The next step in the race to the White House is February 9 with New Hampshire’s first-in-the nation primary. Although FAIR does not endorse candidates, we believe that the issue of immigration is of the upmost importance as Republicans and Democrats choose their nominees for the 2016 presidential election. To help you be informed before you vote on Tuesday, FAIR provides the following summary of each of the candidates’ immigration positions. For more information, please visit FAIR’s 2016 resource page.
Democratic Presidential Candidates
- Hillary Clinton: Clinton promises to go even “further” than President Obama in granting executive amnesty outside the law until Congress passes legislation providing “full and equal citizenship” to illegal aliens. Regarding enforcement, Clinton will only deport illegal aliens “who pose a violent threat to public safety.” By comparison, in 2003 as a U.S. Senator, Clinton described herself as “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”
- Bernie Sanders: Sanders vows to “take extensive executive action” to shield even more illegal aliens from deportation than President Obama did until Congress passes a “roadmap to citizenship.” Sanders’s immigration plan calls for “modernizing” border security while ending State and local cooperation for interior enforcement. Sanders voted for the Gang of Eight mass amnesty guest worker bill in 2013 but played a key role in stopping amnesty legislation in 2006 and 2007.
Republican Presidential Candidates
- Jeb Bush: Bush’s immigration plan calls for a path to “earned legal status” for illegal aliens and an expedited path to citizenship for so-called DREAMers, illegal aliens who claim to have been brought to the country unlawfully as minors. Bush considers fencing a “component of border security” but only “where appropriate” and supports a “strong E-Verify system.”
- Ben Carson: Carson’s immigration plan grants illegal aliens with a “pristine record” the “opportunity to become guest workers” and possibly citizens “later on down the road.” Additionally, Carson claims his administration can seal the border within the first year but he opposes deporting the entire illegal alien population currently residing unlawfully in the country.
- Chris Christie: Christie’s immigration plan has five enforcement principles: securing the border; mandatory E-Verify; implementing biometric entry-exit; deny funding to sanctuary cities; and blocking President Obama’s executive amnesty programs. Although Christie’s official plan does not address how he would handle the current illegal alien population, in 2010 Christie supported a “pathway to citizenship”-a position he now claims he opposes.
- Ted Cruz: Cruz opposes amnesty and wants to “stop illegal immigration.” His immigration plan calls for securing the border and strengthening and enforcing existing immigration laws. Although Cruz has previously supported increasing legal immigration, he now supports reforming the system to “prioritize the interests and well-being of Americans.”
- Carly Fiorina: Fiorina says the “first thing” her administration will do is “secure the border.” According to her plan, she will “invest in infrastructure” and encourage State and local cooperation for interior enforcement. Regarding legal immigration, Fiorina wants to “reform our broken visa system” and “fix” the visa overstay problem. The plan calls for E-Verify but it is unclear if she supports its use by all employers. Finally, she opposes citizenship for illegal aliens but has said “I think legal status is a possibility for sure” and also said “I’ve been very clear I don’t support deportation.”
- John Kasich: Kasich supports giving illegal aliens a “path to legalization” and said a top priority in his administration will be “expand[ing]guest workers.” Kasich calls deporting illegal aliens “a silly argument” but has expressed vague support for securing the border.
- Marco Rubio: Rubio led the 2013 Gang of Eight bill that granted mass amnesty, significantly increased legal immigration, and contained only promises of future enforcement. Rubio now opposes that 1,200 page bill but his immigration plan supports passing its provisions “in a sequential and piecemeal way.”
- Donald Trump: Trump’s immigration plan opposes amnesty and calls for eliminating the incentives that encourage illegal immigration. His plan centers on three “core principles” of immigration reform: control the border; enforce immigration laws; and prioritize American workers. However, Trump has previously said that after deporting illegal aliens he would allow the “really good people” to return.
13 Comments
Remember Bear Stearns, the investment management firm? In the early 2000s, before they were destroyed by their reckless, arrogant executives, they authored a very well-researched study that estimated the size of the illegal alien population at approximately 20-25 million.
I still think their estimates were much more trustworthy that the study authored by our feckless Federal Government, which estimates that there are 11 million illegals currently residing in the US.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the current illegal population is closer to 30 million now.
Just imagine how much more livable America would be if even half of those people self-deported, which could easily happen if E-Verify were made both mandatory and retroactive.
Wages in the affected industries would rise, urban traffic jams would be less severe, crime would decrease, pollution would be reduced. Federal, State, and Local budgets would be less strained also.
These are goals worth fighting for.
As most of you know, professional politicians will make false promises to get elected.
You can get a good sense of the actual positions and allegiances – for a candidate – by looking at his or her campaign contributions and other financial affiliations.
Wall Street Investment Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers invariably support Amnesty and mass legal immigrations, simply because these institutional investors make huge profits from the depressed wages and increases in aggregate consumption that immigration-driven overpopulation creates.
If you do some research at the Open Secrets website, you will find that there are five Presidential candidates that have attracted substantial donations from institutional investors – either directly or indirectly via Super PACS.
These candidates are:
Jeb Bush
Hillary Clinton
Ted Cruz
John Kasich
Marco Rubio
Of these, either Clinton, Cruz, or Rubio could easily end up being the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Life may not get any easier for the beleaguered American Working Class anytime soon.
This Article Will Cheer You Up…Snippet:
“….Bill Clinton’s ‘Bimbos’ Flock to Team Trump
Political consultant and ex-Trump adviser Roger Stone built a career smearing his foes. And now he’s re-surfacing some of the most troubling allegations from Clinton’s past.
As Donald Trump descended his podium at a rally in Arkansas last week, a familiar scene of screaming fans met him with requests for autographs and selfies. Everything was gaudy in a typically Trumpian way but for the presence of one person in particular: Paula Jones.
“Go ahead honey, go,” Trump told Jones as she turns around for a selfie with the Republican frontrunner. When her husband introduced himself, Trump leaned over the railing and said “you got lucky man, look how beautiful,” before moving along down the line.
Jones, who made national headlines for suing former president Bill Clinton for sexual harassment in 1994, has emerged from obscurity to support Trump’s presidential bid”'”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bill-clinton-s-bimbos-flock-to-team-trump.html
Enjoy!!!
That is an interesting and humorous article. Thanks for posting the link.
I’m not sure if associating with people from Bill Clinton’s sordid past will help Trump in his Presidential bid. Time will tell.
Before he can take shots at the Clintons in the general election, Trump will have to win the Republican nomination. Doing so will be an uphill battle, considering how the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdock, and other corporate and financial elitists are lining up to derail and / or sabotage The Donald’s campaign any way they can.
The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966? Woul Cruz repeal it?
I doubt it.
We Paid Into Social Security All Our Lives
And we paid in more than we’ll use…..so why are we giving it away to foreign guests and using the debt to pay for it now? Got a good answer Establishment?
“We believe the issue of immigration is of the utmost importance.” Exactly, even though few see it that way. The question is do we want to be just another third world mentality country or the nation we have been. There are dozens of Spanish speaking nations and most are a political and/or economic disaster.
Look at the US commonwealth of Puerto Rico, where most workers pay no federal income tax, half the country gets food stamps, and 45% are on Medicaid. Given that shower of federal funds, they should be well off financially but the fact is through corruption and mismanagement they are all but bankrupt. Don’t worry though. Hillary and the Democrats say we should rush in with ever bigger bundles of your tax money.
In another 1984 media moment, this week the president went to a mosque to call for tolerance. He’s introduced by a young Muslim woman, with other women sitting right in front of him. All propaganda of course. The mosque he went to has a separate balcony area with television monitors that women are required to be in. He needs to go to a mosque and say why do Islamic countries treat women like they are the property of, and subservient to, men. Just further proof of his double standard. Like he condemns Israel but they hold pride parades, whereas in a Muslim country that frequently gets you tossed off a rooftop.
To be clear, the no federal income tax applies not only to low income workers, but any individual of any income level who earns their income from a Puerto Rico source. How would you like that deal?
There already are plenty of failed, bankrupt Latin American countries. Why do we want to add the US to the list and become the Brazil or Argentina of North American?
Interesting Puerto Rico……so what is worse the 3% of illegals in the US that work and are no burden to the State or Puerto Rico and ll your illegals cousins?
Illegals are no burden to the state? How about all the ones with anchor babies being supported by taxpayer money. That costs California taxpayers over half a billion a year in Los Angeles County alone,
very minimum….almost negligible compare to whites + blacks + hispanics+puerto rico+ somalis+cubans+muslims+others then = illegals
As a whole………..
You’re totally wrong as usual. Illegals are less educated, make less money, and have larger families here. The taxpayers pay the costs of those large families. They use welfare at rates higher than native born. Keep repeating the same lies but it doesn’t make them any more true.