Barbour lobbied for mini-amnesty? Update: Barbour issues denial

posted at 10:55 am on February 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has been refreshingly candid about his career as a lobbyist as he gears up for a run at the Republican presidential nomination, given the disfavor into which lobbying has fallen with voters.  Time Magazine’s latest revelation may test that approach to its limits within the conservative sphere of the party.  Michael Scherer reports that Barbour lobbied for a “mini-amnesty” during the early years of the George W. Bush administration, right after 9/11:

According to a State Department filing by Barbour’s former lobbying firm, The Embassy of Mexico decided to retain Barbour’s services on August 15, 2001, to work on, among other things, legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for foreigners living illegally in the United States—what opponents of immigration reform call “amnesty.”

“Haley Barbour and I will lead the BG&R team,” wrote Lanny Griffith, Barbour’s former business partner, in the filing. According to subsequent filings, Barbour’s work included “building support in the legislative branch for passage of a bill related to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” As part of that work, Barbour’s firm arranged meetings and briefings with “Senators, members of Congress and their staffs, as well as Executive Branch Officials in the White House, National Security Council, State Department, and Immigration & Naturalization Service.” Barbour’s firm charged Mexico $35,000 a month, plus expenses.

At the time, Mexico was seeking an extension of a provision that allowed undocumented immigrants living in the United States to receive legal visas or green cards without returning to their country of origin, provided they pay an additional fine. In practice, the provision generally helped out undocumented family members of legal immigrants or undocumented immigrants who were eligible for visas based upon certain job skills. Without the provision in place, undocumented immigrants who received legal papers had to return to their country of origin, for three or 10 years, before returning to the U.S. The Congressional Research Service estimated that an extension would put benefit about 300,000 undocumented immigrants.

Barbour has actually been rather consistent about his support for normalization.  He spoke about it last year in the context of the recovery from Hurricane Katrina, telling the Hoover Institute that the recovery couldn’t have succeeded without illegal workers:

I don’t know where we would have been in Mississippi after Katrina if it hadn’t been with the Spanish speakers that came in to help rebuild. And there’s no doubt in my mind some of them were here illegally. Some of them were, some of them weren’t. But they came in, they looked for the work. If they hadn’t been there — if they hadn’t come and stayed for a few months or a couple years — we would be way, way, way behind where we are now. . . . A lot of it is just common sense. And common sense tell us we’re not going to take 10 or 12 or 14 million people and put them in jail and deport them. We’re not gonna do it, and we need to quit — some people need to quit acting like we are and let’s talk about real solutions.

Time may have done Barbour a favor by getting this out now, although clearly it wasn’t in Barbour’s plans to do so.  Scherer framed this as the lobbying that Barbour omitted from his Fox News Sunday interview.  As with most damaging revelations on policy or personal lives, early exposure allows for damage control and the opportunity for recovery.

However, Barbour’s framing of the problem may do even more damage than the lobbying for the mini-amnesty.  Few people actually argue for attempting to round up 14 million people and forcibly deporting them.  The mainstream conservative viewpoint focuses on border security and visa reform first above all other changes or reforms.  By securing both the southern and the northern border and creating a visa system that tracks recipients and flags expirations in real time, we can stop the inflow; by enforcing immigration and employment law, we can accelerate the outflow.  The economic downturn and state-based enforcement has proven that illegal immigrants respond to enforcement and economic pressure without mass detention and deportations.

Once we have secured the nation, which Congress has shamefully failed to do in the nine-plus years since 9/11, then we can debate how best to address the smaller number of those who remain, most likely the illegal immigrants who have been in the US for years.  That problem will be easier to solve, with the added benefit of not incentivizing more illegal immigration as a result.

Perhaps Barbour might adopt this as a new direction, or perhaps he will remain consistent on his position.  At any rate, it’s now out in the open for debate.

Update: Haley Barbour released this statement in response:

“One reason I’ve been successful as Governor is that I’m plain-spoken and use common sense. I tell people what I think, not what I think they want to hear.

“Before there can be immigration reform, we must secure our borders. Only after that can any reforms be achieved, and those can’t include amnesty.

“Everybody knows we are not going to put ten or twelve million people in jail and deport them. Once the border is secure, we should develop a responsible guest-worker program and it can’t include amnesty.”

Barbour’s press team released a statement that categorically denies working on the mini-amnesty: “In their work on immigration issues, BGR never advocated amnesty for illegal aliens.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

I don’t have any problem with going back to Lincoln’s vision of immigration. None at all.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 11:00 AM

If they hadn’t been there — if they hadn’t come and stayed for a few months or a couple years — we would be way, way, way behind where we are now

In other words: “I don’t believe Americans could have done it themselves.”

Good luck in 2012.

Bishop on February 14, 2011 at 11:03 AM

He represented the government of Mexico in an attempt to push amnesty for illegals. Despicable.

Mark1971 on February 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

We didn’t have 16% unemployment during Katrina, Haley. Is that why you forgot omitted it on Fox?

a capella on February 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

So America is nothing without a class of pseudo slave labor is that what you are saying Haley?

Rocks on February 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Stick a fork in him – he’s done

LincolntheHun on February 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM

See-ah-ay ee-aht aye-unt sah-ow.

steebo77 on February 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM

is it ok if I keep calling him Fat Boy?

Kaptain Amerika on February 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Let’s face it, the GOP likes to feed us tough talk on immigration and border security, but really doesn’t want to do any of it in practice. You can see Graham, McCain and company already going soft again in the Senate. A message needs to be sent, and the best way to do that now would be to run an anti-illegal immigration candidate against Flake in the GOP primary.

Mark1971 on February 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Undoubtedly, illegals actually contributed to the rebuilding efforts. Instead would it have not been better to issue valid temporary work visas as is done for some farming?

There was definitely a widespread labor shortage along the Gulf Coast post Katrina with a lot of work needing to be accomplished. Even with the presence of illegals there was a backlog for many contractors. If a homeowner did not have “connections” (meaning personally knowing a contractor and/or various subcontractors) it was a get in line situation and that line was up to or over a year long wait.

Posing as legal immigrants is not a problem since they can easily obtain fraudulent documentation and ID’s as required by law at time of employment by company owners.

Kermit on February 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Let’s face it, the GOP likes to feed us tough talk on immigration and border security, but really doesn’t want to do any of it in practice. You can see Graham, McCain and company already going soft again in the Senate. A message needs to be sent

Mark1971 on February 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM

I agree…and the same can be said for GOP actions towards entitlements.

search4truth on February 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM

“$35,000 a month, plus expenses” to sell the soul of his nation to a cartel of Mexican slave masters who seek to depopulate Mexico of its welfare state obligations. FU, Haley. FU, Mexico. FU, RINOs. Basta!

Western_Civ on February 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM

I assume this means the WSJ will endorse him immediately.

a capella on February 14, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Wasn’t planning to support Barbour before, so this is just the final nail in his presidential coffin.

My simple rule is: illegal is illegal, and all the tap-dancing from amnesty supporters doesn’t change that.

We don’t need another hack sellout as president.

MrScribbler on February 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM

So America is nothing without a class of pseudo slave labor is that what you are saying Haley?

Rocks on February 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM

No, that’s the anti-citizenship side. Legalizing these people means full protection under the law. No more nannies or factory workers who are held captive to low wages by their employers with a threat of disclosure to the authorities of their illegal status.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Mark1971 on February 14, 2011 at 11:09 AM

I agree…and the same can be said for GOP actions towards entitlements.

search4truth on February 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM

.
Mighty broad brush you two are using, yes we have squishes and RINOs but to paint everyone as being in lock step with McCain and Graham is like my saying all Dems are crooks because Representative Alcee Hastings old job was a Federal judge before he was impeached.

LincolntheHun on February 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Barbour has actually been rather consistent about his support for normalization.

WTF is “normalization,” Ed? You going softer on us?

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Save your money, Haley Barbour. You don’t have a chance.

Key West Reader on February 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM

No, that’s the anti-citizenship side. Legalizing these people means full protection under the law. No more nannies or factory workers who are held captive to low wages by their employers with a threat of disclosure to the authorities of their illegal status.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM

I know another way to avoid this unpleasantness. Don’t come here illegally.

It’s not up to us to make everything OK for these criminals.

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM

The MS House of Rep just passed an Arizona style immigration measure recently. The state Senate has not taken it up yet, but if they do pass it, will Haley sign it?
This is not the biggest problem that Haley will have in a national election, believe me.

d1carter on February 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM

No, that’s the anti-citizenship side. Legalizing these people means full protection under the law. No more nannies or factory workers who are held captive to low wages by their employers with a threat of disclosure to the authorities of their illegal status.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM

I was referring to his comments about rebuilding after Katrina.

Rocks on February 14, 2011 at 11:22 AM

It seems mo is also trying to get amnesty here also. One very important thing that will determine who I vote for, NO amnesty and deal with the border!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/143691-michelle-obama-urges-latino-community-to-pressure-gop-to-support-immigration-bill
L

letget on February 14, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Legalizing these people means full protection under the law. No more nannies or factory workers who are held captive to low wages by their employers with a threat of disclosure to the authorities of their illegal status.
unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM

.
So allowing 10 or 12 million people into the country with minimal skills, high fecundity and a welfare mentality ready to bankrupt me to help the “less fortunate”, is a good idea why?
To prevent the victimization of criminals?
I guess you agree with Great Britain, in that the home owner is responsible for any injuries sustained by a burglar?

LincolntheHun on February 14, 2011 at 11:25 AM

This thread’s not over until Rightwingyahoo has thrown his two cents worth in.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

My simple rule is: illegal is illegal, and all the tap-dancing from amnesty supporters doesn’t change that.

MrScribbler on February 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Unfortunately, Scrib, it’s not that simple. I don’t know why politicians constantly get crud for mentioning anything that is perceived to be “amnesty”…which is a term I still need a definition for.

I do agree we need to protect our borders, and do all we can to keep illegal immigration to it’s bare minimum. But the only alternative to some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals here already is to have them arrested and deported immediately.

And that, my friend, is impossible…not to mention the families torn apart and the debacle of the economic impact that will have, not only is direct costs but as a result as well.

Any POTUS wannabe should address the illegal problem, and needs to be realistic about “amnesty”…which does not mean automatic citizenship for illegals, you know. Heck, even Sarah Palin realizes that.

We’ve ignored this problem for too long, and it’s too late to simply flip the switch on again.

JetBoy on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM

What do you mean going softer? Ed was Backdoor John McCain’s biggest fan. McCain was Captain Amnesty. You can’t support one without supporting the other.

austinnelly on February 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM

We have over 20% real unemployment, and this guy is talking up illegal immigrants?

Dolt.

Rebar on February 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM

So allowing 10 or 12 million people into the country with minimal skills, high fecundity and a welfare mentality ready to bankrupt me to help the “less fortunate”, is a good idea why?
To prevent the victimization of criminals?
I guess you agree with Great Britain, in that the home owner is responsible for any injuries sustained by a burglar?

LincolntheHun on February 14, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Also to attract 24-36 million more new illegal immigrants over the next 15-20 years. Because when they see that we granted amnesty and full access to the welfare state, they’re not going to STOP coming.

That’s what history tells us, anyway.

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM

This is a really good blog post on the failures of the conservative movement.

http://blog.atimes.net/?p=1677

Vatican Watcher on February 14, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I do agree we need to protect our borders, and do all we can to keep illegal immigration to it’s bare minimum. But the only alternative to some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals here already is to have them arrested and deported immediately.

No, it isn’t. Close the border and make e-verify mandatory. They will go home on their own. If they want to apply for immigration visas back home then good for them.

Rocks on February 14, 2011 at 11:31 AM

What do you mean going softer? Ed was Backdoor John McCain’s biggest fan. McCain was Captain Amnesty. You can’t support one without supporting the other.

austinnelly on February 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Yeah, but “normalization” is a new one on me. It’s as Orwellian as lib-speak.

I think Ed is growing in office. Maturing. Becoming more bi-partisan. Willing to meet the other side halfway.

You know. Becoming more liberal.

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Unfortunately, Scrib, it’s not that simple. I don’t know why politicians constantly get crud for mentioning anything that is perceived to be “amnesty”…which is a term I still need a definition for.

JetBoy on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

“Amnesty” is simply writing into law one’s refusal to prosecute another for crimes already committed. It is basically ex-post-facto repeal of a law. As relates to immigration, amnesty is the wholesale forgiveness of people that have broken the law by being here without citizenship or applicable visas.

How’s that work for you?

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 11:33 AM

But the only alternative to some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals here already is to have them arrested and deported immediately.

C’mon JetBoy. This is dishonest as hell. Because we could also start enforcing the laws, and reduce the illegal population through attrition.

Insultingly dishonest.

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 11:35 AM

JetBoy on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

.
The real problem of illegals is twofold, one their countries don’t want them back, they already have high unemployment why add to it? Two, Mexico needs illegals to send money back; the country is economically dependent upon it. If we shipped them all back tomorrow there is a real risk of Mexico collapsing.
We are a safety value for Mexican incompetence and corruption.
It needs to stop.

LincolntheHun on February 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Ugh!

Levinite on February 14, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Barbour must be gaining traction. The LSM is on the attack.

publiuspen on February 14, 2011 at 11:42 AM

We’ve ignored this problem for too long, and it’s too late to simply flip the switch on again.

JetBoy on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Sorry, JB, but I can’t buy this.

I can think of any number of laws we’d all love to violate — you know, tax laws, unduly restrictive building codes, dog-license laws, and so on. Do you want to hand out free passes for those because everyone wants to do it?

I’d rather see stepped-up enforcement at the border, stopping all government benefits for illegals and stringent application of E-verify and similar programs. For humanitarian reasons, I’d be willing to see paid bus fare for illegals who go home, too.

Once one law goes down the drain, the flood begins. I’m not willing to see illegals as the thin end of the wedge.

MrScribbler on February 14, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I’d rather see stepped-up enforcement at the border,

Unfortunately, the House GOP is currently doing the opposite. As part of their $100 billion in cuts they are slashing funding for border enforcement.

Jon0815 on February 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Close the border and start throwing employers in prison. Enforce every single law already on the books.

Make it impossible for illegals to be here.

They won’t be able to find work, no welfare, no medial, nothin’ They’ll self deport.

We have enough laws on the books.

Haley is done. No telling who else he lobbied for.

gary4205 on February 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM

An insider is as an insider does.

FloatingRock on February 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM

it’s too late to simply flip the switch on again.

JetBoy on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Damn, Jet, you’re reaching. Care to back up this statement with any logic or facts? Flat assertions aren’t very convincing.

Oh, and the switch was never on.

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Unfortunately, Scrib, it’s not that simple.

JetBoy on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Honestly, it really is that simple. Rewarding negative behavior, even unintentionally, results in more of it. It’s an unavoidable fact of life.

FloatingRock on February 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Barbour/Gingrich ’12!

/prostitution party

Ward Cleaver on February 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Haley’s family comes from the old South where you had wealthy landowners using slaves rather than hiring and paying the local help, who were dirt poor and needed the money.

They loved that system so much they were willing to go to war to preserve it.

I see these new amnesty types that way. They are basically instituting a new feudalism in America.

They are the lords, we are the serfs.

What they don’t realize is that once they’ve opened Pandora’s box with amnesty, the whirlwind will be their reward.

If the political class in this country gets what they want and destroys the incentive for the middle class to keep following the rules, they may regret it more than they think.

I speak to building contractors all the time, and the conversations go roughly like this:

“I can’t make it without these illegals. They work hard, and the locals don’t even show up. I can pay them half what I pay a local, or less, which puts money in my pocket.”

-well, you’re ruining the middle class around here. All the locals are out of work, and they can’t support the local businesses. You’re hollowing out the town, man…..

“I don’t give a damn, I’ve got money to show for it.”

Well, they are are going for amnesty, and once that happens you’ll be looking at losing your business, because they will unionize, and run your company for you…..

Well, I’ll either break the union with more immigrants, or i’ll have enough money by then to retire to Costa Rica. I don’t care either way.”

And that is the typical Chamber of Commerce position.

How can we break this cycle? Only by insisting that the immigration laws are strictly enforced, and by refusing candidates who are bought and paid for by the immigration lobby.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Honestly, it really is that simple. Rewarding negative behavior, even unintentionally, results in more of it. It’s an unavoidable fact of life.

FloatingRock on February 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM

You see it on welfare doles and in tax law every day.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

In other words: “I don’t believe Americans could have done it themselves.”

Good luck in 2012.

Bishop on February 14, 2011 at 11:03 AM

As a Mississippian who was involved in the recovery efforts after Katrina, let me assure everyone here: Barbour is NOT saying this.

You have to understand – and for anyone who didn’t go through it, it’s just very difficult to fathom – the enormity of the destruction caused by Katrina. Mexican immigrants – legal and illegal – provided invaluable labor support in the rebuilding effort.

You just have to stop for a second and understand the scope of the destruction: There was complete – and by that I mean total, nuclear-apocalypse-type – destruction along the coast over an area larger than the island of Manhattan.

The lower third of the state saw destruction that boggles the mind. The middle third of the state suffered damage that is once-in-a-generation in scope.

The details of what Barbour did under retainer from the Mexican Embassy I don’t know, but his remark about Katrina is about the enormity of the destruction and the rebuilding effort, and the fact that we simply didn’t have enough people among the native population to do it as quickly as we did.

greggriffith on February 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM

I don’t have any problem with going back to Lincoln’s vision of immigration. None at all.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 11:00 AM

only if we go back to Lincoln’s view of welfare, handouts, free healthcare, free schools etc.

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Wait, I said “Manhattan.” I meant “Long Island.”

greggriffith on February 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

The details of what Barbour did under retainer from the Mexican Embassy I don’t know, but his remark about Katrina is about the enormity of the destruction and the rebuilding effort, and the fact that we simply didn’t have enough people among the native population to do it as quickly as we did.

greggriffith on February 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM

So he is saying that Americans couldn’t have done it themselves. You ever thought of running for office? You’d make a great politican.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

As with most damaging revelations on policy or personal lives, early exposure allows for damage control and the opportunity for recovery.

Ed I think that is mostly “pre-web” thinking. Before early exposure allowed campaigns to spins it, survive it and forget it. The web gives campaigns less abilitiy to spins things, survival is still based on the canididate him/herself.

but has far as forget it the web has taken the short-term memory problems of voters and given them long long long term memories. People no longer forget because others no longer allow them too.

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Barbour never had a shot regardless of this… and something like this wouldn’t necessarily kill someone’s chances.

ninjapirate on February 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

and the fact that we simply didn’t have enough people among the native population to do it as quickly as we did.

greggriffith on February 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM

So, take your time and wait a little longer. The country is being wrecked for your (and others’) convenience, try to put the country before yourself.

People like you will praise the illegals, say we need amnesty, and then when Texas and Florida turn deep blue, and the R party is locked out of government permanently, you’ll complain.

THINK.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Barbour never had a shot regardless of this… and something like this wouldn’t necessarily kill someone’s chances.

ninjapirate on February 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Maybe not, but sloppy grammar in an Email that was never supposed to be publicized would sure kill Sarah Palin’s chances, huh?

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

I for one am glad that I have a candidate that doesn’t fold on her core beliefs when people start waving money around….unlike Barbour….

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM

I for one am glad that I have a candidate that doesn’t fold on her core beliefs when people start waving money around….unlike Barbour….

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Well after hearing Barbour talk like this, I’m beginning to believe that one of his core beliefs is amnesty.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

But you won’t believe it when Palin talks the same way, will you?

Lot of Palinistas in here, insisting on attrition of current illegals back to Mexico, which is the way to do it.

But they are ignoring that their chosen savior has no intention of taking their advice, but rather John McCain’s….

HELLO????

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

HELLO????

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

I’ve been waiting this entire thread for that to happen.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Well after hearing Barbour talk like this, I’m beginning to believe that one of his core beliefs is amnesty.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

could be….

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

I’ve been waiting this entire thread for that to happen.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:48 PM

ROFL….

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:50 PM

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

care explain how they are saying the same thing when Barbour is against the AZ immigration law and Palin is for it?

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM

care explain how they are saying the same thing when Barbour is against the AZ immigration law and Palin is for it?

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Don’t even bother. It’s not worth the keystrokes.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:56 PM

However, Barbour’s framing of the problem may do even more damage than the lobbying for the mini-amnesty. Few people actually argue for attempting to round up 14 million people and forcibly deporting them.

The framing of the problem is the key. The mantra of the amnesty gang (to oppose amnesty means to support Nazism) is a declaration of war against anyone who dares disagree

This is more than a bad choice of words, or a studied talking point. This stems from a belief that borders and border law no longer matter, for the higher good

Since borders are defended by law, and the laws are on the books, we have a group of elites who need the law ignored because the citizens refuse to rewrite the law to eliminate borders

Sovereignity is the issue and to the amnesty crowd the new sovereignity is expedience above all. Notice how Barbour wraps his explanation in the need to utilize services the citizens stubbornly refuse to make available

At the point the foolish sovereignity is broken, and borders dissolve, services will become so available folk like Barbour can move from ‘Spanish speakers’ to Hindi and Cantonese. Further they will have eliminated the roadblock of begging permission from the surly electorate to expedite the fulfilment of their every global need

When I hear the pro amnesty mantra, I cross the name off my list. I dont need to elect someone bent of removing the will of the populace from the equation

entagor on February 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Doesn’t matter. obviously.

Here we go with the mental blocks again……why! won’t! this wig! come off!……

What matters is Palin would grant the same legal status to 20 million illegals that Barbour would, and that would place a far left ticking time bomb in our electorate, that would go off in some number of years, and finish us off as a free Republic.

HELLO?????

I must say, the obtuseness on behalf on a PERSONALITY is frustrating.

Back in 2007, you could not get anywhere with the Rudy supporters, who refused to consider his positions on the issues, simply because they were infatuated with him.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM

entagor on February 14, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Good post.

Do you realize that Sarah Palin also supports legal status for current illegals, once the border is secure?

Well here:

O’REILLY: Now, you have these people that register. You’re going to have millions of them. Then they register and they say, OK, we obeyed what President Palin told us to do. Then what? Do you give them green cards to work right away? What do you do with them?

PALIN: You know, there has to be that expectation that they will work and that they will contribute. Bill, it makes me uncomfortable that we’re even going down that path so far…

O’REILLY: You have to though.

PALIN: …when — no, no.

O’REILLY: You have to go down the path because it’s going to come up.

PALIN: American citizens who are here lawfully, they need to be the ones with the first shot at getting these jobs. We cannot make it easy on those who have chosen to be illegally here to disobey our laws. No.

O’REILLY: No, we can’t make it easy, but they’re here. And we can’t starve them to death. And if they can’t work, if they don’t have a green card to work, they’re going to be hosed. I mean, they got to pay rent, they got to buy groceries…

PALIN: Well…

O’REILLY: …this, that and the other thing. So this is where it gets very complicated, governor. You know, it gets very, very complicated…

PALIN: No.

O’REILLY: …because you are rewarding bad behavior. You’re letting them stay in the United States. And they came in illegally.

PALIN: Then let’s keep it — then we won’t complicate it anymore. Let’s keep it simple. And let’s say no, if you are here illegally, and if you don’t follow the steps that at some point through immigration reform we’re going to be able to provide, and that is to somehow allow to you work. If you’re not going to do that, then you will be deported. You will be gone.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/how-sarah-palin-would-tackle-illegal-immigration?page=2#ixzz1DxQUUHA2

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Don’t even bother. It’s not worth the keystrokes.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Yes sadly, I know. I just want others to know they have 100% difference on immigration. One of the things I am looking forward to in the primaries is that people will have a clear choice. Not a Mitt/McCain/huck choice like 2008 where is was just different flavores of liberalism on display but a real choice between conservativsm and rinoism with people like Cain and Palin and West on the scene.

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM

HELLO?????

I must say, the obtuseness on behalf on a PERSONALITY is frustrating.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 12:59 PM

So who’s your favorite presumptive candidate so far? I don’t think I’ve ever heard you speak out for anyone.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM

I’m starting to root for Pawlenty, who gets a C+ from NumbersUSA, and who does not (at least so far) use weasel words when talking about immigration.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html?jid=830874&lid=9&rid=16026&tid=386817

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:05 PM

One of the things I am looking forward to in the primaries is that people will have a clear choice. Not a Mitt/McCain/huck choice like 2008 where is was just different flavores of liberalism on display but a real choice between conservativsm and rinoism with people like Cain and Palin and West on the scene.

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 1:02 PM

That is, of course, assuming that Palin does run. Believe me, I’ve been doing my share of thinking about what I’ll do if she doesn’t, or if she doesn’t make it as far as my state’s relatively late primary.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Y

es sadly, I know. I just want others to know they have 100% difference on immigration

No, they agree on legal status for illegals, and immigration reform.

They may disagree on fine points, but to say that is 100% is laughable.

You crazy personality worshipers are going to be sorry, I’m warning you.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I’m starting to root for Pawlenty, who gets a C+ from NumbersUSA, and who does not (at least so far) use weasel words when talking about immigration.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Oh he’ll use weasel words. If not immigration, it will be something else. Anyone who really believes that their favorite politicians don’t use weasel words or engineered votes is hopelessly naive.

But if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, maybe you should spend more time stumping for Pawlenty and less time criticizing us for our choices. You’re not any more likely to sway us than we are to sway you, and directing your efforts in the right direction might actually enhance T-Paw’s chances of winning the nomination.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM

But the only alternative to some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals here already is to have them arrested and deported immediately.

That is such an idiotic strawman that everybody who claims to want to be rational about it uses, showing that they just want to be dishonest and try and demonize those who disagree (“oh you want to round pepople up and put them in camps”). So, congrats on that.

Nobody, nobody, nobody who is at all serious ever proposes “rounding up” 12 million people. And you know it. You just chose to ignore it b/c you know you have no logical or persuasive arguments for legalizing everyone who wants to come to america.

You also know that illegals react to stimuli just like anyone else.

So, you know that if we actually enforce the border, and enforce employment laws, and stop allowing for sanctuary cities and welfare benefits for illegals, a vast majority will migrate back from whence they came. So enough with the ridiculous straw man argument about rounding people up and/or deporting people in the millions.

Nobody in their right mind wants to legalize 12 million illegals, many of them criminals (and not just talking about breaking immigration laws) and most with no education, no real skills, and no real prospects for full employment.

What happens when we legalize these people and they can demand proper wages? Well then, those employers will start looking either for the next wave of illegals to hire at low wages (which will happen), or be forced to pay wages that american citizens will want to work for. Either way, these new legalized people will not have work, or at least not enough work to support themselves.

This idea that we can “normalize” or legalize, or whatever, 12 million illegals and we won’t be inundated with the same all over again is so childish and stupid it is unimaginable how anyone can argue for it in good conscience or with a straight face.

America does not “owe” these people anything. We have no moral duty to make them citizens, or legalize them, or provide them with benefits or jobs or anything else. Are there good decent people among the illegals? Of course. But that does not mean taht we as a nation owe them anything. They knew the deal when they came here. They knew the risk and decided to take it. I understand that decision to try and make a better life. But again, that does not translate into america owing them anything. Our gov’t has a moral duty to its citizens, which includes reasonable and rational immigration laws and border security. Our gov’t has no moral obligation to illegals who took a risk and have managed to live here illegally for years.

Indeed, perhaps if these 12 million or so people had tried to make their socialist country less corrupt and silly economically, they could have found jobs there. All of the leftists who want amnesty (I don’t even know what that means. try “legalizing people who are here illegally” – is that clear enough for you?)?

Why is it that people believe that America is the one country in the world that is not allowed to have immigration laws, or border security?

It is insane.

I know, why don’t we just stop any border enforcememt whatsoever and make anyone who is standing on u.s. soil at any time a citizen? Why not? What is the difference?

At what point is it too much? What if 100 million chinese decide to move here? Should we legalize them as well? After all, tehy are just looknig for a better life and we can’t “round them all up and deport them”. Might as well just make them citizens.

So juvenile and stupid.

Monkeytoe on February 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Have we come to the conclusion yet that most of our politicians are not “in it to win it” for our country,
however ARE “in it to win it” for themselves along with
various friends and relatives?

It is time to not give any of them the benefit of the doubt.
They all need to be vetted thoroughly, then when elected
watched like a hawk.

Amjean on February 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Not a Mitt/McCain/huck choice like 2008 where is was just different flavores of liberalism on display but a real choice between conservativsm and rinoism

In fact, Palin was closer to McCain on immigration, than she was to Romney, who opposed amnesty.

Of course, the problem with Romney is talk vs action. But for what its worth, Palin did not differ from McCain on immigration.

Now, she is to the right of him on border security, but after the illegals get legal status, the country will be screwed regardless of what happens to the border.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:09 PM

One other issue – I hope we are through with letting
the media do our “vetting”.

It is time to research records.

Amjean on February 14, 2011 at 1:09 PM

You’re not any more likely to sway us than we are to sway you,

Yes, I’ll be working against Palin, should she be running in the FL primaries, and my weapon will be the immigration issue and her above quotes.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Now, she is to the right of him on border security, but after the illegals get legal status, the country will be screwed regardless of what happens to the border.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:09 PM

You go right ahead and vote for T-Paw, buddy. Your energy would be better spent stumping for him than continuing your inane blathering along this line.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM

You go right ahead and vote for T-Paw, buddy. Your energy would be better spent stumping for him than continuing your inane blathering along this line.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I, and HOTAIR, will be the judge of that. thanks though.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM

I, and HOTAIR, will be the judge of that. thanks though.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Uh, I really don’t think you’re going to convince anyone, but you’re right; if you want to waste your time by writing, I’m under no obligation to waste mine by reading it. Have a nice day.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I’m under no obligation to waste mine by reading it. Have a nice day.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:13 PM

And you as well, amnesty hypocrite.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

And you as well, amnesty hypocrite.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Oh thanks for making it personal, douchebag. Find me a single post that I have ever written here on the subject of amnesty, and then you can call me a hypocrite.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I do agree we need to protect our borders, and do all we can to keep illegal immigration to it’s bare minimum. But the only alternative to some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals here already is to have them arrested and deported immediately.

And that, my friend, is impossible…not to mention the families torn apart and the debacle of the economic impact that will have, not only is direct costs but as a result as well.

Any POTUS wannabe should address the illegal problem, and needs to be realistic about “amnesty”…which does not mean automatic citizenship for illegals, you know. Heck, even Sarah Palin realizes that.

We’ve ignored this problem for too long, and it’s too late to simply flip the switch on again.

JetBoy on February 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Do no lie. Enforce current law, secure the border. That’s the solution.

You sir, are seeking to undermine the conservative movement, as well as Christianity.

I’m amazed at how many embrace you here.

True_King on February 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I believe Palin is for closing the borders first then putting a program together to deal with those that are already here – some
for decades….a path to citizenship for those with jobs and families….deportation for criminals, etc. Making
employers face responsibility for hiring illegals in the
first place. It is a complex problem; no simple solutions
besides not allowing it to happen in the first place.

Face facts: We can’t just evict 12 million people.
That is not doable or ethical. We must own up to our
own government’s culpability in allowing illegal immigration to go on for so long.

Amjean on February 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Yes, I’ll be working against Palin, should she be running in the FL primaries, and my weapon will be the immigration issue and her above quotes.

You are going to be working against a candidate? Not for a candidate? That says it all.

Amjean on February 14, 2011 at 1:22 PM

You are going to be working against a candidate? Not for a candidate? That says it all.

Amjean on February 14, 2011 at 1:22 PM

+1

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM

I know another way to avoid this unpleasantness. Don’t come here illegally.

It’s not up to us to make everything OK for these criminals.

misterpeasea on February 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I submit that it is. Anyone who is otherwise legal (“otherwise” means that illegal immigrant status does not count against them, but other crimes, including those performed in their native countries, do) should be allowed a path to citizenship. That was the immigration ideal of Abraham Lincoln, and I think it’s just fine. Abraham Lincoln dispised the Know Nothings — which party is closed to those spouting anti-immigrant rants of the sort you are espousing.

I cannot be a Know Nothing, just as Lincoln could not:

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].

By “foreigners” Lincoln probably meant the Chinese, who were, at the time, a particular target of western state Know Nothings. Nowadays, we’d substitute “Mexicans” to that position in the Know Nothing pantheon of undesirables.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM

So allowing 10 or 12 million people into the country with minimal skills, high fecundity and a welfare mentality ready to bankrupt me to help the “less fortunate”, is a good idea why?
To prevent the victimization of criminals?
I guess you agree with Great Britain, in that the home owner is responsible for any injuries sustained by a burglar?

LincolntheHun on February 14, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Huh? I see dozens of these “welfare mentality” people looking for work over at the Home Depot every day?

As for burglars, that’s your characterization of the standard illegal immigrant, not mine. They are part of “the people” as defined in the Constitution, and are subject to all of its rights and all of its obligations while they are here.

If they come across the border without permission, fine to deport them — although I’m working to make sure that the ones I classed in my previous comment have a path to citizenship. It was an evil day when we started down the road to the immigration laws we have, for they are rooted in racism and xenophobia. Just as the Chinese suffered under those laws, so do the Mexicans now.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM

As for burglars, that’s your characterization of the standard illegal immigrant, not mine. They are part of “the people” as defined in the Constitution, and are subject to all of its rights and all of its obligations while they are here.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Since when did the constitution apply to non-citizens? Dude, you’d best not even go there.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM

I was referring to his comments about rebuilding after Katrina.

Rocks on February 14, 2011 at 11:22 AM

I’m at a loss as to which of Haley’s comments you refer. I missed the gist of your commentary. I can see upon rereading that my counter-comment was off the mark (although it reflects my thinking on what many anti-immigration people want to have happen). So, please link the Haley statment you find objectionable.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Since when did the constitution apply to non-citizens? Dude, you’d best not even go there.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:42 PM

All those parts where they don’t use the word “citizen” and instead use the word “persons” or “people”.

Try the 14th Amendment to get a clue — both words are used there, and note that the restrictions on deprivation of life, liberty or property extend to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens.

So yes, I am indeed going there, and doubling down. Care to fold?

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Oh thanks for making it personal, douchebag. Find me a single post that I have ever written here on the subject of amnesty, and then you can call me a hypocrite.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM

You’re missing the point. My point is you’re railing against amnesty, while supporting a candidate who offers it.

You are going to be working against a candidate? Not for a candidate? That says it all.

Amjean on February 14, 2011 at 1:22 PM

+1

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Now you’re throwing in with an amnesty supporter. See what happens when you follow personalities, rather than principles?

although I’m working to make sure that the ones I classed in my previous comment have a path to citizenship. It was an evil day when we started down the road to the immigration laws we have, for they are rooted in racism and xenophobia. Just as the Chinese suffered under those laws, so do the Mexicans now.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM

You are an utter lunatic, and if you get your way, the USA will resemble Mexico very closely, very soon.

I know you don’t care about that, but some of us do, and you are our enemy, just like the left is our enemy.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:56 PM

It was an evil day when we started down the road to the immigration laws we have

Every country on earth has immigration laws, most of them far more stringent than ours.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Just as the Chinese suffered under those laws, so do the Mexicans now.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM

They have a choice, they can stay home.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 2:04 PM

All those parts where they don’t use the word “citizen” and instead use the word “persons” or “people”.

Try the 14th Amendment to get a clue — both words are used there, and note that the restrictions on deprivation of life, liberty or property extend to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens.

So yes, I am indeed going there, and doubling down. Care to fold?

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Absolutely not. If “persons” applied to everyone within our borders, why not the whole world? How come the constitution applies to people within our borders that can run right back across the border just as easily?

The fourteenth amendment being used to apply the constitution to non-citizens is an unconstitutional gloss in the same vein of Marbury vs. Madison.

gryphon202 on February 14, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Well thats enogh,he wont get our votes. Tell Mr.Barbour to tell it to the citizrns familes who’s loved ones are being murdered by people who should have been deported already.. Such as the case in the news today…

PTN 39 on February 14, 2011 at 2:25 PM

The mainstream conservative viewpoint focuses on border security and visa reform first above all other changes or reforms. By securing both the southern and the northern border and creating a visa system that tracks recipients and flags expirations in real time, we can stop the inflow; by enforcing immigration and employment law, we can accelerate the outflow. The economic downturn and state-based enforcement has proven that illegal immigrants respond to enforcement and economic pressure without mass detention and deportations.

That’s the most sensible, succinct statement on illegal immigration I think I have ever read. Ed of ICE Czar!

Knott Buyinit on February 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Haley Barbour was a joke from the beginning, of course somehow Palin somehow came into the debate in a post about Haley. Hot Air should send that woman royalties.

Africanus on February 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM

my limtus test on immigration is support or opposition to the Az immigration law. If they oppose it like Barbour he is a non starter for me. If we can’t even enforce the law then we as a country are finished. Barbour has places politcal points above the countries needs. We need to go another way. Barbour should save his money and time. This is a deal breaker for me…

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Hot Air should send that woman royalties.

Africanus on February 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM

So true. It is telling that all the candidates are judged against Palin. On immigration Haley is to the way left of Palin.

unseen on February 14, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Not according to NumbersUSA, which gives both candidates a D- on the issue.

rightwingyahooo on February 14, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2