Sverige idag

Nyhetssida för ansvarsfulla svenskar.

Gårdagens debatt mellan de republikanska kandidaterna

Posted by sverigeidag på november 23, 2011

The standout immigration item from last evening’s national security debate was Newt Gingrich’s admission that the 1986 immigration ‘compromise’ he voted for was a failure. Ten times as many illegal aliens received amnesty as initially claimed, and the promised border security and workplace enforcement never materialized. Yet, astonishingly, he would support passing a similar law if he became President.

On immigration, we mostly experienced more of the same responses we have heard over the past couple months. Rick Perry, having learned from the overwhelmingly negative responses given to his previous responses, avoided mentioning his support for education subsidies for illegal aliens and opposition to a border fence. “As the President of the United States , I will promise you one thing, that within 12 months of the inaugural, that border will be shut down, and it will be secure” he declared. He did not say how he planned to do that, when he said in an earlier debate that “the idea that you’re going to build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso and 800 miles west to Tijuana is not a reality.” A secure border has gone from an impossibility to a guarantee, as far as Rick Perry is concerned.

Ron Paul said that he was tired of “all the money spent and lives lost worrying about the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan and forgetting about our borders between the United States and Mexico.” He said was was opposed to any sort of amnesty for illegal aliens, saying that “if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. So if you give an easy road to citizenship, you’re going to have more illegals.”

Paul also denounced the federal mandates which force states to provide benefits to illegal aliens, saying “mandating to the states and to Texas that we have to provide free medical care and free education, that’s a great burden. It’s a great burden to California and all the border states.” Paul also said that the welfare system was, for illegal aliens and other immigrants, “the incentive to bring their families with them” and therefore should be eliminated.

Ron Paul also pointed out that the ‘war on drugs’ drives immigration by destabilizing Mexico and turning it into a battleground for rival cartels who transport drugs which are banned in the United States. Herman Cain provided some detail into how bad Mexico has deteriorated, without connecting it to the drug war. “40 percent of the people in Mexico, according to a survey, already believe that their country is a failed state” he said, adding “the number of people killed in Mexico last year equals the number of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.” He also pointed out “we know that terrorists have come into this country by way of Mexico.”

Cain continued his support of enforcing immigration laws and not granting amnesty to illegal aliens. He said we should “secure the border for real” and “enforce the laws that are already there, we don’t need new laws.” Once again implying his support for Arizona’s 1070 law and similar laws in other states, he said “to deal with the illegals that are already here, empower the states to do what the federal government is not capable of doing.”

Rick Santorum again proclaimed that legal immigration is a benefit for the economy, claiming that many of the new jobs in the economy are created by legal immigrants. He did not address whether these jobs would have been created in the economy by domestic businesses if large parts of certain sectors of the economy were not being taken over by foreign immigrants. He also did not discuss how he would deal with ‘legal’ or ‘highly skilled’ immigrants from the Islamic world, or how he would ensure that they are not followers of radical Islam, which said earlier in the debate that the United States is “at war with.”

Newt Gingrich began by saying “Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here.” This would include people like Yemeni terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, who graduated with a degree in engineering from Colorado State in 1994, and whom Gingrich had previously described as a major national security threat.

Gingrich also discussed his openness towards having an amnesty similar to the one he supported in 1986, even though he said he had been duped into voting for it on false promises. “Ronald Reagan, in his diary, says he signed it, and we were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty. There were 3 million. But he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. We were going to get control of the border and we were going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement. We got neither.”

If he admits to having been fooled the first time around, then what is to expect this time will be any different? If a modified ‘DREAM Act’ compromise, like some have been promoting, promises to give amnesty to a select group of a million or so illegal aliens and get border security and employment enforcement in return, isn’t it likely to follow the pattern of the 1986 law? A likely result, following that pattern, would be an amnesty for 10 million illegal aliens and none of the promised border security and employment enforcement. Having gone been fooled once, why is Gingrich so eager to go through the same process again? Or is he the one engaging in trickery?

He again promoted his idea of some sort of board which reviews illegal aliens on a case by case basis to decide who gets deported. He did not say where the funding for this massive bureaucracy would come from, or how it could be expected to work any better than our current immigration service and immigration courts. He did not say how members of these boards would be chosen, or how he would prevent them from being stacked by liberal immigration lawyers and other left wing advocates of increased immigration.

Läs fortsättningen här.

Hela debatten kan man se här:

Ett svar to “Gårdagens debatt mellan de republikanska kandidaterna”

  1. […] Gårdagens debatt mellan de republikanska kandidaterna « Sverige … Share and Enjoy: […]


Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in: Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: