Video: Sessions dares candidates to answer his immigration questionnaire
posted at 4:20 pm on January 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
One of Bush’s betes noire returns to haunt the GOP field. Ace has a copy of the questionnaire. Why so detailed? Because, as he explains, it’s too easy to get a squish to swear he won’t permit amnesty when “amnesty” is defined a different million ways. Bush assured us that comprehensive immigration reform didn’t qualify as amnesty because illegals might have to pay a few thousand dollars in penalties and learn English before they were fast-tracked to citizenship. Sessions wants nuts and bolts this time, doubtless knowing that McCain will politely ignore him (although Huckabee, desperate for more conservative cred, might not) and that Romney can and should use that snub as a bludgeon to hammer Maverick on the issue. Watch for this to come up at tonight’s debate, especially with one new Florida poll showing immigration as key to Mitt’s surge. Tonight’s his last chance to put Mac through the amnesty wringer. The rest if the field hates him anyway; he’s got nothing left to lose by attacking.
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:
Fix those html tags, allah. you broke the front page.
Vincenzo on January 24, 2008 at 4:26 PM
hah, thought it was my browser
offroadaz on January 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM
That may be the rockin’est point of all!
Frozen Tex on January 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM
One of these days the whole net will crash because of a misplaced slash.
peski on January 24, 2008 at 4:28 PM
That’s a good clip. I especially like the way he cast it, ie wants it down before Feb 5th so that he can distribute it to Alabama voters. Smart way to interject the topic.
Right column, btw.
Spirit of 1776 on January 24, 2008 at 4:28 PM
AP, you are my idol.
peski on January 24, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Can I take this as a sign Jeff Sessions is NOT supporting McShamnesty for POTUS?
EJDolbow on January 24, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Just a question: what do all you fence enthusiasts think about the conflict between private property owners on the border and the federal government?
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Unlike Kelo, this is a justifiable reason for invoking eminent domain. The federal government is constituionally obligated to protect us from invaders, and if a fence is necessary, then so be it. Eminent domain for national security is a just reason.
thirteen28 on January 24, 2008 at 4:43 PM
…and one of the few real men, the ones with real cojones, left in Washington, or in the country, as is…
Entelechy on January 24, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I’d sign that in a New York minute, in my own blood!
TheSitRep on January 24, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Second look at Sessions?
fourstringfuror on January 24, 2008 at 4:45 PM
This is what a politician does when no one is paying attention to him.
bnelson44 on January 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Look for Cankles to use that phrase in her campain.
LOL
TheSitRep on January 24, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Eek. ♬ ONE OF THESE IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS. ♬
The government has no business interfering in the employment process of privately owned entities. The burden of identifying illegal immigrants should not be forcibly thrust upon anyone who wants to hire a worker to perform a job.
Mark Jaquith on January 24, 2008 at 4:50 PM
betes noires or bete noire, but not bete noires or betes noire– with an accent circumflex if ur packin.
JiangxiDad on January 24, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Sessions has some big fat brass ones!
SimplyKimberly on January 24, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Well for FL and anyway. But Mitt and McCain will survive FL.
Rudy won’t if he doesn’t win. At least as more than an asterisk.
bnelson44 on January 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Let them keep their land, build the fence around it and watch as 12 million Mexicans go trapesing through the opening. Won’t do a whole lot for their values – they best keep their women-folk locked up. Within a week, they’ll be begging for the fence.
I say, call their bluff.
stenwin77 on January 24, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Will any of the republican candidates answer it ?
William Amos on January 24, 2008 at 5:00 PM
The thing is, you cant do a hard crackdown without stepping on the toes of citizens. The demands on employers are only part of it, along with the potential for seizure of and access to private property near the borders. That’s one reason why I’m a little iffy on all of these plans.
Also, there’s this, which strikes me as particularly stupid:
Most cities with “sanctuary” policies do not have them out of the goodness of their own hearts, but to prevent the immigrant society from going completely underground. It might be a better idea to put more funding into dealing with immigration and deportation than to punish cities for not being able to deal with large illegal populations. Explained here.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Ron Paul?
bnelson44 on January 24, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Is Pat Paulson running for President, again?
bloggless on January 24, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Don’t see how this violates any conservative or federalist principles. Right now employers take SS numbers from employees in order to make payroll tax deposits in the right name, but it may be a year or more, or ever, before the employer is notified that a number has bounced. Even then, nothing is done, on either end usually. The employer usually asks for a “correction” to the number from the employee, but this can go on for a long time. All the while, the Feds/State do nothing.
What is wrong with an immediate system which checks eligibility to work (citizens and green card holders.) The gov’t isn’t trying to impose itself into the affairs of
private businesses. It’s trying to use a quick, efficient, and workable way towards a quick fix.
JiangxiDad on January 24, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Mitt should beat McCain, sharply and repeatedly, about the head and shoulders with his back-room attempt to circumvent the legislative process AND the American people.
MCPO Airdale on January 24, 2008 at 5:11 PM
You do realize that it’s already illegal for an employer to hire illegal aliens, don’t you?
If it’s illegal to hire an illegal how should any employer comply with the present law?
Wow! lots of sick birds here.
Oldnuke on January 24, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I think its fair to bring up if Businesses should inforce immigration laws. Because that opens them up to lawsuits from the ACLU and claims of racism.
Its unfair of the Federal government to place enforment on business WITHOUT also given them legal protections against frivilous lawsuits.
William Amos on January 24, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Just for you JianxiDad – les bêtes noires :)
Entelechy on January 24, 2008 at 5:19 PM
JiangxiDad, of course – ah, the …beast.
Entelechy on January 24, 2008 at 5:21 PM
FIRST LOOK AT SESSIONS!
We need a hero…
SuperCool on January 24, 2008 at 5:21 PM
I’d just like to say that I’m a bit distressed by the trend towards candidates proposing to transfer the responsibility towards the enforcement of Federal law to individuals. Most of the time, I’m not sure they even realize that’s what they’re doing, but things like the Fair Tax and the mandatory checks of immigration status by employers definitely accomplish just that.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Senator Sessions was a true advocate last Spring in the fight against that horrible legislation.I have been waiting for Romney to really challenge McCain on this issue in a debate.I thought if McCain was to become the nominee we would not hear anymore about illegal immigration but I now believe that to be flawed thinking in that the media will bring it up often because they know it will cost McCain votes in a general election with border security folks like myself and friends,family who will sit out this election if McCain is the nominee thereby helping out the Dems.
PTN 39 on January 24, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Awesome!
nottakingsides on January 24, 2008 at 5:25 PM
EXACTLY! Arizona’s new law requires employers to use the on-line system, and if it is used, that use is a legal defense for the employer if the employee is later found to be illegal. No fuss. All they have to do is use an on-line system to prevent ID theft, etc. Not much different than verifying the W-4 form everybody already has to fill out.
Anyone complaining about this system has never had their ID stolen.
And it’s working so well discouraging illegal employment that Mexico is complaining after only 16 days of operation!
Don’t you just love it??
fred5678 on January 24, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Not without some bumps. Law is on hold.
AZ: No prosecutions under sanctions law until March
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0116sanctionssuit0116-ONL.html
bnelson44 on January 24, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Yes, I love it and love it LOUD!
SuperCool on January 24, 2008 at 5:30 PM
The government has no business interfering into a legal contract between 2 parties.
In this case, part of said contract is that one of the parties (the employee) must be legally elgible to work. Thus you need some method of determining wether an employee meets that elgibility. Simple yes/no on the job application isn’t working.
How would you approach insuring that both parties in this case would be able to make a legal contract?
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 24, 2008 at 5:35 PM
By the way, there are laws springing up all over the country patterened after the AZ law. … which really only enforces federal law.
bnelson44 on January 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Yep. Thanks for the links.
Spirit of 1776 on January 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I’m going to take this opportunity to link to streaming video of Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose. These issues are not new ones, and the conflicting interests between immigrants, employers, and the government are explored a bunch of times. I always get a kick out of seeing the 1980 versions of Thomas Sowell and Donald Rumsfeld, who show up in the discussion sessions after Friedman’s video essays.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I’d love to know what the inspiration is for your political philosophy. It’s kinda radical.
Since when do employers have a “right” to hire people who have committed a crime? What if the applicant is, say, a Columbian cartel member? How about a convicted sex offender? Where do you draw the “interference” line?
Buy Danish on January 24, 2008 at 5:42 PM
The problem here is tension between pure libertarian dogma and conservative law enforcement.
Theoretically, purist libertarians oppose immigration restrictions, as they prefer the movement of labor to be determined by market forces. If illegals will work here for less, that should bring costs down for us, so who cares about the status.
The objection Mark raises is a standard libertarian objection.
After all, if Pedro can harvest that “ought to be legal” pot field, your spark-up will be cheaper. See how with libertarians it always leads back to pot? ;)
Jack M. on January 24, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Romney/Sessions ‘08
Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Four so far.
Latest on AZ law.
I’d like to see McCain’s solution to this: El Paso hospital needs guards armed with assault weapons to defend against Mexican drug cartels.
fred5678 on January 24, 2008 at 5:48 PM
this is why i have adopted Mr sessions as my senator since difi and poxer suck so badly
Mojack420 on January 24, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Paul will answer it. Keyes will answer it. I think Huckabee and Romney will have to answer it, each fearing the other will answer it and therefore distinguishing himself from McCain ( who won’t answer it ). You can’t beat McCain by being the only one in the field who refuses to distinguish himself from McCain’s horrible immigration positions since the pro-amnesty types won’t budge in their support for McCain.
Sessions should point out that the sooner the questionnaire is answered, the more reliable it will be to gauge the truthfulness of the answers since a game player will wait until the last moment to release his answers which will be adjusted to politically postion himself relative to the previously released answers of his opponents.
Buddahpundit on January 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM
The great irony is that while some honest illegal immigrants will leave due to the enforcement laws, they won’t have any effect on the activities of the Mexican drug cartels.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Am I reading that right? “honest illegal immigrants”?
Which part of honest? The misdemeanor of first illegal entry, the felony of re-entering after deportation, the felony of a stolen ID, the $250,000 fine for making up an otherwise unused social security number, or just plain working for cash and severely pissing off the IRS?
Turning your back on anarchy never solves economic problems. It just escalates to this.
And this.
I vote for law enforcement. I have called Sessions’ office many times to thank him for his efforts.
fred5678 on January 24, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Aha! I think you’re on to something. It seems to be very self-serving this brand of libertarianism. To heck with the welfare of the community, it’s all about me.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Ditto!
By virtue of them being here and working here they don’t respect our sovereignty or our laws.
None of them are honest one little bit.
SimplyKimberly on January 24, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Actualy this is the government finaly taking responsiblility AWAY from the employer.
Right now an employer can be held accountable for hireing an illegal… this puts the onus of proof back into Government hands… where it should have been all along.
All an employer has to do is check the system, and they are covered… its ABSOLVING them of liability… not putting them into an enforcment situation.
Romeo13 on January 24, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Heh. I knew you’d flip over that. And yes, I mean it. Most illegal immigrants aren’t the kinds of criminals you make them out to be. The ones who will be most likely to leave are the ones who are least likely to stay and turn to crime as a source of income.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 6:07 PM
It’s not going to be like going to wikipedia and checking your facts. There will have to be a lot of paperwork involved to make sure that the government knows you’ve checked, and that you’ve checked the person you say you’ve checked, etc. It still imposes a greater burden on the employer than the current system.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Repeat from Petraeus thread, but applies here too
Petraeus/Sessions
1. Cheney doesn’t feel so good and retires
2. Bush 43 names Petraeus VP
3. Petraeus runs for president in ‘08
4. Liberals wet any type of clothing they wear, or skin, if naked.
5. Conservatives are wet from drooling, and other losses of control.
Entelechy on January 24, 2008 at 6:12 PM
You avoid ansering the question. If an illegal alien is working, how are they getting paid? I repeat for your convenience:
Which part of honest? The misdemeanor of first illegal entry, the felony of re-entering after deportation, the felony of a stolen ID, the $250,000 fine for making up an otherwise unused social security number, or just plain working for cash and severely pissing off the IRS?
fred5678 on January 24, 2008 at 6:14 PM
E, is that chin a little higher then it was earlier? If so, keep it up my friend.
Now I have to go clean myself up. Sorry.
Zetterson on January 24, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Um… you do know that this system already exists?
And that some of us EMPLOYERS have been using it for quite awhile now?
Its not any worse than the usualy state paperwork you have to fill out on emplyees anyway… with the EXACT same info on it in fact. You know, that little form you have to fill out for unemployment insurance? And the one for Taxes?
I’m NOT a big government person… but this is one place the government needs to be involved due to an ongoing problem…
But… just a stab in the dark… but bet your also against having to show Photo ID to vote?
Romeo13 on January 24, 2008 at 6:18 PM
“…I’m not going to call that cartel shooter and tell him his mother’s being deported!”
SuperCool on January 24, 2008 at 6:19 PM
You just don;t get it. You’ve created this kind of Frankenstein monster of all of the worst things that individual illegal immigrants have done, and applied that standard to all of them. Many, if not most, illegal immigrants have done none of this except the illegal entry, which is not a criminal infraction in any case, and working for cash. There are tons of regular Americans who work for cash under the table as well, and although I wouldn’t call these people 100% honest, they are more honest than many.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Actually, I’m in favor of a mandatory national biometric ID for all citizens, as well as legal immigrants. That’s really the easiest way to solve the whole problem, but a bunch of privacy nuts (like many on this board) are so adamantly against it that no Republican can include it in their plans.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Apparently you don’t get it.
If they’re here illegally do they have a social security or tax number?
How did they get it?
Oldnuke on January 24, 2008 at 6:25 PM
And yes, you should have to show that mandatory ID to vote.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I did make a mistake. I meant illegal presence, not entry.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Call it what you want, it’s still an illegal act and a criminal one, not administrative. Reentry in some cases is a felony. Overstaying a visa is a misdemeanor, A crime. If you are here illegally are a criminal. Maybe not a serious criminal but a criminal still.
Oldnuke on January 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
The government does not deal with cases of illegal presence as crimes.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Hmmm…
by the nature of being ILLEGAL Immigrants… they are here without permission.
Strike One.
In order to stay here, they have to be able to make a living, or live off the “welfare” state. Either way they need either a Taxpayer ID number, or SSN to work. Because they are here illegaly, they can legaly have neither. So to work for most companies, they HAVE to be commiting Identity theft, or using forged documents.
Either that, or they are working illegaly… another law broken.
Strike Two…
To drive in this country, which you pretty much HAVE to do to work… you have to have a drivers license… and it is illegal for “undocumented aliens” to get drivers licenses in most states… so again… its either identity theft, or using fraudulent docs to drive… or just drive without a license…
So, with all this DISHONESTY going on for an individual to stay in this country… how can you call them “honest”?
Romeo13 on January 24, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Irrelevant to the fact that it is against the law. The government not enforcing it’s own law is a separate problem. The illegal is still breaking a law which makes him/her by definition a criminal.
Oldnuke on January 24, 2008 at 6:38 PM
I haven’t created anything, except a few businesses.
Seven amnesties since 1986 have created the monster. And apologists including Bush, Kennedy, McCain, you, et al, perpetuate it.
Admit it – the anarchy of massive illegal immigration facilitates the minority of drug runners, human traffickers, sexual predators, etc., etc. invading our country. If you insist on excusing the many “honest illegal workers” you also excuse the hardened criminal element that is included in the flood (unless you know about a magic filtering system??). And this flood includes over 140,000 OTM’s annually that are caught (maybe 1/4 of the total) from every terror-sponsoring country in the world.
I apply no such standard. I make no assumptions. I just want ALL of our laws enforced. You obviously prefer anarchy.
Just a misdemeanor – less than a year in jail.
I don’t want them in jail or in court. Just please go home. And attrition through enforcement is working – just listen to this illegal alien.
Here is YOUR backyard in the coming years, with your attitude. (I assume the brothel accepts cash.)
No thanks. I’ll vote for law enforcement.
Back to work. It’s been fun.
fred5678 on January 24, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Chin a bit higher. Saw your note on the other thread, and responded. Also, MB4 shared a great FL article, on Michelle/amnesty thread, with things looking up, at least a bit more than this morning.
On your latter point, not to worry. You’re not the first one :) Ok, I blushed (sensitive to blush, but not enough to not
saywrite it – the product of a great love, of two very different parents, for good, and for bad).On serious note, not giving up, and still hopeful. Out of the fire we might yet spring.
Entelechy on January 24, 2008 at 6:50 PM
fred5678, I’m always glad when you link to that video. Please do so in every amnesty-related thread. That is 15-20 min. from my place and next to multi-million dollars homes. The pretty madonnas pick them up in their very fancy sportscars, for all kinds of cheap labor. Mind you they are married to very rich liberals, or exploiting Capitalists. But the liberals are for ‘change’, ‘human rights’, and ‘progress’. Yep, we believe everything we hear!
Entelechy on January 24, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Ah, nativism.
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Ah… open border Anarchist…
Romeo13 on January 24, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Big S on January 24, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Borders, Language, Culture…dude without it no sovereignty only balkanization, no understanding only confusion, no assimulation only dissimulation…anarchy, chaos, death and destruction…like manhatten island in Batman Begins.
RedLizard64 on January 24, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Ah, name calling… the last resort of someone who cannot logically defend their position.
dominigan on January 24, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I agree, it’s only a matter of time before the “racist!” screaming begins. Then you know you have won the argument.
If illegal entry and presence are so minor, I am coming over to your house to make myself at home, Big S. After all, I am only trying to make a better life for myself.
petit bourgeois on January 25, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Bêtes noirs
Tzetzes on January 25, 2008 at 3:35 AM
Seriously, why do some people get all heated up about a high profile person in a Republican Administration when you don’t know the first thing about their beliefs? I remember when there was talk of Colin Powell running for office, then it was Condi Rice… Neither one actually ran the State Department as conservatives wished, and neither actually seems very conservative when you here them talk. Just because you are doing a good job for a Republican doesn’t translate into being a good Republican. Also just because you are in the military doesn’t make you conservative (Wesley Clark anyone)?
robsaye on January 25, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Jeff Sessions is NAILS.
otcconan on January 25, 2008 at 10:19 AM
I am an Alabama girl and I am very proud of Jeff Sessions. If you recall, Sessions was the one who brought the amnesty sham into the light of day.
kcd on January 25, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Comment pages: