Mike Huckabee signs Numbers USA no-amnesty pledge

Mike Huckabee has signed Numbers USA's no-amnesty pledge; news report here, and background here. What he signed is this:
I pledge to oppose amnesty or any other special path to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals unlawfully present in the United States. As President, I will fully implement enforcement measures that, over time, will lead to the attrition of our illegal immigrant population. I also pledge to make security of our borders a top priority of my administration.
Prior to the news conference, his aids signed on to the details:
1. The 12 million illegal aliens now here will have to go home.

2. They will not get any legal status while here that allows them to remain long-term.

3. Once in their home countries, they may apply for re-admittance to the U.S. as immigrants, visitors or temporary workers through normal channels.

4. But they will not receive any special privileges on the basis of their having been in the U.S. illegally, such as being put to the front of a line.

5. There will be no new categories or programs through which they may re-enter.

6. There will not be an expansion of green cards in any existing categories that will speed up their movement to the front of the line.
Obviously, this is a strong point in favor of Huckabee and somewhat nullifies my prior strong criticism of him. However, many's the slip and one wonders exactly what recourse anyone would have if he became president and then violated the pledge. Would anyone in the MSM even ask him about it? Could he use other issues to mitigate any damage violating the pledge would do? Is it really possible for someone who's said so many very questionable things about this issue to then follow through? And, there are of course other reasons to oppose a Huckabee candidacy, such as his various semi-theocratic notions and his "FairTax" plan.


Sorry, Don't like him and Don't TRUST HIM either...I'll stick with Romney.....Huckster proves that the name Huckster fits him to a "T". His previous Illegal history makes him a loser as far as I am concerned....

The idea that Elmer Gantry signing this no amnesty pledge in any way enhances his integrity is absolutely ludicrous. This 100% fraud would do anything to snow those who have questions about his character. Anyone who would fall for this BS has to be the most gullible person known to man. If Elmer as Governor really believed in open borders and the integration of the 12 million illegal's , to now have a complete reversal of those ideas only reveals his total lack of conviction and courage. Either way he is a man who cannot be trusted under any circumstances.

'Is it really possible for someone who's said so many very questionable things about this issue to then follow through?' He's slick and politically pragmatic like that other dude who calls Hope, AR home so theoretically can be moved with the proper political pressure. However, his record speaks for itself and his (until recent) statements are eerily similar to those of GWB. Thus I think everything he's currently doing is just political opportunism with no real conviction. Which doesn't mean he wouldn't do some of it but it's obviously no sure bet whatever promises are made. I doubt he'd be as stubborn and dismissive of the non-open borders segment of the base as GWB but that isn't saying much. But he has yet to prove to me that he has any understanding of immigration issues which you would have if you really cared about the issue. It seems like Roy Beck is doing all the talking and pushed him off touchback. I want to hear Huckabee explain it and with conviction. That Huckabee even contemplated that touchback would logically be part of the Krikorian plan he adopted virtually whole should not be forgotten as a very bad sign. Romney and Thompson have warning signs too but strike me as more convincing. Thompson has that solid issue paper and shows decent understanding in debates of deterrence going forward but seems less strong against amnesty (more worried about the next 12 million). Romney sounds too amenable to raising legal immigration but articulates the issue well enough it's obvious he's studied it. Maybe he's just smart and good at faking it but he nailed McCain on the 'waiting in line' BS. Rudy isn't even bothering to pay lip service to interior/workplace enforcement and is a complete joke saying he will do it all at the border. McCain has recently stated at least twice that he will crack down on criminal aliens but otherwise is sticking to 'pathway' and detail lacking 'I'll secure the border' platitude. Maybe he really does make a distinction between criminal aliens and the rest but remember how weak Z-visas were to be at weeding out criminals and gang members. And in the next sentence after his 2 million criminal alien remark he's tempering it with the 'God's children' phrase. And then there's the little matter of now bragging he'll 'round 'em up' when before that would start a riot. But the biggest giveaway with the new McCain is this certification/trigger phony baloney.

I agree with Mary and Edward. The Huckster is a phony and would make us look back at the Bush-Kennedy-McCain team fondly. Romney seems to be the only decent and honorable Republican running now that we have lost Tancredo and hunter seems to be fading even more.

'Ron Paul has a powerful stance against amnesty. But we rate him as GOOD right now because of some recent statements that suggest a less than full commitment to Attrition Through Enforcement. We hope to see him strengthen that soon.' Are these the statements? John Stossel: What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them? Ron Paul: I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home." January 2, 2008; TownHall.com "Paul has a tough stance on immigration, but that doesn't mean he wants to seal off this country from the outside world. He said he's not opposed to immigration at all, just illegal immigration, and that we should let in more immigrants legally. 'I think we could be much more generous with our immigration,' he told me. But, he added, 'we don't need illegal immigration. We don't need to reward people who get in front of the line.'" December 12, 2007; ABC News http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/PaulPres08.html Much more generous with our immigration? Say it ain't so, Ron! I was always skeptical that a libertarian would really favor lower immigration since they tend to attribute fantastical qualities to markets to solve any and all problems (see Julian Simon). It's simple--population growth is unsustainable; immigration is a principle cause of our population growth; we're going to have to curb immigration eventually anyway so why not start now and preserve our remaining wetlands, prime farmland, aquifers, etc?

If the guys in the Congress sign any-thing it will be a Running joke to the real Power Pigs. The system wants us to think like one and when people say no it may mean yes, SAD FACT IS THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE HAS Started and Huckabee like all others in this so called race lie. Buy Gun form units.

amanda others own our Lands our cities our nation in fact like mexico china is sending millions of its people here each year, the old ones.