Rudy Giuliani on Immigration
Change rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship. (Nov 2006)
Okay, I’ve seen enough. Thanks Cricket. Guiliani’s out for me. It’s a real shame, because I generally like him, but sovereignty is a deal-breaker for me.
I want every single candidate to be forced to answer:
What does US sovereignty actually mean to you? and
What do you think should be done to defend it?
- Greater border security (as well as advertising in Mexico and Central America about increased security) will reduce the number of those attempting to cross - thereby reducing the strain on border security.
- Those who are already here came under unofficial policies that encouraged them to come and live as a lesser human beings. Although they came by their choice, they came by ours as well. It would be unfair, however politically damaging, to ship everyone out. People respond to policy, not laws.
- Regarding the above point about people responding to policy not laws, policies are decided upon and carried out by elected officials—elections have consequenses.
- Those who are already here came under unofficial policies that encouraged them to come and live as a lesser human beings. Although they came by their choice, they came by ours as well. It would be unfair, however politically damaging, to ship everyone out. People respond to policy, not laws.
Okay, so you invite someone to come stay in your home as a guest for a few days and he refuses to leave and brings his family to sleep in your living room. Then he sues you for squatter’s rights (since you DID invite him to stay for a little bit, as a nice gesture) and you think that he deserves the deed to your living room and ownership of all that’s in it.
Of course Guiliani is pro amnesty, he is a social liberal. I like Rudy personally, he seems like a great guy, but he is right on the war thats it. Federal funding for abortions? Give me a break.
- Those who are already here came under unofficial policies that encouraged them to come and live as a lesser human beings. Although they came by their choice, they came by ours as well. It would be unfair, however politically damaging, to ship everyone out. People respond to policy, not laws.
Okay, so you invite someone to come stay in your home as a guest for a few days and he refuses to leave and brings his family to sleep in your living room. Then he sues you for squatter’s rights (since you DID invite him to stay for a little bit, as a nice gesture) and you think that he deserves the deed to your living room and ownership of all that’s in it.
Ironically, I used to know someone to whom this scenario happened roughly. You bring up a related point about immigrants bringing families here. This I agree with completely and it is something that is easily controlled if we have the political will. Just because someone comes here undocumented and later receives papers, this should not allow that person to bring a bunch of family over later. However, if you have been letting people move into your “house” permanently for years, it would seem only fair to announce your change in policy to those coming to your door rather than those who have already picked up their lives and moved in at your invitation.
Ironically, I used to know someone to whom this scenario happened roughly. You bring up a related point about immigrants bringing families here. This I agree with completely and it is something that is easily controlled if we have the political will.
But people scurrying across the border is also easily (and cheaply) controlled if we have the political will. It’s obvious, and this is the important point, that we don’t have the political will - which means that all enforcement clauses in this bill are ridiculous and silly.
Just because someone comes here undocumented and later receives papers, this should not allow that person to bring a bunch of family over later. However, if you have been letting people move into your “house” permanently for years,
A reasonable person would say that I can be “nice” to anyone for any period of time and then decide to stop at any time without those who were the beneficiaries of my generosity having a claim to future FORCED charity on my part.
People need to understand what a gift is and understand that being given a gift does not entitle them to more gifts. It goes to the very root of society.
it would seem only fair to announce your change in policy to those coming to your door rather than those who have already picked up their lives and moved in at your invitation.
Not fair. It might be nice, but not required. I can give to a charity every year for 70 years, but that does not require me to tell them that I won’t be giving next year.
If they took my charity for granted, then that is their failing and their problem!
If this bill passes, I’m changing my voter registration from Republican to Independent and the GOP can go to hell for all I’ll care.
I can’t go that far because I am afraid of the Democrats getting in.
I agree, Bush isn’t running and this bill is deeply unpopular in the country - an opportunity for real republicans who need to set Bush/ Kennedy aside and think about the future. This is a “Harriett Myers” of a bill and it needs to be defeated for the stupidity that it is. It is a “come on in!” policy - the details of the legislation don’t matter, because the illegals will ignore the Z visa like they have every other kind. And who thinks that this law will be enforced? Anyone?
- Those who are already here came under unofficial policies that encouraged them to come and live as a lesser human beings. Although they came by their choice, they came by ours as well. It would be unfair, however politically damaging, to ship everyone out. People respond to policy, not laws.
Okay, so you invite someone to come stay in your home as a guest for a few days and he refuses to leave and brings his family to sleep in your living room. Then he sues you for squatter’s rights (since you DID invite him to stay for a little bit, as a nice gesture) and you think that he deserves the deed to your living room and ownership of all that’s in it.
Ironically, I used to know someone to whom this scenario happened roughly. You bring up a related point about immigrants bringing families here. This I agree with completely and it is something that is easily controlled if we have the political will. Just because someone comes here undocumented and later receives papers, this should not allow that person to bring a bunch of family over later. However, if you have been letting people move into your “house” permanently for years, it would seem only fair to announce your change in policy to those coming to your door rather than those who have already picked up their lives and moved in at your invitation.
The American people did not invite illegals here and have voiced LOUD opposition to uncontrolled borders for years. Our politicians and business owners are to blame and guess what? American voters outnumber them and we did not give them permission to open our borders. Our government and business owners have exploited American taxpayers and it is up to us to demand our leaders adhere to our nation’s sovereignty and not impose policies that are essentially taxation without representation.
1 - Remember that unlike the charity in your example, illegal immigrants are not one sentient mass, they are individuals who have come here at various times. Fairness can not properly be owed or measured to groups, but to individuals.
2 - Regarding political will, I think we all know the Democrats will at a later date introduce a fast track to citizenship as Clinton did in the 90’s to bolster his ranks of voters. But remember too that Hispanic immigrants that have been here for some time vote approximately 50-50 Democrat/Republican in elections.
Hoads,
Yes the American People did invite illegal immigrants here. Policies are put in place by elected officials. Regardless of polls, elections are what matters. Elections have consequences and the only accurate measure of what Americans spoke loudly about is to see what their elected representatives did, for better or worse.
"Yes the American People did invite illegal immigrants here.”
NO, we did not. There were laws in place (that’s what makes them ILLEGAL ALIENS)that we fully expected our elected legislators, gov’t. departments, and business to follow.
They didn’t. At some point, they not only stopped trying to follow the law, they actively obstructed ANYONE trying to do so.
This has been going on under the radar for a lot of people for some time and you can be damn sure the people benefitting weren’t going to call attention to it.
It took the thousands and thousand of belligerant foreign nationals, waving their Mexican, Guatemalan and Ecuadorian flags in our faces on national TV, demanding ‘their rights’, for most of the American people to realize we’d be had.
WE DIDN’T INVITE THEM and they are not a benefit to the regular American citizen. So, we are now rescinding the unlawful invitation issued, not by the electorate, but by our government.
“Yes the American People did invite illegal immigrants here."So, we are now rescinding the unlawful invitation issued, not by the electorate, but by our government.
This statement is contradictory in a democracy. Elections have consequences and the American People not paying attention to what is going on or getting news from biassed sources does not deflect any of their responsibility or culpability for those consequenses.
Hispanic immigrants that have been here for some time vote approximately 50-50 Democrat/Republican in elections.
Source?
andrew / des moines - 20 May 2007 05:16 PM
Yes the American People did invite illegal immigrants here. Policies are put in place by elected officials. Regardless of polls, elections are what matters. Elections have consequences and the only accurate measure of what Americans spoke loudly about is to see what their elected representatives did, for better or worse.
Wow! You sound like this quote by an infamous man:
the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
Since Mexicans make up the bulk of illegal immigrants, the question is how many Mexicans can America import before America becomes the Mexico the Mexicans are fleeing?
"And if I don’t vote at all, it is the same as voting for Hilary”
Conservatives have to stop believing this. It is completely illogical. We each have a vote. The two parties have the opportunity to convince us to vote for their candidate. If neither party succeeds, if we don’t cast our vote, we have not participated in the election and are not responsible for who the rest of the voters selected. If the two parties both had candidates for president that were calling for the extermination of an ethnic group (I don’t care which) within our society, do we have a moral obligation to vote for the one that will also probably lower taxes? Or, to remove life and death from the equation, if the Republican candidate were running on a platform of dismantling the Republican party so the Democrats would have no real opposition in future elections, and the Democrat candidate running was Hillary, who would you vote for? Because that is very close to the situation we face now, except the Republican “candidate” is the GOP leadership in both the White House and the Senate. Like it or not, those people are now as much a threat to America as the Democrats. If we send them the signal that we will vote GOP anyway, we are accessories to what they do.
