Herman Cain indicated today that he does not agree with Newt Gingrich’s position on immigration.
“The way I would deal with those that are already here, which has been my stated position: empower the states to deal with the illegals that are already here, not some, big, grandiose, national one size fit-all. I believe that the states should be empowered to deal with the illegals that are already here,” Cain said CNN’s State of the Union this morning.
In response to whether that meant the states could allow illegal immigrants to “be put on a path toward legalization and toward citizenship,” Cain answered, “It would be up to the states as long as they did not break the federal law.”
But when Crowley used the word “amnesty,” inquiring if that it meant it would be “okay” if the states granted “some sort of amnesty to those who are already living here,” Cain vehemently denied he supported amnesty.
“I’m not saying that at all,” he said
“Secure the border for real,” Cain continued, speaking about what his plan regarding illegal immigrants is. “Promote the path to citizenship that’s already there, and the path to citizenship that’s already there doesn’t say anything about amnesty. Thirdly, enforce the laws that are already there, but make it easier for companies to be able to enforce the laws. And fourth, empower the states. Don’t give the states any special things to do, just empower them to do within the law what the federal government is not doing.”
How the heck is U.S. citizenship not a federal issue? I think Cain might be a functional retard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk Herman, so what happens in states like California that are flooded with illegals and run by left wing socialists?
Looks like Cain doesn't understand that Congress sets immigration policy.
To solve this problem we need to mandate E-verify nationwide and cut off the jobs and most illegals will go home over time. Problem solved.
Great for American taxpayers and jobless citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEh? So California has one immigration policy that allows entry into the US, but Arizona does not. However, the immigrant then moves from California to Arizona via Interstate 10. Is Arizona going to put up checkpoints at the CA-AZ border?
It makes no sense, and is probably unconstitutional in any event.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, no one in the sound side would agree with Mr. Gingrich, especially when the Beltway Insider offers the same demeaning put down - implying the opponents to "amnesty" are not humane. The same folly as Perry when he basically labeled the entire GOP Base as "heartless" - playing the same tired 'straw man' as Obama and the Democrats.
It is no wonder why Democrats are pushing for a predictable failure like Newt in Our Primary...
Empowering States to aid in deportation and enforcement can be helpful, but Mr. Cain makes a huge mistake here - by offering a confusing response. He makes a bit of a mess with the message. The Federal Government must control the Borders and have a uniformed policy in dealing with Immigration, we cannot enable the Democratic Partisans in creating "sanctuary" gimmicks which create a mess for all.
Cain's best offering is his proven CEO standing via the Private Sector, and he loses it tremendously when he plays politician. Promoting a path to citizenship is problematic, when one fails to include the essential aspect of removing those not interested in even trying to play by the rules. The standard of getting in the back of the line, clarifies the fairness as well, for all those who have waited to join the USA legally.
Cain's decline is unfortunate, as he is a quality Private Sector offering, who can help the GOP and conservatives tremendously. His decline has helped grow a mindless fashionable push for a tired - over the hill Beltway Insider who made a career out of exploiting the Public Sector and remains on the payroll of Washington influence peddling. Too bad, the GOP was greatly served with the likes of Romney and Cain (before Cain's personal issues took him down). We only suffer with Beltway Celebrity failures who eagerly jump to appear with Nancy Pelosi pushing Global Warming fraud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the solution to Perry and Gingrich being insufficiently strong on immigration is... to support Mitt Romney?!? Gingrich is offering nothing more leftward than what Romney has espoused on odd numbered days, and Perry's "tuition for illegals" was supported by 98% of the Texas legislature - a group of people who I trust much more on immigration than Boston tongue cluckers.
By all means, attack Perry and Gingrich all you want on legitimate grounds. But it is absolutely disingenuous to attack Gingrich as a "beltway insider" while supporting the ultimate insider for the Blueblood NewEnglander Republican Establishment, or attack Perry for being soft on immigration when he's got the Sheriff Joe endorsement and never knowingly let illegals work on his lawn to save a few bucks.
By the way, Perry has already apologized for the heartless comment, and acknowledged that it was insulting and inappropriate. Unlike Romney, Perry can admit mistakes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain's incoherent on this issue, he needs to frame his position better.
While the Constitution is silent on immigration, the Courts have long established Federal Supremacy over the issue. The duty to establish a "uniform rule of Naturalization" does not necessarily grant the Federal government the ability to set quotas, or force the several States to accept unwanted aliens within their borders, yet, it isn't unreasonable to expect for the first of those rules for Naturalization to be an approved and recorded entry into the country.
It should be the primary duty of every level of government, and every regulatory and/or law enforcement department of every level of government in the country, to ascertain the immigration status of every individual that it processes at any time.
Generally speaking, the idea of a national ID is anathema to Conservatives, but taking the idea to the State level , where every individual is required to procure a State ID which includes legal immigration status, should be more palatable to Conservatives and consistent with the Tenth Amendment, and would go a long way to assist law enforcement officers in identifying illegal aliens.Those aliens would be detained, and turned over to the proper Federal authorities for processing.
All this perfectly in tune with section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996.
The Federal government created the vehicle for States to become partners in the enforcement of immigration law, and GOP candidates should, as part of their platform, promise a closer partnership between their administration and the States in enforcing immigration laws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs there any substantive issue Cain can discuss coherently when pressed? Seriously, I'm not trying to be snarky with this comment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShort answer is an obvious "no." The more he speaks the more it seems like he is waging mortal war against the syllogism, rather than running for President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAl Capone once said you can get more with a gun and a smile than you can with a smile alone. Cain seems to think a smile alone is enough to win the Presidency, without any knowledge about anything related to the job.
Well in his defense, there was the 2008 election...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook for Cain to go Colin Powell or Michael Steele on us if he doesn't win the nomination. He'll be calling us racists and Nazis in a few months, my cynical side tells me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only way to empower the States is to fire all Federal judges and replace them with nothing at all; and then delete all "laws" and "precedents" falsely created by Federal judges. In other words, EVERYTHING done by Federal judges since 1803, except for actual sentences given to actual convicted criminals.
If you don't get the black-robed saboteurs out of the picture PERMANENTLY, there's no hope for immigration, no hope for national survival.
I'm pretty sure Cain isn't willing to take even the tiniest step in this direction, so his advice is completely empty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"... but make it easier for companies to be able to enforce the law..." Weird given that what a lot of companies and employers want, especially those who need low wage employees, is for it to be easier for them to avoid the law.
Likewise the whole "leave it to the states" approach. So when one state gives illegal residents drivers licenses how will other states handle it? etc etc.
Cain is not just "ready, shoot, aim" he's gone the whole "shoot don't bother to aim or get ready" on just about anything to do with actual public policy. If he really wants to get into government he needs to start at something like county executive level because I don't think he's ready to be a governor much less President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCain is just desperately trying to distinguish himself from Gingrich; he's not comfortable taking Bachmann's negative tact and this is the best he can come up with. If he agrees with Newt; he negates his own reason for running.
Whether he understands or even believes the ramifications of what he proposes is most likely beside the point at this stage of the race.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehermain cain could not be any more wrong imigration is man dated to the federal goverment the fact that the federal goverment is not doing its part make it all the dummer for hermain cain to say it should change its like newt saying who should stay and who should go be put to a vote i had no idea these people running for president new so litte about american goverment i would make a better president then most of these losers
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI could have sworn that enforcing America's borders and its immigration policy were primary responsibilities of the federal government. Does this mean that each individual state would also be responsible for repulsing a foreign invasion? No reason not to expect that under this latest Cain doctraine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can be sure of one thing, if Cain's idea was put in place. States like Maryland -- where some cities are already allowing illegals to vote -- along with several other left-leaning, Democrat-dominated states, would be expanding the franchise to illegals in a nano-second.
Does Cain ever actually think about any of these things before he starts talking?
He did say, "within the law." He certainly could have been clearer, but his point is only to allow states like Arizona to act when the federal government isn't coming through
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He certainly could have been clearer" perfectly encapsulates Cain. The more he talks, the worse he sounds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe word "immigration" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Constitutionally speaking, the United States is charged with establishing a "uniform rule of Naturalization", the same Constitution charges the United States with repelling invasions.
While I don't fully understand what Cain is talking about, technically speaking, there is nothing in the Constitution which would stop the States from enforcing immigration laws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Cain is thinking as a politician but his mouth has not caught up with his brain. He wants amnesty without calling it amnesty. Getting more and more like all the other politicians who want to increase taxes without calling them taxes or fighting wars while calling them overseas whatever. They have created a whole new world where up is down and down is up and nobody reads the law until after it is passed. 'Nuff to make your head spin!
Mike R
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Constitution is on Cain's side. More specifically, although the Founding States states delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate naturalization, the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate immigration. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's writings. Jefferson had clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states had reserved government power to regulate immigration uniquely to themselves.
"4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798. External Link
If the states want Congress to regulate immigration then the states can always amend the Constitution to delegate to Congress the specific power to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse