is Slammed by Chris Christie for his Immigration Policies

[bobbyw24]

“I want every child who comes to New Jersey to be educated, but I don’t believe that for those people who came here illegally, we should be subsidizing with taxpayer money, through in-state tuition their education,” Christie said. “And let me be very clear from my perspective: That is not a heartless position that is a common sense position.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/chris-christie-takes-a-shot-at-rick-perry-on-immigration-policy/

[InTradePro]

Sounds like he is running.

[John F Kennedy III]

Sounds like he is running.

Yep. Gonna have to widen the aisles...

[Enforcer]

Outside of his home state, the liberal, family hating Chris Christie could not get elected as a dog catcher.

His position regarding undocumented immigrants is extremely inconsistent.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/chris_christie_flaws.html

Christie is right though about immigration. It is not illegal to enter the U.S. nor be here without papers. It is a civil matter. But, if anybody will call the little brown people "illegals" (an absolute slap in the face to the Constitution), it appears that the "conservatives" will vote for them, all other issues disregarded.

[John F Kennedy III]

the little brown people "illegals"

Are you trying to pretend this is a race issue?


(an absolute slap in the face to the Constitution)

Care to explain?

[kejonn]

http://conservativenewjersey.com/chris-christie-a-conservative-myth-part-7

Covers Christie's own stance on "undocumented workers".

[Valli6]

US Attorney: "Undocumented immigrants aren't breaking law" 2008 (4:08)
"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime, just a civil offense."
Christie, as NJ Attorney general, prosecuted only 13 immigration cases between 2002-2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EX-A4pz1Bo

Chris Christie on Lou Dobbs & illegal immigration (7:02)
Christie says illegal immigration is a federal problem. Does not want to vilify illegals. Not in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants for the sake of homeland security. Does not support in-state tuition for illegals if they aren't paying taxes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cYTjtrndnA

[Enforcer]

Are you trying to pretend this is a race issue?



Care to explain?

I will not pretend to know what is in a man's heart when presented with the facts, but if the current immigration debacle isn't based on racial issues, then allow those who call people "illegal" aliens, answer me as a matter of fact, not opinion.

In America there is a presumption of innocence. A person cannot be an "illegal" anything until they have been arrested (based upon probable cause), booked, jailed, made bail, gone to a preliminary hearing, bound over for trial, gone through the discovery process, went to trial, found guilty and sentenced.

To set any precedent contrary to that by claiming that people are "illegal" sets a very bad precedent - one of which YOU would not want to be judged by. And that is experience talking to you there.

Secondly, it is not illegal for a person to come into the United States without papers nor is it a crime to be here. It is a civil violation - and more precisely, it is a federal civil misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $250. That hardly qualifies as making an individual a hard core criminal.

Next, the statutory law against "Improper Entry" was first enacted in the 1950s and it presumed there would always be "proper" methods to enter the United States. In about 1965 Ted Kennedy helped railroad the draconian immigration laws that we have in place through Congress. Today, the FACT SITUATIONS of most of those here without papers is not addressed in the current visa scheme.

So, the anti - immigrant lobby demands that people do something "legally," when in fact they mean immigrants should come here properly. Either way, such an avenue does not exist and when someone advocates that a "legal" avenue be created, the anti - immigrants scream bloody murder. Personally, I would advocate a Guest Worker Program with no automatic path to citizenship be looked at.

Again, I cannot look at the issue and "pretend" to know what is in a man's heart. This much I do know: the Declaration of Independence proclaims that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." I know that not one person in a thousand can tell you the difference between an unalienable Right and an inalienable right; cannot tell you the difference between a Right and a privilege. But nobody in America has the legitimate Right to tell the rest of America who they may or may not hire nor who they can or cannot associate with. And that kind of control seems to be at the core of what you're arguing. Motive? Racism? Maybe stupidity or lack of knowledge? I don't know. Just pointing out the facts so that you can see them a little more clearly.