Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani opposes the immigration bill for the same reason I do. It does nothing to tackle the central issue of border control facing our nation today: the inability of our government to know at all times just who is within our borders.
ABC News’ Jan Simmonds Reports: At an event Monday in New York City, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said he did not support the “present version” of congress’ Immigration Bill.
The former New York Mayor said he would like for there to be a system or database that would allow the government to “know everybody who is in the United States, who comes here from a foreign country”.
“If you make that your goal then everything follows from that or leads to that,” he added. “There should be a tamper proof id card, biometric id card that everyone who comes here from a foreign country should have. In order to make sure you identify everyone, in order to be secure.”
Giuliani did hold out hope that through debate in Congress, the proper changes could be made to the bill.
“Let’s see what happens in the debates they have now, the Senate has to debate it, the House as to debate it,” said Giuliani. “Let’s see if they can put something like that in, it that ends up giving us more security. The present version of the bill however … I don’t think that accomplishes that.”
At the event Monday, Giuliani received the endorsement of the New York State Republican Party. Tuesday in Albany he is scheduled to be endorsed by state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, state Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco and other GOP state lawmakers.
I agree wholeheartedly that this is first and foremost a national security issue. And I find it quite appalling that, nearly six years after 9/11, there are over ten million non-citizens within our borders that we know absolutely nothing about. This is evidence of a dearth of leadership in Washington, a chasm that will be filled by President Giuliani in just a few short months.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I don’t get it… Isn’t this the Z1 visa? It requires Biometric Data, it will be government issued document, it requires a background check… how it the Giulani plan different?
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
A few short months? Crap – when did they move the election up on us?!?
In all seriousness, this will have to go down as one of the largest flip-flops in the history of immigration politics – perhaps politics in general. Rudy has never, ever been anywhere close to strong on the immigration issue, and one of the other candidates is going to have to point that out before America gets the wool pulled over their eyes…
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
As I read the headline, “Rudy Opposes Immigration Bill”, one of my first thoughts was: “Must have been too tough on those poor law breaking illegal immigrants for his liking…”
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
It’s my understanding that the Z-Visa simply regularizes the aliens, and it’s a different component of the bill that provides an employer verification system. But, this response is more then a little disingenuous on Rudy’s part. If we simply regularize all illegals in the country, by giving them these Z-visas, and stipulate that these visas are essentially free of charge and infinitely renewal, as this bill does, then theoretically we ought to know virtually “everybody who is in the United States”. Of course, if background checks are being conducted to obtain Z-Visas, we won’t know about the criminal illegal aliens (I can’t imagine they’d be stupid enough to step forward), but for the life of me I can’t imagine why we’d know about them under an employment verification system either. To be sure, a properly constructed employment verification system could prevent these people, along with other illegal aliens, from obtaining certain jobs, but one would imagine that criminals aren’t going to openly step into this particular lion’s den either. In fact, I’ve yet to hear anyone, including Romney, articulate just how an employment verification system is supposed to function.
It’s hard to understand the principled distinction for Giuliani’s opposition to the bill. It has an employment verification system, plus an additional way to find out who’s in our country through a regularization process designed to “bring illegals out of the shadows”. Romney’s opposition to the bill, as he made quite clear, was based on the fact that the bill included, through it’s Z-Visa, immediate and infinitely renewable regularization, which amounts to amnesty. Rudy’s said nothing about amnesty, and as best as I can tell, seems to oppose the bill solely because it doesn’t, for reasons as of yet unexplained, do what he’s called for effectively enough.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Rudy is pro-immigration, then and now. Just like Reagan. Ellis Island, City on a Hill, etc.
The supposed flips are two new principles:
1. Post 9/11, his thinking is that security should be the #1 concern regarding immigrants, hence his desire to control the border, have a database and ID card.
2. Immigrants should be required to know English and pass a test in American History. Great idea, would please most conservatives.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 am
David,
I think you should call them Rudy’s “Two Pillars”. That worked out so well with abortion, why not just have two pillars with everything.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 am
At some point Rudy is going to be labelled as a flip-flopper. His views when he was Mayor where almost identical to Bloomberg’s, now called a ‘liberal’. He is pandering to his new constituents, while desparately trying to keep his reputation as a straightshooter.
His changes are more noticeable than Romney, who’s only major flip has been abortion. At least on immigration and the like Romney has a record to lean on.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 am
Boy, Rudy was really quick out of the gate on that one… So much for leadership. He weighs in after the cloture vote. And it looks like a guy who needed the extra time to parse and nuance his position.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 am
“His changes are more noticeable than Romney, who’s only major flip has been abortion. At least on immigration and the like Romney has a record to lean on.”
You really believe that?
Abortion, being more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy… then not so much, favoring amnesty and then not, rejecting Reagan Republicanism and now trying to be a darling of the Right, being a hunter all of his life…at least since 2006. Frankly I’m just sick of this guy. I really don’t see how the 10 percent (or whatever the RCP average is, but despite pouring gobs of money into NH and IA his national numbers are barely double-digits) of GOP voters who are otherwise intelligent fall for this stuff. I seriously believe that about 3/4 of Romney’s supporters are people who post on this site. I know Rudy is not conservative on some issues but for the love of god at least he doesn’t constantly try to pander to the Christian Right. It’s painful to watch.
We would we want to go with Romney? Why would we want to make abortion a paramount issue in this campaign? We already lost the center over the war last year so why commit political suicide by constantly talking about abortion? The Democrats don’t do it. How often do Democrats beat up on each other over gay marriage at their debates? They don’t, because they don’t want the political center to perceive them as being out of touch…and they want to win.
Going with Romney and taking on faith that his march to the social right is legit and not just expedient to win the primary is still the wrong way to go this year. Outside of conservative circles, no one cares. Don’t get me wrong, I’m anti-abortion too, but it’s not going to do any of us any good if we elect a Democrat and consign ourselves to the political wilderness.
Dirty Truth = Romney won’t win. Again, Romney WON’T win in a general election. He probably has only a very limited chance at best of winning in a primary, but focusing on the general election…what blue state could Romney conceivably turn red? He’s not going to win in Ohio over Clinton, not with Taft’s foolishness in the state. That right there brings us down to 266 electoral votes. I can’t think of a single blue state that Romney can turn and all the numbers available back that up. No poll as ever shown him beating any Democrat nationally and when you trail by double digits in a national poll you don’t change colors your way on the electoral map. He won’t be competitive anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line. It might be a bitter pill to swallow but it’s the truth. Anyone who says otherwise is just not facing the facts.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 am
Right on Adam. Romney loses the general election for us.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:48 am
Adam, many of us have posted numerous indicators to refute this “Romney won’t win” meme, that seems to be slowly dissolving. As I’ve pointed out before, there a THIRTY-FOUR point swing in independents after Romney’s last debate with Shannon O’Brien in 2002. 34. He wound up winning roughly 70% of the state’s independent vote in a state where the average independent is more liberal then the average Southern Democrat. He’s focused extremely well in the first two debates (messagejury.com). Polling after his 60 minutes interview showed that, of the people who changed there mind about Romney, 4 times more changed there mind TOWARDS him, then away from him. Suggesting that Romney won’t win, not that me might not win like any other candidate, but that he won’t win, is simply not credible. Especially, when a new Rasmussen poll has him trailing Hillary by only 3 (closer then John McCain and only 2 behind Rudy).
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 am
Matt,
I have to disagree. 2008 will NOT be 2002. Believe me, I wish it could be, but it’s not going to be. And the Romney of 2002 is not the Romney of 2007. Do you honestly believe that he could carry even his home state next year, rightward drift or not? I certainly don’t. I bet if you were to ask Michael Barone or Sean from Myelectionanalysis.com (two of the guys really on their game) I bet they wouldn’t either. Sadly, because of the war and because of George Bush’s careless attitude and lack of abilty or desire to make his case to the people, the entire country has shifted to the left. Maybe that’s not fair. It’s better to say that the Left is energized far more than the right. A base election, red-state, blue-state strategy is a loser for us this year, and with Romney kissing up to the conservatives, that’s the only hand he has to play and it’s a loser.
You can tout the Rasmussen poll and I generally think Rasmussen does a good job but they also have a tendancy to overstate Republican strength in blue states. At one point last year, Rasmussen had Santorum down only 8 against Casey and he lost by twice that much. Remember their rosy scenario of the supposed too-close-to-call senate race in Maryland? That didn’t work out so well for us. And lets not forget about Kean Jr. in New Jersey. No other poll shows Mitt anywhere near that close. If his RCP average moves then we’ll talk but for now color skeptical.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 am
Adam,
No, I don’t think Mitt could carry Mass in a general election. No Republican could win a national election in Mass. Bill Weld, after being re-elected for Governor with 72% of the vote in 1994, won 45% of the vote in his 1996 senate race. My point is, Mitt has demonstrated record of persuading those to the left of him politically. Even as a more moderate candidate in 2002, Mitt was still ever so slightly to the right of the Massachusetts Republican Party, and significantly more conservative then the previous 3 Republican governors Swift, Celluci, and Weld. And far to the right of the Massachusetts electoral center (whereas O’Brien was considerably closer to the middle). And he won, with relative ease Also I wouldn’t say Rasmussen overstates Republican strength in blue states. They simply give one the option of choosing “undecided” in polls, while the actual election doesn’t allow this. And in blue states, in a blue year, undecideds break heavily Democratic.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:53 am
So why didn’t Mitt run for re-election in Mass if he is so popular?
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:06 am
There’s another aspect to this. I know a few people from Massachusetts from the political left, right and center and none of them is pleased with Mitt’s schtick. He always seems to make a point to say that he is from the most liberal state in the union. True enough…but the derogatory way in which he speaks of his home state while he is out campaigning isn’t very becoming. He ought to just let others say it for him. It conveys a message that the guy would do or say anything to win…to me very Clintonesque and exactly the kind of stuff we all railed against in the 1990′s. Rudy Giuliani came from one of the most liberal cities in the union but you don’t often hear him griping about the kook libs he had to deal with.
Mitt didn’t run in 2006 because he could not have won in 2006. SurveyUSA had his job approval hovering at 40 percent.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 am
This is evidence of a dearth of leadership in Washington, a chasm that will be filled by President Giuliani in just a few short months.
I’m glad Giuliani has decided to join Mitt and Fred in denouncing this bill. I’m not sure I’d characterize his approach to this as “leadership” by any means, but I’m glad he’s joining the rest of us. His opposition will make a difference.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 am
Thank you Rudy!
I doubt Rudy reads this blog, but its good to see there are people in his campaign that are giving him the same advise I would (and did).
I think his position is tactically very smart. It is still a fundamentally pro-immigration position, but as I mentioned before, “enforcement firsters” are not necessarily anti-amnesty. Many are perfectly willing to grant amnesty to those who came here illegally, but only after the border is secure — and promising to make steps to do so in the future in exchange for amnesty now isn’t good enough. Obviously, many enforcement firsters are anti-amnesty, but Rudy’s position is a clear distinction from his primary rival at the moment (McCain) and the concensus Democratic party position, of which the Democratic nominee will more than likely share. As such, his position at least gives hard-core anti-amnesty voters a reason to vote for him on this issue.
I also think this position is right on the merits. Illegal immigrants broke the law (which pro amnesty folks gloss over) but at the same time they acted in reliance on our government’s blase attitude towards that law. Obviously, deportation is not an option, but that cuts both ways. As much as we don’t want to deport 12 million people who, for the most part, have not broken any further laws, we also don’t want to adopt a policy that will encourage another 12 million people to break our laws in the future, and an enforcement first, amnesty later strategy is the only way
to do this.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
“He wound up winning roughly 70% of the state’s independent vote in a state where the average independent is more liberal then the average Southern Democrat.”
Matt, a lot of the southern dems don’t have a liberal bone in their body. It’s kind of funny, actually. Phil Bredeson, the governor of TN, has an approval rating somewhere in the mid 80% range, and Zell Miller had an approval rating of about 90% when he left office. Solid Dem candidates are tough to beat down here. If the Dems had been smart and put their money behind Evan Bayh or encouraged Bredeson to run, we’d lose the south. The funny thing is, the dems seem completely opposed to nominating anything other than a loon at this stage.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Sean P: I wouldn’t bet that Rudy does not read this blog. He only sleeps a few hours a night and he is an information hound.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
#14 Grant Gormley: Right on, Grant. Romney did not run for relection because he knew that he would lose and iut would trash his presidential ambitions (which he had been planning for years anyway). Plus, this shows precisely the kind of flip-flopper he is. He won in mass. based on the same moderate social views (if not even more left) that Rudy has. Then, he even turned his back on those constituents.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
You Rudybots are out of control.
Adam,
Rasmussen’s final poll in PA almost right on, he had Santorum losing by 13%, so the final result was within the margin of error. You can harp on Rasmussen all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact his results speak for themselves, not to mention that the vast majority of pundits agree that he has been the most accurate recently.
Your head-to-head poll garbage is wasting everyone’s time because as has been proven time and again, it is useless for predicting results.
Romney could easily turn New Hampshire or Michigan red. After looking at the electoral map, I am much more confident of the GOP’s chances because we don’t need to win Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania in order to win the election. Also, an outsider has a better chance in Ohio than you might think since their problems were mostly related to the state party.
Again, you would be much better served by spending your time developing positive arguments for Rudy, not arguments against the other candidates. Negativity doesn’t gain supporters, all it does is lowers your opponents potential turnout. You have to be positive if you want people to actually vote for you.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:24 am
A Rudybot? You know what? I’m not talking about Rudy…I’m talking about Romney. You can dress it up all you want but it’s not going to change the outcome. Show me your evidence that Romney has a snowball’s chance in hell of turning NH or MI red. NH has swung to the left moreso than any other state in the last year. If you think that a candidate that so obviously is pandering to social conservatives is going to to swing the pendulum to the right you’re crazy. You can dismiss the polls all you want and they’re far from perfect. I’m not talking about Rudy…I’m talking about Romney. You might not like negativity but when it comes to Romney’s chances, negativity is in order whether Dskinner likes it or not.