Suffer Not the Little Children-Huckabee Panders on Illegal Immigration [UPDATE] Huck Flops Back
By Mark I Posted in 2008 | birthright citizenship | Fred Thompson | illegal immigration | Immigration | Mike Huckabee — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
UPDATE: Huck flops, or is it flips, back again. Read through for the full story.
Gov. Mike Huckabee curiously won the endorsement of Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist right before the Iowa primaries. At the time, some questioned how a former governor with a soft record on illegal immigration could win the backing of a grass roots organization dedicated to stopping the flow of illegals into the country. Today the answer became clear: shameless pandering.
Just as attention is turning to the South Carolina primary, where illegal immigration is of great concern to Republican voters, Gov. Mike Huckabee has apparently changed his position on the children of illegal immigrants. The Washington Times has the details. Gov. Huckabee says now that he supports a Constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship, the practice whereby children of illegal immigrants born in the country are given United States citizenship.
But just this past Sunday, at the Fox News Forum in New Hampshire, Huckabee had this to say about the children of illegals:
QUESTION: Governor Huckabee, at an earlier debate, you had a memorable exchange with Governor Romney about your plan that would have allowed the children of illegals in-state tuition to college. And, at the time, you said we shouldn’t punish children from the actions of their parents.
On the other hand, shortly after that, you came out with a very tough immigration plan, which mandates that all illegals must leave the country and return to their home within 120 days if they want to become legals. Aren’t you in effect, in that plan, punishing those very children that you said you didn’t want to punish?
HUCKABEE: Not at all, because as long as those children are here and people question their authenticity for being here, they live in the shadows. They live hiding. No person living in the United States of America, Chris, ought to live in the shadows, ought to live in fear, ought to hide. The beauty of this country is we live with our heads up. We live with dignity, we live with pride, we live with honor, and as long as people are living illegally, they can’t.
And I know I’m going to be questioned, do I still stand by that idea that we treat the children differently, who didn’t commit a crime? And let me just be very clear, yes, I do stand beside that, because I don’t think you punish a child for what a parent did. […]
If you have the child of an illegal immigrant and he is in high school in Little Rock, and now under the Huckabee – President Huckabee’s plan, he and his family all have to move back to Mexico, aren’t you punishing that kid? He’s a sophomore in high school and now he’s been dragged out of Little Rock, and he’s living in Tijuana.
I guess his parents could leave him there if he’s a senior in high school, but I think most families, particularly if you understand about most of the immigrant families, they’re a family-loving people. These are not people that want to split their families up, they want to keep their families together.
They come here for their families, Chris. They come here so their kids will have an opportunity. (emphasis mine)
So which is it, Governor? In state tuition for children of illegals, or a “life in the shadows” without citizenship? And would your answer to that question be grounded in principle, or political expediency? Personally, I would like to see an end to birthright citizenship. But wouldn’t that be punishing the children for the crime of the parents? Wouldn’t that be denying kids an opportunity? Governor, you’re pandering here, and badly. You're position has changed almost literally overnight. The voters of South Carolina aren’t that naïve, and will see through your new found toughness on illegal immigration.
The immigration issue is a complex one that doesn’t lend itself to feel-good populist rhetoric. America doesn’t need god sounding catchphrases and pie-in-the-sky promises to address the issue. It needs clear headed leadership and rational thinking rooted in conservative principles. Of all the Republican candidates, only Sen. Fred Thompson has put forth a proposal on curbing illegal immigration that fits those criteria.
Thompson calls for securing the border, including every mile of the 854 miles of fencing authorized by the Secure Fence Act. His plan also calls for stepped up interior enforcement of existing immigration laws to begin the process of reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the country by denying them an opportunity for employment. His plan calls for doubling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and increasing the size of the Border Patrol to 25,000. Thompson also rejects amnesty, supports English as the official language, and is alone among all the candidates in calling for an end to Federal discretionary funding for cities that espouse sanctuary policies towards illegal immigrants.
Thompson has a plan that is tailored to achieve results in the real world, not just in the Republican primaries. He alone is willing to speak truth on the issues and stick to his principles. On this issue, as with most issues, Huckabee talks a good game and knows how to tailor his message not to real world action, but to the whims of his audience. On immigration, Thompson is the genuine article, and on January 19th, voters of South Carolina show that they recognize a conservative leader on immigration when they see one.
UPDATE: Byron York reports in The Corner at National Review Online that Huckabee has changed his position yet again. Huckabee now says:
I do not support an amendment to the constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship.
I wonder what Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project and suporter of Gov. Huckabee, thinks of all this?
Mr. Glichrist, there is still time in this primary to get behind a real conservative leader for immigration reform. May I respectfully suggest that you consider Sen. Thompson's credentials on combating illegal immigration.
Huckabee fooled you once by pandering to you with his position on birthright citizenship. Now that he is being called on it, he is abandoning you and your supporters to curry favor with the press. Don't let him fool you again with this flip-flop. Come on over and see what South Carolina voters are about to get a taste of, a principled conservative leader advancing sound conservative solutions for the issues facing the country, especially on immigration.
Or you could call if "Flip-flopping!", right?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Cannot one show marginal compassion to foreign born children of illegal immigrants as a governor while still creating disincentives to illegal immigration as the head of the federal government (President)?
For that matter, regardless of whether or not a child born to illegal immigrants is born in the U.S. or not, cannot a marginal level of compassion be shown to the child?
Denying citizenship to the U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants doesn't have to be a "compassion" issue at all. We can still show marginal compassion to these children without granting them citizenship.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
Cannot one show marginal compassion to foreign born children of illegal immigrants as a governor while still creating disincentives to illegal immigration as the head of the federal government (President)?
Not credibly.
Either one is opposed to illegal immigration or he is not. He cannot on one hand promote incentives for illegal immigration on one hand (in-state tuition) and at the same time claim to be in favor of disincentives for illegal immigration on the other.
As President, where would Huckabee stand if a state decides to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants? How does that factor in to his disincentive programme?
For that matter, regardless of whether or not a child born to illegal immigrants is born in the U.S. or not, cannot a marginal level of compassion be shown to the child? ... Denying citizenship to the U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants doesn't have to be a "compassion" issue at all. We can still show marginal compassion to these children without granting them citizenship.
Being a Huckabee supporter must be a serious burden on the mind. You failed to make any sense here except literally beg the question with a liberal use of the word "compassion."
How is being against illegal immigration compatible with granting illegal immigrants in-state tuition that a legal resident of another state is denied? How is that "compassionate?"
...that amending the constitution to prevent U.S.-born children of two illegal immigrant parents from receiving automatic U.S. citizenship would prove to be a significant disincentive to prospective illegal immigrants. I'm not saying the amendment should be done but merely stating the likely effects of such an amendment.
There is a separate issue of what to do about those foreign-born illegal children of illegal immigrants. Showing marginal compassion to those children is not unreasonable. Balance must be demonstrated between disincentives and human decency.
I think your statement "one is either for illegal immigration or against it" is not the right question. I don't know anyone who is FOR illegal immigration. The disputes center around what do we do to stop it and what do we do about those illegals and the children already here.
It sounds to me that you believe there are no gray areas in this debate. If that's what you believe, then I flatly disagree. I believe one can take a number of reasonable positions on this topic and still be "tough on illegal immigration."
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse's Mouth
I understand your point, and it still doesn't make any sense.
Providing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is still the provision of an incentive for illegal immigration. Call it compassion, but it is still that.
Furthermore; when the question of in-state tuition comes up, we're now talking about college aged young people, not exactly "children", and more often than not, full adults - who can go back to their nation of origin and apply like legal immigrants and US citizens from other states.
And finally, under your logic, from "anchor babies," we're now giving validity to "anchor students."
The "you're either for illegal immigration or you're against it" position is too simplistic and reactionary. I don't know anybody who says "yay illegal immigration!" Most people are opposed to it at some level, and favor different responses to it. Reducing a difficult and complex economic, social, and moral issue into strict categories of "hard" and "soft" just dumbs down the debate and makes it harder to discuss and pursue practical, reasoned approaches to the problem.
For example, one can be opposed to illegal immigration while recognizing that the US Constitution grants citizenship to all children born within our borders, including those of illegal immigrants. One can protect their citizenship rights, choosing not to punish American children for the crimes of their illegal immigrant parents. This isn't merely "hard" or "soft" on illegal immigration -- it's a specific answer to a specific question that deserves more than such a broadly superficial level of consideration.
Similarly, different offices might call for a different approach. The federal government has different responsibilities than the states when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration. It is entirely reasonable that as governor, one might accept illegal immigration as an unavoidable fact and try to do the best with the situation that exists, while as President that same person might use the unique role of the federal government to try to change that situation and end illegal immigration altogether -- something that he couldn't begin to do as Governor.
The in-state college tuition issue is an example of this. It's possible that Huckabee has been an "immigration hawk" all along, but as Governor of Arkansas there is nothing he can do to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into Texas or New York. He has to govern the population he has, not the population he wishes he had. Would he rather there were no illegal immigrants in Arkansas? Probably. But since they're here, and since he doesn't have the power (as Governor) to change that, he makes the best with the situation that he has and gives them the same in-state tuition rates as other Arkansas residents. If they aren't going to be deported, isn't it best if they are able to further assimilate into American culture and learn how to be better contributors within our economy?
You may still disagree with his stance on this issue. I disagree with Huckabee on a whole host of other issues. But simplifying the debate to categories of being "for" or "against" illegal immigration doesn't do justice to a complex issue. We need to recognize the problem as it is, and work towards practical, achievable solutions. This means moving beyond reactionary rhetoric and weighing out the practical implications of our policies on America's social and economic future.
Now made with 100% pure McCain sugar!
And, unlike Huck's plan, it is actually ACHIEVABLE with legislation rather than a Constitutional Amendment.
Almost as much disincentive to illegal immigration would result from ending chain migration as ending anchor babies. The babies would still be citizens but they would lose the ability to sponsor their illegal parents as citizens. They would no longer be an anchor or a jackpot.
Family reunification type immigration visas should be limited to spouse and minor (or maybe unmarried) children. There should be no parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers or sisters.
We would get decency, compassion and a substantial disincentive all without an unrealistic Constitutional Amendment that will never happen.
And as a bonus we would get a reform that would allow us to bring in more young skilled workers without increasing total immigration numbers so businesses should be happy and taxpayers won't be on the hook to support newly immigrated grandparents who never contributed anything to our social systems.
back in August, when he was a nobody (less than 2% in the polls). He's not just flipping now.
...supported this a while back.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070821/NATIO...
Just as attention is turning to the South Carolina primary, where illegal immigration is of great concern to Republican voters, Gov. Mike Huckabee has apparently changed his position on the children of illegal immigrants.
This is false.
It doesn't have to be a constitutional amendment. Read the link above before you say that Huck flipped.
I read the article. While Romney is clearly talking about reforming family reunification and chain migration, it appears to me that Huck is talking about disallowing citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants which arguably could be accomplished with legislation and a favorable Supreme Court ruling but in all probability could only occur with a Constitutional Amendment.
In light of his compassionate positions on tuition for children of illegals while Governor and then his statement in that article, and then his statements in debates about compassion and not punishing children and then the article this morning and now the statement which has been posted as an update to the original blog, it seems that the Huckster has successfully done the heretofore politically impossible linguistic gymnastics manuever.
The judges give him across the board perfect 9's based on the level of difficulty of this manuever which in the past only John Kerry could even aspire to completing. A perfect quintiple Flip-Flop-Flip-Flop-Flip
1. Fair Tax (includes amendment to repeal income tax)
2. Right to Life to end abortion
3. Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman
and now
4. Repeal of anchor babies.
Huck knows that he can't deliver on a single one of these promises and he knows that he can easily re-direct the blame when he fails to deliver on them.
But people should start asking him now how he plans to deliver a 2/3rds majority on even a single one of these issues in a Senate where the Democrats will be approaching a filibuster proof majority?
This is just shameless pandering and if it is not hurting Huck's credibility, it sure should be.
Why not promise something that he might actually beable to deliver like (as Fred has) ending chain migration so that anchor babies can't sponsor their illegal parents for citizenship? That would be almost as good and is actually possible. My guess is that Huck has not intention of changing anything on this issue.
Huck knows that these are the issues that are going to appeal to the far right, and he is glad that no one is going to call him on this at the risk of him calling them to the left of him on social issues. Mitt had the best answer on this, which is the same position that Bush has on the HLA, if it came to my desk, I'd absolutely sign it, but I don't think the country is ready to reject Roe in the form of the HLA. Huck is more than a pandere, he's an idiot if he thinks he's going to get even one of these passed, not to mention that he's going to get filibustered to death because everyone knows hes running an aobrtion litmus test for his judges. Just more style without intelligent substance from the pro-life Slick Willy.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Huckabee doesn't care what the composition of The Congress is.
He proved while Governor he can kiss any political butt that needs kissing.
As a "Republican" President with a Democrat congress he will waffle all over the place trying for an accommodation with Harry Reid or Nancy.
This guy makes Uriah Heep look like Hulk Hogan.
I have yet to see any confirmation of the Times article from any other source. Who says Gilchrest didn't exagerate or get the facts wrong. I know everyone wants to carve Huck up for any reason they can find but calling this a flip flop based on one article with no corroborating sources is just a hit job and not worth the time it took to write.
As far as I know, he's got no history of telling lies and no motivation to lie here. Can't say the same about Huck. He's got the history of lying on the campaign trail AND plenty of reason to lie. Sorry, but Gilchrist is much more believable on this one.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Apparently the Huckster's campaign was contacted about the story yesterday before it was published and they had no problems about the Gilchrist story.
Huckabee retreats on birthright citizenship
Later in the day, when they were busy backpeddling and throwing Jim Gilchrist under the bus, they denied that their campaign had been contacted.
By yesterday evening they were admitting that they had been contacted but they seemed to be saying that the Times had discussed every other aspect of the story with them (Ramos and Compeon, Gilchrist's personal emails, etc) but had not asked them about the 14'th Amendment stuff. That is pretty far fetched and I don't believe it.
The real loser in this whole affair is Jim Gilchrist. He took a big hit with the movement when he endorsed the Huckster and now Huck has been thrown him under the bus and essentially painted him as a liar.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
The position he told Gilchrist he held in order to win his endorsement or the position he is telling everybody else he holds?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
how one becomes a citizen and how one treats a longtime non-citizen child and/or young adult under current law.
apples and oranges
logic
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
That he says he doesn't support the birthright citizenship repeal amendment now. Gilchrist sat down with Huckabee and says Huckabee told him he supported it. That's a direct contradiction.
P.S. I also don't agree that it's consistent to subsidize a kid's tuition while not supporting their right to stay in the country and finish that subsidized education. I think it's completely ridiculous... but anyway, he says he is against the amendment now (after telling Gilchrist he supports one).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
treat non-citizen children a certain way and at the same time seek to change how one becomes a citizen in the future.
And, we should support people that change their minds and come our way.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
Honestly, I trust Huck to do what he says, if he is somehow elected. But these flips on immigration are nothing short of stunning. If any Huck supporters accept this massive shift in position by Huck, they better NEVER criticize Romney for similar things.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”