Hillary's Hospitality toward Illegal Aliens

Chuck Busch

I don’t see how in heaven’s name that Hillary Clinton can believe that any thinking individual would take her political positions seriously, even though she is a U.S. Senator and a presidential aspirant. Sorry for introducing religion into the determination of government policy, once considered taboo by the liberal establishment, but that’s exactly what Hillary has done in regards to the immigration reform bill now being debated in the Senate.

In a recent statement, Hillary Clinton ventured out into some very unfamiliar territory when she cited biblical principles in objecting to a measure that would increase the crime for illegal entry from a civil offense to a felony. Sounding as sanctimonious as any bible-thumping “fundie” televangelist, Hillary had this to say against Congress’s first sincere attempt in years to control the illegal alien catastrophe, “It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.” She also said that under this law, she would also be considered a felon, which is something that many who have observed her sordid political rise have already given much thought to.

Her comments are actually a take off from a position held by Catholic bishop Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles and other liberal religious groups. It is in the cardinal’s mistaken judgment that the new bill will make “providing humanitarian assistance” to an illegal would be a crime. The law merely is a clarification of existing law that makes it illegal to “assist” an alien to “remain in the United States” and is specifically aimed at “coyotes” or human smugglers, not food kitchens or homeless shelters.

If Cardinal Mahony does not understand this, Hillary Clinton certainly does. This is just another blatant attempt by the Hillary political machine to characterize the Bush administration as uncaring and “mean-spirited”. Several weeks ago, she accused some Republicans of trying to create a “police state” to deport Illegals. I take that to mean she is against the enforcement of existing law. Her comments are an insult to the intelligence of the typical voter and make a mockery of this most serious issue concerning the country’s security and stability.

In a letter to her constituents, Hillary said she opposes any proposal that would "target and criminalize the undocumented and punish those who would provide them with humanitarian assistance." Listening to “hillary speak” is every bit as frustrating as scanning the New York Times for reliable information. With a wink and a nod to her liberal base, Hillary talks religion and misrepresents the purpose of the bill in order to appeal to the Hispanic community and provoke dissent. The bible does indeed give council (Ex. 22:21) about the treatment of the “alien” in a humane way, but it has a lot more to say about speaking the truth.

Is it any surprise though that Hillary Clinton would oppose criminalizing immigration law offenders? For eight long torturous years, Hillary was a partner to the most corrupt administration in recent memory. Her desire to pardon the estimated 12 million foreigners who have trampled American sovereignty before she’s even president is merely an extension of the soft on crime philosophy that existed during her husband’s administration. The utter abandonment of law and order under the Clinton regime reached the height of injustice as they were leaving with the pardon of 11 FALN and 5 Machetero Puerto Rican terrorists, urban terrorist Susan Rosenberg and tax fraud racketeer, Marc Rich. The country is now facing this massive illegal alien dilemma largely because her husband neglected the border issue to the same degree that he failed to counter the Islamofacist threat during his time in office.

Contrary to her outspoken remarks about securing our borders and ports, at the core, Hillary is soft on immigration reform, just as she is soft on crime, soft on the war on terror and soft on national security. Senator Clinton demands “strengthening our borders in order to make us safer from the threat of terrorism”, but back in July of last year voted for an additional 1000 border agents before she voted against increasing that number to 2,000. When the hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck, Senator Clinton was “troubled” that some alien victims of the storms were placed in deportation proceedings, preferring that they receive federal emergency assistance in supporting their illegal stay in America.

Hillary accuses the president as being harsh, but how humane is it to promise “a path to earned citizenship” while the borders are still as porous as Swiss cheese; thus inviting more immigrants to attempt the risky march across the border. How compassionate is it to entice and enable more aliens to risk the hardships and perils of passing through the hands of smugglers only to arrive in this country insecure, unable speak the language, crammed into overloaded vehicles and apartments, exploited by selfish businessmen and subsisting as a non-person in the eyes of the law? A poll released by the Pew Hispanic Center reported that 40% of all Mexican adults would move to the US if they could. One thing is for certain; amnesty without total border control just means more illegal immigration.

There is an estimated 12 million unauthorized individuals of every description residing in the United States and all have broken the law to get here, yet Hillary has never advocated removing any of them. Neither has she specifically endorsed any of the several liberal bills proposed by Arlan Spector, Ted Kennedy, John McCain or Chuck Hagel. To her credit, Hillary does not think employers should exploit illegal immigrant workers, but stops short of saying they shouldn’t hire them at all and has no problem exploiting the alien’s plight herself for her own personal political gain. In February of 2003, she claimed to be “adamantly against illegals,” probably because they couldn’t vote. Now she has a plan to convert them from a problem to a likely Democrat voter by right of citizenship, cheapened though it may be.

Senator Clinton is intent on making both illegal and legal immigrants feel right at home in their new colonial outposts. In addressing the National Conference of La Raza last July, Hillary promised to support bills that would allow undocumented children to pay in-state tuition rates, lift the federally mandated five-year ban on legal immigrants to receive government funded health care, and demand that the federal government to pay for free health care to all immigrants. The bible does not support Hillary’s socialistic style of hospitality toward illegal aliens, nor is the American citizen taxpayer willing to do so either.

Some firm decisions need to be made to reverse decades of bad policy and government negligence. It must be established that there is no right to remain for illegal aliens. It is possible though, to implement corrective measures in a humane and orderly way according to the law. Everyone who has entered the country illegally must register their identity or be subject to immediate deportation without appeal. No illegal immigrant should be offered citizenship unless they are willing to return to their native country and restart the lawful immigration process. If qualified, most of the Illegal aliens could be allowed to stay and work in the country indefinitely as long as they conduct themselves civilly and economic conditions support their presence. Again, without total border control, any immigration reform is futile and probably self-defeating.

Senator Clinton has publicly blasted President Bush for his lax enforcement of immigration laws, yet now she opposes the effort to strengthen those laws. Hillary cannot have it both ways. Indecision and lack of leadership has brought us to this immigration tragedy. Congress must act now and forcibly because a future Balkanized or Palestinianized America is too horrible to imagine. However no agreement on the solution will be found, if self-serving politicians such as Senator Clinton distort the debate and are unwilling to make the difficult choices for the benefit of the general community and in the interest of national unity.