Bachmann Plays Up Immigration, Hits Warren Buffett

Jim Davenport, Chron, August 16, 2011

Presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann on Tuesday called for a wall on the border with Mexico and suggested that billionaire Warren Buffett should write a big check to the government if he’s eager for higher taxes on the wealthy.

{snip}

Bachmann said lax enforcement of immigration laws was a threat to the nation’s security. She agreed with a town hall questioner at a Greenville stop that U.S. troops should be redeployed from South Korea to south Texas.

“How do you solve it? You build a barrier, a fence, a wall–whatever you want to call it. You build it,” Bachmann said. “As president of the United States, every mile, every yard, every foot, every inch will be covered on that southern border.”

The “problem is not our laws on immigration,” Bachmann said. “The problem has been in our unwillingness to enforce the laws that are on the books.” South Carolina legislators this year passed one of the nation’s toughest illegal immigration laws. It goes into effect in December.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Good for Bachmann. That puts her up a notch in my book. I just pray that Republicans aren’t fooled once again by open borders neo cons like Romney and Perry. Romney has been non-existent yet he is still a ‘front runner’. Perry is GWB all over again. Don’t fall for it. Ron Paul or Bachmann are the obvious choices for conservatism. (Paul recently went a little soft on immigration but I believe he is trustworthy enough not to grant massive amnesties and we need him to get our fiscal house in order.)

  • Question Diversity

    I have used this space in the recent past to heap a fair amount of opprobrium on Michele Bachmann. And my criticisms still stand — Too much extant religiosity, hanging around with the black-loving and philo-Semitic version of Glenn Beck, and some other things. One new one I can add, and this is ironic, in light of her criticism of Warren Buffett, is that as a once upon a time tax attorney, she personally benefited from the tax code being so complicated, as does Buffett himself — The reason he pays a lower effective income tax rate than his secretary is because people like him demand and get a complicated tax code full of loopholes they can exploit for themselves, and in Buffett’s case, a good chunk of his fortune comes from making money from businesses helping people navigate tax laws.

    One problem she will have in the long term is that the last time someone with Member of Congress as their most impressive line item on their electoral resume won the Presidency was James Garfield in 1880.

    However, she is the only credible candidate with good immigration rhetoric and a decent record to back it up. (Numbers USA grade: B-Minus, basically the curve, but the best in the field). She has also showed some racial courage in the Flying Imams case, other Muslim issues, and the Pigford scam.

    Therefore, if I had to vote today in a primary, I would vote Bachmann.

  • Anonymous

    If Bachman means by “the problem is not our laws on immigration” that halting all illegal immigration but continuing legal immigration in the current manner would solve our problems, she is dead wrong, and our society is dead along with it.

    Non-white babies are already the majority of babies born in America, and the non-white, third-world colonizers of our land have a higher birth rate, which means even if absolutely all immigration, legal & illegal, were halted immediately, whites would still be facing the loss of the USA, and eventual extinction as conditions become increasingly hostile toward the white population.

    However, it is also probably useful (more likely: “vitally important”, “essential to our survival”) to consider these issues as manifestations of a more fundamental problem, identify that problem and solve it.

  • Anonymous

    The problem of non-Whites taking over the country can’t be solved all at once. She’s right–first we need to secure the borders. One of the side benefits of that would be that it will isolate the illegals that are here from easily getting back and forth across the border to see their families.

    Next step is to crack down on illegals from wiring money back to Mexico. This can be done with easy legislation–stating that to wire money internationally you have to furnish proper identification that proves you are in the U.S.A. legally–either work or tourist visas. Such a law would seriously take a lot of incentive away from illegals here. To avoid this legislation being labeled “racist”, it can be claimed that it’s being done at the behest of Homeland Security to curb money transfers among terrorists.

    Third–a serious crackdown on illegals committing any crime–three misdemeanors and you’re deported. All illegals should be deemed felons, having committed a serious Federal crime, and be treated as such. Illegals who commit murder should be given the death penalty, not exceptions, regardless of state residence–they can’t claim residence anywhere because they are illegal and therefore can’t seek haven in a state that has no death penalty. They will be transferred to a federal prison where executions are legal.

    No more anchor babies. Illegals who show up at a hospital for treatment including giving birth will be treated and then put under arrest–and immediately deported, along with being held responsible for the hospital bill. They cannot return to this country, even if they qualify for a legal visa, until the hospital bill is paid in full.

    Those steps would be a quick end to the current problem. The next steps for another time…

  • HH

    Don’t fooled by this tough talk. Republicans, especially those who are supposedly these arch-conservatives, always talk like this during the elction cycle. Then they reach office and it’s the same old nonsense – the spine goes soft, and the wishy-wash ensues.

    Folks should know better by now than to believe these empty campaign promises, and red-meat talking points.

    Let’s jsust say, should she somehow be elected, I would believe it when I saw it(the wall) – and ONLY when I saw it!

  • Arizona is the Future

    Perry has been hot stuff in the MSM lately, but if he is going to cave on “amnesty” or whatever the hell you want to call that curse, then he’s a cream puff.

    If Bachmann continues to sell THE WALL (a powerful symbol), she’s got my vote and she’s got my heart.

    And Bravo, Sheriff Joe, for getting LEGAL on Obongo’s birth certificate.

    America’s future is looking a little bit brighter down here in the desert Southwest.

  • June

    If I truly thought Ms. Bachman were serious about a wall with the military standing guard AND a few other measures that would rid our country of those who laugh at our laws…she’d have my vote. But, again, I think it will come down to the “lesser of the evils.” I want a President who will not only get our military out of the useless wars in the Middle East, but will put a moratorium on ALL immigration for ten years, eliminate birthright citizenship, stop all benefits to illegal aliens and make E-verify mandatory for all businesses. They would self-deport. Americans would have jobs and the country would be billons of dollars richer.

  • Lakeview Senior

    I live in a predominately liberal(capital L)section of Chicago so I get a chance every day to listen to the “nattering nabobs of negativism” or “eggheads” as George Wallace used to call them. They despise Bachman, especially this one guy who hails from Minnesota. (Just based upon that fact alone, I’d vote for her). This guy Perry from Texas seems to have a lot of baggage too that he brings with him. Anyway, I’m always wondering why the Republican Party movers and shackers don’t push for Senator Jeff Sessions(R-AL)as a presidential candidate. What is his story? He comes across as being a very level headed type of person and his opposition to the Amnesty way back when and his way of debating it, showed me that he is quite up to the job. I agree that those tough talking candidates seem to fold on such issues as immigration and are definitely never going to touch a subject such as Affirmative Action, or other racial set-asides which discriminate against White American males especially.

  • Anonymous

    3 — Anonymous at 8:47 PM on August 18:

    She would never go along with any meaningful curtailment of legal immigration, let alone illegal immigration. I don’t trust any of these people to do as they say. Talk is cheap and politicians are even cheaper.

    They will never stop this legal immigration (same with illegal) due to the fact that 99% of them are NONwhites. The powers that be will never allow it. They want us DEAD or imprisoned with these nonwhite hordes. If Whites would just wake up to this fact alone, their eyes just might be opened to their own genocide.

  • highduke

    Although I think all candidates will make covert appeals to White people much more substantially than last time, Bachmann is the most trustworthy. Perry IS a version of Dubya without the drug-hazed past. Ron Paul could go either way this time but it’s way too early to tell now and I wouldn’t count him out as a better choice than Bachmann yet.

  • Anonymous

    “Don’t fooled by this tough talk.”

    You’re right. This is just talk and I’m amazed that so many people continue to take it seriously. Candidates always play to their base during the primaries, then move to the center during the general election. That’s why we always get this nauseating spectacle of Republicans going on and on about their religious beliefs to appeal to the Christian Right, among other things. No one in their right mind should believe anything the Republicans (other than Ron Paul) say about anything. If Bachmann says she wants tighter border control now, you can be sure she’ll do the exact opposite if she ever manages to somehow, miraculously get elected.

    My prediction: If the GOP nominates someone like Bachmann, Perry or Romney, they will lose. Period.

  • Sherry

    From time to time I listen to a fool who has a nightly radio show he spends about half the time whining about the fact that the UK has banned him from their country. This gets pretty old pretty fast BUT the one thing he does say that I have to agree with 100% is:

    What Defines A Country is it’s LANGUAGE, BORDERS AND CULTURE.

  • pstreitz

    Bachmann may start a trend. If her criticism gains traction and it will, this will force other candidates to grasp on to the issue, such a Romney and Perry. She knows she has an advantage over them on this issue and she is a good enough politician to exploit it.

    If she gets rave reviews from her base, she will push it further. Hopefully, into legal immigration, H1-B visas and the rest. She has started a fire and we can only hope it will burn brighter.

    This is a far cry from 2008, when McCain totally ignored the issue and the other Republicans followed suit.

    Cheers

  • ATBOTL

    Bachmann is the only GOP candidate who is seriously opposed to illegal immigration.

  • voter

    12 — Sherry wrote:

    …the one thing I have to agree with 100% is:

    “What Defines A Country is it’s LANGUAGE, BORDERS AND CULTURE.”

    ”””””””””

    Wouldn’t you also say it’s defined BY ITS PEOPLE?

    Surely moreso by its people than by anything else.

    Ah, but that gets into race… and that’s a touchy, tabooed area. Even if it’s the most important (but least discussed).

  • Anonymous

    15 — voter wrote at 4:47 PM on August 20:

    12 — Sherry wrote:

    …the one thing I have to agree with 100% is:

    “What Defines A Country is it’s LANGUAGE, BORDERS AND CULTURE.”

    ”””””””””

    Wouldn’t you also say it’s defined BY ITS PEOPLE?

    Surely moreso by its people than by anything else.

    Ah, but that gets into race… and that’s a touchy, tabooed area. Even if it’s the most important (but least discussed).

    ————————————————————

    “Culture” is always used so as not to define a nation by it’s RACE of people. It is RACE that makes a nation, not cultures. So you are correct. I always wondered why Savage did not say RACE instead of culture. But, of course, he probably doesn’t believe we, Whites, are a WHITE RACE of different Euro nationalities. He just likes his fame and fortune and cannot upset the apple cart.