Hillary Panders on Immigration
by bluenc, Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 12:48:25 PM EDT
by bluenc, Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 12:48:25 PM EDT
Did you read past the lead?
"A wall in certain areas would be appropriate," she said, endorsing a high-tech "smart fence" that could spot people approaching from 200 or 300 yards.
You can argue that it's wrong to build any wall, anywhere, and you can even argue against high-tech surveillance. That's a separate debate. But I don't think any fair reading of Hillary's statements suggests that she wants to build a wall along the entire Mexican border.
Is there any issue that Hillary doesn't pander on? I don't believe the woman has a sincere bone in her body.
For the record, my previous mild hostility towards another Clinton presidency has morphed into a Dick Morris animosity. Clinton should remain in the Senate and make a play to become the first woman Majority Leader in American history. If Clinton wins the Democratic primary I will be voting and working to defeat her regardless of the GOP opposition.
Steve, sorry, but I think you and hillary both are playing word games. Despite her poor attempt at qualification, I think the burden is on her to explain, where along the border she would not have a wall or fence. Absent such specification, I think it's fair for voters to assume that if she thinks a wall is necessary to keep illegals out, then she probably intends to put up a wall everywhere illegals have and could possibly cross the border.
It's a free country and you can assume whatever you like. I don't agree it's reasonable to assume she would favor something as absurd as a 700-mile fence, though.
please tell me what is wrong with building a wall? there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with it. we need to know who is in this country, and this has nothing to do with having 50 or 50 million hispanics here. If you want to keep a growing hispanic population, that is fine, so we will give more visas to hispanic workers. But we need to know who is here, especially in the age of terrorism, so that we can maintain our safety
it is feasible through much of the territory. I guarantee you itll put a dent in the number. And how do you do it? Dump earmarks, stop dumping money into bureaucratic messes, make the govenment more lean and effective and raise taxes.
We could dig a moat along the American/Mexican border and fill it with flaming oil. Immigrants and drugs could never cross the border and all our problems would be solved.
You folks need to get out a bit more. The American people strongly support the construction of a fence along our southern border. Don't believe me? Check out the polling data over at http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration .htm. The Quinnipiac and WSJ/NBC polls show very strong support for the House Republican approach, not the McKennedy Amnesty the Senate is working on. As for McCain, his views on immigration happen to match those of ANSWER and the CPUSA, not exactly right-wing organizations.
Would a fence work? Ask the Israelis. Apparently not a single terrorist has gotten over/under the Israeli security barrier. Cost? About one month in Iraq and a much better payoff. In truth illegal aliens cost taxpayers so much, that the U.S. would net save money before the fence was completed.
What a joke. Did you even read that polling data? Let's see:
In the USA Today/Gallup poll, 63% said they would favor allowing illegal immigrants to "remain in the U.S. and become U.S. citizens" if they meet certain requirements. Hmm, sounds like Kennedy-McCain to me.
But it's the CBS poll that's the kicker! They basically lay out the Kennedy-McCain bill and ask if people would support it. 74% said they would support it.
When asked about a wall, the numbers are split evenly.
The Time magazine poll revealed that 72 percent supported a proposal just like Kennedy-McCain.
In the AP poll, only 32 percent they would be "very confident" or "somewhat confident" that a wall on the Mexican border would work.
It goes on and on. The American public supports a guest worker program similar to what Kennedy and McCain have proposed. The wall is everything public policy isn't supposed to be: impractical, divisive, wasteful, ineffective, and completely incongruous with American values.
Yes, I actually did read the polling data. Let's take a look.
On building a fence/wall:
CBS News April 6-9 48:48 (tied)
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics April 4-5 50:43 (in favor)
Time Poll March 29-30 56:40 (in favor)
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Oct 11-12 51:37 (in favor)
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics April 4-5
"Do you think it is fair or unfair to grant rights to illegal immigrants while thousands of people wait each year to come to the United States legally?" (an accurate description of McCain/Kennedy)
Time Poll March 29-30
"What if the United States deported all illegal immigrants and toughened security to stop them from entering this country? Do you think the United States would be better off or worse off?"
51:38 (better off)
NBC News/Wall Street Journal March 10-13
"As you may know, President Bush has proposed to allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States to apply for legal, temporary-worker status. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?"
"In addition to improving security at our borders, Congress is considering a proposal that would impose a monetary fine on foreigners who are currently in the United States illegally and then grant them legal, temporary-worker status. Which of the following statements do you agree with more?
"Statement A: We SHOULD grant temporary-worker status to foreigners who are here illegally. Most of them will stay in the United States anyway, and this plan would allow the government to keep track of them and their activities and require them to pay taxes while they are here.
"Statement B: We should NOT grant temporary-worker status to foreigners who are here illegally, as this would make them and their families eligible for government services while they are here. We should not reward people who have broken the law, and this will encourage even more people to enter the United States illegally."
39:56 (should not grant)
Quinnipiac University Feb. 21-28
"Do you support or oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens?"
"Do you support or oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become legal workers?"
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics April 18-19
"Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special
treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries
that want to come to the United States legally, or not?" (an accurate description of McCain/Kennedy except for Mexico versus all illegals)
If anyone thinks the American people favor a "liberal" approach to illegal immigration, take a look at the question on anchor babies
"Under current law, any child born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. If an illegal immigrant has a baby while living in the United States, do you think the child should automatically become a U.S. citizen or not?"
45:49 (should not)
With sufficiently tricky wording, it is possible to get a majority in favor of a "guestworker" plan as long as it is well enough disguised. When the questions are asked honestly, the answer is a very clear "NO".
In truth illegal aliens cost taxpayers so much, that the U.S. would net save money before the fence was completed
Care to put some facts behind this GOP spin?
The Republicans would like us to believe that "illegal" "aliens" are the cause of our crisis in health care. We are supposed to see Mexican immigrants who work hard in so many places in our economy as "reconquistas" bent on reclaiming their terriroty and as welfare queens and lazy bums. I expect soon to see claims that they are also carrying bird flu and killer bees.
Yes, if it were not for those pesky Mexicans crossing our border it would be morning in America again! Certainly we aren't to blame for a failed health care system and a budget broken by a foreign war of aggression. Can't be our fault can it?
GOP spin? Wow, I thought McCain, Graham, Martinez, Brownback, Specter, etc. favored amnesty for illegal aliens. Did I mention our Corporate Coyote in Chief, Senor Bush?
As for the numbers, that's the easy part. According to http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/ 20041206-102115-6766r.htm California alone is losing (net) $8.9 billion a year providing services to illegals. Back in 1994 the National Academy of Sciences found that Open Borders was costing each California family $1,178 in additonal taxes per year ($9 billion total). See http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html /9.html.
By contrast, a complete fence might cost $6-8 billion.
Funny how so-called Democrats turn into slavish, drooling Bush fans when the topic is cheap labor for big business.