What's Hillary up to?
What's Hillary up to?
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 3:07 PM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
by Rob Sanchez
December 14, 2004. No. 1158
Sen. Hillary Clinton, as the story goes, is moving to the right of George Bush
with a new "tough on immigration" stance. If the media is to be believed,
Hillary is a born-again toughie on immigration.
First a reality check - Hillary Clinton has been a champion of open-borders
immigration since she was the First Lady, and she has never changed from being
a hard-core supporter of cheap labor importation. Last year, as an example,
she rolled out the red carpet out for Tata's Buffalo office so that Indian H-
1Bs could take jobs away from New Yorkers. (If you don't remember that fiasco,
go to the newsletter archives and read the "Buffaloed by Hillary" series).
Even worse, she is co-chair of those pandering Senators that call themselves
"Friends of India".
Clinton did nothing to oppose the increase in the H-1B cap that just passed in
the omnibus spending bill because she supports all increases in guest-worker
visas. If we ever had an enemy on Capital Hill, it's Sen. Hillary Clinton.
If you still aren't convinced that Hillary Clinton is just posturing with her
new immigration rhetoric perhaps you should examine some of the open-border
legislation that she has supported:
* Co-sponsored S. 2381, a major amnesty for illegal aliens in 2004
* Co-sponsored S. 8 to repeal the federal ban against granting illegal aliens
in-state tuition and reward illegal aliens amnesty in 2003-2004.
* Co-sponsored S. 1545, the DREAM Act of 2003 to reward illegal aliens with
in-state tuition and amnesty in 2003-2004
* Co-sponsored S. 2444, the Kennedy INS restructuring bill in 2002 that would
assist illegal immigration by compromising immigration laws
* Co-sponsored S. 1645, the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and
Security Act of 2003, an amnesty for agricultural workers.
* Co-sponsored S. 778 a one-year extension of Section 245(i), an immigration
provision that allows certain illegal aliens to pay a fine and to get amnesty.
Sen. Clinton and George Bush can agree on one thing - there are all sorts of
jobs that Americans won't do so we need to give aliens guest-worker visas so
they can come here in massive numbers to take these jobs.
Here is what Sen. Clinton has to say about the jobs that Americans don't want:
"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a
country, and one of them ought to be coming up with
a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we're
going to let people in for the work that otherwise
would not be done, let's have a system that keeps
track of them," she said.
Bush says that we need an "immigration policy that helps match any willing
employer with any willing employee" because there are "Jobs Americans Won't
Do". Sounds sort of like Hillary, huh? Bush's plan for a guest-worker program
will supposedly include tougher immigration control. One thing for sure, every
open-border politician in the United States will say they want to improve the
illegal immigration problem - the catch is that they don't mention the fact
that they want to "solve"
the problem by granting amnesty and guest-worker visas to anyone who wants a
job in the United States.
Clinton and Bush both claim that they want to get rid of illegal immigration
but their solution is to simply hand out guest-worker visas to everyone who
wants to cross our border. This is sort of like getting rid of the crime of
murder by rewriting the laws to make murder a legal activity. No law, no
crime, right?
Sen. Clinton doesn't want employers to hire illegal aliens but at the same
time she has no problem with the importation of millions of legal guest-
workers. The statement below is ridiculous because I haven't heard any
Republicans say that employers should hire illegal aliens, they all want to
hand out easy visas just like Hillary. One thing I have learned from listening
to a lot of politicians is that what they don't say is more important than
what they do say. In this case, Clinton is blasting Republicans when the
reality is that both she and the Republicans want employers to be able to tap
into an unlimited supply of cheap foreign labor.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also
has castigated Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,"
This is so funny I can't stop laughing! The spin doctors are trying to package
Hillary as tough on immigration. Will anybody believe this drivel?
"Bush has done everything he can to leave the doors wide
open," said Robert Kunst, president of an Internet group
dedicated to drafting Clinton to run for president.
"Hillary is the only one taking a position on immigration.
She will win that issue hands down."
>>>>> CONCLUDING REMARKS <<<<<
In conclusion, Sen. Hillary Clinton isn't moving to the right of Bush on
immigration. They have always agreed with each other that employers should be
able to use a guest-worker program to legalize the enslavement of foreign
workers. Bush and Clinton are two peas-in-a-pod when it comes to their lust
for open-border policies.
In answer to the first question of what Hillary is up to: She is posturing
herself for the 2008 Presidential campaign as a centrist.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but you know what they say about
lies: if you tell them often enough they become truth.
Articles Used for this Newsletter
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm
Hillary goes conservative on immigration
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041213-093857-7221r.htm
Sen. Clinton against illegal immigration
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41925
ELECTION 2008
Generic GOP candidate beats Hillary
Poll finds 46% of voters would choose Republican over N.Y. senator
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/13/140946.shtml
The 'Jobs Americans Won't Do' Myth
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm
Hillary goes conservative on immigration By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 13, 2004
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is staking out a position on illegal immigration
that is more conservative than President Bush, a strategy that supporters and
detractors alike see as a way for the New York Democrat to shake the "liberal"
label and appeal to traditionally Republican states.
Mrs. Clinton -- who is tagged as a liberal because of her plan for
nationalized health care and various remarks during her husband's presidency -
- is taking an increasingly vocal and hard-line stance on an issue that ranks
among the highest concerns for voters, particularly Republicans.
"Bush has done everything he can to leave the doors wide open,"
said Robert Kunst, president of HillaryNow.com, a group dedicated to drafting
Mrs. Clinton to run for president. "Hillary is the only one taking a position
on immigration. She will win that issue hands down."
In an interview last month on Fox News, Mrs. Clinton said she does not
"think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first
responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do
better."
In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly
against illegal immigrants."
"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of
them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if
we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done,
let's have a system that keeps track of them," she said.
Unlike many pro-business Republicans, Mrs. Clinton also has castigated
Americans for hiring illegal aliens.
"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants," she said. "I mean,
come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street
corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You're going to see loads of people waiting
to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work."
In contrast, Mr. Bush backs a guest-worker program that allows foreign
citizens entry into the United States and an eventual path to citizenship. One
of the president's first acts after his re-election was to push for it again,
before both domestic and foreign audiences.
Mrs. Clinton's position has been noticed by Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Colorado
Republican and leading proponent of stricter immigration controls.
"She's not a dumb woman," Tancredo spokesman Carlos Espinoza said.
"She's got a great liberal base, and she realizes there's no better way to
draw in more conservative voters. She has really come out to the forefront on
that."
With the vast majority of Americans in polls viewing illegal immigration
as a serious problem, Mrs. Clinton also could make deep inroads in the
conservative red states, especially those in the South that the Democrats have
largely written off in recent presidential campaigns.
As the immigration issue has entered the debate over national security,
the New York senator -- representing the state hardest hit by the September 11
attacks -- is uniquely positioned to take a firm stance on the issue, to the
delight of some conservatives.
"More than any other leader of either political party, U.S. Sen.
Hillary Clinton has been focusing on immigration reform and border security --
taking hard-line positions that appeal to frustrated Republicans in a move
that could guarantee her enough support in red states to win the White House
in 2008," conservative author Carl Limbacher wrote recently on NewsMax.com,
which has chronicled many of Mrs. Clinton's statements on immigration.
Mr. Espinoza said the former first lady has become particularly vocal on
the issue during and after the November election, in which Democrats performed
so poorly.
"I think she's realizing how much this issue has grown since 9/11,"
he said. "If you talked about it before then, you were just a flat-out racist.
Now it's this huge issue."
Moving to the right of even some Republicans, the former first lady told
WABC she favors "at least a visa ID, some kind of entry-and-exit ID. And ...
perhaps, although I'm not a big fan of it, we might have to move towards an ID
system even for citizens."
Jennifer Duffy with the Cook Political Report said a conservative stance
on immigration would be wise in the event Mrs. Clinton runs for president in
2008.
"Democrats are asking if it's really smart to nominate another
Northeastern Democrat, and she is a Northeastern Democrat," she said.
"It's probably smart to blur that perception a little."
But not everyone sees it as a wise a move.
"I think she is trying to move to the right, and immigration is one of the
ways she is using to do it," said political strategist Dick Morris, who has a
history of working with former President Clinton.
"I think this is a particularly misguided choice on her part, however,
since two-thirds of Bush's margin this time was due to his closure of the
Democratic margin of victory among Hispanics."
Mr. Bush lost the vote of Hispanics -- many of whom are wary of tougher
immigration laws -- by only 10 percentage points this year, whereas he lost it
by 20 percentage points four years ago, Mr. Morris said.
Mr. Kunst, whose Web site supporting Mrs. Clinton got thousands of hits
daily right after Mr. Bush's re-election, said Mrs. Clinton is now the
strongest Democrat for 2008 in terms of both popularity and financing.
Immigration is a good issue for her even as, he hopes, she holds onto her
liberal credentials.
"It's not just about cheap labor anymore," Mr. Kunst said. "It's about
security. We have to do something about it."
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041213-093857-7221r.htm
Sen. Clinton against illegal immigration
Washington, DC, Dec. 13 (UPI) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's hard-line against
illegal immigration is seen by some as the Democrat's attempt to solidify
support for a 2008 presidential bid.
Clinton, D-N.Y., who has received the liberal moniker for her efforts as first
lady in the 1990s, may be trying to win support in conservative states by
coming out against illegal immigration, the Washington Times reported Monday.
In fact, the paper reported, Clinton's stance is more conservative than
President Bush's, calling for an entry and exit ID system for immigrants.
"Bush has done everything he can to leave the doors wide open," said Robert
Kunst, president of an Internet group dedicated to drafting Clinton to run for
president. "Hillary is the only one taking a position on immigration. She will
win that issue hands down."
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41925
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
ELECTION 2008
Generic GOP candidate
beats Hillary
Poll finds 46% of voters would choose Republican over N.Y. senator
Posted: December 14, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
) 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A new poll finds if the next presidential election were held today, 46 percent
of voters would choose a generic Republican candidate over front-running
Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton, who would get just 39 percent of the vote.
The survey, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, has the New York senator holding a
narrow lead among women, 45 to 42 percent, while trailing by
17 points among men.
Conducted Dec.3-5, the survey of 1,500 likely voters had a margin of sampling
error of +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.
An early Rasmussen poll found that 42 percent of Democrats believe Clinton is
the party's strongest candidate for 2008. Other survey data shows that 51
percent of Democrats want their next presidential candidate to be more of a
centrist than John Kerry.
Many analysts believe Clinton is hoping to position herself as a moderate in
the coming years, evidenced partly by her tough talk against illegal
immigration and the hiring of illegal aliens by American employers.
Forty-five percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton, while
42 percent have an unfavorable opinion.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/13/140946.shtml
The 'Jobs Americans Won't Do' Myth
Jon E. Dougherty
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004
While President Bush says he is considering another amnesty - I m sorry;
"guest-worker program" - for the nearly 13 million illegal aliens living and
working in the United States, he also says the program won't be a reward for
violating U.S. immigration and alien employment laws.
It's hard to understand how illegal aliens would not consider such a program a
reward, but maybe the president and the accompanying bipartisan open borders
chorus of lawmakers in favor of this catastrophe in the making were really
talking about American workers instead, because another amnesty sure won't be
a reward for them.
The big lie in this jobs-for-illegals debate is the contention Congress must
approve such a program to ensure all the jobs Americans won't do still get
done. As I document in my new book, "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by
Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border," such jobs exist, but only because the open
borders crowd has created them. If we open the door to more illegal workers,
wages will only decrease further. I'll explain.
Over time, the massive influx of poor, uneducated laborers from south of the
border has already worked to depress American wages, especially in areas where
illegal immigration is the heaviest.
While researching "Illegals," several people told me they used to do the "jobs
Americans won't do" until local employers figured out they could get illegal
aliens to work for less than half the same amount. As an example, a young
landscaper in Sierra Vista, Ariz., who used to make
$15 an hour 10 years ago, can't get a similar job now for more than $8 an
hour. Same heat. Same difficult working conditions. Same necessary for
landscapers. But with the depressed wage, Americans - who live in a country
where the cost of living is miles above that of Mexico's - can't afford to
take such jobs.
It's not that he and other Americans don't want to do landscaping anymore;
it's just that in heavily trafficked illegal alien environments, it doesn't
pay well enough anymore.
And that's how many "jobs Americans won't do" were created. The current
administration's "guest worker" program will create more such jobs, because
what employer in his or her right mind would not want to lower their labor
costs? Doing so would raise profits - at least in theory - without having to
do anything else.
Consider a key element of the plan offered by the administration.
"Willing" illegal immigrant "employees" would be matched up with "willing"
U.S. employers. Jobs would be "posted" online, and if an American citizen did
not fill the job within a specified time limit, a "willing" illegal immigrant
would be eligible to take it.
Bush's plan doesn't offer citizenship, just legal status. The Democrats' plan
goes much further in that it waves the prize of citizenship to illegal
immigrants after a specified time period of gainful employment.
Again, what will employers likely do? They'll post the jobs, sure - but at far
less than prevailing U.S. wages? What would stop them?
So far, there are no protections built into either the Bush plan or the
Democrats' alternative that prevents employers from setting a below-average
wage and, based on Republicans' corporate relationships and Democrats labor
connections, neither party appears willing to tell employers what they must
pay (minimum wage considerations aside).
Politically, the Democrats stand to lose the most. Labor unions are already
upset with the job-killing NAFTA and GATT agreements; they will never support
a labor-related plan that allows workers to be hired at far-below prevailing
wage.
But overall, American workers are going to be hurt, regardless of their
political affiliation. As the wage-depressing effect of this plan seeps into
more and more industries, fewer Americans will have a sporting chance against
an imported laborer who says he'll work for one-third the going wage.
The government won't make out like bandits either. Millions of lower-wage
American workers, after two rounds of Bush tax cuts, were removed from any
federal tax obligation whatsoever. Imported "guest workers" earning the same
or less won't have to pay, either. Some windfall.
History is also not on the side of the open borders crowd. Consider the last
amnesty approved by the Reagan administration in 1986; it didn't resolve the
illegal immigration problem. In fact, experienced border agents told me, it
only encouraged more illegal immigration.
The 1986 law "regularized" about 3 million illegals; there are at least three
times that amount living in the U.S. today. How did the 1986 law help, and
what should Americans expect any different results this time around?
If this is what the open borders crowd means by illegals doing jobs Americans
don't want, they're right. American workers want jobs that can earn them a
decent living in this country. Minimum wage is a fortune south of the border,
but it doesn't go far here.
"President Bush and Congress must make a choice," Dan Stein, executive
director of FAIR writes. "Are they going to serve the interests of illegal
immigrants and a small number of employers seeking cheap labor at the expense
of the American public, or are they going to protect the interests of workers,
taxpayers and homeowners? They must choose one or the other."
The choice seems clear to me.
www.ZaZona.com
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe, Unsubscribe or to view the Archive go to:
http://www.zazona.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Back to archives