Bobby Jindal on Immigration
Republican Governor; previously Representative (LA-1)
JINDAL: We need to secure the border, period. We don't need a comprehensive plan; we don't need an 1,000-page bill, like the Gang of Eight; we don't need amnesty. Everybody in D.C. talks about it. We need to get it done. As president, I'll get it done in six months. It won't be perfect, but we can get it done.
SANTORUM: Well, just because you don't call it amnesty doesn't mean that [it's not; you're] allowing people who broke the law to stay in America.
JINDAL: I'm not for amnesty. I've never been for amnesty, will never be for amnesty. Secure the border. I've also said we need to put an end to sanctuary cities. It's not enough to defund them; I think we need to criminalize, accuse and jail those mayors and councilman as accessories for the crimes committed by people who shouldn't be here in the first place.
One principle, for example, we've got to embrace is on immigration. We must insist on assimilation--immigration without assimilation is an invasion. We need to tell folks who want to come here, they need to come here legally. They need to learn English, adopt our values, roll up their sleeves and get to work.
I'm tired of the hyphenated Americans and the division. I've got the backbone, I've got the band width, I've got the experience to get us through this. I'm asking folks not just to join my campaign, but join a cause. It is time to believe in America again.
JINDAL: To repeal these unconstitutional illegal orders, whether it's amnesty or whether it's this president going around the Congress to restore the rule of law. I'd also go after these sanctuary cities, do everything we can to make sure that we are actually prosecuting and cutting off funding for cities that are harboring illegal aliens, and then finally making sure the IRS is not going after conservative or religious group
Jindal laid out his immigration position in a 2013 op-ed that called for the U.S. to first secure the southern border and to then set up a system where those in the country illegally could first get a legal status and later apply for citizenship. The Louisiana governor would also expand legal immigration, allowing more skilled foreign workers to enter the country and apply for citizenship. He would ban immigration from "radical Muslims", including those who believe in Sharia law. In a London 2015 speech, Jindal sparked debate with his belief that some European nations provide "no-go" or safe zones for Muslims who want to live under Sharia law.
Two years later, Jindal said he was opposed to punishing DREAMers. "I don't think we're the kind of people who are going to kick people out of schools or hospitals or punish kids for what their parents have done," Jindal told CNN in 2014.
"The governor opposes in-state tuition for illegal immigrants," a spokesperson for Jindal's office told National Journal.
JINDAL: On immigration--look, I've said all along that people that want to come into this country, work hard, get an education, that's good for them, that's good for us. There's nothing wrong with Republicans in congress saying let's secure the border first. If this president was serious about moving forward with comprehensive approach he would start by securing the border. We don't need a thousand page bill. It's not complicated. Right now, we have low walls and a narrow gate. That is opposite of what we need, we need a high walls and wide gate, so that more people can come in to this country legally.
JINDAL: When it comes to immigration, we've got a completely backwards system today. What I believe we need is a system of high walls and a broad gate. Right now, we've got the opposite. We've got low walls and a narrow gate. What I mean by that is we make it very difficult for people to come here legally. We make it very easy for people to come here illegally. As the son of immigrants, I think we should let more people come in to our country legally, because it's compassionate for them and because it's good for us. When people want to come here, work hard, play by the rules, that's good for America. And so, I think that this is a problem we can address. I think our system right now is completely backwards.
JINDAL: Well, if Republicans act, I think we should do it because it's the right thing to do for the country, not because a pollster tells us. Look, right now, we're educating some of the world's best and brightest; then we kick them out of our country to compete with us. I do think it's right to say we need to secure the border first. I think the American people are compassionate. I don't think we're the kind of people that are going to kick people out of schools or hospitals or punish kids for what their parents have done. But I think it's also right the American people are skeptical. We've seen this play before. We remember what happened in the 1980s. So, we have to secure the borders--and I mean, let the border governors certify it as secure. Let's not measure it in terms of just dollars spend or effort expended. Let's actually look at results. Once we do that, I think there is broad agreement on legalization.
Proponents support voting YES because:
It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing, and for the rest of the border provides a virtual fence, via integrated surveillance technology.
Opponents support voting NO because:
Just to build the fence is going to cost us at least $7 billion. Where is the money coming from to pay for it? How much is it going to cost to maintain this 700-mile fence? Who is going to do it? This bill contains no funding.
This bill also ignores real enforcement measures, like hiring more Border Patrol personnel, and instead builds a Berlin Wall on our southern border. So long as employers need workers in this country, and while our immigration systems impede rather than facilitate timely access of willing workers to those opportunities, undocumented immigration will never be controlled.
Walls, barriers, and military patrols will only force those immigrants to utilize ever more dangerous routes and increase the number of people who die in search of an opportunity to feed and clothe their families.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 USBC scores as follows:
U.S. Border Control, founded in 1988, is a non-profit, tax-exempt, citizen's lobby. USBC is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation's borders and reforming our immigration policies. USBC [works with] Congressmen to stop amnesty; seal our borders against terrorism and illegal immigration; and, preserve our nation's language, culture and American way of life for future generations.
Our organization accepts no financial support from any branch of government. All our support comes from concerned citizens who appreciate the work we are doing to seal our borders against drugs, disease, illegal migration and terrorism and wish to preserve our nation's language, culture and heritage for the next generations.
A bill to provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force or effect, and to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes.
Be it enacted that Executive Order 13166, 'Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency' (August 16, 2000), is null and void and shall have no force or effect.
On August 11, 2000, the President signed Executive Order 13166. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.
This bill declares English as the official language of the United States, establishes a uniform English language rule for naturalization.
|Other governors on Immigration:
|Bobby Jindal on other issues:
John Bel Edwards
John Neely Kennedy
John Neely Kennedy
Gubernatorial Debates 2019:
Edwards(D) vs.Rispone(R) vs.Abraham(R) vs.
Gubernatorial Debates 2021:
Gubernatorial Debates 2020:
DE: vs.Carney(incumbent) vs.Williams(D)
IN: vs.Holcomb(incumbent) vs.Melton(D) vs.Woody Myers(D)
MO: Parson(incumbent) vs.Nicole Galloway(D) vs.Jim Neely(R)
MT: Bullock(retiring) vs.Fox(R) vs.Perry(R) vs.Gianforte(R) vs.Stapleton(R) vs.Olszewski(R) vs.Neill(D) vs.Schreiner(D) vs.Cooney(D) vs.Williams(D)
NC: Cooper(incumbent) vs.Forest(R) vs.Holly Grange(R)
ND: Burgum(incumbent) vs.Michael Coachman(R)
NH: Sununu(incumbent) vs.Volinksy(D) vs.Dan Feltes(D)
PR: Rossello(D;resigned) vs.Wanda Vazquez Garced(D)
UT: Herbert(retiring) vs.Huntsman(R) vs.Cox(R) vs.Jeff Burningham(R)
VT: Scott(incumbent) vs.Rebecca Holcombe(D) vs.Zuckerman(D)
WA: Inslee(incumbent) vs.Bryant(R) vs.Fortunato(R)
WV: Justice(incumbent) vs.Folk(R) vs.Thrasher(R) vs.Vanover(D) vs.Smith(D) vs.Ron Stollings(D)
Email Contact Form