"Yes, I will... That was a poor choice of words... They have names, and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected," said Hillary Clinton, in an assurance that I'm dumbfounded seeing she had to be pushed to give.
I find it impossible to believe she was ignorant of the objections to the term "illegal immigrants." She had to have been choosing to say it. But why? I assume she wanted to signal some toughness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
61 comments:
I don't understand her explanation.
Don't all criminals have names and hopes and dreams?
Or is the final clause critical -- that we should respect the hopes and dreams of those who want to come to America illegally, but not the hopes and dreams of those who commit other crimes?
"They have names, and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected,"
Yes, yes, yes and no. They are criminals.
Drawing attention to her kinda rapey husband, using verboten terminolgy..is she trying to off herself?
If she doesn't want to say illegal immigrant she should go back to illegal alien, which was both accurate and descriptive. The truth is not a microaggression.
If the term "illegal" is offensive because it denigrates immigrants, then the term "undocumented" is offensive because it implies the government is at fault for failing to document the immigrants. As if there had merely been a mixup in the paperwork.
How about unauthorized migrants?
Calling Mrs. Clinton "Presidential material" is also a very poor word choice.
As if it matters..........
I find it impossible to believe she was ignorant of the objections to the term "illegal immigrants."
I dunno about that. By her own admission Hillary Clinton is ignorant of a lot of things.
I'm not familiar with this story, but I think the correct reply from Hillary!! should have been: What's incorrect about the term illegal immigrant?
(Reads Link)
Ah. So an immigrant who is also apparently an illegal immigrant asked her to do this.
Ho-kay. I hope she added: I apologize if you were offended.
Up is down !
The proper term is "illegal aliens."
So, who doesn't have hopes and dreams? Republicans?
Unless you are brain dead you have hopes and dreams. that's like saying people are people.
Or are only human.
Is that some claim that some people (or humans - who have hopes and dreams) somewhere are contesting? Which humAn is not a human? Which person is not a person? So then, saying that is simply arguing a platitude rather than coming up with an argument.
How about addressing the people and/or humans who are coming here illegally versus those people and/or
Humans coming here illegally? Can we have an immigration policy that limits persons and/or humans while allowing a certain number of persons and/or humans. Oh yeah, we already have such an immigration program. It's called our immigration laws.
Maybe she's heard about them.
Let's call them undocumented instead. But wait, do the undocumented not have hopes and dreams? Are they not humans? How then could we call them undocumented if the lack of documentation is calling them pain and they are human after all. And people.
And people.
And have hopes and dreams.
They are also, of course, illegal immigrants.
What will "illegal immigrants" be now? "Undocumented immigrants"? Just "immigrants", as if those who cross our borders at whimsy are the same as those immigrants who play by our very complicated immigration rules?
The problem with sucking up to the Hispanics (read the Mexican-Americans) is that there are lots of other folks who are at odds with what Mexican-Americans want (e.g. blue collar whites, blacks, the legally naturalized immigrant community). What the Mexican community really wants, the overnight naturalization of 11 million plus immigrants, just simply can't happen without throwing a monkey wrench into the present political power structure. You think Texas Republicans want Texas to go purple? You think California blacks want black political power swept away in a tsunami of Latinos? Ain't gonna happen, so chill with the suck-up, Dems.
Interesting. I suspect that this means that she is now playing defense. They are, in fact, illegal immigrants. They are immigrants who are not legally in this country, and, hence, are illegal aliens, or illegal immigrants. Calling them "undocumented" merely shows that she is trying to be politically correct, and to appeal to some of the more radically leftwing constituents. Which mean, I suspect, that she will probably lose more votes than she would gain by doing this. Her husband may have been the first Black President, but the next Black President has royally pissed off the Black community by essentially giving a lot of entry level jobs to illegals that would normally have gone to Black youths. Immigration is already a hot button issue in this country, and looks like it is going to become even more hot. And, those trying to pander to the illegal aliens are probably on the wrong side of this issue.
What would you rather she said? "Undocumented"? Or the new NYT favorite, "unauthorized"?
I have no problem with "illegal," myself. These are people here, in the country, contrary to US law. What else would you reflexively call them?
This should be good for another 5 or 10% bump for the GOP.
""Hillary Clinton has agreed to stop using the term 'illegal immigrants' until after she wins the nomination."
FIFY
The proper term is "illegal aliens."
I do like that terminology even better than "illegal immigrant". Can't quite put my finger on why I think that it is just a smidgen more accurate. Or, we can just call them "illegals".
Continuing my earlier thoughts - the reason that I think that HRC is on the wrong side of this issue is first that Obama has essentially made problematic deporting many of the more criminally violent illegals, and, as a result, American citizens are dying. All so that he can feel better about himself, or some such ridiculous progressive reason. And, ISIS is now talking about sneaking violent jihadists across our southern border in the deluge of other illegals coming here. Of course, Obama has security for life, so this doesn't really matter to him. But, for the rest of us, it does. And, that, along with the jobs lost to illegals, is why I think that the more productive side of the debate to be on, this election cycle, is the one that calls them what they are, and tries to figure out how to control the huge influx of illegals.
They're illegal aliens.
She is giving into the Maoists who prefer the term "undocumented," as if someone left their green card at home on the dresser. I don't think illegal immigration is as big a problem as a lot of people, but I certainly understand that the big point is that it is ILLEGAL. I hate the word "undocumented" since it implies that we all need to be documented.
How does recognizing a fact disrespect their names, hopes, or dreams? I thought the left was against political candidates talking nonsense.
Guess not.
Well, they may have "dreams" but they are also criminals, they broke our immigration laws and calling them illegal immigrants is actually being nice. We have no idea whether they are just jumping the immigration line or just coming here to steal a few bucks. That's why the correct name has always been "illegal aliens"
I know Constitutional lawyers don't care about the rule of law, but I do.
Its a stunt.
She's playing a role, the role of the voter who's watching her, she model's the change of mind and heart she wants to see in the voter, the change that the voter will imitate, that will ultimately lead the voter to vote for her.
She can't just harangue voters with the standard liberal position. She sees the way people have responded to Trump, et al. It's a very sensitive issue, important to many voters she needs.
She would like to say she has evolved, but that sounds too much like Obama on gay marriage. It wouldn't fly.
So they wrote a little play.
"I find it impossible to believe she was ignorant of the objections to the term "illegal immigrants."
She forgot.
"I find it impossible to believe she was ignorant of the objections to the term "illegal immigrants."
She forgot. It happens when you get to her age.
So if she wants to call them undocumented, it implies they need documents. So are dems now going to demand that the cops ask for your papers. Like the nazis did !YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!
Because the dems have been trying to not get anyone to show their documents for the longest time. So then why would they want to call illegals undocumented. i thought that would go without saying. No documentation. Cops can't ask you about your status. God forbid you have to show ID to vote. (Unless its california, where they will give all illegals drivers licenses, which will then allow them to vote)
ANYWAY, calling them undocumented is just as problematic as calling them illegal.
Shouldn't we come up with some nomenclature that doesn't harm them by assuming they don't have the proper paper work and that you should?
Wasn't "illegal immigrant" supposed to be the compassionate alternative to "illegal alien"?
How about unwanted or inconvenient emigrants?
Or is this another opportunity to propagate and exploit a refugee crisis?
Also, how does aborting and planning over one million Americans annually meet the hopes and needs of this policy?
"What would you rather she said? "Undocumented"? Or the new NYT favorite, "unauthorized"? "
Its funny how they can't come with any word to describe them that doesn't suggest they aren't supposed to be here.
It's not nice to disrespect the President in Waiting Clinton.
Servant Huma has a mind blowing effect on her Master.
"They have names, and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected," said Hillary Clinton.
Clinton then said, From now on, I will call you all Jose the hopeful.
Will Genesis please change the lyrics to their song now too?
It's no fun
Being an undocumented immigrant.
You make a lot of assumptions the first being that she knows what she's doing
How about invaders?
Yep, that's it!
When I lived in south Florida (2003-09), the advocates for the illegal aliens objected to calling them that on the ground that "a person can't be illegal".
I suppose we could try "immigration law violator". Not catchy, but to the point.
She had to have been choosing to say it. But why? I assume she wanted to signal some toughness.
So how tough does she look now?
Wasn't "illegal immigrant" supposed to be the compassionate alternative to "illegal alien"?
I hear this Spring they're changing it to Immigrant-American.
Trespassing = undocumented guests
Driving without a license = undocumented driver
Rapist = undocumented sex
Thief = undocumented Shopper
I don't care what that grifter calls them, but they need to get off our lawn.
We should refer to them as "emigrants" rather than "immigrants" in order to emphasize that there was a motivation to leave from their homeland rather than to arrive somewhere else. The causes of mass emigration, in particular, from a nation, cannot be underestimated, should not be overlooked, and should not be obfuscated with opportunistic platitudes.
I work with lots of legal immigrants, brilliant people - engineers, chemists, computer scientists - from all over the world. I can probably walk through the building I work in and easily round up people from 25 different countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America, all within a few minutes walk from my office. I will not even dignify the illegal alien with the title "immigrant". My friends and co-workers all went to the trouble and expense to come here LEGALLY and have become citizens or have earned their green cards and are working on citizenship. Some are even better citizens, in my opinion, than people I know who were born here. But illegals need to be called what they are - illegal aliens. And they are criminals. If they wanted to come here to live and work they had access to the same process my friends and co-workers did.
MadMan says:
"Will Genesis please change the lyrics to their song now too?
It's no fun
Being an undocumented immigrant."
I just went back and watched that video. Hadn't seen it since MTV in the mid-80's. Talk about non-PC. But by the end they're all clapping and singing along. It really looks like fun even though they are singing that "It's no fun . . . ."
Huuuuuuuuuuge aggressions. Way bigger than micro.
.
BUT, THEY ARE "ILLEGAL" AS THEY VIOLATE OUR DEMOCRATICALLY ENACTED LAWS.
They have names, and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected
What the hell does any of that have to do with the choice of term? "This illegal immigrant's name is Juan, he hope not to be caught, and dreams of having his illegal status changed." What's illogical, or morally wrong, with that sentence? Names? Lord but the hippie-dippie left can be silly.
I wonder about the dreams of Americans who want our government to enforce its laws, to promote fairness towards all by applying consistent standards, to embrace the fundamental concept of the rule of law, and to put its citizens' needs before some crass politically-driven agenda. Do their dreams deserve to be respected?
I am sympathetic to Hillary Clinton's need to avoid alienating people whose votes she will need next year.
You have to love the Democrat idea that we have to capitulate to the desires of the illegal immigrant population because there're just so many of there here now that we don't have a choice--to not give them what they want would be inhuman. They simultaneously lowball the actual #s, of course, and insist that we're talking really just about 8 or 10 million people (most of them children, young women, bright young college students, etc, naturally).
Does anyone ever call them on that--ever ask what's so special about that group of 10 million people? There're probably 10 million AR-15 owners, and definitely more than 10 million handgun owners. Should their dreams be respected?
If the rule is that once you have that many people in a cohort you have to change the law to not "oppress" them, not harm their interests, then why shouldn't some other group start flouting regulations themselves, doing what they want, and refuse to obey laws they think aren't fair? That's not, you know, the way we traditionally do things in America, but if abiding by the actual laws don't matter once your group is sufficiently large (and, of course, sufficiently telegenic/sympathetic) then all bets are off.
Every single thing about that woman repulses me.
I can see how a person could vote for Bernie, but unless one was certainly getting paid off to vote for Hillary I can't understand how she gets any votes.
An accurate accurate term is "un-deported"...since a Visa overstay may not fit the profile of "immigrant"
But..whatevs..Vagina!
This old here pantsuit
Twists in the wind
Oh look
Here it twists again
If pandering was an energy source, we could hook up a generator to Hillary and be freed of fossil fuels forever.
"Illegal immigrants" is not a pejorative term--it's simply a statement of fact that some immigrants are here illegally. Why is any other term (e.g., "undocumented immigrants") any better? To correctly convey what we're talking about, you have to use a clear term.
But hey, anything to trick minorities into voting for her.
It's all about getting votes and she could not give a shit about anything else. In a nutshell.
I find it impossible to believe she was ignorant of the objections to the term "illegal immigrants."
I guess stating facts is objectionable now.
Can't figure out why Trump is doing so well. The other candidates are so rational on immigration...
To make sure I got this: To Progressives, being in the country illegally is OK. Free speech, though, is verboten.
We should be good for another half an hour before the usual suspects get their talking points.
A good word for these people is scofflaws.
I think Hillary! is trying to voice the meme "there are no illegal people" but hasn't quite got it down yet (Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do- but can you run for president of the USA on it?).
"They have names, and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected," (or, perhaps what she means to say is, our laws and customs do not deserve respect?).
Now, try to imagine the equivalent of the Obama "Hope" poster, only this one is Hillary!
(BTW, I think "alien" in the context of "illegal alien" just means "non-citizen"?)
It seems like an abuse of the language to insist that an accurate phrase consisting of neutral components is itself pejorative and thus unacceptable, but I guess language constantly evolves. Orwell wasn't wrong, though, to point out the political nature of redefinition and the ties between language and though (w/r/t freedom, imagination, etc).
I was trying to think of another example where that's the case, though, and I haven't come up with many. "Negro" is probably one, but arguably that started off as a too-imprecise descriptor and was objectionable on that basis alone ("colored" might be a better example). Something like "dame" for woman, maybe, but I'd think that was slang from the beginning.
Pride and joy and dirty dreams and still surviving on the street
And look at me, I'm in tatters, yeah
I've been battered, what does it matter
Signal toughness? There is none to signal. She wanted to concede gracefully, probably while accepting a 6 or 7 digit check from immigrant rights organizations.
Can somebody tell the Left that 1984 was a CAUTIONARY tale...not a How-To book?
Differently statused immigrants?
Post a Comment