politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Scott Walker Pledges to Repeal Obama’s Amnesty on Day One
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi ... eal-obamas-amnesty-on-day-one/
Published: Aug 14, 2015
Author: Julia Hahn
Post Date: 2015-08-14 23:35:27 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 4480
Comments: 17
On Thursday evening’s program of the David Webb Show on SiriusXM radio, Governor Scott Walker continued to lay out popular reforms to control exploding immigration. Walker told listeners that he would “absolutely” put an end to the sanctuary city policies that have led to the death of countless American victims like 32-year-old Kate Steinle. He argued that there should be “no debate” about doing so: There should be no debate and no discussion about sanctuary cities in this country. The law should be clear– it is the federal law when it comes to immigration… For goodness sakes, we’re seeing the real– the very real– public safety risk for what happens when you have people who commit multiple, multiple criminal offenses. They are a public safety risk to anyone in this country. It’s beyond me why we wouldn’t be enforcing the law. Walker explained that leadership in both parties was to blame: The biggest frustration that voters have from Republicans and Democrats alike is there’s no leadership in Washington– they’re not listening to the American people, they’re not getting things done for us. [I am] going to lay out in the coming days, big, bold reforms. People are hungry for that kind of leadership again. Indeed, immigration represents an issue wherein Republican leadership and donors are deeply disconnected from the desires of Republican voters. For instance, with regards to sanctuary cities, polls show Americans overwhelmingly oppose them and wish to see them defunded by a remarkable 2-to-1 margin. Yet this year–despite the public’s outrage over just a few of the recent killings caused by sanctuary city policies–the Republican-led Senate adjourned for its annual August recess without taking any action to put an end to sanctuary cities. Walker told listeners that during his time as Governor, he did not shy away from taking on members of his own party. In our state, we didn’t just take on the big-government union boss, we didn’t just take on the Democrats, in many ways we had our own fight–our own battle–with even our own party because there were a lot of people in the legislature when I first came in when I was running who were not all that interested in making big bold measure reforms. Walker’s resolve to put an end to sanctuary cities distinguishes him from some of his fellow candidates, who are favored by the Republican donor class. For instance, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)–during his time in the Florida State legislature–allowed a bill to die that would have blocked sanctuary cities. As a result, Miami is now one of the biggest sanctuary cities in the country. The Gang of Eight immigration bill, which Rubio co-authored and ushered through the Senate, similarly enabled the continued existence of sanctuary cities. Walker was similarly unequivocal on his stance against executive amnesty, declaring that he would repeal it on day one of his presidency: “We need to repeal the executive actions the president took on illegal immigration on the very first day.” This declaration from Walker is crucial for a number of reasons. First, because the President’s executive amnesty for DREAMers–essentially a birthright citizenship for the foreign-born–is in full effect to this day. Second, because the putative establishment pick, Senator Marco Rubio, conducted a Spanish-language interview only a few months ago in which he said he would leave the President’s executive DREAMer amnesty in place until some form of legislative action replaced it–i.e. a legislated amnesty. This message was the exact opposite of what Sen. Rubio told Sean Hannity in English, though conservative outlets like National Review have largely ignore Rubio’s Spanish-language pledge to maintain an amnesty that Republicans vociferously argue is an unprecedented usurpation of the Constitution. For instance, immediately following the first Republican presidential debate moderated by Fox News, the National Review’s Jim Geraghty wrote: “Marco Rubio was really, really good tonight. Shining.” Walker also separated himself out from Rubio on border security. Senator Rubio voted against an amendment to construct a double-layer border fence, even as he touted the importance of fencing to conservative audiences. Walker says the United States ought to adopt a border security policy similar to that of Israel: Heck, I was in Israel earlier this year– they put up a 500 mile fence, they have it staffed, they use technology to keep it secure. In that country, they’ve seen a reduction in terrorist acts of greater then 90 percent. If they can do it in Israel, there’s no reason why America–a much greater country–can’t get to the point where they can fundamentally secure our border.
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
I understand the sentiment,but I don't thing a president has the legal authority to repeal an amnesty provided by a previous president. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yes, he does. It was just Obama waving his pen at an executive order. "Repeal" suggests that it passed Congress and became law. Well, it didn't.
Walker has slipped from #1 in Iowa and is battling Jeb! for second, with Carson breathing down their necks. Carson may have overtaken Jeb! and Walker by now. I've thought all along that Carson might be the winner in Iowa. He is the kind of guy that Iowa just loves, for the same reason they liked Huck so much. If he doesn't implode before then, Carson will have a strong finish, perhaps even win the caucus.
Yes, he does. No,he doesn't. It is the equivalent of a President being a judge,DA,and a jury. A President can pardon someone,but a president can't find them guilty. Un-Constitutional because it removes the right to a jury trial. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
When did JEB ever become 2nd? Seems like every poll I have seen has him at the bottom. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Before the first debate, most polls had Walker in first with Jeb second. Polling has really cratered in the last few years. The traditional polling companies failed to predict the big victories of Netanyahu in Israel and Cameron in victory. Right up to election day, they predicted big defeats. Recall that we've been told for years that that is impossible because polling is so foolproof. Well, it isn't. They discovered, among other things like rising cellphone use, that people just lie to them sometimes (but not all the time). Also, a lot of these polls are just online polling conducted on Facebook and other websites. So you have CNN/ORC (ever heard of 'em?) or NBC/SurveyMonkey. These are not the traditional polling firms that used to partner with the big media conglomerates to do polling in elections since the Nineties. Traditional polling is in decline and online polling is lousy.
If it were really and truly amnesty, that might be true. But this was done by executive memorandum so the next prez might be able to rescind it. But those already granted amnesty are probably unaffected. Just a guess. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Hey! Too Conservative! Look at the position your bomb-thrower amigos at National Review have taken. "Conservative outlet" my ass.
Mr. Obama conceded that without new legislation, his action — which includes de facto amnesty for more than 4 million illegal immigrants — technically could be undone rather easily. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/9/obama-next-president-wont-undo- immigration-reform/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
El Bushio did too. NatReview is pro-legal immigration, generally anti-illegals. Anyway, it was in the past when I read it more. Maybe they're going GOPe/CoC more these days.
To me, being pro-amnesty is being pro-illegals. Especially with no credible plan for a wall. When National Review bashes Trump because he's "vague" yet ignores Rubio's call for amnesty, I question their true agenda.
They rained fire and brimstone on Rubio's actual attempt at a Shamnesty. Now they don't seem surprised much as Rubio gears up in a Hispandering duel with El Arbusto. That doesn't mean they're pro-Rubio or pro-amnesty even if those little voices in your head tell you otherwise.
They ignored Rubio's call for amnesty. If they're not pro-Rubio or pro-amnesty what are they? Lousy reporters? Too busy with other things? First they've heard of it? This isn't news?
They did not. You're making crap up. They certainly went after that Gang of 7 deal very hard at the time. They assume that their readers aren't morons. Not that that is always true. But then, you're not a reader and just want to hurl some accusations about them, no matter what they have actually written in the past.
On 4/13/15, Rubio told Hannity, "Again, I think that if you're in this country and you violated our immigration laws, you should be able -- after we've proven that illegal immigration's not going to happen in the future, that we have systems in place to keep that from happening, you have to come forward, undergo a background check, pay a fine, start paying taxes." "And what you would get is a work visa that allows you to be in this country to work and to travel. And that's all you should be allowed to have for at least a decade or longer. And after that, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency, but just like anybody else would, not a special process." Just 6 days later, on 4/19/15, Rubio told Ramos on Univision in Spanish that he would, if elected President, not revoke Obama’s first executive amnesty until a legislative solution took its place instead. National Review was silent, as this author pointed out. All of your NR references pre-date that and are at least two years old. So it pretty much goes without saying that you're willfully ignorant of what the author was referring to, thought that you could fool me with those links to old articles, and will do anything to promote your Señor Rubio and cover up for your favorite publication.
I'm not going to spend my day doing web searches for you. NRO has never let up on bashing Rubio and the others for their Shamnesty attempt. As with the Shamnesty efforts of 2006 and 2007, NRO has been in the vanguard of stopping these amnesty efforts. And Donald Trump? Nowhere to be found during all those fights.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=41384
Walker was similarly unequivocal on his stance against executive amnesty, declaring that he would repeal it on day one of his presidency: “We need to repeal the executive actions the president took on illegal immigration on the very first day.”
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
I understand the sentiment,but I don't thing a president has the legal authority to repeal an amnesty provided by a previous president.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
#4. To: TooConservative (#2)
I understand the sentiment,but I don't thing a president has the legal authority to repeal an amnesty provided by a previous president.
#5. To: TooConservative (#3)
Walker has slipped from #1 in Iowa and is battling Jeb! for second,
#6. To: sneakypete (#5)
When did JEB ever become 2nd? Seems like every poll I have seen has him at the bottom.
#7. To: sneakypete (#1)
but I don't thing a president has the legal authority to repeal an amnesty provided by a previous president
#8. To: cranky, Too Conservative (#0)
"... though conservative outlets like National Review have largely ignore Rubio’s Spanish-language pledge to maintain an amnesty"
#9. To: sneakypete, Too Conservative, cranky (#1)
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
"... though conservative outlets like National Review have largely ignore Rubio’s Spanish-language pledge to maintain an amnesty"
#11. To: TooConservative (#10)
"NatReview is pro-legal immigration, generally anti-illegals.'
#12. To: misterwhite (#11)
When National Review bashes Trump because he's "vague" yet ignores Rubio's call for amnesty, I question their true agenda.
#13. To: TooConservative (#12)
"That doesn't mean they're pro-Rubio or pro-amnesty even if those little voices in your head tell you otherwise."
#14. To: misterwhite (#13)
They ignored Rubio's call for amnesty.
So it pretty much goes without saying that you're an idiot and a hack that is just making up crap because you think NatReview isn't nice to your man-crush, Donald Trump. But I thought I should say it anyway, just to be clear.
The Rubio Amnesty | National Review Online
Obama's Amnesty Bill = Rubio's Amnesty Bill | National Review ...
National Review Rips Rubio on Immigration
National Review: The Rubio Amnesty - Debate Policy
The "Rubio Amnesty" ripped in National Review | Naked Politics
Scam': National Review editor on Rubio's immigration plan ...
ReviewRubio's
#15. To: TooConservative (#14)
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
On 4/13/15, Rubio told Hannity, "Again, I think that if you're in this country and you violated our immigration laws, you should be able -- after we've proven that illegal immigration's not going to happen in the future, that we have systems in place to keep that from happening, you have to come forward, undergo a background check, pay a fine, start paying taxes."
#17. To: TooConservative (#16)
And Donald Trump? Nowhere to be found during all those fights.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]