Huckabee: I'm Against Illegal Immigration, But I'm Not A Lunatic About It

Comments (71)

i wanna know wrote on November 23, 2007 12:56 PM:

Has Huckabee explained how he will fix the border as president? Other than, two words: Chuck Norris.

Gus wrote on November 23, 2007 1:00 PM:

Its not just the Republican base that feels that way. Hell, Lou Dobbs considers himself a Democrat, and lots & lots of older Democrats that I talk to, of varied ethnic and racial background, and of varied socio-economic status, express similar ideas. It makes any sort of subtlety impossible.

The question, on our side, is if people will change their votes because of it. Will Democrats abandon a Democratic candidate who, for instance, would not as President actively oppose eligibility of undocumented workers for drivers' licenses? And if so, where do they go? Do they stay home?

I guess my point is that there's not a clear partisan break down on this issue. My sense of it at the moment is that the politics of immigration are entirely a matter of which side gets out first on the issue. In 06, those republicans who used the issue successfully did it without proposing much of a solution, but simply exploited (or misrepresented) statements their opponents had made.

In the Dem primary, we've seen it too -- Clinton got tagged with having an indecisive position on it for a few weeks and suffered for it, but then no one else on the dem side (except Richardson, I guess) had much of a different solution to propose.

My sense is that while the issue is real, the only way to win on it is either to duck it entirely or get out first in attacking your opponent as soft.

Harold Tinker wrote on November 23, 2007 1:06 PM:

I have a problem trying to sort my feelings about the mexican border.What would Jesus do or what would he tell us?
Are we that concerned about the Canadian border?
Our Statue of Liberty has an inscription on it:Give us your tired,your poor,your huddled masses yearning to be free.
God help us to look at the situation as God would have us look at it.
Harold Tinker

drinkof wrote on November 23, 2007 1:06 PM:

For all the real problems, in our neighbors, we are the luckiest nation on the face of the planet. For a country of our size to have only 2 real borders, and for those to be with Canada and Mexico? How much better could that be? Who has it better?

What a bunch of whiners.

kjoe wrote on November 23, 2007 1:10 PM:

I have to wonder if Hillary would back free prenatal care for illegal immigrants in need of it. If asked for a yes or no answer---she might be programmed to say no at this point.

synykyl wrote on November 23, 2007 1:15 PM:

If Huckabee really wants the Republican nomination, he'd better stop saying things like that. Once they begin to suspect he's a decent human being, he's finished.

bjs wrote on November 23, 2007 1:16 PM:

Refreshing to see the "christian" candidate actually talking like a genuine christian. Although this kind of talk does, most likely, ensure that he will be crushed at the polls.

oleeb wrote on November 23, 2007 1:42 PM:

I disagree on most issues with Huckabee as most on the left do. But I've got to say that unlike most Republicans on the national scene, he is not a monster and his position on this issue demonstrates that. Romney, Rudy, McCain and all the rest of them who are serious contenders have strayed so far from the sort of simple human decency Huckabee demonstrates here, solely for the sake of winning, that it's genuinely sickening.

DrDonwheels wrote on November 23, 2007 1:49 PM:

I appreciate Huckabee's nuance and his willingness to answer the question seriously. That said, I am one of those otherwise liberal moderate Democrats who is againgst illegal immigration. I don't buy the line that illegal immigrants are breaking the law to make a better life for themselves. Then it's they are driving on our roads without licenses or insurance, because they are illegal. Then they "steal" someone's Social Security number so they can work a legal job. Where does the law breaking end? Personally, I am tired of huge signs in Spanish, Korean, Arabic which I cannot read: these signs say to me, we are in your country but we don't want to be a part of your country.

benjoya wrote on November 23, 2007 2:12 PM:

i've said it before: huckabee's just not mean enough to get the nomination.

stlounick wrote on November 23, 2007 2:14 PM:

Huckabee framed his response correctly, IMO. His ability to come across as a decent human being, as he did in these comments, reinforces my forecase that he will be the GOP candidate.

The Democrats could take a few lessons on how to frame this, IMO. Huckabee struck the right chords.

benjoya wrote on November 23, 2007 2:18 PM:

DrDon, as you no doubt know, the time it takes current immigrants to learn english is no different than it was at the beginning of the 20th century.

and we got all kinds of funny signs in NYC -- ¡no hay problema, chico!

mgoddard wrote on November 23, 2007 2:26 PM:

I have a problem trying to sort my feelings about the mexican border.What would Jesus do or what would he tell us?

Jesus would likely have issues with the Mexican Goverment. You know he is there too. Everyone acts as if the US is the last hope for these people. If they showed half the guts there as they do on our gounds, they might see some change come about. But no, it is easy to flip over to the US, have half a dozen kids, take advantage of a country that would rather be politically correct then to stand behind their laws and citizens and start collecting on the freebies and benefits of being here.

Jesus would likely expect the illgals to do the right thing and bring about change in their own country rather than he would give a thumbs up on breaking the law (first by crossing the border and then a string of laws to be broken thereafter) and taking from those who had nothing to do with their plight in the first place.

wot wrote on November 23, 2007 2:28 PM:

DrDon, you're tired of big signs in Korean? WTF?!?

Steve LaBonne wrote on November 23, 2007 2:37 PM:

Personally, I am tired of huge signs in Spanish, Korean, Arabic which I cannot read: these signs say to me, we are in your country but we don't want to be a part of your country.

Cry me a fricking river, dumbass. If that's your biggest problem in life you're the luckiest person I know. Jeezus. r€nato wrote on November 23, 2007 2:46 PM:

I'll agree wholeheartedly with the several comments prior to mine, Huckabee at least on this issue actually sounds like a human and a good Christian, which means he hasn't a ghost of a chance of winning the GOP xenophobe bloc... which is pretty much all the hardcore Republican 'base'.

Personally, I am tired of huge signs in Spanish, Korean, Arabic which I cannot read: these signs say to me, we are in your country but we don't want to be a part of your country.

Cry me a fricking river, dumbass. If that's your biggest problem in life you're the luckiest person I know. Jeezus.

a-fucking-men. Threatened by a foreign language? What a nation of bed-wetters we've become. Somehow I doubt that the British, at the height of their empire, or the Romans at the height of theirs, displayed this kind of abject fear of... of... well, what do you got?

r€nato wrote on November 23, 2007 2:48 PM:

But no, it is easy to flip over to the US, have half a dozen kids, take advantage of a country that would rather be politically correct then to stand behind their laws and citizens and start collecting on the freebies and benefits of being here.

Like most Americans, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to how people live beyond our borders. Sure is easy to sit there and criticize when your closest contact to Mexico is likely stopping in at Taco Bell for your '4th meal'.

mamiller wrote on November 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

Dr Don have you ever travelled outside the US? Do you realize that all those signs in English are meant for us, and not for the native population? Do you think the locals resent it? Maybe but it would be chaos without them because Americans dont speak their language.
What it means is that even people who don't speak the local language need guidance.

beowulf wrote on November 23, 2007 3:35 PM:

OK, Dr. Don was over the top, but its a reasonable point. I'm not aware of any country (other than Iraq) where large numbers of American citizens arrogantly assert squatter rights in a foreign country and expect to be given amnesty for their lawbreaking.

If there was only a small illegal immigrant problem, there'd be far greater acceptance of legal immigrants and foreign visitors-- and any multilingual signs placed to assist them.

Actually, it would be a better situation even if there was the same number of illegal immigrants-- but they truly came from the four corners of the world (instead of substantially coming in from Mexico and Central America).

Instead of a separate Spanish speaking subculture developing, you'd see illegals quickly learning English-- the only common language for a global immigrant pool(or is my presumption that English is our common language now considered racist and illiberal too?)

postxian wrote on November 23, 2007 3:43 PM:

So Huckabee is saying that the place to grind your heel into the six-year-old's face is at border?

Jesus on the issue of breaking the law?

Jesus would likely expect the illgals to do the right thing and bring about change in their own country rather than he would give a thumbs up on breaking the law (first by crossing the border and then a string of laws to be broken thereafter) and taking from those who had nothing to do with their plight in the first place.

And it happened that He was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain. The Pharisees were saying to Him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath

Yes, I think Jesus would have taken on the Mexican governemnt, but I don't think he'd have had any qualms about breaking unjust laws.

lane filler wrote on November 23, 2007 4:03 PM:

Anyone interested in what Huckabee is really like face to face should try this funny (but it actually happened) column:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

Blue Dog wrote on November 23, 2007 4:16 PM:

"Lou Dobbs considers himself a Democrat, and lots & lots of older Democrats that I talk to, of varied ethnic and racial background, and of varied socio-economic status, express similar ideas."

I won't support a Democrat who isn't strong on illegal immigration. And I've never voted for a Republican. I'm not a nativist, a bigot, or anti-brown. I've spent years working for civil rights. My problem with the illegal immigration debate, beside the mindless name-calling, is that a core group of elites, it seems to me, has joined forces with Hispanic groups and their big business corporate allies (see http://www.nclr.org/section/corporate_partners/corporate_partners_program/)in effort to push amnesty onto the American people. There is never a discussion of how illegal immigration negatively impacts the working-class (other than quibbling over statistics), and there's never a discussion of how there is a direct link between increased immigration and reduced union membership. Americans want fairness, I believe, and are open to legal immigrants. But I must tell you that the marches of '06, with the militancy, the Mexican flags, the demanding of rights, and the accusations of racism turned a lot of peoples' stomachs. There are many of us who are committed to civil rights and the welfare of the working poor but who see the effects of a diluted workforce. While I once read a post here that said 'the middle class is having their houses cleaned by illegal immigrants,' it's the carpenters, roofers, cooks, Wal-Mart clerks, janitors, and fast-food employees who have been most harmed by illegal immigration over the last decade. Real wages for many of these jobs has actually declined over the last decade (along with benefits), and although I've heard that it's "only" an 8% reduction in wages, those dollars make a huge difference when you're living a marginalized existence. I hope Democrats take a moderate position: mostly workplace enforcement. Because ultimately it's the employers who have benefited the most and then, slowly, we can pass some reasonable, humanitarian measures like the Dream Act. But a sudden amnesty of 12 million was wide open to fraud, easy attracting tens of millions of more immigrants. Let's remember that the first obligation of our party is to protect working men and women, the most vulnerable, and the marginalized. Frankly, those who have been left out of this debate.

mooster wrote on November 23, 2007 4:49 PM:

Okay, Blue Dog. Let me get this straight. The establishment has been working their behinds off since the days of Reagan to destroy unions, but the actual blame lies at the feet of Mexican immigrants? Give me a little time; this one's going to be difficult to swallow...

tnnksd wrote on November 23, 2007 4:53 PM:

Beautiful, humane, statement by Mr Huckabee. He has the right view. Both beautiful and rational.

ryrtyery wrote on November 23, 2007 4:54 PM:

The GOP "base" is awful.

Saint Augustine wrote on November 23, 2007 5:16 PM:

Many more businesses will be putting up signs indicating they speak a non-English language to attract the foreign visitors who will be visiting the USA now that their currency is worth so much more than ours.

I'll employ any person who speaks a foreign language in addition to English, if they are qualified to do the job regardless of their race, gender or faith.

Charlotte wrote on November 23, 2007 5:29 PM:

Dems are saying - if Hillary is the nominee, they hope Huckabee is the Repub nominee cause they'll vote for him.
And that's exactly why the media gives him little attention.

stephen beck wrote on November 23, 2007 5:30 PM:

I like what Huckabee has said on immigration. I think a big part of the problem is that the debate has been hijacked by bigots, which makes it easy to paint that onto all anti-undocumented-aliens. But the problem is made worse by the pandering, largely on the Republican side, to a small, vocal minority--just read the NYTimes' David Brooks column today about Giuliani. But some of the complaints by even reasonable people against illegals are absurd. All those non-English business signs bother you? Well, their on private businesses; if you don't like the sign, don't shop there. And a connection between illegals and union membership decline? Union membership is growing fastest in areas with the fastest growing Hispanic population. And the SEIU, the fastest growing union, supports legalizing illegal aliens. Not only that, immigration will probably be a boon to the Democratic Party in 2008, because the harsh rhetoric on the Right is driving Hispanic voters away. 2006 saw a 10% drop in Hispanic support for Repubs from 2004. 2008 looks to be even more in the Dem's advantage. And the anti-immigrant right has nowhere to go but the Republics--but they voting Repub. anyway--so no gain for them. And where Repubs have made immigration their primary issue, they have mostly lost (e.g., AZ's Randy Graff and JD Hayworth).

Bettybb wrote on November 23, 2007 5:31 PM:

What a total nonsense and misleading answer the Huckster gave. All candidates are for emergency medical care, and for basic schooling. It is the law.

However, the Huskster did not address the question of scholarships for illegals, or in state tutition.

Sure it is not of the kids making, but by the time they graduate from high school they are adults and should go back to their own country. If they do not, they, like their parents, are law breakers.

And why should a lawbreaking illegal student bet a better tuition deal than an out of state American?

If the illegal shows up at college, they should call ICE and have them deported.

Or does the Huckster plan to give a college education to the entire world at US taxpayer expense?

Oracle wrote on November 23, 2007 5:33 PM:

The immigration issue is a hot potato for Democrats. In reality, the only way to halt the immigration--which depresses the wages of low-income workers (by about 3.5%) and creates the problem of intermittent employment for these workers--is for the U.S. goverment to invest massively to encourage the economic development of Latin American nations. This is not going to happen. So there are two partial solutions: the East German solution (remember the Berlin wall and the armed guards who shot to kill) or severe fines for employers who hire illegal immigrants. The first is not an option; the second is political suicide for any Democratic or Republican president--businessmen will retaliate. Even without illegal immigration, our humane policy, allowing family reconstitution and providing a haven for some political refugees, permits significant legal immigration. In the 19th and twentieth centuries immigration took place while the U.S. economy was dynamic and was creating tons of jobs; today the economy grows but job growth per capita is lagging terribly. Thus we are faced with an unprecedented situation. Look for the right wingers to play the nativist card to their constuencies and for centrist democrats to duck the issue. I really do not think they have any other choice. Its a nasty situation with no realistic solution likely.

beowulf wrote on November 23, 2007 5:49 PM:

"the East German solution (remember the Berlin wall and the armed guards who shot to kill)"

Umm, if you will recall, the East German authorities were trying to keep people in, not keep people out. They shot to kill because once the fleeing citizen made it over the fence, they were beyond the reach of East German law.

In contrast, if someone breaks into the United States government, they are putting themselves within reach of US law, so the US government has the ability (and authority) to detain them nonviolently and deport them quickly.

Gus wrote on November 23, 2007 5:52 PM:

The issue, if you want guidance from the Bible, is not what Jesus would say. Its what basis on which you claim the land to be "yours" and not others. The God of the Old Testament said

“The land is mine; you are only strangers and sojourners there.”

Now, I'm not a believer so I'll refer to someone whose insight strikes me as the closest to divine guidance we've seen in this country

The migrants have no lobby. Only an enlightened, aroused and perhaps angered public opinion can do anything about the migrants. The people you have seen have the strength to harvest your fruit and vegetables. They do not have the strength to influence legislation. Maybe we do. Good night, and good luck.

TLB wrote on November 23, 2007 6:02 PM:

Greg Sargent says: "That Huckabee actually has to defend such sentiments tells you pretty much all you need to know about the sway that today's nativist right holds over GOP primary politics."

Actually, that Sargent would buy Huck's statement tells me all I need to know about Sargent. Huck has a history of not just falsely accusing those who oppose illegal activity of lacking compassion, but collaborating with a foreign government to enable further illegal activity.

Sargent should try to think things through first, then post.

Ian wrote on November 23, 2007 6:21 PM:

Dawwwg! That ole Huckabee boy sure knows how to get the point across! Haven't seen presence like that, in these parts, since Ronny Reagan. I do believe Mikey has what leadership looks like.

It'll take a lotta that to move the citizens to yank the Tax Man's hand outta our paychecks. Afterall, them politicians up ther in Congress are more stubborn than a bear on a deer carkus when it comes to passin' out tax favors in return fer some campaign lucre.

Hypatia wrote on November 23, 2007 6:34 PM:

He may sound rational on this topic but IMO anybody who rejects evolution is NOT presidential material.

Frank Goudy wrote on November 23, 2007 6:35 PM:

Again, Huckabee joins the amnesty crowd by using children as social blackmail to gain our sympathy. There are millions of desperately poor children around the world, but only those whose parents broke are laws to get here illegally should be rewarded?

Huckabee's "compassion" is either phony or misguided. No one is asking to grind their heels into the childrens faces but merely to deport them to the country which has the legal and morald responsibility to take care of them.

Huckabee is making of gool of himself just like Hillary did on the drivers license issue.

POed Lib wrote on November 23, 2007 6:46 PM:

"Yes, I think Jesus would have taken on the Mexican governemnt, but I don't think he'd have had any qualms about breaking unjust laws."

What a pile of crap. The laws enforcing our reasonable quotas on immigration must be enforced. What is needed is reform in Mexico. Any country which is run by such clearly bad laws needs to be reformed.

Let all those illegal wetbacks go home and run a revolution in Mexico, to allow Mexicans to honorably make a living in their own country.

Annette wrote on November 23, 2007 6:48 PM:

I'm originally from Europe. I came to the US on vacation, extended my 6-month stay. Then I went back to NL, took care of my things there and came back here, knowing I'd stay here illegally. I was here illegal for about 8 years. Then I won in the GreenCard Lottery....
I have very mixed feelings about illegal immigration. My being here illegal was out of choice. Others being here illegal are here more out of necessity, I understand that.
My being European was considered by many (whites, at least)more legitimate. My co-workers at the landscaping company surely were treated differently!!
Yet, during the years that I was here illegal, I never assumed/required any of the benefits of the US citizens/legal residents. Even though I paid taxes during quite a few of those years. I was illegal and understood my status. I didn't even know about all the free services available to illegals. I'd go to the Berkeley Free Clinic if I had any dental issues, for example. I paid cash for doctor's visits when needed. I never expected free healthcare where others had to pay.
Yet I also didn't have children.
Sometimes bumberstickers hit the point home, f. ex. "IF YOU THINK EDUCATION IS EXPENSIVE - TRY IGNORANCE"
So do I have some level of resentment? Sure I do.
Yet I also know that many if not most of the illegal immigrants, mostly from Central America (mind you, certainly not all!!) have the 'choice' of living in severe poverty or risk coming here to the US and have the possibility of having somewhat of a better life. By no means will any of those become rich.
Mexico's current right-wing government is only doing what the current US right-wing government wished they could do: Export the extremely poor and have another country support them.

Annette wrote on November 23, 2007 6:59 PM:

I believe that the only way of effectively deal with illegal immigration, is dealing with the governments of the 'problematic' immigrations groups, such as Mexico or other Central American countries.
Right now, for example, a huge portion of the Mexican income/imports consists of money sent home by family members working illegally in the US.
Mexico, as a country, profits off of that - they will not change it unless forced to. The profit does not extend to the Mexican people - they're the ones that are torn apart over it. It simply relieves the Mexican government of taking care of their own people.
Press their governments to take care of their own people, provide living-wage jobs, share the wealth of their natural resources.
NAFTA sucks big time. Trade may be free for bigger corporations, but it surely doesn't benefit the people.

Annette wrote on November 23, 2007 7:02 PM:

As far as Jezus goes??

I believe that he'd only would have cared that all people were treated right, equally, have food on their table.

Remember what he did to those vendors in the temply trying to profit off of all other regular folks.

Kay M wrote on November 23, 2007 7:11 PM:

A bit off topic but....

Mike Huckabee has risen too fast in the Iowa polls to make me comfortable. Huckabee's rise is indicative of a popular endorsement over issue based endorsement. I don't think that Huckabee's record is moving him up in the polls....he is just the Christian Right's "second pick of the litter". Thompson was the chosen heir, but he didn't live up to his birth right and so now Huckabee gets the popular vote. Why wasn't he being supported like this from the beginning? He has been in all the debates. He didn't really get much of a bump after his second place win in the Iowa straw poll. Huckabee has stated his views for the last eleven months. Why the sudden surge in the polls now? He only saw his Iowa poll numbers going up when THompson's campaign faltered. I hoped to get away from popular voting when I left High School. I see it is still an adult mentality.

The challenges facing America will not be solved by a charismatic....can sell snake oil to anyone....type. I have to agree with Huckabee being a "good ole boy" and he would be a great neighbor, little league coach, Walmart greeter, football booster, cornhole partner, Pastor, Talent Show MC. I doubt that he is qualified to be a medical surgeon, chemical engineer, farmer, pharmacist, etc. I can't believe Huckabee has the strongest resume' for facing the job description and challenges for President of the United States either. We are in essence hiring someone to handle the job of President of United States. We wouldn't hire some one on only his character, and personality. The job requires so much more. Huckabee might do well delivering the State of the Union Address, but what would the message be?

Steve5117 wrote on November 23, 2007 7:31 PM:

Annette: It was the "money changers" that Jesus was said to have thrown out of the temple. His objection was to the usurous profit made changing foreign currency into the approved currencies for donations.

DemAC wrote on November 23, 2007 7:53 PM:

drinkof wrote on November 23, 2007 1:06 PM: For all the real problems, in our neighbors, we are the luckiest nation on the face of the planet. For a country of our size to have only 2 real borders, and for those to be with Canada and Mexico? How much better could that be? Who has it better?

Well, I come to think of Sweden, which is the largest country in Europe (save Russia) and the Swedes only share a land border with Finland and Norway. That’s pretty good if you ask me. :-)

DemAC wrote on November 23, 2007 7:58 PM:

And, BTW, Canada only shares its border with one other nation. :-)

P Campbell wrote on November 23, 2007 9:26 PM:

I have to agree w/Kay M. As for character, perhaps you should go back through some of the older news items from Arkansas papers. It isn't all that flattering.

Pasquale wrote on November 23, 2007 9:33 PM:

drinkof wrote on November 23, 2007 1:06 PM: For a country of our size to have only 2 real borders, and for those to be with Canada and Mexico? How much better could that be? Who has it better?

But we don't have two "real borders". Our borders are only "on paper." They are not enforced and until recently there were few actual barriers to the invasion of illegal aliens. We even pay the illegals to come here, just like the Democrats have paid women and girls to have illegitimate babies over the last few decades.

CalD wrote on November 23, 2007 10:23 PM:

Poor Huck. Not being a lunatic about illegal immigration won't get a man very far in today's Republic party. Kind of a deal breaker, in fact. They seem to have a pretty strict policy: No Paranoid Delusions, No Service, No exceptions.

lambert strether wrote on November 23, 2007 11:05 PM:

Funny how the phrase "illegals" has been mainstreamed, isn't it?

That would make Gonzo, Addington, Yoo, and the rest of the Conservative operatives who trashed the Constitution and turned us into a nation of torturers "legals," right?

I guess, as usual, the scandal is what's legal....

pseudonymous in nc wrote on November 24, 2007 12:01 AM:

Funny how the phrase "illegals" has been mainstreamed, isn't it?

Not so funny how 'immigrant' has been elided by the Dobbs posse (and bedwetting Angelenos like Chris 'TLB' Kelly) into a dirty word.

If Dobbs really distinguished between legal and illegal immigration, he'd be ranting about how the massive spike in naturalization applications might not be dealt with by November 2008. But he doesn't give a crap about the immigration system. (Why should he? He's never interacted with it.)

Even Huckabee makes the mistake of saying 'borders, borders, borders'. Want a secure southern border? Invade and conquer Mexico, Belize and Guatamala. That gives you a 200-odd mile frontier. No amount of border security will address a situation where labor seeks the same mobility as capital.

A Mexican government committed to addressing issues of poverty, rather than exporting it, would be considered too durned left-wing for both parties. There's a curious parallel to Republicans who don't like welfare, but will gladly pay to keep black men locked up.

Richard wrote on November 24, 2007 12:07 AM:

Huckabee might just be the "compassionate conservative" that was played by another, and badly at that, to run for President.

Pasquale wrote on November 24, 2007 3:18 AM:

The illegal alien crisis can be solved for the most part with a real wall. Bush and the other globalists have been too moderate on the issue.

joshblows wrote on November 24, 2007 9:02 AM:

Huckabee (and you brain dead liberals on this site) miss ONE KEY POINT. Virtually any help that our Gov't (read: taxpayers) give to illegal aliens (or their "innocent" offspring) SERVES AS AN INCENTIVE FOR MORE ILLEGALS TO COME HERE WHICH MAKES THE PROBLEM **WORSE** IN THE FUTURE, NOT BETTER!!

QUIZ FOR LIBERALS: If illegal aliens' children are granted the benefits of citizenry, prospective illegal immigrants from other countries will be:

A) LESS likely to come here seeking opportunity for their kids

B) MORE likely to come here to seek opportunity for their kids.

**HINT: The correct answer is (B).

So, (call me a xenophobe loon, but) my position is that we should not start trying to "fix" illegal immigration by implementing a first step that would ACTUALLY MAKE THE PROBLEM BIGGER AND WORSE IN THE FUTURE - Common sense, no?

Of course, most liberals have never even taken Econ 101 so my little pep-talk on "incentives" and their key role in human behavior will probably fly right over your thick skulls, BUT AT LEAST I TRIED TO ENLIGHTEN YOU A LITTLE, RIGHT?
You're welcome..... 8-)

--Bob wrote on November 24, 2007 2:36 PM:

Dear Joshblows,

The U.S. is a great country. One of the many great things about it is the fine group of people who were born in Mexico but have come here to find work in order to support their families. I guess some of them don't have the papers they need, but i don't understand why you think they are such a problem. I especially don't understand why you would deny medical care to one of their children with a serious health problem. Maybe I have a thick skull. Or maybe you are a hateful person. Either way, ease up on the all caps. They make you sound like someone who isn't very bright.

--Bob

--Bob

donna L. wrote on November 24, 2007 2:37 PM:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8636094d-a1c8-4c48-b57a-e990a1f26a91

Unhelpful TNR article on illegal immigration consulted with dem political strategists -- either they didn't accept that it was a big issue, or advised to evade the question. One insightful and angry commenter takes them to task:

Posted by teplukhin2you

"Messrs Greenberg et al - some free advice from a loyal Dem who's probably the last person any of my friends/colleagues/neighbors would expect to be agitated by this issue: 1. The issue is not "immigration". It's not even illegal immigration. It's our broken relationship with _Mexico_, pure and simple. So start reframing the issue accordinagly, every single time it comes up. 2. The broken relationship with Mexico is the ECONOMIC one. Again, the issue is not primarily a legal one, or border security-- as if we could ever police that border. It's all about finally delivering on the bill of goods that was used to sell NAFTA over a decade ago: _creating jobs in Mexico_ so that desperately poor, hopeless Mexicans would not come here and swamp the low-end US labor market and social services in the blue-collar neighborhoods. 3. Consistent with #2, focus on FIXING NAFTA and HELPING WORKING FAMILIES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER. All the border enforcement in the world won't help if we continue to dump $1b of subsidized US corn into Mexico each year, thereby destroying over a million rural Mexican livelihoods. Close the loopholes that were left open for Cargill and ADM. 4. Bottom line, this issue is 100% about economics. It's one of standing up for workers' rights, of helping working US families and working Mexican families, and putting Mexico on a path to follow Ireland's successful transition from third world backwater and exporter of desperate people to a wealthy, dynamic, super-educated first world tiger. If our party can't do better than ~35% or so with working-class white families across the nation, we should abandon the fiction that we are the workingman's party. No issue more clearly demonstrates the confusion and bankruptcy of the Democratic Party than its bizarre, and infuriating, inability to stand up, cry BS on and put an end to this insane importation of an underclass from Mexico-- when we haven't even begun to address the problems of our existing underclass. Messrs Greenberg et al -- do you men realize how central this issue is to our party and our nation? Do you understand that you and your clients can't just kick the can down the road again?"

(I'll add that the subtext is that Bill Clinton iss responsible for bringing us NAFTA. Hillary cannot bring up the NAFTA/immigration connection because she is running on Bill's record. When folks understand how the Clinton administration sold them down the river, Hillary's candidacy is doomed. As I see it, on the demccratic side, only Obama is a strategic position side to make the case.)

Goldspinner wrote on November 24, 2007 3:06 PM:

As I recall, the Good Book mentions something about adherence to earthly laws and civil authority...something about "rendering unto Caesar". Some of you might want to note Who actually "coined" the phrase and the context in which it was given. It's funny: Mexico has absolutely no tolerance for illegal immigrants within its own borders yet encourages Mexican nationals to "re-establish" Aztlan here in the US. Over the past twenty years, I've watched my local economy suffer.

First, well-paying jobs were sent to the maquiladoras and most of our factories closed. Then our strong agricultural and construction sectors stopped hiring American citizens in favor of illegals. Our local schools and social service providers are overwhelmed by the influx. Last month, I spotted an MS 13 gang sign spray-painted in my formerly very safe, middle-class neighborhood. Guess who pays the price for "anchor babies"? We do.

Based on Vicente Fox's comments about African-Americans, I was surprised that more TPM readers didn't recognize the direct correlation between racism in hiring practices directed at black Americans and the massive increase in illegal immigration. Only now, illegal immigration negatively affects ALL American citizens, hyphenated or not. By the way, Lou Dobbs is an Independent and those of us who make up his viewing audience belong to the demographic most likely to vote on Election Day...and we're pissed off. Huckabee has a point, though.

stlounick wrote on November 24, 2007 4:55 PM:

donnaL, I think you nailed it.

donna L. wrote on November 24, 2007 6:54 PM:

stlounick -- here is a link posted by Ben Smith on the subject.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota/was-ross-perot-right.html

I'll add that unless the dems address this credibly, we will see a xenophobic populist 3rd party emerge that will end up benefitting the republicans.

D. Malcolm wrote on November 25, 2007 9:56 AM:

Just like most other politicians on this issue, Huckabee deftly evaded the real question.

He's technically right: there's a certain point where opposition to illegal immigration just crosses into inhumanity. But it's a straw man argument to avoid the real issue. Only the far extreme would deny emergency services to a sick child, or even public education.

I wholeheartedly agree with one of the comments above: there's an unholy alliance that's been created between certain corporatist politicians (mostly Democrats but some Republicans as well most notably Bush), big business and Latino activists to push this whole open borders agenda down the throats of the American people.

If the Democrats stay with this approach, they will either be thoroughly thrashed in the November elections or they will set back the progressive agenda for a generation as people realize that there's no way to create a social safety net, reduce poverty, improve wages, conserve environmental resources or provide universal access to health care, higher education and decent housing under an open borders regime without bankrupting the government and our economy.

Stacy Wright wrote on November 25, 2007 12:45 PM:

For all of those who say "I am tired of seeing signs in different languages. This is America speak English ONLY."
Do you believe that the world is now moving towards being fully a global village? Do you believe in modernization?

How could the world be a global village if you do not know what others are saying. In the future I predict that most if not everyone in the world will understand what the other is saying. This is too large for your understanding but, you cannot change what God had done. God is the one who gave different tongues. Now you are a product of God and don't try to change his wonderous works. You cannot force your language or culture on people. Americans are allowed to celebrate their holidays in any country that they visit and there is a US Embassy there, which is a symbol of democracy.

Americans are allowed to take their culture and foods in other countries. KFC, Wendy's, McDonald's, Burger King you name them are all american food chains and most people embrace them in their countries. So do not force people to forget their roots and language just because they are in your country.

w. Brown wrote on November 25, 2007 2:24 PM:

D. Malcolm your post says it all for me. I'm to much of a realist to believe that we can have anything close to an open border policy or keep up the defacto open border border policy we now have and expect the same level of social programs as we have had in the past. I also expect we would have to move further away from a nation that respects individual rights and the seperation of powers, to a nation that is ruled by an overly large and burdensome central government.

I won't be voting Democrat this time, although I will be picky about a vote for a Republican. If one wins the primay that is basically for the same immigration policy as the Democrats, I will not vote. I refuse to support a policy that, in my view, does not consider the needs of the citizens of the country on this matter. Its just to important.

John Morris wrote on November 25, 2007 4:43 PM:

Mike Huckabee, whether you agree with him or not, is garnering support in important states, and NATIONALLY. To see recent some impressive poll numbers, candidates' website traffic numbers, and statistics in graph form, check out:

www.mike-huckabee.blogspot.com

Wesley wrote on November 25, 2007 11:50 PM:

A pro illegal immigration politician cannot be elected in this present situation.

Pasquale wrote on November 26, 2007 1:32 AM:

Wesley wrote on November 25, 2007 11:50 PM:

A pro illegal immigration politician cannot be elected in this present situation.

Man, is that not an understatement! It's bad enough to lose our country's sovereignty and identity year by year, much less by formally inviting its rapid demise into the third world.

Nanellen wrote on November 26, 2007 3:48 AM:

That's what I love about Mike Huckabee. He just tells you what he really thinks and doesn't try to spin it. It all comes to down to border security - all borders - not just the one to the South.

But Mike Huckabee is right. Let's have security by addressing the problem at the borders first - then, we'll have more time to determine what the proper next times should be. And we don't have to be lunatics about it.

caroline miranda wrote on November 27, 2007 2:17 PM:

Huckabee is a second tier candidate at best, whose racist position that would give illegal aliens special tuition rates not available to U.S. residents should immidiately disqualify him as a candidate. Any aid to children of illegal aliens should be reimbursed by the government of their nation of origin, not the U.S. citizen who is doubled charged for medical care--his own, and the lawbreakbreaking family's.

Phil W wrote on November 28, 2007 10:27 AM:

More tired blather excoriating those of us who believe in the rule of law being applied to all, equally, as being "nativists". Huckabee's reply about grinding the heel really does a great job of playing to the classist and divisive rhetoric of the far left. Come to think of it, that is exactly who the Straussian neocons are. THEY are the ones responsible for the mess our nation is in. Huckabee is a pandering politician playing to the real racists: La Raza, MALDEF and their ilk. I say enforce the law, deport illegals, jail the crooked employers, and most illegals will self deport. As Ron Paul says, stop the subsidy and enforce the law. Either we are a nation of law or we are a nation of men, read tyrants. We fought a revolutions to rid ourselves of tyrants once. We need to do it again.

Bigjer wrote on November 29, 2007 10:39 AM:

Huckabee is a Baptist minister, and as such knows the Bible....As mentioned above by Annette, When JESUS found the money changers in His Fathers Temple, He immediately became angry, and chased them out !!!!

First, justifiable anger is ok,
as JESUS showed us, and Secondly,
When those people (invaded ) His Fathers Temple, ( un-invited )
He ordered them OUT...!!!

I guess JESUS believed there (is) a difference between LEGAL, and ILLEGAL...

Enough said ????

votenic wrote on November 29, 2007 4:17 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Night at Midnight.

Dale wrote on November 30, 2007 5:23 AM:

This guy claims to be a Christian, but he sure doesn't seem to follow the Bible too well in his policies!
By the way, he did the usual politician game playing with the question regarding college tuition for illegals. They are not children! Trying to twist the question to make it seem like we are now talking about helpless little children is clever, but essentially a lie because it is not addressing the question, but avoiding it! College students are adults! And if they are children of illegals, then they are likely to be illegal also and should be deported!!! NOT given special treatment at taxpayer's expense! These people are criminal trespassers and should be treated as such - not violently, but civilly and lawfully.
Unfortunately I think he is not being a good representative of Jesus (to say the least).

roger wrote on December 15, 2007 7:30 PM:

mmmm..

roger wrote on December 15, 2007 9:08 PM:

hola

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)