Rudy Giuliani unveiled another major component of his campaign platform this morning in a speech made at the Old Bedford Town Hall in New Hampshire entitled Rudy’s “Twelve Commitments to the American People”:
- I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
- I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
- I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
- I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
- I will impose accountability on Washington .
- I will lead America towards energy independence.
- I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
- I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
- I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
- I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
- I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
- I will expand America ‘s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
Green Mountain Politics is impressed with the work of Giuliani’s organization in New Hampshire.
NBC‘s Domenico Montanaro has the scoop on the formulation of the speech itself.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Beautiful.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Rudy’s contract with America.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
That’s what it looks like. If he breaks it down with ways as to how he’s going to accomplish them, or at least some bulletted action items for each point — that could become a nice rallying cry for Giuliani and his campaign.
June 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
A few questions/problems I have with Rudy’s double talk:
2. He declared NYC to be a sactuary city for all illegal immigrants, refusing to enforce federal immigration laws. Will his record get any attention in this race?
3. I’m hoping he plans to do a better job than in NYC, where city debt rose by $16 billion or 60%.
7. Any examples of this as Mayor? What’s his record?
8. …all while attending NARAL award dinners and providing leadership for the pro-abortion movement.
9. Strict construtionist judges by whose definition? The Rudy definition, where strict constructionism calls RvW good constitutional law, and where constitutionally guaranteed rights must be subsidized by the government?
June 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
“Rudy’s contract with America”
I like that!
June 12th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
can you fix the link for the article about his NH groundgame?
June 12th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Paul,
It’s fixed. Thanks for the heads up!
June 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Rudy’s 13th committment…. I am PRO-CHOICE and will support a liberal social agenda. I am for non-traditional family values and, as you can see, I have led by example.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0607/Rudy_sets_the_table_for_summer_policy_splash.html
I guess the plan is to have a “Policy driven Summer” laying out more deatils. Not a bad time since the next set of debates is not too the fall.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
murphy,
Here is a relevant excerpt from Giuliani’s recent interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Immigration. As mayor, you welcomed illegal immigrants into the city. And in fact, you opposed a law that the Senate was trying to pass that would have cracked down on illegal immigrants and, in fact, made the city report to the federal government about illegal immigrants.
So you had a pretty open door to illegal immigrants in New York City.
GIULIANI: The reality is, the way I look at illegal immigration, particularly in light of the terrorist threat we face, is that the focus has to be we need a tamper-proof I.D. card.
We need to know who’s in the United States. We need to know everyone who’s in the United States that comes in here from a foreign country. And we have to separate the ones who are dangerous from the ones who aren’t.
To accomplish that, we need a fence. We need a technological fence. We need a border patrol. We need people to come forward who are working so they’ll get identified, get fingerprinted, get photographed.
And then we should focus our attention on the people who don’t come forward. And there’s where you’re going to find the drug dealers. There’s where you’re going to find…
WALLACE: But, Mr. Mayor, it sounds like you have one position when you were the mayor of New York. And now that you’re running for president, your principles on gun control and immigration and all these other issues have changed.
GIULIANI: That is totally incorrect and a total misunderstanding of what I said.
My interest as mayor of New York City was to focus on the criminals that were here. I wanted the Immigration and Naturalization Service to throw them out.
At the same time, there were 400,000 illegal immigrants in New York, roughly, when I was the mayor. The immigration service could throw out no more than about 2,000 a year. So I had 398,000 illegal immigrants.
The question was, should their children go to school? Did it make sense, in a city that had so much crime, to have 40,000, 50,000 kids sitting at home?
Should they be able to report crimes? Of course they should be able to report crimes. The criminals who criminalized them were going to criminalize other people.
Should they get treatment in hospitals? If they don’t get treatment in hospitals, you have communicable diseases.
I had real responsibilities that I had to deal with. This was a very effective way to deal with those responsibilities.
I have always been a proponent of legal immigration. I’ve always been a proponent of a strong and secure border. I was in the Reagan administration. I was during the time I was mayor.
But I had to deal with practical problems, and I dealt with them, I think, about as well or better than any mayor during my time, because I took a city that was exceedingly dangerous and I made it into a city that was the safest large city in America.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Not bad. Put some substance behind those vague generalities and it could be attractive.
For example, on increasing adoptions and decreasing abortions, how does he plan to do that? Government subsidies? Actually moving against abortion legally? Until we see some specifics, its used car salesmanship.
June 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
August 23, 1995
New York Times
Immigration restrictions gathering steam in the Republican-led Congress would have “catastrophic social effects” in New York City and other large cities, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said yesterday. He charged that the proposals violated basic decency and could throw as many as 60,000 immigrant children out of the city’s schools and onto the streets.
Once again taking sharp exception with the dominant conservative wing of his own party, Mr. Giuliani said in an interview that the proposed crackdown on illegal immigrants was deliberately intended to play to the public’s worst fears of foreigners, and did not take into consideration the positive effects of immigrants on cities like New York.
“It’s based on an irrational fear of something different, something strange, that somehow they’re going to take something away from us,” he said. “A lot of it is just undifferentiated fear of foreigners, of people who appear to have different values or different ways of doing things.”
In June, the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform, a Republican-dominated panel appointed by Speaker Newt Gingrich, issued a report containing dozens of recommendations on restricting illegal immigration.
The proposals, now being written into bills that are at various stages of consideration in House committees, would require public hospitals to report illegal aliens who seek medical treatment and would require public schools to turn away students who are in this country illegally. The report, which Mr. Gingrich endorsed, is similar to Proposition 187, a measure approved by California voters last November that would cut off most public benefits to illegal aliens.
Mr. Giuliani, a grandson of Italian immigrants, said the proposals would be both morally and fiscally devastating to cities, which would suddenly be put in the position of enforcing national immigration laws that the Federal Government has failed to implement.
The city’s public schools, for example, have between 40,000 and 60,000 students whose parents are undocumented aliens, he said. If the Board of Education were forced to search for and report those families, he said, many of the parents would simply not send their children to school, resulting in tens of thousands of children on the street, driving up crime and putting both the children and other residents in danger.
Illegal aliens might also be scared away from public hospitals if a similar reporting requirement were used there, he said, even if the hospitals would be allowed to provide emergency care. That could result in an increase of communicable diseases, he said, and would be morally wrong.
“It’s just out of a sense of decency,” he said. “I can’t imagine, even in parts of the country where the views are harsher than they might be in New York, that they’re basically going to say, let people die.”
Under an executive order signed by [Democratic] Mayor Edward I. Koch in 1985 and still in effect, city agencies are required to provide services to illegal immigrants and are prohibited from turning over information an immigrant to the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service unless the immigrant has been charged with a crime.
In March, the House passed a welfare bill that would deny food stamps, Medicaid and welfare payments to legal residents of the country who are not citizens.
A comparable welfare bill introduced in the Senate by the majority leader, Bob Dole, would allow states to cut off benefits to legal aliens, but would not require them to do so.
Mr. Giuliani said that the welfare proposal, if enacted into law, would cost the city millions of dollars. Though his administration has been removing thousands of people from the local welfare rolls through heightened scrutiny of their applications, he said the city was not prepared to take care of thousands of aliens who would lose Federal benefits and become destitute.
“This is an absolute shifting of responsibility to city and state governments that can do nothing about the immigration problem,” he said.
The Mayor said he plans to work quietly with other mayors, and allies in Congress, to prevent the provisions from becoming law. Last year, he said, he joined successful lobbying to remove two provisions that would have had a similarly negative effect on New York City: the crime bill would have required cities to turn in the names of all illegal aliens discovered from all sources, including people who report crimes, and the education bill would have required schools to determine if all parents were legal residents.
Noting that the immigration issue has divided the leadership of the Republican Party, Mr. Giuliani said the restrictive proposals violate one of the party’s most basic principles, which he described as “government acts best when it acts least.” He said the proposals also fail to take note of the important economic effects of immigration on such New York neighborhoods as Flushing, Queens, which during the last few decades has been transformed by waves of Chinese and Korean immigrants.
“From the point of view of pure dollars and cents, the notion that immigrants are taking away opportunities and taking away jobs from other people largely isn’t the case,” he said. “They’re creating opportunities.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DF1E39F930A1575BC0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
June 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Giuliani Health Proposal Seeks Individual Coverage
Candidate to Unveil Market-Based Plan Easier on Employers
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB118117722127727221.html
June 12th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Conservative Scholars Laud Giuliani Health Plan
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=56131&v=7199661811
June 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Henry,
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidVitterTheodoreBOlson/2007/06/11/rudys_adoption_agenda_and_proven_effectiveness
June 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
While the rhetoric is politically smart, a lot of what Rudy is proposing isn’t within the ability of an American President.
I hope he fleshes this out as without specifics it’s just platitudes not politically binding commitments.
I’d also hope the other candidates follow Rudy’s lead here and put forward their own plans (in point form) that justify their running for office.
Generally good work here by Rudy’s campaign although this will need to be fleshed out to be taken seriously.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
econ, I doubt the other candidates will follow in a specific fashion. I have no idea if Thompson will provide something similar. I doubt he will, though he could. Romney wasn’t a fan of contracts like this when he ran for Senate, either, so I don’t think he’d go with it.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
That’s a shame as things like this (contracts) are what made the 1992 Republican Party the party of good government reform.
Putting in things that cut against politicians’ personal interest also helped (apply the law to Congress, term limits).
I’m wondering if any of the Republicans have thought about rampant corruption in DC and potential openings for reformer appeal?
McCain (the natural fit for that) seems to have gone on to Iraq.
I don’t know where the other candidates are on this. I can’t recall a single comment about Washington corruption from any of them.
June 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Tommy: Romney wasn’t a fan of contracts like this when he ran for Senate, either, so I don’t think he’d go with it.
When running for Governor, Romney made somewhere around 100 specific campaign promises, keeping track of their progress throughout his time in office. Nearly all of them ended in the “completed” or “blocked by legislature” columns. And Romney already make a list of his 10 priorities months ago: http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/index
June 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Aron,
Help me through this. Did Rudy actually throw out 2k illegal immigrants a year, as he was permitted to do by the INS? Surely, it would not be hard to find 2k illegal immigrants who were criminals in a population of 400k.
And it sounds like he was opposed to gathering any information on the remaining 398k illegals, for fear of scaring them out of schools and hospitals. So how does he propose that the federal government gather information on every last immigrant currently in the country without “scaring them off”?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Murphy, Romney also disavowed contracts like this in his 1994 debates… what I was going by.
econ, Thompson has been all over corruption recently, but like I said, I don’t see him doing a contract.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Tommy,
It would seem that Romney learned something from a failed Senate bid and a successful Gubernatorial bid. Voters like it when you make specific proposals. And Romney appears to only be willing to make promises that he is absolutely sure he can follow through on.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
murphy,
Surely, you must recognize that a mayor has neither the responsibility nor the authority to deport illegal immigrants. It seems you are trying to shift blame onto then-Mayor Giuliani that rested squarely on the shoulders of INS.
The federal government will not be able to gather information on illegal immigrants currently in the country who do not voluntarily come forward upon the granting of amnesty. The issue at hand is how best to regulate and track the flow of everyone entering the US from a foreign country proceeding forward.
I would like you to read this article by Heather MacDonald that is by no means friendly to Giuliani, but she understands where the crux of the problem lies:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
Below is just the most relevant excerpt. Click on the link to read the article in full.
But even were immigrant-saturated cities to discard their sanctuary policies and start enforcing immigration violations where public safety demands it, the resource-starved immigration authorities couldn’t handle the overwhelming additional workload.
The chronic shortage of manpower to oversee, and detention space to house, aliens as they await their deportation hearings (or, following an order of removal from a federal judge, their actual deportation) has forced immigration officials to practice a constant triage. Long ago, the feds stopped trying to find and deport aliens who had “merely” entered the country illegally through stealth or fraudulent documents. Currently, the only types of illegal aliens who run any risk of catching federal attention are those who have been convicted of an “aggravated felony” (a particularly egregious crime) or who have been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony and who have reentered (an offense punishable with 20 years in jail).
That triage has been going on for a long time, as former INS investigator Mike Cutler, who worked with the NYPD catching Brooklyn drug dealers in the 1970s, explains. “If you arrested someone you wanted to detain, you’d go to your boss and start a bidding war,” Cutler recalls. “You’d say: ‘My guy ran three blocks, threw a couple of punches, and had six pieces of ID.’ The boss would turn to another agent: ‘Next! Whaddid your guy do?’ ‘He ran 18 blocks, pushed over an old lady, and had a gun.’ ” But such one-upmanship was usually fruitless. “Without the jail space,” explains Cutler, “it was like the Fish and Wildlife Service; you’d tag their ear and let them go.”
But even when immigration officials actually arrest someone, and even if a judge issues a final deportation order (usually after years of litigation and appeals), they rarely have the manpower to put the alien on a bus or plane and take him across the border. Second alternative: detain him pending removal. Again, inadequate space and staff. In the early 1990s, for example, 15 INS officers were in charge of the deportation of approximately 85,000 aliens (not all of them criminals) in New York City. The agency’s actual response to final orders of removal was what is known as a “run letter” a notice asking the deportable alien kindly to show up in a month or two to be deported, when the agency might be able to process him. Results: in 2001, 87 percent of deportable aliens who received run letters disappeared, a number that was even higher 94 percent if they were from terror-sponsoring countries.
To other law-enforcement agencies, the feds’ triage often looks like complete indifference to immigration violations. Testifying to Congress about the Queens rape by illegal Mexicans, New York’s criminal justice coordinator defended the city’s failure to notify the INS after the rapists’ previous arrests on the ground that the agency wouldn’t have responded anyway. “We have time and time again been unable to reach INS on the phone,” John Feinblatt said last February. “When we reach them on the phone, they require that we write a letter. When we write a letter, they require that it be by a superior.”
Criminal aliens also interpret the triage as indifference. John Mullaly a former NYPD homicide detective, estimates that 70 percent of the drug dealers and other criminals in Manhattan’s Washington Heights were illegal. Were Mullaly to threaten an illegal-alien thug in custody that his next stop would be El Salvador unless he cooperated, the criminal would just laugh, knowing that the INS would never show up. The message could not be clearer: this is a culture that can’t enforce its most basic law of entry. If policing’s broken-windows theory is correct, the failure to enforce one set of rules breeds overall contempt for the law.
The sheer number of criminal aliens overwhelmed an innovative program that would allow immigration officials to complete deportation hearings while a criminal was still in state or federal prison, so that upon his release he could be immediately ejected without taking up precious INS detention space. But the process, begun in 1988, immediately bogged down due to the numbers in 2000, for example, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were foreign-born. The agency couldn’t find enough pro bono attorneys to represent such an army of criminal aliens (who have extensive due-process rights in contesting deportation) and so would have to request delay after delay. Or enough immigration judges would not be available. In 1997, the INS simply had no record of a whopping 36 percent of foreign-born inmates who had been released from federal and four state prisons without any review of their deportability. They included 1,198 aggravated felons, 80 of whom were soon re-arrested for new crimes.
Resource starvation is not the only reason for federal inaction. The INS was a creature of immigration politics, and INS district directors came under great pressure from local politicians to divert scarce resources into distribution of such “benefits” as permanent residency, citizenship, and work permits, and away from criminal or other investigations. In the late 1980s, for example, the INS refused to join an FBI task force against Haitian drug trafficking in Miami, fearing criticism for “Haitian-bashing.” In 1997, after Hispanic activists protested a much-publicized raid that netted nearly two dozen illegals, the Border Patrol said that it would no longer join Simi Valley, California, probation officers on home searches of illegal-alien-dominated gangs.
The disastrous Citizenship USA project of 1996 was a luminous case of politics driving the INS to sacrifice enforcement to “benefits.” When, in the early 1990s, the prospect of welfare reform drove immigrants to apply for citizenship in record numbers to preserve their welfare eligibility, the Clinton administration, seeing a political bonanza in hundreds of thousands of new welfare-dependent citizens, ordered the naturalization process radically expedited. Thanks to relentless administration pressure, processing errors in 1996 were 99 percent in New York and 90 percent in Los Angeles, and tens of thousands of aliens with criminal records, including for murder and armed robbery, were naturalized.
Another powerful political force, the immigration bar association, has won from Congress an elaborate set of due-process rights for criminal aliens that can keep them in the country indefinitely. Federal probation officers in Brooklyn are supervising two illegals a Jordanian and an Egyptian with Saudi citizenship who look “ready to blow up the Statue of Liberty,” according to a probation official, but the officers can’t get rid of them. The Jordanian had been caught fencing stolen Social Security and tax-refund checks; now he sells phone cards, which he uses himself to make untraceable calls. The Saudi’s offense: using a fraudulent Social Security number to get employment a puzzlingly unnecessary scam, since he receives large sums from the Middle East, including from millionaire relatives. But intelligence links him to terrorism, so presumably he worked in order not to draw attention to himself. Currently, he changes his cell phone every month. Ordinarily such a minor offense would not be prosecuted, but the government, fearing that he had terrorist intentions, used whatever it had to put him in prison.
Now, probation officers desperately want to see the duo out of the country, but the two ex-cons have hired lawyers, who are relentlessly fighting their deportation. “Due process allows you to stay for years without an adjudication,” says a probation officer in frustration. “A regular immigration attorney can keep you in the country for three years, a high-priced one for ten.” In the meantime, Brooklyn probation officials are watching the bridges.
Even where immigration officials successfully nab and deport criminal aliens, the reality, says a former federal gang prosecutor, is that “they all come back. They can’t make it in Mexico.” The tens of thousands of illegal farmworkers and dishwashers who overpower U.S. border controls every year carry in their wake thousands of brutal assailants and terrorists who use the same smuggling industry and who benefit from the same irresistible odds: there are so many more of them than the Border Patrol.
For, of course, the government’s inability to keep out criminal aliens is part and parcel of its inability to patrol the border, period. For decades, the INS had as much effect on the migration of millions of illegals as a can tied to the tail of a tiger. And the immigrants themselves, despite the press cliché of hapless aliens living fearfully in the shadows, seemed to regard immigration authorities with all the concern of an elephant for a flea.
Certainly fear of immigration officers is not in evidence among the hundreds of illegal day laborers who hang out on Roosevelt Avenue in Queens, New York, in front of money wire services, travel agencies, immigration-attorney offices, and phone arcades, all catering to the local Hispanic population (as well as to drug dealers and terrorists). “There is no chance of getting caught,” cheerfully explains Rafael, an Ecuadoran. Like the dozen Ecuadorans and Mexicans on his particular corner, Rafael is hoping that an SUV seeking carpenters for $100 a day will show up soon. “We don’t worry, because we’re not doing anything wrong. I know it’s illegal; I need the papers, but here, nobody asks you for papers.”
Even the newly fortified Mexican border, the one spot where the government really tries to prevent illegal immigration, looms as only a minor inconvenience to the day laborers. The odds, they realize, are overwhelmingly in their favor. Miguel, a reserved young carpenter, crossed the border at Tijuana three years ago with 15 others. Border Patrol spotted them, but with six officers to 16 illegals, only five got caught. In illegal border crossings, you get what you pay for, Miguel says. If you try to shave on the fee, the coyotes will abandon you at the first problem. Miguel’s wife was flying into New York from Los Angeles that very day; it had cost him $2,200 to get her across the border. “Because I pay, I don’t worry,” he says complacently.
The only way to dampen illegal immigration and its attendant train of criminals and terrorists short of an economic revolution in the sending countries or an impregnably militarized border is to remove the jobs magnet. As long as migrants know they can easily get work, they will find ways to evade border controls. But enforcing laws against illegal labor is among government’s lowest priorities. In 2001, only 124 agents nationwide were trying to find and prosecute the hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of illegal aliens who violate the employment laws, the Associated Press reports.
Even were immigration officials to devote adequate resources to worksite investigations, not much would change, because their legal weapons are so weak. That’s no accident: though it is a crime to hire illegal aliens, a coalition of libertarians, business lobbies, and left-wing advocates has consistently blocked the fraud-proof form of work authorization necessary to enforce that ban. Libertarians have erupted in hysteria at such proposals as a toll-free number to the Social Security Administration for employers to confirm Social Security numbers. Hispanics warn just as stridently that helping employers verify work eligibility would result in discrimination against Hispanics implicitly conceding that vast numbers of Hispanics work illegally.
The result: hiring practices in illegal-immigrant-saturated industries are a charade. Millions of illegal workers pretend to present valid documents, and thousands of employers pretend to believe them. The law doesn’t require the employer to verify that a worker is actually qualified to work, and as long as the proffered documents are not patently phony scrawled with red crayon on a matchbook, say the employer will nearly always be exempt from liability merely by having eyeballed them. To find an employer guilty of violating the ban on hiring illegal aliens, immigration authorities must prove that he knew he was getting fake papers an almost insurmountable burden. Meanwhile, the market for counterfeit documents has exploded: in one month alone in 1998, immigration authorities seized nearly 2 million of them in Los Angeles, destined for immigrant workers, welfare seekers, criminals, and terrorists.
For illegal workers and employers, there is no downside to the employment charade. If immigration officials ever do try to conduct an industry-wide investigation which will at least net the illegal employees, if not the employers local congressmen will almost certainly head it off. An INS inquiry into the Vidalia-onion industry in Georgia was not only aborted by Georgia’s congressional delegation; it actually resulted in a local amnesty for the growers’ illegal workforce. The downside to complying with the spirit of the employment law, on the other hand, is considerable. Ethnic advocacy groups are ready to picket employers who dismiss illegal workers, and employers understandably fear being undercut by less scrupulous competitors.
Of the incalculable changes in American politics, demographics, and culture that the continuing surge of migrants is causing, one of the most profound is the breakdown of the distinction between legal and illegal entry. Everywhere, illegal aliens receive free public education and free medical care at taxpayer expense; 13 states offer them driver’s licenses. States everywhere have been pushed to grant illegal aliens college scholarships and reduced in-state tuition. One hundred banks, over 800 law-enforcement agencies, and dozens of cities accept an identification card created by Mexico to credentialize illegal Mexican aliens in the U.S. The Bush administration has given its blessing to this matricula consular card, over the strong protest of the FBI, which warns that the gaping security loopholes that the card creates make it a boon to money launderers, immigrant smugglers, and terrorists. Border authorities have already caught an Iranian man sneaking across the border this year, Mexican matricula card in hand.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Murphy, I wasn’t attacking Romney, or criticizing him. I was pointing out that I didn’t think it was likely that he’d put out a contract like this. I said the same thing about Thompson. Maybe I was wrong, but I was just going by what I had seen.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Tommy, I know you weren’t. I was just pointing out why you shouldn’t be surprised to see Romney get explicit on what he will do as President…especially since he already has.
June 12th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Aron, it’s going to be a little while before I have the time to read that beast of a post.
June 12th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
[...] Rudy’s Policy Address in New Hampshire [...]
June 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Ok, Aron. I’ve skimmed the piece, though not entirely digested it yet. So forgive me if I’m missing something.
It’s a huge problem. But nowhere did the article describe a single action Rudy took as Mayor which is consistent with his current rhetoric. He reduced crime and welfare rolls, yes. But I already knew he was good on that as a separate issue. I want to know if he actually attempted to do a single thing in terms of improving immigration law enforcement, tracking immigrants, cutting public funding, etc.