Inconsistent Huck
By Joe Johnson Posted in Archived — Comments (106) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I like Huckabee, but I'm getting a little tired of hearing him defend his effort to give children of illegal immigrants in-state college tuition by saying, "you don't punish a child for the sins of the parent." It is surely not punishment to treat a child of an illegal immigrant the same as you would treat a child from a neighboring state. And the frustrating thing is, Huck knows this.
Yesterday, on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos asked him if he was willing to extend the "you don't punish a child for the sins of a parent" principle to make children of illegal immigrants eligible for federal pell grants and federal subsidized loans. When Huckabee said that he would probably not support that, Stephanopoulos brilliantly asked, "But, if you don't think the children of illegal immigrants should be punished, why shouldn't they get federal aide as well as state aide?" Huckabee's response? "Well, it's a difference between being punished and being rewarded."
Watch the exchange here:
So, deprivation of state aide is somehow a punishment, but deprivation of federal aide is not? I'm sorry Huck, but that argument isn't gonna fly. Huckabee either needs to stop saying that we are punishing the children of illegal immigrants by making them pay out-of-state tuition, or he needs to have the strength of his convictions and argue for the extension of federal tuition aide, as well.
For you Huckabee supporters out there, Huckabee is admittedly a very likable guy, but how do you defend him on this one?
How moronic is it to say that a kid who spends pretty much his entire childhood, having no recollection of Mexico, having attended a public school faithfully enough to get very good grades, has applied for citizenship, should pack up and move to a country he does not know anything about. How absolutely hatefull can a person get?
The schollarship was for AR students not student from other states. I'm not sure but I would assume that the money raised for the scholarship was Arkansas' money not intended to be given to students from other states.
Is this what Mitt Romney is saying? If so, I've just moved from respecting Mitt Romney for his differences to all but hating the man on every level.
Jim Tomasik
Since you've decided to make this about Romney (surprise!), let me add this little piece of context...
Yours was precisely the same same reasoning the Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature were using when trying to get Romney to go along with allowing children of illegal aliens to attend UMass at in-state rates - rates not available to children of citizens who live in New Hampshire but work, and pay taxes, in Massachusetts.
And you know what else, Mitt said "No". And his veto was upheld.
That, I suppose, is what you call "hateful".
FWIW, your entire comment could have been written by any one of the folks who are planning on attending their party's convention in Denver next summer.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I take it that you are in favor of providing state tuition aide to children of illegal immigrants. What is your position on federal tuition aide, and how do you defend/explain Huckabee's apparent inconsistency between the two.
I'm taking direct issue with whether or not Mitt Romney would send a kid, 18 yrs old, to a country he does not know after he has proven to be a worthy citizen and is on the road to doing just that!
Huckabee can go take a hike right now for all I care. This is not about him anymore.
As far as what am I for? Seal the damn border, we've got a lot more to worry about than high school kids. We have mexicans kidnapping women and giving them to drug loads as "gifts".
Why is no one talking about that?
Jim Tomasik
You can have all the discussion you want. I just want you to tell me if this is what Mitt Romeny, not Kripto, is saying?
Still no answer.
Jim Tomasik
This blog post is explicitly about Huckabee and his consistency (or lack thereof) regarding the issue of tuition aide for children of illegals. If you don't want to comment on that issue, fine, but why are you commenting on this thread at all then?
Bubba Jr's supporters follow in every blog like this.
Write one that says "Mike Huckabee spends too much time messing with his hair" and you'll immediately get a group of comments about Mitt's hair.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
How absolutely hatefull can a person get?
I can see hardline in his position. I can see tough. I can even see harshness in it. But I do not see "hate." See why so many here are so suspicious of Huckabee? Even his supporters, Conservative and Republican though they may be, are beginning to sound too much like Democrats.
Is this what Mitt Romney is saying?
Where the heck does Romney come into this? Or are you under the impression that kripto is Romney?
If so, I've just moved from respecting Mitt Romney for his differences to all but hating the man on every level.
Look, you don't need to pretend. You haven't had anything positive to say about the guy since you signed up and that's perfectly alright.
You actually are allowed to all but hate Romney on every level without actually having any more solid a reason than the fact he has flipped from Left to Right on abortion, gun control, etc. So just own up to it.
Neither this post nor this thread is about Mitt Romney in any way whatsoever. The only person who is too dense to understand that appears to be you, so allow me to attempt to pierce that density: Stop. Talking. About. Romney. Here.
That's not a suggestion. You can write your own diary dealing with Mitt, but he is officially off-limits for you in this thread, period.
So, now you support anchor babies that are not even born in this country. So, if he attends any school, he now gets to stay here? Why have an immigration policy at all? When is it okay to break the law? Its okay to break the law because my parents did?
Where do you draw the line. My daughter who lives just across the border has to pay a higher tution than the child of someone who broke the law.
The policy in question allowed anyone who lived in Arkansas for three years to qualify for the scholarship. Not quite the "entire childhood" of the student.
According the the Huckster himself, he doesn't support amnesty, so he should have no problem with deporting this same guy. I guess that would make him every bit as "moronic" and "hateful" as Romney. Huckabee just wants to offer him subsidized tuition before he gets deported.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
FWIW: Being here 'illegally' is a civil tort, not a criminal tort.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
FWIW: Being here 'illegally' is a civil tort, not a criminal tort.
Let's not let that little detail get in the way of hating undocumented immigrants.
I don't know the last time some of us have walked the halls of the physical sciences/math/engineering departments of our universities (especially the state ones), but most of the students therein don't look or talk like us. But they sure do get better grades.
In fact, some twenty years ago this December I married one of those funny-talking foreigners occupying university-space that God meant for Americans. She was an eastern-bloc mathematician who was "out of status" as the INS calls it. Today, she's the mother of my 19 year-old daughter who's a student in the very same Math department, and if you were to suggest to mother or daughter that they were anything but first-class Americans they'd drop you like a bad habit. Yes, I'm proud of them.
It's funny how Americans are made, not born. Always have been.
People who think it is important that people follow the rules and come here legally instead of sneaking into the country or violating the terms of their visa really just hate foreigners because they look and talk funny.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I have a question for some of the posters. Do you support in state scholarships for Cuban children who came to the United States with their family to seek asylum? If so, why should they be allowed to apply for scholarships? Most of the reasoning against Huckabee’s support is that there is only so much money to go around, and American kids will miss out if even one scholarship is awarded to an illegal immigrant. Also, Mitt Romney said, “I can tell you my inclination would be to say as many Cubans as want to come here should come in,” in an interview last Tuesday. If Mitt is going to encourage Cubans to come to the United States, I assume he will support the children of Cubans to apply for scholarships once they arrive and excel in our schools. So in essence, American kids will miss out to Cuban kids.
Cubans seeking legal asylum in the US under a program that is probably 50 years old and illegal aliens trying to game the system?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The point is that whether it’s a Cuban child or one from Mexico, an American kid will miss out if either one of them excelled and receives a scholarship. And in both cases it’s not like the child committed the crime. If you’re against scholarships for illegals because you believe an American kid will miss out then I do not see how you can support a scholarship for a Cuban kid.
And you are still confusing "immigrant" with "illegal immigrant".
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'm not even going to address the post, it's currently #1 on the list for Dumbest Redstate Post of 2007.
Your three days here are three days too long. Go burn somebody else's bandwidth.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The distinction between "illegal immigrant" and "immigrant."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Should illegal immigrant get the same treatment as legal immigrants?
Hmm.
Not a perfect analogy
Scenario 1
Let's say a person you don't know asks politely and cosiderately if he can stay on your land temporarily while they get established and then rent your land till he can eventually buy part of it, you verify his story and get his background. It checks out. You decide to....
Scenario 2
Let's say a family comes to you asking to live on your land. They have been living somewhere they were brutally treated and have escaped, risking their lives in the process. He says they want to live as you do. He has little in the way of paying for rent, but has promised in time he will and that he will be the best tenant and eventuall neignbor if you will let them stay while they get established. You decide to....
Scenario 3
One day you discover a family has been living on your property. They have been using your water and electricity. Apprantly even raided your garbage to get your social security number and used it to get a job, they also put a hospital stay on your insurance card. They make no apologies but say they'll leave when jobs in the area get scarce unless the wife has the baby she's carrying before then, in which case they will be stay indefinitely and expect to be given part of your land in that event. He also demands you speak to him in his own language. You decide to....
Its not a perfect analogy. But seems to be pretty clear there is a great gulf separating 1,2 from 3.
---
Spacemonkey
His immigration policy stinks - would do better reading some of Thompson or Tancredo's plan. Of course, that would mean he would be flip flopping.
His tax and spend liberal policy quite frankly stinks based on what I've read by the other great posts, news articles, etc.
And I'll label a third reason - his honesty. This guy is a Baptist preacher...and lies about the fuel tax issue. Come on, how this guy is moving up is terrible...but based on what I have seen if more info on this gets out in Iowa he will start dropping soon.
Erik
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
This is one of the many reasons he won't stay on top in Iowa. When his policies come to light, he's going to get burned and rightly so!
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
are motivated by populist crap like this and there are more than enough single issue (abortion), well motivated voters like Jim and Anteater who probably wouldn't care if Bubba Jr. called for sending pro-choice folk off to reeducation camps to push him over the top in Iowa. All those issues will kill him elsewhere, thankfully.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Chaplain...
Seriously... I'd say they don't understand national politics, the national electorate after the Conventions, how judicial politics works, and how The Amendment process works.
But it seems on level that outside of treating Huckabee like a political Messiah, they are also rather clueless on reality.
I don't say they aren't caring, or generous, or well meaning, but it certainly seems they use every weapon in the Democrat-Clinton arsenal to redirect, attack other candidates when theirs is criticized.
It's to the point I'd rather have the Ronulans back. They were just crazy... the Hucksters are pious and crazy.
the pro-life movement than Bubba Jr.
BJ is apparently going to hawk the HLA, which will mobilize the NARAL type folks big time. It will likely also mobilize the Congressional Democrats which will make appointing a conservative virtually impossible. Not that we have any idea that BJ will actually nominate a conservative anyway.
Rudy, OTOH, will likely nominate a conservative, given the panel he's chosen to advise him, and he WILL fight for him. And he'll win, if history of Rudy's fights means anything. Roe will likely be overturned at least by Rudy's second term. Rudy has also committed to change no administrative policies - Mexico City, etc. - as POTUS.
Bottom line, under BJ, pro-life movement gets nothing but really well done speaches. Under Rudy, Roe likely gets overturned and we have real progress.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
political tactician versus who may be a better pro-lifer... you are correct that having Rudy do the heavy lifting for the movement makes more sense than someone who is making his signature piece of legislation (that won't piss off the Republican base) an abject failure right out of the gate. And that failure will do more to make the pro-abortion groups feel totally under threat. They'll frame it the way every debate is framed when they want us to lose and we will.
And then abortions will be offered with school lunches if we aren't careful.
who can produce RESULTS. I keep seeing posts about how important "principle" is, typically in the same paragraph where the poster backs himself into a corner with a strategy that is utterly doomed to failure. Frankly, I don't give a damn about so-called "principle" where lives are on the line.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I can understand that Arkansas might recognize children that have been attending their public schools as having the same qualifications and equal treatment by state colleges.
But, it is the Federal government that is charged with enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders.
Pell grants and subsidized loans can be used almost anywhere, any state, public or private universities. This is a direct Federal welfare program that should not exist! And, it should not be extended to illegal immigrants or their children (unless they are citizens, if we are still to be cursed by this program at all).
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
First of all, thank you for taking me up on my invitation defend Huckabee's position on this. I must confess, however, that I don't follow your defense. This is what I was able to make out of your argument:
1. Arkansas wants to treat children attending its K-12 schools equally. (But the Federal government doesn't?)
2. Federal is charged with inforcing immigration laws.
3. Pell grants can be used at public and private universities.
4. Pell grants are federal welfare that should not exist.
Just how propositions 1,2,3 and 4 show that state tuition aide should be given to children of illegal immigrants but federal aide should not, escapes me. Care to explain?
I believe one can make the case that some states would desire to continue educating illegal immigrants after the Federal mandate ends (after K-12), some states would not. But, direct Federal grants and loans for college (that can be used in state colleges as well as most private universities) would allow illegal immigrants to continue attending state schools regardless of the wishes of the state.
I don't think Huckabee was thinking in terms of federalism when answering. To be honest, I think he was confused by the question; I have not seen him ask very many times for a question to be repeated, as he did here. And, there seemed to be significant latency in the video feed. So, who knows, perhaps his campaign will clarify this soon.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
1. I do not agree that this is an issue of federalism. Pell grants exist. Denying children of illegal immigrants access to pell grants is either punishment or it's not.
2. I agree with you that Huckabee was not thinking in terms of federalism when he gave his answer. Huckabee is not a federalist. He supports a federal smoking ban.
3. Do you disagree with me when I say: Huckabee either needs to stop saying that we are punishing the children of illegal immigrants by making them pay out-of-state tuition, or he needs to have the strength of his convictions and argue for the extension of federal tuition aide, as well?
First, if you don't already know, Huck is my first choice.
Second, I disagree with Huck's position on scholarships for children of illegal immigration. Huck is not pure on illegal immigration.
Third, the illegal immigration issue is multi-faceted. Scholarships -- and the principle they represent -- IMO represent about 10-20% of the overall immigration analysis.
Huck scores a zero on this aspect of the debate. Based on what I can tell, he's just as strong as the others on the other issues of illegal immigration.
Overall score for Huck on illegal immigration: 60 to 75 (on 100 point scale). Not a great score, but not poor enough for me to reject his candidacy.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
When you say "scholarships", are we taken to man "in-state tuition", "Pell Grants", both, or something entirely different?
BTW, I don't think anyone had any doubts as to your first point (smile).
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I think there is some uncertainty today (based on yesterday's StephaInterview) about whether or not Huck supported in-state tuition. I've heard both sides and haven't yet made up my mind on what I believe really happened or what Huck's position is.
As to Pell Grants, I agree with the other poster that one can have a "state" position on educational assistance which is different than one's position of "federal" assistance and still be consistent.
Huck typically handles well TV interviews, even tough ones. This part of the StephaInterview was not one of his better moments. He came across as a bit unprepared on this specific question, as well as the meth sentencing question.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
It is one thing to overlook the fact that Huckabee was wrong to support giving state tuition aide to children of illegal immigrants. It is quite another to overlook the fact that Huckabee is engaging in what appears to be simultaneos flip-flopping (as opposed to chronological flip-flopping) by supporting state tuition aide but opposing federal tuition aide and thinks he is being persuasive. Look, it is clear that Huckabee recognizes that this is an issue of reward and not punishment, yet he persists in refering to it as punishment. Doesn't that concern you?
Huck's response to this question was not one of his better ones. He actually appeared to be unprepared for it.
However, as to the merits, a true federalist, IMO, can take a position against federal tuition assistance for children of illegals and leave it to the states.
If I were a state governor, I would be unlikely to support college tuition assistance for illegals. However, I do have some (a little) sympathy for the plight of a non-border state governor. The governor has no power to deport and can't drive the illegals and dump them on Texas or Louisiana. Federal mandates require they be educated through high school and cared for in emergency rooms. If the federal government isn't going to take them away when they reach 18, what are the options? None of them are good. It's the "magnet" versus humane treatment argument.
Answer: Seal the border. Eliminate the employment magnets at the business level for adult illegals. Minimally care for those who remain. Create incentives for them to return home. Streamline legal immigration procedures.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
How about arrest them, and turn the over to the federal goverment. Thats what many states/cities are putting into place.
I'm not sure that I support giving children of illegals in-state tuition. However, that's just a little cold to say that you want to round up all the high school kids--whose parents brought them here when they were like five--and say that you want to ship them back to a strange country that they don't even remember. By the way, I'd love to see a candidate try to run in the general election on that platform. Yes, people want the borders sealed, but that doesn't mean that they like the idea of deporting high school kids either--if they did, then Tancredo would be winning in Iowa and would be, currently, running second in the national polls.
Mr. Ed,
You did not answer my question. Does it bother you that Huck feels comfortable drawing a this "distinction" between federal and state tuition aide?
Two responses to your comment:
1. You say that a true federalist COULD draw a distinction between federal and state aide. Huckabee is not a true federalist. See his support for a federal smoking ban.
2. More importantly, federalism has no bearing on this issue. Federal pell grants exist, and denying children of illegal immigrants access to pell grants is either punishment or it's not. If it is not punishment, then it is also not punishment to deny them access to in-state tuition. Agreed?
Joe, I can give my opinion on the subject but I can't defend Huck's because I either don't know or disagree with him on that aspect of the immigration debate.
As for my opinion...
1) A true federalist can draw the distinction. As far as I can tell, Fred is the closest candidate to true federalism. Does that mean Huck is anti-federalism? IMO, he leans more toward federalism (in his rhetoric) than against it. His record as governor shouldn't necessarily be used as an argument against federalism. It could be argued his merit scholarship position was consistent with federalism in that his state would decide whether or not to enact the policy (which it didn't)
2) I see your point but I think it's an apples/oranges situation. The federal government is responsible for immigration policy. They are the ones responsible for securing the border and deporting illegals. It would be inconsistent to provide federal tuition assistance (Pell) while a federal law prohibits unlawful entry into the country.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Mr. Ed, you took the words right out of my mouth. This is exactly what I was thinking when I read this diary. :-)
Huck says he wants to secure the border. So does every Democrat! Color me not impressed.
Huck says he is against amnesty but if you listen further it is clear that he supports shamnesty. He has come out in favor of a path to citizenship with a token fine, "going to the end of the line" (but that does not mean leaving America so it means practically nothing), and learning English. His position is identical to John McCain, President Bush and probably Rudy Guiliani.
He has comeout against enforcement against employers. Most people know that is the only thing that is going to work and if someone is against it then they have no intention of finding a workable solution to the problem.
Both Romney and Fred Thompsen have far tougher positions on illegal immigration. There is no equivalence between them and the Huckster.
but still on topic... George Stephanopoulos asked a better question than CNN selected during the last debate.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
1. I thought his answer to the question was pretty weak--yet another reason I am not supporting him.
2. I think how he could answer the question is as follows: refusing to give these children a particular governmental benefit is not always a "punishment." Refusing to do so out of animosity (understandable, if not justified animosity) toward their parents does amount to punishing the children for the crimes of their parents.
3. The crimes their parents did commit can not be fairly compared to EITHER (a) a mere speeding violation OR (b) burglary, still less a violent crime. I find both comparisons ridiculous.
4. Contra Kripto, the children have NOT committed a federal crime. Unlawful presence is not, per se, a federal crime (at least not yet). Their parents' entry without inspection IS a crime under federal law. But the children lacked the mens rea necessary for criminal liability when that occured.
5. I strongly doubt that anyone on this board, if in the shoes of one of these kids, would dutifully pack up his bags and go back to his "home" country and dutifully wait 20-30 years in line to immigrate into the United States.
6. I suspect that the vast majority of the fathers on this board would, if in the shoes of a young, poor father in Guatemala, strongly consider sneaking into the United States, and would consider laughable the suggestion that he instead dutifully wait 30 years for his visa to come through, while his children grow up malnourished and with little or no education.
7. The comments under #6 do not mean that such a father would have a moral or legal RIGHT to enter the United States and work here. Still, such considerations should greatly diminish the culpability we assign to such men.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
except for number 1 (I am undecided), what you post here is very close to how I feel about matters.
I think people can take too hard line of an approach to the matter of illegal immigration - not that we should turn a blind eye to people who are knowingly breaking the law - but that we shouldnt forget the human part of the equation.
I find it hard to take a "middle" ground on these things. You're either too "mean" or too "squishy."
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I just think we should rigorously enforce our laws against giving them jobs. When ICE raids a workplace I don't see the need for them to arrest a single illegal immigrant. I just want to see the employer doing the "perp walk" and then be faced with massive legal fees and fines and the problem of having a massive disruption to his workforce.
I think we should more or less ignore the illegals (except those caught for crimes) and focus all of our efforts on employers.
When the jobs dry up, the illegals will freely make the decision that is best for themselves and families. Our government does not have to do anything harsh or lacking in humanity like rounding them up.
Just like they did when they came here, they will uproot their families and head off to greener pastures in search of a better life at their own violition and at their own expense. That might be home or Canada. I don't care. Their kids might struggle with Spanish some when they get to the country of their citizenship. But it won't be any worse then the challenge their parent's faced when they came here and usually English speakers earn premium wages in those countries. And those kids will have the benefit of at least part of an American K-12 education which was a gift from the taxpayers.
Who could blame them for leaving America in search of a better life?
Pray tell, jackbenimble - who is proposing such a thing?
Gee, and I could swear I read precisely the same sorts of arguments - coming out of the mouths of liberal Democrat state hacks and assorted other do-gooders - after the famed (or imfamous, depending on your POV) New Bedford raid back in March.
All very touching. Really.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
The main people proposing such things are those arguing for shamnesty in one form or another.
I object to arguments that say we need to be compassionate (I believe both Hucklebee and McCain were pleading for compassion in the recent debate) or that we have to recognize the "humanity" of the issue (as in the post I responded to above) and therefore enforcement that does not include a path to citizenship is an inhumane choice. That was the point of my post.
The implication of these arguments is that people who want enforcement favor inhumane mass roundups and deportations and sometimes (not in this case) they even throw in the word Nazi to make that clear. It is a false choice argument which frames the debate as either amnesty or unthinkably inhumane mass deportations.
I think we can enforce the laws in very humane ways that causes the illegals to leave of their own volition without law enforcement directly forcing that decision on them in any way. They freely chose to break our laws and come here for a better life. When we dry up the jobs through enforcement against employers (nothing inhumane or Gestapo-like about that) they will freely choose to get right with the law by leaving all because they want a better life. If they aren't forced to leave but rather chose to leave then nobody can be accused of being inhumane.
I sometimes wonder if the Bush Administration, which we all know favors comprehensive reform (shamnesty), did not execute the New Bedford and some other raids in a way that was deliberately designed to create as many families broken up sob stories in the media as possible in order to build support for the "humane and compassionate" path to citizenship approach. I personally don't have any problem with deporting illegals and their families but the public can be manipulated when they perceive the government is being abusive. Why did they hustle parents off to distant cities without at least first conducting an interview with some basic questions about children? It was like they deliberately made an ugly hash out of it.
There is really no need to spend taxpayer dollars on deportations. Punish the employers, dry up the jobs and the illegals will pay for their own deportation and the media won't have much of a sob story except some business owner whining about having to pay Americans higher wages.
I'll have to chew on this later - have to head home now - but please, I beg you, don't toss the word Nazi around when talking about immigration.
It's. Not. Helpful.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I'll keep that in mind. Look around at my posts. I'm very much on the tough enforcement side of this debate.
I think you're kidding yourself. Somebody is running around selling the idea that there are large numbers of employers hiring large numbers of illegal aliens on purpose, and that all we have to do is raid the workplaces and the jobs will dry up. Personally, I think that's a crock.
Unless we're talking about employers who also dabble in Income Tax Evasion, every new hire gets an I-9 and a W-4, and has to produce some kind of documentation that says he or she is eligible to work in the US and has a Social Security number.
It's true that in the case of illegal aliens, a huge number of these documents are forgeries. But a lot of them are very good forgeries, and you're just not going to get prosecutors and courts to go after employers who made a good faith effort to comply. It's not up to personnel departments to police forged government documents. They don't have the tools, they don't know how, and it's not their job.
The other side of this is that the employers are at equal risk from the Equal Opportunity agencies if they appear to be discriminating against Hispanic citizens. If they start giving the third degree to everyone named Gonzales, they will end up in court with the EEOC instead of the ICE. Rock, meet hard place.
These "employer crackdowns" make good material for demagogues, but that's about all they do. The "employers" who are really paying cash under the table to workers whom they know are probably illegal aliens are individuals and very small operators. We're just not going to solve the problem by going after such people one by one.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
that doesn't pick up on the fact, as pointed out by Newt in his video, that 42 different illegals were all using the same fraudulent Social Security number. Seems to me that THERE is the agency to look at first.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
And they send a letter to the employer telling there is a problem with the SSN and to double check it, but also telling them NOT to fire the employee. I think it takes about a year to send out that letter. Not sure what happens after that. A whole lot of nothin I'd guess.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I happen to be a trustee in my condo complex (talk about a "thankless job"), and we have, like most, a landscaper who maintains our grounds. Nice guy, townie, all that stuff.
Well, one day he shows up with his crew and I'm working at home. I notice there's 3-4 newbies and precisely none of them speak even a lick of english. So, I'm chatting the boss up (we're on a first name basis) and I mention the latest recruits. He chuckles and tells me, "Yep, just don't call INS on me."
Now, I don't take that all too well and I think he senses I'm pretty ticked about that statement, "What am I supposed to do?" he asks. To which I, calmly, ask, "Uh, didn't you at least check their papers first?"
Laughs out loud. "Doc," he says, "they're papers looked better than mine!" Laughs again. "So, like I said, what am I supposed to do?"
To which I chuckle and say, "Well, give them a job - if you don't want some do-gooders protesting your offices because 'you don't like brown people' or somesuch nonsense."
Laughs out loud again. "That's what I'm telling you..."
And I went back to my basement and went to work.
Anecdote, of course. But there it is.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Don't look at their papers too hard if you don't want an EEOC complaint. The employers are in a no win situation right now, thanks to the [intentional] incompetence of the Federal government.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm pretty sure that most of the employers know damn well they are hiring illegals. That is particularly true when the mismatch letters start rolling in. But you are correct that the current law gives them lots of deniability and a solid legal defense.
The law is that way because that is how they wanted it. Like so much of what has passed for enforcement legislation, it was designed to give the appearance of doing something rather than the reality. It was deliberately designed to fail.
The Bush Administrations proposed new rules for Social Security mis-matches would have been a good start at a fix. They were stayed by the 9'th and the Administration has backed down and promised new rules in March. We'll see.
I would prefer a legislative fix like the SAVE Act which is gathering quite a bit of support in Congress.
But I stand by my basic assertion that the solution is workplace enforcement and that the solution does not require mass deportations.
And the day labor issue is not too hard to solve either with some creativity. It involves hispanic looking ICE agents going undercover as day laborers and wrecking the lives of who ever picks them up. Throw the book at them for violation of employment laws, and tax evasion. There would be jsut cause for a comprehensive multi-year IRS audit. It would only take a few harsh enforcements. One agent could cover a dozen cities and pretty quick employers will be avoiding those hiring sites like the plague. I'd even make a point of ICE advertising that they MIGHT have these agents operating in a particular area. No employers, no more day laborers looking for employment. No jobs and the illegals self-deport.
Give Huckabee credit. He can say something this insipid and still not be called on the carpet. This guy simply is Ron Paul with meds and less consistency.
You nailed it, JJ. A reward is a reward is a reward, whether the source is state or federal. But again, Huckabee can make this argument and get by with it. And that tells us...that, yes, like Paul the media would love to see him as the GOP nominee. Because like Paul, he would tear the party asunder in rather short order.
I disagree; most of the hard-core, conservative Republicans and activists I know have been in a real depression the last Rudy or Romney nine or twelve months. Fred got a few of us excited, only to be let down again by the reality of Fred.
But Huckabee gives people hope -- real people, not political wonks. And, I think he has an appeal that will resonate with common people and overwhelmed the Clinton machine.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
Sullivan blow kisses as a GOP candidate I tend to think it is because the person will hurt the party.
He's the GOP version of Jimmy Carter, and will be just a fecklessly incompetent and controlled by his aides.
----
Brian Epps
RandomNumbers.us
Baad Spelarz Uv Tha Wurld, Yunyte!
is that he is the true conservative. See Rush's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMZkkKLNibE
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
So is William F. Buckley.
Unfortunately, neither are running for President. :)
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
as an American citizen. Huck is running as a Christian leader. I choose the American citizen.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Last time I checked, Rush is not the Pope of conservatism. "Private life" abortion lobbyist Fred should understand that the principals of leadership, integrity, and conservative ideology apply at all times, private or public.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
I have always liked Rush, but I think he is clearly wrong here. There is no conspriacy here by anyone. The MSM likes a story, that is simple. When Rush is the story they give him plenty of attention.
about popes or lobbyists. But I do know a candidate of genuine integrity when I see one. Huck is not a man of genuine integrity. Fred is. All Fred's controversies have been out in public view from the very beginning (see Wikipedia).
In contrast, Huck's liberal governorship is just beginning to see the light of day. It's not pretty. I give the public credit for being able to do their own research into the matter, "and rightly so."
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Sorry, I've never met a man of "genuine integrity" involved with abortion who didn't later repent. Fred was downright Clintonesque when the story broke, and now just shrugs it off as "private life". Even Mitt Romney has the political intelligence (which seems to substitute for integrity for him) to say he made a mistake.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
Mike Huckabee led and cared for people as a pastor in his "private life". Fred Thompson cashed in by lobbying for baby killers in his "private life". That's all I need to know about integrity.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
a serial liar, for starters about the fuel tax issue in Arkansas. And then there's the little "misunderstanding" about $70,000 worth of furniture that he thought was supposed to be a gift. Yeah, right. Cuff links, OK. Golf balls, sure. A coffee mug or two, not a problem. $70,000 worth of furniture, give me a freaking break.
Bubba Jr. has some serious issues he needs to deal with.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
does not align with the facts. Rather shabby smear, but some in Huck's camp seem to be able to stomach it.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
I watched and read everything I could about Fred's abortion lobbying scandal. Why? Because, I was a Fred man from the beginning. But, I am also 100% pro-life. Fred's answers were pathetic. His campaign (or exploratory committee) was pathetic. (I even offered them some sound advice about how forgiving the pro-life community is; that's how much I wanted Fred to get over his mistakes.) But, after all Fred's convolutions and lies, the best he could come up with was "private life".
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
nobody cares, obviously you do. I believe differently than you, that his 20 or so hrs. of work as a lawyer do not disqualify him as 100% pro life. It so happens that the National Right to Life Committee agree with me. This squabble has already been fought. Fred won the endorsement. Feel free to continue whining, however.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
#1. Fred was "of counsel", not a partner. He didn't get to pick the clients.
#2. I don't know how many hours Fred billed, but I would guess he probably billed in the range of 600 hours a year.
#3. The PP stuff he billed 27 hours or about three business days over several weeks.
#4. He wasn't the lead attorney.
#5. He never made one call to the administration or to any member of congress about the issue.
If you can remember 27 hours worth of incidental work from about 15 years ago, you're a better man than about any of us. Did Fred and his campaign handle the situation well? Not particularly. But his 100% pro-life record as a US Senator and his endorsement from the grassroots speaks volumes.
Also, Fred never lied about the issue. When asked, he stumbled on the answer but he dug out the records and produced them for the press. He's also never demonized the people who dug this silly crap up. Unlike Bubba Jr. on both accounts. And as far as we know, when he left the law firm to serve as a Senator, and again when he left the Senate, all of his office furniture was in place. Again, unlike BJ.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I believe Senator Thompson left without destroying computer equipment and billing the taxpayer for it.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Poll question: Should tax money be used to subsidize tuition of illegal immigrants?
Anyone want to bet against the "NOs" on this one.
Romney answered right. It's not your money Mike.
Better Poll Question: Should tax money be used to subsidize tuition, state schools, etc.?
It will be sad to watch these true "conservatives" squirm.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
Are you ripping on conservatives now? Is that your new tack for winning Huckabee converts? It should work about as well as "Club for Greed," I think.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
All I'm saying is that true conservatives recognize that education is not a legitimate function of government. I am a true conservative.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
With his wanting to provide subsidized tuition for a guy who is is (supposedly) not willing to offer amnesty to, so he will remain eligible for deportation the whole time he is completing his subsidized college education.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
in the territories was one of the first things our congress took care of. And state governments have always been involved in education. Even as a libertarian conservative I see no problem with this as a legitimate function of local government.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Well then there are no "true conservatives" left in your world. As far as I can tell only RP and his band of nutters believe stuff like that.
You will find agreement for the statement that education is not a legitimate function of the federal government, but I think even most of the "hard-core" libertarians would be willing to accept the idea of local government-run and locally-controlled public schooling.
I don't see any reason to eliminate all public education. I'd just like to eliminate everything at the federal level and most of the crap that clogs things up at the state level. I have no problem with a community or township or city using local resources in order to provide and operate schools open to the children of residents in that community. The people closest to the school fund them, they exercise greater control over them and there can be more direct involvement in the schools and the results they produce.
Let's see if we can fix it
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
is that they can't hide their wolves' ears under Grandma's nightcap very long.
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Yeah, Stephanopoulos caught him off guard on that one, and he's going to have to think it through. But there's a simple reason why you don't give in state tuition to someone from a neighboring state. (Actually, it wasn't in-state tuition, as I recall, I believe it was an acedemic scholarship -- but no matter). You give breaks to in-state students for the simple reason that they're more likely to stay in state. Rightly or wrongly, that's why it's done. And you can argue that in-state illegals aren't more likely to stay, but I suspect they're as likely to stay as in-state legals.
As for Pell grants and such, I don't like them to begin with, so I'm not going to defend expanding them to anyone. That's just me.
I'd be curious about how many students this program would have affected. Is everyone really satisfied because now those kids, who had excellent academic records and were applying for citizenship, now instead of being here illegally with a college education, now they're here illegally, applying for citizenship, and may not have that college education. Wow, thank goodness! We dodged a bullet on that one. I'll never vote for a man that might have let THAT happen! Could have wrecked everything this nation is founded on! Sheesh. Lost cause. No wonder Huckabee is rising.
from May of this year, I believe. The whole thing about in-state tuition is a side issue as far as I'm concerned. My state also grants in-state tuition to illegals, as do other states in the country as I've heard. That is against the law.
This article shows a tendency to be soft.
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=28649
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Sorry for the back to back posts. Just found this from the Thompson campaign:
http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/742931899.html
www.fred08.com
Redneck Hippie
Yup me no likey gubment run skools. Aside from testing and establishing broad standards, I'm for vouchers. It would take decades to ween ourselves from the gubment tit, but ultimatly private run schools would provide a better education.
At least he's honest about his position. While I don't agree with the policy, at least compassion is one reason I can respect and I know where he stands. He could have dodged the issue or changed his position like so many others in our weak field.
Huckabee is being DISHONEST about his position, or rather, he is trying to hold two positions at the same-time (i.e. simultaneous flip-flopping). Look, if it is punishment to deprive children of illegal immigrants the benefits of state tuition aide, it is punishment to deprive them of federal tuition aide as well.
The honorable thing for Huckabee is to either:
(1) admit that it is not punitive to deny state tuition aide tot he children of illegal immigrants,
OR
(2) have the strength of his convictions and support the extension of federal tuition aide for the children as well.
Huckabee can choose either position, but he can't have both . . . it's dishonest.
First, lets remember, if you are old enough for college, your 18 and an adult.
Second, you are here illegally, which means, you are committing a crime. Its one thing to be here illegally and be a minor, its another thing if your are an adult.
So rewarding criminal behaviour is simply rewarding criminal behaviour. It can't be justified as being for the children. We hear enough out of that from the Democrats.