Home > Uncategorized > Cain Innovating a Practical Secure Border Solution to Illegal Immigation

Cain Innovating a Practical Secure Border Solution to Illegal Immigation

Cain Wants Illegal Immigration Issue Shifted to States
The Corner / The National Review ^ | 11-27-2011 | Katrina Trinko

Herman Cain indicated today that he does not agree with Newt Gingrich’s position on immigration.

“The way I would deal with those that are already here, which has been my stated position: empower the states to deal with the illegals that are already here, not some, big, grandiose, national one size fit-all. I believe that the states should be empowered to deal with the illegals that are already here,” Cain said CNN’s State of the Union this morning.

In response to whether that meant the states could allow illegal immigrants to “be put on a path toward legalization and toward citizenship,” Cain answered, “It would be up to the states as long as they did not break the federal law.”

But when Crowley used the word “amnesty,” inquiring if that it meant it would be “okay” if the states granted “some sort of amnesty to those who are already living here,” Cain vehemently denied he supported amnesty.

“I’m not saying that at all,” he said

“Secure the border for real,” Cain continued, speaking about what his plan regarding illegal immigrants is. “Promote the path to citizenship that’s already there, and the path to citizenship that’s already there doesn’t say anything about amnesty. Thirdly, enforce the laws that are already there, but make it easier for companies to be able to enforce the laws. And fourth, empower the states. Don’t give the states any special things to do, just empower them to do within the law what the federal government is not doing.”

Dagny Commentary:

This makes sense to me. It also shows two important things about Herman Cain. 1) He is bringing in a new idea that solves a lot of problems. He really is a creative problem solver. 2) This solution is a lot more nuanced and thoughtful than a “one size fits all” approach. He is capable of looking at a problem from a more intelligent point of view than the over simplified cartoon approach most politicians seem to use. If you have any concerns about Herman Cain, just wait. He is a quick learner and we have almost a year to sort it out.

This was from Free Republic Posted on November 27, 2011 6:51:43 PM PST by TitansAFC

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Carey P. Page, M.D.
    November 28, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Illegal immigration is only secondarily a states’ problem. Citizenship is a federal prerogative. The Federalies have not done their job of controlling the border. Having states discern citizenship would be a disaster, possibly resulting in 50 different sets of rules. In fact, it would be similar to the EU where any country can define citizenship for folks who can then move freely about all of Europe, collecting benefits as they go.

    There remains a role for the Federal Government, albeit one far, far smaller and less intrusive that we have now. Immigration and citizenship are part of the Federal role.

  2. November 28, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Securing the border is definitely a federal responsibility and Cain recognizes that. However, it would be chaos to enforce the laws within states without the cooperation of the state governments.

    Furthermore, if you read it carefully, you will see that there is no granting of amnesty or citizenship by states at all. Citizenship remains a Federal responsibility and he does not want any change in the current rules for granting citizenship.

    However, how you arrest, deport, and deal with the people already there is a tricky problem that the states are better able to handle. Under his proposal the states, like Arizona, can take action to enforce Federal law in a way that works for them. They can give priority to deporting criminals etc. and this time they would stay in Mexico because of a real border.

    Also it does crack down on employers and simultaneously makes it easier to comply with Federal law.

    Its not amnesty, and it is a different idea that needs full discussion. This isn’t another dumb “compassionate” RINO plan. It gets us what we want and its practical.

  3. M.D. Anthony
    November 28, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    CAIN’s idea makes sense and it certainly should make sense to Liberals on the Left Coast.
    That way they can keep all the illegal’s that they chose to keep or want.
    Unfortunately they cannot treat the illegal’s like they used to treat the blacks of the deep south. The mistreated Blacks were already US citizens, and could vote, and so as we already know they intimidated the blacks from voting. MLK came along and empowered the blacks with a sense of new found identity and the Liberals responded by having King assassinated. So now for self-Loathing liberals to make up for past illegal treatment over voting rights; they want to give illegal’s (non-citizens) voting rights. But federally that would be breaking laws. So with CAIN’s proposals at least let California, Oregon and Washington state would empower the State to let illegal’s vote in State elections (as they already seem to do) but with Cain’s proposal the Liberal states would not feel so guilty!
    CAINS position may require a Constitutional Amendment to let every State enforce the Constitution as they see fit. That of course would place the states on equal footing with the current Federal Government that enforces, or does not enforce the Constitution as it sees fit.
    It even means that if the President let’s say was an Illegal than states not satisfied with that presidents Citizenship could elect a President more suitable to the so called Constitutional safeguards on citizenship requirements. This would allow that the more populous Liberal States such as New York and California could continue to follow the precedent set by the current POTUS’s administration.
    The forgoing would make sense to a liberal (That is what is troubling)

  4. M.D. Anthony
    November 28, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    CAIN’s idea makes sense and it certainly should make sense to Liberals on the Left Coast.
    That way they can keep all the illegal’s that they chose to keep or want.
    Unfortunately they cannot treat the illegal’s like they used to treat the blacks of the deep south. The mistreated Blacks were already US citizens, and could vote, and so as we already know they intimidated the blacks from voting. MLK came along and empowered the blacks with a sense of new found identity and the Liberals responded by having King assassinated. So now for self-Loathing liberals to make up for past illegal treatment over voting rights; they want to give illegal’s (non-citizens) voting rights. But federally that would be breaking laws. So with CAIN’s proposals at least California, Oregon and Washington state would see empowerment for the State to let illegal’s vote in State elections (as they already seem to do) but with Cain’s proposal the Liberal states would not feel so guilty about no letting illegal’s have the same rights as citizens!
    CAINS position may require a Constitutional Amendment to let every State enforce the Constitution as they see fit. That of course would place the states on equal footing with the current Federal Government that enforces, or does not enforce the Constitution as it sees fit.
    It even means that if the President let’s say was an Illegal; then states not satisfied with that Presidents Citizenship could elect a President more suitable to the so called Constitutional safeguards on citizenship requirements. The more populous Liberal States such as New York and California could continue to follow the precedent set by the current POTUS’s administration.

    • November 28, 2011 at 8:32 pm

      If a state wants to enforce a law that the Federal government is ignoring, it seems reasonable that the states should automatically have the right but not the obligation to enforce the law. The source of that would be that constitutional rights not claimed by the feds pass through the feds to the states and to the people respectively.

      Mark Levin would probably have a better informed opinion on whether this would cause a constitutional crisis or not.

      As far as voting is concerned, only citizens should be allowed to vote and Cain’s proposal makes no change in that since no changes in citizenship granting are proposed.

      Obama’s legitimacy as President has not been established and the evidence points to his being an illegal alien. That would be as illegal as heck under any proposal or current law. I don’t see how Cain’s proposal affects that one way or the other. I believe states now have the right (and even the obligation) to challenge his legitimacy. They have failed to exercise the rights they have in this matter. Thus it has fallen to Sheriff Joe’s posse to do the investigation and challenge. States have been pathetically lacking in their duty in challenging this probably illegal presidency.

      • M.D. Anthony
        November 28, 2011 at 9:14 pm

        I do not disagree with you – it is just that the systems in the states are so horribly broken by LIberalism that thing are getting worse before any better.

        The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) known to elction Registrars as the Motor-Voter law made the process of registering to vote nearly automatic for anyone applying for a state driver”s license.

        Fifteen states issue drivers licenses without question to illegal aliens, including Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and West Virginia.
        Startng in April of 2011 Oregon wants to give Licenses to illegals and is debating how to do it.

        Until April of 2011 the State of Kansas despite the NVRA did ot require proof of citizenship of any kind to vote.
        In California the Registrar has decided – A first-time voter who registers and did not provide identification with their application, may need to show identification at the polls. To be safe, bring your driver’s license or another photo ID. Only the Drivers License is required.

        The biggest problem is that 19 states do not have any type of voter ID law to vote.
        SEE: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16602
        Ths is why groups like ACORN or its renamed affiliates are so active to produce “Voters” and of course are focusing on these 19 states

    • November 28, 2011 at 8:35 pm

      I don’t really have a problem with illegal aliens not being allowed to vote and thus be downtrodden second class “citizens” in America. It isn’t their country. They should go home to vote. That would be yet another incentive to get them to go home or go through the same citizenship process as everyone else who wants to vote.

  5. Carey P. Page, M.D.
    November 28, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    Here are my essentials:
    1) Control the border (Federal responsibility….let the states help).
    2) Prove the border is secure over the years
    3) Deport any illegal coming in conflict with the law (other than being here illegally)..states should have no latitude here.
    4) After a period of time grant permanent resident alien status to those who have been here for X (??? =X) number of years, speak English, and swear allegiance.. Never citizenship, never vote.
    5)No amnesty.

    This is essentially the plan that Newt articulated in the foreign policy debate

    • M.D. Anthony
      November 28, 2011 at 11:58 pm

      In the dark, dank recesses of the Whitehouse slithers a POTUS who is determined to “Get Whitey” – (how come so few have read his two books?)
      The withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan is being done against sound military advice to deliberately ensure all the deaths of US soldiers were for nothing and is even worse than the abrupt withdrawal from S Vietnam where all those who thought they were helping a U.S. who was helping S. Vietnam were abandoned and left to the victors. It is no different than what Obama is currently sacrificing to the Taliban – Once again victory for a primitive enemy and the Chinese, only this time the later not ony get to see an ignominious U.S. ewxit but they get first dibs on all the Afghan resources.

      This U.S. military retreat (sure, blame NATO) will not be left “over there”. it will be brought home with a depressed and angry Military. A military who will know that an indescribably belligerent Religious Governmental system called Islam was allowed to win. A military who will then be unceremoniously “dumped” back into a largely jobless civilian environment by this forgettable, “no ideas”, blame everyone else waste of a president. Add to this the massive 2012 layoffs still to come of the highly trained Military that Obama’s debt dithering had resulted in and the depression will permeate the nation.
      Unless somehow curtailed, which would have to be done with no money. So we have a recipe for a lot of post war angst across America.

      Not resolving the illegal’s and the border problems when Obama had the chance will regrettably be realized by all Americans to have not been a good idea. Then the increasing good weather of the late spring, next the heat, lack of money and increased unemployment and the “Dry Run” in cool weather that we saw practiced by this fall unemployed OW’s will be visited again – with many more participants and all this for an election year – (Like this is not planned? get outta town!).
      All of America needs to realize that the wrong man was put into the Whitehouse. We have a man who has demonstrated he is loathe to equip our troops, to defend us from our enemies and he is far, far to interested in creating increased powers to invoke Domestic Marshall law already having reduced/removed posse comitatus – which he has done. (How come so few read his Executive orders?)

      In light of the forgoing consider we are being “led” or “Protected” by a conservatively dominated Congress that can’t agree on much of anything and that will be expected to protect us from both anarchy and this presidents “Patriot Act” powers in the coming year.

  6. November 28, 2011 at 11:17 pm

    Granting permanent resident alien status sounds a whole lot like amnesty to me. They may never get to vote, but they have all other rights, just for sticking around as illegals. There should be some penalty to make it fair for law biding immigrants.

    Your #3 is not clear to me. New illegal immigrants would be immediately deported.

    It would seem that people on the scene in a state would be better able to decide the details of deportation of people who have been here for some time (timing, priority, to where, with what assets, family relationships etc.).

  7. Carey P. Page, M.D.
    November 28, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Permanent legal alien status is not amnesty. They do not get the privileges of citizenship under the Constitution, the most valuable of which is the VOTE.

    Item 3 should be pretty clear. Example: illegal alien stopped for DUI => deportation.

    I forgot to mention visa reform that really works….tracking….deportation of those who violate visa stays

    Regarding, states vs. feds in deciding details: Details should be federal. States should have the ability to enforce. Immigration and citizenship are federal responsibilities. (As much as I would like for us to have our own rules in Texas.)

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: