Lindsey Graham: As president, ‘I would veto any bill’ without path to citizenship

[Statistikhengst]

Right. Not "with". "WITHOUT".

Lindsey Graham As president I would veto any bill without path to citizenship - Washington Times

Likely Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham predicted Thursday that the GOP will lose the 2016 presidential election unless they win over Hispanic voters by supporting a “long, hard path to citizenship.”

“If I were president of the United States, I would veto any bill that did not have a pathway to citizenship,” the South Carolina Republican told USA Today. “You would have a long, hard path to citizenship … but I want to create that path because I don’t like the idea of millions of people living in America for the rest of their lives being the hired help. That’s not who we are.”

Mr. Graham argued that his party risks losing the presidency with its current hard line on immigration.

“We’ll lose,” he told USA Today. “I mean, we’ve got a big hole we’ve dug with Hispanics. We’ve gone from 44 percent of the Hispanic vote (in the 2004 presidential election) to 27 percent (in 2012). You’ll never convince me … it’s not because of the immigration debate.”

So, Sen. Graham IS for immigration reform.


Discuss: does he have even the slightest chance at the GOP nomination, with this stance?



Oh, and please do note that the Washington Times, a virulently extreme RW publication, is reporting this.

I've been scanning the interweebz, and Conservatives are NOT happy to be hearing a prospective GOP candidate say this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good for LG.

He, similar to JB, is going to ignore Iowa's impact.

How they do after then (Rubio will fall into this category) will be interesting.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Right. Not "with". "WITHOUT".

Lindsey Graham As president I would veto any bill without path to citizenship - Washington Times

Likely Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham predicted Thursday that the GOP will lose the 2016 presidential election unless they win over Hispanic voters by supporting a “long, hard path to citizenship.”

“If I were president of the United States, I would veto any bill that did not have a pathway to citizenship,” the South Carolina Republican told USA Today. “You would have a long, hard path to citizenship … but I want to create that path because I don’t like the idea of millions of people living in America for the rest of their lives being the hired help. That’s not who we are.”

Mr. Graham argued that his party risks losing the presidency with its current hard line on immigration.

“We’ll lose,” he told USA Today. “I mean, we’ve got a big hole we’ve dug with Hispanics. We’ve gone from 44 percent of the Hispanic vote (in the 2004 presidential election) to 27 percent (in 2012). You’ll never convince me … it’s not because of the immigration debate.”

So, Sen. Graham IS for immigration reform.


Discuss: does he have even the slightest chance at the GOP nomination, with this stance?



Oh, and please do note that the Washington Times, a virulently extreme RW publication, is reporting this.

I've been scanning the interweebz, and Conservatives are NOT happy to be hearing a prospective GOP candidate say this.

That fag couldn't be elected dog catcher.

 

[orogenicman]

Right. Not "with". "WITHOUT".

Lindsey Graham As president I would veto any bill without path to citizenship - Washington Times

Likely Republican presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham predicted Thursday that the GOP will lose the 2016 presidential election unless they win over Hispanic voters by supporting a “long, hard path to citizenship.”

“If I were president of the United States, I would veto any bill that did not have a pathway to citizenship,” the South Carolina Republican told USA Today. “You would have a long, hard path to citizenship … but I want to create that path because I don’t like the idea of millions of people living in America for the rest of their lives being the hired help. That’s not who we are.”

Mr. Graham argued that his party risks losing the presidency with its current hard line on immigration.

“We’ll lose,” he told USA Today. “I mean, we’ve got a big hole we’ve dug with Hispanics. We’ve gone from 44 percent of the Hispanic vote (in the 2004 presidential election) to 27 percent (in 2012). You’ll never convince me … it’s not because of the immigration debate.”

So, Sen. Graham IS for immigration reform.


Discuss: does he have even the slightest chance at the GOP nomination, with this stance?



Oh, and please do note that the Washington Times, a virulently extreme RW publication, is reporting this.

I've been scanning the interweebz, and Conservatives are NOT happy to be hearing a prospective GOP candidate say this.

The simple answer is that he wants the Hispanic vote, and is trying to woo them into the GOP. And yet he opposes any immigration reform proposed by Obama. Go figure.