In 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was reluctant to veto the tuition proposal--and not at all the certain, sure-footed decision maker portrayed in the ad. At the time, Romney said, "I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state."
Romney wasn't a hardliner on immigration until late in his tenure as governor. None of the specifics presented here are false, but the ad presents a black-and-white contrast that doesn't exist in reality.
In 2004, the Boston Globe reported that Romney was reluctant to veto the tuition proposal--and not at all the certain, sure-footed decision maker portrayed in the ad. At the time, Romney said, "I hate the idea of in any way making it more difficult for kids, even those who are illegal aliens, to afford college in our state."
Romney wasn't a hardliner on immigration until late in his tenure as governor. None of the specifics presented here are false, but the ad presents a black-and-white contrast that doesn't exist in reality.
ANNOUNCER: Two former governors. Two good family men. Both pro-life. Both support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. The difference?
Mitt Romney stood up, and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Opposed driver's licenses for illegals.
Mike Huckabee? Supported in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Huckabee even supported taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal aliens.
On immigration, the choice matters.
A: You know, we're a very compassionate people. We're also a people who follow the law. And the landscaper at my home is an old friend, and when he made a mistake the first time, I told him in no uncertain terms, you have to make sure that anybody that works on my property is legal. And he did his best, but he made a mistake. And apparently, two people he had there were not legal. And we terminated that relationship. And that became a big news story. But employers like this landscape company, and he's Hispanic American, he doesn't have a way to determine whether the people he's hiring are legal or illegal. That's why we need an employment verification system to identify the fact that legal aliens that come here are legal, are entitled to work.
A: I don't think there's an inconsistency. When I said a pathway, I didn't say what the pathway was. I now believe that the only thing the American people are going to accept--and, frankly, the only thing that really makes sense--is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point.
Q: That would take years.
A: No, I don't agree. Look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, it shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So part of my plan is that we seal the borders. You don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities. You do have a pathway to get back here legally that would take days, maybe weeks, not years.
A: I represent a district in San Diego that for many, many years is a majority Hispanic and two-to-one Democrat. You know what you do? You look people in the eye and you talk to them frankly. I would say this: I got more votes from the Hispanic community--known as the guy who built the border fence--than anybody running for office. That means that the Hispanic community in the United States does not agree with the idea of having open borders. They do agree with the idea of having order on the border and having a regulated system where this lady of freedom standing behind me, the Statue of Liberty, says: Come in, but follow the rules.
A: The first thing that has to be done is we have to end illegal immigration. If we don't end illegal immigration, we're really going to risk legal immigration. We should end illegal immigration at the border, because it can't be really dealt with internally. We should do it by having a fence, a technological fence, as well as a physical fence. It should be used to alert the Border Patrol of the people coming to the border, and we should stop people from coming in. Then we should have a tamper-proof ID card that everybody can get who wants to come into the US legally. When we accomplish that, when we have control of our borders, when we preserve the legality of immigration, we can then turn to the people that are here. The people that come forward can sign up. They can pay taxes, and then the people who don't, those people should be expelled from the US if they don't already leave.
A: Let's get it straight. Americans will do any job if you pay them properly. That doesn't mean we don't need guest workers; we do. But we should base the number of guest workers upon need--not an absolute number. And we should require employers to offer those jobs to citizens to see if they want those jobs. We need agricultural workers; we need H1B visas; we need what in fact exists as a need, not as an artificial number to allow employers to drive down wages.
Q: Does hiring illegal immigrants to do these jobs drive down wages?
A: [Yes, it] drives down wages. But there are a lot of people who will go out and hang drywall and get a decent wage. There are not a lot of people who are going out and do the agricultural work that's seasonal. So it should be based on need.
A: First of all, I [oppose] these raids, and particularly the way they are being conducted, separating parents from children. I think the bottom line is that we need to reform the laws for immigration in this country so that everybody has a real and meaningful path to citizenship.
A: I deeply regret the way the Republicans are politicizing this issue. They are trying to outdo each other in basically demeaning and attacking those who are here in our country--yes, without documentation--but who are often doing the work that allows raising their families and making a contribution. The answer is comprehensive immigration reform. We have to keep working towards it. Yes, we've got to have tougher border security. We do have to crack down on employers who exploit and employee undocumented people. We've got to do more to help local communities bear the costs of it. Because they don't set immigration laws. We've got to do more with our neighbors to the south to help them create more economic opportunity for their own people but at the end of the day there has to be an earned path to legalization.
Actually, the bill Huckabee pushed for in 2005 required only three years in an Arkansas high school to be eligible. And students did not have to be "applying for citizenship," but rather they had to sign an affidavit stating their intent to do so in the future. All students who apply for state scholarships must "certify that they are drug-free" and "pledge to refrain from alcohol" if they are under 21, just as Huckabee said. But they don't have to be "an A-plus student"--the state requires a solid "B" average. The bill failed two votes short of passage.
The fact is, as reported by the Boston Globe in 2006, several illegals worked at Romney's home in Belmont MA, off and on over a period of eight years, sometimes working 11-hour days. They were, however, employed by a contractor, and not directly by Romney. So, Giuliani was technically correct to say that "illegal immigrants were being employed," since he used the passive voice and didn't specify who did the employing. Romney could also argue that he was technically correct to say "I did not" have illegals working, since he didn't employ them directly.
A: Yes, I pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair.
A: I'm not going to aid any more immigration into this country. I reject the idea, categorically, that there are jobs that, quote, "No American will take." But am I going to feel sorry if a business has to increase its wages in order for somebody in this country to make a good living? No, I don't feel sorry about that and I won't apologize for it for a moment. And there are plenty of Americans who will do those jobs.
A: Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty. But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. We need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law; they need some of our love and compassion. I want to assure you that I'll enforce the borders first. We'll solve this immigration problem.
Giuliani also strained the facts when he flatly stated during the debate that New York "was not a sanctuary city." New York indeed had a policy, which Giuliani defended during the debate, that forbade city employees from giving federal immigration officials the names of illegal aliens unless the immigrant was suspected of other criminal activity or turning the person over was required by law. That protection was granted by a previous mayor through executive order 124 in 1989 and renewed by Giuliani. However the city chooses to characterize its policies, they fit the description of "sanctuary" applied by neutral experts.
A: Let me tell you what I did as governor. I said no to driver's licenses for illegals. I said, number two, we're going to make sure that those that come here don't get a tuition break in our schools, which I disagree with other folks on that one. Number three, I applied to have our state police enforce the immigration laws in May, seven months before I was out of office.
A: It wasn't a break. What I supported, and I still do, was the idea that you don't punish a child for the crime of a parent. I still don't believe that. I don't believe that this country has reduced itself to the point that when a parent commits a crime and breaks the law, that you grind your heel in the face of 6-year-old. What I did support was when a child had been in our schools all his or her academic career and wanted to go to college, if that student would apply for citizenship, then they would be able to go to college. It was a meritorious scholarship. Quite frankly, I would rather have them college-educated, I'd have those folks become citizens, college-educated, paying taxes, rather than being in a position where their income was so low they ended up becoming tax-takers. We punish people who break the law. We don't punish the children of those who break the law.
A: No, I don't think it has. I mean, we want people to be licensed if they're going to operate vehicles. If we have a path to citizenship, that anybody who's on that path to citizenship, undocumented, should have a right to have a driver's license. If they're not making an effort to become an American citizen, then I think they shouldn't have a driver's license.
Q: What about in the interim? Should states be allowed to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants?
A: It is not the job of the president to make that decision. That's for states to decide. I personally would not be in favor of that because I think we need to make this part of immigration reform.
A: No, but I don't accept the proposition that we're not going to have comprehensive immigration reform. What I do support, and what I will do as president of the US, is move this country toward comprehensive immigration reform. And anyone who's on the path to earning American citizenship should be able to have a driver's license.
A: My answer is yes, and I did it. Because the Congress and Bush failed miserably to pass comprehensive immigration. My legislature sent me a bill. I signed it. My enforcement people said it's a matter of public safety. What we need is public safety, a reduction in traffic fatalities. When we started with this program, 33% of all New Mexicans were uninsured. Today, it's 11%.
A: Yes. I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform, and we shouldn't pose the question that, somehow, we can't achieve that. The American people desperately want it; that's what I'm going to be fighting for as president.
A: No.
A: No, drivers' licenses are the wrong thing to be doing, in terms of attracting people to come here as undocumented.
A: I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren't any illegal human beings. They are undocumented. The best way to deal with this is cancel NAFTA and renegotiate the trade agreement with Mexico. You give people a path to legalization and make sure that you don't criminalize their status any further. I take exception to the way you framed that question
A: No.
A: Four years ago, the legislature sent a bill to me and, at the request of my law enforcement leaders, I signed it, which allows licenses for undocumented workers. The reason I did this is because there's a failure of an immigration law in the Congress and the president. It's a matter for us in New Mexico of public safety on the roads. At the time that I signed the bill, 33% of drivers were uninsured. Today it's 11% uninsured. This law has helped.
Q: Is there any security provision in the law, anything, that prevents illegals from using these driver's licenses that you give them to get on airplanes, like many of the 9/11 terrorists did?
A: There are valid certificates of identification that they have to provide to the motor vehicles department of New Mexico. I believe it's the right decision for my people. What we need is comprehensive immigration
ROMNEY: We all know Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have it wrong on illegal immigration. Our party should not make that mistake.
As Governor, I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws. I opposed driver's licenses & in-state tuition for illegal aliens.
As president, I'll oppose amnesty, cut funding for sanctuary cities and secure our borders.
Legal immigration is great, but illegal immigration--that's got to stop
Romney began talking about giving troopers the power to make arrests on immigration charges earlier in 2006, but he didn't sign an agreement with the federal government--a necessary condition for that authority to be granted-- until Dec. 13, 2006. Romney was scheduled to leave office Jan. 4, 2007. Democrat Deval Patrick, who had won the race to succeed Romney, had already said the program was a "bad idea" because troopers were busy enough as it was.
Sure enough, Patrick rescinded the agreement within his first week in office so troopers could "focus on enforcing MA laws." The policy never had a chance to take effect, because those troopers chosen to carry it out hadn't yet begun a required 6-week training course
CLINTON: I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.Actually, we checked the video, and Clinton did tell the Nashua Telegraph on Oct. 17 that Spitzer's plan "makes a lot of sense," despite her denial to Dodd. During the debate, Clinton repeatedly said immigration should be dealt with nationally, not on a state-by-state basis. But after a long exchange she still hadn't answered the question.DODD: Wait a minute. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.
CLINTON: No, I didn't. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving?
GIULIANI: New York City had a policy of allowing people who are illegal immigrants to report crime and to put their children in school. Otherwise, we reported every single illegal immigrant that committed a crime. The results were pretty darn good. I brought down crime by over 60%. I brought down homicide by 67%. I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country. The senator has never had executive responsibility. He's never had the weight of people's safety and security on his shoulders. I have. And I think I out-performed any expectations.
In fact, Giuliani's policy as mayor was not so simple as he now claims. New York didn't describe itself as a "sanctuary city" for aliens. However, Giuliani told the New York Times early in 1994 that "Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens. If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city. You're somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive." The Times said back then that the mayor was "virtually urging illegal immigrants to settle in NYC."
GIULIANI: New York City had a policy of allowing people who are illegal immigrants to report crime and to put their children in school. Otherwise, we reported every single illegal immigrant that committed a crime. The results were pretty darn good. I brought down crime by over 60%. I brought down homicide by 67%. I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country. The senator has never had executive responsibility. He's never had the weight of people's safety and security on his shoulders. I have. And I think I out-performed any expectations.
A: Folks that are here illegally have to leave and let me tell you why. Today, if you're a dry wall contractor and you play by the rules & pay $27/hour, you will be constantly under-cut by contractors who use people who are here illegally. That's not fair to Americans who play by the rules. That's one reason you have, in certain areas, especially in the construction trades now, higher levels of unemployment.
A: I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case.
But, more importantly, if we're going to deal with the supply, you touch it at the point of the demand. And until something is done to touch the people who are employing illegal immigrants, to create what amounts to another version of slave labor, then we're never going to stop the flow.
You're not going to get illegals to admit that they're here illegally, because they're desperate. What we have to do is to start putting the penalty on the people who are most benefiting from them, the employers who are using those laborers in order to keep from having to pay decent wages.
A: Well, today, we're already paying for undocumented workers when they go into emergency rooms. It's the law. Under my plan, what you would do is everybody that pays into the system would be covered. Now, what we need is comprehensive immigration reform, which the Congress and the president refuse to do, which would set the appropriate standards for health care. On immigration, what we need to do is secure the border, & secondly, those that knowingly hire illegal workers should be punished. Third, there has got to be a stronger relationship with Mexico so that they don't send their poor to our country. And lastly, an earned legalization process where you establish those standards. Like, you don't give them amnesty, you don't give them automatic citizenship, but if they learn English, if they pay back taxes, embrace American values, pass a background check, they can stay and eventually apply for citizenship.
A: Yes. That means H-1B visas, that means looking for workers in this country that we need in certain sectors. This mean focusing not just on illegal immigration, but legal immigration. There's a huge backlog of enormously talented people and workers that, because of red tape and bureaucracy, can't get in, especially in the computer sector, especially in health-care areas. Yes, I would. Those H-1B visas, I believe, need to be increased to permit more skilled workers to come into our work force. This enhances our competitiveness.
Q: What have you learned about education as governor?
A: What I've learned is that I am hands-on. I have hands-on experiences that a lot of these other candidates don't. They all have their 10-point plans. I've actually done a lot of good things in education that involves helping a child and making us more competitive.
A: First of all, a Kucinich administration will build relationships between nations, not walls. We need to move forward with an America that remembers where we came from, and immigration reform has to be central to it. That means there must be a path to legalization, because there are no illegal human beings. We have to start looking at our policies, which are aimed at separating people. Everyone here understands that the immigration acceleration occurred after the passage of NAFTA. I've said one of my first acts in office will be to cancel NAFTA and the WTO and go back to trade based on workers' rights. And then we have a new trade agreement with Mexico, a trade agreement that strengthens America and Mexico and strengthens the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain.
A: The answer's yes, I would commit to do it, not just in my first year, but at the beginning of the Edwards administration. I think the president has a responsibility to do something about this hugely important issue. You know, when you walk into a Blockbuster to rent a movie, you don't see anybody, but you hear a voice saying, "Welcome to Blockbuster." We can figure out when somebody's walking into a Blockbuster. It seems to me we can figure out when somebody's coming into the US, and especially if we use the technology that's available to us. And I think that's what the focus should be on: more Border Patrol, better use of technology, & absolutely a path to earn citizenship for those who are living here & who are undocumented. But we also have to get at the underlying causes of the migration from Mexico, which means addressing the issue of poverty, education, health, the reason that so many are coming to the US.
A: Yes, I would, because it shows that a dysfunctional relationship between the Congress and the president caused the breakdown of a potential compromise. Now we have to wait till 2008 and 2009, and these raids are ineffective, they're a symbol of what's wrong with a broken immigration policy. I also object to the fact of dehumanizing immigrants. You know, when the media pictures them crossing the border, swimming across a river, doing something like jumping a fence--why don't they depict the Latinos that today are fighting for America in Iraq and are dying for this country, or the Congressional Medal of Honor winners? And I object to the dehumanizing of people that are part and that want to be part of an American dream.
A: I do favor much more border patrolling and much more technology on both of our borders, and in certain areas, even a physical barrier, because I think we've got to secure our borders. That has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform. I have championed comprehensive immigration reform, and it includes starting with securing our borders in order to give people the support they need to come over and support us when it comes to having a pathway to legalization. We all know that this has become a contentious political issue. We want to work in a bipartisan way to have comprehensive reform--employer verification, more help for local communities so that they can pay for schooling and hospital and other expenses that they have to bear because of the immigration crisis.
A: Absolutely. And I think there are three different aspects of this.
A: Obviously, any debate about immigration has to include security here. The American people feel strongly about it. But I would argue that while there may be a place periodically to have security along that border that include some fence, it's also important that we understand the underlying reason why people emigrate, and we're not focusing enough attention on that. We need to be dealing with our neighbor, Mexico, far more cooperatively. For 26 years, I've co-chaired the interparliamentary meeting with Mexico. This is an ally, this is a friend, this is a neighbor. We need to have trading agreements and economic agreements that can lift people up, with working conditions that would allow them to live in their countries not have to emigrate to this country.
A: Immediately. But secondly, I think we need to understand that the whole national immigration issue is national scapegoating. It's national scapegoating because we have our failures in education, we have failures in health care, every place you turn our society is crumbling around us. And so we want to find somebody to scapegoat, blame it on them.
A: We should be proud of the fact that we've had so many workers come into this country who deserve a path to earn citizenship & who are working to support their families. They have made America richer, culturally more diverse, & they are performing jobs that, in some cases, would be difficult to find others to perform. They're an important part of our economy. We need to not just recognize the economic benefits of these workers, but understand in many cases they are being abused, they are being taken advantage of, their rights are not being protected. And it is enormously important that we have comprehensive immigration reform so that those who in fact are working 10 hours a day in 105-degree heat have the same sort of worker rights that other Americans have. They are no less human, and no less value as human beings, and they deserve those same rights.
A: There are many in the political and the broadcast world today who take a particular aim at our Latino population. And I think it's very destructive. It undermines our unity as a country. There was a particularly egregious example of that in the House-passed bill last year. The House bill tried to criminalize anyone who helped an illegal immigrant, anyone who gave them medical care, any church that opened up to give them food at a dinner or breakfast. And I said that it would have criminalized the Good Samaritan. It would have criminalized Jesus Christ. We have to say no, we are a nation of immigrants, and we will respect and treat one another with dignity.
OBAMA: I have been a consistent champion of comprehensive immigration reform. And keep in mind that my father came to this country from a small village in Africa because he was looking for opportunity. And so when I see people who are coming across these borders, whether legally or illegally, I know that the motivation is trying to create a better life for their children and their grandchildren. So I was one of the leaders, along with several other senators, in passing comprehensive immigration reform. It failed in the House. That is going to involve some elements of border security because we've got to make our borders more secure. We can't just have hundreds of thousands of people coming into the country without knowing who they are.
A: Yes, I would do it my first year. I want everybody to look at the Statue of Liberty. This symbolizes freedom, diversity, and that we're a nation of immigrants. This is what we need to do in immigration my first year.
A: We're forgetting who we are as Americans. You have to remember the message of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." We're forgetting that.
Q: Would you allow these sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?
A: Absolutely. You know what? There's a moral law here. And the moral law says that the immigrants are being used and mistreated.
A: [The immigration problem] was a failure of leadership again at the national level. We had an opportunity to draft an immigration law here that would have put us on the right track. We need to have a far better system to deal with the 12 to 20 million who are here illegally. If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then so be it if that protects our country.
A: Why do they have sanctuary cities? In large measure because if local law enforcement begins to act like immigration enforcement officers, you will hav people not reporting crimes. You will have people hiding from the police. That is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that's where it needs to be fixed.
Q: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?
A: Well, I don't think there is any choice. The local police chief trying to solve a crime might know people from the immigrant community have information about it, but they may not talk to you if they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.
A: This whole nation should be a sanctuary for the world and bring the people in. What's going on? We're scapegoating the Latinos of our society because we as a society are failing in education, we're failing in health care, we're failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we're failing by invading countries and spending our treasure. That's what's wrong.
A: The reason that cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need. This administration's been fundamentally derelict in not funding any of the requirements that are needed even to enforce the existing law.
Q: So would you allow those cities to ignore the federal law?
A: No.
A: The answer is yes. The problem we have is the lack of a comprehensive immigration policy. This is a federal responsibility. We need to fix the immigration system that is broken. We need to first find ways to increase security at the border with more detection equipment, more border patrol, not this silly wall.
A: The federal law is not being enforced not because of failures of local communities, but because the federal government has not done the job that it needs to do.
Q: You would allow the sanctuary cities to exist?
A: What I would do as president is pass comprehensive immigration reform. And controlling our borders but also providing a rational immigration system, which we currently don't have.
HCKABEE: Well, first of all, because I've listened to some of them. And it's not the concern that people are coming here for opportunities or even that they're illegal.
Q: Are some of the people who oppose illegals are in fact mean-spirited and racist?
TANCREDO: For how many months did my colleagues up here stay silent or were on the other side of it? You wonder why people are cynical about politics and politicians. But when it sounds like the people are getting uptight about this and we can make hay out of it, we're all going to be the strongest supporters of secure borders that you ever saw in your life. Well, I'd like to see more than rhetoric. It's got nothing to do with disliking people who are coming into this country. It's got everything to do with the rule of law.
The reality is that we track packages from UPS and FedEx every time we order from Amazon.com. And, yet, we've got a government that says we don't know what to do and how to keep up with people. If necessary, we ought to outsource this whole issue to FedEx and UPS. They seem to have a better way of keeping up with packages than our government does with people.
Giuliani's point is valid: DHS said in a 2006 report that it lacks the resources to deport even all illegal aliens who are convicted criminals. His numbers, however, aren't. In his last year in office, 2001, the federal government deported 4,282 illegal immigrants from the New York field office. The number for New York City would be somewhat lower, since the field office serves not only the city's five boroughs but also Long Island and several New York counties within a two-hour drive of the city. But it would not be less than half, or the 2,000 figure Giuliani cited.
MCCAIN: Well, because amnesty, according to the dictionary, is forgiveness. The proposal that we had would require fines, would require back in the line, would require deportation for some. It would require an enormous amount of time, as long as 13 years, before anyone could even be eligible for citizenship in this country.
ROMNEY: First of all, the Z visa that was offered in that Senate bill let everybody who's here illegally, other than criminals, stay here for the rest of their lives. And that may not be technically amnesty, but it is certainly amnesty in fact. [The magnet for illegal immigrants, besides] having amnesty, is saying to individuals, if you come here and you're willing to work here and pay taxes, we'll sign you up. That's not the right message. We've got to enforce the law, welcoming legal immigration, but ending illegal immigration.
MCCAIN: Well, because amnesty, according to the dictionary, is forgiveness. The proposal that we had would require fines, would require back in the line, would require deportation for some. It would require others to go back to the country of their origin. It would require an enormous amount of time, as long as 13 years, before anyone could even be eligible for citizenship in this country.
ROMNEY: First of all, the Z visa that was offered in that Senate bill let everybody who's here illegally, other than criminals, stay here for the rest of their lives. And that may not be technically amnesty, but it is certainly amnesty in fact. [The magnet for illegal immigrants, besides] having amnesty, is saying, if you come and you're willing to work and pay taxes, we'll sign you up. That's not the right message. We've got to enforce the law, welcoming legal immigration, but ending illegal immigration.
A: Well, first of all, because I've listened to some of them. And it's not the concern that people are coming here for opportunities or even that they're illegal. Look, I agree, we ought to have sealed borders. But I want to be clear: If someone is looking for a president who is going to have a mean spirit toward other human beings, I'm not their guy. I'll fix the borders, I'll secure them, but what I won't do is to do it because I'm angry at them for wanting to come here for the same reason that the rest of us love America.
Edwards will end the backlog of background checks for people who are already in this country and are applying to become lawful permanent residents and, eventually, citizens. Our immigration policies should bring families together, not keep them apart.
GIULIANI: People that come in illegally we gotta stop. You stop illegal immigration by building a fence, a physical fence and then a technological fence. You then hire enough Border Patrol so they can respond in a timely way. And then, if anybody becomes a citizen, we should make certain that they can read English, write English and speak English, because this is an English speaking country.
According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language," with some exceptions.
When we asked the Giuliani campaign what exactly he was calling for, they said they wanted "more strenuous" requirements to prove that applicants truly understood the language.
We think Giuliani's ad falsely suggests there is no English-speaking requirement for naturalized citizens. What he should have said is that he wants to make certain those applying for US citizenship can read, write and speak English BETTER than the law now requires.
GIULIANI: It frustrates me that if someone comes here illegally, in addition to everything else that's involved in that, if they commit a crime, we don't throw them out of the country As the mayor of NYC I wanted to get the Immigration Service to get rid of the drug dealers who are coming out of jail. It makes no sense--after they have been in jail for selling drugs--we now have to keep them in the US. They couldn't do it because they had other people lined up to throw out. They had like a professor who over-stayed his visa. I had a drug dealer who had maybe killed people. A person who comes here illegally and commits a crime should be thrown out of the country.
A: I believe that when you have expansion of domestic partnership, of civil unions, it should be to all people, regardless of where you are -- overseas, underseas, anywhere. There's a bill [proposing this] in Congress, which I have already said I would support.
Tancredo said proponents of immigration reform have "the audacity to call 'amnesty' the modern day civil rights movement.
Tancredo said proponents of immigration reform have "the audacity to call 'amnesty' the modern day civil rights movement. He earned big applause for saying "There is no comparison" between the two movements.
He then closed with an anecdote highlighting what he said whites and blacks have in common--a language. He recalled the story of a white woman looking for crew socks in a store and could not find anyone who spoke english. She finally found a black woman who helped her. The black woman said, "I always knew something was going to bring us together. Who would have thought it was going to be a language?"
It seemed to me that some of our basic principles were at cross-purposes with our immigration problem. One principle is that we are a nation of laws. We believe that the are meant to be obeyed, and if you violate the law, there should be judgment and suitable punishment.
On the other hand, we're also a compassionate society. We want to try to help those who are less fortunate than we are as much as we possibly can. And these two principles come into conflict.
It is a blot on American history that we have maintained a system of slave labor, and now we're blaming the immigrants for that. We can have sane immigration policies. But we have to stop blaming the victim.
We have to also make sure that we do not exclude people from an opportunity. Those who have been here, who have paid their taxes and paid their dues for the last decade need to have a chance to have a path to citizenship. They should not be told, after they've made their contribution to our economy, "No, we don't want you anymore; go home," because America is their new home.
A: Not at this time. There are three basic reasons that the bill is in real trouble, particularly with Republicans. First, there's a general lack of credibility that the American people have with government based on their inattention to Katrina. Second, it was written in secret. Third is their almost obliviousness with overwhelming spending. And people in the Republican Party are uncomfortable with it because Ted Kennedy is involved.
Q: Just because Senator Kennedy is on board with Senator McCain and the president, does that in and of itself make it unacceptable?
A: No. But if [Kennedy] likes it, [Republican think], whoa, there may be something hidden in there that we're not going to like.
A prominent Democrat had figured it out! (The NY Times later quoted it as "against illegal immigration.") After she smacked employers of illegal aliens, she went right for the throat of the 2nd culprit, the federal government:
"We ought to come up with a much better entry & exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them."Even my brother Pat Buchanan commented that Hillary's "forthrightness makes Bush sound like a talking head for La Raza." But Hillary had no follow-up to this unusual foray into the enemy camp, and her liberal voting pattern remained unaltered.
PAUL: No. The fence was my weakest reason for voting for that, but enforcing the law was important, and border security is important. And we've talked about amnesty, which I'm positively opposed to. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. We subsidize illegal immigration, we reward it by easy citizenship, either birthright or amnesty.
TANCREDO: No, I would not advertise in Spanish. English is the glue that keeps a country together, any country. McCain's immigration bill codifies Pres. Clinton's executive order that said all papers produced by the government have to be in various languages.
McCAIN: Well, first of all, muchas gracias. We have to stop the illegal immigration, but we've had waves throughout our history. Hispanics is what we're talking about, a different culture, a different language, which has enriched my state where Spanish was spoken before English was. In Washington DC, go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them.
ROMNEY: My view is that we should enforce immigration laws. And this bill [lets almost] every illegal alien stay here. That's simply not fair to get put ahead in the line of all the people who've been waiting legally.
McCAIN: Our legislation does account for people who are here illegally, it does have an employment verification system, and it weeds out those who shouldn't be here, and it gives others a chance to remain in this country. Look, this is a national security issue first and foremost. What we have done is come together with the president, and the leaders of both parties, and sit down and figure out an approach to this problem. It is a serious national security problem. We need to act, and if someone else has a better idea, I'd love to have them give it to us.
BROWNBACK: I don't think you create any new paths to citizenship. But you allow them to use paths they would currently qualify for, and to be able to get in the back of the line. If you do exterior border enforcement & aggressive interior enforcement, that's something that can move us forward.
Q: So you support this pending compromise legislation?
BROWNBACK: If those things are in it.
GIULIANI: I'm very uncomfortable with that. It's one thing to be debating illegal immigration. And I think the bill needs to be fixed in the way that I've indicated. But we shouldn't be having a debate about legal immigration.
A: Let me make it real clear--I'm not anti-immigrant. I love immigrants. I love legal immigrants coming to our country. I'm happy to communicate to them, and I hope they vote for me. And I'm happy to have people all over the country, and I'm going to reach out to them in any language I can to have them vote for me and understand why I'm going to support making this a great land.
I very firmly believe that we have to make sure that we enforce our borders, that we have an employment verification system, and that those people who have come here illegally do not get an advantage to become permanent residents, they do not get a special pathway. That's the problem I have with the bill the Kennedy-McCain bill.
HUCKABEE: I disagree with that. I think that there are a number of people that we should welcome into this country. Certainly engineers and doctors and scientists that we may need legally coming here. What we need to do is to have a border that is sealed and the same kind of process that we have to go through if we go into a stadium. We go in one at a time and we have a ticket. That's the only thing I think Americans really are asking us for is a sane, sensible system that's based on the idea that if you come here, that you come here through the same process that we would be expected to go through if we went to another country, which is not happening today.
TANCREDO: It means, number one, cut from the past. If you come here as an immigrant, great. If you come here legally, welcome. It means you cut your ties with the past, familial, & especially political ties with the country from which you came. But let's be serious about this, you guys. We talk about all the immigration reform we want, and what it's got to get down to is this: Are we ready for a timeout? Are we actually ready to say, "Enough is enough"? We have to stop all legal immigration except for people coming into this country as family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees. We have got to actually begin the process of assimilating people who have come in this great wave of immigration. The process of assimilation is not going on. How long will it take us to catch up? I'll tell you this. It'll take this long: until we no longer have to press 1 for English and 2 for any other language.
A: They are incredible and they are disastrous. I have consistently tried to impress upon the American public the seriousness of this issue. We're not just talking about the number of jobs that we may be losing, or the number of kids that are in our schools and impacting our school system, or the number of people that are abusing our hospital system and taking advantage of the welfare system in this country--we're not just talking about that. We're talking about something that goes to the very heart of this nation-- whether or not we will actually survive as a nation. And here's what I mean by that. What we're doing here in this immigration battle is testing our willingness to actually hold together as a nation or split apart into a lot of Balkanized pieces.
GIULIANI: I've read the 400 pages, and this is part of the problem in Washington--they say things and then it's not in the legislation. There are four or five different methods of identification, not one. It does not provide information about who exited the US. Now tell me how you're going to figure out who's in the US, if you can't figure out who's left the US. And finally, it doesn't provide for a uniform database. Many countries have this. The US doesn't have it. On September 11th, when we tried to figure out who was in this country, it took weeks to figure out who were the right people and who weren't, because there isn't such a database. And that is a fatal flaw in this legislation, and wishing it away doesn't make it possible.
A: The problem with this immigration plan is it has no real unifying purpose. It's a typical Washington mess. Everybody compromises, and the compromises leave you with the following conclusion. The litmus test you should have for legislation is: will it make things better? And when you look at these compromises, it is quite possible it will make things worse. The organizing purpose should be that our immigration laws should allow us to identify everyone who is in this country that comes here from a foreign country. They should have a tamper-proof ID card. It should be in a database that allows you to figure out who they are, why they're here, make sure they're not illegal immigrants coming here for a bad purpose, and then to be able to throw out the ones who are not in that database. We can do that. Credit card companies take care of data that is greater than that.
ROMNEY: My view is that we should enforce immigration laws. And this bill, unfortunately, has at least one provision that's a real problem. It's the Z visa. It allows people who've come here illegally to stay here for the rest of their lives. Not necessarily as citizens; they have to wait 13 years to become citizens. That's not the point. The point is, every illegal alien, almost every one, under this bill gets to stay here. That's simply not fair to get put ahead in the line of all the people who've been waiting legally to come to this country.
McCAIN: Our legislation does account for people who are here illegally, it does have an employment verification system, and it weeds out those who shouldn't be here, and it gives others a chance to remain in this country.
ROMNEY: Well, one is to enforce the law as it exists. The law that was passed in 1986 asked for us to secure the border & said also to put in place an employment verification system. Neither one of those was done. So let's make sure that we enforce the law as it exists. And if you want to improve [the McCain reform] bill, take that Z visa and make it temporary, instead of a permanent right to stay in America.
A: I saw a summary that contained essential elements: 1) Tougher border security. That's good. 2) A legalization program for the 12 million that are here. 3) It also contained penalties for employers that knowingly hired illegal workers. I thought that was all good. The bill is then presented & I read it the next day, and it contained those problems.
A: A driver's license helps with traffic safety; they all get insured; they don't leave the scene. On education: yes, if they fulfill the same academic requirements, to be eligible for a scholarship. I believe we have to bring the 12 million undocumented workers out of the shadows, set up a standard where they speak English, if they pass background checks, pay back taxes, obey the laws, embrace American values, give them a chance, a path to citizenship, not amnesty.
Q: That is amnesty.
A: No, it isn't amnesty.
Q: Would you send them back?
A: They have to go back, under the law, to reapply.
Q: But you would want people who came here illegally to be able to stay here with their legally-born children?
A: Yes, over a 12-year period.
Q: Is that rewarding breaking the law?
A: They have to pay a fine for breaking the law.
A: We had a situation in 1986 under Ronald Reagan, where he endorsed an the amnesty proposal. We had a proposal in 1996 that passed that was an enforcement-only proposal. And pulling these together is something that we have to do, to fundamentally alter the situation where the immigration system isn't working. We've got to toughen the borders. And we've got to somehow work together to see a work visa program that will allow people to get into a legal system, not an illegal system. That's what people really get irritated about. It's not that people come into the country legally, it's that they come in illegally. And I think Ronald Reagan would work on those sorts of things.
TANCREDO: I do. He sponsored a bill that would have given amnesty to everybody who's here illegally. It would have required us to actually consult with Mexico as to whether or not we would build the fence along our southern border. If we pursue this path toward amnesty, it's a disaster for the country.
McCAIN: I have never supported amnesty and never would. But the American people expect us to sit down and work this issue out together. That's what I've been doing for a couple of years now. We are very close to an agreement, led by our president and his Cabinet, that will first secure our borders. Then we would have a temporary worker program that could only be valid through a tamper-proof biometric document. And then we would address the issue of the 12 million people who are already here.
ROMNEY: The key part of what I objected to in McCain-Kennedy is that they should not get any advantage by having come here illegally.
A: Well, my view is this. People should have no advantage by having come here illegally.
Q: But you're not telling them to go home.
A: I am going to tell them to go home, but they start by beginning the process of applying for citizenship or applying for permanent residency. They're not going to be barred from doing that, but they do not get any advantage by having come here illegally. That's the key part of what I objected to in McCain-Kennedy, which said that people who are here illegally get a special pathway. My view, 1) secure the border; 2) have an employment verification system; and 3) say to those that are there illegally, get in line with everybody else.
TANCREDO: I do. He sponsored a bill that would have given amnesty to everybody who's here illegally. It would have required us to actually consult with Mexico as to whether or not we would build the fence along our southern border. If we pursue this path toward amnesty, it's a disaster for the country.
McCAIN: I have never supported amnesty and never would. But the American people expect us to sit down and work this issue out together. That's what I've been doing for a couple of years now. We are very close to an agreement, led by our president and his Cabinet, that will first secure our borders. Then we would have a temporary worker program that could only be valid through a tamper-proof biometric document. And then we would address the issue of the 12 million people who are already here.
ROMNEY: The key part of what I objected to in McCain-Kennedy is that they should not get any advantage by having come here illegally.
A: The focus on immigration should be to know everyone who's in the US. We should have a tamper-proof ID card; we should have a database in which we can identify the people who are in this country. We've got to be sensible about immigration. If we do the kinds of things that some of the [other GOP candidates] are talking about, this country's going to be in greater danger; it is going to be more insecure; we're going to face a situation in which terrorists can find a big underground to hide in. So we need a fence--a technological fence--we need a tamper-proof ID card. And we need a way that people who are working in this country can come forward, sign up for the tamper-proof ID card, get in the database and start paying their way.
A: That is a total misunderstanding. My interest as mayor was to focus on the criminals that were here. I wanted the INS to throw them out. At the same time, there were 400,000 illegal immigrants in NYC, roughly, when I was the mayor. The immigration service could throw out no more than about 2,000 a year. The question was, should the children of the other 398,000 illegal immigrants go to school? Did it make sense, in a city that had so much crime, to have 40,000 kids sitting at home? Should they be able to report crimes? Of course they should. The criminals who criminalized them were going to criminalize others. Should they get treatment in hospitals? If they don't get treatment in hospitals, you have communicable diseases. I had real responsibilities that I had to deal with. This was a very effective way to deal with those responsibilities.
A: Actually, I'm on constant contact on this issue. I think we are close to an agreement.
Q: Some pundits say your identification with Sen. Kennedy on the immigration issue has accounted for your political problems with conservatives.
A: I'm proud of the bipartisan effort that I've made on many issues with Democrats & Republicans, ranging from Joe Lieberman on 9/11 to working on the other side of the aisle on immigration reform and others. And that's why I think I'm prepared to be president of the US. The American people want us to work together on issues that are important to the American people. That's my record.
Q: You think you're going to get a deal.
A: I think we're very close to it, and I'm very pleased to see that we have a number of the more conservative Republicans engaged in this effort, as well as people on the other side of the aisle.