Presidential Candidates Pro Illegal Immigrants: Giving SS Benefits and Making English Official
Daniel Downs
July 15, 2007
It is important to realize that the problem of illegal aliens is one created by democrat liberal policy. When the liberal-led Congress in 1965 opened the borders to all comers, the democrat-engineered problem began. Edward Kennedy was among the members of Congress who encouraged mass immigration and illegal aliens. The current democrat controlled Congress is attempting to do the same as has been demonstrated by the recently failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. One other thing Americans must realize is that reform is a poor substitute for liberal politicians as well as state officials not dedicating sufficient resources and enforceable laws to eliminate illegal aliens in the first place. As demonstrated in Immigrant Amnesty: An Analysis of the US Chamber of Commerce Plan, it is not only economically feasible to remove all illegal immigrants but it would be financially beneficial to those Americans working in low-wage jobs, which suggests liberal democrats do not really care about those Americans.
In addition to taking needed jobs from American citizens and lowering their wages, immigration reform will also diminish social security. According to Nevada Senator John Ensign, immigration reform legislation will “allow the immigrants who receive amnesty to qualify for social security based on work performed prior to their amnesty.” The issue is this: “People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.” In 2006, Ensign first proposed an amendment--S. Amdt. No. 3985-- to correct that problem. However, the Senate rejected it. Among those who rejected it was presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Barak Obama (D-IL), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and John McCain (R-AZ). (To review how other senators voted, see the roll call here.)
Another issue included in the debate over immigration reform has been making English America’s official language. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe proposed an amendment to change “title 4 United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of prospective US citizens.” As such, the amendment, number S.Amdt. 1151, was an addition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and it was exactly the same amendment proposed in 2006. Just as last year, it passed by a majority vote comprised mostly of Republicans, but nearly all Democrats opposed it. Why? Because it would alter current laws affecting foreign language speaking immigrants. Put differently, it was not favorable to a vast number of non-English speaking immigrants currently residing in the United States, and it was intended to force a coherent patriotism on all Americans. It was decidedly opposed to the multiculturalism of liberal globalism.
Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were among the 33 who opposed making English the only national language. Of the 64 who voted in favor of it were Samuel Brownback and John McCain. (If interested in votes of others Senators, you will find the complete list here. You can review the 2006 roll call vote here.)
Democrats like Hillary Clinton would do more than allow working illegal aliens to have the benefits of social security they had paid in through deceived or not-so-deceived employers. In 2006, she attempted to pass an amendment in order to “establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to States and local governments for the costs of providing health care and educational services to noncitizens, and to provide additional funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.” It was voted down, but it shows liberals’ disregard for law and American taxpayers. Barak Obama was among those in favor of amendment no. 4072, while Sam Brownback and John McCain opposed it. (The entire roll call of votes by senators can be reviewed here.)
So what about the other leading presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani?
According to the Boston Globe, Mitt Romney’s position on immigration has changed over time. Congressional Immigration Reform had his approval because illegals were required “to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.” That was in 2005. Today, Romney is opposed to the current reform. He now describes it as an “amnesty plan that would reward people for breaking the law and cost taxpayers millions to provide them benefits.” As stated in On the Issues, Romney would tell the illegal aliens to go home and apply for immigration or a work visa like all other immigrants or foreign workers.
There is reason to doubt Romney concerning his position on making English the official language. In a Human Events article, Phyllis Schafly points out his unacceptable use of foreign languages in campaign ads. All other candidates may be doing the same except for Brownback and Giuliani. Nevertheless, while speaking in Spanish to a Florida crowd, the Washington Post quotes Romney, telling the Union Leader in New Hampshire, “We cannot be a bilingual nation like Canada.” Go figure.
When it comes to Rudy Giuliani, his position on illegal immigrants receiving social security benefits is closer to liberal democrats. According to Western Michigan University College Republicans, Giuliani “has demanded that the federal government provide Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, and welfare to illegal immigrants.” This makes him, as far as John Hawkins is concerned, comparable to Nancy Pelosi on the issue.
Does this raise questions about his adherence to the rule of law? Amanda B. Carpenter wrote in Human Events that “he is well known ... for willingness to shelter illegal aliens from federal immigration laws in the Big Apple.” His position could be construed as a commitment to humanitarian treatment of human beings and a way to make society more secure. People of the book would have no problem with the humanitarian part. However, breaking the federal law applicable to states is still breaking the law, and deporting illegal aliens is the law. The question then is whether he is also liberal in his commitment to the rule of law.
What is certain about Giuliani is his liberal position on making English America’s official language. In The Daily Backround, Arlen Parsa, quoting a 1996 New York Times article, reveals his consistent opposition to attempts to make English the official language in New York County. Maybe his recent support of such a national policy reflects a real change of mind, or it may be typical political campaign rhetoric. For conservatives and traditionalists, trusting Giuliani to represent their views will be very difficult.
This article was inspired by an e-mail titled “Shocking Senatorial Votes” and written by Edna Flansberg that listed the Senate roll call vote on these two issues.
In addition to taking needed jobs from American citizens and lowering their wages, immigration reform will also diminish social security. According to Nevada Senator John Ensign, immigration reform legislation will “allow the immigrants who receive amnesty to qualify for social security based on work performed prior to their amnesty.” The issue is this: “People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.” In 2006, Ensign first proposed an amendment--S. Amdt. No. 3985-- to correct that problem. However, the Senate rejected it. Among those who rejected it was presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Barak Obama (D-IL), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and John McCain (R-AZ). (To review how other senators voted, see the roll call here.)
Another issue included in the debate over immigration reform has been making English America’s official language. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe proposed an amendment to change “title 4 United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of prospective US citizens.” As such, the amendment, number S.Amdt. 1151, was an addition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, and it was exactly the same amendment proposed in 2006. Just as last year, it passed by a majority vote comprised mostly of Republicans, but nearly all Democrats opposed it. Why? Because it would alter current laws affecting foreign language speaking immigrants. Put differently, it was not favorable to a vast number of non-English speaking immigrants currently residing in the United States, and it was intended to force a coherent patriotism on all Americans. It was decidedly opposed to the multiculturalism of liberal globalism.
Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were among the 33 who opposed making English the only national language. Of the 64 who voted in favor of it were Samuel Brownback and John McCain. (If interested in votes of others Senators, you will find the complete list here. You can review the 2006 roll call vote here.)
Democrats like Hillary Clinton would do more than allow working illegal aliens to have the benefits of social security they had paid in through deceived or not-so-deceived employers. In 2006, she attempted to pass an amendment in order to “establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to States and local governments for the costs of providing health care and educational services to noncitizens, and to provide additional funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.” It was voted down, but it shows liberals’ disregard for law and American taxpayers. Barak Obama was among those in favor of amendment no. 4072, while Sam Brownback and John McCain opposed it. (The entire roll call of votes by senators can be reviewed here.)
So what about the other leading presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani?
According to the Boston Globe, Mitt Romney’s position on immigration has changed over time. Congressional Immigration Reform had his approval because illegals were required “to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.” That was in 2005. Today, Romney is opposed to the current reform. He now describes it as an “amnesty plan that would reward people for breaking the law and cost taxpayers millions to provide them benefits.” As stated in On the Issues, Romney would tell the illegal aliens to go home and apply for immigration or a work visa like all other immigrants or foreign workers.
There is reason to doubt Romney concerning his position on making English the official language. In a Human Events article, Phyllis Schafly points out his unacceptable use of foreign languages in campaign ads. All other candidates may be doing the same except for Brownback and Giuliani. Nevertheless, while speaking in Spanish to a Florida crowd, the Washington Post quotes Romney, telling the Union Leader in New Hampshire, “We cannot be a bilingual nation like Canada.” Go figure.
When it comes to Rudy Giuliani, his position on illegal immigrants receiving social security benefits is closer to liberal democrats. According to Western Michigan University College Republicans, Giuliani “has demanded that the federal government provide Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, and welfare to illegal immigrants.” This makes him, as far as John Hawkins is concerned, comparable to Nancy Pelosi on the issue.
Does this raise questions about his adherence to the rule of law? Amanda B. Carpenter wrote in Human Events that “he is well known ... for willingness to shelter illegal aliens from federal immigration laws in the Big Apple.” His position could be construed as a commitment to humanitarian treatment of human beings and a way to make society more secure. People of the book would have no problem with the humanitarian part. However, breaking the federal law applicable to states is still breaking the law, and deporting illegal aliens is the law. The question then is whether he is also liberal in his commitment to the rule of law.
What is certain about Giuliani is his liberal position on making English America’s official language. In The Daily Backround, Arlen Parsa, quoting a 1996 New York Times article, reveals his consistent opposition to attempts to make English the official language in New York County. Maybe his recent support of such a national policy reflects a real change of mind, or it may be typical political campaign rhetoric. For conservatives and traditionalists, trusting Giuliani to represent their views will be very difficult.
This article was inspired by an e-mail titled “Shocking Senatorial Votes” and written by Edna Flansberg that listed the Senate roll call vote on these two issues.
Print
Email
