June 30, 2010

Chris Christie: The GOP Needs To Rebrand Itself As The Credible Party of Fiscal Conservatism... And Support A Clear Path To Citizenship For Illegals
— Ace

Eh, not sure if this is disqualifying per se, as most politicians, including border-enforcement types, talk up this possibility at some point.

He is down on the Arizona law, though.

On the hot-button topic of immigration reform, he said he has long declined to “demagogue” the issue as a former U.S. Attorney, because “I come from law enforcement and it’s not an easy issue.”

But he did intimate that he thinks stringent state-by-state laws – such as in Arizona – are the wrong approach, and added, “I think President Obama doesn’t do this at his own risk because it’s affecting the economy in the country…to me, I think the president’s really gotta show the leadership on this.”

“This is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix,” he said. “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”

He said that without border security, enforcement of existing laws and a “clear” path to legalization for immigrants, there would never be a fix.

No one seems to talk about a clear path to legalization that is not citizenship.

Other countries have large guest worker programs. Why can't we?

Why do we have this childish insistence that it be all-or-nothing?

I know the Democrats want "all" because they want more voters. And unions either want them to be full citizens so they can more easily draft them into the movement (and grab their dues).

But why can't Republicans push back and offer a larger -- not huge, but larger -- guest-worker program? Two years, four years, whatever, and then either go home or get another extension?


Posted by: Ace at 05:53 AM | Comments (197)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Well you can't have everything. The Arizona thing bothers me the most. Maybe it was taken out of context.

Posted by: Donna at June 30, 2010 05:56 AM (z3whe)

2 Nooooo, why hast thou abandoned me fat man!

He said that without border security, enforcement of existing laws and a “clear” path to legalization for immigrants, there would never be a fix.

Of course there won't be because a. and b. are being held hostage to c.  Also, I hate the conflation of immigrants with illegal immigrants.  There is currently a clear path to legalization for immigrants.  It's the clear path for illegals that's the problem.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 30, 2010 05:56 AM (8WZWv)

3 We knew there had to be a catch. It's New Jersey, after all.

Posted by: joncelli at June 30, 2010 05:57 AM (RD7QR)

4 RINOs in blue states are a huge help to the cause.  Relative to hard core leftists, they are huge.

But all politicians will disappoint eventually. 

Christie has his hands full, but I think he would see things differently if he was a border state.  Man's earned a right to speak out about the GOP's future.  I hope we can have immigration reform that actually doesn't make things much worse the way Amnesty did in 1986.

first, secure the border as much as possible to minimize the power of drug lords and human trafficers.

Posted by: Chili Corn Chips at June 30, 2010 05:58 AM (dUOK+)

5

How disappointing.

 

Posted by: Who Knows at June 30, 2010 05:59 AM (7FgWm)

6 Well... he was getting just a little too popular.

Posted by: wHodat at June 30, 2010 05:59 AM (+sBB4)

7 Clear path to citizenship? If only the US had a bureau of immigration or something that could take care of that kind of thing.

Posted by: Waterhouse at June 30, 2010 06:00 AM (KPT/i)

8 I don't support amnesty, period. Reagan did it, and it BOMBED. Why are RINOs and prgamatists so arrogant that they think this time it will be different?

We are the people, and surely wisdom will die with us.

Posted by: Ella at June 30, 2010 06:00 AM (DmnMk)

9 Here's the clear path to citizenship for illegals:

1. They serve their prison sentences.
2. They go home.
3. They stay where they're citizens.

See?! Citizenship, and it's a clear path!

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 06:00 AM (ZJ/un)

10 Hey baby, how about you give me a "clear path to citizenship".

Posted by: AlGore at June 30, 2010 06:00 AM (Ee9Pv)

11

Would have been nice if he had emphasized that border security needs to be fixed, period, and that the current laws do have to be enforced, before there can really be any meaningful discussion of these "pathways".

Also, he has sort of been the lightning rod of hard line positions. Will this encourage the squishes? After all, they certainly wouldn't possibly want to even consider staking out a position to the right of him. 

Posted by: RM at June 30, 2010 06:01 AM (1kwr2)

12 How exactly is he wrong? US immigration policy is a arbitrary mess. A "clear path to citizenship" has never been more necessary. It's also necessary to combat the presumed privledge Latin America claims the US economy and to dump unwanted populations.

Posted by: Jason at June 30, 2010 06:01 AM (Nljcu)

13 In those states where these illegals become citizens, no future Cristies will ever be elected.

Posted by: Zimriel at June 30, 2010 06:01 AM (9Sbz+)

14 And this helps me move more factor gear how???

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at June 30, 2010 06:02 AM (ngD76)

15

Heartache


Posted by: hobgoblin at June 30, 2010 06:02 AM (SgJIM)

16 There was also some noise out of Joisee about the new budget not being all as advertised. Anyone see this?

Posted by: dr kill at June 30, 2010 06:03 AM (w9bVp)

17 Sorry. If we grant any sort of even squint real hard you might see it, beginning path to citizenship amnesty program, the dems will just push that to fruition and give up on securing the border, just like last time.

Like a wise man once said
Fool me once.. shame on .... shame on you.... Fool me .....you can't get fooled again

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 30, 2010 06:03 AM (0q2P7)

18

If he had no go zones in his state, maybe he'd feel differently.

My opinion of him just changed radically and won't be changed back again.

Posted by: Who Knows at June 30, 2010 06:03 AM (7FgWm)

19 Isn't he just saying that the federal government has to do the enforcement, not Arizona? And there will be a path to citizenship for those already in the US, much to our disappointment. They aren't all going to get sent home. It's just logistically impossible.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at June 30, 2010 06:04 AM (UEEex)

20

We do have a large illegal community here in NJ. There are entire towns (Bound Brook and Raritan) that have large illegal communities. Also, MS-13 was responsible for multiple murders in Newark.

I think it is patently unfair to those people who follow the legal process to become citizens to be skipped over for criminals (people who illegally cross the border)

No donut for you today, Chris.

Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at June 30, 2010 06:04 AM (LdYLm)

21 My man1!1!1!

Posted by: Michael Steele at June 30, 2010 06:05 AM (w9bVp)

22

OK, keuf is flat out scary.

That has to be a human being.  But how much is paying a human to drop spam on a mid-range blog a viable economic model?

Posted by: hobgoblin at June 30, 2010 06:05 AM (SgJIM)

23

The only 'clear path' I could accept for illegals is one that puts them on something like probation for a period of time.

You want to be a citizen?  You're subject to the law like a citizen.  That means consequences for actions.  (If you ever wonder what 'freedom' leftlings actually support, it's freedom from consequences.)

Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at June 30, 2010 06:05 AM (ps0+9)

24 *on phone*
"Hello, you do tattoo removal....?"

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 30, 2010 06:05 AM (0q2P7)

25 I think a lot of people would agree with c) if we first achieved a) and then got serious about b). But since the commies and RINO's keep going for c first .... Actually I could go for c) if we got off the entitlement hamster wheel. We are a great country and no one should go hungry or without shelter -- but instead of handing out money we should provide a bunk in a barracks and mess hall meals to folks that have fallen on truly hard times. If they make me dictator for 5 years I'll make it happen, LOL

Posted by: palerider at June 30, 2010 06:05 AM (5CusZ)

26

I read it as he does not like the idea of 50 states having 50 approaches to what the feds should be doing.

I am ok with that.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at June 30, 2010 06:05 AM (C2//T)

27 There was a guest worker program back in the '50s but I never heard why it is commonly called a "failure."

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at June 30, 2010 06:05 AM (8UVgX)

28 Hey, he's right.  My family came over 350 years ago, we didn't have to do shit but kill mosquitoes, fight yellow fever, kill some Indians (feather, not dot), and a few Brits.

We need immigrants and we need them to be Republicans.
 
They work. 

They are family oriented, they are mostly Catholic.

Sounds like our demographics. 

Posted by: Kemp at June 30, 2010 06:06 AM (vSiVD)

29

I read it as he does not like the idea of 50 states having 50 approaches to what the feds should be doing.

I am ok with that.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at June 30, 2010 11:05 AM (C2//T)


This. +1000.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at June 30, 2010 06:06 AM (UEEex)

30 I'm going to wait till we hear directly from Christie's mouth.  Note that the original article came from Ben Smith at Politico.  He may be wired into the New Media but he still leans left.

But he did intimate that he thinks stringent state-by-state laws – such as in Arizona – are the wrong approach...

See that word "intimate"; it's a wonderfully subjective word.  So does Christie think that the state-by-state laws are stringent, or does Smith think that Christie thinks that the state-by-state laws are stringent.  Big difference ya' know.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at June 30, 2010 06:07 AM (/U/Mr)

31 Hey morons, those blueberries and peppers ain't gonna pick themselves. Buena Vista, Atlantic County, how you doin?????

Posted by: Gov. Crispy at June 30, 2010 06:08 AM (w9bVp)

32

He's a smart guy so hear him out.

He does have a point. The states shouldn't have to deal with immigration. Maybe Arizona's law is a bad idea in that it won't work or will get tangled up in the courts. But it's also a good idea in that it sends a warning shot across the feds' bow: Fix it or we will.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at June 30, 2010 06:09 AM (8UVgX)

33 Ace, Other countries have large guest worker programs. Why can't we? That ship has already sailed. Before the Reagan amnesty, the prevailing pattern was for Mexican workers to spend some time here, and then go home. The amnesty changed that. Most workers still return home, but you have large groups of people that come, plug into the social networks provided by existing residents (often their relatives), and stay here. It's called "chain migration." To reset the clock, you'd have to expel millions of American citizens who happen to originate from Mexico.

Posted by: Mastiff at June 30, 2010 06:09 AM (8dy/N)

34 He's a RINO. I know a lot of morons and moronettes have crushes on him, but he's still a RINO - better than nothing, but that's about it. On the other hand, he is talking about a problem that doesn't effect his state directly (directly being defined as "NJ is not a border state"). So he can spout off all liberal-like and not suffer any real political damage.

The problem is his pandering to the illegal immigrant lobby. If he had said, he wanted a clear - and less complicated, more efficient - path to citizenship for anyone willing to come here legally (thus excluding illegals) he'd find out there are tens of millions of voters nationwide who would back him.

This approach puts him in the same league as Juan McCain.

Posted by: Josef K. at June 30, 2010 06:09 AM (7+pP9)

35 33 Hey morons, those blueberries and peppers ain't gonna pick themselves.

Buena Vista, Atlantic County, how you doin?????

Posted by: Gov. Crispy at June 30, 2010 11:08 AM (w9bVp)

And that is why you have a Guest Worker program. Folks need work, farmers need seasonal help.

Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at June 30, 2010 06:10 AM (LdYLm)

36
Why, Guvnah?

What do we gain from it? How much clearer does Ann Coulter have to make it? We gain ZERO votes if we support amnesty. Zero.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:10 AM (uFokq)

37 “clear” path to legalization for immigrants, there would never be a fix.

Is "legalization" citizenship?

Posted by: huerfano at June 30, 2010 06:10 AM (rqC5o)

38 Anyone who wants to address illegal immigration at the federal level must first address the fact that the federal government has ZERO CREDIBILITY on illegal immigration. Christie certainly failed to do that in these remarks.

Posted by: Bugler at June 30, 2010 06:11 AM (VXBR1)

39
oh, this is from Ben cocksucker Smith?


Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:11 AM (uFokq)

40 Northeastern Republicans HAVE to say these sorts of things. New Jersey is not Arizona.

Posted by: Chris R at June 30, 2010 06:11 AM (AO4qz)

41 Well, he did say he doesn't want to be Presnit.

Posted by: dr kill at June 30, 2010 06:11 AM (w9bVp)

42

But why can't Republicans push back and offer a larger -- not huge, but larger -- guest-worker program? Two years, four years, whatever, and then either go home or get another extension?

You're suggesting the reenactment of the Bracero program.  The only way Big Labor would go with that is to make sure they all get unionized.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at June 30, 2010 06:11 AM (/U/Mr)

43 We have a clear path to citizenship; go back to Mexico and apply. 

The problem is that many interests want the benefit of slavish labor and to hell with the societal cost.

Posted by: toby928 at June 30, 2010 06:11 AM (4WbTI)

44 Deal breaker.

He's to the left of most libtards I know living on the west coast on this issue. It's not like the criminal illegals or those pushing for amnesty care about the rule of law. Federalism be damned in this instance. Let the states force the Fed's hand. If they have to go it piecemeal, so be it.

Heartache.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 30, 2010 06:12 AM (pLTLS)

45 Chris Christie?

Never heard of her.

Posted by: Charles Gibson at June 30, 2010 06:12 AM (XxAYS)

46

What always gets ignored in these conversations is the mess of the H1-B visa program. We are talking decent paying jobs going to foreign workers.

Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at June 30, 2010 06:13 AM (LdYLm)

47 :sighs:, heroes, especially in the political realm, will always let you down at some point.

“This is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix,” he said. “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”

A federal "fix" isn't necessary, just for the feds to enforce the existing law.  And maybe the border states in particular need more stringent immigration laws than the rest of the country.  I've never liked the federal "one size fits all" approach.


Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at June 30, 2010 06:13 AM (9hSKh)

48 @16 You beat me to it. Except my prediction was Allahpander would post this story with the tired meme "Heartache."

Posted by: George Orwell at June 30, 2010 06:13 AM (AZGON)

49 O/T

Al Gore, a hunk a hunk burning LOVE!

DNA!  I guess the "global" warming is mostly in his crouch.

http://tinyurl.com/2ummctn

Posted by: Kemp at June 30, 2010 06:13 AM (vSiVD)

Posted by: Socrates H. Obummer at June 30, 2010 06:14 AM (uiKEv)

51
Hey, I have an ideer.

How about the Republicans pander to the hispanics and  the liberals with a more moderate approach to illegal immigrants stand up for the rule of law and secure our borders?

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:14 AM (uFokq)

52

I would accept this.

Seal the border, make a path to citizenship for those here, a long one 10 years sounds about right, enlarge the guest worker program, but instead of the uneducated, how about we let in some qualified people?

however i think we all know none of these things will ever happen.

We are going to become mexico north.

Posted by: Ben at June 30, 2010 06:14 AM (wuv1c)

53 But why can't Republicans push back and offer a larger -- not huge, but larger -- guest-worker program?

They'd have to propose the annual issue of tens of millions of no-qualification visas to depress wages as much as the continual promise of amnesty does. That won't sell. So they do this.

Posted by: oblig. at June 30, 2010 06:15 AM (x7Ao8)

54 Amnesty is a total deal breaker.  Total.  No matter how good someone might be on normal fiscal issues, support for amnesty is stupid and treasonous.  Christie ought to find his way back to sanity before he ends up just more political road-kill.

Anyone who doesn't understand the concept of US sovereignty and its necessary defense has no business being anywhere in government.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 06:15 AM (Qp4DT)

55
Yeah, everyone knows fiscal conservatism and illegal immigration and open borders all go hand-in-hand.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:15 AM (uFokq)

56 54

I would accept this.

Seal the border, make a path to citizenship for those here, a long one 10 years sounds about right, enlarge the guest worker program, but instead of the uneducated, how about we let in some qualified people?

however i think we all know none of these things will ever happen.

We are going to become mexico north.

Posted by: Ben at June 30, 2010 11:14 AM (wuv1c)

Hey, that's how the Aztecs did it. They moved in and provided cheap labor, then BANG, ripping out thousands of people's hearts every year.

Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at June 30, 2010 06:16 AM (LdYLm)

57 Fortunately, he's a smart Republican that doesn't drag us down or drive us apart with divisive issues like abortion. Cause that's icky and stupid and anyone who mentions that is somehow some religious nut. This on the other and, is about basic numan rights and fairness.... oh. wait one.......

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 30, 2010 06:16 AM (R2fpr)

58

It's a shame that Hot Air highlighted these remarks - designed to deflate Christie's conservative support - when in the Politico article, Christie refers to the "schism" that has formed between private and public unions in his state. This should be cause for joy among conservatives, but no - let's look for any reason to despair.

The remarks on the AZ law seemed a little disjointed and fuzzy to me. Who knows what the context was when Christie spoke to the reporter. All this breast-beating about how Christie has abandoned conservatives is just counter-productive.

The man has managed to get his budget passed with Democratic support. His focus right now is to break the stranglehold the teachers' union has on the people of  NJ. If his state's major issue was illegal immigrants terrorizing the populace, that's what he would be reforming. Don't let some Politico shmuck define the narrative, people.

Posted by: kallisto at June 30, 2010 06:16 AM (+FkcS)

59 #54

Germany has guest worker, who can NOT vote. 

The first step in any of this is changing the citizenship rules to disallow children of aliens, citizenship if they are born in the USA. 

No one does that but us.

Posted by: Kemp at June 30, 2010 06:17 AM (vSiVD)

60 I pressed Enter before I could write that what was wrong with a guest worker program is giving jobs out to people who aren't citizens.

Why? Do we have so many jobs here that we have to import people to fill them?  Look around.   We don't.




Posted by: Socrates H. Obummer at June 30, 2010 06:18 AM (uiKEv)

61
Damn.  Sigh.  And I was just beginning to find fat hawt.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2010 06:18 AM (UOM48)

62

I would accept this.

Seal the border, make a path to citizenship for those here, a long one 10 years sounds about right,

Posted by: Ben at June 30, 2010 11:14 AM (wuv1c)

Unacceptable.  And sealing the border is a total joke, with respect to illegals filling up the US, since tens of millions of aliens come through here annually and millions could easily choose to just overstay and become illegals.  Sealing the border is a joke that amnesty shills sell, since nothing matters without interior enforcement, but the amnesty shills refuse to have any interior enforcement, at all.  They just want to "seal the border", legalize all (leaving no illegals in the US) and then pretend that the US won't just fill back up with even more illegals (since we have no interior enforcement - and are guaranteed to have none when all illegals are legalized leaving no illegals to enforce anything on).

No.  Amnesty is a deal-breaker, no matter what steps one takes to get to it.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 06:19 AM (Qp4DT)

63

Two years, four years, whatever, and then either go home or get another extension?

This is supposed to be how it works now. There is just no enforcement. There is such an entangled web of problems with this whiole situation. The illegals have no skin inn the game. The entitlement porgrams are out of control,and unsustainable. That is why I'm such a proponent of a flat tax or fair tax system.

Immigrants cannot avoid paying into the system wehntaxation is based upon consumption. All of the poor, downtrodden, illegal aliens will then be taxed on their Bog Macs and their cell phones. The fat cat bankers will be taxed on their many vacation homes, planes and boats.

 

And the illegals will no longer only take away from the system without putting back in.

Posted by: Gunslinger at June 30, 2010 06:20 AM (Zi+FQ)

64 What 56 progressoverpeace said, except bolded and in all caps and with an html blink tag.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 30, 2010 06:20 AM (Ee9Pv)

65 It's also necessary to combat the presumed privledge Latin America claims the US economy and to dump unwanted populations.

Posted by: Jason

 

And the only way to do this is to reward criminal activity? And you're sure that Latin America will love us again? Howz about we choose one of their countries at random and adopt their immigration laws? Will we be suddenly loved for adopting foreign law, like some of the Supreme Court advocates?

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 30, 2010 06:21 AM (R2fpr)

66

From CC's Wikipedia page:

Illegal immigration:

While serving as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Christie stressed that simply "eing in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," but rather a civil wrong; and that undocumented people are not criminals unless they have re-entered the country after being deported. As such, Christie stated, responsibility for dealing with improperly-documented foreign nationals lies with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, not the U.S. Attorney's Office.[52] Christie has been critical about section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted in 1996, which can be used to grant local law enforcement officers power to perform immigration law enforcement functions. Christie's running mate, Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno, on the other hand, applied for and was granted approval under 287(g) to have officers at the county jail deputized as immigration agents.[53]

--

 

He seems kinda liberal on some other issues, too, most notably gun control. I still like Teh Big Guy overall, but I wouldn't want him as leader of the GOP.

Posted by: Moron in a Leopard Snuggie at June 30, 2010 06:21 AM (Ks4nX)

67 Why? Do we have so many jobs here that we have to import people to fill them?  Look around.   We don't.

Bullshit.

You want to pick fruit?  Drive up to Michigan, Paw Paw needs workers.  Wonder why none of the "unemployed" union folks aren't showing up for those jobs.

We got jobs, just not jobs our spoiled citizens want to do.  Soon they will want to do them.  Wait, the depression is a coming!

Posted by: Kemp at June 30, 2010 06:22 AM (vSiVD)

68 It's a shame typical that Hot Air highlighted these remarks

Fixed!

Posted by: huerfano at June 30, 2010 06:22 AM (rqC5o)

69 No.  Amnesty is a deal-breaker, no matter what steps one takes to get to it.

Cut. Jib. The rest is history.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 30, 2010 06:22 AM (pLTLS)

70
When you get right down to it, he's just a lawyer just like the rest of 'em.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:23 AM (uFokq)

71 Other countries have large guest worker programs. Why can't we?

Really, ace?  That's your argument? 

My impression from spending a summer doing work in Germany is that these guest worker programs result in some serious ethnic resentment issues, case in point with the Turks.  Don't the Japanese also have a lot of guest workers and aren't they also treated like second-class people?  If someone is a guest worker, where's their motivation to assimilate?  There is none.  We have problems now with ethnic groups not bothering to learn English, it'll tons worse if they aren't ever going to become citizens.

I hear the ag folks pushing for cheap labor and it's clear that ends justify the means with these folks so they are a big part of the illegal problem here in California.  It pisses me off no end as most of the ag business people I've met are sort of "conservative" (by California standards), but they give themselves a pass on following immigration laws. 

When my mom was a girl, she picked tobacco in the summer.  I'm sure a lot of our parents did similar sorts of seasoal manual labor.  Why is it that now, 50 years later when ag technology is so much more sophisticated, our ag folks need illegals (or "guest workers", ie: underpaid labor 'cause that's what we're talking about here I'm sure) to prop up their businesses?

Here's an idea: why don't the associations of growers support the development of technology that would eliminate the need for slave cheap labor?  A couple of years ago I worked with an ag board member who was trying to get stone fruit picking robots developed.  The level of industry support for the project was pathetically low. 

Posted by: Y-not at June 30, 2010 06:23 AM (Kn9r7)

72 About time the Christie slobber fest around here got a dose of reality. Man talks tough, and has files on his opponents from his AG career, but there are too many "sanctuary" cities in NJ.

Posted by: Pecos Bill at June 30, 2010 06:23 AM (8WOM0)

73 We will have an emigration problem for as long as Mexico remains a booming sanctuary for narco-terrorist cartels.  Back in the day, Mexican seasonal laborers, with their hard-earned wages would return in the autumn to their own country.  Now the rational decision is to remain in the US, work/welfare the year around, and protect life, limbs, and cash. 

Posted by: mrp at June 30, 2010 06:23 AM (HjPtV)

74 My best friend e-mailed me yesterday that she and her husband have abandoned, for now, their beautiful home on the Sea of Cortez on the East Cape of Baja.  They had literally become afraid for their lives.  They've bought a place in Nevada.  She has family in Arizona who are absolutely fed up with the crime and fear. 

Meanwhile, the federal government is more concerned with amnesty than sealing the damned border. 

The fat guy needs to get a clue.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2010 06:24 AM (UOM48)

75
We got jobs, just not jobs our spoiled citizens want to do.

The fuck you going on about, Kemp?

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:24 AM (uFokq)

76 Also, I hate the conflation of immigrants with illegal immigrants.  There is currently a clear path to legalization for immigrants.

Yes.

I don't even like the phrase "illegal immigrants."  The drug cartels, the guys who are just here to send money home--they're not "immigrating."

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 30, 2010 06:24 AM (mR7mk)

77 Where did he say path to citizenship? Did moron reading comprehension drop a few grade levels this AM. Legalization is not citizenship -- A revised green card program that imposes a substantial fine to those who do not originate their cards in their home countries or carry health insurance, and has an employer reporting requirement to stay valid would be a start, esp if it is tied to a change in birth status.

Posted by: Migrating Birds at June 30, 2010 06:25 AM (Ef5w3)

78 "Other countries have large guest worker programs. Why can't we?

Why do we have this childish insistence that it be all-or-nothing?"

Other countries don't have the anchor baby law, which is basically enshrined in the Constitution and immutable at this point.

Posted by: the peanut gallery at June 30, 2010 06:25 AM (NurK6)

79

70 - this is unbelievable.

Instead of highlighting the man's achievements, which are formidable - the discussion has now turned to Christie's stance on amnesty - which is irrelevant at this point, since he's the governor of New Jersey and has no plans to run for president. Again, a libtard journo sets the plate for conservatives, and everything on it is lapped up with mind-numbing predictability.

Posted by: kallisto at June 30, 2010 06:26 AM (+FkcS)

80 So basically we're going to be the Party of Fiscal Conservatism by importing more of the new helot class whose low cost to employers is underwritten by massive government spending?

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at June 30, 2010 06:28 AM (xlmQD)

81 So, Fatso may not be perfect after all. Well, he's Governor of New Jersey - not Texas, not Arizona, not even South Carolina. What, precisely, did you expect? That said... "But he did intimate that he thinks stringent state-by-state laws – such as in Arizona – are the wrong approach..." Any time a lefty rag like Politico "intimates" something about a GOP Pol - any GOP pol, yes, even Juan Mavericky McMaverick - I think benefit of the doubt should accrue to said pol until and unless said "intimation" is confirmed. After all, there are plenty of instances to show when a MSM-type "intimating" about a Republican loosely translates to "Making Shit Up About Them".

Posted by: DocJ at June 30, 2010 06:28 AM (dt6br)

82 Yep, funny how this article popped up after Christie got the Dems to roll over on the budget.

Posted by: Ludicrous Speed at June 30, 2010 06:29 AM (LdYLm)

83 Where did he say path to citizenship? Did moron reading comprehension drop a few grade levels this AM. Legalization is not citizenship -- A revised green card program that imposes a substantial fine to those who do not originate their cards in their home countries or carry health insurance, and has an employer reporting requirement to stay valid would be a start, esp if it is tied to a change in birth status.

Posted by: Migrating Birds

 

And if they don't do these steps, what then? Is any advocate of 'legalization' suggesting jail or deportation? Ineligibility for benefits and educational opportunities? A fine for not paying the fine? A sternly worded letter? What incentive is there for current criminals to take this yellow brick road of legalization? We've already been told that any sort of incarceration or deportaion is in human. And we've been told that enforcement of existing laws is impossible. But if this new, new mostrosity is passed, magically this will be enforceable?

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 30, 2010 06:30 AM (R2fpr)

84 Everybody in a circle? Great!

Ready. Aim. ...

Posted by: Jay in Ames at June 30, 2010 06:31 AM (UEEex)

85 I never frequented Hot Air, but if this is how they roll, I believe I haven't missed much.

Posted by: kallisto at June 30, 2010 06:31 AM (+FkcS)

86 "It's a shame that Hot Air highlighted these remarks - designed to deflate Christie's conservative support - when in the Politico article, Christie refers to the "schism" that has formed between private and public unions in his state... Don't let some Politico shmuck define the narrative, people." Almost as if Hot Air were a place that frowned upon conservatives and longed to mimic the Beltway parochialism of Coddington Van Voorhees III. Hey, wait a minute... Hey, wait...

Posted by: George Orwell at June 30, 2010 06:31 AM (AZGON)

87 Chris Christie DOES know that the clear path to citizenship for illegals means permanent Republican minority status, 'rebranding' or no, right?

Posted by: always right at June 30, 2010 06:32 AM (HmCnI)

88

You want to pick fruit?  Drive up to Michigan, Paw Paw needs workers.  Wonder why none of the "unemployed" union folks aren't showing up for those jobs.

We got jobs, just not jobs our spoiled citizens want to do.  Soon they will want to do them.  Wait, the depression is a coming!

With the Commiecrat unions, the game is "heads they win, tails we lose". They carp about the need for "a living wage", and then they import a massive underclass to drive the wages down. And vote for more Commiecrats.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 06:33 AM (ujg0T)

89

>>> “This is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix,” he said. “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”

Big talk from a guy who is not on the border.  And a "federal fix"?!  Yeah that'll work just like the federal fix in the fucking Gulf.

Fuck the feds.

Posted by: Roadking at June 30, 2010 06:33 AM (YObWz)

90 “This is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix,” he said. “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.
Jesus, calm down everyone.

He's right. It is a federal problem. And you all agree with him.

He's not necessarily saying that states don't have the right to police their borders. The point is, it's the federal governments role and they're failing to live up to it.

He agrees with you.

Stop with the kneejerk responses. He's barely even directly quoted on the immigration issue in this article. Who knows how much of it is being interpreted or spun by the reporter.

Relax.


Posted by: Warden at June 30, 2010 06:35 AM (fE6tn)

91 We got jobs, just not jobs our spoiled citizens want to do. 

Kemp has half a point.  If you go to Detroit and offer an able-bodied high-school dropout minimum wage plus room, board, and transportation to the apple orchards in upstate Michigan for the season, they're going to sneer at you.  They already get room, board, and some spending money for sitting around Detroit with their friends and family.  They're making a rational economic decision.

The problem I have with the "jobs spoiled Americans won't do" people is that they're spending more time sneering at people who have worked to get skills and/or education to do more than pick apples instead of changing things up so the rational economic decision is not to sit around Detroit loafing.

(I don't want to just pick on Detroit; every big declining Rust Belt city in a state with agriculture has the same problem.  It's "racist" to expect the unemployed city residents to move an hour out of town to milk cows, but it's somehow OK to expect illegally-entrant Mexicans to move thousands of miles to milk cows.)

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 30, 2010 06:37 AM (mR7mk)

92
Fuck that. I've already got out my pitchfork and torch.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:37 AM (uFokq)

93
"We got jobs, just not jobs our spoiled citizens want to do.

The fuck you going on about, Kemp?"

He's talking about the jobs that fat-assed welfare dregs refuse to do, like agricultural work, construction, meat packing, etc.

Part of the problem is illegals driving down the pay, part of the problem is handouts making it more lucrative to stay on the dole. Cut both of those and suddenly "jobs Americans won't do" become "jobs Americans love".

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 06:37 AM (ZJ/un)

94 I'm sorry it won't appear to work with Mr. Christie. I guess New Jersey's famous ways of playing fast and loose with the rule of law so that political objectives can be achieved can only be shaken so far. Pity.

The illegals in this country have no moral claim on citizenship, and even having a guest worker program does not mean it has to be those who are here now. 

Posted by: Horatius at June 30, 2010 06:38 AM (Xzn5i)

95  *on phone*
"Hello, you do tattoo removal....?"

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 30, 2010 11:05 AM (0q2P7)

Thread winner.

Posted by: RushBabe at June 30, 2010 06:38 AM (W8m8i)

96 SECURE THE BORDER, THEN AND ONLY THEN, WE'LL TALK!

Posted by: GarandFan at June 30, 2010 06:39 AM (6mwMs)

97 So the new best hope for us who the conservative media drool over is for amnesty? GREAT! Say goodbye to the Republican party.

Posted by: Dan at June 30, 2010 06:39 AM (1jzSs)

98 Mexico is a failed state.

Posted by: captain obvious at June 30, 2010 06:40 AM (4WbTI)

99 NO PATH SPECIAL PATH TO CITIZENSHIP! They can apply to be citizens like everyone else. Gues worker program, fine. SECURE THE BORDER.

Posted by: Dan at June 30, 2010 06:41 AM (1jzSs)

100 @dananjcon

Nice move! You voted for the fat f$%k!


Posted by: NJConservative at June 30, 2010 06:41 AM (LH6ir)

101 “This is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix,” he said. “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”

I guess Christie is going to next explain to us how local cops shouldn't have a big role in bank robberies (as bank robbery is a federal crime).  Maybe New Jersey will keep its local cops away from bank robberies and bank robbers, letting the FBI come in and handle things?  That would be interesting to watch.  I think that the US might actually need a state to do this to show so many of the retards in this nation how federal and state authorities are supposed to complement each other in enforcing on the ground laws.  The federal government has no "beat cops" that can be expected to be near ANYWHERE to response.  ALl of these issues (whether federal violations or not) come down to local cops interacting with individuals on the street.  Libtards and insane amnesty shills seem to have some sort of problem understanding this.

So, I now expect Christie to stop Jersey cops from dealing with any issue that falls under federal jurisdiction (including bank robberies and terrorism) until everyone can see the total stupidity in this sort of idea and they can learn their lesson about how the states are NECESSARY in carrying out enforcement of many federal statutes.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 06:41 AM (Qp4DT)

102 But he did intimate that he thinks stringent state-by-state laws – such as in Arizona – are the wrong approach, and added....

Which means like the libtards who came out screaming he has not read the bill.

What the real problem is isn't that we need reform. The problem is that EVERY damn reform they have had for the past 50 years has been some kind of amnesty and open gates to more destitute permanent welfare drones.

So why is he jumping on the libtard band wagon now?

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2010 06:43 AM (6taRI)

103

He also flip-flopped on abortion, ala Romney. But to his credit, he flipped in the right direction.

 

Posted by: Moron in a Leopard Snuggie at June 30, 2010 06:43 AM (Ks4nX)

104 Seal the border,  limit benefits for illegals,  then let's talk path to citizenship. 

Posted by: doom_n_gloom at June 30, 2010 06:43 AM (kUPJR)

105
Not all illegals are picking fruit. They're also painting, roofing, drywalling, etc.

Contractors are paying them peanuts. Why would a citizen want to work for half of what he's worth?

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:44 AM (uFokq)

106

Why, why, why should successful criminals be rewarded by a special path to citizenship?

Why won't my government enforce it's own laws?

Why does the government actively work to undermine the state that is enforcing those laws?

 

Posted by: Who Knows at June 30, 2010 06:44 AM (7FgWm)

107 Once again, lawyers are the problem.  They are one of the few industries that is unaffected by immigration -- legal or illegal.  In fact, they benefit from it and because it is a legal issue, they get rich off of it.

Christie is a lawyer and law schools have no foreign competition because of the language barrier.  I propose the following: We mandate that law schools be made up of at least 50% students who received their undergraduate degree from overseas.

Sure, that's low compared to the sciences, but I think it could work.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 30, 2010 06:46 AM (T0NGe)

108 Jesus Christ man, what is it with pols and their refusal to enforce our border? There has to be some sort of dealings with mexico that hasn't been uncovered that's keeping these pols in their pocket. Disgraceful, fuck you Christie, come here to Texas and deal with it first hand and then see if you want to keep kissing mexico's ass you fat fuck.

Posted by: koopy at June 30, 2010 06:47 AM (awinc)

109 Oh, and ace -- we don't need any more "guest worker" programs. If anything, we need FEWER. And we need a return to sanity in government interference and with some of the lefty culture bullshit we've been saddled with.

Check Insty's site -- a few days ago he had some back-and-forth about how high-tech companies can't hire American PhDs because their HR scrunts only want to hire women, and American women don't do science and technology. The government hacks want to "solve" the problem by forcing more women to go into science and technology -- when the real solution is to stop being worked up over the OUTCOME of hiring practices and focus on the PRACTICES themselves.

We pay people not to work better than they could make working, and wonder why they won't work. We let business import millions of near-slave laborers and wonder why there aren't any decent-paying jobs. We let millions of people ignore some of our most basic laws and wonder why crime seems so prevalent.


Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 06:47 AM (ZJ/un)

110
Bottom line: illegals are low-ballers. They cut the rug out from citizen workers by working for low wages.

They can do that when they pay no taxes, no parking tickets, no insurance, skip out on their bills, and live 20 to a house.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:47 AM (uFokq)

111

Maybe I'm missing something here, but where, exactly, did he say "citizenship"? I see the word "legalization" which is not the same. For all we know, he is talking about a guest worker program. I don't think it's fair to say Christie is for amnesty when there's no indication, in this article at least, that it's true.

As well, he has the steps in the right order: border security, law enforcement, path to legalization. That's exactly where the table-thumping immigration hawks like Tom Tancredo are on the issue as well.

And, of course he's unhappy with the states having to take up immigration enforcement. We should *all* be unhappy with that because that job belongs to the Federal government. He is right to say the solution has to be a "federal fix" because its their job to fix it. Notice, however, that he didn't say states should not do what they are doing, only that he is unhappy that they must.

Nothing Christie said in this article is objectionable int he least. In fact, it's all pretty much common sense.

Posted by: Jimmie at June 30, 2010 06:48 AM (bofTB)

112

And if they don't do these steps, what then? Is any advocate of 'legalization' suggesting jail or deportation? Ineligibility for benefits and educational opportunities? A fine for not paying the fine? A sternly worded letter? What incentive is there for current criminals to take this yellow brick road of legalization? We've already been told that any sort of incarceration or deportaion is in human. And we've been told that enforcement of existing laws is impossible. But if this new, new mostrosity is passed, magically this will be enforceable?

Bingo! The Hispandering Republican fools just don't get it.

The greedhead WSJ types *do* get it; they just expect to have passed on by the time the shit hits the fan and the nation is fractured and Balkanized.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 06:48 AM (ujg0T)

113 “I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”

Do some inquiries when suspects come into custody and turning over their info to ICE isn't a big role, but it's more than a lot of state and city police departments will do now.

Of course, that assumes ICE will do anything with the info.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 30, 2010 06:48 AM (mR7mk)

114 Christie is a lawyer and law schools have no foreign competition because of the language barrier.

Worse than that -- they have a mandated and enforced monopoly.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 06:49 AM (ZJ/un)

115 -->Seal the border, 

Yes.

-->limit benefits for illegals, 

The sole benefit an illegal should get is a bus/plane ticket out of the US.

-->then let's talk path to citizenship. 

Posted by: doom_n_gloom at June 30, 2010 11:43 AM (kUPJR)

Illegals already have citizenship.  They are all citizens of some shithole they are trying to flee from.  Not our problem.  They are breaking our laws and shitting all over our country, which is our problem.

The only path illegals get is a path back to the countries they belong in (if they're lucky and we don't just drop them off on some Pacific island where they can all gather on one side and capsize it).

How can any American make an argument that they want to give extra citizenships to people who already are citizens of other countries?  Just because they broke into our country?  That's crazy.  It's beyond crazy.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 06:49 AM (Qp4DT)

116 "The greedhead WSJ types *do* get it; they just expect to have passed on by the time the shit hits the fan and the nation is fractured and Balkanized."

And leave nice fortress compounds to their children.

Posted by: the peanut gallery at June 30, 2010 06:50 AM (NurK6)

117

107 Its going to be criticized.   If they use that statement to judge his other actions, then I'll be there to slap down the 'pure' conservatives with you. 

That's not the point I was making. I was referring to the way that libtards so easily manipulate conservatives into forming a circular firing squad. If and when Christie throws his hat in the presidential ring, then have at him. Right now he's embroiled in a fight to disable an entrenched special interest group that has effectively taken on the patterns and practice of an organized crime syndicate.And he's winning:

From the Politico article -   a relevant bit of information that was buried on page 2 -

"He was taking something of a victory lap Monday and Tuesday, with a small handful of interviews and a video release about his new-tax-free budget entitled, “They said it couldn’t be done.” 

On the union front, he said, “I think what you see now is that our teachers union is growingly unpopular because they’re inflexible and they believe that they’re entitled to be shielded completely from the recession.”

The teachers union has grown unpopular enough that Dem lawmakers supported Christie's budget. This before he's served his first year in office - in a deep blue state."

(oops. sorry, didn't mean to direct the focus away from the group pity party - carry on)

Posted by: kallisto at June 30, 2010 06:51 AM (+FkcS)

118 Worse than that -- they have a mandated and enforced monopoly.

Well, many professions have licensure procedures which serve to do little more than keep infiltrators from out of the market.  The difference is the closeness the legal profession has to government and the unique role that they play in it.

The hairdresser monopoly really doesn't effect us all that much.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 30, 2010 06:51 AM (T0NGe)

119 I have no problem with keeping the amount of people we let become new citizens at the same level while increasing the number of guest workers. You could do it by issuing eveyone a tamper proof ss card and those without it couldn't work.

Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2010 06:52 AM (fwSHf)

120 Ok, I'm confused. How is Christie wrong by saying that securing the border is a federal issue and not a state issue when the governor of Arizona says the same damn thing over and over? When she runs campaign ads saying "Mr. President, do your job." exactly what job do you think she is referring to? I may not agree with him on the path to citizenship but he is absolutely right about the Arizona law. The only reason it was even put in place is because the feds refuse to do their jobs.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 30, 2010 06:52 AM (VW9/y)

121
Do some inquiries when suspects come into custody and turning over their info to ICE isn't a big role, but it's more than a lot of state and city police departments will do now.

Considering they also check you for outstanding warrants, I really don't get the beef with checking your immigration status. The people who object to that are, fundamentally, saying the US should simply dissolve and Mexico del Norte.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 06:52 AM (ZJ/un)

122

Check Insty's site -- a few days ago he had some back-and-forth about how high-tech companies can't hire American PhDs

What is happening in technology industries is the upper class and white collar version of what is happening in construction and agribusiness.

In the tech field, the discouraged white middle class workers have wages bid down by H-1B's and so they leave technology head off to finance, business, or now, given the Demunist expansion, governmental bureaucracy.

In construction and agribusiness, the discouraged mostly black workers have wages bid down by illegals and so they leave grunt work and head off to welfare and drug dealing.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 06:52 AM (ujg0T)

123 We need immigrants and we need them to be Republicans.
 
They work. 

They are family oriented, they are mostly Catholic.

Sounds like our demographics. 

Posted by: Kemp at June 30, 2010 11:06 AM (vSiVD)

Kemp, if I'm reading you right and you're referring solely to Mexicans, you need to read a piece Michelle Malkin did on demographics of our illegal amigos.  High school graduation is considered the extreme, not the norm.  The unwed birth rate makes that of the black community look prudish.  It went on and on.  Suffice to say, this is not an easy group to assimilate. 

In my area, the same Mexicans that I routinely encounter don't/won't speak English.  More often than not, in the checkout line at the grocery store, I hear the clerks grumbling how they have to explain that there are some things you can't use your food-stamp debit card for and later remark to their fellow cashiers the holders of those cards feign ignorance every single time.  I used to have the Malkin article in reaching distance, but all I'm finding in the desk cubby is my kids' junk or else I'd post the linky.  It was sobering.

Posted by: RushBabe at June 30, 2010 06:52 AM (W8m8i)

124 My perinea l essay on real reform:

Yes we need immigration reform, but NOT what has been rolled out the last half dozen times. Every bill that has come out since the first major rewrite in 1965 has basically been amnesty and open invitation for illegals to flood across the border.

We are no longer the country of the 19th century with vast open areas in the West. Our cities are overcrowded shit holes run by corrupt communist hacks AND there is no longer a vast area open for the inhabitants to flee to and take up farming.

This is not to mention that we have entire towns in CA with a population > 20,000 in which none of the citizens speak English.  The current crew of "immigrants" do not appear to desire to assimilate and the current crowd of liberals do not think they should. The schools have gone from teaching America as a mixing pot to America as a salad bowl where "diversity" is celebrated and heritage counts for all, unless you have a European heritage then you are a racist.

Yes, there are a lot of things that need to be done to "fix" our immigration laws.  The first one of these should be to repeal that POS of Amnesty Round I that got us where we are today.

We need immigration law that does the following AND that is enforced:

1. Eliminate the BS anchor baby interpretation by providing a definition of what the term “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, which is not dashing across the border to deliver a baby.  Personally, I would require that at least one of the parents of any child born in the U.S. be a citizen before that child was eligible for “birthright” citizenship. If not, then the child would have to undergo naturalization.

2. Provide a reliable means for employers to check the status of employees.

3. Provide severe punishments for knowingly hiring illegals (or reckless disregard). That punishment should include jail time for repeat violations.
  
4. Eliminate ALL benefits for illegals including schools for children.

5. Rewrite legal immigration to allow in immigrants with a desirable education and/or skill set and arrange the waiting list to have the most skilled/educated at the top of the list. (Australian system) Also include a check for communicable diseases (as we did in the past) and provide for immunization. Immigrants from countries on the list of terror support need not apply.

6. For groups that already have large populations in the U.S. who have not assimilated, reduce the allowable numbers until they do (eliminate whole towns that do not speak English)

7. Provide severe penalties for mules.

8. Provide the death penalty for people involved in sex slavery.

9. Eliminate all forms of asylum. That system has been abused to the point of making it a joke. Any true case that needs to be let in should be a case by case special act passed by congress. Get them on record.

10. Immigrants who become involved in any serious crime prior to becoming a citizen should be deported back to their home country.

11. Absolutely no dual citizenship allowed.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2010 06:52 AM (6taRI)

125
The hairdresser monopoly really doesn't effect us all that much.

Unless you want to be a hairdresser and the cartel doesn't want to let you into their club.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 06:54 AM (ZJ/un)

126 So let me get this straight... We taxpaying citizens get all fiscally conservative so we can then pay for the freebies for the uneducated Illegals who will vote for the Dims anyway. Fucking brilliant, lardass.

Posted by: TexasJew in Israel at June 30, 2010 06:56 AM (uCXFC)

127 I'm a little fuzzy the whole clear path/unclear path thing.

Posted by: Peter Venkman at June 30, 2010 06:57 AM (fLHQe)

128 Pre-1965 laws.  We can build from there.

Posted by: Truman North at June 30, 2010 06:57 AM (3h3kv)

129 Way to boil it down, TexasJew, and very true.

Posted by: Who Knows at June 30, 2010 06:58 AM (7FgWm)

130 8. Provide the death penalty for people involved in sex slavery.

Never fails to amaze me that the bleeding heads who claim to care about the well-being of women and children couldn't care less about the women and children smuggled in to be abused.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at June 30, 2010 06:58 AM (mR7mk)

131

Okay so the thread has progressed to over the top , shoot your own good guys.  

Posted by: polynikes at June 30, 2010 11:50 AM (m2CN7)

Christie shot first.  Do you think he didn't know how explosive any mention of any sort of amnesty is, let alone that imbecilic argument he's trying to make about states not enforcing federal laws?  Do you think Christie is going to stop Jersey cops from responding to bank robberies and kidnappings, as these are federal crimes?

Christie went out of his way to say these things stupid things about illegals and Arizona.  Either he's an idiot or he's ... I don't know ... something.  I'm glad that he's got a good fiscal position, but anyone who is pro-amnesty (of any sort) or who subscribes to that insane "it's federal law and local cops have no business ..." idea is a threat to this nation.  All the fiscal gold stars in the world won't save this nation from those who have not one iota of respect for our sovereignty and who allege that enforcing our own laws (deporting illegals) is inhumane - though they then propose something and promise to enforce the new laws (same as the old, after some insane amnesty has been given) even though they don't have the guts to enforce them, now.  These people are beyond jokes.  They are dangerous to this nation.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 06:58 AM (Qp4DT)

132
Illegals already have citizenship.  They are all citizens of some shithole...

This is a great point that illustrates how well the Left has portrayed these 'workers' as homeless refugees.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 06:58 AM (uFokq)

133

In the tech field, the discouraged white middle class workers have wages bid down by H-1B's and so they leave technology head off to finance, business, or now, given the Demunist expansion, governmental bureaucracy.

Don't forget the off shoring boondoggle. 

Has anyone in IT ever seen an off-shored project actually succeed? In my experience (coming up on 20 years), they've all been the worst performers of any project. The cultural, language, organizational, and logistical (12 hour time difference!) barriers make off-shored work more expensive in the long run -- but the low hourly rates make idiot management salivate.


Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 06:59 AM (ZJ/un)

134 @138: +1

Posted by: Truman North at June 30, 2010 06:59 AM (3h3kv)

135
8. Provide the death penalty for people involved in sex slavery.

HEAR! HEAR!

I could not agree more.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 07:00 AM (ZJ/un)

136

"133 So let me get this straight...
We taxpaying citizens get all fiscally conservative so we can then pay for the freebies for the uneducated Illegals who will vote for the Dims anyway.
Fucking brilliant, lardass."

 

I second this. 

Honeymoon's over.

Posted by: Peter Venkman at June 30, 2010 07:02 AM (fLHQe)

137 out sock

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2010 07:03 AM (fLHQe)

138 Posted by: kallisto at June 30, 2010 11:51 AM (+FkcS)

Well, a path to legalization actually hurts his bargaining position with the unions (but not so much the teachers' unions).  He could be good cop on immigration.  The rank and file know what immigration -- legal and especially illegal -- does to their salaries.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 30, 2010 07:03 AM (T0NGe)

139

We need immigrants and we need them to be Republicans.
 
They work. 

They are family oriented, they are mostly Catholic.

Sounds like our demographics. 

Ah, the sweet siren song of Hispandering.

Meanwhile, *most* of the second, third and n generations, not seeing the relative overnight success like their parents had, get resentful, turn around and vote Commiecrat.

I see this among the Asian folk I live and work with, and among the one I married to. First and second generations, grateful to have fled the Communists, are reliable patriots. But beyond that, they get sucked in by the *stronger* siren song of Multiculturalism (multicommunism) get taught to hate Whitey, and become spoiled campus communist brats. Often their parents shake their heads at having sacrificed to get the kid into Big Name University, only to have him or her come back a commiecrat, often gay at that (sorry Gabriel, but politically they go Left, and hard Left at that).

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 07:04 AM (ujg0T)

140 And if they don't do these steps, what then? ----, magically this will be enforceable? You have to make the system structurally enforceable. Green card holders have to have insurance, or they are revoked, they have to be employed as reported by an employer on their quarterly payroll tax submissions - if not revoked, etc. If a revoked card isn't turned in to the INS within 2 weeks on the way out; federal bench warrant. If stopped, then custody until deportation. Green cards should include a bond, enough to send you home. Border Security is a tough problem, but it should be a federal problem. Any state not willing to enforce federal laws, or that allows cities to ignore it, should have all federal payments cut - highway funds etc.

Posted by: Migrating Birds at June 30, 2010 07:05 AM (XSlA+)

141 Please explain to me if polls show majority do not want amnesty...why do these guys come out calling for it? Looks like another "get out the vote" move to me.

Posted by: I am here reading...never comment. at June 30, 2010 07:06 AM (WRVGO)

142 Unless you want to be a hairdresser and the cartel doesn't want to let you into their club.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 30, 2010 11:54 AM (ZJ/un)

True, but lawyers effect us all and quite directly.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 30, 2010 07:06 AM (T0NGe)

143

Often their parents shake their heads at having sacrificed to get the kid into Big Name University, only to have him or her come back a commiecrat, often gay at that (sorry Gabriel, but politically they go Left, and hard Left at that).

 

Don't be. I watched my stepdaughters and her peers pass through High school, and I have never witnessed so many changes as I did these kids' 'sexual orientation', particularly the girls. And any boy that was quiet or shy was branded gay. I watched not only girls, but their mothers chiming in on that. There were some very interesting conversations when I pointed that out. Pokemon pales in comparison to the fad that being gay, bi-whatever was.

Posted by: Blue Hen at June 30, 2010 07:09 AM (R2fpr)

144

133 So let me get this straight...
We taxpaying citizens get all fiscally conservative so we can then pay for the freebies for the uneducated Illegals who will vote for the Dims anyway.
Fucking brilliant, lardass.

What he^ said.  Just took down my Chris Christie poster.  Dope.

Posted by: Louis Tully at June 30, 2010 07:10 AM (jat5l)

145
They are family oriented, they are mostly Catholic.

Yeah, that's why on Sundays they're at the car wash washing their illegal cars. And on the other six days of the week they're making little U.S. citizens out of wedlock.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks, i do at June 30, 2010 07:13 AM (uFokq)

146 The only flaw I see in his remarks is that it seems to be slightly naive, in the sense that the reason it's become a state enforcement issue is because the federal government has completely given ip on it's responsibility to secure the border. But really, are you guys going to condemn him for kinda supporting amnesty? Because, look, no one likes to admit this in conservative circles, but amnesty is much like gay marrriage - it's GOING to happen at some point in the near future. It is. Conservatives have lost those batttles, even if most people in polls say they're against both, because it's just not practical to continue to deny these issues forever. You're not going to get rid of millions of illegals, a guest worker program at this point would not work out efficiently (it's essentially too little too late). Best course of action is to win back Congress, and either force Barry to compromise on border security or do it hopefully in 2012, when there is a new president.

Posted by: Vyceroy at June 30, 2010 07:14 AM (ndQbN)

147 Seal the border and we can talk. Until then we agitate.

Posted by: Tommy V at June 30, 2010 07:15 AM (qU57d)

148

-->Your first post was the type of criticism I find useful and appropriate.

I try.

-->Calling Christie a fat fuck is the type of criticism the other side loves us to have.

Posted by: polynikes at June 30, 2010 12:08 PM (m2CN7)

I agree, though the weight issue is part of every Christie piece, good and bad.

Christie made a very dumb move, here, though.  I don't understand what purpose he thinks such a stupid (and wildly unpopular - though that isn't the most important point) position serves.  Just supporting SPitzer's licenses for illegals during a primary debate is what killed Shrillary's run and did in Spitzer, too.  He dropped from something like 70% approval to the mid 30's, IIRC. 

And this is all aside from the fact that Christie's position is just wrong.  Local cops and government have the same sort of responsibilities, on the street, with illegals as they do with bank robberies and kidnappings and terrorism and all other federal crimes that the local cops are the ones who actually come into contact with them and must be used to enforce federal law, until the feds can be alerted and pick the perps up or arrize at the scene (finally).  I just don't get people who try to make this asinine "federal, not state" argument and I wonder how they can buy such obvious drivel.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 07:16 AM (Qp4DT)

149

This was essentially a pro-Christie piece from Politico. No hidden agenda. Even the bit about his "nuanced" position on immigration. Coming from the MFM, that's a compliment. People like Jan Brewer are the ones who get savaged by the media.

Christie, Romney and others will be promoted by the MFM as sensible alternatives to the "extremist" Republicans they hate.

As far as undermining CC's standing with the base, that doesn't matter. If a moderate NJ Guv ran for POTUS, his path to victory wouldn't be the bitter clingers anyway.

Posted by: Moron in a Leopard Snuggie at June 30, 2010 07:16 AM (Ks4nX)

150

When Amnesty happens, the deomgraphics change.  We here will never, ever be on the winning side of any election, ever again.

This has to be stopped and reversed for the United States to have any meaning in the future.

If you want your country to be more like Mexico, then import move Mexicans.  So it goes for every fourth-world shithole these poor people are fleeing.

Posted by: Truman North at June 30, 2010 07:18 AM (3h3kv)

151

Because, look, no one likes to admit this in conservative circles, but amnesty is much like gay marrriage - it's GOING to happen at some point in the near future. It is. Conservatives have lost those batttles, even if most people in polls say they're against both, because it's just not practical to continue to deny these issues forever. You're not going to get rid of millions of illegals, a guest worker program at this point would not work out efficiently (it's essentially too little too late).

Then are patriots Demographically Doomed? Because those amnestied, like those who turn "teh ghey", become Leftweenies.

Maybe I should just get an unregistered and untraceable gun so I can off myself when the point of no return for the USA comes.

However, I still hope that like 1860's and 1920's America, we CAN shut the doors for a while (or turn back the sluicegates and reduce the torrent to a trickle for a while) and have an immigration "time out", where we regain our identity as Americans, demand that the newcomers get with the program and integrate, sort out our numerous social ills, etc.

And I say this as someone who married a lovely immigrant, although on all too many issues a mushy liberal one.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 07:19 AM (ujg0T)

152 For those of you defending him or saying he didn't say what he didn't say, consider this:  the fact that he left any room for misinterpretation leads me to believe he wasn't misinterpreted or he isn't very savvy.  I've seen him be too savvy to believe he didn't know exactly how his comments would be received by many on the right.

Secondly, you can't "keep your eyes on the cash register" with any credibility when you're willing to look past illegal immigration and all of the costs to society, both hard costs and ancillary costs.

Put me down for #56 plus 11!eleventy!1!11.  He's fine for NJ and I'll continue to revel in his toying with the unions, but this makes his national leadership a no go for me.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 30, 2010 07:22 AM (YBTwf)

153

But really, are you guys going to condemn him for kinda supporting amnesty?

Yes.

Posted by: Annabelle at June 30, 2010 07:23 AM (KuSkz)

154 Yep @56 +1

Posted by: Truman North at June 30, 2010 07:23 AM (3h3kv)

155 Vyceroy - Conservatives have lost those batttles, even if most people in polls say they're against both, because it's just not practical to continue to deny these issues forever. did someone on TV tell you we lost?

Posted by: Migrating Birds at June 30, 2010 07:24 AM (bXHdf)

156 Ah yes, the "concerned christian eeyores" are here.

The battle is over, we lost, give up quit now.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2010 07:24 AM (6taRI)

157

Stick it up your ass, Vic.

Because if this was about Mitt Romney you'd be tearing him a new asshole.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks at June 30, 2010 07:26 AM (uFokq)

158 He's right. It is a federal problem. And you all agree with him.

He's not necessarily saying that states don't have the right to police their borders. The point is, it's the federal governments role and they're failing to live up to it.

He agrees with you.

Warden nails it. 

Posted by: Y-not at June 30, 2010 07:30 AM (Kn9r7)

159

OK, if Politico is "gaslighting" Christie and us patriots, I might cut him some slack. That does seem like something Ben Smith and assorted weenies over there would do.

But that said, someone needs to politely tell the Big Guy in Jersey that he stuck the proverbial foot in his mouth.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 07:32 AM (ujg0T)

160 The Federal government is an appendage of the States, not vice-versa.  If the feds won't enforce the laws, then it is incumbent upon the states to do it.  It is the exact same thing as a vice president fixing problems caused by middle managers below him- it's his responsibility to keep them in line and get shit done.

Posted by: Truman North at June 30, 2010 07:34 AM (3h3kv)

161 Wow, even Christie does not know that this is a war, so he must not understand or believe our enemies......yet another reason why the commies will ultimately win.

We must face the fact that the ballot box will not save us.




Posted by: pam at June 30, 2010 07:35 AM (h8R9p)

162 Stick it up your ass, Vic.

Because if this was about Mitt Romney you'd be tearing him a new asshole.

Fuck you too asshole, I was responding to post 154, not Christie. On Christie I am at the wait and see mode. Like someone said earlier I don't trust any damn thing Politico says.

Why don't you in the fucking meantime learn how to read.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2010 07:35 AM (6taRI)

163 Oh and BTW, I don't need a statement from Politico to nail Mitt RINO Romney's ass to the wall.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2010 07:36 AM (6taRI)

164 Why does my government somehow find it easy to do what would seemingly be a very politically-hard task by holding firm on EPA oil-discharge regulations in the middle of a catastrophe of epic proportions, and yet when it comes to immigration laws cannot even seem to realize there even is a currently existing law; a law that the oath of office taken by federal public servants demands be faithfully executed?

Why are some laws in this country inviolate, and others not? Why? And what defense will those who do these things count upon if others get in power who then decide to not enforce the laws the first party counts upon for protection or cherishes most deeply? Upon what moral ground will they cry for redress? And who would care? The second party whose own desired (and passed) laws the first party has been trampling upon during its period in power? Please. Human nature is not yet so inherently virtuous.

If laws are passed by proper means and proper bodies, then I say that if you would wish your own cherished laws to be obeyed and enforced, you must yourself obey and enforce those cherished by others. 

Posted by: Horatius at June 30, 2010 07:37 AM (Xzn5i)

165
No, fuck you, Vic, and your constant concern troll warning bullshit. And stick your social liberalism up your ass.

And your concern for gay bashing, you dink.

Posted by: i like chubby asian chicks at June 30, 2010 07:39 AM (uFokq)

166 Yes it is evident that you are a dumb fuck who can't read.

Since you are too stupid to hold a conversation with this is the last wasted post to you.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2010 07:41 AM (6taRI)

167

Oh and BTW, I don't need a statement from Politico to nail Mitt RINO Romney's ass to the wall.

*****

No, fuck you, Vic, and your constant concern troll warning bullshit. And stick your social liberalism up your ass.

And your concern for gay bashing, you dink
.

Whoa, you two DO realize you are on the *same* side of this?

As for Mitt, if he was good enough for Tancredo, he was good enough for me. Vic, kindly remember what the Presidential Primary of 2008 had come down to at that point in time. 

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 07:44 AM (ujg0T)

168 If by "clear path to citizenship" means "preferential treatment for aliens who broke our laws" then Christie can keep his fat ass in New Jersey and away from the White House.  But if that's not what he means I'll keep an open mind until he 'splains himself.

Posted by: Crusty at June 30, 2010 07:51 AM (GvSpB)

169 OMG! I love Christie! I just want to rub his chubby thighs and feed him Big Macs every time he takes it to the unions. He's the next Ronald Reagan! Listen up, GOP, this is how it's done!!! 

OMG! I just read the Politico article!!! Who does this FAT FUCK think he is?!!! Fucking fat fuck RINO!!! Fuck him!

Posted by: Warden at June 30, 2010 07:51 AM (fE6tn)

170 OMG!!! Ben Smith said Christie intimated that he's against Arizona!!!! Fuck Christie! I'm DONE!

Posted by: Warden at June 30, 2010 07:54 AM (fE6tn)

171

#177: See #167. I am more than happy to be wrong about the Big Jersey Guy, and more than willing to accept that Politico is left-gaslighting us.

But when so many GOP pols *still* don't get it on immigration.....

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 30, 2010 07:56 AM (ujg0T)

172

#160 - What "interpretation" is necessary? "Legalization" means legalization and "citizenship" means citizenship. Those commenters here who are saying Christie was talking about citizenship or amnesty are flat-out wrong. There is nothing in his comments to suggest that he was. Saying there is borders on the outright dishonest.

Like I said up-thread, look at the order in which he put immigration priorities.

1) Border security.

2) Enforcing the current law.

3) A path to legalization.

How is that list of priorities any different at all from someone like Tom Tancredo or, for that matter, J.D. Hayworth? That is exactly the same priority list we enforcement types have been screaming for the GOP to push for at least four years if not longer.

Posted by: Jimmie at June 30, 2010 07:57 AM (bofTB)

173 Since the quoted article says "legalization" not citizenship, I can't say what Christie actually stands for - guest workers or citizenship.  I'll await clarification from him (and hopefully others who known or worked with him) on that.  At this point, since he's only governor of Jersey and hasn't announced anything to the contrary, it doesn't affect me much.

Even if he turns out to be a "path to citizenship" guy, I'm not blacklisting him - so long as he would deliver on real enforcement - I'd disagree with him, but he's not "off my ticket" as a result. 

If he wound up being both an enforcement "talker" and a citizenship "walker" (e.g. McCain) I might seriously question his "new kind of politician" cred, but that remains to be seen.

Posted by: societyis2blame at June 30, 2010 07:59 AM (7ZyYf)

174 177-178:  Spot on, Warden.

Posted by: societyis2blame at June 30, 2010 08:00 AM (7ZyYf)

175 Those motherfucking liars in the media!!! Propaganda for the other side is all they spout! Liars!! Traitors!! They'll do and say anything to advance their agenda and harm Republicans.

OMG! Did you see how Politico is describing its conversation with Christie!!!!  No need to hear or see an original, unedited transcript. Their interpretation within this one article is enough for me to make up my mind! Christie is dead to me!!!


Posted by: Warden at June 30, 2010 08:01 AM (fE6tn)

176 DEAD!!!!11111111ONEONEONEONEELEVEN

Posted by: Warden at June 30, 2010 08:02 AM (fE6tn)

177 He said LEGALIZATION, not naturalization, not citizenship.

There are a lot of ways to legalization without granting citizenship.

IMO, it works something like:
Anyone granted amnesty cannot become a citizen. If they leave the country and re-enter LEGALLY, then they can be come citizens. As resident legal aliens, they have no right to vote. This is punishment for breaking our immigration laws.

If you were granted amnesty and you commit certain classes of crimes, you get deported. For example, getting a speeding ticket won't do it. Running from the police or being arrested for DUI, you're gone.

The children of anyone granted amnesty are not citizens. They can become citizens through the naturalization process, but they are not citizens by birth. THEIR children will be born citizens if they are citizens when the child is born.

No welfare, no medicare for anyone granted amnesty, nor for their children. You want to be here, you support YOURSELF and your family.

Aggressive enforcement against businesses that hire illegal aliens. It's very easy, at least currently, to determine which businesses are using illegals. Let's be honest, nearly any American can swing a hammer and build a house with direction, or cut the grass, build sidewalks, etc.  How many Mexicans do we need to import to tasks like this (hint to ICE, those business are probably using illegal workers).

The official language of the country is English. All government signs and paperwork will be in english. Not chinese, german, spanish, or anything else. ENGLISH. This is important because it works to force these people to integrate into our society. Multi-cultural societies do not survive and grow stronger; history has proven this.

There you go - they are LEGALIZED, but not citizens.

All of this, however, is contigent on an AGGRESSIVE lockdown of our border to prevent more people from entering the country, and aggressive enforcement on anyone who is caught and not here legally. If we cannot control our borders and do not enforce our laws, then we'll get more of the same.

I'm on board with this. I have no problem with people who come here legally seeking a better life for themselves and their family. I do have a problem with people breaking our immigration laws and coming here to suckle on the welfare state.

Posted by: blindside at June 30, 2010 08:06 AM (x7g7t)

178 *unscrews another bottle of Schnapp's*

Posted by: Filly at June 30, 2010 08:09 AM (R+lqk)

179 186:  Ok, I'll bite - then I gotta do some work.

The American public isn't buying the "ship all illegals back ASAP and make them wait" approach - too many even on the Right don't see that as practical no matter how philosophically appealing it may be.  We're going to end up with some kind of solution that lets the majority of illegals already here remain in the U.S. 

I can live with that so long as we a) stop the "anchor babies"; b) stop the current flow of illegals and c) identify the present illegals, insure that they do not have voting rights and aren't receiving public assistance of any kind and d) promptly deport any "resident alien" who commits anything above an infraction.

If that makes me a RINO, oh well.


Posted by: societyis2blame at June 30, 2010 08:12 AM (7ZyYf)

180 187 refers to 185, actually (my bad), but I will take a hit off that schnapps.

Posted by: societyis2blame at June 30, 2010 08:15 AM (7ZyYf)

181

The man has managed to get his budget passed with Democratic support. His focus right now is to break the stranglehold the teachers' union has on the people of  NJ. If his state's major issue was illegal immigrants terrorizing the populace, that's what he would be reforming. Don't let some Politico shmuck define the narrative, people.

Posted by: kallisto at June 30, 2010 11:16 AM (+FkcS)

Ditto

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, aka Col. Bat Guano at June 30, 2010 08:18 AM (JrRME)

182 -->What "interpretation" is necessary? "Legalization" means legalization and "citizenship" means citizenship. Those commenters here who are saying Christie was talking about citizenship or amnesty are flat-out wrong. 

Posted by: Jimmie at June 30, 2010 12:57 PM (bofTB)

Legalization IS amnesty.  Legal residency is what illegals are stealing.  To let them have it is to grant amnesty (and allow the thieves to keep what they stole).

"Path to citizenship", giving an American citizenship to people who already have other citizenships and don't need another one (besides their having to recite the oath of allegiance - "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;" and then totally ignore that ...) is orders of magnitude above and beyond amnesty, deep into treason territory.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 08:19 AM (Qp4DT)

183

"Legalization IS amnesty.  Legal residency is what illegals are stealing.  To let them have it is to grant amnesty (and allow the thieves to keep what they stole)."

Bullshit.

A temporary work visa is legal. A student visa is legal. A green card is legal. There are plenty of immigration statuses right now that are legal that has nothing whatever to do with amnesty. There is no reason in the world we can't devise a path to legalization that doesn't involve citizenship nor amnesty. Given his path to the path, we will be dealing with significantly fewer illegal immigrants as well because we know that securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws will reduce the number of illegal immigrants in this country. Can we handle the remaining number reasonable and fairly to citizens and legal immigrants? Sure we can. But first we need to practice a little bit of reading comprehension and a little less ZOMG!!!

 

Posted by: Jimmie at June 30, 2010 08:27 AM (bofTB)

184 186/SocietyIsToBlame

I agree 100%. Trying to ship 20+ million people out (and I believe that number is low), isn't logiistically possible, let alone practical.

I don't like that people have come here illegally, but we've ignored the problem to the point where we have to deal with the reality. We can't wave a magic wand and make them all magically return to their country of origin, so we'll have to deal with the reality. The cost of trying to deport that many people would simply be prohibitive

Let's get the people integrated so that they become more than just people who 'live and work in the US'. We want AMERICANS with good core values and an understanding of what our country was founded on. What we don't want is more people that are legalized to act as drones for liberals to further destroy our country.

Border security is absolutely key to this. Obama and the dems want us to spend time rearranging deck chairs of a sinking ship instead of plugging the damn hole.

Posted by: blindside at June 30, 2010 08:28 AM (x7g7t)

185 I'll also point out, #190, that your use of "path to citizenship" as if citizenship was part of Christie's comments is a flat-out lie. Stop doing it.

Posted by: Jimmie at June 30, 2010 08:29 AM (bofTB)

186 180...If you're here illegally and never have to leave and get to continue getting all the goodies, why would it matter if you are a citizen or not?  The costs to society are still the same.

Secondly, he could make certain his comments are understood to be clearly on the side of enforcement first by saying something like this, "The pro-amnesty side is disingenuous in their desires to enforce any border security or laws.  A lot of us would like to get this issue solved, but doing so hinges on border security first and foremost.  No questions asked."  Saying this puts the responsibility for the mess where it belongs.  As it is, his comments give a pass to the pro-illegals crowd and backs the rule of law side into the defensive corner. 


185...you just made a bunch more laws that won't be enforced, just like the current laws aren't enforced.

This argument that if we just grant something, then everyone will start behaving and the feds will truly start enforcing the laws is naive at best.  

Posted by: The Hammer at June 30, 2010 08:31 AM (YBTwf)

187 Also, Politico added his full comments for better context.  It makes him sound a little better, but I'm still leery of this being squished on us later.

Posted by: The Hammer at June 30, 2010 08:35 AM (YBTwf)

188

-->A temporary work visa is legal. A student visa is legal. A green card is legal. There are plenty of immigration statuses right now that are legal that has nothing whatever to do with amnesty. There is no reason in the world we can't devise a path to legalization that doesn't involve citizenship nor amnesty. 

Posted by: Jimmie at June 30, 2010 01:27 PM (bofTB)

What are you talking about?  AN illegal alien is one who is trying to STEAL legal residency, here.  If you grant him that legal residency, then you are granting him amnesty on his initial lawbreaking and awarding him with exactly the item he was stealing.  That is Amnesty+.  Why is this so difficult for yout o understand?  If you declare that all car thieves will be granted the legal right to continue to drive the cars they stole, then you would be granting them amnesty on the theft and awarding them with use of the booty.

Illegals must go.  Period.  End of story.  We will always have illegals here and at all times they must be deported when found. 

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 30, 2010 08:36 AM (Qp4DT)

189 #194,
   then there is no solution. If the laws won't be enforced, then the border will not be controlled either.

Look, I'm not saying we grant anyone anything at all until the border is fully secured and we have PROOF that it is such. Hence the reason I say 'contigent on aggressive enforcement'. I'm not saying a token gesture and then grant legal resident status. I'm saying we need the border controlled and PROOF that it is controlled and people who shouldn't be coming into the country can't and aren't. We need to crackdown on people hiring illegals.

THEN we can have move towards dealing with the people that are here illegally. I don't think that trying to physically run down and deport anyone who isn't here legally is possible OR affordable.

ANY solution is based around enforcement of laws. What exactly is your proposed solution that doesn't involve laws and their enforcement? Vigilantism (I'm not saying I'm necessarily against that, if the government refuses to perform one of its mandated functions).

Posted by: blindside at June 30, 2010 08:52 AM (x7g7t)

190

once again i like chistie but i have legit disageements with him

 

same with me and palin

Posted by: B35toSunsetPark at June 30, 2010 10:24 AM (GASD9)

191 party purity party purity I mean what next ? mandatory abortions ?

Posted by: Denny Crane at June 30, 2010 12:20 PM (I+7Zv)

192

Christie is dead to me!!!

THAT

1. No one seems to talk about a clear path to legalization that is not citizenship.

2. Other countries have large guest worker programs. Why can't we?

3. Why do we have this childish insistence that it be all-or-nothing?

3a. But why can't Republicans push back and offer a larger -- not huge, but larger -- guest-worker program?

1. Because long-term "legalization" will lead to citizenship. Anyone paying attention realizes that it's just another back door.

2. We already have too many guest worker programs. We have unemployment in some areas approaching 20%. We don't need any more people!

3. Because it's not childish and ultimately puts the entire concept of America at risk of extinction. That's not childish, that is survival.

3a. Republicans becoming more liberal and sacrificing their existence at the alter of pragmatism does not work. That's why. John McCain tried that and you want to emulate more of what he did?

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at June 30, 2010 12:24 PM (oIp16)

193 <i> puts the entire concept of America at risk of extinction </i> No Irish need apply, right.

Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2010 01:04 PM (CPefM)

194 202 <i> puts the entire concept of America at risk of extinction </i> No Irish need apply, right.

Posted by: Jean at June 30, 2010 06:04 PM (CPefM)

Pull your head out of your politically correct ass and name for us all the successful Spanish-speaking countries? The Irish (and many of the earlier waves of immigrants) wanted to assimilate. The Hispanics, as a group, do not, and none of the areas they predominate are places you would want to live, nor would you be welcomed to do so. So please tell me why we would want to import a hostile and racist foreign population?

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at June 30, 2010 01:59 PM (oIp16)

195 For a comprehensive plan I say give 'em California and call it even.

Posted by: Sojourner at July 01, 2010 01:03 AM (i2kEw)

196 Thank you for share with us,<a href=" http://co-molding.com/ "> co-molding </a>,<a href=" http://co-molding.net/">rugged dedign </a>,<a href="http://kingdomoptical.com/
">contact lens</a>,<,it's good.

Posted by: contact lens at December 20, 2010 05:46 PM (McAkO)

197 This site is very beautiful and I had a really great site I would suggest you check in and thank this site has what i call

Posted by: porno at February 01, 2011 11:06 PM (+vbic)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
218kb generated in CPU 3.58, elapsed 3.1041 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.2526 seconds, 433 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.