>>> Hillary supports Fencing off the border.

[flashdebadge]

Hillary wants to build a U.S.-Mexico fence first — and she's right

Apart from a well-chosen warning about criminalizing Jesus, Sen. Hillary Clinton hasn't waded too deeply into the details of the immigration mess. Until now.
In an interview Friday, she cited specific goals that could, and hopefully will, become the heart of bipartisan legislation that might actually fix this national crisis.

A fence or a wall? She's for it.

A two-step process, where our borders are secured before the 11 million illegal immigrants already here begin to get legalized? She's for that, too.

The sudden crackdown by Washington on employers who hire illegal immigrants? She welcomes it.


<snip>


"A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations," she said of America's "broken system." She also said that "we do need an earned path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants here.


<snip>


"It's obviously a political decision, but I welcome it," Clinton said. "We need to send a clear message to employers and anyone else who would exploit immigrants, including smugglers."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/411104p-347791c.html

I happen to agree with Hillary on this one. Although in other ares she is too soft and not progressive enough.

[DanCa]

1. Just a step to the right...(nt)

[Sinti]

23. It's just a jump to the left - and then a step to the right ;)

An electric fence like they use at the military bases would certainly keep them out, and have the added benefit of keeping us in. I'm just saying...

[William769]

2. Love how this post is so out of context!

But then again when it comes to Mrs. Clinton, Rovian tactics have to be used.

[gatorboy]

3. The wall enthusiasts are like the individuals that banned trenchcoats

thinking that would curtail high school shootings in the 90's. :eyes:

[Rufus T. Firefly]

7. You know what they say:

"Build a 10-foot wall, we'll build a 12-foot ladder." Kinda pointless unless they were intending to increase patrols. It's just for show, really wouldn't accomplish anything.


People love our country so much, we're building a wall to keep them out. Of course Europeans can keep coming in, no problem. We're a melting pot for fair-skinned people.


I completely understand the argument that it's unfair for people to come in illegally while others patiently wait their turn. But hurt feelings aren't exactly reason for new laws (hell, they're already here illegally, so what is a new law going to accomplish?).

When I imagine if I was in a situation where I had the choice of my family staying in poverty and starving, or breaking the law - I'd become an outlaw REALLY QUICKLY. Many of the illegal immigrants don't have the luxury of waiting on a list - they need to support their families NOW.

My question is this: how would they enforce the deportations? How do you know someone is illegal? We don't have to carry identification papers in this country (unless you're driving, of course). If a cop stops me on the street, I don't have to show him my social security card to prove I "belong here." Besides, immigration is a federal issue and outside the local and state police jurisdiction.

I don't want to live in a country where you regularly hear "Papers, please." The agent asking for them might as well be wearing jackboots and a Sam Browne belt. Maybe a brown shirt, just for continuity's sake.

[iconoclastNYC]

15. You have to show your papers NOW.

Have you every been employed? You have to fill out a W-4 (A Federal form!!!) and show proof of citenship or naturalization.

Illegal Employers are either looking the other way when presented with crude forgeries or are (in my oppinion) helping falsify documentation.

We need to crack down on illegal EMPLOYMENT and illegal EMPLOYERS.

A wall or a fence or making these people felons will not stop the fact that they can come here and get jobs and make a better life for themselves. We need to enforce the laws we have now.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

19. Different situation.

I'm describing walking down the street and having to show ID. Unless they're planning to go to every workplace in America to round people up (and what if the people they're after have the day off?), they will HAVE to start checking ID of EVERYONE as you go about your daily life. I'm Caucasian, but how do THEY know I'm not an illegal from Western Europe? Otherwise you're REALLY profiling.

I agree that to stop illegal immigration we need to prosecute the people who are allowing them to work, either knowingly or unknowingly. I still have a problem though with nailing people who, as you say, are coming here to "make a better life for themselves." Sure, we should find a way to stop them from coming, but I don't like the idea of a supposedly free and compassionate society throwing people out who have been here for years and have been allowed to settle down. "We let you in and let you work your ass off for minimal pay, but now we're going to jump all over you and make you the scapegoat for all our problems."

I hope I was clear enough that I'm against the wall too. It's just for show. And wouldn't make a bit of difference. They say they're about stopping ALL illegal immigration, but the wall is just for Mexico.

It just proves that when a lot of conservatives say "illegal immigrants," they mean "Mexicans," or much cruder terms for the same people. Hell, O'Reilly called them "---backs" on his show once.

[iconoclastNYC]

25. I agree.

It really does come down to racism. It's just that the bigots are on board with framing and it's hard to make that case with the rhetoric they use.

But I'd love for the talking heads on TV to talk about the people who get rich from ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT.

People such as the Walton Family (the richest family on Earth?)

They are the vilans here -- exploiting cheap labor and by doing so incenting others to break the law to come work for them illegally.

But Big media is silent -- they don't want to piss off thier advertisers, and stoking bigotry is ratings gold.

[fujiyama]

37. Why build a ladder

when you can just build a tunnel?

[iconoclastNYC]

4. Such a stupid position!

Most of these people come over on TRUCKS...not on foot. Without inspecting 100% of trucks going across the border building a wall will do nothing. Except lining the pockets of the Republican-connected contractor who gets the no bid cost-plus contract.

Once again Hillary puts pandering to the right (who will never vote for her anyway) .... above logic or reason or principals.

[MrTriumph]

6. Actually we can have a fence AND inspect trucks

Let's see, if you want to drive a truck into the printing facility for an open borders supporting newspaper (like the Ft. Worth-less Star-Telegram), you must drive by a fence, through a gate and tell a guard why you want to drive in. If he has suspicions, he'll give your truck a once-over.

Funny how businesses that support open border use fences themselves.

[iconoclastNYC]

10. How much are you willing to pay to keep them all out?

How much can we raise your taxes to build a huge wall (which can be defeated with some tunnels, like the once recently discovered for just such a purpose)....and to inspect every single truck?

The solution is not to throw money at the problem. We have to focus on why they come here...for illegal employment.

The solution is to give a corporate death penalty to any corporation that EMPLOY ILLEGALLY.

[MrTriumph]

14. Agreed that employers must not hire illegals, BUT WE CAN DO IT ALL

A simple fence is not that expensive. Maintaining it will not be expensive.

But let's face it: Until Mexico's failed government reforms, we are going to suffer the consequences. When 1 in 5 persons in your population leaves, you've got big problems.

[iconoclastNYC]

16. In view of the efficacy of such fence

It is expensive. Would you buy a broken TV for $50? No of course not. If something doesn't work it's a waste of money no matter how cheap it is.

Like someone said above, build a 10 foot fence, we'll build a 12 foot ladder. Or dig a tunnel under it. Or find clever ways to sneak in the back of trucks.

This is just a stupid boneheaded move to make people feel like something has been done.

Which is exactly the tactic we've taken with the so called war on drugs. Thrown billions of dollars in money at a problem and ignored common sense solutions that target the DEMAND supply of the equation.

We have to focus on the DEMAND for illegal immigration -- FORCE corporate America into some rehab for their ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT addiction.

[mtnsnake]

38. Tunnels? Ladders? She addressed that concern right in the article. Here:

I guess you missed that part where Clinton said:

As for how to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, "A physical structure is obviously important," she said. "A wall in certain areas would be appropriate," as long as it was not a "dumb wall" that could be scaled or tunneled. Advocating "smart fencing," she added, "There is technology that would be in the fence that could spot people coming from 250 or 300 yards away and signal patrol agents who could respond."

[laheina]

33. Right. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And I only mean, by "prevention," that we could make better inroads to fixing the issues in this area once we define what the root problems are, and make a serious attempt at solving them.

Throwing wads of money at a quickie solution is just going to make everything a whole lot worse.

[babylonsister]

9. I'm in total agreement; that wall is a horrendous idea, shades of

East Germany and China. And who will the contractors be hiring to do the work?:think:

[dxm]

34. A wall in certain area would force them to cross at certain areas

which would help. Anyway, a wall is only one part of a larger system, a wall by itself is useless, other things are needed too.

[papau]

5. The wall is important to the vast majority of Democrats- it is not just RW

Once again Hillary has positioned herself correctly.

Indeed like her abortion position she has hit the nail on the head as to a great position on this issue for the party - IMHO.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. Who says that?

Have you read a poll?

If Hillary is so beloved by Democrats why does she come in last place on all the Democratic site's polls?

[papau]

18. Hillary leads in Dem polls - but IMO it is name recognition at this point

If I remember correctly, She gets 33% to 38%, with the nearest other person usually less than 20%. There was an article last week where Fox News was happy because she had dropped below 35% after being well above that in the prior poll.

None of this means she is a shoe-in in 08, or that she will even run. Indeed 2 years is a long time. And I am certain other folks will catch fire so as to make the primary interesting.

But in any case - all I am saying is that for a political point of view - being progressive while still being electable - her position on abortion (keep it legal while keeping it rare - noting that under Clinton abortions dropped 23% and now under Bush they have risen 23%) and her position on immigration (no amnesty but we must give the people already here a way to earn citizenship, while at the same time taking control of our borders) - Hillary's positions - are great ones for the party to adopt - no matter who is the actual nominee.

[Clark2008]

40. In polls of allegedly Dem voters.

My beef with those media polls are that they just ask if one IS a Dem voter - they mostly don't ask whether this person is going to vote in the primaries. There is no evidence what-so-ever in many of these media polls that any of these people interviewed plan to vote in the 2008 Dem primaries.

For that reason, I actually suspect online polls on Democratic websites are closer to accurate in tapping into the Democratic collective at this point - because the Dems who visit DU, MyDD and Kos ARE more likely to vote in the primary (and more likely to work in a campaign and more likely to GOTV, etc.) than the average schmoe the media interviews. In these online polls, Hillary does abysmally. Only in the corporate media does she keep showing up as the front runner. Among voters "in-the-know" (ie, political junkies), which include the vast majority here and at other Dem websites, Hillary isn't even a blip: it's between Wes Clark, Russ Feingold and Al Gore.

Neither is very scientific: the media polls don't necessarily register likely primary voters and online polls may concentrate too much on partisan sites, but, in terms of actually registering the trend of LIKELY Dem primary voters, I'd say the online polls are a tad more accurate.

For example, in my personal sphere, I know of NO ONE - zilch, nada, ix-nay - Dem who plans to vote for Hillary in the primary, not a one. And this measurement is infinitely closer to what I see in online polls than what I see gathered in polls tossed out on Tweety's show, for example.

I'd say, in all liklihood, that Hillary comes in among solid Dem primary voters at about 15 percent.

[Sinti]

26. If this wall is important to the vast majority of Democrats

Then the vast majority of Democrats are severely lacking both foresight and a knowledge of modern history. Walls designed to keep others out have the ultimate effect of keeping you in. Those who would give up their freedom for security (protection from the aliens over the border in this ridiculous case) deserve neither freedom nor security.

[papau]

27. I don't disagree - but politically "illegals" and "border control" are hot

buttons

[Sinti]

28. I see them as "wedge issues" - distractions brought to you by the VRWC

It would be wise to bring people around with a real, positive message with some realism and backbone. Talk about living wages, and so on. The illegals are a result of failed and corrupt governments in Latin America. No fence will fix that. Other pressures would be much more effective.

Overseeing the enforcement of the law or even strengthening it, however, is our legislators obligation. I do get this part.

[papau]

36. Livingwage should be part of the Dem mantra - and tie it to decreasing

illegal immigration - sounds like a winner to me - now all we need do is get the message to our "leaders" :-)

[rniel]

43. And why no wall over canada?

The whole world will see the craziness. Keep them brown people out, but you white canadians come on in.

[Imperialism Inc.]

8. Sure lets build a wall around the U.S.

And, lets set up a bunch of internal checkpoints too where you have to show your papers. We have one party state and a President who has claimed absolute power. We may as well complete our march toward totalitarianism and build a freakin' wall.

[iconoclastNYC]

11. Oceans no longer protect us!

Dubai Ports World does!

[xchrom]

12. this thread seems to fit in here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1010198

please read some of the freeper responses carefully.

[elehhhhna]

17. Exactly how far into the ocean will htis fence extend? lol

[guidod]

20. How is a fence or a wall

going to protect our borders? If you like walls, move to China!

[Catchawave]

21. New York Daily News ?

Not my favorite source for msm news :(

But as long as Hil's ahead of her NY Senate challenger by 60 points, no harm done.

[BoneDaddy]

22. That is cause Hillary

will sell our her values to attempt to sway right wing voters who, regardless of whether or not she sports a halo, still think she is akin to the anti-christ. She is a total tool.

[formernaderite]

30. You said it....

but honestly, unless she's the nominee...I don't give a shit what puke is spewing from her lips. I simply don't get this current obsession with immigrants who come here seeking work. What did America just discover they were here?

[CPMaz]

46. It's not a 'current' obsession...

it's a historical pattern...

From the first entry in my blog, http://cpmazrandommusings.blogspot.com/(don't bother visiting, because it's still in the ugly, "he's learning to blog' phase)...

"I found a letter, at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/americavotes/know-nothing.html, that proves, at least in relation to anti-immigrant fervor, that not much has changed in the last 150+ years. The letter sets out the presidential campaign platform of the Know-Nothing Party, circa 1856. Here’s what it says (with the blank line at one word that I couldn’t make out):

1. Repeal of all naturalization laws
2. None but native Americans for office.
3. A pure American common school system.
4. War to the hilt, on political Romanism.
5. Opposition to the formation of military companies composed of foreigners.
6. The advocacy of a sound, healthy and safe nationality.
7. Hostility to all Papal influences, when brought to bear against the Republic.
8. American Institutions and American Sentiments.
9. More stringent and effective immigration laws.
10. The amplest protections to Protestant interests.
11. The doctrines of the revered Washington.
12. The sending back of all foreign _____.
13. Formation of societies to protect American interests.
14. Eternal enmity to all who attempt to carry out the principles of a foreign church on state.
15. Our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country.
16. Finally, American Laws, and American…..

Other than the blatantly anti-Catholic parts (haven’t heard any serious rants about ‘Papists’ since JFK was running for President), this could have been written today, with very little need to edit for modern language and concerns.

From the Minuteman Project’s website (http://www.minutemanproject.com/):

“We have seen defiance of the rule of law by foreign nationals. We have seen protests across America with disdain for American sovereignty. Defiance of the law supported by protest is outrageous to those who are lawful and proud of America.”

“It is now time to stop complaining and start reclaiming America!”

Found at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=174:

“The Mexican culture is based on deceit. Chicanos and Mexicanos lie as a means of survival. Fabricating false IDs is just another extension of that culture ... condones everything from the most lowly misdemeanor to murder in the highest levels of government."
- VOICES OF CITIZENS TOGETHER
(I couldn’t find a link for a group by that name, though a quick Google search for that group did bring up a site for something called "Glenn Spencer’s American Patrol Report" that was full of writings in the same vein. I didn’t search the entire site for a direct quote. That stuff’ll stunt your growth, LOL.)

The parallels between the anti-Mexican rhetoric today and the anti-Irish (and, to a lesser extent, anti-German) rhetoric of the 1840s and 1850s are striking. The Mexican immigrant tends to take jobs that most Americans don’t want, particularly menial labor; the Irish immigrant did the same 150 years ago. Mexicans usually live together in the same neighborhoods; so did the Irish. Both groups are/were proud of their history, and still have/had strong family ties to the “old country”. And so on… All of which is used by the anti-immigrant crowd to whip up sentiments against ‘them durn furriners’.

On the one hand, it’s scary that a country founded on immigration could harbor such hypocritically virulent bigotry toward immigrants (hey, it’s hypocritical because ALL of us have immigrants somewhere in our family tree), even today. (BTW – I’m the grandson and great-grandson of immigrants. Port of Boston, late 1800s, and the 1910s)

On the other hand, the Know-Nothings, while they had a bit of electoral success in the late 1850s, particularly at the state level, were pretty much a complete non-factor politically by the mid-1860s. Gives me a little hope that the hysteria will die down soon.

Personally, I think that it will die down on November 8th, with a strong likelihood of resurrection as a polarizing/motivating issue if the Republicans feel that they will have their asses handed to them in the 2008 elections.

Not that I’m a cynic or anything."

[Robbie Michaels]

24. I Wrote A Haiku Saturday Night

Hillary Clinton
Not my choice for president
Run, Wesley Clark, Run!

[rhett o rick]

29. Sounds good, but not practical. It would be prohibitively expensive to

build a fence and patrol it so no one cuts through. Unless we use land mines. :sarcasm: Wonder how she feels about that.

[leesa]

31. Figures. Idiot.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Hillary on the same side of fence as Tom Tancredo & Dana Rohrbacher

What is wrong with this picture?

[Zorra]

35. I agree with Hillary to a large extent.

"A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations,"

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. In a practical sense, this seems to me to be undeniably real.

When I reflect upon the political state of this planet, it appears to me, in my admittedly incomplete and probably somewhat inaccurate knowledge of the world situation, I believe that there really are Islamic/other extremists that are intent on causing harm to innocent people in the US.

IMO, these aforementioned extremists can easily gain entry into the US through our obviously porous borders. It is only logical to assume that these extremists recognize the fact that they can relatively easily enter the US in the same way that any illegal immigrant can - through our easily breachable borders.

IMO, it is also logical to assume that, given the probability that there are foreign extremists that desire to harm innocent people, and cause property damage, in the US, it is probable that Islamic/other extremists have crossed our border illegally and set up terrorist cells within the US, that are intent on doing harm to our country.

Plainly speaking, this is a piece of cake for an intelligent, organized terrorist organization.

So, despite my sympathy for the recognizable plight of the innocent migrants seeking to make some quick cash, or a "better life", in the US, it is my belief that effective border control is critical to our national security.

At this point, we can ask a common sense, obvious question: Given the events of 9/11: Why the fuck did the Bu*h administration not make any attempt whatsoever to protect the US from Islamic/other terrorist extremists from easily crossing our borders? If a million migrants can do this in a year, what will stop committed terrorist groups from doing the same?

If anyone thinks that this is an invalid argument, please point out how and why - but this all seems to me to be a concrete probability.

Therefore, I agree with Senator Clinton to some extent. But I do not believe a wall will be effective in itself. I believe that our military needs to be pulled out of Iraq immediately and subsequently employed along our landlocked borders.

Tangible terrorist threats to our country, despite the contrived boogeyman paranoia that the Bu*h administration and our corrupt republican Congress uses to instill fear among our people for political gain, really do exist on a relatively major scale.

Bu*h and the republicans have done nothing absolutely nothing whatsoever to secure our first lines of defense, and those first lines of defense are our physical borders, including our ports.

I consider myself to be a "practical liberal". IMO, it is extremely naive to believe that there are not significant terrorist entities that seek to harm innocent people here in the US, and that these entities would not cross our border and set up cells in the easiest, most undetectable manner possible.

Anyway, that is exactly what I would do if I were a terrorist intent on inflicting damage to the US.

History shows that the African proverb, "Walk softly and carry a big stick" is prudent advice, and IMO, some of our big sticks should be carried along our border.

[Little Star]

41. ..

[woo me with science]

39. Invisible fencing....and all Mexicans must wear those collars. nt

[rniel]

42. Horray for right wing Hillary

you go girl. The minutemen are proud. I think she's lost it.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. and we should lose her!

[AtomicKitten]

45. where to start ....

1) crap source (NY Daily News?)

2) and then there's this: "As for how to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, "A physical structure is obviously important," she said. "A wall in certain areas would be appropriate," as long as it was not a "dumb wall" that could be scaled or tunneled. Advocating "smart fencing," she added, "There is technology that would be in the fence that could spot people coming from 250 or 300 yards away and signal patrol agents who could respond."

3) her proposal is heavy on punishing employers.