Where do the Presidential Candidates stand on this Amnesty Bill situation?
He’s plain-spoken and means what he says. On the immigration bill, for example, Fred calls it like he sees it:
"No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. … We should scrap this "comprehensive" immigration bill until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred D Thompson
Answer:
Although I disagree with most Republicans on the immigration issue, Fred Thompson still has my vote in 2008.
Top R's
Romney - against
McCain - for
Guiliani - wishy washy
Tancredo - Vehemently against
Top D's
Hillery - for
Obama - for
=
The rest of them stand which ever way the wind blows them.
Not the public wind of course, the corporate money wind.
All the dems and McCain are pro-amnesty. Don't vote fro any of these evil people!
The only ones that have a chance are Guliani, McCain and Romney.everybody else is out of luck!
I would pick McCain if I had to pick a republican.
Shorter Fred Thompson:
"I'll do nothing"
That's exactly what Mr. Thompson told Bill Bennett in a radio interview yesterday.
As an independent, I don't have an issue with that stance, however, consider the following:
Last year the Hunter Bill was passed to build 835 miles of fence, and how much of that have been completed to date? 11 Miles!
Suppose we scrap the Bill and just focus on securing the border, at the current rate, it will take us over 150 years to build said fence. Let suppose for a sec that we can speed up the time to build it and can finish it in 5 years, heck even 2. Are we willing to stand by and allow more illegals to come in while that happens just for the sake of feeling secure?
Identifying and accounting for everyone here is also a matter of national security so on that basis, we need to act on both fronts simultaneously. Thanks to globalization, there's a steady demand from business, large and small, for cheap labor in order for the to remain competitive and provide us, the public at large, with the affordable goods and services we love and demand. So the immigration problem isn't as simple as some may want to make it look out to be. We love our cheap goods and services but don't think too hard about the reason why their cheap in the first place.
In that interview you cited, Mr. Thompson also ceded to some kind of legitimization for those that are here AFTER securing the border. Fine, how long are we will to wait for the wall to be built? Sounds like a plan a corporate lobbyist who want and that's exactly what Mr. Thompson used to do in addition to a seat in the senate, a federal prosecutor, and actor.
Plain speaking is all well and good however; this issue is complex and requires a comprehensive solution.
My idea? Let's start with public financed campaign. This will take the current massive leverage corporations have over politicians with their obscene campaign contributions that ensures both parties will NOT come up with a solution to the problem. Public funded campaigns will also significantly curb the obscene earmarks which is terrible fiscal policy anyway. The amount of tax breaks corporations currently get (about $145 Billion of lost tax revenue a year) in addition to the amount of our tax dollars that go to pork projects for Democrats and Republicans alike, outpaces the cost of spending on social programs for the illegals by leaps and bounds, so what's the score?
Corporations - 2
Politicians - 1
American public - 0
Illegal immigrants - less than 0
No do you see where the incentives really are to maintain the status quo?
Tom Tancredo is the only one that is standing firm and not waivering.
I'm totally for Tancredo. He is the one person I believe will turn things around.
The Immigration information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness.
More Immigration Questions and Answers ...