On Morning Joe, Matthews falsely suggested McCain has "stood his ground" on immigration
SUMMARY: Chris Matthews falsely suggested on MSNBC's Morning Joe that Sen. John McCain has "stood his ground" on the issue of immigration. In fact, after originally calling for a policy that both strengthened border security and established a guest-worker program, McCain now emphasizes securing the borders first.
On the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski asserted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "has stood his ground on issues even when they're unpopular." Guest co-host Chris Matthews -- host of MSNBC's Hardball -- interjected, "Immigration, yeah." In fact, contrary to Matthews' claim that McCain has "stood his ground" on immigration, McCain has shifted his stance on the issue. While McCain originally called for a policy that both strengthened border security and established a guest-worker program or a path to citizenship, he now supports improving border security before addressing the issue of immigrants' legal status. Moreover, he has reportedly acknowledged "I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift."
Several media figures and outlets, including Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt and the editorial board of The Des Moines Register, have similarly praised McCain for purportedly maintaining a consistent position on immigration, with the Register citing that consistency as an example of how McCain "has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public."
But a November 3, 2007, Associated Press article about McCain's "approach" to immigration quoted McCain as saying he "understand[s] why you would call it a, quote, shift":
John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.
Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.
"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
The shift in approach is likely to draw criticism from McCain's GOP opponents. Immigration has been a flash point in the race, with rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson all seizing on it.
McCain, who has led on the issue in the Senate with Democrat Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, got a wake-up call of sorts in June when Congress again failed to enact a broad immigration proposal that he championed and that split the country.
The measure also exposed deep divisions within the Republican Party, and McCain's high-profile support for it hurt him politically. During debate on the issue as spring turned into summer, the Arizona senator saw his poll numbers in some early primary states slip and his fundraising wane.
Early in the year, McCain told Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina voters the country must take a comprehensive approach strengthening the borders as well as creating a temporary worker program and providing millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship if they meet certain criteria.
Over the past few months, he has stressed border security first and said border-state governors should certify their borders are secure before making other needed immigration changes.
McCain said he listened to what the public was saying when the legislation failed -- and responded accordingly.
"I said, OK. We'll secure the borders, but after we secure the borders, we'll have a temporary worker program, we'll have to address the 12 million people here illegally, and I think the best way is the proposal that we had," McCain said.
"It's not a switch in position. I support the same solution. But we've got to secure the borders first," he added.
From the January 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
DAVID SHUSTER (MSNBC correspondent): One I think as you said the other night on Hardball, there's a gut sense that if you see John McCain taking the oath of office, as an American you can be proud of that, just because of his life service.
MATTHEWS: I have said that to my detriment 'cause it sounds partisan, 'cause I don't know who I'm going to vote for. But I gotta tell you, I do believe there's such a thing as being a patriot, obviously. He's been tested.
BRZEZINSKI: He's been tested --
MATTHEWS: None of us have spent five and a half years being beat to hell and our arms twisted off and everything else, and two years of solitary to think about how much you love your country. It is an astounding thing.
On the other hand, [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] is a master of public policy. I watch her in these debates and I say, here's a person who has spent 20 years mastering every program. Remember, were you at that last speech she gave up in New Hampshire, three or four thousand people up there? Going through program after program after program. Now, some people don't like that; they say it's too programmatic.
BRZEZINSKI: Like a professor.
MATTHEWS: But when you show you care enough to learn all these issues, it's almost like a young kid in sports. You know everything 'cause you love it. And she does love public policy.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. Oh, well, John McCain also, beyond his war experience, has stood his ground on issues even when they're unpopular --
MATTHEWS: Immigration, yeah.
BRZEZINSKI: And I do think, when authenticity is playing such a role in what people want, I mean, he has a lot to --
MATTHEWS: And I think it's going to be a close general. What a debate those two would be. Because, you know, it's like one of those old swords-and-sandals movies, where one guy gets a trident and a net, the other guy gets a short spear. They never give them the same weapons, right? It's always a -- just to make it interesting. They always have different weapons.
Matthews is not incorrect here - McCain did "stand his ground" for the lousy amnesty bill even when many in his party called it exactly what it was when they did not support it. In that sense, McCain did stand his ground - back then.
McCain's "shift", whether he is being genuine about listening to the people who want border enforcement first, or because it's politically expedient at this juncture, is anybody's guess.......but I am glad he "shifted" his position.
man, if there was a way to say "illegal immigrants" but starting the words with A, that would be a good bit of alliteration. ;)
DB,
I am for border enforcement first, before talk of anything else, including a "pathway" to citizenship. Also, crackdown on employers hiring illegals, put thousands more patrol guards on the border, build the fence that has already been allocated. Secure the borders first, then we can move beyond that.......no more empty promises of some "comprehensive" plan, or lies like were told to us back in the 80's.
Interesting. I'm for border enforcement as well, I was just trying to gauge your position on this issue. I think we should build a fence, and we should make it a public works project (we receive border protection and people receive jobs, it's a win-win.) However, I'm not 100% sure on the fence. I just don't know how effective it will be, especially since we have Cuban immigrants who, if they set foot on American soil, are given immediate amnesty and a path to citizenship. A fence won't keep them from coming into the country illegally. Nor will it keep many people who are desperate enough to try to make it to this country.
We need someone with a real, workable solution for this problem. I just don't think anyone has a concrete plan that will work in this election.
put thousands more patrol guards on the border, build the fence that has already been allocated.
Are your tax dollars or mine going to pay for it? Heck, let's just hire Blackwater to monitor the border with an agressive force policy. That'll teach those illegals who only want a better life for their families.
Your blanket assertion is not fair, and each individual "flip-flop" or policy "shift" needs to be examined and scrutinized on its own merits. If a politician flip flops on an issue just for political expediency and to get elected, then the "flip-flopper" label is warranted.
If a politician is genuine and changes a position due to circumstances or new knowledge/information obtained, or from an overwhelming outcry from the public and that change is sincere, then in my opinion, it's not a flip flop.
Each politician and each issue should be evaluated in that context........it isn't about Republicans or Democrats, despite the oft used IOKIYAR whine from Democrats here.
Don't expect to hear that from the media though.
McCain on the other hand.....
I'm questioning why Kerry was castigated for following the normal legislative process while McCain is given a free pass when it's clear his position change is related to his viability as a candidate.
You didn't just call me a Democrat, did you?.
For the wingnuts he hasn't shifted. The important item which trumps all else is to seal off our lower border. There is remarkably little talk of the means or historical record regarding the ideas sucesses and failures. I don't see this iteration being sucessful, just expensive.
To pre-empt a certain talking point. Open borders are the sign of a sucessful society. Closed borders the sign of a failing society.
Why is the southern border under such pressure, is how I would start the process of trying to solve the problem. If the policies of governments are driving their people away, this becomes an item of national security. Our government should be asking tough questions of these governments. Their actions are creating this pressure. What are we doing to cause them to change their policies to relieve this pressure?
As far as I can tell nada. The threat of illegal immigration is such a wonderful hammer to beat on people with.
Gonna have to give this a good reply later Tommy. But pre-emp me if you will. Where did you miss my my arguments?
Later.
I would say you need to re-read them. He didn't say that the problems caused in teh US via illegal immigration were ok, he said that the root of the problem is in part the policies of teh Mexican government, and that the US government should address this reality. Your response is irrational if you actually read his post properly.
My two cence - there is a correlation between the liberalisation policies promoted in Mexico by the United States, and in fact initiated in Mexico in teh 1980s by US-trained economists, and the problems of wage disparity and illegal immigration. I'd say part of the solution can be found in reversing neo-liberal economic reforms, and creating incentive for Mexican workers to earn a living in their own country. That undoubtedly means a restructing of NAFTA, too, which I know Canada wuold enjoy...
yes, and if they addressed the problems in Morrocco, for example, by forgiving debt, they can increase the prosperity of their neighbour and reduce the incentive to illegally migrate. The problem in spain may be reduced by deporting illegals, but that doesnt SOLVE teh problem, and there are still large numbers of illegal migrants in southern spain.
are you suggesting the solution to the US problem with immigration is PURELY enforcement, and that issues in Mexico teh US has a hand in AREN'T relevant?
undercutting American workers...Tommy
I'm more worried about college grads in India taking jobs than illegals from Mexico and points south.
Yeah Tommy, there's quite a glut of Americans looking for work picking veggies.
"I'm more worried about college grads in India taking jobs than illegals from Mexico and points south."-Foghornleghorn
Well with the Indian college grads the main reason they are not a threat is that they actually pay taxes! Also there are probably not as many of them that are not fully American. The illegal worker form Mexico does not pay the government for the social services they take advantage of, they send the money to their relatives.
"Yeah Tommy, there's quite a glut of Americans looking for work picking veggies."-F.
Actually there is a hefty, rather lazy "glut" of American poor that should be working "picking veggies" instead of living on welfare. You liberals seem to think that the Mexican laborer actually LIKES to do these jobs. They would much rather be doing something else, but they are poor, their government won't support them, and they have a decent work ethic so they work because they must. In reality these laborers like these jobs no more than anyone, and so you should not say they should do these jobs just because the American does not like to.
There are many poor people concentrated in our inner cities that would work at these jobs, had they no other choice. But the democrat, the man of the people is always there with a government handout, and so the jobs go to those who can appreciate them.
Out of all the idiotic posters on this site, Fin, you are far and above the most obtuse about how the real world operates.
Indians pay taxes? In India - not the U.S.
Your rant on welfare has no basis in reality. I bet when your job is outsourced you won't be seeking any help from the government.
If you look at the societies that put their trust in a border wall. They were not sucessful nor open.
Hadrians Wall occured as Rome had reached the maximum extent of its influence. They were always retreating from then on.
The Great Wall of China. China sufferred from foriegn rule by the Mogols and the Mongolians, neither was slowed much by the wall.
Japan used its oceanic position as a wall and threw out all the foriegners and remained isolated for several hundred years. When they emerged from this it was as an imperialistic power that took almost a whole century to defuse.
Tell me of sucessful walls. From a military point of view defensive tactics have limited lifetimes. If you trust them past this time, you usually lose big time.
The Berlin Wall is another "success story".
You're right. It doesn't matter how thick or how tall the wall is, as long as the motivating factors on either side of the wall remain, controlling the border is a futile exercise.
Eweston, Your examples are not sound for you are comparing instances in drastically different situations. Hadrian's wall was not a cause in roman downfall. Rather it probably was that which for a time withheld the inevitable barbarian reconquest of roman England. Rome as you may already know was also a many hundred years ago, it can hardly be compared with today's situation.
The mongols where an overwhelming force of arms, not a horde of illegal immigrants. China would have fallen to them with or without the wall. i think that because you where not there, you really cannot determine if it was or was not a slowing factor.
Japanese imperialism did not come solely from its isolationism, and the "wall" of Japanese naval control was not actually a physical wall capable of blocking a torrent of illegal immigrants.
I likewise see mention of the Berlin wall, and this one, like the others is an equally inadequate example. The Berlin wall was actually quite successful in its goal; to separate Germany.
Walls are successful until they become obsolete, a time after which they sometimes remain and make people like you think that they still have some sort of use. Walls can't be kept up with the times, they are solid and unstationary, leaving not much room for advancement.
"Tell me of successful walls."-E.
well for a startling example, The DMZ has been extraordinarily successful in dividing the two Koreas. Can you refute this claim? Likewise was the Berlin wall. The reason why you think that the walls listed where unsuccessful is because they did not fulfill some idealistic social goal of yours, but if you look past your own idealism (i know it's difficult) you will find that these walls were successful in THEIR original purpose.
The fact of the matter is that you do not want a wall built because it may be actually successful in stemming illegal immigration. I know that as one looks at the punitive southern border on a map it seems as if people would just hop over it or go around. But when you are a mexicano facing an intimidating seemingly endless span of DMZ-like wall, well lets just say that it is highly discouraging. This wall will serve not only physically, but also psychologically as a sign that America WILL defend its sovereignty. Of course it may be easier to solve the problem from within, but we had the money allocated and the measures passed, yet nobody did anything. It is also an urge to follow through our decisions, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.
Thanks Fin, a pretty good post.
I do not say that the wall had any observable part in the decline of Rome. I would say that it was an indication of its decline.
If, as opposed to having the Great Wall to protect the population, the population had to oppose incursions over the time of its (the walls)use. Would they have been able to hold the mongols back? Speculation, yes, but there would have been intelligence and familiarity with this form of combat. Able to stop them, I don't think anyone did, due not merely to their numbers or ferocity. Able to slow them and discourage them into looking for easyier prey, maybe. Again speculation. The wall's utility is at least suspect in this use. Its part in containing the chinese population in this part of China I think worked well, it was not the only part of this strategy, but a useful part of it. The Manchu's armed might was nowhere in the same galaxy as the Mongols. Yet they, another foriegn people, ruled China into the modern age.
The Korean DMZ. Hasn't that been pretty two armies staring at each other over a U.N. designated border for how many decades. Mind you can make a case that without it there'd be only one Korea. The people of South Korea depend on more than just a U.N. designated line. I don't think its any form of a physical wall. Armed forces are what seems to have kept North Korea out of South Korea. I don't think you could describe a wall which could stop them.
Thank you no I'm always ready to call a wall uneeded and of no use.
Somehow its important to impress upon a bunch of opposed, resource poor people our sovereinty?
That you're open to Idea of working on the countries of origin is good, thank you.
Think of the Wall project as some liberal social enginering project, of disputable actual value. I don't either of us would say well its got the money, just let it go.
In Mexico, you have a corrupt government that promotes a two-class system where a small group of people control a vast majority of the wealth.
In the U.S., you have employers willing to turn a blind eye to the legal status of employees.
Add it up.
Thank you all above, just in case I'll reform the qestion(s) at the end of this.
I wondered which wall I'd forgot. As mentioned above the Iron Curtain. Given the resources and paranoia of the leaders, it was pretty sucessful at keeping people out. There is alot of recent history here, some of it pretty dense and idiologically driven, both in the action and the various recordings of this era in your media of choice. I would argue that another major function of it was to hold its own population captive. This function was also evident in the culture behind China's Wall and Japan isolation.
We have a history of Isolationism, and at several concious and unconcious levels The Wall speaks to these nural circuits and soothes them takes away the fear of the world beyond our borders.
Someone mentioned out sourcing jobs. A comparison of American wages lost do to illegal immigrants versis outsourcing would be interesting. I do know Colorado's policies have hurt their agricultural output, the effect of this will snowball though their economy to who's benifit?
OTay the question is, what is the Government doing to mitigate this, per neocon doctrine, as I understand it, National Security Issue. By acting on our own businesses who use and abuse the native labor. Or by asking some direct questions about why don't your citizens want to remain, your citizen's. It is having a negative effect to both of our countries. You have a wonderful land. How do we help each other? The issues of graft and corruption must be addressed. On both of our parts. Border personnel are already surving time for being corrupted.
Is the wall really the kind of path we want follow about our borders? Its security is bogus from the points of view I and others have have expressed. Do you have anything to put in its favor besides the already expressed secure feeling it gives you.
"fencing in combination with other things, is useful." senator diane feinstein of california. the idea that some kind of barrier does not slow down illegal immigration is not based on common sense.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/26/BORDERFENCE.TMP
A somewhat informed one I hope.Can I get away with saying these societies somehow became less vital, less in touch with the rest of the world. Its objective, its a fair cop.
McCain stood his ground...for awhile.
John McCain is really John Wayne at Iwo Jima defending America with a trident and short spear.
That's what I'm getting from his comments anyway.
Joe? Why are you bringing him in to this? It was Chris Matthews who made the statement.
McCain held his ground until he realized he was standing on quicksand. The people spoke & for once he & our other idiot lawmakers had to acquiesce to the majority.
McCain has pulled this before. He was for the Confederate flag in South Carolina before he was against it.
Matthews gets caught not being up to speed again.
As far as McCain goes, it doesn't really matter if he switches emphasis on his plan..I think he's pretty much lost everyone he was going to lose on the issue when he co-sponsored the immigration reform bill, and I don't think many at all will come back after his "shift". If McCain picks up Thompson's endorsement, the nomination process is over for the Repubs. If Thompson is his VP, it's going to be awful close in Nov.
Snoop, it's the "illegal" part they're caught up on, not whether they're Hispanic or not.
Seriously. Romney and Giuliani have both shown, through their personal actions, that they could give a rip about the immigration issue and are merely pandering to voters with whom the issue is more important, including some whose motivation is xenophobic rather than caring about the rule of law.
Snoop, I agree that Romney & Giuliani are being inconsistent between their political messages and their personal choices.
Dex,
I'm curious. What do you mean by Romney's and Guiliani's personal actions?
Dex,
I was late in reading your note and did not see your reply.
However in Romney's defense, I saw him explain that he hired a company and the company hired the workers. He said he couldn't go checking everyone in the company who came to his house.
Have you heard different?
I haven't. I think the buck stops with him though, right?
This is another example of NBC supporting republicans. It’s not just Mathew’s propping up Obama in whom the repubs can easily win against, but also the likes of Russert and his hand-picked Hillary-trashing minions on Meet the Press performances. When even Brokaw and the otherwise logical lieutenants Keith Olberman and Andrea Mitchell turn stone faced and cynical toward Hillary, you know the entire NBC enterprise has mandated their troops must get a republican elected.
I just don’t know if this phenomenon is a GE mandate, or a dictate by industry advertisers, or an audience building positioning tactic by news show producers. I think it’s a corporate ownership thing in that GE knows Hillary would seriously pursue Democratic Party principles and rid us of excessive corporate welfare.
I think the main point here is that nobody in the media seems capable of discussing John McCain or his political prospects without tripping over themselves with gushing praise and admiration for the man. It's unprofessional and unseemly and frankly, more than a little disgusting. John McCain is not the decorated veteran to run for office; I for one don't recall every discussion of John Kerry being gilded with "he's a hero, we salute him for his service" comments when he ran in 2004.
How about just ONE sober analysis of John McCain's policies and prospects that doesn't rapidly devolve into a lovefest over his alleged "steadfastness" or the fact that he was a POW who had his arms broken and now can no longer comb his hair? Is that really too much to ask?
Excellent point Thom.
I'm convinced the media is hoping for an Obama-McCain matchup in the Fall. And going out of their way to make it happen.
The media gushing over these two is getting tiresome. IMO.
Sure, the same applies to Obama, but don't try to play down the "valid point" of the love the media has for McCain too.
I think what we all need to take from this is the media has it's own agenda. It is conflict driven, and will look for that new angle every chance it gets. That new angle in itself IS conflict, as reporters tired of reporting on the same old talking points search for more interesting (read: conflicting) story lines. Conflict is inherently more interesting, which means it naturally makes it to the forefront of the days news, with much hyperbole referencing war and boxing analogies.
The good news? The media, by and large, doesn't make much of a difference with it's conflict driven agenda. New Hampshire is a prime example (excluding the current "Tweety" backlash of course. I'm talking about media driven storylines, not backlash to them.) Giuliani is a good example as well.
Of course, this all goes back to the notion that using media as a means of profit effectively destroys the media's objective analysis.
To me, it's all about the press loving themselves and wanting to be/stay relevant. That's why, for instance, CNN hired Beck..not because of ratings or because they agree with him, but they were really the only channel w/o a shock or partisan pundit of some sort.
McCain gives unfettered access to himself and his campaign to the press. The press knew when he was struggling as well as when he was rallying. They love a storymaker (McCain butting heads with his own party, his military history, etc). It all makes for good television, and that's why they like him so much.
jjamele,
The media hasn't been very kind to Romney either. They may not savage him quite the way they do Hillary, but they have been pretty rough on him.
Well, last time I checked, it wasn't the media's job to decide which candidates were most electable and then proceed to eliminate the others. I for one never signed a contract handing my rights as a voting citizen over to Matthews, Russert, and the rest.
Hillary has little chance to win, so it's ok with you if the media beats up on her? Maybe you are content with giving the media that kind of power, but I'm not.
The media "beating up on her" is really of little consequence in the election, as you said, they do not hold your voting rights. Thus it is improbable that the Medias involvement will change anything noticeably. It is also their job to challenge the contenders, and they have done so with almost complete regularity.
In the farms of California and Texas I found NOT ONE inner city & NOT ONE non-Hispanic worker. The Cons were doing OK today... Until the FIn-Fin Man showed up and it all went down hill.
Also relevant is - Quote: ("...oooooo i c!! so YOU'RE saying the border needs to be more thoroughly enforced. Ok. well I totally disagree with you that this is either the humane or successful approach to take.") - UnQuote - TOMJOAD / Tuesday January 22, 2008 9:48:50 PM EST
Thank you TomJoad.... Thank you GWB, McCain, and the other Conservative law makers for promoting the humanitarian approach. And thanks go out to Democrats who were ready to pass a humane plan with McCain and Bush when they were bushwhacked by Neo Cons.
Furthermore, these poor farm workers are not the reason for low wages.
1.) - Republican legislators historically keep the wages down. It's on historical record. Democrats, historically try to increase wages.
2.) - Republicans are also the enemy of wages by fighting against Unions.
3.) - Republican Employers are inhumane to pay low wages to farm workers. The farmers I know personally are Conservatives.
4.) - Democratic Employers? (I don't know of any, Do you?) I'm kidding!
Low wages are very much due to Republican Law Makers and Conservative Employers.
BE SURE TO VOTE THIS TIME !
I do not think it is likely that it was the republicans who lowered wages, but if this was so it evened out as the republicans would not take away so much in taxes. The democrat would desire higher wages because the government would then get (incrementally) more in taxes, It is also an indirect way of taxing the rich [employer].
Hmmmm...
Forcing black people to work in farm fields. Where have I heard of that idea before?
We can Shoulda, Woulda and Coulda all day but you show me an Inner City Citizen who will work those fields more than one day, and I'll crawl across that field and kiss your ugly foot. They might talk the talk, but once the working starts they will NOT Walk the Walk.
Hell, I doubt if any farmer in his right mind would even hire from the inner city!
Also, many of these hispanic immigrants, who are said to be a danger to our sovereignty are in fact now serving in our Armed Forces. They are fighting for your freedom to come here and cut them down. They're not invading us, they are invading the Terrorist who wish to destroy us. And now Cons want to ship millions of families out of here like so many cattle. (Inhumane ... Hall of Shame!)
Have you and the other Cons posting here ever fought for our country in a War? Do you know what a Chicken Hawk is? Perhaps these poor immigrants love this country more than you do?
Just think about it... because I know you will never agree.
VOTE THIS TIME ! IT'S IMPORTANT !
Of Nazi Racists on Cattle Cars to the past. To Hitlers Germany where they'll be happy with just one Culture and one Race. Send the KKK with them. A Very Big NOT!
I refuse to be as inhumane as they are, so I have done everything to defend the rights of racists. I was the only man who would do a TV Commercial for a Grand Dragon of the KKK in CA. I defended his right to be heard on TV. His message only hurts his own cause and that was another reason I did it.
Sam, My point is not whether an inner city citizen will work or not. Rather what i meant is that they are humans capable of hard labour. The point is that if you remove the welfare and unnecessary government support, these people will have to either work, or die. And believe me, most humans have a drive to live, and so they will work and adapt to such work. just a while ago, i was debating someone here who apparently went working among the illegal labourers for a time. I wondered how one was to find out if every worker among them where illegals. But i digress, the point is they will work if they did not have much of a choice.
"many of these hispanic immigrants, who are said to be a danger to our sovereignty are in fact now serving in our Armed Forces." S.C.
Once again you make the cardinal misunderstanding, it is not Hispanic immigrants that us "neocons" are saying are threats to our sovereignty, it is the ILLEGAL immigrants who consequently can't serve in the U.S military. I think it would be better for the illegals already here to deport themselves, if they are unable to find work and cannot receive any benefits, they'll go back the same way that they came here. The immigrants that serve in the armed forces i have NOTHING against, I myself am a first generation immigrant. it is not all immigrants, but illegal immigrants that i dislike, the liberal aim is to muddle these terms up. And we do not have to disagree or agree, just debate.
OH... Yes they Can! Illegal, Undocumented Non-Citizens Are Serving Our Country Today! More than 6,000 and growing Marines are noncitizens, with the largest group being from Mexico. So... Please get your facts before posting. You have a right to your cruel opinions but not to your own private falsified facts.
You have posted SO many lies. You've been called on it SO many times, yet you come back with more & more & more & more lies. Get yourself over to Fox News. They'll pay you the big bucks for your lies.
Mr. Fin Man your hated illegals all love this country more than you do. They work hard here with their families, many of which have have died for you and for our country. What have you done?
Shame on you Mr Fin Man! I suspect you have not served a day of your life in a combat zone for this country like they are. Normal Conservatives have much more compassion than you have. Your only hope for President was Duncan Hunter. Hunter was so unpopular that he had to drop out. The probable nominee for your party looks to be more humane than you are. McCain for one.
Many of your comments about retaining or protecting white racial dominion over our country reminds me so much of that famous movie directed by Stanley Kubrick... "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."
You're the insane general who starts the process to nuclear holocaust because of his paranoid belief that Communists are sapping and contaminating "all our precious bodily fluids" as part of their plan to take over the world." Sorry, but that's who you remind me of.
Patrick J. Buchanan like you, is also paranoid of his precious bodily fluids being sapped by Mexican Immigrants invading and taking over the world. Republican politics of FEAR... The Terrorist are coming HERE...
"SO..... First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes ...etc." - FDR -
- Sam I Am -
So the terrorists are NOT coming here? Only if we don't withdraw from Iraq and finish the job.
Fact: President Bush passed a law allowing illegal, non-citizen, undocumented immigrants THE LEGAL RIGHT to fight the War On Terror, and a swift path to citizenship. AND...
You call them illegal aliens, illegal immigrants and now, documented non-citizens. You can play semantics all day here, but the fact is you come here to DEBATE WITHOUT THE FACTS! Then when I provide you with facts, you reject the facts.
You insist immigrants are "FRAUDULENTLY" OR "UNLIKELY" to be serving our country. Then I give you more facts and you say "UNLIKELY' 4 OR 5 Times. You come to debate armed with opinions and no facts.
Every point you made was your OPINION... That's your right but You DO NOT have the right to deny historical facts with your opinions. THAT.. Is what you're doing.
PLEASE GET YOUR ACT & FACTS TOGETHER, then I'll be delighted to chat with you... Until then I don't want to be your history professor anymore. Be sure to vote and have a good day.
- Sam I Am -
"SO..... First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF... Nameless, Unreasoning, Unjustified Terror which Paralyzes ...etc." - FDR -
- Play it Again Sam -
The Huckster!
TIGERVILLE, S.C. — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee yesterday continued to move to the right on immigration during this year's presidential campaign, signing a pledge to enforce immigration laws and to make all illegal aliens go home.
Shame.. Shame.. Shame... Inhumane,,,Hall of Shame!
Will Huckabee name Hunter his Vice President next. Stay tuned. There will be more cartoons later.
Thank you for admitting to being a Hateful NeoConic Republican Racist Chicken Hawk who comes here to debate without the historical facts. BUT....I DO protect your right to be who you are and to post all your HarerAid NeoConic Opinions. AND....
Thanks for admitting to "white supremacist" ideals.
You don't really want to ship the inner city BLACKS to the FARMS. You want to ship ALL BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA! ALL hispanics to Mexico...Etc. Etc.
Your hated illegals are being Documented by fighting our War On Terror. They are Legally given a swift path to citizenship. All illegals must be Documented so we can know who, what, and where they are.
We should secure our border and Document everyone here now in keeping with the bill that was filibustered be NeoConism in Congress. That includes you Mr. Fin Man. You need to be documented as a member of a HATE GROUP and deported to JAIL for hate crimes against all that our country proudly stands for.
THEN.... As McCain suggests, implement a LONG, STRICT PROCESS to possible citizenship. Deport whoever fails to pass through that process. This, once again, would be happening now if it wasn't for the stubborn NeoConic Types who killed the bill in Congress. So.. Now we have NO PLAN Mr Fin Man!
Should have been ... "HaterAid"...
A beverage that brings on Hatred.