December 10, 2007, - 9:58 am

Live From the Illegal Alien Debate: Ron Paul – “America Creates Terrorist Leaders”, Fred Thompson – “I’m Not Concerned w/Anchor Babies” & Other Assorted BS

By Debbie Schlussel
Today’s Wall Street Journal sums up some of the most ridiculous comments of GOP candidates in attendance at the Miami Spanish language debate. But the article misquotes a Romney answer about the illegal aliens who mowed his lawn, claiming he said it’s not his job to check whether they are legal (he did not say that, according to the transcript). (The full transcript is here.)
First off, my favorite comment was by Tom Tancredo, who said “Yo No Hablo”. He refused to participate in the debate because it was not in English:

The eighth candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the toughest of the lot in condemning illegal immigration, boycotted the event because it wasn’t in English. The Univision Democratic debate in September was watched by 2.2 million people.

Good for him. The only guy with real guts in the pack.

gopspanishdebate.jpg

Send in the Clowns

Then, there’s the rest of the lot. Some highlights, er . . . lowlights:
* Ron Paul sounds just like the Rosie O’Donnell crowd on the left:

Rep. Ron Paul said the U.S. needs to engage with hostile leaders in Venezuela and Cuba. “We create the [Hugo] Chavezes of the world. We create the [Fidel] Castros,” he said to resounding boos from the University of Miami audience.
He was alone in that view; other candidates drew approval with tough talk on Cuba.

Um, pardon me, but aren’t libertarians (one of which Paul is supposed to be) against “engaging” with governments–any governments, hostile or otherwise? I thought that’s why Paul opposed America going into Iraq. Way to be a consistent “isolationist.”
* Mike Huckabee clearly doesn’t understand that our government barely does more than a few minutes of checking–if that–on temporary workers allowed into this country on visas:

[H]e spent more time explaining how the U.S. government has failed those who seek to come here. “If you can get an American Express card in two weeks it shouldn’t take seven years to get a work permit to come to this country in order to work on a farm,” he said.

Actually, it doesn’t take seven years to get a work permit. It’s much quicker in most cases, far too quick. And the necessary background checks are not being done. An American Express card has absolutely nothing to do with this. That’s about checking credit, not someone’s identity and possible terrorist and/or criminal activity in a foreign country. This guy is clearly too uninformed on a major national security issue to become President.
* Fred Thompson also doesn’t get it on anchor babies. He’s worried about children separated from their illegal alien parents who chose to be here illegally and have them here as a means to try to stay:

Asked whether children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants should be separated from their parents, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson allowed that these children are U.S. citizens. But he used the opportunity to condemn “endless chain migration” where one citizen brings many family members to this country.

Gee, if he really meant that, then why won’t he publicly support an end to birthright citizenship–an end to anchor babyhood. The only Presidential candidate–of either party–publicly supporting that is Tancredo.
Well, that’s because Thompson doesn’t care about the anchor baby problem. The transcript of the debate quotes him as saying this:

The — our courts have ruled that such children, such babies born here are United States citizens. That’s part of the 14th Amendment as has been interpreted by the courts, as I understand it. . . . I believe that the concentration should not be on the concern of waiting until that child grows up and serves as an anchor baby, as we hear so much talk about. . . . So I think that . . . the issue to focus on [is] not innocent children who are born here not of their own accord and who our courts have said our United States citizens.

Um, lawyer Fred Thompson, understands it incorrectly. The 14th Amendment language pertaining to anchor babies has not reached the Supreme Court in contemporary times. The language says that those born within America’s “jurisdiction” are citizens. It was written to make the children of slaves full citizens. It is debatable that anchor babies–born to illegal aliens–are within our “jurisdiction.”
That a lawyer doesn’t know this basic fact on a major issue in the Presidential campaign ought to tell you something. He ain’t prepared.
That he isn’t concerned with anchor babies, some of whom are the children of terrorists we’ve deported, is jaw-dropping. For that reason alone, we should be concerned about anchor babies and end birthright citizenship.
Woe is us. If this is our lot of opponents to Dem Nominee Hillary Rodham Cankles–and it is–Slick Willie will return to the Lincoln Bedroom many times in the not so distant future.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses

[Woe is us. If this is our lot of opponents to Dem Nominee Hillary Rodham (Clinton)--and it is--Slick Willie will return to the Lincoln Bedroom many times in the not so distant future.]
Sen. Clinton is a way better candidate than any of the top tier Republican dumbasses including Gigoloiani. Did you see him on Meet the Press? What a hoot! He didn’t know Kerik was indicted before he nominated him to DHS?!? So who’s better? Romney or Gigoloiani?

Norman Blitzer on December 10, 2007 at 11:10 am

Slightly OT but, related to the anchor baby problem. If I was black I’d be furious how its intent has been twisted over the past one-hundred years. That amendment was written to benefit freed slaves and their children. That amendment should have been given the sunset clause treatment after three generations. By that time freed slaves and the citizenship of their children and grand children would not be in question. That’s all it was intended to do. Now, the whole world is glomming onto it.

John Cunningham on December 10, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Debbie…Thanks for the very helpful recap of the so called “debate”. I don’t know where you find time to do all you do and I very much appreciate your efforts. I will read the transcript for myself but was wondering if Duncan Hunter gave any responses that you felt were noteworthy in any sense? It’s been my belief that Hunter along with Tancredo are the ONLY republicans worth serious consideration.

joesixpack31 on December 10, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Agree, joesixpack31. Odd that so many report that they agree with Tancredo and Hunter, but then choose ‘elect-ability’ over their own values. This is why we get such losers in Washington, time and again. By not voting issues, but voting as if it were a beauty pageant, American Idol, or a football game, we get what we deserve. Everybody wants a winner, even if its just another empty suit. So, if the polls are even close to right, we won’t be voting for the best candidate, we will be selecting the lesser of two evils… again. Look for our only choice in November to be fast open borders vs. slow open borders. But ‘open’, no matter which two are nominated.

jeebie on December 10, 2007 at 2:12 pm

It’s really discouraging; Romney and Huckabee came right out with an amnesty position — putting illegals in the back of the line, but not deporting them is amnesty, & sends a signal that they might just have to wait a little longer for amnesty, and of course, when R or H get elected, the line for the illegals will speed up. Have any of them (except for Hunter & Tancredo) called for pardon of Ramos & Compaen? If so, I’m not aware of it. What a choice?!?

c f on December 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Debbie did not mention the
real lowlight of the whole debate:
HUCKABEE: “We can afford universal coverage, but not until and not
even close until we first have health, rather than just focus on health
coverage.”
Is’nt universal health insurance coverage the goal of Hillary
Clinton and other socialists? And the hypocrite even has the gall to
criticize Michael Moore for endorsing Cuba’s universal health care
coverage!
What other communistic idea does this guy have in mind for us (that
he’s just not telling)?
We all know he is a liberal in disguise – click on
http://www.taxhikemike.org/
so this utterance should not be a surprise and hopefully nobody will
fall for more flip-flopping on his part.
He was already unelectable, and now he is guaranteed unelectable.

ramjordan on December 12, 2007 at 1:33 am

You are misquoting and misinterpreting what Dr. Ron Paul said here. He did not say that he wanted to “engage” these countries with force or subsidies. He wants to stop the trade and travel blockades with these countries. You narrow-mindedly called him an isolationist when nothing could be further from the truth. The true isolationists are the people that want to cut ties with the rest of the world because they don’t bow to American rule. Dr. Paul agrees with Jefferson in that he wants peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none.

Paul Cunningham on December 11, 2009 at 12:28 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field