I listened to the Demoratic Debate on Tuesday Night. As Hilary began to talk about Immigration as I was simply shocked. I felt that she must be kidding, but no laughs came. I guess Hillary is just that out of touch with the rest of America.
She started with her rant by saying those that harbored and aided Illegal Aliens were doing nothing wrong. She believes that those help these people as they commit their crime are just good samartians. Excuse me, If a poor person holds up a bank and I help hide them I sure am going to go to jail for aiding a criminal, what the difference.
Next she tells the crowd that it is our responsibility to help the illegals learn English. Actually it is not. If people want to come to America they can learn English all on their own. In all generations passed we expected Immigrants to learn English they were put in the same classrooms as any other kid and they picked up English and then they taught thier parents. We most certainly should not develop special programs to assist those that have willingly broken the law.
These statments just prove how out of touch Hillary Clinton and her Pro-Illegal Immigrant crowd is with mainstream of America.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 55
I hope Americans wake up before NOVEMBER. Even if she loses the nomiation, she will not stop.
That doesn't explain the rise of the nutjob on the other side of the aisle, John McCain. It doesn't explain Hillary either, with her lead on the democrat side.
If these two are so out of touch, and I believe they are, what explains their position as "front runners?"
I just don't get it.
Personally, I'm more of an open borders kind of guy, but the immigration issue is so low on my list I don't even see it.
But I just can't figure out, if America is so "anti immigration," and I think they are, how is it Hillary and McCain both are winning ???
But you're right, helping human beings whose existence is illegal is against the law and should be dealt with accordingly. The Third Reich managed this quite well, sending the good Samaritans off to the same concentration camp as the illegal Jews they were hiding, in blatant violation of the laws of the land.
I admit, abetting criminals has become such a frequent event in my life that I am no longer sensitive to the dangers of being nice to people.
If those who come to the US take classes in English, they will speak it more properly and correctly than the US natives with all their slang and jargon. God forbid we should teach them this corrupted version of English.
However, it is very possible to come to America and find Spanish and Portuguese far more useful languages.
Indeed Dannielle--it depends on the latitude, doesn't it? The Americas are one heck of a long landmass. (That sentence would be a lot neater in the 5-inhabited-continents model.)
She is giving them Amnesty because they have already broke the law.
"Because if we can tighten our borders, if we can crack down on employer who exploit workers, both those who are undocumented and those who are here as citizens, or legal, if we can do more to help local communities cope with the cost that they often have to contend with, if we do more to help our friends to the south create more jobs for their own people, and if we take what we know to be the realities that we confront -- 12 to 14 million people here, what will we do with them?"
It sounds like you agree with her, MDP, on securing the border and enforcing the law with employers.
But I'm sure there are ways of making people from poorer countries follow suit. How about shooting suspected illegals on sight? That's cheaper than deportation, and more effective--and from what I hear, there are patriots eager to do the job.
Bruce B., that was the assumption that made this conversation bogus from the start. There is no main stream America opinion on this topic. Those who use that terminology toss it in as a line in the sand.
MDP, I don't really trust Hillary as much as I trust a lot of people. I am just trying to judge her fairly. For example, name calling is really not fair. I admit, I have called George Bush and Dick Cheney names (mostly in private and carefully).
So, Bill Clinton wants an open border? Maybe I am misunderstanding what an open border is.
Unless said documents are OBVIOUS forgeries, the employer is put in the position of accepting the documents when presented, and if duly concerned, notifying ICE about his possible concerns.
A private employer cannot logically be held accountable to discern fraudulent documents.
Bingo.
My favorite moment of the debate was when Obama said he would only raise taxes on the top 1 percent. So Blitzer asked "wouldn't letting the Bush tax cuts expire increase taxes for millions of Americans? Obama quickly spun the question into something else. This is the bottom line people, if you elect either of these dem clowns YOUR taxes will go up. Are you near poverty? Your taxes will go up 5 percent (remember, Bush lowered the lowest rate from 15% to 10%, so you will go back to 15%).
So how are you going to interact with your new government if you vote Democrat? You will pay more taxes, have less to spend, business will slow, companies will tighten up and let people go, tax revenues will go down and all those socialist programs these two wingnuts have will be unfundable. Under Hillary, you will be MANDATED to buy health insurance -- and you will pay one way or the other.
Vote Romney.
There are more reasonable measures than just checking documents. You can HIRE a company to run a background check. I think that should be a requirement for all companies regardless of size.
Exactly... this is a very simple process for a business to execute... no government funding required.
So fix the system, close the borders, crack down on the employers, increase the border patrol and when all our soldiers begin coming home, put them to patrolling the borders. There is nothing in the Posse Commitas rules that say we cannot prevent an invasion of our own country. I'm not saying shoot them. I am saying round them up, put them in the holding camps that are already built and waiting for American citizens, and then deport them immediately.
James I will find you a video of it or at least a transcript just give me a little time.
If you can come up with a transcript I'd appreciate that!
Appreciate the link! I did not find there exactly what you have stated in your article. She did state that the immigrants need to learn English and that we need to give them assistance in that.
However, the "doing noting wrong" I did not find so I did a search which came up blank. When you read her words, it is obvious that she wants immigration reform and tighter boarder control. But she also believes that to round up and deport all that are here would threaten civil rights of all of us and is impractical.
If you disagree that's fine and I'm sure you do. But the bottom line is that this is going to be solved, if ever, not by the white house but by the congress and Hillary is not radical on the situation by any means.
I found the entirety of the debate to be more of a love fest than a debate with a great emphasis on the fact that the difference between them is much less than the difference between the Republicans and them.
Her statements on immigration did not vary a whit from what she has been saying all along.
Also, Carolyn, when you say "round them up" are you refering to the estimated 12-14 million immigrants that are here illegally?
Others, such as Roger Mahony, cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles has agreed, saying:
"Providing humanitarian assistance to those in need should not be made a crime, as the House bill decrees. As written, the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid.
Current law does not require social service agencies to obtain evidence of legal status before rendering aid, nor should it. Denying aid to a fellow human being violates a law with a higher authority than Congress — the law of God."
So you want to expand government ?? You want to make SSA even larger, employ more people, to do the mediocre work the government does? ?? How long before a back log occurs, because the SSA can't keep up with the pace ?? Remember when they tried to make people crossing the border into Canada use a passport ?? Have they even FIXED THAT yet ??
Then of course, if you want to get technical, there is the fact the Social Security card was never meant to be used for identification purposes. When the system was created in 1935, to assuage the concerns of American citizens, Congress insisted that the card would never and should never be used for purposes of identification. Its sole purpose was to ensure that workers were paying the required payroll tax.
No, the system is not in place-- though I'm sure it's a comfort to embrace that delusion.
I agree about the SS card and identification and have also mentioned it in other threads. Now, if you would convince my banker, insurance companies, etc. of this I'd be most appreciative! Of course, Medicare would be a legitimate use, but no other insurance.