Rudy Giuliani’s convoluted positions as to illegal immigration are why I can’t support him for the presidency.
He declared yesterday that he’ll “stop the invasion” of illegal immigration, yet he then wraps up his positions by declaring that illegal aliens already here would receive amnesty if he becomes President.
With each issue critique of Giuliani I identify, I read a counter presentation that says the critique wasn’t accurate (for example, he’s not pro-choice, he’s pro-life but he wants to protect a woman’s right to chose – a conundrum if I’ve ever read one). Then Giuliani makes a public statement and he reasserts his positions as both contrary to what I want from a president but also as to why I define Giuliani as being far too similar in intents and positions with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards (among other Liberals) for me to vote for him.
From this article, “Giuliani Vows to Stop Illegal Immigrants” – sounds good in the title. I’m trying to believe, let me put it that way.
Then I read the statements by Giuliani — he seeks to secure the incentives and rewards for illegal aliens in our nation but he (also) wants to (somehow) “stop illegal immigration”:
…(Giuliani) says he would allow a pathway to citizenship only for illegal immigrants who identify themselves as illegal, who learn English and who go to the back of the line to apply…
Which is amnesty. He’s declaring he’s not going to enforce our laws as to illegal aliens who are in the U.S. “already” (no telling how that quality is ever going to be defined — could mean just about anything as to anyone), but instead he’s going to provide “a path to citizenship.”
Which is amnesty. That’s not a means by which illegal immigration will be “stop(ped),” it’s a means by which illegal immigration will be rewarded and incentivized, not only dismissed as a problem but deemed a means by which illegal aliens would receive citizenship.
It’s anathema as a position to me as a voter and I can’t and won’t support it. By Giuliani or by anyone.
It’s Rudy Giuliani’s position. It’s Hillary Clinton’s position and that of Obama — in other words, a pervasive, shared position by all Democratic candidates for the presidency with Bush and other Liberals among the Republican Party. That position — promotion of amnesty — is shared with them by industries promoting illegal immigration (agriculture, hospitality, construction, to name a few, though those industries already have the benefits of worker visas and many federal subsidies at the expense of U.S. taxpayers). We all know it’s Michael Bloomberg‘s ever-indulgent position (and in that article as in previous statements by Bloomberg, note how both he and Giuliani — as do Clinton, Obama and Bush and their lobbying interests — persist in replacing the accurate terms of “illegal” and “illegal aliens” with the generic “immigration” and “immigrant,” which is misleading if not dishonest, a method to avoid discussing the illegal behaviors and characters and not apply penalties to them, but, rather, to instead redefine the offenses inorder to avoid applying penalties) (it also is an insulting and offensive method to the many who are in the U.S. as immigrants, which means they’re here legally).
It’s amnesty and it’s wrong and voters won’t support it.
If a presidential candidate sells him/herself on national security and being trustworthy as to enforcing our laws, that means applying our laws however unacceptable they may be to those who violate them (for profit, gain, convenience or incompetentcy, doesn’t matter).
We can’t have national security without immigration enforcement and border security, and we can’t have immigration enforcement and border security without deportation of illegal aliens from out nation — that’s what the laws say is penalty for being here illegally, that’s what the penalty lawfully is: deportation. Anything that sneaks in a reward or incentive for the illegal behaviors involved is amnesty, just as is any position that avoids applying the laws to the crime/s involved (AND provides reward and not penalty).