Hunter Exposes McCain On Immigration
Republican Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter articulates as well as anyone all that’s wrong with the senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Please see his statement below.
HUNTER EXPRESSES “FIERCE DISAPPOINTMENT” OVER SENATE AMNESTY PROPOSAL
Duncan Hunter: I vow to oppose this legislation supported by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain. It provides a vast new immigration benefit to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to live in the United States. I opposed the 1986 amnesty act because of this same reason. It proved to be the draw that we predicted it would be. I am deeply disappointed to see history repeating itself.
This package will confirm to the world that the U.S. does not really mean what it says when it comes to immigration enforcement. As a result of the citizenship benefit included in this legislation, despite the fine print, we will see a stampede across our borders.
This vast new amnesty and expansive guest worker program will surely be ridden with fraud and abuse, and ultimately lead to millions of public-assistance-dependent immigrants.
The Senate’s decision to blatantly ignore the Secure Fence Act signed into law last year and only require construction of 370 miles of fence, as opposed to the 854 miles mandated by the law, is a dramatic failure of this legislation. The San Diego border fence has proven that fencing works. The time has come to quickly implement the Secure Fence Act, not retreat from its mandates.
I believe that this package will result in lower wages for America’s already-struggling families by encouraging the importation of cheap foreign labor rather than investing, developing and growing a domestic workforce that will sustain our economy far into the future.
Amnesty is not the answer. Border enforcement must be first and it must be comprehensive. To do otherwise is to repeat the mistakes of the past. This Senate bill is bad for Americans, bad for our workers, bad for law enforcement and, most importantly, bad for national security. I will fight it.
Please join with me and help stop this bill.
Please forward and to find out you can help click here
June 5th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Duncan Hunter’s fencing record:
Supported by Hunter a 14 mile fence dividing San Diego from Tijuana was approved in 1993 with a budget of $14M or $1M per mile of fencing. 10.5 miles have been completed in 14 years at an actual cost of almost $40M.
The final 3.5 miles are in question due to terrain and environmental concerns with the cost rising exponentially. Current estimate is $39M for the final 3.5 miles.
Thus the original 14 mile fence being paid for by taxpayers will cost around $80M, almost 6 times as much as originally approved.
Anybody who refers to Hunter as the go to guy on the absolutely dumb idea of a border fence should read before writing. His concept is a bonafide boondoggle sure to cost taxpayers billions if ever approved.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Bart,
Your idea of giving big business unlimited immigrants while sticking tax payers with a 21K bill per worker is crazy!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:03 am
John,
So you do not dispute my factually based report about Hunter’s lack of credibility when it comes to fencing?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Bart
If the fence keeps out enough illegal immigrants it may pay for it self.
At 21k a year per immigrants it would not take many!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I don’t like a fence except in a few places but, even there, people come to visit and just stay. They enter legally and then disappear.
The only way to stop this is to not allow them to get jobs and benefits. Sadly, I think this has to include schools and denying enrollment of children whose parents aren’t citizens. But, that and other issues will be hammered by socialists who say we are punishing the “innocent.” They will say those children had no choice and they will be right.
However, isn’t it the responsibility of parents, legal or not, to take care of their children’s education and the choices they make, etc. If the parents are here illegally and making U.S. tax payers fund their child’s education, is that really being responsible parents. Shouldn’t they have come here legally so they can be legally entitled to having their children educated here?
Socialism and “feel good policies” are bankrupting this nation. More and more states, like the Fed, is facing retirement problems with state pension and healthcare programs for state government employees.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Simple minded, big government, let’s give it a go and see what happens logic John. Spend $4B on a fence, maybe it will stop a few of ‘em and pay for itself…BRILLIANT!!
June 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
RichL
I a way I agree about people uprooting and moving here over the 2 centuries. But, the majority of them did it legally. We have huge influx of people coming here to commit illegal acts, not just the illegal act of coming here.
They come to sell or transport drugs or bring other illegals. They join gangs and commit criminal acts.
Also, we have a nation of the verge of bankruptcy. Good or not, if they hold wages down, more people have to rely on government services that we can no longer afford.
Today, another nation, though an insignificant one in relation to the dollar value, has ended “pegging” its own currency to the dollar. The next is expected to be the UAE. Nations are tired of having high inflation because they have tied their currency to the dollar.
We haven’t seen effects that are too bad, yet, but soon will if this trend away from the dollar continues. As our nation falls further in debt, rising prices and less tax money for maintenance of our infrastructure and government services is going to make things worse as we add more and more low wage workers.
It isn’t that many of the people coming aren’t bad and are hard working. It is that many of those coming will need government paid services and some are coming to become involved in criminal activity either before they came or after they get here and find they can’t get a job easily and get involved with a gang.
Congress says we need 100 million more over the next 20-30 years but, they don’t know how to pay for what they have now so, what does that tell you? They can’t even keep our currency strong or wages keep up with inflation.
We need immigrants to replace the workers in the 78 million that will retire. But, we need immigrants that will be able to get the same wages as those leaving. If we replace high wage workers with low wage workers we only burden the nation at a time when it has no money for that burden. I suspect the majority of illegal workers coming here can only replace low wage workers.
We may be past the point though, where any solution short of total reform of Social Security, Medicare and other government spending, will work. It could be that even immigrating millions of high skill, high wage immigrants won’t be enough to keep the debt from rising, the dollar falling and infrastructure from crumbling.
June 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Those in favor of this comprehensive immigration reform bill because “something has got to be done” are kidding themselves, I believe. What makes you think they will do any better implementing and enforcing this bill than they have any of the previous boondoggles?
Here’s a place where Fred Thompson is spot on. As Cal Thomas reports it:
For the rest of Cal Thomas’s article, “No More Trust on Immigration,” click here.
June 5th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Eric I just read an article at Rasmussens reports that both the Number of people who identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans has slipped in the last 3 months.They claim the number of people who declare themselves Democrats is lower now then it was 17 months ago.
This immigration and Iraq war debates is killing both parties and splitting America and leaving the door open for a third party. They have an article on Michael Bloomberg and the possible effect he could have with his billion dollars if he was to run or support a third party candidate.They also have talked of a possible initiative to put major political issues to the ballot which I would support. The problem is, like this immigration Bill, you would need a team of lawyers to understand it.
June 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
However, you have no 3rd party that seems to have the needed leadership.
I had hoped the Constitution party would have it but, state parties have left the national party and it is splintered. Why?
Read the Party Platform and you see they take hard-line stands on issues that should be left to the states. Any 3rd party that wants to become the next number one party has to go back to the Constitution and the Constitution left 90% of things in the hands of the states. When a federal government starts deciding social and moral issues, they divide the nation.
We had 50 societies with 50 state constitutions where most issues were decided by the people of each state. That gave us the choice of living in 50 separate societies that joined for a few common needs like defense. That is real freedom. Making all 50 societies the same limits choice and freedom to live with like minded people.
Also, if one state made mistakes, it didn’t drag the others down nearly as easily. With a centralized government, any mistake are felt by all states.
The 3rd parties that continue to want to run this nation like the two major parties with a strong centralized moral and social platform won’t be able to get traction.
Right now, the appeal of Ron Paul is rising among independents, democrats and certain elements of the GOP membership that are dropping out. It isn’t Ron Paul that is appealing but what he says.
The GOP could easily take on all the views of Ron Paul, even if they want to have a different position on the “justification” for the war in Iraq. But, instead, they focus on the one issue that many in the GOP membership hopefully will support and ignore what millions and millions of independents and Democrats support.
Why is that important?
Because the GOP only has about 25% of the voters now. They can’t win with their base and a few independents any more. Just a few years ago, they were tied with the Democrats with 37% of the voters members of the two parties. The independents were also pretty much split so all the GOP had to do is get a few independents that normally lean left to swing right. That day is gone.
The GOP faces huge losses in 2008 if they don’t find a way to move huge blocks of independents to them. Those independents probably don’t want Ron Paul necessarily but want much of what he stands for.
Sadly, if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination or run as a third party (which would be just as bad for the GOP) millions of voters will either stay home or vote democratic.
If you are a Republican, you can list hundreds of reasons that is dumb. It would be allowing the worst candidate to be elected. Well, true or not, that is what will happen because the voters don’t want what the GOP is offering and don’t trust them.
I doubt the GOP can get out of this mess with 25% (35% with leaners) of the voters and their lack of appeal to independents. The faithful keep getting smaller and smaller. Here is the Pew Research report that covers trends but, even the Dems, viewed in a better light in this, are probably losing ground now because of this immigration bill.
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf
However, any 3rd party that promotes a hard line stand on other dividing issues isn’t going to rise quickly to power.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Perhaps letting some of the anger bleed off into a third party is just what the power brokers want. This way somebody can “pull a Perot”. I may feel different after the primary however.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Bart
Face it we get it! You want cheap immigrant labor for big business via tax payers expense in trade for campaign donations!
June 5th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
No John, I want to secure the border in a cost effective manner that actually works. The 700 mile fence at a cost of up to $10M per mile ($7B) on a 2000 mile border could only appeal to someone like you who does not care about cost or outcome (usually traits associated with liberal dems).
We already have cheap immigrant labor helping small businesses and consumers doing labor intensive work most folks will not do. I’m not sure who you assume makes up the “we” in your post, but 66% of Americans want a program whereby fines are paid, workers stay.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Bart
The talking points are not working! The problem is no facts only spin!
June 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
What part of $10M per mile do you dispute?
June 5th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Bart
Your real motive cheap labor at tax payers expense!
June 5th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Eric,
In your post #8 you quote Fred Thompson from a Cal Thomas article. I find it interesting that Thompson is getting so much press lately when there are many more eminently qualified to speak on the subject. I said in another post that Thompson is effectively a shill for the establishment, a semi-fresh face, actor, like Ronald Reagan. And Cal Thomas is late to the table on “immigration”. He also caters to the Evangelicals who are being duped by Israel! Eric, really wish you would quote from more solid folks. ps sorry to be sort of rude, but not much time is left to open eyes and save the nation!!
June 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Hugh:
Do you see Fred Thompson as a person the GOP hopes will click so that if the current crop doesn’t show real promise, they can bring in someone fresh rather than change their policies in a major way? Are they just going to repackage the same general program in a new person and hope voters won’t notice?
Would they even voice new policies and then once in office go back on those promises?
Isn’t that the fear many have of the immigration bill? They will say they will enforce the border “after” they get their bill when securing the border could be done now.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Jan_Paul, re your post #18.
AMEN!!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Fred Thompson would make the perfect politician on TV. (Like a miniseries or something–especially with Kiefer Sutherland) They could incorporate lotsa terrorists. They’re both so serious.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Hugh,
I think it is pretty clear who I support.
I quoted Thompson b/c his quote was witty, right on, and timely - it was in today’s papers.
~Eric
June 6th, 2007 at 6:03 am
Excuse me but what the hell happened to rule of law? Does anybody care? How about all you proponents of amnesty give me address and I will invite myselfinto your home with all my relatives and eat your food and take your better and demand you take care of my family. lets see how many takers I would have.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:34 am
If your family agrees to paint my house, landscape my yard, clean, do dishes, wash clothes, work on my cars in exchange for a place to stay, come on!
June 6th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Bart
Will you pay for healthcare and schools?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Already being paid for by me and every other taxpayer John.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Bart
So you are for tax payers paying for cheap immigrant labor for big business?
June 6th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Big business like Joe’s Landscape Company, Bill’s Painters, Fred’s Home Improvement…yea John, I’m for subsidizing big businesses like these.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Bart,
You are open about your support of socialism!
June 6th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Reform of our tax code and getting rid of Sarbanes Oxely would mean you wouldn’t need to subisdize any business that was worth its salt.
But when a small medical equipment supplier has to go from one accountant to four, just to keep up with the new accounting requirements, I can see why subsidies would be thought a good thing.
We keep trying to fix symptoms instead of problems and neither party is doing it. And, I doubt the majority of voters will let them actually address the problems because reforms will cause some “pain” and we are a nation of voters that aren’t used to pain nor prepared for it.
To be prepared, they would have to have liquid savings they can use for a year or so while reforms kick in. During months when between jobs or because of inflation or other hits to the pocket book, they could cover the shortfall by using savings to keep the house paid for, the car gassed up and food on the table.
Many count on home equity or stocks to do that. But, in a “crash” we won’t have the ability to tap those easily nor will they be worth much for a while. Already, many owe more than the home is worth and there is no equity to tap. Only about 1/2 the households, I believe, own stocks and many don’t own that much.
I can see why Bart supports many things because there may not be another choice and stay in office based on voter demands but, that doesn’t make them right. Shouldn’t we be willing to lose elections if we can’t stand on our founding principles?
June 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
It was a joke answer to a ridiculous question John. You make it sound like only big business benefits from illegal immigration. I dare say the very house you sit in while writing on this blog was built using illegal immigrant labor thus providing a lower cost to you when purchasing the home.
Do you look forward to paying more for certain goods and services after all those darn illegals are sent packing?
June 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I like fencing.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dCa7_BlCVs
June 6th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Duncan Hunter is a loser. Watched 20 minutes of that debate last night and…this guy is against LEGAL immigration…
OK…so he’s the Michael Savage candidate. And John advertises for the guy. Listened to Savage last night while cooking dinner…he’s a brilliant performance artist, and his fans are only those who don’t get the fact that he’s a character.
…
F Jackie!
June 6th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Al
If you pay the 21k it cost a year in social service cost and pay a livable wage I have no problem.