Pinkerton claimed Clinton "supported open borders" despite her support for border-security measures
On the July 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, while discussing the ramifications on the U.S. presidential election of the June 29 discovery of car bombs in London, Newsday columnist Jim Pinkerton claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "supported open borders and bilingualism and multiculturalism and all the things that have gotten Britain and, in the future, America in such deadly trouble." In fact, Clinton voted on June 28 to close debate and proceed to a vote on an immigration bill that would have authorized (but not appropriate) funding to increase the number of federal agents investigating criminal matters related to immigration and to increase by 2,000 to 2,400 per year for six years the number of full-time border patrol agents. The bill also would have authorized (but not appropriate) funding for the procurement of "unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, poles, sensors, and other technologies necessary to achieve operational control of the international borders of the United States." It also would have authorized the secretary of homeland security to "require aliens entering and departing the United States to provide biometric data and other information relating to their immigration status."
From the July 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
KELLY WRIGHT (co-host): What are the candidates saying about this, and who's out in front on terrorism? Because the next president of the United States will have to deal with this subject.
ELLEN RATNER (Fox News contributor and chief political correspondent for Talk America): Well, I think Giuliani does very well with this. He sort of -- that is his hallmark. I actually think the other person that would do very well with this is Hillary Clinton, because she's a senator from New York and has been very active since the 9-11 hit.
PINKERTON: Hillary Clinton, who supported open borders and bilingualism and multiculturalism and all the things that have gotten Britain and, in the future, America in such deadly trouble? That's a good one, Ellen.
In addition to her recent vote for cloture on the Senate immigration bill containing border-security measures, Clinton has previously asserted that border security must be strengthened. In a statement issued March 8, 2006, Clinton said: "Smart reform must have as an essential component a plan to strengthen our northern and southern borders. It is unconscionable to think that in a post-9/11 world we do not know precisely who is entering and exiting our country." In a May 1, 2007, statement, Clinton said that "[a] comprehensive solution to our immigration crisis must include strengthening our borders."
From Clinton's March 8, 2006, statement:
Smart reform must have as an essential component a plan to strengthen our northern and southern borders. It is unconscionable to think that in a post-9/11 world we do not know precisely who is entering and exiting our country. Our homeland security requires that we know the identities of all people who cross our borders. In reforming our broken system, our efforts must be multifaceted and comprehensive. During my tenure in the Senate, I have supported efforts to increase exponentially the number of Border Patrol agents. By the end of this year, the ranks of our Border Patrol will have increased by 3,000 agents since 2001, a 30% increase. But the problem is not simply one of manpower. We also need to deploy new technology that can help our Border Patrol agents be more effective in stopping the thousands of undocumented immigrants who enter the country each day. Employing new surveillance equipment -- like detection sensors, unmanned drones, and infrared cameras -- can assist in this important work.
From Clinton's May 1, 2007, statement:
A comprehensive solution to our immigration crisis must include strengthening our borders, greater cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar, including learning English.
Pinkerton should give up the elvis impersonations and stick to filling out my hemmeroid prescription.
actually.....if you want to know who has called for "open borders", that would be the wall street journal. they have proposed an amendment to the constitution that would say "there shall be open borders".
Again with this creepy little man, Pinkerton. They (MSM in general) have all sorts of bright, funny interesting liberals with much higher national prominence to go with for an interview, any interview, and they rely on people like this low level con that writes a piss ant column for Newsweek, a regional paper. Wass up with that? This guy seems to have no facts and just regurgitates stale talking points. I'm just frustrated with the low quality of people purporting to have any knowledge about news related subjects. How they get on the air and not someone who has a cogent opinion with actual facts is beyond me.
They (MSM in general) have all sorts of bright, funny interesting liberals with much higher national prominence to go with for an interview, any interview, ....... How they get on the air and not someone who has a cogent opinion with actual facts is beyond me.
No, I think you are mistaken. There are NO 'bright', 'funny' or 'interesting' liberals that could do any interviews. ESPECIALLY any with a cogent opininon or facts! But, of course liberals don't need facts, just as long as the interviewer agrees with everything they say, then the liberal is happy. Liberals are all for questioning authority, as long as you don't question their authority. Besides, clinton IS two-faced. She will say whatever is needed to appease whatever audience she has at any given time.... "and you know what I mean!"
Apysch, How about William R Pitt, Cutis White, Jeff Cohen, Pick an Air America pundit. Oberman maybe, Al Gore, Thats with just a minute or two of thought. I'm sure you could find one if you looked, under the bed does not count.
I wrote Pinkerton complaining about his misstatement about Clinton's record on "open borders" and his need for a fact checker and here's his response just now: "Hi:Media Matters is being tendentious here. I have argued for months that the immigration bill--as supported by GOPers Bush and McCain, as well as Democrats Kennedy and Clinton--is an open borders/amnesty bill that continues to prop up such social policy mistakes as bilingualism and multiculturalism. I certainly stand by that statement now, now that a majority of US Senators has finally come its senses on the merits and demerits of that bad bill. But as noted, whatever I think of Hillary's position on that bill is also what I think of Bush's position. JP"Frankly, I haven't followed this issue really closely and haven't been aware of Pinkerton's views until now; about the same for Clinton, too, unfortunately. Would appreciate responses to Pinkerton from others more knowledgealbe. Is MM being "tendentious" about Pinkerton on this issue? Thanks!
Hillary will say anything and certainly hired open borders supporters on her staff and you will notice MMFA never addressed the issue that she supports multiculturism or the problems that England is in with terrorists because of such issues.
The alternative to "amnesty" is to enforce the laws (on everyone EXCEPT Scooter Libby).
America now has 2 million people in prison. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS number an estimated 12-20 million. To avoid "amnesty", each of these criminals will have to be dealt with, prosecuted, and punished. This would call for our prison system to expand by 6-10 TIMES its present size.
Alternatively, law enforcement assets, processing, and deportation could commence, keeping in mind that in ONE YEAR, Amtrack moves 10 million passengers. It would take 15 months to two YEARS, if the trains were kept moving constantly every day, to move all these people to the border.
I know what Pinkerton WANTS, and he may think he has "won" by having this immigration bill defeated, but I wonder if he's considered what HE is demanding by rejecting anything resembling "amnesty"? Such a massive sweep of law enforcement and deportation would have a stunning look, and the jobs these people would be abandoning would have a crushing effect on our economy. No matter, Pinkerton knows what he WANTS, and that's NO AMNESTY! As the saying goes, beware what you ask for.
And who is Pinkerton, anyway? Why should anyone give a rat's behind what he thinks about ANYTHING?
This is who Jim Pinkerton is:
"James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns.Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a Fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is a graduate of Stanford University."
He's basically a columnist with conservative opinions with some other media ties. Who are you? Who is anybody?
Besides yourself...just who is it that thinks we should put 20 million illegal aliens in jail?
Additionally, your Amtrak ridership statistics are all wet...they report ridership of 24-25 million passengers per year...with lots of empty seats.
It took about 20 years to reach this situation and it's simplistic to make arguments concerning "overnite" deportation.
It's time to enforce our current laws...we don't need blathering politicians enacting more laws...that they have no intention of enforcing.
We need to slam shut our leaking border and start the process of finding and deporting illegal aliens. The "crushing effect" will not be on the economy...it will be on the illegal aliens residing in our country.
Our government has failed us by not securing our borders over the last 20-30 years and it won't be corrected overnite...but we can sure as hell get started.
Additionally, your Amtrak ridership statistics are all wet...they report ridership of 24-25 million passengers per year...with lots of empty seats.
You're correct regarding the ridership. Of course, a more important statistic is spare capacity, which coincidentally is about the same. However, that's a naive approach to capacity analysis, since the traffic would eventually concentrate to specific routes.
It took about 20 years to reach this situation and it's simplistic to make arguments concerning "overnite" deportation.
Agreed.
we don't need blathering politicians enacting more laws...that they have no intention of enforcing.
Agreed.
We need to slam shut our leaking border and start the process of finding and deporting illegal aliens.
Sounds so easy. So, what's the cost?
The "crushing effect" will not be on the economy...
Removing 5% of the workforce won't have a substantial impact on the economy? I'd wager it would make the double-digit inflation of the '70s seem like a nit.
I certainly don't know the cost of fixing our border problem...that has taken years to corrupt...but it must be fixed. If we can afford billions of dollars annually on pork projects...we can afford to pay for border security...that is a place to start.
Removing 5% of the workforce? The reason it won't crush the economy is because it can't and won't happen overnight. I support a guest worker program...and if it is so essential to the productivity of our economy...lets start tomorrow.
Starting tomorrow...if you want to enroll in a guest worker program...make your request from your home country...not from America, where you reside illegally.
This issue has little to do with immigration...it has a lot to do with illegal aliens overrunning our borders. I support and encourage all legal immigrants...but we must secure our borders and remove those here illegally.
There is no quick fix...but we can sure as hell get started.