Hillary Invokes Religion in Opposing Anti-Illegal Immigration Bill

[Fergasun]

I thought Democrats were all for separation of church and state? If you can't come up with a rationale argument, just call the other side a bunch of "meanies". The Senate GOP is also on the wrong side of this issue... a bunch of sell-outs. At least we are able to exert pressure on the House. How about enforcing the laws (with penalties and deportation) first, then worrying about the 13 M people here illegally already?

I wish people would stop (*edit*) arguing about Charlie Sheen, wire tapping and the war pay attention to issues that actually matter.

Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants

NEW YORK (Mar. 22, 2006) -- Invoking Biblical themes, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton joined immigration advocates Wednesday to vow and block legislation seeking to criminalize undocumented immigrants.

Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate and relative latecomer to the immigration debate, made her remarks as the Senate prepares to take up the matter next week.

Clinton renewed her pledge to oppose a bill passed in December by the House that would make unlawful presence in the United States _ currently a civil offense _ a felony. The Senate is set to consider a version of that legislation, as well as several other bills seeking to address the seemingly intractable issue of immigration reform.

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

...

She also called for new enforcement laws, including penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants, as well as a system to allow the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States to earn their citizenship.

Clinton expressed sympathy to representatives of communities along the U.S.-Mexico border that are frustrated by the stress of providing social services to large numbers of undocumented immigrants. But she also said she hoped to send a message that supporters of punitive immigration policy faced significant political risk for doing so.

"We want the outcome to be that they're on the wrong side of the politics as well as the wrong side of history and American values," she said.

President Bush has argued for a guest worker program that would allow undocumented immigrants already in the United States to keep their jobs for up to six years. The effort hasn't gained much momentum, partly due to fierce resistance from others within the GOP.

By BETH FOUHY

AP Political Writer

[rincewind]

I wish people would stop (*edit*) arguing about Charlie Sheen, wire tapping and the war pay attention to issues that actually matter.

The war isn't an issue that matters? :whoknows:

[tizzod]

This makes me absolutely freaking insane. What part of ILLEGAL do these people not understand?

And Hillary can't fall off the face of the Earth fast enough for me.

[Art Monk Fan]

Democrats are not above invoking religion, if it's helpful to their cause at the moment. They parade through Churches (especially African American Churches) every election, then spend their terms banning every possible public expression of faith -- nice.

[DarkLadyRaven]

You can invoke religion in the name of anything. Thats the problem with religion in general. I know people that invoke religion in avoiding Organ Donation stating God only gave us a certain number of organs and when it fails it fails. People cherry pick religion and thats why when a social conservative invokes religion I ignore it for I can read the bible for myself and discern.

EDIT: Hillarys argument is not original, a Cathloic religious leader wrote basically the same argument earlier this month in the LA Times. Hes going after more parishers for more donations to the church. Its about dollars here

[gbear]

Talk about misleading. She basically called them hipocrits. She said how can you claim to be the party of morals, the party of religon, and then take this stance. She's basically calling out what I call out a lot of my friends for: saying they base every moral decision on the WWJD principal and then totally going against it at the next opportunity. She never said the scriptures is what we should base the laws on as you say in your post. She seems to be questioning those who claim to base their position on religion. I would suggest rereading the article.

[SkinsOrlando]

Ahh yes another move by Hillary to try and move herself to the middle of the political spectrum. And maybe it's just me but her using religion as a platform for anything makes me vomit.

[rincewind]

Talk about misleading. She basically called them hipocrits. She said how can you claim to be the party of morals, the party of religon, and then take this stance. She's basically calling out what I call out a lot of my friends for: saying they base every moral decision on the WWJD principal and then totally going against it at the next opportunity. She never said the scriptures is what we should base the laws on as you say in your post. She seems to be questioning those who claim to base their position on religion. I would suggest rereading the article.

:applause: Totally agree.

[Kilmer17]

So it's okay for her to call others hypocrits for now following religion, while calling on scriptures; even though she doesnt want any religion in govt?

Isnt she a hypocrit for calling them hypocrits?

[Fergasun]

The war isn't an issue that matters? :whoknows:

What can we do about it? No one things it's a good idea to massively withdraw, so we're basically stuck with Iraq until it gets fixed. True?

Any discussion of the war inevitably leads back to 3 years ago and is more an argument about the past than any sort of discussion on where to go.

[Thiebear]

I have no problem with allowing 30% more Mexicans across the border legally.

I have no problem with allowing 100% here fill out forms to become legal.

I have a problem will allowing the ILLEGAL immigration...

FIX it, don't pat it on the head and then keep allowing it to be illegal...

Politicians willing to pander to 12 million illegals to get votes: SHOCKING!

[Fergasun]

Gbear,

Who bases their position on illegal immigration on religion?

By my count one of those people is George Bush, and he agrees with her. Furthermore, I thought the Bible called everyone to submit to the laws of their leaders. In that case the Bible supports stringent enforcement of current laws. Although this is one of the points I would make in private, I never would bring it up in discussion on illegal-immigration.

[SkinInsite]

How would this even deter illegal immigration? As long as there are people willing to hire them the flood will continue.

And wouldn't this just lock up people longer in our already crowded prison system.

[rincewind]

What can we do about it? No one things it's a good idea to massively withdraw, so we're basically stuck with Iraq until it gets fixed. True?

Any discussion of the war inevitably leads back to 3 years ago and is more an argument about the past than any sort of discussion on where to go.

Understandable. But it sounds like you have more of a problem with the way the war is discussed than with discussing the war in general. The war is the most important thing going on involving the United States today, and will be as long as our sons and daughters continue to fight and die. :2cents:

[dfitzo53]

So it's okay for her to call others hypocrits for now following religion, while calling on scriptures; even though she doesnt want any religion in govt?

Isnt she a hypocrit for calling them hypocrits?

No, she's not. Her stance is that religion and the state should be separate. She's asserting that the Republicans are being hypocritical in championing a faith-based worldview without applying it universally. The two have nothing to do with one another.

People need to be able to draw a distinction between the relationship between church and state, and the influence of an individual's religion on his or her politics.

I'm not sure I agree with what she's saying on the whole, but it isn't hypocritical.

[gbear]

Has she ever said she bases her position on the Bible? There are many in the gov who have, and I suspect she's pointing out to them the hipocracy of their vote.

Sorry, but aren't the Dem's usually on the side of keep religion out of our gov? What's wrong with attacking a position by pointing out that the logic used is not being applied in a consistant fashion? Where did she call on scriptures other than to say she's read them and the arguements usually based on them should be applied here too if that's the bases for a person's decision?

I understand where she is coming from. Personally though, I've never had success pointing out the hipocracy of a position with anyone. More power to her if it sinks in with any she is argueing with. Most of the time I've tried it, it just makes the person too angry to listen (maybe that's just my wife though ).

As for who bases their position on religion, how many people here and in Congress have said that Christianity should be allowed to rule our laws? She's simply stating that if you believe that, you are a hipocrit if you go looking to say it should apply to law x and not law y. That's what she is accusing the opponents of doing, being hipocrits and using scripture only when it points to a conclusion they already know they want to reach.

In all likelihood, we're both probably reading way too much into a throw away line...and the hipocrit is the strawman of her making.

[Kilmer17]

That's my point. If she thinks the Bible shouldnt be used, why is she using it? She should be applauding the position, not condemming it.

[gbear]

Except she doesn't want the bill. She's trying to use the logic of the other side against them (them being the strawman). How many times have you said well if you believe x, how can you do y? Does anything in that statement mean I believe x? Am I a hipocrit for saying it? Sorry Kilmer, I'm not trying to be dense, I'm just not following your logic.

[Kilmer17]

Okay, for starters, she never indicates who she is claiming scriptures say something other than what the bill says. As pointed out above, Bush is the one person who HAS used scripture to define his views, and they more closely match Hillary's.

Further, if her own beliefs are that their should be no religion in Govt, why does she care when other people ignore religion when making a govt decision?

[herrmag]

No, she's not. Her stance is that religion and the state should be separate. She's asserting that the Republicans are being hypocritical in championing a faith-based worldview without applying it universally. The two have nothing to do with one another.

People need to be able to draw a distinction between the relationship between church and state, and the influence of an individual's religion on his or her politics.

I'm not sure I agree with what she's saying on the whole, but it isn't hypocritical.

It is in the sense that Hilary is very sensitive to the separation of church and state. Then, she attacks the Repub's for not using their religious convictions in government matters. She's talking out of both sides of her mouth, as always, and is simply posturing to garner votes for her future election bid.

She represents everything I hate in a politician. Do you think she genuinely gives one crap about these immigrants? No, of course not. But they can vote (at least in Cali :doh: ). I hate people and/or politicians (I'm not convinced politicians are "people", but that's up for debate) that simply use others. What I hate more than that are the stupid Americans that can't read between the lines and take everything at face value (that statement is not directed at anyone on this board, obviously that is not the case with the vast majority of posters here).

Oh yeah, /rant

[gbear]

How many times have you said something like, "you say you want this public service (security), but giving that means giving information you think the government has no right to see. So stop giving us grief about collecting htis info."

What I see Hilary saying is you want religion in our gov, but you don't want to use to decide which way to vote on this= hipocrit.

Can you imagine saying I will vote yes if the bill begins with the word "the." That's used for 10 resolutions whihc you hate, but they all pass. Then a bill you want begins with the word "the." It gets voted down. You don't have to be in favor of the rule of yes for the word "the" to call all of those who voted based on the rule in the past a hipocrit. What I see is her questioning the reasoning process. All I can say iis good luck. Personally, I would take the loss on this question if everyone who voted for the bill would agree to never use religion as justification for any law and to actually have to argue on the basis of other reasoning. I don't want to hear the why it's ok to treat gays different under the law because of sadom and Gamorra (sp?) ever again from those straw men.

When you argue points on this board and try to show others that their thought pattern is flawed, do you ever take their thought pattern and run with it to show the illogic of the conclussion? It's a debate technique. Like I said though when trying to convince hte person I'm talking to to change, I've never had much luck with it. But then she's not trying to change the mind of those strawmen on the other side, she's trying to score points with the third parties (much more like a debate).

[Kilmer17]

Who is she specifically targeting?

And it rings hollow when she has been so outspoken against the use of religion in govt.

I agree with you that she is TRYING to impress her base and undecideds, I just think she fails miserably.

[Destino]

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony has come out against the bill as well and has asked Catholic priests to ignore it should it be passed. Is he wrong for thinking this thing goes against Christian principles too?

Personally I hate this kind of legislation. It targets the poor and accomplishes nothing. I see this as purely a move to satisfy the GOP base that has been rightly angered by the fact that their party has held full control and done nothing to secure the border.

The GOP can stop this problem tomorrow if they wanted to - but they don't. They could secure the border tomorrow by passing legislation that builds a massive fence and puts 10,000 new border patrol agents and equipment on the border. They could pass laws that put HR directors and stuffed suits that hire these people to make huge profits in prison for hiring illegals.

They won't. This is the best the "moral majority" will give you. They'll target the poor instead - because that way they can do NOTHING and still make their base feel all warm and tingly inside knowing they stuck it to those dirty illegals trying to steal our jobs.

[Kilmer17]

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony has come out against the bill as well and has asked Catholic priests to ignore it should it be passed. Is he wrong for thinking this thing goes against Christian principles too?

Personally I hate this kind of legislation. It targets the poor and accomplishes nothing. I see this as purely a move to satisfy the GOP base that has been rightly angered by the fact that their party has held full control and done nothing to secure the border.

If you want to stop illegal immigration and not be a heartless **** about it - you have to secure the border FIRST. Then make it illegal to hire illegal workers and make it hurt for those that do so anyway (jail time for the HR director would do the trick). Then figure out what to do with those already here - make the ones holding jobs and contributing to society legal and deport the rest.

Not at all. I think all three (Cardinal, Hillary and Bush) are right on this topic. My issue is with the motives of Hillary and her own hypocrisy.

I think in addition to punishing the corps, we also need to punish those committing the crime more harshly. Make our country less user friendly for illegal immigrants.

[Destino]

Not at all. I think all three (Cardinal, Hillary and Bush) are right on this topic. My issue is with the motives of Hillary and her own hypocrisy.

I think in addition to punishing the corps, we also need to punish those committing the crime more harshly. Make our country less user friendly for illegal immigrants.

You don't need to punish anyone if you actually secure the border and make it a serious crime to higher them. Anything more then that and I can't support it - some of you may be cool with it but I'm reminded of this...

"Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"

This law target the poor and outlaws helping them. Trying to stop them from coming here in the first place is one thing - but this legislation crosses the line IMO. Targetting the poor is just not something that I could get on board with.