A Democrat Is Disgusted By Her Party`s Presidential Candidates


[Recently
by Brenda Walker:

Mexico`s Rich Don`t Like to Pay Taxes – They Think
You Should
.]

For Democrats who favor immigration
reform, like myself, the current Democratic Presidential
debates have been depressing affairs. The candidates
support open borders 11 for 11. Last Thursday`s event
(September 25) which emphasized the economy did not even
mention immigration, although we are experiencing an
unprecedented job-loss recovery while our doors remain
wide open to more excess workers. We just got jawboning
about "creating jobs," although there is no
guarantee that


American citizens
would get these jobs. (Or
for that matter that the new employment would

remain
in the country.)

Although immigration clearly has a
profound and growing effect on

workers
and the

economy
, in the political sphere, Democratic
politicians consider the issue only in terms of

voter blocs
to be snatched up. Thus the previous
(September 4) debate, apparently because it was in

New Mexico
, triggered a repulsive display of
pandering to the

perceived Latino issue
of open borders. (The

Washington Post transcript
used for the
following quotes mercifully omits the Spanish portion of
the debate.)

  • Howard Dean: far left on
    some issues, but intriguingly independent on other
    topics—like

    gun control
    , where he doesn`t toe the Dem`s
    anti-firearm line. (At least it intrigues me, as the
    daughter of Texas farmers. There are snakes in Texas.)
    But does he embrace worker fairness by rejecting the
    endemic exploitation caused by illegal immigration? No,
    not when

    Hispandering
    beckons.

    Dr. Dean was less directly
    obsequious than the other debaters, only noting that
    "we can have a decent immigration policy in this
    country."
    His website, however, indicates the same
    agenda of

    "earned legalization"
    or whatever the current
    euphemism is.

    He also

    supports
    the vile

    “Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride.”

  • Dick Gephardt:
    particularly disappointing. When Gephardt ran for
    President in 1988, it was on a platform that emphasized
    the “rights”of American workers. He was ahead of the
    curve on the trade issue, recognizing that schemes like
    NAFTA (passed in 1993) would send thousands of American

    jobs overseas
    to cheap-labor havens. Yet now he is
    apparently blind to the similarity between jobs exiting
    and excess workers entering: unemployment and lowered
    wages.

    Gephardt`s rank-and-file union
    constituents must have wondered why this one-time friend
    of the worker had gone over to the dark side as he

    toured Mexico
    in 2001 with promises of amnesty. He
    subsequently introduced Congressional legislation to
    absolve illegals of their border crimes.

    Gephardt must have missed a

    Zogby poll
    released September 4, 2001, showing that
    a substantial 60 percent of persons from union
    households rejected amnesty. In fact, 33 percent of
    those union voters said they would be less likely to
    vote for Democrats who supported an amnesty.

    Yet Dick Gephardt used the recent
    debate to repeat the

    lying platitude
    that "We`re all immigrants."
    Yes, a record 13 percent of persons living in the United
    States are immigrants. But the rest of us are not: we
    are citizens, born and raised. See a dictionary for
    details.

    Gephardt restated his

    offer of amnesty
    as well.

    “My
    bill is simple. It says, you`ve been here for five
    years, you worked for two years, you haven`t broken
    laws, you can get into legal status.”

  • Senator John Kerry: also
    distressing. When a person has actually

    defended the nation in war
    and was wounded in doing
    so, he might reject giving it away to the America-hating
    creatures running Mexico. Not so, sadly. Senator Kerry
    is one of the worst amnesty hucksters:

    “I want
    to say immediately that anyone who has been in this
    country for five or six years, who`s paid their taxes,
    who has stayed out of trouble ought to be able to
    translate into an American citizen immediately, not
    waiting.”

    Non-murdering aliens who haven`t

    raped a child
    or

    bombed a building
    , welcome! John Kerry applauds the
    diversity of attitude toward the law that your presence
    indicates!

  • Senator Joe Lieberman:
    known for his moderate positions which often appeal to
    Middle America—surely he would understand that the
    job-loss recovery requires an immigration diet, right?
    Wrong. After referring to his relatives as "familia"
    and noting that his wife`s family escaped the Holocaust,
    Senator Lieberman promoted his version of amnesty,
    called "earned legalization."

    “I have
    offered the most comprehensive, aggressive immigration
    reform plan. Yes, earned legalization. Yes, temporary
    worker visas for workers from other countries. Yes,
    let`s lift the cap on people coming here for family
    reunification or to seek refuge. And let`s put some due
    process in our immigration laws, so the Justice
    Department under John Ashcroft can`t again do what they
    did after 9/11, which is to arrest almost 800
    undocumented immigrants, put them in jail without
    charges, without counsel, with notice to their families.
    That`s not America at its best. And as president, I`ll
    stop it.”

  • Senator Bob Graham: served
    on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee – surely he
    supports tough measures against terrorists exploiting
    our undefended borders? Again, no. Senator Graham seems
    to believe that illegal immigration is like trying out
    for the school play: if an alien can just keep his
    criminal record down to illegal immigration, document
    fraud and use of a false social security number, then he
    is just the sort of flexible faux-American that
    Democrats want.

    “I
    believe that we should have a policy of earned amnesty
    for those people who came into the United States
    undocumented. And that would provide that if they, after
    receiving a work permit, then met the standards of that
    permit, after a period of time they would be eligible to
    get a permanent residence status in the United States.”

  • Senator John Edwards:
    Hopeless. Expressed joy and happiness that his
    one-time home of Robbins, North Carolina, is now

    half Hispanic.
    Senator Edwards also embraces the
    concept of citizenship tryouts, with no tiresome

    background checks
    , health examinations or waiting
    their turn in home countries. Standing in line is so
    old-fashioned…

    “My
    family moved to that town because my father, who has a
    high school education and is still living, believed that
    by working hard and doing the right thing that his kids
    would have the opportunity for a better life.

    “These
    Hispanic families? They came to

    Robbins, North Carolina
    , for exactly the same
    reason.


    [APPLAUSE)]

    “And
    those who came and live there, who work hard and are
    responsible, they have earned the right to be American
    citizens. “

  • The lesser lights:

    Carol Mosely Braun
    ,

    Dennis Kucinich
    , Reverend Al Sharpton: no respite
    from the anti-borders drumbeat. Rep. Kucinich fearlessly
    stated, "Yes, I`m for amnesty. Yes, I`m for
    legalization of status."
    He also recited the

    "huddled masses"
    revisionist drivel about the

    Statue of Liberty
    . Senator Braun was blunt: "Let
    me say, the amnesty—I would agree with legalization."
    Rev. Al Sharpton did not appear at the 9/5 debate,
    but

    wrote
    in 2002, "If they agree to wash the dishes
    in our restaurants or clean our homes or watch our
    children for the lowest wages imaginable, off the books
    then welcome to America."
    At what seminary did Rev.
    Sharpton learn that such egregious exploitation was
    acceptable in the Christian community?

  • Finally, the new guy:

    General Wesley Clark
    : shouldn`t a general who served
    in the

    Balkans
    grasp the difficulty of maintaining civil
    order under

    excessive diversity
    – such as when an unprecedented
    foreign influx continues over many decades with no
    effort any more at assimilation?. But no such
    recognition has occurred in the general`s mind. He even
    says, absurdly, "Immigration is vital to prosperity"
    something that not even the late lamented
    immigration enthusiast economist Julian Simon

    claimed
    .

There you have it in their own
words. All major Democratic candidates for the
Presidency are immigration whores.

I remain a registered Democrat,
though an increasingly unhappy one, because I still
believe that America needs a party for working and
middle-class people. I also stand as a Democrat who
believes in the rule of law,

American sovereignty
and

English as our civil language
.

How dare low-life Dems turn the
party into a treasonous conspirator with Mexican designs
of

Aztlan fantasies?

How can the party of Truman and JFK
forget mainstream Americans to pursue the balkanized
constituencies of the worst immigrants, those who prefer
violent revolution to cultural assimilation?

The party I knew as a young person
is increasingly difficult to recognize.

Some old-fashioned Democrats
stubbornly cling to the belief that if the party of FDR
examined its core principles, it would realize that
worker protection, the preservation of

women`s rights
, conservation of the

environment
and fairness in opportunity for all
races absolutely require

immigration reduction
and

border enforcement
. But like

most elites
, Democratic Party leaders are out of
touch with their own constituency. Polls consistently
show that rank-and-file Democrats want immigration to be
legal, controlled and reduced in only slightly lower
percentages than Republicans. It`s another media lie
that immigration is an issue of the extreme right wing.

But the current Democratic
leadership is apparently fixated on the demographic
changes wrought by immigration that are creating an
America of

needy
, illiterate Third-Worlders—the perfect client
base for modern

Demster pols
, as party hacks see it.

California shows us the future: the
Democratic Party is looking increasingly like their
Mexican cousins, the

ultra-corrupt PRI
—issuing big payoffs for

cronies
and nada for the rest of us. Sacramento is
currently in a

frenzy
of signing California over to Mexican
interests, such as the recent law (AB915)
fostering

voter fraud
which outlaws taking photos within 100
feet of a polling place because such photography might
intimidate "immigrants."


My door
into the immigration issue was the
conservationist one, and I remain

active
on that front. I believe the Democrats have
traditionally been the better party on preserving the
environment, although that is also eroding under the
relentless demands from La Raza et al. The oceans are
nearly dead with hardly a peep from major
environmentalist organizations, but the

Mexifornication
lobby is pushing to

increase its influence
among green groups.

Keeping America true to its core
values of individual liberty and responsibility is the
business of both major parties. But today, the great
majority of Americans across the political spectrum who
want the post 1965 immigration disaster to end have no
political representation.

The

next Democratic debate
takes place in Phoenix
October 9. The host Governor

Napolitano
, more a friend of Mexico than of
Arizonans. Another panderama is likely.


Brenda Walker [email
her] is a writer living in
Berkeley, California, where she says she knows no
Republicans who will admit it. She publishes two
websites,


LimitsToGrowth.org

and

www.ImmigrationsHumanCost.org.