Christie’s Politically Convenient Flip Flop on Immigration

Chris Christie is one of the small number of prominent Republicans who have called for moderate immigration reform instead of xenophobia, but now that he’s going to run for president that position is a problem for him. Solution: Just change positions.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said Monday that he does not support finding a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, making a complete shift from his previous position ahead of his likely presidential campaign announcement. The governor’s comments come less than two years after he won re-election in his immigrant-filled state by reaching out to minorities and promising benefits for undocumented immigrants.

New Jersey, where almost half of the population is a minority, is substantially more diverse than most U.S. states. Christie has previously supported a path to citizenship and has even signed legislation creating tuition equality for undocumented students to be able to pay in-state tuition. But in an interview with Fox News on Monday, Christie attempted to connect with the conservative base strongly opposed to President Obama’s executive action granting amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants.

“I think that’s an extreme way to go,” Christie said in the interview. “And I think that, quite frankly, what Hillary Clinton’s doing right now is pandering. That’s pandering. We need to have an intelligent conversation about this and bring the American people along to where we can find consensus.”

Christie himself admitted his opinion is in opposition to what he once believed and the policies he pushed in his home state. In 2010, he said in an interview that “the president and the Congress have to step up to the plate, they have to secure our borders and they have to put forward a commonsense path to citizenship for people.”

Uh, Governor Christie…changing your position so it’s in line with the views of the people you’re currently trying to get to vote for you is the very definition of pandering. If you’d like to have an intelligent conversation, you could start by not insulting the intelligence of the people you’re lying to right now.

"The details are important, aren't they? For all I know, the text of the rule ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"She'd vote for Derrick Dearman, charged with six counts of capital murder in Alabama in ..."

AL Governor Thinks Moore Did It, ..."
"I don't want him elected because I don't like to mix politics and religion. The ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • theDukedog7 .

    Christie is pandering.

    But concern about massive illegal immigration isn’t “xenophobia”.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ theDukedog7 : Because ..?

  • D. C. Sessions

    StevoR, it’s because (unlike 30 years ago) the immigrants today aren’t a Republican constituency.

  • theDukedog7 .

    At StevoR:

    “Because..?”

    Because:

    1) Massive

    2) Illegal

    I don’t like massive illegal things.

    It’s funny that you demand the law be inforced to the iota if you don’t bake a cake, but tens of millions of people enter the country against the law and you sigh–“why so serious?”

  • gshelley

    The people he is really lying to are the people who are going to vote in the Republican primaries, who might think he is too much of a moderate, or not extreme enough on social issues.

    I don’t think he is insulting their intelligence

  • M can help you with that.

    Egnorance @ 4:

    I don’t like massive illegal things.

    Yes you do — you encourage mass violation of non-discrimination laws. Or does it not count as “illegal” when the targets are people you don’t like?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    New Jersey, where almost half of the population is a minority…

    Isn’t less than half of the population by definition a minority?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @6:

    “you encourage mass violation of non-discrimination laws.’

    I differ with you about the interpretation of non-discrimination laws. I don’t believe that refusal to participate in a gay wedding is illegal discrimination. I believe that it is free exercise of religion, which trumps statuatory law.

    How do you account for your own inconsistency? Why do you demand that Christians bake cakes, but insist that immigrants need not obey the law?

  • StevoR

    @4. Dogshit

    t StevoR:

    “Because..?”

    Because: 1) Massive

    So you hate Jupiter and our daytime star then?

    2) Illegal

    I don’t like massive illegal things.

    Like parking fines or smoking dope or copying videos or jaywalking or from ya buybull eating shellfish and badmouthing your parents and working on the Sabbath eh?

    I think you are being ultra selective and cherry picking here in your dislike and you are missing the bigger picture and question. Also you are again failing to really answer the question -just because something is illegal does’t mean it is wrong -why is it wrong for people to emigrate to the USA exactly in your bigoted opinion then?

    And if they had an amnesty and “illegals” became legal would you then still object and, if so, why?

    Oh and yeah didn’t the ole Rabbi you claim to follow say something about loving your neighbours – even those you hate -and how do you reconcile that with your fecal vomits here?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7 “I don’t believe that refusal to participate in a gay wedding is illegal discrimination.”

    Look, if you don’t want to give away the brides, then don’t show up. Nobody will think any less of you. They can’t.

  • StevoR

    PS. Dogshit, Egnorance the ignorant, you do know have lost already on this issue and will be remembered the same way we look back on opponents of interracial marriage and the abolition of slavery right? Welcime to 2015, you are onlyu about 100 years out of date in your views, well maybe a bit more even!

    Do look forward to years of seeing plenty of happy gay couples everywhere enjoying and going about their lives and being accepted and loved by (almost) all and grinding your teeth as you fume in your impotent bigoted helpless rage powerless to stop them and rejected by (almost) everyone else!

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Modusoperandi @ # 7 – Some minorities are more minor than others.

  • zoboz

    When it comes to questions of immigration, I would like to remind those conservatives who demand that we interpret everything today in light of what the founders would have thought that the Declaration of Independence lists the following as one of the reasons that prompted our break with England: “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Zoboz :

    Then there’s also :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

    Second verse :

    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    Emma Lazarus, Statute of Liberty, American ideal.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    zoboz, plus that was back when we had involuntary immigration.

  • http://cycleninja.blogspot.com cycleninja

    He’s not insulting their intelligence, he’s counting on their lack of it.

  • abb3w

    @0, Ed Brayton

    Governor Christie…changing your position so it’s in line with the views of the people you’re currently trying to get to vote for you is the very definition of pandering.

    While that seems a parsimonious reason for why his views have changed, perhaps since 2010 there has been some other significant insight or change in circumstances that has altered his views. While I wouldn’t hold my breath, such a “what changed your mind” might be an interesting leading question for a reporter to ask him.

    @8, theDukedog7

    I don’t believe that refusal to participate in a gay wedding is illegal discrimination. I believe that it is free exercise of religion, which trumps statuatory law.

    That putative reasoning would appear to equally apply to an interracial wedding. However, my understanding is that the federal courts have held that it is not an infringement of free exercise to regulate those who elect to engage in commerce as public accommodations, which includes those who advertise the sale of food or other services to the public, such as bakers and florists. (Religious ministers are exempt, and though they may face political fallout in the arena of public opinion, they may still refuse to marry a couple for reasons of race without facing any legal sanction, either civil or criminal.)

    Your are entitled to your political opinion as to how the courts should rule. However, my suspicion is that your argument has negligible legal merit — though I’d tend to defer on that to an actual lawyer, such as John Pieret.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    abb3w, true. On his business cards, that’s what it says.*

     

    * John Pieret, actual lawyer

  • caseloweraz

    theDukedog7: I don’t like massive illegal things.

    What about massive illegal fearmongering such as the current crop of Republican candidates is doing?

    Oh, wait. That isn’t illegal; it’s just deluded and dangerous to democracy. Carry on, then.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @StevoR

    “Give me your tired, your poor…”

    I believe they were legal immigrants.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    I believe that it is free exercise of religion, which trumps statuatory law.

    That’s pure bullshit. The law applies to EVERYONE, and NO ONE gets to ignore it because of his particular religious affiliation.

    Also, “free exercise of religion” does NOT mean a right to bully other people for not agreeing with your religion. If you want to argue about “free exercise of religion,” then you have to respect the same rights in others, or your principles are nothing but a self-serving cover for bigotry.

  • Lady Mondegreen

    Illegal entry into the country: a misdemeanor.

    Refusal of service based on prejudice: unconstitutional.

    The first: usually people desperate for a decent life for themselves and their family. Sometimes escaping actual persecution.

    The second: people opposed to others’ equality.

    No comparison.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7 “I believe they were legal immigrants.”

    Sure, but that’s not as meaningful as it sounds. Ironically the Statue of Liberty went up around the same time immigration laws did, too (But for all pre-1875 immigrants, no laws applied to their arrival. They weren’t legal or illegal; they were just immigrants.), meaning the plaque would be more accurate if it had an asterix with “Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Africans, Arabs, East Asians, and Indians subject to quotas. Chinese banned.” at the bottom.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Lady

    [Refusal of service based on prejudice: unconstitutional]

    Private citizens can’t violate the constitution. Otherwise, a good point.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Raging Bee 21

    [That’s pure bullshit. The law applies to EVERYONE, and NO ONE gets to ignore it because of his particular religious affiliation.]

    Constitution trumps statutory law. The DOMA had a good paradigm to deal with conflicts between Constitutional free exercise rights and statutory anti-discrimination laws. The rule was that the statutory law could only mandate a compelling state interest and had to use the least restrictive way to accomplish it.

    Getting your wedding cake baked at bakery a, as opposed to nearby bakery b, c,d,e,etc, hardly qualifies as a compelling state interest, and destroying the baker’s livelihood is hardly the least restrictive way to ensure that Adam and Steve get their cake.

    Unfortunately the DOMA doesn’t apply to states, but many states are passing their own DOMA’s. Good idea.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Yes, the Constitution trumps statutory law. And if you actually read it, you’d find there’s lots of other rights in the Constitution that trump — or at least seriously constrain — “free exercise of religion.” Short answer: other people have rights too, and you can’t just claim “free exercise of religion” whenever you want to override anyone else’s rights. That’s called “establishment of religion,” which the Constitution FORBIDS.

    Getting your wedding cake baked at bakery a, as opposed to nearby bakery b, c,d,e,etc, hardly qualifies as a compelling state interest…

    Everyone’s ability to participate in our society and our economy, without undue burdens from anyone else, and without regard for either race or religious beliefs, IS a compelling state interest; and bigoted bakers are clearly trying to chip away at that basic right; as are equally bigoted pharmacists.

    …and destroying the baker’s livelihood…

    How is requiring a baker to be equally respectful of all customers “destroying his livelihood?” Didn’t we hear the same babyish whinery from merchants who didn’t want to serve black people?

    And why is one dumbass baker’s livelihood a “compelling state interest?” Why is that suddenly more important than equal rights for all Americans?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @26:

    There is no compelling state interest that gays get their wedding cakes at Christian bakeries. And the fines on these matters run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. People have been put out of business.

    Respect people’s differences.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    There is no compelling state interest that gays get their wedding cakes at Christian bakeries.

    Just like there was no compelling state interest in blacks getting their meals at white lunch counters, and black kids getting educated in white schools?

    And the fines on these matters run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. People have been put out of business.

    Well, that’s what you get (or at least what you SHOULD get) when you try to reduce others to the status of second-class citizens.

    Respect people’s differences.

    …says the guy who’s claiming a “religious” right to bully anyone different from himself.

  • colnago80

    Hey Egnorance, should Walmart have the right to fire a pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, or the morning after pill?

  • martinc

    Chris Christie. Building a Bridge.

  • abb3w

    @27, theDukedog7

    There is no compelling state interest that gays get their wedding cakes at Christian bakeries.

    If you’re engaged in commerce via selling wedding cakes, then your religion should not matter to potential customers, nor your customer’s religion — nor manner of use of your product — matter to you. There is legally considered to be a compelling state interest that individuals be able to avail themselves of public accommodations in commerce without discrimination on race or religion; politically, sexual orientation is considered a similarly compelling class.