A doctor practicing medicine--such as doing a major heart operation-without a license is an undocumented doctor, in the same sense that an illegal immigrant is an "undocumented" immigrant. The same applies to a person without a driver's license: defefinitely an undocumented drive. Truckers withut the documentation to drive the big rigs safely: undocumented truckers--including those truckers who fail to keep a proper log showing lthhey have gotten enough sleep Doesn't it SOUND so much better to refer to all of these people as merely undocumented? Why shuld ew actually enforce teh LAW on any of these problems involving mere documents? Airline pilots fling without a license? No broblem. Merely undocumented pilots. Did you realize that we have been too harsh on the 9/11 terrorists? They wre merely undocumented pilots who couuld not get work as an ariline pilot soely because of our HARSH rules on documentatioin. The NRA needs to take note. A person caught without a propre gun permit is merely an undocumnted gkun owner. Who is to say he could not have gotten the proper documentation if he had only tried? And the INNOCENT CHILDREN. Can you really say that a child allowed to rrive a car by his parent, without bothering to get a driver's license, is a BAD PERSON? Obviously, we just need to let such a child drive, while this problm with paperowork is cleared up.
Proponents of illegal immigration are some of the most DISHOENST people who have ever lived. They are absolutely incapable of being honest, probably because they know their positoin is so WEAK. And CNN-The Liar Network--has some of lthe most dishonest illegal immigration lproponents. There is a reason taht CNN has EARNED the name: "The Liar Network". This blog has already pubished many articles about the DISHONESTY of CNN on this subject: One of the last ones was titled Erin Burnett: Liar on The Liar Network". Enter Cady Crowlye.
Again, CNN has a POLICY not to refer to illegal immigrants as "illegal immigrants". That, alone, shows yu how DISHONEST CNN is, and how dishonest the whole pro-illegal immigratin "movement" is. This is an Orwellian Big Lie, and these people know it. The idea is to make it SOUND like there is no problem with being an illegal immigrant--to make it SOUND like it is just like leaving yur driver's license in yur other purse. This is obvius, but for you DISHOENSTR people out there, I will explain this to yu. The problem is NOT that illeagl immigrants to not have to "proper documents". The problem is that they CAN'T GET the proper documents (at least in what they consider a reasoanble amount of time). It really is EXACTLY like an airline pilot without a proper pilot's license. If he COULD get a proper pilot's license, he would have one. Thus, to even mention "documents" in conncectin with illegal immigratin is a Big Lie right out of Orwell's "!984". Illeal immigratin has NOTHING to do wityh documents. Enter Candy Crowlye, LIAR, on Friday on CNN.
Candy Crowley is a liar. How else can yu describe someone wh won't even use the CODE phrawse , "undocumented immigrant", even though it is a Big Lie. Candy Crowley actually DESCRIBED illegal immigrants as being people "without documents', and "without proper documentation". How much of a LIAR do you have to be to be this BLATANT abut it. look at Candy Crowlley, and you will now You have to be one of the WORST, most "politically correct", liars who has ever lived: one of the worst liars on The Liar Network. (by a thin margin, since EVERYONE on The Liar Network is one of the worst liars who ever lived.
Candy Crowley was not through. On CN, les are like peanuts: you can't tell just one. Crowly ws there to talk about how "children" of illegal immigrants born in their home country are "innocent", because they are not here from their own choice. This idea is another of the Big Lies of proponents of illegal immigratin. It is, of course, the Dream Act idea "dreamed up" by PRO-ILLEAGL IMMIGRAATN LIARS in order to start the ball rollling on AmNESTY. The whole ide is to USE the idea of 'innocent children" to shift the focus away from illegal immigratin (a term they, whch explains CNN policy, simply refuse to use) to "compassin" for illegal immigrants. Never doubt me on this one. This is 100% vertain. Notice that the TERMS of the "Dream Act" have CHANGED pretty radically as time a gone on. It is nothin gmore than an EXUSE to get SOME kind of AMNESTY bill passed: both as a POLITICAL BRIBE and as a DISHONEST way to moving toward general manesty. So Candy Crowley trotted out this LIE about chilldren of illegla immigrants born in another country being so "innocent". The key thing that illegal immigrants ignore of course, is that this has nothing to do with "innocence" or "guilt". Children born in another country,, to citizens of that country, were SUPPOISED TO GROW UP IN THAT COUNTRY. To send them back to that country is to send them back where they ARE sSUPPOSED TO BE. It has nothing whatever to do with "moral guilt".
"Smkip, surely you are not saying children who are brought here at a young age are not 'innocent'? Oh, yu DISHOENST Lpeople (talkinga abut Candy Crowley, and other proponents of illegal imigration). It is IRELEVANT whether children of illegal immigrants are "innocent". It is a matter of where they are SUUPPOSED TO BE. Are proponents of illegal iimmigratin saying that children wh MAKE it past border security are ENTITLED to stay here (as a reward for braving Obama's predator drones, machinie guns, and border lpatrol agents--not to mention alligators in moats--as Obama brags that he has "improved" border security)? (LOL). Actaully, of coure, the LIARS who represent the pro-illeagl immigratin forces in this country actually do beleive this . But what makes "children" wh make it here more "inocent" than chiren who stay in their wown country? Remember, Mayor Bloomberg--one of the few people probably MORE dishoenst than Candy Crowley, buth who was NOT challegned on the point by the DISHONEST Fareed Zakaria on The Liar Network---maintains that illegal immigrants in this coutnry usually LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN AT HOME. . Proponents of illegal immigratin will say absolutely ANYTHING--sonsistent or not. Atain, WHY are children in Mexico 9fr example), who WANT to come to the United Staes, LESS INNOCENT than people who MAKE IT here (when they are supposed to be frowing up in Mexico) No reason. Proponents of illlegal immigratin just want to USE "compassion" for "innocentr childr" (Crowley ,yu really are one of the most DESPICALBE LIARS who ha ever lived).
Proponents of illegal immigratin , includng Cowley, actually regard ADULT illegal immigrants as jsut as "innocent" as the childre--merely tryin g to make a better livfe for thiemselve; hard working people who HELP thi scuntry (Mayro Bloomberg again). I am teelling you, and there is nothing upon which I am more certainly right, that proponents of illegal immigration really MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENT for all illegal immigrants.. They just KNOW lthat they cannot SELL their insane obsession as to adults. Therfore, they are tryig to USE "inocent children", because they think they can SELL that one to GULLIBLE lpeople (using LIE after LIEl-includng the Big Lie about their itnet). I Agree, by the way, that it is not really a MORAL FAULT for illeagl immigrants to want to make a better life for themselves, even if it means violating the law. I am not "blaming" ilegal immigrants for wanting to come heer. I am bllaming US--people like CNN and Candy Crowley, and other pro-illegal immigrant "activists") for makng it POSSIBLE for them to stay here: thereby ENCOURAGING THEM TO KEEP COMING HERE ILLEGALLY. It is IRRRELEVANT, again, whether these are "good, hard working people". peple like liar Candy Crowey want to put the focus on he illegal immigratn, and whether the person is a "bad person". HOGWASH (lying hogwash). The focus as to ilegal immigratin MUST be on STOPPING illegal immigratin, and not encouraging peple to stay here when they are SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEWHER ELSE. This has absolutley nothing to do with morality. In the end, it has to do with the fact that we cannot AFFORD an "opern border" with Mexico We cannot AFFORD to try to solve the 'poverty problems" of Mexico (or any other country) a, as well as our own. The illegal immigrants who come here might be the BEST peole around--the most "innocent and deserving"--and we still could not AFFORD to simply invite illegal immigrants into this country. We know, of course, that illegal immigrants are not that "good". They ar a mix of "good" and "gad"--"inocent" and not-so-nnocent. But it does nto matter. They are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, and we canot AFFORD to ENCURAGE THEM TO COME HERE. It is simly INSANE to say that illegal immigrants are "more worthy" than the peole who STAY IN MEXICO (or whereve). It HAS to be the other way around. No, it is not that illegal immigrants are automatically "bad people". But they viiolated the law by coming here, AND by staying here. Can yo really say that the people who OBEY the law, and stay in their own country HOPING to get here LEGALLY are not just as worthy, and at least marginally lesss worthy (as a group) because they are where they are not supposed to be?
Again, it is like that airline pilot, or trucher, wthout a license ("proper documentatin", in the LYING language of Candy Crowley). A trucker whout proper credentials MAY be jsut as good a lperson, and even just as goood a driver, as someone whow has GONE THRHOUGH THE HOOPS of getting the legal documentation to operate legally. But is not the person hwho goes through the legal process MORE WORTHY, for that reason alone. than the person who tries to get around the legal lprocess? The answer is obvius.
"But, Skip, surely you can't say that a person who came here illlegally at the age of, say, 7, shuld be DEPORTED when they have attended school here all of those years, and graduated from high school." Notice I refuse to evenCOMMENT on the versions of the Dream Act that suggest that an illegal immigrant has a rIGHT to havve the "Aermican Dream" of GOING TO COLLEGE. No. Yu will guess that I don't agree with President aObama that an Americn-born AMERICAN CITIZEN has a RIGHT to go to colege. This idea that we shulc "encourage" ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to go to college is more than I can stand. I start foamig at the mouth when I hear that one, or arguments that impleidly endorse that idea. But is there SOME argumetn that there is something "unfair" about a person who really knows only hoow to live in America, and may not even speak th language of the other country? Notice how this "argument" means ACCEPTING that we have LOTS of people--despite that LIAR, Mayor Bloomberng--who have ived here ILLEGALLY for MANY YERS> As far as I am concerned that merely emphasizes how IMP:ORTANT it is to STOP THAT. We should NOT have illegal immigrants able to lieve, work, and send their children to American schoools WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. That means we have FAIILED to discourage illegal immigratin, and to enforce our laws. yep. I AM saying that we shuld NOT let children who are here illegally go to an American public school, any more than we should let children STLL LIVING IN MEXICO go to an American public school (which it has been documented has happened, and continues to happen). There erally should be NO ONE who graduates from an Aermican public hishg shcoool, after gong all four years as an illegal immigrant. The PARENTS should nto be allowed to exist in this countgry for that many years. Even i fwe don't turn children away from school, we shouild IMMEDIATELY move to DPEORT them (and their parents). Gain, the problem is US, and not the illegal immigrants. But I refuse to make OUR PROBLEM not capable of solutin by invoking the relatively FEW cases where you might well "feel sorry" for a child who has (because we refuse to enforce our laws) "grown up" in this country. The way we are gong, the problem jsut never ends. I refuse to acceept that, and I especially refuse to let LIARS like Candy Crowly, and the others on CNN, deflect me fromt he real issues here. I would rather let Congressmen get special bills passed for INDIVIDUALS who really can show it would be a "hardship" for theem not to be allowed legal tatus in this counntry b, because they have llived here so long, since childhood.
Candy Crowley, lLIAR that she is on The Liar Network, actaully described presidentt Obama's idea of an ADMINISTRATIVE "Dream Act" (whch he said a mere year ago he had NO AUTHORITY to implement) in some of the sttranges t terms I have ever heard (as befts a LIAR, without any seemng recognition that they are strange). Crowley said that Obama's new "policy" would apply ONLY t peple who had come here beforeage 16, and who are NOT YET 30. Say whatt???????According to Mayor Bloomberg, of course, MOT illegal immigrants are "too young" to need much health carre. But let us pass by Mary Bloomberng as a PATHOLOTICAL LIAR who wil say anythikng. This tells you al yu need to know abut there being NO LOGIC behind each and everry, of the many "versiion" of the "Dream Act". Let us take tow peole. One person came here 50 years ago, at the age of 7. Another person came here ALONE, wihout his parents, at the age of 15 to get a beter life. No. I don't care who supposedly "fits" the Obama criteria. It is all a LIE anyway. The intent is not to deprot ANYBODY, and to give legal status to as many people as possible. But what MANIAC thinks that a person who came here at age q0, or maybe 5, has has now been here 50 years, has a WORSE "equitable' case merely becaluse he is over 30? So help me, that is how Crowley described it: that Obama's new "policy" only aplied to peple UNDER 30. But, then, Crowley is a LIAR. The whole purpose, of course, is to merely make it IMPOSSIBLE to DPORT anyone under the age of 30 (if that is the insane "cut off"). The idea of EVERY "Drema Act" versin is to allow a category of peole to TELL THE INS taht they fit the criteria, and avoid deportatin Will the INS EVER really "investigate" all of these claims, and-even if they eventually do--will no tth eperson be here YEARS beofre the INS even "rejects" the claim (which will not men deporatin because the INS still won't worry about it--espeically if someone like Obama is President). This is all a LIE.
You doubt me? Never do that. Let me explan to you a "policy" I MIGHT be inclined to "endorse" if I did not think we should NOT ALLOW illegal immigrarants to be "educated" in American public schools. Say that you did not allow a person to even APPLY for "legal status" unless they FIRST had these CERTFICATIONS:
1. that they have attended (for the number of days that mean real "attendance") an American high shcool for FOUR YEARS, and graduated
2. a certificatin (from whom may be some sort of problem, but could be done, along with the type of TEST that must be passed) that the person is FLUENT i the English language (a test, by the way, on whether the person should realy have "garaduated" from high school).
No, I am nost through. This law would make it a FELONY for a person to either give or present a FALSE certificatin of either of these things--includng a SCOOL representative certifying either attendance or graduatin that did not occur. Can you imagine the HOWL that would come with this kind of requirment to actualy PROVE yu "qualified" BEOFRE YOU COULLD STOP DEPORTATIN , OR EVN APPLY. Again, this hwole "Dream Act" thing is a LIE. I have no patience wiht people who do not understand that. Now I can usndersnad some peole SNOWED by the LIES here. Taht is why I do not give peole like Candy Crolwy, and the otehr peoe of CNN a "pass". They are DISHONESTT, and I will coninue to show you that until my dyig breath (ope--sorry to disappoint--not imminent).
This whle Candy Crowlye "reprt", of cure, was really part of the President Obama eleciton campaign, as was the OBAMA VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW (according to Obama). The facts, and the "logic" of this whole attemt to USE "innocent children", are NEVER "examined. It is all propaganda, and that is how yoiu have to understand it. It is all a LIE. Even if you think there are a FEW children who "deserve" to stay here, this is still a LIE. Do you wonder, by the way how a 15 year old illegal immmigrant could really "graduate' frm hisgh shcoool legitimately? I do. You have to be able to count the number of such children on yur fingers--okay, maybe we can ge generous and add your toes. This is all a LIE.
P.S. No proofreadiding or spell checking (bad eyesight).