DNC chair: Republicans think illegal immigration should be illegal, or something

posted at 4:00 pm on May 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

This is what happens when political correctness distorts clear and descriptive language. Immigration reform activists have insisted on removing the phrase illegal immigration from the political lexicon, despite the fact that the term is both accurate and objective. Once that happens, it’s easy for the weak-minded to forget that we have a fairly generous legal immigration system that illegal immigrants bypassed and violated on their entry into this country. And by “the weak-minded,” I mean Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, as Doug Powers notes at the Boss Emeritus’ site:

I think the president was clearly articulating that his position — the Democrats position — is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy. And that is not only a reality but a necessity. And that it would be harmful if — the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all. I mean that was the legislation that Jim Sensenbrenner advanced a couple of years ago.

Oh noes! Republicans want to make a crime … a crime crime! Maybe Rep. Wasserman-Schultz should familiarize herself with the law before attempting to change it, and certainly before she attempts to demagogue Republicans on the issue of crime and punishment as well as immigration.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Thanks. I didn’t know about her death. My guess is that she had a hard life.

Mason on May 29, 2011 at 4:53 PM

[snort]
Oh you have NO IDEA…
[snort]

greggriffith on May 29, 2011 at 8:00 PM

We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy.

The 12 million number has been used for nearly a dozen years. The actual number is more likely 20-30 million.

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Apropos of respect for borders and passed along to me in an e-mail from a person whose relative retired from the US to live in Israel in order to live his later years with his son and nine grandchildren:

Subject: A Request

Dear President Obama:

I am writing today with a somewhat unusual request.

First and foremost, I am asking that you return America to its August 20th, 1959 borders, so that Hawaii is no longer a state and you are no longer a citizen.

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Getting back to Wasserman-Schultz, imagine the field day MSM would have if any conservative woman made a statement that stupid.

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

You cannot emigrate except legally.

They are “illegal aliens“.

Otherwise known as FDV’s.

Future Democratic Voters.

profitsbeard on May 29, 2011 at 7:25 PM

They did emigrate legally. Mexico, for example, recognizes the rights of their citizens to freely transit their borders. They might not recognize the right of others to immigrate to Mexico, but they certainly recognize a right to emigrate.

And, with respect to their legal children becoming Democratic voters, you are absolutely right — for, in the end, all politics are personal. Given that these children are on track to become the majority of our population within the next quarter century, I can see yet another period of Democratic ascendency — because our side is too stupid to “embrace and extend”, while the Democrats seem to be nimble enough to do so.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

A century ago goods, capital, and people moved with relative ease in the western world. You didn’t need passports to travel. We need to restore that kind of world.

Interestingly, it was Progressives who wanted to restrict immigration with legal barriers; the same Progressives who wanted to built a Bismarckian welfare state in this country. So, yes, let’s revisit the old welfare state idea with a view to its expiration.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM

You do not get it at all and trying to discuss it with you is pointless.

darwin-t on May 29, 2011 at 8:06 PM

@unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Yes, indeed, we had more relaxed immigration laws in the days of Abraham Lincoln, but then, we also had, up until that time, actual lawful human trafficking. And, in the subsequent decades, Congress enacted limits to immigration with the deliberate intention of protecting the disadvantaged who might come here in search of work and end up virtual slaves to a railroad company or other predatory employers (and, of course, this would never happen today, right?). The point is, when you have uncontrolled influx of a low-skilled working class, you set these people up to be exploited to the utmost.

leucanthemum b on May 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

while the Democrats seem to be nimble enough to do so.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Exploitation is not nimble it is evil. See the ‘Great Society’ and what resulted in its wake.

darwin-t on May 29, 2011 at 8:09 PM

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

the thing you forget is that you not only are asking us to give up on the rule of law , welcome hordes of illegals, but also you are asking us to buy into the welfare system . The Dems win either way and you have lost your soul. Just another pathetic capitulation.

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2011 at 8:12 PM

I can’t stand the lady but she is tough as nails.

gatorfanatic on May 29, 2011 at 8:14 PM

The point is, when you have uncontrolled influx of a low-skilled working class, you set these people up to be exploited to the utmost.

leucanthemum b on May 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Sounds Marxist there. Let work be legal, and the chances of mistreatment will decrease as well.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:15 PM

because our side is too stupid to “embrace and extend”, while the Democrats seem to be nimble enough to do so.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

So you call utter passivity “embrace and extend” and the ultimate undermining and Balkinization of the nation “nimble”?

Interesting dictionary you got there.

profitsbeard on May 29, 2011 at 8:16 PM

What is it with Schultz’s nowadays? I liked it better in the 70′s when they said “I know nothing”.

gbear on May 29, 2011 at 8:17 PM

If you were on the other side of the border, you would be trying to get a job too; to hell with the damn paperwork: the US only legally lets in 10,000 unskilled laborers a year.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Considering we have 20-30 million illegals (mostly unskilled) already here, what does the 10,000 number have to do with anything?

Your statements on illegal immigration on this thread shed a lot of light on your philosophical beliefs and help explain many past comments.

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:17 PM

nimble???

Why are the dems nimble? Hmmmm. Because it means more votes and power. Seems pretty obvious.

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2011 at 8:20 PM

If you were on the other side of the border, you would be trying to get a job too; to hell with the damn paperwork: the US only legally lets in 10,000 unskilled laborers a year.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

If weak old ladies and mom & pop grocery stores have money when you don’t, why shouldn’t you take it?

If someone leaves their car door open and there’s a laptop on the seat, and you kid needs a laptop, why shouldn’t you take it?

profitsbeard on May 29, 2011 at 8:20 PM

If you were on the other side of the border, you would be trying to get a job too; to hell with the damn paperwork: the US only legally lets in 10,000 unskilled laborers a year.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Considering we have 20-30 million illegals (mostly unskilled) already here, what does the 10,000 number have to do with anything?

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:17 PM

First, make a legal channel and many of the 20-30 million would return home if they knew there was a way to come back to work. Second, 10,000 is just not adequate for our needs. This is a supply and demand problem and we’ve created the black market in unskilled laborers. Third, I would wager many of them are skilled now after a few years.

So once again, redcardsolution.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM

A century ago goods, capital, and people moved with relative ease in the western world. You didn’t need passports to travel. We need to restore that kind of world.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Did you ever hear of Ellis Island?

Why don’t we just allow totally open immigration? The entire Third World can come here and 100 million people with jobs can support the billion without jobs.

Compared to your comments, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz almost sounds sane.

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:23 PM

profitsbeard on May 29, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Non sequitur.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:24 PM

If someone leaves their car door open and there’s a laptop on the seat, and you kid needs a laptop, why shouldn’t you take it?

profitsbeard on May 29, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Not if it’s a 486. Even crooks have standards. i7 – gone before you can blink.

ericdijon on May 29, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Did you ever hear of Ellis Island?

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:23 PM

They didn’t need passports, just a disease check.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Meet DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz – Florida Rose-You Tube

I made a best of DWS yesterday to the tune of Sweet, Sweet Girl. The earliest clip was from 2006 and ends with the recent event from which the immigration video originated. No one has done this collection before. Hear that RNC.

No Niks on May 29, 2011 at 8:26 PM

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM

So, with 10% unemployment (and much higher amongst the unskilled) that we have too much demand for labor?

JeffWeimer on May 29, 2011 at 8:27 PM

They didn’t need passports, just a disease check.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM

There were standards, it doesn’t matter what they are called. We as a nation cannot do what you want us to do. Do you pay attention to what is happening in this country every day? I do not think that you do.

darwin-t on May 29, 2011 at 8:29 PM

How does she know how many illegal immigrants there are living in the U.S? Who counted them, and if they counted them than why didn’t they deport them at the same time? Wait till Florida passes the same law as Arizona, who’s going to mow Debbie’s lawn? And it looks like it’s the same person who fixes her hair.

Hey Deb go to any other country and insist they give you citizenship and see how that works out. This is who the DNC picked? Incredible, I guess after the Mid Terms, she was all that was left.

Dr Evil on May 29, 2011 at 8:37 PM

The Thirteenth United States Census, conducted by the Census Bureau on April 15, 1910, determined the resident population of the United States to be 92,228,496, an increase of 21.0 percent over the 76,212,168 persons enumerated during the 1900 Census.

The U.S. population has increased 4.5 times in the past 111 years. In 1910 we needed people to work in the factories as we were becoming a manufacturing leader and we needed to increase our population. The underemployment rate is over 19%. We don’t really need to increase our country’s population.

Illegal immigrants have caused hospitals to close. It has harmed our educational system because little Pedro and Conchita don’t understand English so learning for the whole class slows down. Our national fabric is being destroyed. In 1910, there was no dial 2 for Spanish, 3 for German, 4 for Italian, 5 for Polish, etc. We are spending tens of billions on assistance for illegals, but people like Ashley T. King want cheap labor so that makes everything okay.

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Illegal immigrants have caused hospitals to close.

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Yep victimless./

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2011 at 8:43 PM

250000 to 300000 illegals in our jails

seriously you open border whackjobs are too much

you are complicit with the dems and some pubs in a major crime against Americans and legal immigrants. GFY.

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2011 at 8:45 PM

My name is AshleyTKing. I have been on here for three pages. Notice how selective I am as to which questions I choose to answer. It is the internet and I can throw silly crap out there and not ever have to back it up. I hope that drives you guys crazy.
AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM

arnold ziffel on May 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Let work be legal, and the chances of mistreatment will decrease as well.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Um… work *is* legal…

You’re smoking something, aren’t you? (rhetorical question)

Midas on May 29, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I have figured it out. Thank You- UncleMrgsl(or whatever)

We should just become the Democratic Party Lite.
Who are you: David Frum?

Sheesh why bother if what you do means nothing?

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2011 at 9:12 PM

We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy.

The credit card companies, who have a much better view of undocumented aliens, say the number is somewhere over 14 million.

J_Crater on May 29, 2011 at 9:15 PM

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 7:42 PM

tl;dr

Gary's Johnson on May 29, 2011 at 9:16 PM

I was in CA when the reagan amnesty went through. It was supposed to legalize 800,000 to one million people. Ultimately 3 million people were legalized. Then we have chain migration from that. Why were the estimates off so much?

Well supposedly it only applied to people who had been here a few years. However, it was so LOOSE to prove it, that it became a cottage industry to buy forged paperwork to “prove” you were in the country at the designated time frame. It took as little as a forged pay stub (and WHOSE social security number was used? No one ever followed up on ID theft), and a forged electric bill. Easy peasy.

And the caveat was they were supposed to SEAL THE BORDER!!! Well the Republicans in that Congress were snookered by a 200% increase in projected new citizens AND 15 million+ illegals later, we obviously have not sealed the border.

The exact same thing will happen again. They will create really LOOSE standards, reward these lawbreakers, AND they will NOT seal the border.

THEN, they will allow for chain migration, and next thing you know, we will have 60 million more people here in this country who were not originally born here, or educated here necessarily. Therefore they will not culturally identify with the US on ANYTHING, and we have lost our soul

NO THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we need to seal the employment up so tight that the illegals can not find work, they will self deport. AND we need to create a voter ID law in every state, so we will no longer have congressional seats stolen in districts that have become overrun by illegals. That has happened in California.

karenhasfreedom on May 29, 2011 at 9:18 PM

One small little victory. When I first moved back to Michigan and opened my credit union account, it thoroughly p*ssed me off that I had to push a button for english or espanol as my very first screen. They must have gotten a LOT of complaints because that screen is now gone and I can put in my pin code right away. There is probably a button to push for espanol but since I can go straight to the pin code entry, it is not “in my face”. I appreciate that.

I am very strong in my opinion that ALL immigrants must be FLUENT in english before becoming citizens. Did you all know that the courts in CA have forced the state government there to produce ballots in 67 languages at last count? How crazy is that?

karenhasfreedom on May 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM

I have figured it out. Thank You- UncleMrgsl(or whatever)

We should just become the Democratic Party Lite.
Who are you: David Frum?

Sheesh why bother if what you do means nothing?

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2011 at 9:12 PM

No, I’m saying we should go back to being Republicans of the sort that Mr. Lincoln would have had no trouble associating. Republicans were once on the other side of the divide, and all those acts restricting immigration (such as the Alien Exclusion Acts) were the product of Democrats. From Lincoln’s 1855 letter to Joshua Speed:

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty — to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

Now, what is a Know Nothing?

The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1840s and 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to Anglo-Saxon Protestant values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 9:46 PM

So you call utter passivity “embrace and extend” and the ultimate undermining and Balkinization of the nation “nimble”?

Interesting dictionary you got there.

profitsbeard on May 29, 2011 at 8:16 PM

“Balkinization” has been a hew and cry for ages — it once worked against the Chinese and the Japanese, and is being used again against Hispanics. All these groups recognize it for what it was. Up until recent times, Chinese and Japanese voters were nearly always Republicans — because of what the Democrats had done to separate their families and, for the Japanese, what Roosevelt did with the Internment. The younger ones are Democrats — and the reason is the switch in places by the Democrats and the Republicans with respect to immigration policy.

When I was a kid living in Buffalo, New York, there was an Italian section of town and a Polish section — with all the signs in those sections in their native languages (or, in the case of the Polish section, Polish and Yiddish). Now, I was a stamp collector at that time, and in my wanderings I found a stamp shop in the Polish part of town. The proprietor, an old man, spoke only Yiddish, but we managed to successfully transact business.

Now, where is the Polish section or the Italian section of Buffalo? Where’s LA Chinatown? What languages do the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of these people speak?

“Balkanization” begins by erecting barriers. If the barriers are on the side of the new immigrant, they cannot help such things — they want to use their languages and be comfortable in their customs even as they make a new home. That’s one thing — for them to wall themselves off to a welcoming nation — but it’s quite another for a nation to become unwelcoming and to wall them off. To understand that, just ask any survivor of the Internment; I have a few in my family, though they grow fewer as the years go on.

By the very nature of a welcoming America, those barriers were doomed to fall. In an unwelcoming America, how long will it take?

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 10:10 PM

the thing you forget is that you not only are asking us to give up on the rule of law , welcome hordes of illegals, but also you are asking us to buy into the welfare system . The Dems win either way and you have lost your soul. Just another pathetic capitulation.

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2011 at 8:12 PM

I am asking that we change the law to make it more in line with our other values — which includes welcoming hordes of immigrants. As for welfare, I’ve said nothing of the sort — anyone coming here to work must of necessity provide for themselves, and a condition of continuing to be here must be self-sufficient. My grandparents from Italy and from Canada had no expectation of welfare, and I see no need to provide anything more than what they had as they built their American dream.

The Democratic idea of restricting immigration has a firm foothold in the Republican Party, and I’m saying it doesn’t have to be that way. We have the values most immigrants prize — not the Democrats — but we also have a mean streak a mile wide in this matter — as your comment shows.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 10:21 PM

leucanthemum b on May 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

I think you misunderstand the root reason for restrictive immigration laws. They were not to protect the underpaid immigrants from the rapacious capitalists of the era — in fact, they were there to protect the native worker from being economically undercut:

It is the duty of the miners to take the matter into their own hands and erect such barriers as shall be sufficient to check this asiatic inundation The Capitalists who are encouraging or engaged in the importation of these burlesques on humanity would crown their ships with the long tailed, horned and cloven-hoofed inhabitants of the infernal regions if they could make a profit on it.

The distinction may seem minor, but mistreatment of immigrants could have been handled via existing law — while the protection of wages, in an era where no wage laws were in effect, could only be done by restricting the supply of labor.

In this modern era of pay regulation, how could such a thing happen?

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Exploitation is not nimble it is evil. See the ‘Great Society’ and what resulted in its wake.

darwin-t on May 29, 2011 at 8:09 PM

All politics is, in the end, personal. If the Democrats are able to give immigrants rights which the Republicans would deny, their native-born children will act to assure that the Republicans don’t win.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Legal immigrant vs illegal alien. Some people don’t understand the difference between a dinner guest and a burgler.

kurtzz3 on May 29, 2011 at 7:56 PM

The wiseguy next to me had this definition: “difference is the one guy gets a shot of whiskey and the other gets buckshot.”

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 29, 2011 at 11:08 PM

As destructive and counterproductive as her ideals are I’m at least relieved somewhat when these libs speak their mind and let us know what they really thing vs. the usually double speak and mental gymnastics in their prepared speeches.

Yakko77 on May 29, 2011 at 11:21 PM

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

That paragraph is from a Mike Adams column on townhall.com.

knivek on May 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Laws that liberals don’t like aren’t really laws, they’re just worded wrong.

infidel4life on May 29, 2011 at 11:29 PM

John Dillinger was an undocumented bank customer!

DSchoen on May 29, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Please tell me we are being Punk’D, and AshleyTKing is really Cenk Ugur(sp).

sybilll on May 30, 2011 at 12:20 AM

unclesmrgol AshleyTKing

Oh look, it’s dumb and dumber.

xblade on May 30, 2011 at 2:36 AM

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Ahh.. I can tell you are a libtard. You dont grasp the simple concept of LEGAL. If they are here illegally, then arrest them and deport them. MAKE their home countries take them back.

The founding fathers wouldn’t have called the illegals that are here now immigrants, but invaders. And personally, I think they should be treated as such.

Wolftech on May 30, 2011 at 2:41 AM

Oh look, it’s dumb and dumber.

xblade on May 30, 2011 at 2:36 AM

With a name like xblade, not the sharpest knife in the block.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:42 AM

xblade on May 30, 2011 at 2:36 AM

They make the characters of Dumb and Dumber look like MIT grads and Rhodes Scholars.

Wolftech on May 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Ahh.. I can tell you are a libtard. You dont grasp the simple concept of LEGAL. If they are here illegally, then arrest them and deport them. MAKE their home countries take them back.

The founding fathers wouldn’t have called the illegals that are here now immigrants, but invaders. And personally, I think they should be treated as such.

Wolftech on May 30, 2011 at 2:41 AM

Actually, the founding fathers might have called them 3/5ths of a person, and ineligible for citizenship. But we live in more enlightened times, and you are welcome to deport all of them you find — the law lets you do that, just as, 160 years ago, it let you send all the fugitive slaves you found back to their masters. In the end, however, the children of the ones you don’t find — who will be the majority — and who will be citizens, will determine our Presidents and our Congress. Get on board at the station or be Left Behind.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:46 AM

They make the characters of Dumb and Dumber look like MIT grads and Rhodes Scholars.

Wolftech on May 30, 2011 at 2:44 AM

Definitely bad karma, dude.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:48 AM

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:46 AM

As always, you fight the good fight.

AshleyTKing on May 30, 2011 at 2:51 AM

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:48 AM

Bad Karma? I’m not the one that worships at the feet of Chairman Mao, Comrade Marx, and Zero.

Wolftech on May 30, 2011 at 2:57 AM

Don’t know if it’s been said, but she’s incorrect. Republicans want amnesty and lots of bennies for illegals at the eternal expense of the taxpayers. Republicans like to indulge their noble impulses by obligating everyone else with the expense. Conservatives want the border secured and repatriation for the illegals.

JimP on May 30, 2011 at 5:29 AM

Apropos of respect for borders and passed along to me in an e-mail from a person whose relative retired from the US to live in Israel in order to live his later years with his son and nine grandchildren:

Subject: A Request

Dear President Obama:

I am writing today with a somewhat unusual request.

First and foremost, I am asking that you return America to its August 20th, 1959 borders, so that Hawaii is no longer a state and you are no longer a citizen.

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

PRICELESS!

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 7:37 AM

On the immigration laws of US in it’s first century: keep in mind that it cost big money to travel to the US in order to immigrate in the first place.
I suggest we take inspiration from that, and, instead of arbitrary quotas and lotteries, we start charging admission.

Count to 10 on May 30, 2011 at 7:41 AM

Actually, the founding fathers might have called them 3/5ths of a person, and ineligible for citizenship. But we live in more enlightened times, and you are welcome to deport all of them you find — the law lets you do that, just as, 160 years ago, it let you send all the fugitive slaves you found back to their masters. In the end, however, the children of the ones you don’t find — who will be the majority — and who will be citizens, will determine our Presidents and our Congress. Get on board at the station or be Left Behind.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:46 AM

That’s mindbogglingly cynical.

Count to 10 on May 30, 2011 at 7:43 AM

Mexico, for example, recognizes the rights of their citizens to freely transit their borders. They might not recognize the right of others to immigrate to Mexico, but they certainly recognize a right to emigrate.

And, with respect to their legal children becoming Democratic voters, you are absolutely right — for, in the end, all politics are personal. Given that these children are on track to become the majority of our population within the next quarter century, I can see yet another period of Democratic ascendency — because our side is too stupid to “embrace and extend”, while the Democrats seem to be nimble enough to do so.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

You continue to put the cart before the horse.

Or the flood before the rain.

The U.S. has something over ONE-THIRD Mexico’s adult population (last time this was evaluated, but since that was about two decades ago, I imagine by now that we have, likely, estimating, closer to one-half of Mexico’s adult population here in the U.S.).

This is not an accidental or some sort of casual, cavalier “human migration” “flow” from Mexico/Central America into the U.S. Nor is Mexico’s (and most of Central America’s) predominantly Marxist/Communist propensity accidental or simply spontaneous, unplanned.

It’s a process that’s been encouraged and is being followed quite decidedly with hostile intentions toward and about the U.S.

And for those here and elsewhere making bare-bones ‘market’ rationalizations along the lines of “those who work” are allowed to violate laws, or, worse, implying that our laws must be altered to accommodate those who violate them (what Ashley has alluded to many times in comments here, let’s modify laws to accommodate those who persist in violating them, or, rather, because people continue to violate them, we are beholden to change our laws)…

that’s the same process that Marxist/Communist Sotomayor, Kagan and Obama (and Wasserman Schulz, AND the DNC) promote and that is that our Constitution “should change to accommodate changing culture”).

The one thing, key aspect there, that they “conveniently” avoid or refuse to acknowledge is that “changing culture” is code for “changing America”…we become something other than a Capitalist economy, and a Republic, when Committees, or in the case of say, California and other Leftwing states, state legislatures comprised of Marxist/Communist majorities override, ignore or even malign voter opinions and wants and continue to use public assets and our nation itself (again, Ashley represents that perspective, the U.S. a place to be used by anyone “who wants to work” without citizen responsibilities)…and all this by intentional refusal to enforce our laws.

Which is, in a nutshell, undermining and eventually overthrowing our Constitution “to accommodate changing culture”. One can use the word, “culture” to imply A NEW PLACE or a replacing population, and by that demand to change the Constitution, then, to accommodate that, A NATION REPLACED WITH ANOTHER.

This isn’t an accidental or random process. It is quite intentional. Using “poor people” has been the tried method by Communism since it’s ugly birth on this planet. Not because there is caring or concern for “poor people” but because they are easily pawned toward political objectives based upon vain promises that go ‘poof’ in the night afterward.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM

I also don’t believe or accept the argument that anyone who “wants to work” somehow has entitlement to being in the U.S. to use the U.S. to their individual pleasure.

That isn’t even remotely a Right perspective, it’s entirely a Marxist-Economy perspective. It’s one Obama appears to have with the added arsenic from him of some sort of revenge or harm, punishment due the U.S. ~for whatever~.

Culture, race, nation of origin, these are aspects relative to human beings that few in the U.S. today hold prejudice about in any demonstratively negative manner. Yet these are the elements of ‘revolutionaries’ in Communism who use, who exploit, these aspects about individuals in order to form groups and by groups, to form adversarial actions.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 7:55 AM

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:46 AM

As always, you fight the good fight.

AshleyTKing on May 30, 2011 at 2:51 AM

See? What did I just write here?

There you have it yet again, ^^ , Marxists at work.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 7:58 AM

Sounds Marxist there. Let work be legal, and the chances of mistreatment will decrease as well.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:15 PM

No, YOU sound Marxist. In every single comment you post here.

And you are saturated with desperately naive if not intentionally denying perspectives.

“Work makes you free”, huh? “Be happy in your work,” right?

Now, where have I heard that before…

“Let work be legal,” and with that, you declare your insipid blindness to reality, or, your dedication to some sort of political-speak drug by which you “sound” constructive or smart but say absolutely the opposite in the context of the seriousness of this issue of our national sovereignity.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 8:03 AM

If you were on the other side of the border, you would be trying to get a job too; to hell with the damn paperwork: the US only legally lets in 10,000 unskilled laborers a year.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Let’s all assume for the sake of discussion (since you haven’t been specific, there or anywhere else in your comments) that the “border” to which you refer is the U.S. Southern Border that separates us from Mexico (and as to Mexico, the source of most of the U.S.’s most egregious, serious crimes regarding national security and our borders)…

So let’s assume you’re referring to ‘South of the U.S. Border’ and therefore, to conditions in Mexico.

Mexico, to restate the obvious, IS A DIFFERENT NATION THAN THE U.S.

The U.S. is not Mexico and Mexico is not the U.S.

The U.S. taxpayers are already literally giving billions of our dollars to Mexico every year for things such as an Army for Mexico, for Mexico’s infrastructure, security, IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, prison system, agriculture, manufacturing, on and on and on, but mostly for it’s Army, it’s ability to self defend.

*IF* Mexico continues to flounder and promote this “help us, we can’t find jobs for our people so we have to invade your nation to find jobs” thing, then, well, I’d support if not go help build a giant moat, wall and a twenty-mile wide security boundary all along the U.S. Southern Border to protect our nation and our people from, if nothing more, blatant usery from Mexico and Central America via Mexico.

This sort of rationalization that you make — the U.S. is some Job Center for anyone to do whatever as long as they ‘work’ — is mind-numbing in foolishness.

WE are under obligation to do what is right FOR OUR CITIZENS. Not for Mexico’s citizens. Not for Cuba’s, not for Iran’s, not for Brazil’s…and yet we the people of the U.S. GIVE so much every year to so many and we’re still being told we must lie down and let the world wipe it’s feat on our backs.

Mexicans need to develope jobs for Mexicans in Mexico. They’ve had as much time to figure this problem out as everyone else has had. That they’re still foundering is…well…is no reason that U.S. must somehow continue to do for them what they apparently won’t do for themselves and that is “work”. Work in Mexico.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 8:13 AM

So once again, redcardsolution.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Spam much? And why is it ‘red’?

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 8:15 AM

First, make a legal channel and many of the 20-30 million would return home if they knew there was a way to come back to work. Second, 10,000 is just not adequate for our needs. This is a supply and demand problem and we’ve created the black market in unskilled laborers. Third, I would wager many of them are skilled now after a few years.

So once again, redcardsolution.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:22 PM

REALITY HAS PROVEN YOU WRONG:

“make a legal channel and many of the 20-30 million would return home if they knew there was a way to come back to work…”

WRONG.

Naive. Or intentionally misleading.

Because “many” do NOT “go back home” even when they could or by their own desire. THE PROBLEM ISN’T THE U.S., IT’S THE NATURE OF WHO IS ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

They’re USING the U.S. like throw-away paper towels to clean up lives they want to maintain as messy. Here, there, anywhere. Messy lives. Indifferent to the requirements of others. Disregarding of OTHERS’ BOUNDARIES, including national ones.

They are USING the U.S. *regardless* of what “system” (red or otherwise) the U.S. will ever develope. No guest worker program WILL EVER WORK as anticipated (“so people from other nations can come here to work”) until or unless the U.S. ENDS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO conduct many an operation of these ‘foreign workers’ such as paying for their housing, their transportation and providing health insurance and basic things like that contingent upon employment.

And if not employed, nothing forthcoming from the taxpayers.

These conditions sound very harsh, I do realize that, but it’s the only way, by such conditions, that any “guest worker program” can ever function as what it’s called to be. Otherwise, it along with other ‘programs’ will continue to simply be exploited as backdoor ‘pathways to residency in the U.S.’ and all the related exploitations that go along with that.

Medical visas are used by foreign nationals to corrupt our immigration system. So are student visas. So are tourist visas.

The answer to these problems is to either end them (not reasonable for most) or to apply strict enough conditions to these programs to curtail the vast exploitation of them that occurs.

Huge cash deposits refundable ten years afterward if they’ve “gone back home” after visa term? I don’t know what the answer is other than enforcement but so far, enforcement isn’t enforcing. So exploitation continues.

People the world over know that these visa programs are simply their ticket to get into the U.S. and from there, to remain here, regardless of how they do. Birthright citizenship was never intended by our 14th Amendment until recent times and once violated to accommodate birthright citizenship, it’s been a steady downhill slide for the U.S. one state at a time. People and nations the world over know what they’re doing and what they’re doing is exporting poverty to the U.S.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 8:26 AM

because our side is too stupid to “embrace and extend”, while the Democrats seem to be nimble enough to do so.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Just what part of illegal confuses you?

98ZJUSMC on May 30, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Did you ever hear of Ellis Island?

bw222 on May 29, 2011 at 8:23 PM

They didn’t need passports, just a disease check.

AshleyTKing on May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM

So, you’re implying, AshleyTKing, then, that the U.S. should do away with passports? Return to Ellis Island process for all immigrants of all sorts?

Those “disease checks,” by the way, on Ellis Island, also sent many a person who failed one back to where they came from.

Tourists never used Ellis Island, by the way, and no one here has ever suggested or stated that illegal aliens were using “passports” then or now. So I don’t follow what your point even is there except that likely you were confronted so you used the Marxist Two Step of trying to change the subject.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 8:31 AM

I think the president was clearly articulating that his position…

“They’re here already!!!”

curved space on May 30, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Do we really need “comprehensive” immigration reform? Does anyone even know the existing rules?

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Lets just invade and get it over with….

percysunshine on May 30, 2011 at 9:01 AM

This gal is practically writing Republicans 2012 campaign commercials…

Pure comedy gold if this gal wins the Republicans the Senate and Presidents seat.

Keith_Indy on May 30, 2011 at 9:09 AM

They did emigrate legally. Mexico, for example, recognizes the rights of their citizens to freely transit their borders. They might not recognize the right of others to immigrate to Mexico, but they certainly recognize a right to emigrate.

So, because Mexico is OK with their citizens sneaking across our borders we should just accept it? Our laws be damned eh?
BTW, could any of you open border types please explain to me why the US is not allowed to protect her borders and maintain her sovereignty? Anyone notice that the US and Israel are the only two nations that are like that?

mizflame98 on May 30, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Just think, Waterhead-Schmuck represents the deeps end of the intelligence pool for the Democrats – they admitted it themselves by giving her this position. You REALLY want this mental midgets running the country for 4 more years?

PJ Emeritus on May 30, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Thank you, Hot Air for showing what the left looks like to
“IL – LEGAL” aliens – immigrants.

I have always been suspicious of hyphenated people. My encounters with hyphenated people is that they appear, speak, and in this case speak before they think. But, more obvious is hyphenating ones last name indicates confusion or they are trying to tell you something. In this case, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz, is confused about abortion (Wasserman – pregnancy test) – Schultz (Sgt Shultz of Hogan Heros, or PC Ed) just from her two last names tell me she is also

Watch her body language not her body. The greater percentage of leftists such as Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has to rely on words to get attention because her body does not get any attention. What does her language tell U.S.. Foremost, no eye contact with U.S. is she speaking from a script and the words are only on the monitor behind the moderator?. Next, pulling/playing with her hair indicates a nervous twitch indicating she’s not sure of herself or the information she’s speaking.

The term ILLEGAL speaks for itself – the person with that moniker is breaking the LAW (legal) not ILL as in sick.

MSGTAS on May 30, 2011 at 11:05 AM

If we made this country half as reactionary and repressive as the libs say it is all the illegals and minorities would leave.

IlikedAUH2O on May 30, 2011 at 11:06 AM

What is the current polling data on this issue? I remember not so long ago a poll was done, and it clearly showed even most Democrats are against illegal immigration.

Dems. Stuck on stupid, and determined to stay that way.

capejasmine on May 30, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Do we really need “comprehensive” immigration reform? Does anyone even know the existing rules?

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2011 at 8:58 AM

No. “Comprehensive” immigration reform = Amnesty

Liberals must hide their true agenda with titles and words that hide their real intent.

Simply enforcing existing laws would help.

darwin on May 30, 2011 at 1:22 PM

This is what happens when political correctness distorts clear and descriptive language.

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has been talking about this kind of stuff for 7 or more years. He’s always been on about the hijacking of language and author’s intent by the progressive left; one of the tactics that has, by and large, allowed for the willfull misinterpretation of the Constitution and brought us where we are today…

Undocumented workers? = Illegal aliens

Reductions in tax code spending? = Tax increases

Kinetic military actions?…

I’m sure you get the picture. But as Cap’n Ed noted, when you allow euphamistic terminology to be employed, it waters down the meaning to the point where the low information voters, who’s votes count just as much as those that take their civic duty seriously and educate themselves on issues, can be swayed into thinking their supporting something righteous and noble which in reality is neither…

My Regards.

RocketmanBob on May 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 7:51 AM

As a fellow Catholic, I would have expected that you might understand where the mean-ness of the anti-immigration crowd comes from — for several times in the past two hundred years it has been directed at us for our religion. I have mentioned and described the Know Nothings, and I have quoted the detestation of Abraham Lincoln for same.

In my family we have Chinese, who were the target of yet another spate of mean-ness — to the point where, while my spouse’s great grandfather was able to legally enter this country, his wife was not; they each died in love but separated from each other. The mean ones in that era were concerned about the fecundity of the Chinese:

It is the duty of the miners to take the matter into their own hands and erect such barriers as shall be sufficient to check this asiatic inundation. The Capitalists who are encouraging or engaged in the importation of these burlesques on humanity would crown their ships with the long tailed, horned and cloven-hoofed inhabitants of the infernal regions if they could make a profit on it.

You merely have to look in these comments to see that type of fear brought forth as justification. Your own echo the thought.

You are right — we have an obligation to our citizens, but that obligation includes remaining true to that upon which the United States was founded; if we fail, we are far meaner and selfish than our forebears:

“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!”

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Just what part of illegal confuses you?

98ZJUSMC on May 30, 2011 at 8:29 AM

The same part that created a 55-MPH national speed limit — which I’m sure everyone on these pages observed.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Democrats have reached a point of desperation for holding on to their 2008 voters for 2012. Since they have seen the MSM support and provide cover for their lies and socialist policies they appear to have decided they can outright lie and misrepresent anything they want to and have cover provided by their Group Think Peer Pressure colleagues posing as reporters.

wtng2fish on May 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Bad Karma? I’m not the one that worships at the feet of Chairman Mao, Comrade Marx, and Zero.

Wolftech on May 30, 2011 at 2:57 AM

There you have it yet again, ^^ , Marxists at work.

Lourdes on May 30, 2011 at 7:58 AM

I didn’t know that Abraham Lincoln was a Marxist, for it is his words, not those of Marx, Mao, or even Zero which I quote in defense of free immigration. I do indeed “worship at the feet” of Mr. Lincoln, for he had a refreshingly simple, un-nuanced, viewpoint of what was fair and just.

Whether you guys like it or not, we are not about to find and deport 12 or 14 or 30 million (or whatever the number actually is) Mexicans. They will have at least that many children here — every one of them a legal, native born, citizen — and those children will vote. By going against your Republican forebears, you doom our Party to insignificance for a generation — for those votes will overwhelmingly be Democratic, to spite you for your hardened visage. Even 12 million votes is nothing to sneeze at, when elections often turn upon a few hundred.

You cannot win this battle, and in losing it, you will lose the war you seek to win. Might I suggest a judo defense?

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Well, Ashley…..

No doubt you will discount my experiences as untrue, racist, or otherwise unworthy.

I’m an emergency physician, who works in Los Angeles at one of the largest hospitals in the city.

Fully 1/3 of my patients are illegal aliens (they aren’t immigrants, as stated – you have to be legal to immigrate) and don’t pay taxes (or their hospital bills). I speak fluent spanish, and I ask them as I treat…not that it matters in their treatment (thanks to a federal law called EMTALA).

Some (most?) of the illegal aliens could apply for and qualify for various welfare programs…but why bother? They come into the hospital for free medical care. Care that the law-abiding members of society pay for through taxes. Somehow they manage to afford cellphones (nicer than mine), vehicles (usually nicer than mine), cigarettes and alcohol (I don’t smoke, and rarely drink), have children like they don’t have a care in the world about supporting them (I worried about supporting mine, and we paid for them to attend private schools (despite paying for crappy public schools) and universities – they’re now what you’d call ‘warmongers’ serving the nation in the military.

Those illegal aliens suck up resources in public health, in law enforcement, in the criminal justice system, in the prison system. Somehow their children attend free public schools for 12 years and manage to graduate without being able to speak English, or read or write in any language including Spanish. And another generation is born, as it has been happening for 20+ years.

You may think that illegal aliens are necessary for the economy. They are actually retarding the economy, both via direct expenses, and by artificially lowering the cost of labor. That lowering of the labor costs makes automation economically disadvantageous: A grower of tomatoes can’t afford to buy tomato picking machines (which, btw are used in countries like Israel, where labor costs are high) when his competition is using illegal aliens. And the costs of e. coli or shigella outbreaks from those workers defecating in the fields isn’t counted as part of the cost of the tomatoes…but it is a cost in the hospital when we treat them.

Ashley, may I prescribe a medical procedure for you? You need to have your cranio-rectal inversion corrected, and quickly. This condition is causing your outlook on life to be quite backwards.

HBowmanMD on May 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

What a load. You are pulling the Democrat trick of equating anti-ILLEGAL immigration with anti-immigration.

Epic fail.

JannyMae on May 30, 2011 at 2:09 PM

You are right — we have an obligation to our citizens, but that obligation includes remaining true to that upon which the United States was founded; if we fail, we are far meaner and selfish than our forebears:

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 1:53 PM

You mean like those forebears who made people, gosh, wait in line and get their paperwork filled out, at Ellis Island.

OK with me. I think most people on commenting here would agree with making people enter this country LEGALLY.

Let’s see…

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.

Yep, I guess that makes us “far meaner and selfish then our forebears.”

I guess you have to be selective in which forebears you choose though:

In 1954, Operation Wetback forced the return of thousands of illegal immigrants to Mexico.

Wiki it if you want the sources…

Keith_Indy on May 30, 2011 at 2:10 PM

The same part that created a 55-MPH national speed limit — which I’m sure everyone on these pages observed.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 1:54 PM

So, my son’s best friend, whose grandparents came from Mexico and Cuba, LEGALLY, who are against ILLEGAL immigration, should have just ignored our immigration laws, because they were unreasonable?

I think you’d have a hard time convincing them of that. Once again…epic fail.

JannyMae on May 30, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Ashley, may I prescribe a medical procedure for you? You need to have your cranio-rectal inversion corrected, and quickly. This condition is causing your outlook on life to be quite backwards.

HBowmanMD on May 30, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I hope you know Superman’s phone number or have heavy equipment sitting around; Ashley has it so bad could she could chat with her appendix.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Perhaps if the homeless were to invade her gated community and occupy the homes there as undocumented property owners?

Beto Ochoa on May 30, 2011 at 2:45 PM

You cannot win this battle, and in losing it, you will lose the war you seek to win. Might I suggest a judo defense?

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM

I love psuedo-Americans like you that caused this situation then pull out the “Wadda you going to do, deport them all? That is crazy talk” knowing full well that you encouraged their invasion and dilution of American sovereignty. Do drop that this all-knowing sage-like attitude that you are the only one dealing with reality.

It is fcks like you that caused the deaths of thousands of legal citizens at the hands of the poor “undocumented worker”. Blood on your hands…no debate.

You are correct in the battle is over, but unlike many others here, I have fully accepted the end of the United States and know that my part will survive. Enjoy your 3rd world paradise! The disbanding of this union is long overdue.

ClassicCon on May 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Or hang out on street corners as ‘unlicensed pharmacists’, turning her precious children into drug zombies?

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 2:49 PM

People, that woman is weapons grade blonde. Very, very dangerous. You wouldn’t want to mess around with that…..bloowie!

Seriously, stupid should hurt, I mean physically hurt. That way there would be at least some incentive to try and fix it.

Johnnyreb on May 30, 2011 at 2:50 PM

So, my son’s best friend, whose grandparents came from Mexico and Cuba, LEGALLY, who are against ILLEGAL immigration, should have just ignored our immigration laws, because they were unreasonable?

I think you’d have a hard time convincing them of that. Once again…epic fail.

JannyMae on May 30, 2011 at 2:12 PM

I’m really not concerned about your son’s best friend — I’d rather be on the right side of Honest Abe. Thank you for the rating.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM

What a load. You are pulling the Democrat trick of equating anti-ILLEGAL immigration with anti-immigration.

Epic fail.

JannyMae on May 30, 2011 at 2:09 PM

No, I’m absolutely correct. The word “illegal” means “against the law” — which implies that some types of immigration are illegal. The motives behind said laws seem to be alive and well on these pages — we know which immigrants gall the antagonists here — what they look like and what languages they speak and so on. Hence, those who advocate for said laws — just like those who, 160 years ago advocated for the fugitive slave laws — understand fully what they are doing and where it leads, but they hide behind a shield of law in doing it. They want to close off the dream of America to those who do not look or talk like them.

We all understand the difference between just and unjust law — for we’ve seen plenty of the latter passed for the grandest of reasons. Allowing children to be murdered, allowing the Government to take the hard work of our hands and give that work to others…all bad law. Well, our immigration laws rank right up there in the pantheon of bad law designed to punish groups of people collectively rather than promoting the rights and responsibilities of individuals.

I would let come here and work those who want to come here and work — and I would send back those who would subsist upon the earnings of others, either by legal or illegal acts. I would have them pay their taxes and be on the path to the oath of citizenship.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM

I’m really not concerned about your son’s best friend — I’d rather be on the right side of Honest Abe. Thank you for the rating.

unclesmrgol on May 30, 2011 at 3:06 PM

You are a disgusting little slimeball who deliberately misinterprets the words of Abraham Lincoln to fit your Demoncrat open-borders agenda.

Honest Abe would have rightly branded you a triaitor and a fool, and sent the criminals back south of the border at gunpoint.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 30, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4