A Democrat Is Disgusted By Her Party's Presidential Candidates
Print Friendly and PDF

[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.


    "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.

Print Friendly and PDF