Fiorina sounds tough on immigration
I’ve seen a lot of blogosphere commenters saying that Trump is the only Republican with a strong policy on illegal immigration. I’ve also seen a lot of people saying they don’t know Carly Fiorina’s position and would like to hear it.
So I thought I’d offer the following video of Fiorina, where I think she’s quite forceful on the subject:
By the way, this is not a new position of hers, post-Trump; you can see here that she had the same position prior to his announcing his candidacy (see also this).
When I wrote a post about Fiorina at Legal Insurrection a little while back, and offered a link to that video, a commenter there replied this way:
Tough? The only *tough* position on illegal immigration would include prison time for the Managers who hire illegals”¦
But you’ll *never* see *that*.
Well, get ready to see it. Note also that this Fiorina video is not recent; it is from her Senate race in California in 2010. That’s a time and place where the stance she expresses could not have been all that popular (proven by the fact that this clip was actually an ad run against Fiorina by the Democrats):
Now, that’s tough.
[NOTE: To refresh your memory, here’s Trump’s position, which seems rather incoherent but essentially the same as the one Fiorina expresses in that first clip. So far I haven’t found any evidence of Trump addressing the issue she deals with in the second clip.]
Compare her detailed and thoughtful answer to Trump’s bluster and single statement conclusion (“I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it.”) Note also her tech reference on legal visas holders who never go home. She actually knows and understands tech.
For me, it was a near perfect answer.
I saw Carly yesterday in Clear Lake but she was eating lunch and talking to a little girl.
I saw her with Greta yesterday and she was typically impressive. Greta naturally had to ask her about Trump. Her response was that he is right in his identification of the problems; every issue he talks about is legitimate. But, she went on to say that, identifying the problems was not enough, she had also identified those problems. Anger was not enough. Then she gave a short outline of how she would deal with problems.
Carly Fiorina is looking more Presidential to me every day. I will say that my long time favorite; Scott Walker also made an impressive appearance on one of the FNC shows–despite that they had to bring Trump in to the conversation, and show him on split screen.
I am disgusted with the media, including FNC. Maybe they are not actively shilling for Trump, but they are certainly enabling him to step on all of the other candidates. Apparently it does pay to be loud and obnoxious in American politics, (Reminds me of the admonishment we used to hear in Naval Aviation; “if you can’t be good, be colorful”.
There is a little information out on the internals of some of the glowing polls that Trump people trumpet. One shows that 39% per cent of his approving respondents are not eligible to vote–I presume that means not registered. No idea if that is accurate; just as I have no idea of the validity of any of the polls.
One legal nuance; and understand that as former CEO of HP and the daughter of a federal judge she knows a thing or two about the law.
She used the word “knowingly” breaks the law. What has happened with the current system of theft of Social Security numbers is that employers have plausible deniability with the way things work now.
But there has to be a near foolproof tech way to fix it and she personally knows the tech companies that can fix the problem.
The other thing is if DOJ started a prosecution campaign against employers and lots of people actually went to federal prison things would change real fast.
Oldflyer:
FNC shills for Trump because of the ratings. But it is getting real tiresome. FNC looking like pimps and whores (in a non-sexual way) more and more.
The media is all about controversy. No drama Carly and Scott are disadvantaged that way.
Part of the problem for Fiorina – and I’ve seen this repeatedly from a couple of Trump supporters over at AoSHQ – is that some of Trump’s supporters have convinced themselves that she’s an establishment plant who is only saying what people want to hear so that she can deliver the election to Jeb. The better she sounds, the more loudly they’ll screech that she’s secretly a RINO.
‘But there has to be a near foolproof tech way to fix it and she personally knows the tech companies that can fix the problem.
The other thing is if DOJ started a prosecution campaign against employers and lots of people actually went to federal prison things would change real fast.’
Speaking as an employer, we use one of the leading applicant/employee background check services.
The background check service indicates if the SSN is valid, and approximately when it was issued but little else.
The I9 check is visual inspection and paper recording of documents. We are not trained in recognizing bogus docs.
Our HR advisor advises us to avoid doing anything more – limits potential for applicant legal/administrative challenge.
If other Neo readers are doing something more substantive and their HR/Legal approves, please share.
Coherently represents my position versus incoherently represents my position (I think, maybe).
That’s a tough one.
Trump: “We have to do something,” he continued. “So whether it’s merit or whether it’s whatever, but I’m a believer in the merit system. If somebody’s been outstanding, we try and work something out.”
Trump, the whatever choice of whoevers everywhere.
Junior, it sound as if the Trump people may be a little concerned. Otherwise why bother to attack her? I don’t think that will work very well for them.
Don’t blame them for being concerned, however. She articulates his themes, but does so in an intelligent and adult tone. I expect her to be a player after he becomes an afterthought.
Unlike Trump, Carly thinks before she speaks, and she has apparently been thinking about some issues for a long time. I don’t know whether she will hit first place, but she definitely needs a top position in the next administration. Go Carly.
Junior:
That’s one of the reasons I added the video from 2010—her position was so tough on this so early, and in California where she ought to have shown her inner RIO if ever she was going to—that it strongly indicates that her conservatism is genuine.
That’s “RINO” in the above comment.
Fiorina reminds me of Ann Coulter. They’re both just so smart and so quick. I was incredibly impressed when I watched Carly Fiorina’s interview with Chris Matthews: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEJH7p4H0pA)
He finishes by saying: “Thank you Carly Fiorina. I see why you stood out tonight.”
This was a stunned left-wing cog in the liberal establishment machine that was simply astonished and dismayed that his talking points were insufficient to the task.
She can blow Hillary out of the water, but unfortunately, the country is loaded with a lot of poorly informed voters who still vote.
I am hopeful, but also fear that Carly is better than what the LIVs want or deserve.
The more I hear her and of her the more I like her. That 2010 clip should dispel any doubt alleging she’s a RINO. Despite her lack of experience in office she’s saying the right things, and she thinks logically and more importantly the ‘right’ way. It’s telling the Democrats used that second clip against her. IMO it was effective here in CA because to the typical liberal the idea of citizenship is anachronistic and anyone who believes in it or nationalism (and therefore exceptionalism) is just ignorant. To the extent laws and the Constitution are based on such outdated concepts then they need to be updated and/or ignored. Sanctuary cities are enlightened enclaves ignoring laws that are morally wrong.
However, if you don’t happen to agree that citizenship is an outdated relic from our barbaric past, then her positions on illegal immigration are not only logical but the only reasonable compromise possible.
The Democrats – the sincere ones – believe that citizenship and the vote cannot be denied to all those who’ve come here illegally. The insincere ones know very well that immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship will deliver control of the government over to the Democrats permanently.
Barone in ‘Our Country’ points out the historical voting pattern that new immigrants tend to vote for leftist (or more government support) in the first generation. If the Democrats get the immigration reform that they want then there will be a significant shift towards leftist big government that will be irreversible in our lifetimes. It’s not feasible to deport 20 million people IMO. Maybe the last five million, but not those who’ve settled down with families and jobs. Consequently the only compromise feasible is the one Fiorina outlined – get control of the borders and for some significant part of those who’ve come illegally grant them legal status with no future pathway to the vote.
There has to be included a cut back on family chain immigration also, but citizenship is the big one.
It is so sad that she doesn’t get more coverage. Really it is.
I give some credit to Trump for bringing up subjects that others (both D and Rs) just want to do the usual talking points on; But, Carly seems to have some really great ideas.
Even if she doesn’t get nominated; it would be great if whoever gets in would take a serious look at her ideas.
So, hopefully there is, at least, a cabinet post for her. And something that has an impact of real policy – not just HUD or some other “do nothing” post.
Reading watching the waves of human immigrants across the world specially English Canal, Athena, Balkan, Italy and other place, make no mistake its will be grownup bigger and bigger, for many reasons first of all the war across the world, more money give people power to move and bribe and travel and seek better place to live.
Unfortunately, Fiorina’s serious, detailed discussion of immigration can’t compete with Trump’s irresponsible, crowd-pleasing comments — look at what he’s just said to Chuck Todd on the Meet the Press program that will air tomorrow:
That was the best talk on immigration I’ve heard in a very, very long time. It’s historically accurate, comprehensive in scope, and – best of all – understandable because she is so concise and clear.
Go Carly!
Proscecution and mandatory jail sentences for employers is the ONLY way to stop illegal immigration. No jobs, no benefits = no incentive.
A fence will simply be tunneled under.
G. Britain,
I have long held the position that, as a pre-condition of staying in the United States, any illegal alien must tell us who he worked for. If he refuses to say, or falsely incriminates anyone, he’s gone.
I have some empathy for the illegal who comes here to work hard to support his family. But I have no sympathy for his American employer who hires him, often at an illegally low rate of pay, in order to gain a competitive advantage over other employers who play by the rules. Throw the book at them.
Regarding the idea of giving illegals a permit to stay here, but never to become citizens — what about their children? Do they get to become citizens? If the Republicans deny their parents citizenship, who do you think those kids are going to vote for?
Ann:
I eagerly await learning what Trump said when he explained exactly how he will go about deporting all those people—under what authority, with what money, etc.
I’m with Coulter: we have too much LEGAL immigration.
Chain baby migration now makes virtually all Mexican immigration legal.
We have that large of a fraction of the Mexican population here!
The only Latinos that can’t qualify are those from even further south — or the occasional Cuban Communist… now cast out of the Party.
This Chain Migration math is STILL something that most Americans don’t comprehend — by rule — tens of millions are already queued up… LEGALLY.
We can’t absorb that many down-market, low IQ, un-acculutured citizens.
We have left Ellis Island w a a a a a a a y behind.
At such levels of flow — sleeper Muslim militants are CERTAIN to be getting through.
Once they get rolling, this nation really WILL turn into a Fascist state.
The paranoia will become that intense.
neo-neocon Says:
August 16th, 2015 at 12:39 am
Ann:
I eagerly await learning what Trump said when he explained exactly how he will go about deporting all those people–under what authority, with what money, etc.
%%%
Immediatley after 9-11 no small number of illegal immigrant Muslims FLED of their own accord.
Knowing their own nations attitudes towards illegal immigrants — they weren’t willing to wait to find out how America handled matters.
On can only conclude that surprising results would start off from the first. For most Muslims — in particular — it’d be far, far, better to just go home under ones own accord — rather than being flagged, bagged, and formally kicked out — straight into the arms of the Muslim authorities back home.
Which would be the very last people on this Earth that they would want to have a chit-chat with.
In sum: staggering numbers would self-deport.
Formal deportation means that they absolutely will come to the attentions of the authorities back home.
Yikes !!!
They came in on an over stayed visa — it’s all for the best to return the same way. Then it’s no big deal.
Totally OT but highly relevant:
I just read this today.
1) In Iowa, Cruz opposes ethanol subsidies;
2) His statement in front of the Iowa crowd was so well expressed, they gave him a warm response.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/09/cruz-applauded-for-rejecting-ethanol-subsidies-at-iowa-ag-summit/
Trump? Gave kiddie rides in his private helicopter. Whatever …
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Bleh. My mother sounded tough on a lot of things. I left for a foster home at 10 because the woman couldn’t handle what she was starting. Didn’t want to end up beating her up. Don’t think much of tough broads, less of tough talking ones after having been a bouncer, to be honest.
Neo
Immediatley after 9-11 no small number of illegal immigrant Muslims FLED of their own accord.
Let read who Immediately after 9-11 no small number fled US:
Do you have any answer why The No-Fly List left those who had links to 9/11’ allowed to leave the U.S. without being quizzed by the FBI?
And why FBI Saving these guys
Neo
For most Muslims – in particular – it’d be far, far, better to just go home under ones own accord – rather than being flagged, bagged, and formally kicked out
Rather than saying “all Muslims”, Is it better off for some who admitting he is terrorist be kicked out of UK?
Trump announced today that he would “end birthright citizenship”. That certainly needs to be done, but I wonder how he intends to do it.
snopercod:
He seems to have no idea how he intends to do it.
I just published a post on the subject.
For reform to succeed, two things (at least) are required:
1) Desire. The establishment won’t reform if it can help it.
2) Experience/skill: Working the levers of power is an actual skill and it takes years to learn.
We have a local school reformer whom I voted for and met before the election. She had #1, but only recently did I learn that she even needed #2. She was stymied by the establishment, and is currently being made a fool of. She was out of her depth from day 1.
I believe Fiorina has both qualities. It is doubtful in my mind if Trump has either quality.
I will also say that Fiorina has charisma beyond both Cruz and Walker, and connects better to the audience on a personal level. I think I’ve now moved into her camp.
Pingback:Mark Your Calendar, How Prepared Does the Government Want You to Be?IowaDawg Blogging Stuff | IowaDawg Blogging Stuff
Urrrggghh….
“Fiorina viewed Hillary favorably in 2008”
‘However, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post claims that in May 2008, Fiorina told her that if she hadn’t been backing John McCain for president, she would have been for Clinton. According to Marcus, Fiorina added, “that’s off the record.”’
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/report-fiorina-viewed-hillary-favorably-in-2008.php
Beverly:
That’s certainly evidence that the left must be getting afraid of Fiorina.
Ruth Marcus, eh? Off the record, eh?
Oh, and by the way, did you listen to the Trump tape I embedded in this post? He says it ON the record—she’s “smart,” “terrifc,” and in answer to Larry King saying “So you’re going to have a quandary if it’s Rudy [Guiliani] versus Hillary,” Trump answers, “I’m going to have a quandary. Look, it would be wonderful if it is, they’re both terrific people…and I know em both well.”
Paul Mirengoff, who wrote that Powerline piece about Ruth Marcus’s claim, makes a very wise point:
Only in California would such an ad work as a negative ad against a candidate. Why are Californians supportive of employers breaking the law?
Glad to see Carly’s history on this issue. I know there are many who still do not trust her as a conservative.