greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2016 at 12:07pm:
Mortdooley wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2016 at 11:55am:
If she wins 10 million illegals get amnesty and vote straight democrat from now on. More will be encouraged to come and they will get amnesty and so on and so on until we collapse. She promised to bring in at least a million Syrian Muslims per year. She hates law enforcement, the military and the constitution. She will appoint to the supreme court people who look for loopholes to increase government power and further restrict the rights of citizens.
I want to see a reliable source.
Quote: you ever believed that Hillary Clinton’s immigration stance was driven by anything other than cynical opportunism, you may want to reconsider. Already, Clinton has adopted a Merkel-like position on immigration. During the Democratic primaries, eager to avoid the ghosts of some unsavory comments she made in 2014, Clinton espoused a doctrine of open borders. “I would not deport children,” she said in March. “I do not want to deport family members either.” In other words: If you come here with your family, you will be allowed to stay. And if you’re already here illegally, Clinton believes in creating a path to citizenship for you, with or without Congress’s consent. None of these views place her outside the Democratic mainstream, at least as it stands at the moment. But of late her immigration stance has become incoherent. She still wants immigration reform, but now it seems like a path to citizenship is all such reform entails, at least on the first go-round. In a recent interview with Ezra Klein of Vox, Clinton said she opposes a plan that would also deal with reforms to the process by which high-skilled immigrants are granted visas: Comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship would deal with a lot of these concerns, not just the 11 million people here: how we would regularize them, what kind of steps they’d have to go through. Because I believe they do have to meet certain standards if they’re going to be on a path to citizenship. But I don’t want to mix that with other kinds of changes in visas and other concerns that particularly high-value technical companies have. In fact, I think keeping the pressure on them helps us resolve the bigger problem, and then we can look to see what else, if anything, can and should be done [emphasis added]. Put another way, Hillary Clinton not only believes that visa reform for high-skilled workers shouldn’t be part of immigration reform, but also that visa reform might not be a good idea at all. Clinton has taken the exact inverse position of the subset of economists who argue that an influx of high-skilled immigration, facilitated by visa reform, is an unequivocal economic good, and that the economic effects of low-skilled immigration are less positive. For some reason, she views the issues of visa reform and a path to citizenship as mutually exclusive, rather than symbiotic. Accordingly, she would focus on a path to citizenship while consciously rejecting efforts to reform the visa system. Why is that? Because holding the sword of Damocles over the heads of the companies that rely on high-skilled immigrants is a more expedient way for her to push through her policy agenda (“the bigger problem”). It seems likely that Clinton believes she can leverage the promise of future visa reform to secure the support of tech companies for her path-to-citizenship efforts in the present. Hillary looks at the immigration issue as a surefire way to boost Latino turnout in battleground states. There’s another reason, too. It’s fairly obvious from the interview that Clinton conceives of immigration more as a political problem than as a moral one. This is not to say that she is wholly cynical and sees no moral problems with the immigration status quo; it’s just that she looks at the issue, first and foremost, as a surefire way to boost Latino turnout in battleground states such as Florida — states that might otherwise break for Trump. This shouldn’t be so surprising. In American politics, protectionism is the order of the day; thanks to Trump and Bernie Sanders, there are now whole swaths of voters on the left and the right with a visceral distrust of free trade. Clinton, faced with Sanders’s unexpectedly stiff challenge, tacked to the left on trade, coming out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. ............
tbc
Forum
Pages: 
