Thread: Who was supporting Tancredo and now will switch to Hunter?

Originally Posted by JAK

Originally Posted by MW

florgal wrote:

Before getting my vote I would have to hear Romney say "If you're an illegal alien, PACK YOUR BAGS- you're leaving the U.S."

In a interview with Tim Russert, Romney clearly advocates registering the illegals and placing them on a path to citizenship. He's not going to send them home. I can't believe Tancredo is naive enough to buy the rhetoric Romney obviously fed him during their one hour conversation on the issue. I don't want to bad mouth Tancredo, however, I can't help but feel that he's possibly being bought out in some way (something is definitely up). I hope it's not true, especially after he voted on the Peru Free Trade Agreement. Three disappointments in two weeks is just too much!

Here's the interview:

[quote:2addl0ft]America First 2008 Updates

Here is the immigration portion of Tim Russert's interview with Mitt Romney.

What Romney says is very revealing. First, he seems to totally not understand that hiring illegals is against the law and punishable by both fines and imprisonment.

Second, his program does not include removing illegals. He fudges this constantly by saying they are not to get special privledges but they are to get in line like everyone else. And they they are rewarded with a path to citizenship.

In short, in a Romney administration, no illegal aliens will be removed from this country, nor will the critical task of ending employment of illegals be accomplished.

Romney is one of the corporate elites who sees illegal aliens as a "problem" to be managed. Not as a critical step necessary to preserve the company. As most corporate CEO's, he has neither vision, or depth, but rather repeats back the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

His presidency would be catastrophic for the United States.

MR. RUSSERT: The Lowell Sun, your home--one of your hometown, state home papers, said this. "Governor Mitt Romney expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship.

"`I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are (isn't that exactly what McCain has said). Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here; those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country." (note that he said "as they would from their home country, not from their home country)

This is George Bush and John McCain.

GOV. ROMNEY: Now let's, now let's look at those very carefully, OK, and you're, you're a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program (Romney's idea of what is and isn't amnesty doesn't align with our thoughts), but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support--and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don't recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country--the 12 million or so that are here illegally--should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship (that's amnesty folks), but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn't have to go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home--they should go home eventually. There's a set per--in my view they should be--they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they'll be going home.

MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that's a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here (once again, the call for amnesty), but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they've brought a child to this country or they've had a child in this country, that's, that's wonderful that they're growing their families, but that doesn't mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We're fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think's awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It's not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there's an employment verification system to identify who's here legally and who's not. And then for the 12 million who've come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

MR. RUSSERT: Your views have been complicated by your own situation. This was The Boston Globe back in December of '06. "As Governor Mitt Romney explores a presidential bid, he has grown outspoken in his criticism of illegal immigration. But, for a decade, the governor has used a landscaping company that relies heavily on workers like these, illegal Guatemalan immigrants, to maintain the ground surrounding his pink Colonial house." That was a year ago. A year later, The Boston Globe came back and the same company and illegal immigrants doing the same work. Did you report that company to authorities saying--a year ago--saying they're using illegal immigrants?

GOV. ROMNEY: Oh, it was, it was on the front page of The Boston Globe; a reporting was not necessary. But I have to clear up the most egregious error in that article. It said my house is pink. I would not have a pink house, I assure you. In an effort to--let me, let me describe the circumstance. And that is the very issue I just mentioned, which is we need an employment verification system in this country. I hire a landscaper to take care of my leaves and, and mow the lawn, and, and the landscaping company hires people to work for them. We're certainly not going to have an America where a homeowner is expected or even thought of going out and saying, "Gosh, I see some workers here who have an accent. I want them to bring papers so I can inspect them." As a matter of fact, I think that's against the law in this country. And so, in this case, the, the landscaper, or the contractor has a responsibility to ensure that their workers are legal.

So after the first story came out, I met with the--excuse me, my son met with the landscaper and sat down with him and said, "Look, you're a good person, and you're a friend, and--but we can't possibly have someone working at my dad's house that's not a legal alien, and so you have to be absolutely certain anybody working here is legal." And he assured us that he, he would do just that. And he failed in that effort. He, according to the paper, he tried, he got documents, apparently, from all the people who, who he had work at our property. Apparently one or two of them had falsified their documents. That's the very reason why we so desperately need in this country an employment verification system, so that an employer who's hiring people can know who's here legally or illegally. If we don't have that, what it's going to say to an employer is, you better not hire someone that has any accent because if you do, it's possible they've counterfeited their documents and you're going to get whacked and the people you work for are going to get whacked.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you then be in favor of a mandatory prison term for any employer who hired an illegal immigrant?

GOV. ROMNEY: Of course not.

MR. RUSSERT: Why not?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, a mandatory prison term? No. But here's what I would do. I'd say once you've put in place an employment verification system--and that's a big phrase to describe something pretty simple. I'd say to anybody who's coming here legally, they get a card with their name, biometric information, a number and their work status, and you--once you have those cards in place--that the only ones that can get them are people that are here legally--you then say to employers, "If you want to hire someone that's not a US citizen with a valid Social Security number, you ask for the card. You then verify it on the computer, and you can hire them if it's a valid card if they have a card. If they don't have a card and you hire them anyway, then you're going to be subject to the same kind of sanctions you get for not paying your taxes. And that's typically fines, very substantial fines, they get larger and larger. But a first offense employer hiring someone who's not legal, putting them in jail, I, I doubt that's...

MR. RUSSERT: But if you wanted to end illegal immigration, if you...

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I'm sure, I'm sure, I'm sure...

MR. RUSSERT: ...came down hard on employers.

GOV. ROMNEY: I'm sure capital punishment would come down hard as well, but I'm not, I'm not suggesting that kind of penalty. But I do believe that, that sanctioning employers with substantial fines--and potentially worse if, if they were egregious, continuous offenders could be called for. But what employers tell me, and I, and I talk to a lot of people in small business, they say, "It is almost impossible for us to know who's here legally and illegally." In fact, there's a federal law--you'll find this interesting--a federal law prohibits an employer from, quote, "discriminating against a document that's given to them by someone applying for work." So if they look at something that looks like it's a forgery, they're not allowed to discriminate against that document. This puts them in a real catch-22, typical government work. And what we have to do instead is say, "We're going to allow you, as employers, to finally have access to an employment verification system that says who's here legally and who's here illegally. If you hire an illegal, now we're going to whack you hard with fines and penalties," and potentially even worse if they're repeat offenders.

MR. RUSSERT: We're going to take a quick break. More of our discussion with Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. He's running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States. We'll be right back.



Paul Streitz

amfirst@optonline.net

The the red words in italics are my own additions.

Duncan Hunter for President 2008!

And that's typically fines, very substantial fines, they get larger and larger. But a first offense employer hiring someone who's not legal, putting them in jail, I, I doubt that's...

MR. RUSSERT: But if you wanted to end illegal immigration, if you...

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I'm sure, I'm sure, I'm sure...

MR. RUSSERT: ...came down hard on employers.

GOV. ROMNEY: I'm sure capital punishment would come down hard as well, but I'm not, I'm not suggesting that kind of penalty. But I do believe that, that sanctioning employers with substantial fines--and potentially worse if, if they were egregious, continuous offenders could be called for. But what employers tell me, and I, and I talk to a lot of people in small business, they say, "It is almost impossible for us to know who's here legally and illegally.

MY GOD.........is ANYONE going to GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE CORRUPT EMPLOYERS!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ALREADY KNOW THESE PEOPLE ARE ILLEGAL!!!! But they use the system to say they don't!!!

START ENFORCING THE LAW.....AND THIS WILL CHANGE!!!!!!!! PUT THESE DIRTY CORRUPT EMPLOYERS IN THEIR PLACE....!!!!!!!! If they were afraid of fines.......WOULD WE BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY????????
GET REALl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PUT THEM IN PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG!!!! [/quote:2addl0ft]

Obviously, Tom Tancredo trusts him and believes what he is saying----as this is who he picked to endorse.

It's not amnesty. I don't like the way Mitt put it in that interview, but I do believe he will cut them off at the knees. No employment, no sanctuary cities, no drivers licenses, no welfare; they leave thru attrition.
I love Hunter, but you are ignoring Tancredo's message. Hunters numbers were lower than Tom's. He ain't makin it.
So the question is Who will you get behind when Hunter pulls out. You best start thinking about it. You have Thompson, Paul, or Romney.

Originally Posted by florgal

Wow! MW Thanks for posting the Tim Russert/Romney interview. I missed that one. Guess ol Mitt's a no-go for me, too.

Romney goes on to say that illegal aliens children should not be given any special treatment, etc, blah blah blah and that they can sign up to stay here, but can't go to the front of the line. WELL, THAT IS AMNESTY. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT CITIZENSHIP, THEY JUST WANT TO LIVE HERE. Letting them stay here is a priviledge. Besides that, THEY ARE TAKING UP SPACE THAT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO IMMIGRANTS WHO COME HERE LEGALLY.

Quote:
And then for the 12 million who've come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

WHY DOESN'T ROMNEY JUST COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY IT? SINCE ILLEGALS ALREADY STEPPED ON THE "WELCOME MATT" THEY MIGHT AS WELL "MAKE THEMSELVES AT HOME" BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY HERE.

Here are some reasons I like Duncan Hunter


Duncan Hunter
by Sen. H.L. Richardson (Ret.)

I've personally known Duncan Hunter for over thirty years, both as a fellow conservative legislator and a big game hunting companion. We have bow hunted mule deer in the high desolate mountains of Nevada and stalked elk in deep snows of Montana.

Hunting is a passion to him as it is for me. You get to know a man very well around a campfire in the wild. Duncan has a deep appreciation and hands on love of America's great out doors. He is deeply committed to preserving our American heritage and our Constitutional rights. Duncan has no trouble understanding and defending our Second Amendment.

If Congressman Hunter is successful in his run for the presidency, I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes he will be compared with Theodore Roosevelt, since both have much in common. Both are avid hunters and practical conservationists. Both believe and were active in building a strong military. Both are war veterans and both had sons in active combat. Both believe and were active in protecting our borders. Both are outspoken on key issues and both are willing to confront militarily Muslim extremists. Both are fearless and have a proven love for our country. The more one investigates the lives of these two men, the more one finds what they have in common.

Americans who believe the Second Amendment is crucial to freedom, especially hunters, aren't easily fooled by the campaign ads of candidates who take off their suit coat and tie, pull on a newly purchased hunting coat, stand out in a local field and hold a rifle or shotgun for the news cameras. Posing for these "pro-gun" commercials doesn't make a candidate a "pro-gunner." It takes a deep understanding of the Constitution and years of voting and speaking out to protect our rights. And it doesn't hurt to really be a hunter, shooter, or collector of guns. Congressman Duncan Hunter is all of these things and would serve our nation well as President.

Congressman Hunter's Biography below is worth reading as you're thinking about Presidential candidates you might support.

About Duncan Hunter
Since first being elected to Congress in 1980, Duncan Hunter has devoted himself to ensuring that our military is second to none, securing our nation's borders, and protecting American workers from unfair competition. Hunter works on these issues because he believes that America's greatest strength is our freedom and its protection requires our effort in all areas.

A Vietnam veteran, Duncan Hunter served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers and, after coming home, utilized the G.I. Bill to attend Western State University Law School in San Diego (now Thomas Jefferson School of Law). While completing his degree, Hunter supplemented his income by working in farming and construction, and opened a storefront legal office after graduation where he began serving many in the Hispanic community, often without compensation. .

In 1980, Hunter was asked to mount a challenge for the Congressional seat held by 18-year incumbent Lionel Van Deerlin. Despite the district having a 2-to-1 Democrat registration, Hunter won the seat in an upset. Coming to Washington, Hunter successfully sought a seat on the House Armed Services Committee where he could work on America's national security needs. Serving on this committee throughout his career, Hunter became Chairman of the full committee in 2002, overseeing a $532 billion defense budget. During his chairmanship from 2002-2006, and now as Ranking Member of the committee, Hunter focuses his efforts on providing President Bush with the necessary resources to win our nation's military conflicts, protecting our men and women in uniform, and developing modernization initiatives that will move new and more effective technologies into the field of battle.

Living in a border community, Hunter also came to Congress to make securing the California-Mexico border a top priority. Hunter's goal was to make the region safe for communities on both sides of the border by providing the necessary resources to our border enforcement agencies. September 11th, however, made border security a national security issue and Hunter responded by leading efforts in Congress to seal a porous border susceptible to illegal aliens, drug trafficking and terrorism. Hunter's efforts have resulted in over 59 miles of fencing and border infrastructure to date in San Diego County. Hunter also wrote the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego fence 854 miles across California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. These fence provisions were signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2006.

On the House Armed Services Committee, Hunter has protected U.S. defense jobs in aircraft, ship repair, machine tools, textile, steel and titanium to ensure that what he calls the "Arsenal of Democracy," the U.S. industrial base, is maintained to provide security in time of war. Hunter's other legislative priorities include retaining and increasing jobs across this nation, providing tax relief to hard-working families, keeping our promises to America's veterans, protecting Social Security for present and future generations, and promoting strong family values.

Hunter resides in East San Diego County with his wife Lynne where they, like many of their neighbors, just completed re-building their Alpine home after it was lost in the October 2003 wildfires. In 2006, Duncan and Lynne celebrated their 33rd wedding anniversary; they have two sons, Duncan Duane, who served two tours in Iraq in the U.S. Marine Corps, and Sam Hunter, a business student at San Diego State University. Duncan D. and his wife, Margaret, have three children, Duncan Lee, Elizabeth Grace and Sarah Louise, and reside in Boise, Idaho. Sam was married on Valentine's Day 2004 to the former Theresa Heger of Jamul and they had their first child, Marin, in October of 2006.


http://gunowners.org/pres08/hunter.htm

Originally Posted by Martha

It's not amnesty. I don't like the way Mitt put it in that interview, but I do believe he will cut them off at the knees. No employment, no sanctuary cities, no drivers licenses, no welfare; they leave thru attrition.
I love Hunter, but you are ignoring Tancredo's message. Hunters numbers were lower than Tom's. He ain't makin it.
So the question is Who will you get behind when Hunter pulls out. You best start thinking about it. You have Thompson, Paul, or Romney.

I agree!!

Hunter is far and away the best man to be president. Huckabee came from nowhere to the level he's at now, we can hope that Hunter will also.
He is just so obviously better than the rest I wish our clueless electorate would wake up.

It is obvious that I am NOT as knowledgeable in all of this as many of you... but I am trying to sift through everything I can to make the right choice. This is probably going to be the most important election in the history of the United States... since this one will either SAVE our Country or it won't! So, I am NOT trying to step on any toes here ... just trying to figure out WHO to GIVE MY VOTE to.

... but what I feel like I am hearing is that Romney is a candidate that is capable of winning... unlike Hunter or Paul... and sadly Tancredo is gone.
I would prefer AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE...and I am hoping for a miracle that someone like Lou Dobbs ... if not Lou himself, will run!
If not... the supporting Romney because he is the most electable... the question I am asking myself... is are we still PLAYING THEIR GAME... are they FORCING US TO PLAY THEIR GAME by basically playing our hand for us with THE ONLY ELECTABLE CHOICE??? I am just asking... I AM STILL SEEKING!!!! Maybe he is the right one... maybe not. I'm STILL SEEKING!!!!
Lou Dobbs rallied the troops to BECOME INDEPENDENTS... and millions of us have.......... but why???? If we are still playing the same game??? I am thoughly CONFUSED!!!!!!

Here is Hunters stand on Illegal immigration from Numbers usa and Americans for Better Immigration: He has an A+ rating...

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... res08.html


Here is Romneys stand from the same site:

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candid ... res08.html

Yes, ... and I am having problems with statements like this:

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that's a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here

That statement seems pretty clear, doesn't it?