0 comment Saturday, October 4, 2014 | admin
I don't suppose there are many illusions to be lost regarding Rudy Giuliani and his immigration stance. However, he is saying
that it's the federal government's job to deal with illegal immigration, and not that of cities, states, or businesses. So he would not punish employers of illegals.
Giuliani told small-business owners he would not punish them for unwittingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Federal officials are "trying to put the responsibility for this on employers, on city government, on state government," the former New York mayor said during a conference call arranged by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
"The simple fact is, nobody but the federal government can stop people from coming into this country illegally, and the federal government does a very bad job of that," Giuliani said.
He said no other presidential candidate will solve the problem.
"If you elect a Democrat, they're just going to open the borders, and more illegals are going to come in," he said.
"And if you elect one of my (Republican) opponents, they want to crack down on cities and states, and they want to crack down on businesses, but they don't want to solve the problem," he said. "If I become president, in a very short while, you will not be able to walk into the United States without identifying yourselves."
Further, we read how all the mainstream GOP candidates are busy accusing each other of being johnny-come-latelies on the border issue, and all accusing each other of insincerity in their newfound commitment to enforcing our borders.
It strikes me that in each case, it's the pot calling the kettle black. They are all play-actors and deceivers on this issue; none of them is committed to closing the borders.
In this discussion thread from The Stein Report, a commenter named Cynthia makes some good points, referring to Mitt Romney's claim of being ''someone who has fought to protect legal immigration but to stop illegal immigration stands up against anybody's in the country,":
How does Romney's position square with the fact that LDS leadership supports a wide open border?
Once again, I will point out that the MSM simply reflects the corporatist/fascist/socialist open border agenda and the fact that both Thompson and Romney are media darlings is very strong evidence that their new tough talk on immigration is understood to be nothing but pandering.
Those of us who have thoroughly researched the open border agenda understand that it is has been well organized and controlled by financial and political elites for several decades. These same elites are not going to allow any serious candidates a public forum if they haven't already signed on to the Establishment's agenda.
Neither Romney nor Thompson have ever attempted to publicly expose or derail the North American Union or any form of internationalism that undermines national sovereignty. This should be a major litmus test for those of us who work towards serious immigration reform.''
Cynthia makes sense. This is exactly why I am unpersuaded by all the tough rhetoric coming from these candidates, and I am convinced that were it not for Tancredo's presence keeping the immigration issue front and center, they would none of them be making these empty shows of false bravado.
As she says, if any of these guys were serious proponents of immigration restriction and opponents of globalism, they would not be the media darlings that they are, and they surely would be getting the same rough treatment which Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul have gotten from the party honchos and the establishment.
I am seeing increasing signs that a lot of people who were not thrilled with the 'top tier' candidates are now willing to settle for a Thompson ('he's not as bad as the rest') or Huckabee or even a Romney. Only if you believe the presidency is basically a meaningless position, and that another establishment neocon could not make our present situation worse, can you believe that these candidates are worth considering.
that it's the federal government's job to deal with illegal immigration, and not that of cities, states, or businesses. So he would not punish employers of illegals.
Giuliani told small-business owners he would not punish them for unwittingly hiring illegal immigrants.
Federal officials are "trying to put the responsibility for this on employers, on city government, on state government," the former New York mayor said during a conference call arranged by the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
"The simple fact is, nobody but the federal government can stop people from coming into this country illegally, and the federal government does a very bad job of that," Giuliani said.
He said no other presidential candidate will solve the problem.
"If you elect a Democrat, they're just going to open the borders, and more illegals are going to come in," he said.
"And if you elect one of my (Republican) opponents, they want to crack down on cities and states, and they want to crack down on businesses, but they don't want to solve the problem," he said. "If I become president, in a very short while, you will not be able to walk into the United States without identifying yourselves."
Further, we read how all the mainstream GOP candidates are busy accusing each other of being johnny-come-latelies on the border issue, and all accusing each other of insincerity in their newfound commitment to enforcing our borders.
It strikes me that in each case, it's the pot calling the kettle black. They are all play-actors and deceivers on this issue; none of them is committed to closing the borders.
In this discussion thread from The Stein Report, a commenter named Cynthia makes some good points, referring to Mitt Romney's claim of being ''someone who has fought to protect legal immigration but to stop illegal immigration stands up against anybody's in the country,":
How does Romney's position square with the fact that LDS leadership supports a wide open border?
Once again, I will point out that the MSM simply reflects the corporatist/fascist/socialist open border agenda and the fact that both Thompson and Romney are media darlings is very strong evidence that their new tough talk on immigration is understood to be nothing but pandering.
Those of us who have thoroughly researched the open border agenda understand that it is has been well organized and controlled by financial and political elites for several decades. These same elites are not going to allow any serious candidates a public forum if they haven't already signed on to the Establishment's agenda.
Neither Romney nor Thompson have ever attempted to publicly expose or derail the North American Union or any form of internationalism that undermines national sovereignty. This should be a major litmus test for those of us who work towards serious immigration reform.''
Cynthia makes sense. This is exactly why I am unpersuaded by all the tough rhetoric coming from these candidates, and I am convinced that were it not for Tancredo's presence keeping the immigration issue front and center, they would none of them be making these empty shows of false bravado.
As she says, if any of these guys were serious proponents of immigration restriction and opponents of globalism, they would not be the media darlings that they are, and they surely would be getting the same rough treatment which Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul have gotten from the party honchos and the establishment.
I am seeing increasing signs that a lot of people who were not thrilled with the 'top tier' candidates are now willing to settle for a Thompson ('he's not as bad as the rest') or Huckabee or even a Romney. Only if you believe the presidency is basically a meaningless position, and that another establishment neocon could not make our present situation worse, can you believe that these candidates are worth considering.
Labels: Candidates, Immigration