Thread: Sarah Palin/Illegal Aliens

I could care less about her stance. McCain will still be president not her.

Don't be fooled into voting for an OBL traitor because he picks someone who may be against amnesty.

I'm leaning towards Obama because at least he'll stop the trade policies that are shipping jobs overseas. With McCain you get amnesty and jobs going overseas. It really is the lesser of two evils but what can you do when half your family could lose their jobs overseas in the next 5 years. We're getting an amnesty supporting president either way. Let's not get one that supports shipping our jobs overseas.

Originally Posted by Dianne

Don't believe her, think she is an ambitious bitch who will sacrifice everyone in her life for her walk in fame.

I get that sense as well. Maybe not in those words.

If she really is a Pat Buchanan supporter what's she doing in the traitor McCain's camp?

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

We need to know what her current position is. When VP candidates accept the place on the ticket, views tend to "adjust" to fit the presidential canidates. I'm not saying they neccessarily have, we just have to be sure. And silence is not what I am looking for. It needs to be clearly presented to the American people. She probably already has lobbyists all over her. DC is an ugly place, where politicians routinely sell their sole for the greed and power that political lobbies offer. Still too early, we have to be sure.

Yes, we do need to be sure, but this may help. In the 2008 Republican Platform, the Party platform states clearly, no Amnesty of any kind, calls for border security and enforcement including mandatory E-verify and supporting local and state law enforcement officers with training to enforce immigration law.

I was very pleased. There is much in the 2008 Republican Platform that I as a life-time Republican disagree with, but they made it very clear that the Party Position is No Amnesty, Border Security, E-Verify, Increased Funding and Support for local and state law enforcement.

Here is the text from the Republican Platform from 2008 concerning immigration:

http://www.gopplatform2008.com/thankyou.htm

(starts on page 3)

Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law

Immigration policy is a national security issue, for which we have one test:

Does it serve the national interest? By that standard, Republicans know
America can have a strong immigration system without sacrificing the rule of law.

Enforcing the Rule of Law at the Border and Throughout the Nation

Border security is essential to national security. In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people. We simply must be able to track who is entering and leaving our country.

Our determination to uphold the rule of law begins with more effective enforcement, giving our agents the tools and resources they need to protect our sovereignty, completing the border fence quickly and securing the borders and employing complementary strategies to secure our ports of entry.

Experience shows that enforcement of existing laws is effective in reducing and reversing illegal immigration. Our commitment to the rule of law means smarter enforcement at the workplace, against illegal workers and lawbreaking employers alike, along with those who practice identity theft and traffic in fraudulent documents. As long as jobs are available in the United States, economic incentives to enter illegally will persist. But we must empower employers so they can know with confidence that those they hire are permitted to work. That means that the EVerify system—which is an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees—must be reauthorized.

A phased in requirement that employers use the E-Verify system must be enacted.

The rule of law means guaranteeing to lawenforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay — and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult. It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation.

It means requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens.

It does not mean driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law.

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal In our multiethnic nation, everyone — immigrants and native born alike — must embrace our core values of liberty, equality, meritocracy and respect for human dignity and the rights of women.

The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.

Embracing Immigrant Communities

Today’s immigrants are walking in the steps of most other Americans’ ancestors, seeking the American dream and contributing culturally and economically to our nation. We celebrate the industry and love of liberty of these fellow Americans.

Both government and the private sector must do more to foster legally present immigrants’ integration into American life to advance respect for the rule of law and a common American identity. It is a national disgrace that the first experience most new Americans have is with a dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy defined by delay and confusion; we will no longer tolerate those failures.

In our multiethnic nation, everyone — immigrants and native-born alike — must embrace our core values of liberty, equality, meritocracy, and respect for human dignity and the rights of women.

One sign of our unity is our English language.

For newcomers, it has always been the fastest route to prosperity in America. English empowers. We support English as the official language in our nation, while welcoming the ethnic diversity in the United States and the territories, including language. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English.

English is the accepted language of business, commerce, and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of cultural integration, that our schools provide better education in U.S. history and civics for all children, thereby fostering a commitment to our national motto, E Pluribus Unum.

We are grateful to the thousands of new immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces. Their patriotism is inspiring; it should remind the institutions of civil society of the need to embrace newcomers, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid patterns of isolation.

_____________________________

Whenever you get tired or feel like we aren't making progress, just read the words of the Republican Platform of 2008 on Immigration and know that you have followed in the steps of those who ended slavery who put the abolition of slavery in the 1860 Republican Platform and other Republicans that stood with Teddy Roosevelt who put women's suffrage on the Bull Moose Party Platform of 1912.

You have made history fellow Americans. It's a great day in our country when 4 years of grassroots efforts at ALIPAC and other organizations who have fought it even longer in our border states produce such a lengthy, thorough and comprehensive attack on illegal immigration as this by the Republican National Convention followed with their commitment to English as our Official Language.

I don't know what the Democratic Platform says about illegal immigration, but I'd be very surprised if it is anything remotely similar to the Republican's.

Good job, everyone. This remarkable commitment by the Republicans to our cause is the direct result of you and your work to protect the United States and the American People from the ravages of illegal immigration and open borders. May it long endure.

I salute you all, each and everyone.

Judy
Life-time Republican

They have done not a single thing to curve illegal immigration...NOTHING. And, that's what words mean...NOTHING.

The two party system is but a two-headed snake.

Originally Posted by stillfree

Originally Posted by Emanon

Originally Posted by stillfree

Why would you support a politician on their word over their record? Her record is pro-illegal all the way. That's all I need to know.

I am trying to find more info on her stances.

Do you have links to her voting record in regards to this?

Why would you need to look beyond the status of her state? Doesn't that show where her "leadership" has taken it?

Alaska is a sanctuary state.
Alaska issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
Anchorage is getting a mexican consulate.
Palin supports McAmnesty.

What else would you need to know?

Perhaps this:

Took no action on Alaska's "sanctuary cities"
Lou Dobbs notes that at least two of Alaska's cities have been officially designated as sanctuary cities: "An August 14, 2006 report produced by the Congressional Research Service listed 31 cities and counties that have 'don't ask, don't tell' sanctuary policies in place. They [include] Anchorage, Alaska [and] Fairbanks, Alaska. Alaska and Oregon both have state-wide policies that forbid state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law."

Apparently, this is by design from the highest levels. In fact, a resolution to that effect was passed in the Alaska state legislature in 2003 (before Palin's election): "[Alaska] House Joint Resolution 22--May 2003: Establishes that state agencies and instrumentalities may not use state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration laws, which are the responsibility of the federal government."

It's not clear whether Gov. Palin has ever weighed in, pro or con, on Alaska's sanctuary policies.
Source: Lou Dobbs reported on lafrontera.mojo4m.com Sep 5, 2006

Tightened restrictions on illegal alien's drivers licenses

There has been an ongoing fight in Alaska over drivers' licenses for illegals. A bill banning drivers' licenses for illegals passed the Alaska state senate in 2003 [before Palin was elected governor]: "JUNEAU (AP)--The state Senate approved a bill that tightens the standards for getting a driver's license by requiring applicants prove they are in the country legally and by placing time limits on licenses for legal aliens."

The measure did not pass into law.

In any event, Palin's DMV subsequently tightened the administrative regulations on drivers' licenses, thereby giving rise to a lawsuit by some folks who found the new restrictions inconvenient.

The new restrictions were not, however, enough for at least some members of the legislature, who tried again recently to enact a ban into the statutory law: "Despite two unsuccessful pushes, [a new bill] addresses the rights of illegal immigrants in Alaska: to require applicants to show proof of residency before they can get a driver's license."

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Sarah_Pa ... ration.htm

____________________________

She tightened up on the restrictions for driver's licenses administratively and of course got sued. Legislators in Alaska have been working since 2003 to pass a law that prohibits giving illegal aliens driver's licenses. Sarah said I'll tighten up administratively. That's the type of person we want in Washington isn't it?

The legislature of Alaska is crooked, look at that awful law they passed prohibiting the state and local law enforcement from enforcing immigration law but Sarah had nothing to do with it, in fact she's the one bucking this political establishment.


I have not found anything so far that says she is Pro-McAmnesty. I truly believe she isn't. And the Republican Platform says Con-McAmnesty, as in NO AMNESTY. So McCain is SOL if he thinks he's going to buck this aspect of the Republican Platform and become President.

I'm sorry you've been conned so easily. For one, the people elected her and she should have no problem gaining support for such an issue where most citizens agree (enforcement). Two, the laws are already on the books. Shouldn't be to hard to make LAW ENFORCEMENT enforce the law.

Why would she have to do it administratively? The laws already exist. It doesn't work that way. The pro-illegal have to work hard against the law, not for it.

Still, even if what you say is true, it's very little proof of anything. Tightened up restrictions on DLs for Illegals? Gimme a break.

Originally Posted by stillfree

They have done not a single thing to curve illegal immigration...NOTHING. And, that's what words mean...NOTHING.

The two party system is but a two-headed snake.

True, but they did defeat Amnesty 3 times, and it looks like they are going to enforce our laws now. Whatever. I just wanted you to have the information.

No one has been more upset with the Republicans than I am, and I'm a lifetime Republican, and still oppose many of their positions on other issues, but I will support them this election because of their platform position and past record in Congress on illegal immigration.

It should be noted that but for the Republicans and a handful of Democrats, every illegal alien in the country would be here permanently with a guest worker permit and a path to citizenship for life.

Originally Posted by stillfree

I'm sorry you've been conned so easily. For one, the people elected her and she should have no problem gaining support for such an issue where most citizens agree (enforcement). Two, the laws are already on the books. Shouldn't be to hard to make LAW ENFORCEMENT enforce the law.

Why would she have to do it administratively? The laws already exist. It doesn't work that way. The pro-illegal have to work hard against the law, not for it.

Still, even if what you say is true, it's very little proof of anything. Tightened up restrictions on DLs for Illegals? Gimme a break.

No, in Alaska there was a law passed in 2003, 4 years before she was Governor, that prevented any state agency or resource institution of the state of Alaska to be used to enforce US immigration law. She could and did prevent illegal aliens from having driver's licenses but got sued in the process. A Governor can't do anything about the sanctuary cities, they don't have the legal authority over the communities. A Governor of the state can't violate their own state laws either, they in fact swear an oath to uphold them, so there wasn't anything more she could do in Alaska beyond what she did with the restrictions on driver's licenses.

She tried to remove a thug cop from the state patrol and the legislature is investigating her for "ethics violations". She tried to remove some dirty books from the library when the citizens complained about them and the librarian when she refused to cooperate in the name of "censorship" and they tried to recall her as Mayor.

Alaska is a tough place, you win some battles and you lose some. She won some big ones, but on immigration she did all she could legally do as Governor, seems to me.

For example, state law in Alaska prohibits using law enforcement to assist in enforcing US immigration law using the 287 (g) program, so she couldn't even get them training and the authority to make arrests under Alaska law.

The Republican Platform will end that because if Republicans pass a law to prohibit sanctuary cities and states from gaining federal funds, then Alaska and all the others will change their tune in a heart beat. They can't survive without federal funding.

The Republicans have put a lot of time and effort into this to attack illegal immigration from all sides and all angles.

Well, you almost have it right. It wasn't the Republicans, it was the backlash from US that stopped the amnesties. If We The People would only realize that WE are the Country not the government, we could get out of this mess.

It doesn't really matter though. As we sit here and argue, our Country is destroyed by this invasion and in many other ways. No doubt that's just the way "they" want it.

Originally Posted by stillfree

Well, you almost have it right. It wasn't the Republicans, it was the backlash from US that stopped the amnesties. If We The People would only realize that WE are the Country not the government, we could get out of this mess.

It doesn't really matter though. As we sit here and argue, our Country is destroyed by this invasion and in many other ways. No doubt that's just the way "they" want it.

Yes, you're right. That's why I saluted you for it, perhaps you missed that part of my long post. Of course it was US the people who forced their hands. Bush should have been impeached for not enforcing US immigration law until we had to force him into it politically by defeating Shamnesty 3 times in the Congress.

But the options are limited. Either the Republicans gain some seats and McCain takes the White House, or the Democrats will gain seats, take the White House and then they'll pass Shamnesty and sign it into law.

Those are the options for this November.\