Darth Omar
Russian asset
"Broadly speaking, there was almost no discernible difference between Clinton and Bernie Sanders on immigration. Both candidates expressed their sympathy for the plight of illegal aliens, and stated in no uncertain terms that they would insist upon a pathway to citizenship -- even if it meant bypassing Congress and using executive orders. Throughout, the candidates avoided using the term "amnesty," though that is inevitably the result of any so-called "pathway" for illegals. Clearly, Bernie and Hillary are aware of the political pitfalls that have stymied so many attempts at reform in the past.
Despite that rhetorical caution, however, on the issue of deportations both candidates ventured from standard Democratic National Committee talking points and platitudes about the American dream, launching into a frenzy of outright pandering and promised lawlessness. Pressed by the moderators, Clinton suggested that deportations would end for all "non-criminal" illegal immigrants should she become president. Sanders appeared to agree."
The implications of such a promise are inescapable: if only serious criminals are to be deported, is everyone else who comes to America or is already here illegally allowed to stay? What about newly arrived illegals? Don't they have families too? And what precedent would it set for the country if the commander in chief felt entitled to ignore a huge body of existing federal law?
In their efforts to one up each other as champions of illegal immigrants (all of whom have in fact broken U.S. federal law) Clinton and Sanders dabbled in the fantasy that it is possible to secure our borders without enforcing laws against a vast majority of illegal entrants. They weren't just peddling amnesty on that stage, they were in effect dabbling in open borders."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/opinions/democratic-debate-miami-sexton/index.html
It's because of crap like this. It's as if US citizens are reduced to the status of chopped liver in their own country, just so politicians can scarf-up enough votes to get elected.
Establishment republicans are almost as bad. I say almost because democrats set the bar so high---or low.
Despite that rhetorical caution, however, on the issue of deportations both candidates ventured from standard Democratic National Committee talking points and platitudes about the American dream, launching into a frenzy of outright pandering and promised lawlessness. Pressed by the moderators, Clinton suggested that deportations would end for all "non-criminal" illegal immigrants should she become president. Sanders appeared to agree."
The implications of such a promise are inescapable: if only serious criminals are to be deported, is everyone else who comes to America or is already here illegally allowed to stay? What about newly arrived illegals? Don't they have families too? And what precedent would it set for the country if the commander in chief felt entitled to ignore a huge body of existing federal law?
In their efforts to one up each other as champions of illegal immigrants (all of whom have in fact broken U.S. federal law) Clinton and Sanders dabbled in the fantasy that it is possible to secure our borders without enforcing laws against a vast majority of illegal entrants. They weren't just peddling amnesty on that stage, they were in effect dabbling in open borders."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/opinions/democratic-debate-miami-sexton/index.html
It's because of crap like this. It's as if US citizens are reduced to the status of chopped liver in their own country, just so politicians can scarf-up enough votes to get elected.
Establishment republicans are almost as bad. I say almost because democrats set the bar so high---or low.
