and he revels in it he uses that position to push himself as the moderate alternative for the benefit of the media. Mitt Romney. Romneys positions have shifted over time on this issue just as they have on many others. In 2012, Romney called for self-deportation, suggesting that if immigration law were enforced, many illegal immigrants would be unable to find jobs and would then go back to their home countries. By November 2013, hed changed his tune. He said he was absolutely convinced Republicans had to push forward some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, adding: I do believe that those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I dont think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance, just like anybody else, to get in line and to become a citizen if they would like to do so. Stick around. If you dont like his position today, you might like it better tomorrow. Chris Christie. The New Jersey governor has been vague on his illegal immigration position. The National Journal has an excellent timeline of the supposedly plainspoken governors positions here. To sample but a few, in 2009, he said he opposed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and slammed Rick Perry for taking the opposite position in 2012. Then, in December 2013, he signed a bill allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. He has been sidestepping questions ever since. Ted Cruz. The Texas senator has been outspoken in his belief that the border must be enforced and that illegal immigrants should not be given a pathway to citizenship. Last year, he was instrumental in killing a Republican bill pushing comprehensive immigration reform. Cruz cites his fathers experience in immigrating to the country to bolster his position. In my opinion, if we allow those who are here illegally to be put on a path to citizenship, that is incredibly unfair to those who follow the rules, he said in 2013. Rand Paul. The Senator from Kentucky has supported comprehensive immigration reform, even making joint calls with Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform in 2013 on behalf of the Republican bill. In 2013, the media widely misquoted him as stating he supported a pathway to citizenship, which he does not; Paul said at the time, according to his staff, that he supported a quicker path to normalization, not citizenship, and being able to stay, work and pay taxes legally. Paul himself explained: Basically what I want to do is to expand the worker visa program, have border security and then as far as how people become citizens, there already is a process for how people become citizens. The main difference is I wouldnt have people be forced to go home. Youd just get in line. But you get in the same line everyone is in. Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor backed President Bushs 2006 comprehensive immigration reform plan, stating: I tend to think that the rational approach is to find a way to give people a pathway to citizenship. You shouldnt ignore the law or ignore those who break it. But by the same token, I think its a little disingenuous when I hear people say they should experience the full weight of the law in every respect with no pathway, because thats not something we practice in any other area of criminal justice in this country
. To think that were going to go lock up 12 million people, or even round them up and drive them to the border and let them go, might make a great political speech, but its not going to happen. He also defended President Obamas 2012 action deferring deportation for illegal immigrants between the ages of 16 and 30 the so-called DREAMers. You dont punish a kid for what his or her parents did, Huckabee said. The content itself, the goal, is an admirable thing. But a few months ago, he slammed President Obama, stating that Obama doesnt believe there should be borders. Scott Walker. Wisconsins governor may support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. In 2013, he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he hasnt taken a position on citizenship for illegal immigrants. He told Politico, For people waiting to come in our country legally, weve got to make sure that they get in first, that they get their status first, because theyve been following the rules and playing by the rules. After that, if there is a way to set up a process so that you enable people to come in and have a legal pathway to do that, thats something weve got to embrace. Whether or not its that specific bill or not, I think theres some nuances to that. Ben Carson. Carson endorses a guest-worker program for non-citizens. He also said that the government should of course allow [illegal immigrants] to have a pathway to citizenship. Thats the only humane and reasonable thing to do. Warning: you may want to purchase some Dramamine to prevent motion sickness as shifting positions dizzy you during the upcoming election campaign.
Poster Comment: Only Ted Cruz passes this litmus test.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
Are you "single-issue voter?!? The term single-issue voter has been used to describe people who may make voting decisions based on the candidates' stance on a single issue (e.g. "pro- life" or "pro-choice", support for gun rights or gun-control). The existence of single-issue voters can give a distorted impression: a candidate's overall views may not enjoy the same support. For example, a person who votes for a socially conservative Republican candidate, based solely on his or her support of gun rights, may not necessarily share the candidate's other views on social issues, such as abortion or family values.
No a lot of issues are important. But when a candidite is willing to destroy the country or murder kids or take my guns away, or give the UN authority over us then they are crossed off my list. So obviously you are ok with the the illegals coming here and breeding. How many other issues are you a sell out on? Can they kill kids too and you would still consider them? I wouldn't.
Nope, I am not fine with that....I am not a libertarian. We need to CLOSE the borders....I have always been for that. I am just asking if you are a single issue voter....and you said that you were not. Thanks for responding.
There are a few single issues that will cause me to never consider a person.
We all will have our choice, I am still forming mine. I will support and contribute to the Republican nominee whomever he is....in order to defeat Hillary. Will you?
Will you? No.
I bet that would not stand if the GOP nominee was someone like Ron Paul! I know that will never happen (Paul getting the nomination), but I am sure in some cases that would be an empty promise!
#25. To: Stoner, Deckard (#23)
Well, Stoney....you would lose that bet. I said I will vote for the Republican nominee to beat Hillary. What was it that you did not understand about that?
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|