[on compromise immigration bill] This is fundamentally flawed in its current form, and I would oppose it. We need bipartisanship, but we also need legislation that is compassionate. I’m not sure this is.
Bipartisanship has taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. We don't need bipartisanship, we need application of principle... Where was the call for bipartisanship during the Obamacare debate? Not a single Republican voted for it. It wasn't about bipartisanship, it was about having the votes to dictate your will.
For one, we very much need in any immigration bill - we need protection for people who are in this country and who have not become citizens, for example, that they are protected and legitimized and given permanent residency here. And we want to see some things of that kind added to the immigration bill.
Legislation that would withhold funding for the United Nations is fundamentally flawed in concept and practice, sets us back, is self-defeating, and doesn't work.
The left are not bipartisan. Somebody give me an example of left-wing bipartisanship. They don't even define it the way we do. Bipartisanship, as they define it, as in we cave on our core beliefs and agree with them. That is bipartisanship. There is no compromise.
I sure tried to help deliver compromise, consensus, bipartisanship.
The current economic system is fundamentally flawed and inevitably destructive.
I'm honestly not sure that I've ever tried to talk as a theologian about "homosexual acts," per se. My disagreement with the current teaching of the Roman Congregations is about what I consider to be their fundamentally flawed premise of the objectively disordered nature of the inclination.
Our immigration system needs walls and doors. We need walls to stop illegal immigration, but we also need to doors to allow people to come here legally.
It is vitally important that we implement immigration reform. We need a bill that strengthens our borders and protects this nation, but that also makes it simpler for good people to become Americans.
There are two pieces of legislation that are related. There's the Communal Land Rights Bill. Then there is the legislation that was approved which has to do with the role and the place and the function of the institution of traditional leadership. Now that legislation, not the Communal Land Rights Bill, provides for the setting up of particular committees that would work together with the elected municipalities.
At a time when we have much work to do to address our Nation's critical infrastructure, and, as I said, which is currently in dire need of upgrade and repair, this legislation is also a jobs bill and is obviously a jobs creator.
We need a permanent solution to TPS recipients and develop a path to citizenship. And, more fundamentally, we need to ensure that our immigration policies treat those coming to this country with the dignity and compassion that should be afforded to all human beings and immediately stop tearing families apart.
We've even lost the definition of immigration. "Immigration" today, if you listen to the left, equals anybody who wants to come into the country should be allowed. That's not what immigration is. That's illegal immigration, and we ought to all oppose it.
I do want to see an immigration compromise. And you can't have an immigration compromise if everybody's out there calling the president a racist.
But my view is that you need a system at the border. You need some fencing but you need technology. You need boots on the ground. And then you need to have interior enforcement of our nation's immigration laws inside the country. And that means dealing with the employers who still consistently hire illegal labor.
We for sure need to secure the border. I think we need to enforce the legal system. I'm not for amnesty, I'm not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed here in Washington... we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that doesn't mean amnesty.