Skip to comments.Feinstein Calls Illegals Good 'Citizens', Lou Lets Loose
Posted on 03/28/2006 5:20:43 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
March 28, 2006
In all its cacophony and moments of absurdity, this morning's Today show segment on immigration was a supremely edifying example of the confusion, high emotion and complexity of the immigration debate. Matters reached their Alice-in-Wonderland apotheosis when Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California was shown in a Senate committee arguing that illegal immigrants are good . . . 'citizens.' Said Feinstein:
"They pay taxes, their children are Americans, they go to schools, they're good citizens and they're needed."
This was in line with the fait accompli argument advanced by La Raza representative Janet Murguia. She referred to what she estimated as the 11-12 million illegal aliens in the country as "people are working in backbreaking work that nobody else wants to do in this country. We need to . . . understand that they are already part of this country."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Today Show/NewsBusters illegals-are-citizens ping.
I actually heard one of the idiots on Cavuto's show yesterday say "Why should an American citizen have any more right to a job than an illegal alien?"
It's Not Xenophobia, It's Xenonausea--It is not Xenophobia. It is Xenonausea. People are sick of having the whole world shoved down their throats at once and being told it tastes like ice cream. They are sick of every street corner and parking lot being filled with criminal aliens waiting to work off the books and outside the laws that are applied so enthusiastically to actual Americans. They are sick of pressing 1 for English. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists. They are sick of being told that the world is global or flat or smaller or at their doorstep or all coming for dinner on Tuesday
That's a good one, but I'm still sticking with Feinstein's 'illegals-are-citizens' for my Absurd Line 'o the Week ;-)
"That's when Dobbs got off perhaps his best line of the morning. "The National Council of La Raza is talking about race? La Raza - what does that mean? It means 'the race'!"
This is exactly what I kept hearing over and over yesterday. Illegal aliens are all the second coming of the Cleaver family. The bunch thay are occupying 30% of our jail cells must have gotten then by some terrible misunderstanding then, right?
Since illegals are such pillars of the community, perhaps we should rethink our entire approach to illegal behavior. After all, what does a bank-robber do with the money he has stolen? That's correct--he spends it. That means he pays sales tax on the items he buys, and that money is ultimately used to build schools--for the children. Therefore, we should decriminalize bank robbery, along with extortion, kidnapping, and murder-for-hire. For the children.
He's actually right about that. Too many American citizens need to be reminded that there is NO SUCH THING as a right to a job. So in fact, they have no more right to a job than illegal aliens do.
The right to vote, OTOH is something else entirely.
I am for free trade, but I also am for national security first, and it was clear that to these people there was no such thing as securing our borders! The philosophy guy said he believed in the Declaration, but not the Constitution, which was just "a compromise."
Oh really? Later in discussing what rights Americans had, he invoked the Constitution, at which point I blew him out of the water by saying he couldn't use that---he had already claimed it was of no value!!
These pro-illegal Republicans and radical free-trade Libertarians must be weeded out for the GOP to have any chance of again becoming THE party of liberty and national security . . . and yes, they do go together.
Not EVERY illegal comes here to work. That's a load of crap.
Makes one wonder if the California coast and all its denizens can be given away to a benevolent, but stern, Mexican government eh?!
See, maybe there's a silver lining in there somewhere.
Britian, in the 1850s, had complete free trade . . . and completely secure borders. You CAN DO BOTH. It was called, "The Royal Navy" and the British Army. In fact, much like George Bush's foreign policy (but not immigration non-policy), the British "extended forward" and used pre-emptive attacks.
It's all about globalism. Fox is saying the same things to Canada as he's saying to us.
Imagine the futre of America when we become a mixture of Canadian socialism and Mexican feudalism.
This LITERALLY reads like Trilateral Commission.
And they don't all come to work on the farms. Here in Michigan I've worked in a couple of factories where illegal aliens were working.
That last pick, with the ACCESS sign.
Arab community? I thought this was about immigrants from Mexico?
These academic morons hate our national sovereignty that has enabled and protected their slacker lifestyles.
Isn't that interesting?
One triple-decker sh_t sandwich coming up!
The irony here is that Mexico immediately deports illegals caught making the trip to the USA from the even poorer central american countries. They also have a law which makes it a crime to offer any assistance whatsoever to them.
It was a shocker to me, because I had thought these people were otherwise stout Republicans. As I say, I'm for free trade, but their free-trade agenda equals NO national security.
They may pay gas tax, cigarette tax, etc...but do they pay income tax.. quite misleading Ms Feinstein Democrat CA
It would be a lot easier to stop if our government weren't bent over saying "Give it to me daddy".
The establishment of a Navy was also how President John Adams kept the borders safe.
In the early 90's the people of California voted in Prop 187 which would deny government services to illegals. The libs had it overturned in the courts.
Feinstein is a great example of that species endemic in Washington, Idiotatus Senatus. If our lawmakers try to give an amnesty, there is going to be hell to pay at the ballot box. I will not vote for a single incumbent. And when is someone going to start the anti-illegal-immigration party?
I find nothing wrong with this statement. I think everybody who is within the borders should be able to work and pay his taxes.
Giving permanent resident status (greencards) to illegal aliens or giving them US citizenship is an entirely different issue. But I do believe that visitors, illegals, and everybody should have the freedom to work and pay taxes in this country.
No anchovies, please.
Yep, and, ironically, it was not Adams, but Jefferson who USED that navy to fight the first "war on terror" against the Islamic Barbary States. (See Joseph Wheelan's book, "Jefferson's War").
I was listening to Bill Bennett this morning and he was giving out statistics. He said that 2/3 of the outstanding arrest warrants currently open in California are for illegal aliens. This just makes me sick.
What's amazing to me is that these illegal-soon-to-be-citizens ABSOLUTELY HATE BUSH, even though he's the one trying to put them on a fast track to employment and citizenship. It seems as if their Left-Wing handlers have taught them that "Republican means anti-Mexican". If the GOP think that they're going to get a single vote out of these ingrates, they're dumber than they currently look.
What a load of cr@p that is. Are they expecting us all to drink the Kool Aid and accept this? The war has come to our borders, WHO IS protecting us!! NOT feinstein, mcaniac or fat A$$ kennedy and all the rest of them including the president. For some reason we have elected people we thought had OUR best interest at heart, but something has changed big time. What reason do they have to make such a mess in this country? Please someone explain this to me.
We are facing gangs, drugs, murder, mayhem, filth, bankrupcy of health services and the environment and the list goes on and on most by these people whether legal or illegal.
If they are such good citizens, why are they flying foreign nations flags? And wearing shirts with communist dictators on them??????
Give me a break.
Free trade? I sure hope you put in your book that most Federal revenues came from tariffs for our first 150 years. Not from personal or business (corporate) taxes. If I'm wrong please clarify. I care but know your students don't give a s**t.
From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli ...
I doubt that Left-Wing handlers taught Mexicans to be anti-republican. If someone listens to the news, it's pretty simple to determine who is for you and who is against you.
To the liberal democrats any defiant illegal act equates to being a "good citizen".
In fact they support mexican flag wavers BECAUSE the socialists have the same philosophy as they do.
Actually, for the first 80 years of the Republic, the vast, vast majority of government revenues came from land sales, not tariffs. Tariffs only made up the majority of revenues after the Civil War, and were such a huge headache and so hard to enforce that they gave us . . . ta da, the Federal Income Tax. Further, what research we have on the "protective" value of tariffs, esp. in the pre 1860 period, is that they had no effect at best and actually retarded our infant industries at worst. The textile industry, which was protected by Hamilton, in fact made products that were completely different than the Brits and never even used, or needed the protection. A debate still remains about iron, but by the 1850s, even that industry no longer needed tariffs, and our greatest steel growth occurred without tariffs.
Sign held by one of the illegals in your pictures.
Let's talk about real history.
1. At most, Mexico controlled portions of this area for 27 years, from 1821 to 1848.
2. When they did have legal title, their actual control was always spotty and generally absent. It was a theoretical control.
3. They lost a big chunk of it to Texan revolutionists in 1836. If the Mexican Revolution which gave Mexico control of this area transferred title legitimately, then so did the Texas Revolution.
4. The United States has been in control of this area for 159 years, as compared to a maximum of 27 years for Mexico.
5. Mexican title to what is now the southwestern US was acquired by revolution from the King of Spain, who had acquired it by use of violence against the native inhabitants. Why does the Spanish King's conquering this area result in a more legitimate title than its conquest by the US?
Can't read English?!?
Thanks Prof. I have no clever rejoinder and will digest and look into you words. Thanks again!