Rudy In 1996: "We'll Never, Ever Be Able To Totally Control Immigration"
Rudy Giuliani gave a speech in 1996 in which he claimed that America will "never, ever be able to totally control immigration," adding that this is something that the country needs to "accept" -- a claim that appears to be directly at odds with his current campaign assertion that he's the candidate who will "end" illegal immigration.
Election Central obtained a video portion of the 1996 speech -- which you can watch below -- from a rival campaign.
In the speech, Rudy also says the following of our inability to control immigration: "We just have to accept that if we’re going to be the kind of country we are.”
Rudy also claims in the October 1996 speech at the Kennedy School of Government that our inability to totally control immigration is linked to our being a "society that values freedom" and adds that totally controlling immigration could "very well destroy the economy of the United States."
These assertions, too, would appear to be directly at odds with his current promise to "end" illegal immigration completely. Rudy's GOP rivals -- Mitt Romney in particular -- have sought to make Rudy's past expressions of support for illegal immigrants an issue in the GOP primary. Take a look:
Here's what Rudy said in the 1996 speech:
GIULIANI: But then I think we have to, with some degree of wisdom, come to the following perspective. We're never, ever going to be able to totally control immigration to a country that is as large as ours, that has borders that are as diverse as the borders of the United States, and as a society that wants to be a country that values freedom -- that values freedom of movement, freedom to do business.If you were to totally control immigration into the United States, if you were to totally control the flow of people in the United States, you might very well destroy the economy of the United States because you'd have to inspect everything and everyone in every way possible. I don't know that there's any technological way to totally control it. There's no doubt much better ways to get more of a reasonable degree of assurance about who's coming in, to get more control over it, you're never totally going to control it. So we just have to accept that if we want to be the kind of country that we are."
Here's what Rudy said yesterday in South Carolina:
"We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration."
And here's what Rudy is saying in his new immigration radio ad in New Hampshire:
"A person who comes here illegally and commits a crime should be thrown out of the country. People that come in illegally, we gotta stop," Giuliani says. "You stop illegal immigration by building a fence, a physical fence and then a technological fence. You then hire enough Border Patrol so they can respond in a timely way."
A Giuliani spokesperson didn't return a request for comment. We're searching for the full transcript of Rudy's Kennedy speech and we'll bring that to you if and when we find it.
Comments (15)
Legalize wrote on August 15, 2007 3:27 PM:It's sad. The past 7 years have forced relatively reasonable people to pander to the crazy and stupid in such a way that sane policies just never have a chance to make it.
Thank you, Karl Rove, for granting the knuckle-draggers veto-power over public policy.
Greg Sargent wrote on August 15, 2007 3:43 PM:ironically, granting the knuckle-draggers this power will damage the GOP for a generation...one can dream, anyway...
Legalize wrote on August 15, 2007 4:06 PM:Unfortunately I think that the other part of Rove's legacy is that he made main-stream good old fashioned fear-mongering and cynicism, and Rudy certainly has that tactic pretty locked up.
Hopefully the bat-shit insanity that is the GOP base will be repulsed by the fact that he doesn't hate fags, women, and immigrants quite as much as they do.
Who knows? As long as Chris Matthews and the rest of the whores in the media keep drooling over authoritarian daddies, this is a largely academic discussion.
Mister Foo wrote on August 15, 2007 4:28 PM:Some of this may just be the cost of running for President. Even on the Democratic side, compare John Kerry's sudden and short-lived propensity to talk about faith and wear hunting jackets in 2004 with his reasonable statements in interviews afterwards; or John Edwards' current trite populism with (presumably) more legitimate efforts in 2005. In other words, it's intelligent people made stupid by ambition.
That said, I agree that they've got it much worse on the Republican side, having spent the past 7 years -- and more -- courting some freaky birds. May they come home to roost in a big way.
concerntroll wrote on August 15, 2007 4:53 PM:Nice job Greg & TPM. Give the guy hell! He deserves it and we're all behind you.
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!
It's beyond pathetic that the way to appeal to the people who make up the Republican base is to be a xenophobe that advocates repression and the cessation of civil liberties.
perseus1 wrote on August 15, 2007 6:37 PM:Greg - here's the full transcript of the speech:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/96/ken.html
terryhallinan wrote on August 15, 2007 7:05 PM:...John Edwards' current trite populism with (presumably) more legitimate efforts in 2005.
Some of us really, really stupid people love Edwards' and Webb's populism just as we loved Edwards' trite populism when he was running for vice president. Lots of us really stupid people out there, believe it or not.
We stupid people are also against Hillary's DLC anti-populism.
Hard to figure stupid people huh?
Best, Terry
Mister Foo wrote on August 15, 2007 8:02 PM:No offense intended. Most of the populist things I've seen him say in the debates sound generic enough to almost be caricatures (see also Gore's "people vs. the powerful"), but it's very much a matter of personal taste. Some people find Edwards' speaking style earnest and convincing, others smarmy; I lean toward the latter, but I'm not sure there's a truth to the matter. I find Kucinich much more convincing on both fronts, but he probably annoys many pore people than Edwards.
In any case, both pseudo-populism and over-slickness are at worst harmless, so I try to tune them out. From what I've seen so far, Edwards would govern well, so he's one of my top picks among the has-a-chance candidates.
ohiomeister wrote on August 15, 2007 8:29 PM:Hmm...wonder if a certain Massachusetts governor had any role in this getting out? It was a speech in Cambridge after all...
Anyway, the contest to crown King Hypocrite gets closer and closer by the day.
terryhallinan wrote on August 15, 2007 11:45 PM:Most of the populist things I've seen him say in the debates sound generic enough to almost be caricatures (see also Gore's "people vs. the powerful"), but it's very much a matter of personal taste.
Perhaps.
I find Edwards' "two Americas" the very essence of populism that is expressed in somewhat better style in The Declaration of Independence.
Gore's DLC elitism seems to me the polar opposite that has nothing to do with his intellectual "stiffness."
IMO Kucinich is not a populist either, whatever he is.
As we know the writer of The Declaration of Independence excluded an awful lot of people from equality and even wrote racist tracts that were appalling even for his time while taking a slave for a mistress. But the words have a ring to them that have a universal appeal to all those hoping for a better world to this day.
That is what I think populism is about.
I don't hear any of that from Kucinich. Maybe I missed it.
Best, Terry
Mister Foo wrote on August 16, 2007 12:20 PM:Of the top ten list on Kucinich's issues page, I would consider 5 and 8 (guaranteed education and worker-corporation balance), and perhaps 3, 6, and 10 (NAFTA withdrawal, social security, and rural revival) as "populist." It may get lost in the pacifism and environmentalism, but it's there.
I think the "two Americas" phrasing is right -- as someone with a comfortable life in the non-ruling America, I see our aristocracy hardening and am deeply troubled. But self-serving and -perpetuating elites are a problem as old as civilization, and there's no simple solution that doesn't involve a lot of blood. Simply talking about it to "raise awareness" is almost completely useless.
I believe populism is one of the easiest political themes to demagogue, so I don't trust it unless it is put forth in concrete terms: Here are the policies I will push. Here is how they affect the distribution of goods and influence. Otherwise we just get more of the same, but with "us versus them" rhetorical sprinkles on top.
shipoing meridia generic wrote on December 10, 2007 3:55 PM:sibutramine meridia generic http://genericmeridia.yourbb2.com >generic fast meridia [url=http://genericmeridia.yourbb2.com]generic fast meridia[/url]
sibutramine often wrote on December 25, 2007 10:01 PM:with sibutramine http://sibutramine.osc.pl >sibutramine h2o [url=http://sibutramine.osc.pl]sibutramine h2o[/url]
work generic propecia wrote on January 15, 2008 9:23 AM:for propecia generic http://genericprop.forumotion.com >discount generic propecia [url=http://genericprop.forumotion.com]discount generic propecia[/url]
