Video: Chuckabee on amnesty
posted at 9:25 am on December 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The second in a series of five. As hokey as the “conversations with Chuck” format is, Huck has no choice but to flog their association: The initial endorsement ad is now over a million views. Chuck Norris fact: Chuck Norris is extremely popular online.
Now, do me a favor and explain to me what Huck’s talking about at the end. It sounds like he’s referring to a path to citizenship (“You don’t have amnesty, but what you do have…”) but he wants that tied … to employers somehow? Does he mean people should only be allowed to stay if they already have work lined up? Or does he mean that enforcement mechanisms should focus on sanctioning employers, to get illegals to self-deport via attrition, instead of punishing illegals? That’s going to make things awfully hard on the “people who are coming for the same reason our own ancestors came.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
OK, Huck and Chuck, what about the people who are coming in for other reasons, such as smuggling drugs, or other gang activities? Or what about the “Aztlan” movement, who are trying to reclaim the SW for Mexico?
Bigfoot on December 5, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Huck is so weak he had to get a tuff guy on his side to bolster his tickets manhood.
TheSitRep on December 5, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Presumably that’s encompassed by his wanting to control the border.
Let’s not demonize Huck.
Allahpundit on December 5, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Gomer needs a tough guy.
Valiant on December 5, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Hard to tell with the Huckster. It’s an oily campaign ad where he says nothing. He doesn’t even say he’s going to secure the border first.
jaime on December 5, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Let’s not demonize Huck.
Dude. This isnt an attack or anything, but how many positive stories about Huck have you guys posted recently? Im not for Huck. I dont think you or Bryan are for Huck. I dont think 99% of the readers of Hot Air are for Huck.
Demonize away. He’s giving you more than enough ammo.
amish on December 5, 2007 at 9:40 AM
I’m not sure it even matters what he meant to say. Huck is terrible on the immigration issue. Any GOP candidate is going to need to be very tough on the illegal immigration issue. I guarantee that issue alone would bring many Independents and Dems over to vote for the GOP candidate.
davenp35 on December 5, 2007 at 9:41 AM
I don’t think so either. But that’s no reason to assume the guy’s okay with having gangs here.
Allahpundit on December 5, 2007 at 9:43 AM
No one said he eats babies… It isn’t demonizing to point out that Huck is unthoughtful and has only a loose grasp of a host of issues.
Lehosh on December 5, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Watched it twice and still can’t make any sense of it. I’ll hazard a guess. Tie all illegals to an employer, so they’ll be just like our ancestors. No that doesn’t make sense. I give up. Too nuanced for me.
captivated_dem on December 5, 2007 at 9:45 AM
No idea. Your two suggestions are reasonable, but there is nothing in that clip that offers that kind of specificity. That is a shame. Here is another problem however: the post you and Bryan made yesterday about his changing position on GitMo being a result of the advise of a group of generals doesn’t bode well for him in relation to his view on immigration either. Lacking any specific policy, under which he can be nailed down, he leaves himself the opening of future “advisors” to help him have a more “nuanced” approach to “securing the borders.” The other thing that is strange is that this is an ad that one would expect months ago, when platitudes and fluff were still acceptable. But we are rapidly approaching the point where substance will be required. And since he is already coming across as weak on illegal immigration, to say what he said in that clip will not help him…Chuck or no Chuck.
Weight of Glory on December 5, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Of the estimated 12 million here it would seem that a meaningful percentage won’t self-deport if the cash-only segment of the US economy provides more opportunity than their home country.
dedalus on December 5, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Am I the only one who refuses to watch these videos, because Chuck Norris is such a total moron?
We all saw his answer about why he picked Huck, but that wasn’t when he first revealed himself to us. You might have seen him interviewed on H&C a year or so ago, and if I remember correctly, he actually filled in for Sean once and it was a disaster. Sure it’s not his thang, and he could get better at that type of television with practice, but either way, it was (and is) embarrassing to put him up as some sort of mainstream celeb Republican, especially in a debate show situation.
RightWinged on December 5, 2007 at 9:50 AM
I don’t understand what he’s saying in the last sentence either. I get the first part about tying it in to employment, but the last part has me totally stumped.
“people who are coming for the same reason our own ancestors came.”
Religious persecution?
Buy Danish on December 5, 2007 at 9:50 AM
I thought we came here to bring syphilis.
Weight of Glory on December 5, 2007 at 9:52 AM
In the general election, words like “enforcement” and “border security” probably work well. “Deportation” probably conjures the wrong historical images. Also, the GOP nominee will likely do best if, unlike Tanc, he can’t be painted by the Dems as someone against legal immigration.
dedalus on December 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM
I seriously doubt that one.
My ancestors did not come here for free medical care at ‘free hospitals’ or free lunches at free schools. sheesh.
shooter on December 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Victims of the slave trade? To become landowners free from a dictatorial monarchy? I’m so confused!
RW Wacko on December 5, 2007 at 9:54 AM
I’ve tried interpreting it 3 times now. I’ve not a clue what he’s talking about at the end.
amerpundit on December 5, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Pretty weak to me. There should be absolutely no rewards for breaking our immigration laws. The answer is the illegal cheaters need to be gone from the USA, and sentenced to 10 years of working on their own corrupt govenments and cultures back where they belong.
saiga on December 5, 2007 at 9:56 AM
Perhaps I have a very British sense of appropriate distance between two people, but the clip had Chuck and Huck sitting too close together for my comfort level. My thoughts about Huck’s manhood went the other way.
But seriously, I’m not sure who the intended audience was for that clip–unless Huckabee is already looking for some center-left voters in the general election. It would seem premature.
thuja on December 5, 2007 at 9:56 AM
.
How about representation. Taxation WITH representation.
.
How does Huckabeen plan to tie employers to the immigration ‘fix’?
shooter on December 5, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Shaaazzzaaam. Well, Gooo-oo-ooollee, Chuck. We wanted to build the Mexican consooolliitt right here in Mayyyberrreee so much, we were gonna do it fer freeeeee.
stenwin77 on December 5, 2007 at 10:01 AM
I understand the last part,
Employers should patrol the boarders.
Guest1.1 on December 5, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Sorry Huck. My Mayflower ancestor (William Brewster) was being hunted down by the King for printing religious materials in England.
He was basically a stow-away on the Mayflower and was being persecuted by the King. He wasn’t smuggling drugs or raping and killing anyone when he got here. And he didn’t expect any government to take care of him and educate his children.
Maybe they didn’t teach you much about history at the seminary.
stenwin77 on December 5, 2007 at 10:05 AM
I agree that it would be dumb to start thinking about the general at this point. Perhaps, it was a preemptive effort to get out there on an issue he might be beaten up on heading into Iowa.
AP asked what Huck is trying to say. I think Huck knows he’s not being specific. His intention is to get the words “immigration”, “security” and “opportunity” into his sound bite, and to have a tough-guy like Chuck nod.
dedalus on December 5, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Chuck Norris Lever
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIH_LoJYQ3M&feature=related
BJ* on December 5, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Or Get It
Via Wikipedia
The Columbian Exchange theory holds that syphilis was a New World disease brought back by Columbus and Martin Alonzo Pinzon. Supporters of the Columbian theory find syphilis lesions on pre-contact Native Americans and cite documentary evidence linking crewmen of Columbus’s voyages to the Naples outbreak of 1494.[3]
Evidence for the pre-Columbian and Columbian Exchange theories are each disputed by the opposing school of thought, but historian Alfred Crosby suggests both are correct in a combination theory.
ronsfi on December 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM
We are not mad they come here…we are mad that they stay here.
right2bright on December 5, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Build the fence.
Enforce our laws.
Defend the nation.
Huck a bee.
profitsbeard on December 5, 2007 at 10:21 AM
We are mad not to defend our liberty from a massive invasion of Socialist peasants.
ronsfi on December 5, 2007 at 10:22 AM
I’m not personally anti-Amnesty, (which is why I don’t support Tancredo) but I am against a blind, blanket amnesty that pretends that we don’t have serious criminal and security problems with our illegals, and a general inability to assimilate anyone. Amnesty as things are is a guaranteed quick path to ruin. It makes some biz’s feel better because they won’t have raise prices or deal with the illegals they are using, but it’s a you-can’t-get-something-for-nothing problem. Eventually the sh*t hits the fan on this: it is illegal for these people to be here. It is illegal to hire them. We have too many to simply deport, but we have too many problems to simply import all of them instantly.
I don’t see how Huck intends to do anything about this other than spit happy platitudes about America.
Honestly, though, some businesses don’t WANT legals; because they would have some responsibility to treat them lawfully. There is a culture of ‘getting your cake and eating it too’ surrounding illegal labor. People think deporting or not allowing these people in is ’social injustice’. Keeping many of them here under these conditions really is oppressing the stranger and alien.
Most ’social justice’ advocates are so involved in the race play that they are blind to the injustices they leave in their wake. A small price to pay for their universalism, I suppose.
RiverCocytus on December 5, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Why they come here…..
It’s from last year, but this is common.
shooter on December 5, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Huck might have been thinking of the millions voters who are descendents of immigrants from places like Ireland and Italy who came looking for work and a better life for their children. Maybe he knows enough history to be thinking of the contributions made by the Chinese to the transcontinental railroad and the subsequent “Chinese Exclusion Act” by congress.
dedalus on December 5, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Mayflower, Very cool.
My family is the Sheilds- Boals(Boalsburg pa.) connection , Mayflower & Columbus.
shooter on December 5, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Well put
sweeper on December 5, 2007 at 10:53 AM
These guys aren’t getting it. Immigration is THE issue of this campaign; not Iraq, not the economy.
Immigration.
This nebulous position will damage Huck as certainly as it damaged Hitlary.
I know I’m mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more.
drjohn on December 5, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Huck 20% Rudy 17% today at Rasmussen
bnelson44 on December 5, 2007 at 11:12 AM
It doesn’t matter whether he wants them here nor not since he apparently is not willing to take the tough stances and do the hard work required to prevent them from coming here or eliminate those already here.
A wishy washy man as Huck has proven himself to be can say a lot of things and do none of them because action required determination and fortitude. Which if a person had either they wouldn’t be wishy washy in the first place.
doriangrey on December 5, 2007 at 11:13 AM
why do they (Pelosi, Huckabee et al.) presume to know what we think? Has anyone really asked us? Could it go on a ballet? Are we mad that illegals come to this country illegally – yes or no? Are we mad that our tax dollars provide services to illegal aliens that many american citizens cannot get – yes or no? Do we want a President who will end illegal immigration – yes or no!?!
ctmom on December 5, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Unfortunately Governor Huckabee doesn’t understand the issue, the damage being done or has a clue about any solutions much less have the resolve or the ability to accomplish much more than a good solid prayer meeting, which could also comprise his solution to a number of other very serious threats we face.
Speakup on December 5, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Well that was a Chucklebee …
tarpon on December 5, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Indentured Servitude?
Um, can I still stand by indentured servitude, or is that mean now?
gekkobear on December 5, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Again, Fred Thompsons immigration proposal is the toughest of the bunch. Why is everyone even considering these cronies?
msipes on December 5, 2007 at 12:16 PM
You could go with forced indentured servitude.
Speakup on December 5, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Sooo…..will Chuck Norris become Chief of Staff, Sec of State or whatever when Huck gets the vote?
Now I am really scared!
On the other hand, between John Bolton and Chuck Norris, who would you rather bitch-slap Armadinnerjacket?
thejackal on December 5, 2007 at 1:34 PM
You’re kidding, right? The site is very anti-Huck. I’m not saying that it’s for bad reasons, but to paint Hot Air as some site where pro-Huck stories are posted all the time is laughable.
I don’t get anything of substance out of this video, really. Huckabee’s just trying to establish where he is and where he thinks most Americans are, taking some wind out of the sails of the zero-tolerance crowd. He’s saying he’ll address illegal immigration even though his opponents have been indicating he won’t. It’s smart; it says he knows that his biggest challenge now is squaring his record with the voters’ immigration views, because if he fails to do so, the shorthand conventional wisdom on him will be “the open borders candidate,” and his lead will vanish. Specifics, however, might be nice….
calbear on December 5, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I have to assume that. The gang problem stems from and is accelerated by illegal immigration. It is the Mexican enclaves that shelter these gangs and provide an enviroment for them to grow. That is the something that politicians like Huckabee will never admit. If he is okay with growing and protecting the enclaves then he is okay with gangs. If he supported the shamnesty then he is pro lation gangs. Remeber the provision that gangs memers only had to sign a piece of paper saying they were sorry and would not be in a gang anymore? If he was not against that then my assumption is more than a assumption.
Theworldisnotenough on December 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Chuckabee-I love it! I don’t think I’ve heard it before (did you just come up with it?) but it seems so obvious now.
tikvah on December 5, 2007 at 3:02 PM
I hate to sound like a pessimist, but if the polls are correct Huck is in the GOP lead.
I smell a Dem pres in 2008 if nothing changes, because NO WAY is a lib or a dem going to be swung over to this guy.
thejackal on December 5, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I think that rats nest on Chuck ’s head moved!
Hilts on December 5, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Mike HuckabeeMike HOKEYbee, said nothing of any substance in that ad. Meaningless rhetoric.Gatordoug on December 5, 2007 at 8:12 PM
When I learned that Huck said he had never met a man who lost his job to an illegal that was it.
llegals are taking jobs. It snowballed in my state as contractors who did not use illegals could not win bids against those who cheated. Add to that illegals depressed the wages for competitive bid jobs.
But illegals live illegal. They do not have the heavy burden of mandates to pay that citizens have so they can live better on the same bucks than a citizen obeying the rules. They use the ER free and their bills are tacked onto our medical billings
It is killing the lower classes, the people who would be laborers, and shriveling the blue collar classes.
Huckabee couldn’t find a victim of illegal immigration if we put a sign on him with a big arrow
entagor on December 6, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Comment pages: