Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Huckabee releases immigration plan

posted at 10:02 am on December 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Hot off the presses. It’ll be formally released later today but Huck’s team is trying to reach out to bloggers so they’ve sent it out to a few of us first for publication. I’m distracted by Mitt’s speech at the moment — and the timing of this release may be no accident in that regard — and haven’t had time to consider it yet but I’m putting it out there now for you to mull. We’ll have comments later, I’m sure.

Note the footnote emphasizing that this is modeled on a plan by Mark Krikorian, something that will buy Huck instant immigration cred with conservatives while also making them wonder if that isn’t the whole point — that perhaps he has no firm convictions on the issue and is cribbing from Krikorian to make him viable on the right on the hottest policy issue there is. Krikorian will doubtless be weighing in later. Stay tuned.

Here’s Fred’s immigration plan for comparison.

***
The Secure America Plan

A 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security

Overview: Implement a broad-based strategy that commits the resources of the federal government to the enforcement of our immigration laws and results in the attrition of the illegal immigrant population.

1. Build the Fence

  • Ensure that an interlocking surveillance camera system is installed along the border by July 1, 2010.
  • Ensure that the border fence construction is completed by July 1, 2010.

2. Increase Border Patrol

  • Increase the number of border patrol agents.
  • Fully support all law enforcement personnel tasked with enforcing immigration law.

3. Prevent Amnesty

  • Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
  • Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.

4. Enforce the Law on Employers

  • Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.
  • Impose steep fines and penalties on employers that violate the law.
  • Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.
  • Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don’t match the employees’ names.*

5. Establish an Economic Border

  • Move toward passage of the FairTax.
  • The FairTax provides an extra layer of security by creating an economic disincentive to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.

6. Empower Local Authorities

  • Promote better cooperation on enforcement by supporting legislative measures such as the CLEAR Act, which aims to systematize the relationship between local law and federal immigration officials.
  • Encourage immigration-law training for police. Local authorities must be provided the tools, training, and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.

7. Ensure Document Security

  • End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress’ intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system.
  • Reject Mexico’s “matricula consular” card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.

8. Discourage Dual Citizenship

  • Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.
  • Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.).

9. Modernize the Process of Legal Immigration

  • Eliminate the visa lottery system and the admission category for adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.
  • Increase visas for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants.
  • Expedite processing for those who serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces.
  • Improve our immigration process so that those patiently and responsibly seeking to come here legally will not have to wait decades to share in the American dream. Governor Huckabee has always been grateful to live in a country that people are trying to break into, rather than break out of.

*This policy will be drafted to comply with the final federal court decisions on this issue.

Note: This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. (“Re: Immigration: Ten Points for a Successful Presidential Candidate,” National Review, May 23, 2005.)


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: 1 2

Can we cut a little hole in the fence for children who really, really want scholarships?

saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 10:06 AM

Looks too familiar, and the way he talks, I don’t believe a word of it.

MadisonConservative on December 6, 2007 at 10:08 AM

no aid for any illegal alien of any kind.

no matter the illness, no matter the education.

madmonkphotog on December 6, 2007 at 10:09 AM

5. Establish an Economic Border

* Move toward passage of the FairTax.
* The FairTax provides an extra layer of security by creating an economic disincentive to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.

?

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Looks like a real no amnesty plan to me. I’m in.

We also need a guy who will take our legal Hispanic population and educate them into conservatism.

Huckabee is the man with the plan.

moughon on December 6, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Fine, now compare that with what he has been promoting for the past couple years…words, words, words…where is the action?

right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 AM

That sort of threw me too. I think what he’s getting at is that the fair tax is a national sales tax so you’re going to have to pay it up front. This would prevent illegals, or anyone else, from getting tax free money under the table. Not a very good point even though I favor the fair tax.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Check Here

sunny on December 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM

“If you have a soul, you must leave a hole!”

/bullhorn

Sounds great, but I don’t believe it either. The damage is done. Suppose his soul just won’t let him stick to the plan once he’s in office?

saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 AM

I can’t do it. Sounds good on paper but I just don’t trust him any more. The tap dance on the kids with the scholarships and in-state tuition did it for me. I don’t believe him any more. I’m with Fred now.

Terri on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 AM

sunny on December 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM

After reading your link looks like it’s a better point than I gave it credit for.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

How does his tough enforcement-first stance square with his refusal to back down on providing scholarships for illegal immigrants?

Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Sounds good to me. I just wonder with a likely democratic congress how much will actually be instated.

Complete7 on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Heh!

LULAC and NCLR are going to lampoon him. What happened to our friend Huckabee?

Theworldisnotenough on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Smoke’n'mirrors…nowhere in this plan are there any details of the discrete, concrete actions required – from him – to cause this ‘wishlist’ to get off the ground…hence it is totally unaccountable.

Standard MO for a bullsh!t artist/politician…pardon the redundancy.

I want to see a schedule, an itinerary of legislation, something we can unambiguously refer to and say “why haven’t you done x, y & z as specified?”. These politicians get away with fraudulently misleading the people about their intentions…and the suckers keep falling for it.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

It doesn’t Slu. He is feelig the heat, and immigration is not an issue a candidate cannot be on the wrong side of. Democrats are laughing at this, “Yes drive the Hispanics to us!”

Theworldisnotenough on December 6, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Can we cut a little hole in the fence for children who really, really want scholarships?

saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 10:06 AM

How can we not? You have a soul, don’t you? :)

That sort of threw me too. I think what he’s getting at is that the fair tax is a national sales tax so you’re going to have to pay it up front. This would prevent illegals, or anyone else, from getting tax free money under the table. Not a very good point even though I favor the fair tax.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Though it’s late, I haven’t had me coffee yet today. How would forcing Americans to pay taxes upfront discourage illegal aliens who pay no taxes as it is? Or am I misinterpreting this?

amerpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:22 AM

He is feelig the heat, and immigration is not an issue a candidate cannot be on the wrong side of. Democrats are laughing at this, “Yes drive the Hispanics to us!”

I agree. This seems an awfully convenient pivot.

A “flip-flop,” if you will.

Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Illegal aliens are sophisticated enough to know that they are not paying into our system at the same rate that they are taking out. A fair tax is going to discourage this huge incentive. *rolls eyes*

Theworldisnotenough on December 6, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Another false conversion from a Mitt McGulabee that is not to be believed.

Valiant on December 6, 2007 at 10:25 AM

amerpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Read sunny’s link at 10:15. It’s from the Fairtax website and a little more detailed.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:25 AM

sunny on December 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM

After reading your link looks like it’s a better point than I gave it credit for.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

It’s wishful thinking, like most of the Fair Tax propaganda. It’s a weak disincentive; far weaker than the incentive to establish black markets under a 30% sales tax.

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM

By 2010?

Why not “within 6 months of his becoming President”?

Sounds like a soothing sop to distract from his true behavior.

If he’s soft on rapist murderers, how hard will he be on poor, disadvantaged brothers in Christ who merely happen to have been born just across the river from the promised land?

Huck is out of luck.

profitsbeard on December 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM

How would forcing Americans to pay taxes upfront discourage illegal aliens who pay no taxes as it is? Or am I misinterpreting this?

I think the point is that since _nobody_ pays _federal_ taxes, the illegals have no ‘advantage’ in that respect…instead _everyone_, illegals included, will be paying tax as they make purchases in their daily lives.

A bonus is that the illegals will have no way to receive the ‘prebate’ ;-)

So…everyone is chipping in to the fedgov revenue stream, and no prebate to the illegals. A somewhat better situation!

If we can only eliminate them from all handouts…maybe require a ‘prebate account #’ to receive benefits?

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Complete7 on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

I like the fair tax, but the removal of government being able to dictate behavior through tax policy will prevent it or anything like it from becoming reality.

On immigration, Hucks plan looks perfect, but his previous policy decisions and varied support negate what is listed from being believable.

sunny on December 6, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Making it easier for people to immigrate to the US legally is as important as making it more difficult for illegal aliens to continue to live and work in the US.

Like other commentators, I’m skeptical. Governments don’t do anything well.

rockhauler on December 6, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM

I agree that it’s a weak incentive. I don’t agree that it’s just fair tax propaganda. There is a point although it’s a little dim.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:31 AM

I’m just reminded of this quote from John Fund’s Huckabee piece:

Nor am I alone. Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once “his No. 1 fan.” She was bitterly disappointed with his record. “He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal,” she says. “Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don’t be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office.

Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:31 AM

If we can only eliminate them from all handouts…maybe require a ‘prebate account #’ to receive benefits?

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:27 AM

I thought the big draw of the Fair Tax was that it would eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy. However, every time I discuss it with supporters, they manage to come up with new account numbers other kinds of government oversight to fill in the holes of the poorly thought out plan.

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:31 AM

It’s an excellent plan (though I read the Fair Tax part, and that’s kind of a weak incentive). Too bad he’s made it unbelievable.

amerpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM

On immigration, Hucks plan looks perfect, but his previous policy decisions and varied support negate what is listed from being believable.

sunny on December 6, 2007 at 10:28 AM

To my eyes Huck’s plan is far from perfect. For reference check out section 3 of Fred’s plan and ask yourself where it is in the Huckleberry’s.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM

amerpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM

I’d agree to good instead of excellent. In any case it’s far better than anything we have now.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Sorry Huckster; you’ve lied too many times in the past couple weeks to be remotely believeable- not on policy, not on personal character. Some of us see through the blatant flip-flopping pandering and don’t appreciate it.

Hollowpoint on December 6, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:31 AM

If that’s the case, then I would suggest that the people you’re talking to don’t understand the FairTax.

I read the link someboyd earlier posted, and it reflects my understanding exactly…and the ‘prebate account #’ I clumsily refer to is, in fact, the _existing_ SSN.

The FairTax _eviscerates_ gubmint bureaucracy.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Hollowpoint on December 6, 2007 at 10:36 AM

I don’t care for Huck either. For that matter there’s no one in the lineup that I could support 100%. But I’d vote for any Republican candidate over any Democrat and yes that means that I’d vote for Ron Paul over Obama.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Yeah, “perfect” was the wrong word. It says almost everything that we want to hear. Other than details…but again, Huck’s actions and his plan are at odds.

sunny on December 6, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Recognizing that “9 point plans” are designed to be broad brush approaches, the following comes to mind:

1. Why couldn’t he come up with a tenth point? A 10 point plan is far more impressive sounding than settling for a mere nine some of which (like that fair tax stuff) has no business being part of immigration reform discussions.

2. When it comes to employers, why would we impose steep fines and penalties, institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system, or prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don’t match the employees’ names. ISN’T ALL THAT ON THE BOOKS NOW? Huckabee’s from Arkansas where Tyson Foods is fully aware of how “stringently” employers are held to these standards. Attrition strategies only work if the penalties and safeguards aren’t ignored by those in charge of enforcement. Put another way, we don’t need new laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have.

3. You don’t “prevent amnesty.” This isn’t a forest fire or tooth decay. You reject amnesty and any claims from those who are in this country illegally. Short of emergency healthcare, illegals should not be entitled to any social services including education.

Bottom line: This is all the right words but absolutely meaningless and it is clear that none of it will be taken too seriously in the application.

highhopes on December 6, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Can’t trust him.
Hannity would have us believe that all that matters is what these candidates say NOW (while they’re trying to secure the nomination).
What really matters is what they said and how they behaved THEN (when they governed and weren’t pandering to the base).
Huck and Mitt will morph into whatever they think will get them the nomination. I’ve been around this game long enough to know what they will do once they get into office. They will like Bush, cozy up to the left in an attempt to compromise their way to a legacy. And the Dems and the media will bury them for it.
There’s only one Conservative in this race. El Rushbo gets it!

edgehead on December 6, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Neal Boortz’s book The Fair Tax Book is an easy read. It explains the fair tax in plain English. It may not make a believer of you but at least you’ll understand the attraction.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 10:44 AM

The FairTax _eviscerates_ gubmint bureaucracy.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM

More wishful thinking. You’ll have to enforce compliance and calculate and distribute prebates. It transfer some of the accounting responsibility to the individual citizens, but then duplicates it again at the federal level. It’s not in the book, but that’s because the book is dumb.

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:45 AM

The FairTax _eviscerates_ gubmint bureaucracy.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Which pretty much ensures that the “Fair Tax” will never ever be implemented…

doriangrey on December 6, 2007 at 10:46 AM

1. Why couldn’t he come up with a tenth point? A 10 point plan is far more impressive sounding than settling for a mere nine some of which (like that fair tax stuff) has no business being part of immigration reform discussions.

highhopes on December 6, 2007 at 10:40 AM

This is a 10 point plan when viewed internally…the 10th point is embedded. It only seems like a 9 point plan because you’re used to that 10th point being added on at the end.

/fair tax acolyte

James on December 6, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Sold.

Thanks for posting.

EduardoOTI on December 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM

More wishful thinking

That’s a rather lazy dismissal.

Quite a few people have actually invested considerable time in designing this plan with the goal of eliminating bureaucracy as a fundamental objective.

You’ll have to enforce compliance

Of course… _on a drastically smaller set of entities_ (businesses vs most of the population). The IRS becomes a manageable accounting office, not the vast agency it is now.

calculate and distribute prebates

These calculations, and the systems to distribute prebates _already exist_. Have you ever wondered how ‘poverty level’ stats and payments are currently performed?

It transfer some of the accounting responsibility to the individual citizens, but then duplicates it again at the federal level

I have no idea where you are getting this from. This is nonsense.

It’s not in the book, but that’s because the book is dumb

Oh…well that clears it all up then. Thanks for the incisive critique. Back to the drawing board.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Which pretty much ensures that the “Fair Tax” will never ever be implemented…

Well…nobody said it was going to be easy…and the FairTax itself explicitly recognizes that it represents the biggest transfer of power _away_ from government in history. Not to be sniffed at.

How about we remember exactly who works for whom, and demand that they get the job done, or lose their jobs…eh? ;-)

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Sounds good but, missing one of the most important issues.

Get rid of the anchor baby policy and amend the the 14th amendment. Which doesn’t grant citizenship in the first place if our politician knew the constitution.

xler8bmw on December 6, 2007 at 11:00 AM

It’s not in the book, but that’s because the book is dumb.

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Two questions:

1. Are you referring to Boortz’s book?

2. Have you actually read it?

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Y’know the wishy-washy general store owner in “Open Range”? The one that had never tried the fancy chocolate on his shelves? The pallid wuss?

That’s Huckabee

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Which pretty much ensures that the “Fair Tax” will never ever be implemented…

the fair tax isn’t realistic anyway, no way the IRS will go away. They have too much power and can/would ruin the lives of those trying to abolish them. the Flat Tax is a more realistic option

it does sound good though in the repub. primaries.

jp on December 6, 2007 at 11:02 AM

xler8bmw on December 6, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man(woman) a ceegar! I haven’t seen that in any plan yet. The only person I’ve actually heard mention it is Tancredo.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Huck’s plan sounds nice on paper, for the most part. But I can see a president Huckabee folding on the first hint of resistance in congress and then saying to the American public “I tried, but congress wouldn’t let me!”

Sorry Huck, your conversion is too recent and you have shown the willingness to play fast and loose with the truth on related matters (i.e. your scholarhip program) as well as with the Wayne Dumond case. I simply don’t believe that you are offering this plan in good faith.

thirteen28 on December 6, 2007 at 11:04 AM

My home state of Arizona is enforcing a new state law that is cracking down on employers who fail to verify social security numbers on all employees by 1/1/8. Authorities estimate over 4500 illegals have quit their jobs and returne to MX since September, with tens of thousands expected to do so by the end of this year. Pray that the current court challenge fails.

If Huck sticks to this portion of his plan, everything else will fall into place for him

DrW on December 6, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 11:00 AM

1. Yes.

2. As much as I could stand (about half) before realizing that it was a set of assertions put forth by a fanatic rather than a well-researched tract on taxes and economics. Much of the Fair Tax propaganda is based on wild extrapolations of earnings, consumption, and investment, and most of the plans involve assertions about what the government will do, without getting into the nitty gritty details. The current income tax system sounds pretty simple too if you put it in “plain English” like the Far Tax book.

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM

DrW on December 6, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Oklahoma recently enacted what was touted as the most “Draconian” law regarding illegals in the country. They had a similar response. Everything I read indicated that the residents of Ok were very happy with the new law. Of course I think it’s being challenged also.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 11:08 AM

When Fred was calling out the President of Mexico for his outrageous hypocrisy, when he was tut-tutting our xenophobic immigration policy, when U.S. policy is much more open then Mexico’s policy, what was Huck doing?

silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM

While you appear to have made up your mind, I’d give it another look. The amount of research done on the Fair Tax to date is staggering. From supporters to opponants and the fair tax website, there is so much vetting. You may have done this already…

sunny on December 6, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Big S on December 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM

I have to agree Boortz is a fanatic and a hard core Libertarian, but I didn’t get the same impression as you from the book. At least you attempted to read it. In any case I don’t see much connection with the illegal alien question. It’s nebulous at best.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM

silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Trying to figure out if he should address this illegal alien thing.

Oldnuke on December 6, 2007 at 11:18 AM

what was Huck doing?

Stocktaking his joojoo bees?

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 11:19 AM

I don’t trust the Huckster any more. Deeds not Words my man, deeds not words.
Past actions indicate this is not what he would do.

LakeRuins on December 6, 2007 at 11:26 AM

How un-Christian of him. When he rests his head on the pillow tonight, I am sure the shame of being such a lying opportunist will overcome him, and he will break down in tears. Shame, shame.

RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Let’s see… where to start?

At first glance Huckabee seems like a good choice, but the more you look, the more his current politics differ from the policies he has implemented in the past.

This immigration proposal sounds perfect, but it reminds me of HW Bush’s “No new taxes” line.

I love the fair tax. I don’t understand the defeatist mentality that says there’s no way we could ever get this to work. I don’t believe Huckabee would even try, but I love the fair tax. The only part I don’t agree with is this “prebate” stuff. They should simply exempt things like food and housing and utility bills, and possibly even transportation from the tax, and forget about cutting people checks at the beginning of the month. That part sounds too much like trying to buy people off. “Wouldn’t it be great to get a check every month for a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars?” That is a liberal idea if I’ve ever heard one and has no place in this plan.
If some one has an explanation or idea about why it makes good sense, I’m all ears.

Incedentally, Rudy was criticizing Huckabee the other day as not being a true fiscal conservative, and went after him on the Fair Tax proposal of all things. I didn’t get that at all. That is probably the only fiscally conservative thing about Mike Huckabee.

At this point I’m going to have to say that I’m with Fred. I like what Huckabee said, but I don’t believe him. Fred’s plan is as simply put as Huckabee’s, but in the end, I think Fred would do the things that Huckabee wrote down.

samuelrylander on December 6, 2007 at 11:31 AM

I don’t understand the defeatist mentality that says there’s no way we could ever get this to work

Small people, small minds, small horizons.

The only part I don’t agree with is this “prebate” stuff

Actually, I agree. The problem with the current system (other than its disgusting socialist rapacity) is that it is a giant squabbling ground for special interests to gain exemptions, deductions etc.

I see the ‘prebate’ as a ‘crack in the door’ where slowly, lobbyists will work over the years to get included in the prebate calculation.

But that’s a fight I’m willing to take on ;-)

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Looks like a real no amnesty plan to me. I’m in.

moughon on December 6, 2007 at 10:11 AM

LOL! Wow! You’re easy. I wonder why you buy this so easily when Huckabee has consistently lied about his record and actions. What makes you think he’ll actually go through with this plan, when he’s already stated that his Christian soul will not allow him to do it?

We also need a guy who will take our legal Hispanic population and educate them into conservatism.

Most of our “legal” Hispanic population IS conservative Christian. Most of the “legal” Hispanic population is against illegal immigration.

Huckabee is the man with the plan.

Yeah. Suddenly a plan which goes against every word and action from his past. Sounds like Giuliani.

Gregor on December 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Hot Air has caught Huckabee Feevah!!!!!!!!

I think there are actually more Huckabee blurbs now than for The View. If this grace at work, or simply support for the front runner?

Hening on December 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM

This plan does nothing other than show just how dishonest Huckabee really is. With what we already know about his positions and his past actions … this is actually insulting.

Gregor on December 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM

More Huckabee flip flopping, er evolving.

It turns out that Mike Huckabee’s lame discussion of foreign policy with Don Imus was a repeat performance. Huckabee previously appeared with Imus on October 26, 2006. At that time, he embraced James Baker’s recommendations for dealing with the situation in Iraq, and threw in his “Holiday Inn Express” joke. Baker, it will be recalled, recommended large scale troop reductions, reliance on negotiations with Iran, and pushing Israel to make concessions.

So, while Huckabee’s jokes haven’t evolved, his thinking about Iraq has. He’s progressed from James Baker (have Iran bail us out) to Colin Powell (we broke it, we own it). But he’s still nowhere near John McCain (let’s defeat our enemies).

LakeRuins on December 6, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Huckabee’s plan will, by his own definition, make him unChristian.

The unChristian argument is the one he used against his opponents when they resisted his tuition breaks for illegals.

jaime on December 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM

These calculations, and the systems to distribute prebates _already exist_. Have you ever wondered how ‘poverty level’ stats and payments are currently performed?

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM

The official poverty level is $19,307 for a family of four, $12,334 for a family of two. But the calculation includes only cash income before deductions for taxes. It excludes capital gains and it does not take into account accumulated wealth or assets, such as a home.

It was based on a calculation of basic living expenses in the 1960s, and has been updated only to reflect inflation.

The result is that a single parent making $13,000 a year is living above the poverty line, while someone with a $1 million house who takes a year off work to travel the world could be below it.

News2Use on December 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM

News2Use on December 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM

OK…but that wasn’t my point. I was simply highlighting that there are existing gubmint monkeys performing calculations and sending out money. I wasn’t suggesting that the actual ‘poverty level’ stat was the one to use.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM

The result is that a single parent making $13,000 a year is living above the poverty line, while someone with a $1 million house who takes a year off work to travel the world could be below it.

And goodness knows that’s unfair.
/sarc off

The only reason I can see for keeping the current program in place (and I don’t even know that it’s a good one) is that a diligent person can game the system to keep more of their own money. Chances are, that single parent/$13K person did not get in that situation by being diligent and making good choices. But they have every opportunity to get out of it, and very quickly too, if they start today.

samuelrylander on December 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM

It’s been said before but I’ll say it again. I’m not buying. I simply don’t trust Huckabee on this isue. I like Fred’s plan much better and I actually believe that if he becomes President that he will actually back up his words with actions.

Scorched_Earth on December 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM

How about…

Cut off ALL federal aid of ALL kinds to sanctuary cities.

LtE126 on December 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM

LtE126 on December 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM

How about firing people immediately for failing to uphold & enforce the law? You think this ’sanctuary’ BS would fly if it was federal drug laws they were letting slide?

(Not that I think there should be _any_ federal drug laws btw)

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM

I like the idea of a Fair Tax, but the issues are these:

1) Millions of Americans made long-term financial decisions based upon the exisiting tax-code. Fair Tax people say, well it all works out in totality if we change things now. Yeah, but tens of millions millions will come out ahead overnight and tens of millions will get screwed overnight. Those who are mortgaged to the hilt and lose their mortgage interest and property tax deduction, for instance, may come out on the losing end. Yeah, I know, tough titty. I agree, but there are too many interests and special breaks and deductions that people hold near and dear to their hearts, that they will be unwilling to let go.

2) Accountants, lawyers, gubmint workers, financial advisors……the whole tax industry will oppose this like you can’t imagine.

3) Old People. Old folks who saved all that money, and shoved in under their mattresses all those years. Maybe they earned it from their job, had it taxed, invested it, had it taxed again, put it in the bank, had it taxed again, and are now keeping it under their mattress, or in bank still, to buy sh*t. Don’t matter if they are rich or poor, you telling me it is fair to tax them again for another 20-30% when they spend that money they’ve been taxed on a million times already? T

The Fair Tax plan is great for future generations, in a vacuum. We’re too damn selfish to let it see the light of day.

RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM

RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM

1) What value do ‘breaks’ and ‘deductions’ have when there is _no_ taxation to deduct them from?

2) You bet they will. Unfortunately they will have to be made to realize that America does not owe them a living. There will still be a need for general accountancy, of course, just no more lucrative tax lawyer positions.

3) True. Some people make stupid decisions with there money and will get burned somewhat. Think about the improved economy that retirement investments will reside in though. No cap gains, no dividend tax…nada.

Some people will probably find that they have managed to position themselves less-than-favorably for the FairTax…but this is good reason to implement it over, say, a 2/3/4/5 year phase-in period…to allow people time to make adjustments.

Ultimately, since when has life ever guaranteed that there will be no losers? At least the FairTax is an honest attempt to really shake things up for the benefit of everyones futures.

I’m not too selfish to do what it takes, are you?

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 12:17 PM

End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program, which tracks the arrival and departure of foreign visitors. Since these countries account for the vast majority of foreigners coming here (85 percent), such a policy clearly violates Congress’ intent in mandating this check-in/check-out system.

Expect an outcry from border communities that depend largely on Canadian shoppers for income, as such a policy will severely dicourage cross-border shoppers.

8. Discourage Dual Citizenship
Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.
Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status (e.g., using a foreign passport, voting in elections in both a foreign country and the U.S.).

I’m personally against this, being a Dual Citizenship holder myself (US/Canadian) I was born in the US to Canadian parents while my father was attending seminary. I grew up in Canada, served in the US Army, live once again in Canada, am marrying a Canadian, but I vote in both Canadian and US elections. Canada has no problem with me holding dual citizenship, why should the US? I think something a little more discerning could be enacted, i.e. what other country does the dual citizenship holder keep connected with? Strong ally countries (Canada, UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea, etc.) shouldn’t be a problem.

Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM

RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Good questions…but answerable.

1. Loss of mortgage interest deduction – If I lost my interest deduction, which in a 25 % tax bracket equals in my case approx. $250/ month in real dollar savings, but I get $400 to $500 more in my paycheck, how have I lost. There are other scenarios we could probably talk about, but this on is a common objection, and a canard.

2. Tax accountant industry – these people have been making their living off of the governments over extension of it’s rights levy taxes. It’s wrong (not that they are wrong, they are providing a service). They may oppose the change, but then they will be wrong. That a good idea will face opposition is no reason to give up on it. The bottom line is that there should not be a tax system so complex that you need to hire a specialist to explain it to you.

3. Senior Citizens already paid income taxes, now you want them to pay sales taxes – That would be unfair. I don’t know how the detail of the fair tax plan addresses this, but I would provide, in lieu of prebates would be an exemption card for people of a certain age and higher, or a refund check equal to the amount paid, or something like that. Those might not be the best answer, but I know a good one is out there.

samuelrylander on December 6, 2007 at 12:23 PM

I can’t do it. Sounds good on paper but I just don’t trust him any more. The tap dance on the kids with the scholarships and in-state tuition did it for me. I don’t believe him any more. I’m with Fred now.

Terri on December 6, 2007 at 10:16 AM

Terri, I’m right with you.

msipes on December 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Terri, I’m right with you.

msipes on December 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM

I’m with you too, Terri. God help us all.

samuelrylander on December 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Problems with this plan.

Point 1:
“interlocking surveillance camera” – Part of “virtual fence. Security system has already proven it doesn’t work and was a big scam.

“the border fence construction” – the “partial border fence. Refer to the first comment about surveillance. Border fence will only cover parts of the border.

Point 2:
“Increase the number of border patrol agents” – behind desks and doing administrative tasks like trying to fix surveillance cameras.

“Fully support all law enforcement personnel tasked with enforcing immigration law” – I support what your doing, but I’ll deny funding in appropriations bills. I’m slick like the rest of them.

Point 3:
“Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected” – who cares. Existing policies already create a defacto massive amnesty.

“Propose to provide” – don’t actually do anything, just propose. And our government has been SO SUCCESSFUL at controlling illegal immigration, they surely will handle this new bureaucracy with utmost efficiency. Please.

Point 4:
“denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy” – we can’t even deny jobs to people with mismatching SSN’s. How do they expect to implement such a plan? Lawyers will ensure this “denying” won’t ever take place (kind of like mph gas standards that won’t take place until 2020)

“Impose steep fines and penalties on employers that violate the law” – they will ensure that these penalties are cheaper than the benefits gain by employing illegals. Advantage corrupt business.

“Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.” – we already have one that businesses can use voluntarily. Make it their responsibility and they will complain they are not immigration enforcement. Again “institute” doesn’t mean enforce or fine if they don’t.

“Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don’t match the employees’ names.” The IRS already accepts ITIN’s which they know are obtained by millions of illegals. They don’t care and this will never work as long as ITIN’s are out there.

Point 5:
“The FairTax provides an extra layer of security by creating an economic disincentive to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.” – The economic disincentive will still be more attractive than wages in central and south America, thus illegal immigration will increase.

Point 6:
“Promote better cooperation on enforcement by supporting legislative measures” – buzz words that equate to “talk loud, carry a virtual stick.”

“Local authorities must be provided the tools, training, and funding they need so local police can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.” – local authorities set up sanctuary cities making this statement ridiculous. “Must be provided?” Yeah, if the money isn’t there (think Homeland Security Fund cuts), nothing will happen.

Point 7:
“End exemptions for Mexicans and Canadians to the US-VISIT program” Why did the US-VISIT” program have exemptions in the first place? Answer, government corruption ensures it, and you can bet your ass, point 7 will have loopholes.

“Reject Mexico’s “matricula consular” card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.” – states like Maryland won’t care. They will use two other forms of proof of resicence and ignore this requirement.

Point 8:
“Inform foreign governments when their former citizens become naturalized U.S. citizens.” Governments like Mexico that actually enforce their borders and care about sovereignty already know their citizens are dual citizens. Their remittance payments already prove this and as long as they keep coming, they could care less.

“Impose civil and/or criminal penalties on American citizens who illegitimately use their dual status” – again DON’T ACTUALLY “STOP” them just fine them and let them continue on.

Point 9:
Summarized – make the process easier and so much more in numbers that points 1-8 don’t even matter anyway.

bucktowndusty on December 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Increase the number of border patrol agents.

By what, two? Five? Ten?

No substance to this “plan” just like there is no substance to this man.

Not buying it.

NTWR on December 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM

“interlocking surveillance camera” – Part of “virtual fence

Any candidate that talks about virtual fences will earn my virtual vote…then they can see how much good being a virtual president is.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Any candidate that talks about virtual fences will earn my virtual vote…then they can see how much good being a virtual president is.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM

Classic!

thirteen28 on December 6, 2007 at 1:06 PM

LOL, I love it! That is the best answer I have heard to date on this issue.

Scorched_Earth on December 6, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Any candidate that talks about virtual fences will earn my virtual vote…then they can see how much good being a virtual president is.

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM

I love it!!

Do these politicians even bother reading what they put out? This makes no sense.

Terri on December 6, 2007 at 1:14 PM

Virtual fences will be complied with just like they obey our immigration laws.

Maybe they mean like the invisible dog fence. Where do they get the collar?

Terri on December 6, 2007 at 1:17 PM

I’m certain the rest of the crew already said it, but my two cents’ worth:

- Do not underestimate the value of the asterisk. I’ll wager Huck is hoping that Kennedy has one of his turns and keaves the window in the wall wide open.
- Related to that, I’m going to need a lot of syrup with this flapjack.

steveegg on December 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM

As soon as we find some ZPMs, we can power up an Asgard shield to block the border.

Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM

I have my doubts about a bunch of words copied from someone else, especially after his impassioned (religiously inspired??) pleas for in-state status for illegal aliens going off to college.

I searched in the comments and found no mention of this problem with the Fair (sales) Tax:

Illegal aliens don’t spend all of their money buying things in this country – they wire it home using Western Union’s convenient Spanish language forms at the local supermarket.
Twenty BILLION a year is sent to Mexico untaxed.

How ‘fair’ is this??

fred5678 on December 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Apparently Huck’s noticed that he’s not going to win without a illegal immigration conversion but unfortunately his is much much later than Mitt’s or Rudy’s (and I don’t really believe theirs either).

IMHO, if illegal immigration looks like a problem there are only 3 choices, Hunter, Tancredo, and Fred.

I also believe that a fence won’t stop them all, but it’s a important and symbolic start but a virtual fence will stop virtually nobody. Employer enforcement is where 90% of our efforts should be placed and a modern and usable means of legal immigration and temporary guest worker program, without a path to citizenship, is vital.

I like Huckabee’s plan but I don’t believe him any more than if Hillary rolled out the same plan.

Buzzy on December 6, 2007 at 2:11 PM

We also need to do our part.

1) Refuse to do any business with anyone that is involved with illegals
2) Refuse to do business with those that violate (1)

Economic firewall

Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Sorry Huck, I don’t believe a word of it.

Only recently Huck said that his soul dictates his policies on crime, illegal immigration and Gitmo; which is a holier-than-thou way of saying it was the right thing to do. Now, a few days later when he is getting a lot of flak for being soft on crime and lying about it, he thinks he can dupe people into believing that his soul has miraculously changed and now, by his own logic, he wants to do the wrong thing?

Nuh uh, I don’t buy it. I don’t trust this guy any more than I do Bill Clinton.

FloatingRock on December 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM

How does his tough enforcement-first stance square with his refusal to back down on providing scholarships for illegal immigrants?

Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM

You’re using the wrong tool for the job. Instead of a square, use a triangle. Then it all makes sense. :)

FloatingRock on December 6, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.