Vive la Difference! - Parties Diverge on Illegal Immigration Issue

Forums Home | The FireWire | Breaking News

Posts 1-8 of 8 | Latest Post
August 27, 2008 12:01 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
May 25, 2007

Vive la Différence!
Parties Diverge on Illegal Immigration Issue

American Patrol Commentary -- August 27  

    The Denver Post reported

that all four speakers at a Democrat panel discussion on immigration, including Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration (etc.), said immigration law must be reformed before the border with Mexico can be secured. "The enforcement-only strategy of the current administration is not working, they said."
    At a Republican National Committee meeting on the platform "sparks flew when delegates got into a debate over illegal immigration."
    According to FoxNews.com, delegates from North Carolina wanted to include opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform." This was opposed by Bud McFarlane, a man with a history of mental instability.
    The issue of the RNC’s comprehensive reform language is yet to be settled, but on one point -- border security -- there is a clear difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats want amnesty first and Republicans want border security first. Moreover, Bush’s failure to implement the Secure Fence Act of 2006 gives McCain an opportunity to distance himself from both the Democrats and an unpopular President.
August 27, 2008 05:47 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 8, 2007
Comment updated August 27, 2008 05:56 PM

Illegal Immigration Debate Continues at RNC Meetings

MINNEAPOLIS–

Heated debate on illegal immigration continued at the RNC’s platform drafting committee meetings today. An amendment was proposed to deny citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants in the United States.

Kendal Unruh, a delegate from Colorado proposed the amendment and she introduced herself by saying she was from staunch illegal immigrant foe and former presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo’s district. She said that illegal immigration is the “number one issue” to the people in Colorado she represents and that the problem “breaks the back” of the health care system in her state.

Fierce debate broke out among the delegates when many saw this as unconstitutional and would mean changing the 14th amendment of the constitution, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States. . .are citizens of the United States.”  Charles Mifsud, a delegate from Ohio said he was in favor of a crackdown of illegal immigration, but opposed the amendment because “anchor babies” represent the “symptom not the problem,” which he sees as securing the border. The term anchor baby is a controversial expression that refers to illegal immigrants who give birth to babies in the United States and are then “anchored” to this country.

In a more colorful moment of the proceedings, Mississippi Governor and committee member Haley Barbour pointed out that John McCain does not support denying children born in this country citizenship and that he came here to elect John McCain president, “I want to give him a platform he can run on. I don’t want to stick my finger in his eye.”

In response, Sandra McDade from Louisiana said she was not trying to stick her finger in John McCain’s eye, but was “aiming for a little higher” and then tapped her head insisting that by adopting this amendment they would be sending a strong message to their candidate. She called on her fellow delegates to approve the amendment, “We don’t have to be politically correct. We are Republicans!”

Other delegates expressed concern they would have to bring their passport or dig up their birth certificates before going to the hospital to give birth.

David Chung, a delegate from Iowa adamantly supported the amendment saying that the very act of crossing the border illegally makes illegal immigrants “invaders” and their children should not be afforded the rights of citizenship.

After the heated debate, the amendment failed, but the topic came up later when the question of counting illegal immigrants in the census came up.

Kris Kobach, a delegate from Kansas proposed an amendment that would eliminate the counting of illegal immigrants in the 2010 census. The delegates were split almost entirely in half with many delegates supporting only counting legal residents in the census, but the other half were concerned that by only counting legal immigrants that local governments and health care and education services in the country would be totally overwhelmed. Many of these services rely on census data to function and the amendment ended up failing.

August 27, 2008 06:16 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
May 20, 2008
I thought the 14 amendment was wrote for the babies of slaves that were in AMERICA and was wrote in the 1800s. It was not intended for ILLEGAL ALIENS or anyone else. If I am wrong someone please help me out!!!!
August 27, 2008 09:03 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
March 5, 2007

Traitor Hater--In a way you are right. The 14th amendment --I believe---was intended for people that are here LEGALLY. That isn't quite what it SAYS---but --at the time the 14th was written--they couldn't have forseen what we're seeing now .. ie: a bunch of ILLEGALS coming here and ABUSING our Constitution. The 14th amendment does need to be "updated" to fit the times. The sooner the better--AND MAKE IT RETRO-ACTIVE.

No one that sneaks across our borders-Pregnant-should be considered having their babys become citizens of this country. I don't care if they get pregnant AFTER they arrive here --If they're illegal--they're here illegally and have NO RIGHTS under OUR Constitution,.  My Constitution is for AMERICANS ONLY !! Period !!

As for your statement about "Slave" and babies of slaves. Once they were FREED--they automatically became citizens--and so their babys were automatically citizens. As it should have been.And they then came under the umbrella of our Constitution.

But--ILLEGAL ALIENS do not have that right--or at least--they shouldn't have. You leave it up to the liberals though--and WE'RE screwed.

That's why it's so important for everyone to contact their REPS and have them add an ADDEMDUM to  AMENDMENT 14.ie-"only people coming to this country LEGALLY have ANY rights under our Constitution "

August 27, 2008 09:37 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 11, 2007
Amen Rush-Baby...Amen!!


About Me: Keep The 2nd. Ammendment Alive At All Cost!! God gave us this right through man. Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
August 27, 2008 10:05 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
May 20, 2008
Thanks Rush-Baby for the input,I agree that they need to change it! It also seems to me that the PRO-ILLEGAL people and the MEDIA want our younger generation to believe that the law was written for them (The ILLEGALS).
August 27, 2008 11:17 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
March 2, 2007

There are a great many women that become pregnant and come across rhe  border to give birth for two reasons, that they can get better care in an American hospital than in Mexico or Hondouras, and they can claim that the baby gives them the right to stay here.

  There are many misconceptions of the law . I was born to parents who were immigrants from Canada on a Work Permit in 1926. They brought six children with them, and had two more in the United States, my sister and myself. My parents were Naturalized as US Citizens and each of my older siblings also had to be naturilized. even the sister who was only one or two when she came here. Four of my sisters had to be Naturalized even though they marrled American Born men, who were Natural American born citizens.

  I on the other hand had Dual Citizenship, and being born to Canadian Citizens at the time of my birth, could have returned to Canada. I chose however to enlist in the US Army, and when I was inducted I had to denounce my alliegiance to Canada and affirm my Alligence to The United States of America.

   RJMac

September 1, 2008 11:01 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 8, 2007

Sanctuary City Platform

GOP platform targets sanctuary cities

Monday, September 1, 2008



(09-01) 04:00 PDT Minneapolis-St. Paul -- Pay attention, San Francisco and other self-proclaimed "sanctuary cities." The draft of 2008 Republican Platform wants cities that flout federal immigration law to pay a price - pocketing fewer federal dollars - for their sanctuary politics.


"The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay," the draft explains. And: "It means requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens." (My italics.)

In simple, direct language, the platform also asserts, "We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity."

These are not the positions of John McCain. McCain supports a path to citizenship for otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens. He won't call it amnesty, but the GOP platform does.

In July, I asked McCain if, as president, he would penalize sanctuary cities that don't cooperate with federal immigration officials. McCain was unfamiliar with Chronicle stories about convicted illegal immigrant crack dealers who had gamed the city's sanctuary policy as it applies to juvenile offenders to avoid being handed over to the feds. One beneficiary of the city's refusal to hand over juvenile felons to the feds - a policy since rescinded by Mayor Gavin Newsom - was Edwin Ramos, who has been charged in the triple murder of Tony Bologna and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. Ramos has pleaded not guilty. The Chronicle's Jaxon Van Derbeken reported Sunday that at least one dealer who claimed to be 16 when arrested in April is, in fact, 25.

McCain's answer: "I would push for federal action to carry out a federal responsibility. And a federal responsibility is immigration. It's not a city or a state or a sheriff's responsibility.

"We fail at the federal level to pass federal legislation, so you're going to have these different activities and different actions by different levels of government, all of which are because of the failure of federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform."

When I asked if he would withhold federal funds, McCain answered, "I would have to look at the particular situations. First of all, I don't know if I could do it legally, to start with, secondly but I would attack the issue so that it would go away."

And: "You secure borders and you have a temporary worker program that works, you address the issue of the 12 million people who are here illegally, and you don't have to worry about that."

Clearly McCain did not have a big problem with sanctuary city policies in July. Sunday, when I asked the McCain campaign where he stood on the federal penalties on sanctuary cities in light of the GOP platform, a spokesman said he would let the old quotes stand.

California GOP Chairman Ron Nehring told me that he thought the platform made sense because "this is a law enforcement question" and because sanctuary city policies "directly undermine" law enforcement efforts to prosecute international drug and human-smuggling cartels. "In California," Nehring added, "we see this directly."

It turns out that Minneapolis and St. Paul are sanctuary cities. Some American cities passed sanctuary laws for benign reasons - to signal to illegal immigrants that they could report crimes to police and send their children to school - that is to protect otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants. It took a city with the loony politics of San Francisco to turn that goal into a get-out-of-jail free card, not for hard-working families, but for savvy drug dealers and brazen convicted felons.

If Republicans could draft a bill that concentrates on withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities that enable career criminals, John McCain would have to get on board.

Sanctuary cities

While San Francisco gets the press on its sanctuary policies, the movement is widespread, with cities in 25 states proclaiming themselves as sanctuaries.

Sanctuary counties

Sonoma (Calif.); Rio Ariba (N.M.);

Marion (Ore.); Fairfax (Va.)

Some major sanctuary cities

Anchorage

Phoenix

Chicago

Detroit

New York

Dallas

Minneapolis

St. Paul

California has 28 sanctuary cities, among them:

Fresno

Los Angeles

Oakland

San Diego

Santa Cruz

San Francisco

San Jose

Sanctuary states

Maine and Oregon

Source: Ohio Jobs & Justice Political Action Committee (links.sfgate.com/ZERU)

To comment, e-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com


You must login to discuss this item.