Huck toughens up on immigration

I tell you, the immigration thing is a much, much bigger issue to more people in this election cycle; I don't think politicians have got it until recently, but I suspect it's becoming apparent on the trail and in campaign polling. There are a *lot* of "nativists" out there who are mad as heck.

So I do suspect his position is pandering, and although I'd like the borders locked tight (coupled with a sane and efficient immigration policy) I do very much see what the Huck's spokesperson is saying: families first, even if they're illegal.

Hey Rod,

It's not a flip-flop at all. His critics just misrepresented his position. If you look at the old immigration page on his website (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4) you'll see that this plan just fleshes out some of the details.

It's not a contradiction to be both compassionate to people and tough on illegal immigration at the same time. ; )

Any confidence I might have had in Huckabee as a leader went out the window with the latest scandal ABC News broke about his releasing a convicted rapist who had been imprisoned for Life plus 20 years with no chance of parole. Despite the pleas of the rapist's victims and others, Huckabee went in person before the parole board to plea for the release of the rapist, who then went on to rape and MURDER two more women and is now behind bars again.

Huckabee's no fiscal conservative; his tax and spend history attest to that. But I think he's not even as socially conservative as he paints himself. He's a politician, following whatever course seems favorable to the right people in the moment. This accounts for his changing stance on immigration, and this is also why he released that rapist. He can't be trusted.

Now that he's a contender, the pandering to the base begins. So much for being authentic.

As all Arkansas governors and wives of governors know, public policy has 2 judgmental lodestars to determine the efficacy of any government action:
1. is it good for Tyson Chicken?; and
2. THE CHILDREN.

Any crazy lame-brained expensive mess of a soon-to-be failure of a policy initiative can be defended if it's FOR THE CHILDREN. And cheap chicken wings(Tyson's Wings of Fire, 50 to a bag, $9.99 at Costco; get 2 for the big game!). Huckabee hits the holy exacta here.

This looks to me pretty much what I've read on him before as to this issue.

Yes, people have taken his stand to not penalize the children of illegals in reference to college out of context. After all, the only one's I'm told eligible for that benefit are those in the state schools since 5th grade, I believe. That means the government has already been footing their bill though a good part school despite an illegal status. Why punish the children who didn't break the law and have lived in the state and gone to state schools for several years? Plus, that won't even be a draw to illegals to cross the boarder and go to Arkansas because the benefit isn't immediate.

I didn't see him refute that policy, but everything he said, at least in principle, he has said before. So I don't see the flip-flop label there.

The only concern I have is the one about getting onto businesses for hiring them. Not that I think that in itself is bad, that's what needs to happen. But, it better happen after business have been given the means to 1. check the true legal status of an applicate, and 2. if one finds out they are illegal after they are hired, allow businesses, after a period of time has passed to work out mistakes, to be able to fire them, at least. Currently a business cannot take such action without threat of fines for discrimination. It would be a bad situation if the enforcement hit without the means for businesses to follow the law. They'll either get shut down by the government for hiring them, or the government for firing them. Not good.

But I found most of his comments on target.

He said at the time, "If the state were to give you a voucher, then in essence the state would be funding a faith school and would have some control over that faith school. That’s problematic for me as a person of faith.”

But when asked about the scholarships for illegals, he said you don't punish the children for the crimes of the parents.

I guess Huck's compassionate "for the least of these" faith doesn’t extend to religious parents who want to escape the failing public schools, only to illegal immigrants who want to escape Mexico and become a burden on tax-paying parents here.

I don't see the contradiction here. Huck's objection to vouchers (which, btw, I support) apparently comes from a religious-liberty standpoint. His position is a classic Baptist position.

Sorry if I've frustrated you Rod, but I think you may have missed my point. Huckabee supports giving the adult children of illegal immigrants an in-state tuition scholarship. I wasn't referring to the spot taken up by an illegal immigrant over another, not at all.

We don't need a college welfare program for illegal immigrants. We are now creating an entitlement for the children of illegal immigrants who are now adults simply because they did attended an Arkansas high school. I'm fine with them applying to college if they're here and they can get in, it's the fact that they expect the taxpayer to pay for it. They are not citizens of Arkansas. They should at the very least be considered the same as "out-of-state" students who want to go to an Arkansas college. If you do well in an out-of-state school and are a US citizen you have to pay out of state tuition, but if your an illegal immigrant who does well in a US school, and want to go to college the state pays for it. There's something odd about a system which rewards those that came from out of the country, but penalizes those that are out of state, but livei in America.

That's all I'm talking about. This is not the same thing as preferences or a quota for illegals at all. I say let them in if they qualify, but let them pay for it, just like the rest of out-of-state students have to. We should not reward them with a college degree simply because their parents managed to come here illegally and not get caught while there children were educated in the public schools.

Please don't imply a racist argument where there isn't one. It's not about race at all, but who is a citizen of Arkansas and who isn't and treating all of those who are not citizens of Arkansas equally when it comes to paying tuition in an Arkansas college.

You might have a point about the pure nature of money making one beholden to the state as Huckabee argues, but Huckabee didn't seem to have any problem passing a law imposing the state upon homeschoolers and they receive NO government funds at all. In 1999, Huckabee signed a law requiring homeschoolers to file a letter of intent with the school district, he imposed a 14 day waiting period before they are allowed to pull their child out of a government school, and required homeschool children to take yearly exams just like those in the public school. So much for no money, no strings. Huckabee signed the 1999 law that gave the state some control in homeschooling, many of which are faith based. He could have vetoed it, or let it pass without his signature, he did neither. He signed it.

So while the voucher argument has some merit, I'll agree, Huckabee has no trouble imposing state requirements on private faith-based homeschoolers. Is it any wonder the ultra-liberal New Hampshire National Education Association, came out this week and endorsed both Huckabee along with Hillary? For some reason, Huckabee hasn't been touting this endorsement very much. You can't even find a mention of it on his website. Gee, I wonder why? The NEA doesn't endorse "authentic conservatives" so you have to ask yourself, what do they know about Huckabee that we don't?

Spunky:

It sounds like you're criticizing me, not Rod.

It also sounds like you have a problem with public education in general, elementary and otherwise. So why be so defensive about in-state tuition rates (NOT a scholarship) vs. out-of-state tuition rates at PUBLIC colleges? You don't like the whole system, right?

Look, hyperbole aside, I think our biggest problem is with the definition of "citizen."

I'm clearly more liberal than you, but hey, do what you want with illegal immigrant adults. But I do think our society has an obligation to children and young adults who, even if they cannot be called citizens due to their birthright, have been raised as Americans -- and who would essentially, unlike their parents, be stateless if they were to be deported.

It's bad enough we want to drive away people who **want to be** Americans. (Or at least make it hopeless to do so legally.) But why are we so determined to give the boot to people (young people, no less) who except for a birth certificate ARE Americans?!

Sorry, Larry, I did confuse the tuition comment between you and Rod.

Huckabee had a few proposals, one of which was a scholarships as part of the Arkansas Challenge. This isn't just a case of in-state tuition, but the same scholarships available to all students in Arkansas.

If we are going to redefine the word "citizen", fine. Let's have that discussion and change it if necessary. But let's not redefine it by legislation that gives non-citizens benefits of citizenship and then just say they are citizens because they live here. Let's not cheapen citizenship by saying just because you live here, you're an American. American is a place where all men can pursue their own happiness, but we have a Constitution for a reason.

Our obligation to adult children of illegal immigrants is the same obligation we have to all adults. The freedom to pursue their dreams, but that doesn't mean the taxpayer must pay for those dreams simply because their parents came here illegally. And at the same time tell the children of parents who happen to live in Texas, sorry you don't qualify because your a citizen and happen to live in Texas.

Let these adult high school graduates do what most college students have to do to pay for college, they work. Let them get a job and work for the American Dream just like the rest of us. The American Dream is not a right based on birth even if you're a citizen, but a blessing bestowed upon those are willing to work hard and overcome the obstacles that their life presents to them. Like Smith Barney ads used to tell us, in America "make money the old-fashioned way, we earn it!"

I'm all for helping these children though. If you would like to set up a scholarship for the children of illegals and fund it to give them a leg up on life, go right ahead. But don't force the American taxpayer to pay for it. We're struggling just to put our own children through school.

mik:

Arkansas doesn't have anywhere close to that many illegal immigrant children who would be applying to colleges. The effect would be strictly on the margins. And frankly, if your kid scored marginally in his grades and test scores, and an illegal immigrant child scored off the charts, I truly don't understand the unfairness. We're a meritocracy in the U.S., right? (More like a sarcastic, "Yeah, right ...")

As for the quotes, you read much too much into them, but now that you mention it ...

Of course I accept the term illegal immigrant. (Better than illegal alien, which makes it sound like they came here from the moon.) But I do think categorizing a child who came here at age 2, who barely speaks enough Spanish to communicate with his/her parents, who socializes in English and with the full community, who has received a full public education, as "un-American" (to use quotes) is preposterous.

mik:

I actually went to one of America's top universities (as you should well know as a CC regular; it's been the subject of several fights on here) and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. As a prognosticator, you're Carnac the Magnificent.

I make a distinction between kids who are already here (and are for all intents and purposes, IMHO, American) and what you call "foreign students," whose first exposure to America would be at age 18. You don't. I think you're wrong; you think I'm wrong; but we're not going to change each others' minds.

But I never said Arkansas was "crawling" with illegal immigrant kids. (Certainly not 1/3 of the public school system -- where on earth did you grab that number out of a hat from?) It is true that the Latino population has increased rapidly near the Wal-Mart headquarters in northwestern Arkansas and that, well, it's been documented that some of them are undocumented. This is also the most Republican part of Arkansas; naturally, Huck would have wanted to keep the business leaders (read: the Tyson and Walton folks) happy. I'm not saying it's right (though I personally think it was the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps); I'm saying it's political reality.

Finally, you're parsing "impact" and "margins" way too much. I don't think I ever said there would be no impact, period; my point is that the impact would be so marginal that for all intents and purposes there would be almost no impact.

And frankly, I don't see where slots for DESERVING (high grades, good, um, conduct, since I can't say citizenship) illegal immigrants are any worse than reserving slots for wastrel kids of alumni. If it's an even exchange there, absolutely no deserving white-as-the-driven-snow Amerkins would be affected whatsoever.