Wednesday, October 31, 2007
|
|
The Huckabee Interview
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
5:30 PM
|
The interview will play in the first two segments of hour one and hour three today. We spend the first few questions on the case of Wayne Dumond which Governor Huckabee answered questions about today. We also talk about his immigration comments last night on CNN. The transcript will be up here later, and the audio here.
The background on Dumond is in this article by Byron York.
Here's Huckabee's exchange with Wolf Blitzer:
WOLF BLITZER: "Did you support special tuition breaks to children of illegal immigrants?"
GOV. HUCKABEE: "No, it was not special tuition breaks. What I supported was that people who had been in our schools, who had met all of the academic requirements for a very specific scholarship would be able to get the same scholarship as anybody else because they had been in our schools and part of it they had to apply for citizenship. Now, what's better? Having a person remain a minimum wage worker and be on the subsidy? Or, is it better that they become a citizen, they get a college education, they become a significant taxpayer, they have shown their academic credentials? And you know what Wolf? You don't punish the child for the crime of the parents."
BLITZER: "Are these children that were born in the United States? If they were they are U.S citizens, and they should get all the benefits as every citizen or were they children who came here with their illegal immigrant parents and as a result just went through the system?"
GOV. HUCKABEE: "Some would have been both. But some of them would have had to have been in our school system through their entire school career in order to qualify for the scholarships. It wasn't that if they got them someone else didn't, because it was available to anybody. Bottom line is that this country doesn't have a history of punishing the child for the sin of the parent. Now, if that causes somebody to want to vote for somebody else for President there are plenty of other people saying let's punish children. I'm sorry. But I think that you punish the crime doer. If the parent committed the crime and came here illegally, I don't have any problem with punishing them."
BLITZER: "So can I just put a finishing touch? Amnesty for the children of illegal immigrants would be OK?"
GOV. HUCKABEE: "It is not amnesty."
BLITZER: "But you said they could apply for citizenship?"
GOV. HUCKABEE: "Well, here's the thing. It is not an amnesty because the child didn't commit a crime, the child didn't -- when he is 5 years old and comes here in the back of his parents' vehicle, did he commit the crime? That would be the point to be made."
|
|
athingortwo
I just finished reading this thread and the lies you have posted about GWB and Illegal Immigration.
What planet have you been living on?
Where is the 700 miles of dual layered fence?
Where are the convictions for Employers who hire Illegals?
Why were the national guard forbidden to arrest Illegals at the border?
Why did the President appoint Julie Meyers to the director of ICE with not law enforcement or immigration experience?
Why did GWB sign a secret agreement with Canada, Mexico and the USA called the SPP with no debate in Congress?
Why has the president allowed Ramos and Compean to be prosecuted for doing their jobs?
I could write all day long about how GWB has done everything possible to aid and abet illegal immigration and the destruction of our sovereignty.
You are nothing more than an open borders apologist and your race baiting remarks about Virginia Patriot are disgusting. |
|
Athingthreeorfive is a blathering idiot, and is a Boosh apologist.
If Boosh is so great on illegal immigration, hows come he allowed his crony, Johnny Sutton, to frame Compeon and Ramos??? DUH!
BOOSH is a phony internationalist and has had his nose up Vicente Foxxs' A** from day one. |
|
|
I am not nor have I ever been a union member. I voted for W. twice. I know many naturalized citizens and they are more ticked off about illegals than I am. One guy waited 7 years in refugee camps in S.E. Asia waiting for a visa. Tell him how wonderful "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" is. He knows it's amnesty and opposed it as most American citizens who value their citizenship did. |
|
|
Thanks. (no, I don't have it yet) |
|
Sorry, but you're the one who's off....
At my place of employment, we have employees from virtually every country in the world....even Israelis working side by side with Arabs, but I digress....
We check SSN's, and we catch a LOT of people using stolen ones. They are fired and reported to ICE immediately.
I am vehemently anti-illegal myself, but I have many friends among legal immigrants.
You are stating facts as you believe them to be (an Israeli woman just walked by), I am stating them as I KNOW them to be. |
|
The Federal Government cannot impose upon private businesses to police immigration without also providing them the tools necessary to do so in a reasonable and efficient manner. There is no way an employer can verify that a faked Social Security card or other ID is real or not. In some states (like New York) they even issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
The job of controlling the border, and of providing as tamper-proof photo and/or biometric ID card for immigrants is the responsibility of the Federal Government - not employers, or States even. That the workplace raids went to near zero was a reflection of the hopeless of an enforcement system without a decent ID system.
The comprehensive immigration reform bill that you and your comrades in the labor movement so hated actually contained a biometric ID card system.
Rudy Giuliani, whom you constantly lie about (by saying he's an amnesty supporter or an open border guys), strongly supports a tamper proof ID system for immigrants and whatever combination of agents and fences and electronics it takes to make the border leakproof.
Until then, raiding businesses can only be done for show, and to no useful effect. Harassing American business is only a recipe for putting a smile on the face of Comrade Labor Union Boss.
|
|
when you spout gibberish like Bush aiding the Reconquista.
Your tinfoil hat is showing.
Go back to the union hall and tell your bros there how hard you've worked to promote the revolution of the proletariat.
|
|
|
You were not paying attention when Bush made his last trip through Latin America. You were also not paying attention when workplace enforcement actions went from several thousand under Clinton in 1999 to 4 in 2004 under Bush. Stop drinking the kool-aid, it's affecting your brain. Bush has done more than any President in history to aid the Reconquista. |
|
your anti-immigrant beliefs (your statement above notwithstanding) when you repeatedly rant about American employers being denied their "cheap labor". That's the standardized, NumbersUSA/Krikorian/US labor union/socialist code words for eliminating all unskilled or low skilled immigrant workers.
If your only issue was making sure all immigrants were properly documented, then the "cheap labor" rantings would disappear. Legal unskilled workers can be made legal, just by an act of Congress - it's called a "guest worker program" which ... surprise, surprise, you and your Big Labor brothers oppose too. Your issue is you want the immigrant laborers GONE, period, legal or not.
And of course by being anti-business, you guys betray yourselves further as the stooges (if not the agents) of the anti-business labor movement. Republicans don't rant against American businesses like you do ... real Republicans know that our economy and our freedoms are based upon free enterprise, which excessive government interference (like artificial labor supply restrictions) suppresses.
Oh, you say you're only against BIG business ... but it's the SMALL entrepreneurial businesses that employ the most unskilled laborers in America ... that's the farms, the small construction companies, the mom-and-pop restaurants, the small manufacturers, etc. Big Business would love to see unskilled labor in permanent short supply, in order to hold down their competition from the small businesses that create most of the new jobs in America.
There's nothing conservative or Republican about being anti-immigrant. That's the Big Labor position.
|
|
Many (most?) of the leaders and principal organizations in the immigration restrictionist camp are against ALL immigration, period, legal or otherwise. That includes Numbers USA (which is a front for the labor unions), most of the commentators over at NRO (Derbyshire, Sullivan, Krikorian, et al), the Minutemen, etc. By opposing ALL immigration they (and probably you too) are anti-immigrant, by default.
Second, George Bush has done more on his watch, and well before the fall of '06, than any other President in US history to secure our borders. He presided over the response to 9/11/01, which entailed a huge unprecedented buildup in border control and security measures. He led the effort to reorganize all homeland security departments to improved security. He favored and signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which more than doubled the number of Border Patrol agents. President Bush in August 2006, for the first time in history, ordered 6,000 National Guard troops to supplement the Border Patrol and issued an Executive Order to end catch and release of apprehended illegal immigrants.
You may not feel that President Bush has done enough to satisfy you (no President ever could), but it is absolute hogwash to say that Bush reduced border enforcement under his watch. To the contrary, he's done far more than any other President in American history.
Bush also never promised anybody anywhere in the world that he would "work for amnesty". He promises Latin Americans exactly nothing. As for his American constituents, Bush says what he does and he does what he says.
Your rantings in immigration are so divorced from reality as to represent the standard mindset of the radical anti-immigrant nativists who have so thoroughly botched the national debate on effective immigration and border control reform. |
|
No one is anti-immigrant. Many are anti-illegal alien. Don't try to obscure the issue. Immigrants get our permission with a visa. Illegal aliens do not.
Bush decreased border security and interior enforcement from when he took office until the fall of '06 when the handwriting on the wall was 10 feet tall. He promised the people of Latin America he would work for amnesty. Wake up and smell the coffee. |
|
|
He has been eating at the public trough too long. Needs to go back to private life and get some experience in the real world. |
|
There is no such thing under the laws of the United States of America, nor in the common law. A child is a child, period. A child that did not arrive under a legal immigration status, or was not born in the USA, of course, can be subject to deportation, and denied some forms of government assistance, subject to constitutional, international, and common law human rights safeguards.
It's certainly a fair thing to argue over whether undocumented children should be provided government (i.e., taxpayer) paid educational benefits. Personally, I believe they should not, but some would disagree with me on that.
But on the other hand, it's ridiculous to talk about whether or not a child can be "excused" for their parents' illegal entry into the country. We don't punish children or hold them accountable for the acts or omissions of their parents - period. No matter what. If we did it would be sheer medievalism.
One can agree or disagree with Huckabee over his opinions on how to deal with immigrants who entered the USA illegally. It's not a black and white, open and shut thing, no matter how simplistic the rabid anti-immigrants pretend it to be. But we ought to be able to have a civil discussion about what we should do on the matter without labeling anybody who does not subscribe 100% to VA Patriot's view as "open borders advocates" or "amnesty supporters".
I don't know of a single Republican leader who has ever advocated an uncontrolled border, or who has ever advocated unlimited or unregulated immigration, or who is in favor of undocumented immigration. It's simply preposterous to say otherwise.
But nevertheless, the most rabid anti-immigrants never fail to demagogue the issue, painting everybody as either saint or sinner, "good American" or traitor, rather than as people who have different opinions that have a basis in reason, and deserving of respect, on both sides of the issue.
|
|
|
Exactly!.....They have ALL the rights in the world, to be re-patrioted back to their home country,....along with their parents! |
|
So let me ask this. Under the law, if I purchase something that was stolen, I must give it back to the rightful owner, correct? There are also laws against being in posession of stolen property. I could potentially be punished for even purchasing the stolen itmes.
Even if the parents brought their children over here illegally, they are still illegals. They shouldn't be excused for what their parents did... they should be sent back to their home country.
Is that not similar? |
|
Romney is no different than Bush on illegals. He will leave the borders wide open to help big business. Romney is a globalist who will work for cheap labor. He is pro NAU as well, I'm sure.
|
|
|
I can't be sure where Romney is today on this issue, like most others. |
|
|
Huckabee, McCain and Rudy will not enforce the laws and should not be President. If we want to keep our country. |
|
|
Huckabee is actually giving benefits to children of illegals, so Huckabee is a bit worse. I am sure Virginia Patriot doesn't heart Huckabee. Still, Mitt did support in 2005 what is now being described as amnesty. |
|
circa 2005. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/16/romn eys_words_grow_hard_on_immigration/
In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."
|
|
|
|