Hillary on Immigration - "No woman is illegal".

At a campaign stop in my state of Nevada, Hillary made this incredible pronouncement.

Article

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

"No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.

Is this what the woman truly believes, or is it just more clinton pandering seen at its worst?

Either way, we have got to find some candidates for president and congress - from any party - that will enforce our laws and borders.

I'm not sure if I understand.

If the dude is a citizen, doesn't that make his wife legal?

I don't think any presidential candidate is speaking about what he believes. They all pander and they all are full of #.

And what of candidates who make new laws legalizing illegal immigrants, and they enforce those laws?

Sounds like a plan to me.

And what is this statement supposed to mean???

We treat these problems as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when ... they both go together," she said.

She being Hillary.


www.lvrj.com...

My daughters fiance is being deported to another country, maybe he needs to find a dress and a wig really quickly.

What a crock! If you don't follow that legal immigration laws of our country, you are here illegally!

Post 911, I don't think that we should allow anyone to be here illegally.

I think that the immigration system needs to be overhauled.

It should regulate immigration to correspond with the labor needs of our country.

If your here illegally, you should be send back home. If your here illegall and need social services, your county of origin should be charged for any services you need.

If your here illegally and have a child, that child should not be a citizen.

I will never vote for Hillary!

I think you are taking it out of context. She could of meant a few things by that to the reaction to that man.

What about when obama speaks. Why do nobody ever speak anything about obama.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I will never vote for Hillary!

Ditto. I mean, this is offensive, to see her flaunt the defiance of our countries laws!

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It should regulate immigration to correspond with the labor needs of our country.

Maybe I'm dim, please clarify for me. Do you mean that we should only allow foreign immigrants to become citizens if we can put them to work? What of the independently wealthy? Or are you just specifying Mexicans.

If your here illegally and have a child, that child should not be a citizen.

Sorry Cap'n, but that one's in the constitution, and rightfully so. No new law is gonna change that.

The 14th amendment to the constution was passed sothat children of freed slaves couldn't be enslaved. It had nothing to do with people who immigrate to this country illegally. The courts have interperted this for illegal immigrants.


With regard to the labor market, it seems to make sense to me that a country can only absorb so many immigrants at a time. If you don't have enough jobs available for immigrants, what will they do for a living?

So when our country is experienceing a boom time we would have a need for more workers. In a time of recession we wouldn't have a need for workers. It seems like a simple concept. I'd like to add that every preference in employment should first go to citizens and then to legal immigrants.

Personally, I'd like to see the best and brightest comming to our country to make it better.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'm not sure if I understand.

If the dude is a citizen, doesn't that make his wife legal?

No, it only works that way for children. It might make it easier for her to stay, though. Also, the guy never said he was legal, just that his wife wasn't.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
The 14th amendment to the constution was passed sothat children of freed slaves couldn't be enslaved. It had nothing to do with people who immigrate to this country illegally. The courts have interperted this for illegal immigrants.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Seems simple enough to me. Not much interpretation necessary there.

With regard to the labor market, it seems to make sense to me that a country can only absorb so many immigrants at a time. If you don't have enough jobs available for immigrants, what will they do for a living?

Once again I ask, what of the independently wealthy? What if a wealthy Canadian wanted to become an American citizen and had no need to work? Would you deny them citizenship?

So when our country is experienceing a boom time we would have a need for more workers. In a time of recession we wouldn't have a need for workers. It seems like a simple concept. I'd like to add that every preference in employment should first go to citizens and then to legal immigrants.

So they can come when we need them to work for us, but when they're done we send them home? I don't quite get that one.

Once again, silly me, I must be dim.

1.) I never said that you would send back people who had legally immigrated to this country. When we as a county don't have a need to import labor, then we would reduce our quotas until such time that labor is once again needed.

2.) You're right, I didn't address immigration for those who don't need to work because they're wealthy. I don't think that the wealthy should get a special exemption. So, like everyone else, they could immigrate when we are allowing immigration. If, we're having a year where we aren't allowing immigration, why should the wealthy get an exemption?

3.) Study the history of the 14th amendment. It does seem clear until you study the history. Perhaps we need a new amendment to address the children of illegal immigrants or end the anchor baby path to immigration.

Originally posted by interestedalways
And what is this statement supposed to mean???

We treat these problems as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when ... they both go together," she said.

She being Hillary.


www.lvrj.com...

My daughters fiance is being deported to another country, maybe he needs to find a dress and a wig really quickly.

Yes, I almost added that comment as well. I wonder if the crowd cheered after she said that, too? I found it to be kind of demeaning for hillary to use that metaphor.

I think Hillary is playing word games. It's a favorite game of the Left and politicians, in general.

Abstractly, any person or thing that is not in compliance with the law is termed "illegal."

I'm not saying that Clinton is a concrete thinker, but when you try to discuss an issue with someone like this, you spend almost all your time defining terms because as long as you're not discussing the substantive issue, the "abstract-challenged" participant never has admit or concede anything.

As far as pandering, yes, of course, it is pandering to the demographic who believes that women are not to be held accountable for anything and who use this word game on a daily basis.

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to use this tactic, but to those for whom it is a favorite and who use it everyday, it always comes of as a barn-burner.

Originally posted by interestedalways
And what is this statement supposed to mean???

We treat these problems as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when ... they both go together," she said.

There we go. An example of Clinton being extremely concrete at one moment and in the next moment being incomprehensibly abstract.

Unless a person is just being difficult, these extremes of concreteness and abstraction can be indicative of mental illness.

I think that Clinton just can't be sincere about anything.

Pander, obfuscate, and manipulate. I'm sure we've all encountered this kind of behavior on fairly regular basis in our daily lives.


[edit on 2008/1/11 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I don't think that the wealthy should get a special exemption. So, like everyone else, they could immigrate when we are allowing immigration. If, we're having a year where we aren't allowing immigration, why should the wealthy get an exemption?

When the wealthy want to invest in this country, start a business, create jobs, even just buy real estate which indirectly does all of the above

why not?

reply to post by romanowski


Because they're foreigners, and they're on his poperty.

Simply put, the only people that these people are against are Mexican immigrants. But they can't say that without sounding prejudice. They can't make rules that apply to one group without it applying to all groups. Even though most of this country's money comes from foreign countries, they don't want to admit it.

sticky situation when you try to make up laws for immigration huh?

got a friend from the Netherlands-married to US citizen , she could not extend her visa as she was pregnant in the last stage , and somehow she believed it will be fine . A month latter she was ex pulsed from US .For more than 1 year she tried to appeal the decision with no success . Now as the family cannot be together in the US - the country of the husband, they think about Canada as a final solution . He is already moved there and got a job ( after 2 years of serving in Iraq! ) . In the Netherlands he would not get a job because he does not speak the language..

reply to post by sty


She shouldn't have been foreign. She was wrong. Next time she'll know enough to be American. They're the only people who deserve basic human rights.

Hillary is the favorite for the presidential candidate supported by big interest.

If any other candidate from the democratic party doesn't do anything about it, she will win the primaries even if that means in a fraudulent way.

That is what will happen.

she does not need fraud to win this.. and my 5 € she will ! just check her background