Darrell Issa, PFAW, Huerta, Catholic leaders, immigration town hall meetings

Yesterday yet another town hall meeting on immigration was held, and this time they let in a whopping 200 people. (I foolishly tried to attend the last one they held; I won't make that same mistake again.)

The SDUT devotes most of this story to discussing the thoughts of those who favor illegal immigration, but an important comment from Darrell Issa does get mentioned:
Meantime, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, the grandson of Lebanese immigrants, accused Mexico of threatening America's long tradition of legal immigration because the vast majority of illegal immigrants here come from that nation.

Why, Issa asked, does illegal immigration come "99 percent (from) one country [Mexico] when the Statue of Liberty intended us to look at the downtrodden of the world equally?"
Earlier in the day, the illegal immigration supporters held their own press conference. Here are the thoughts of Melissa Daar, California policy and field director for People for the American Way:
"(Illegal immigrants) are here in our economy, they are working, they are buying things – you can't just pretend that they don't exist or pretend that we are going to kick them out, because we're not... We are not going to build a fence high enough to keep them out. So why not bring them in the system and have them pay more taxes, and give them insurance? ...It is more logical, it is more rational."
If her argument has any validity, it would apply in the future, right? So, we can fully expect to see Daar making this same argument after we have millions more new illegal aliens. So, in effect, Daar is promoting not open borders, but highly porous borders where almost anyone who can make it over the border and settle in for a bit will be granted citizenship. Her argument is "logical" and "rational", just as long as she realizes that's what the impact of her thoughts would be. However, a huge majority of Americans - once the impact of her thoughts was described - would oppose what she and PFAW want.

Reaching even further down into the barrel:
Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers, said the House-passed immigration bill would result in the incarceration of undocumented workers and represents a type of "ethnic cleansing."

"(This) is about putting people who are undocumented into prisons and building more prisons at the taxpayers' expense. . . . We think it is the prison-industrial complex that is supporting this bill, and the American public needs to know," she added.
Does anyone - aside from the Democratic Party and the MSM - take anyone who says things like that seriously? She also echoed earlier thoughts:
Huerta said the country historically has extended legalization to immigrants who have come to the United States to work.
A similar analysis as that above for Daar's comments applies. If people have the preconception, than millions more illegal aliens will come here to take advantage of future amnesties. It's better to disabuse them of that notion than to have to do this every decade or two.

Then, at the same level of the barrel, we've got Rosemary Johnston, a board member of the Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights:
"We have a different set of questions that drive comprehensive immigration reforms, like how many deaths will it take (until) we know that too many have died along the border with Mexico."
And the Most Rev. Gilbert E. Chavez, Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of San Diego:
"Every day we see in our parishes the humanitarian consequences of a broken system: families which are separated, migrant workers that are exploited by smugglers and unscrupulous employers, and human beings who die in the desert."
Shouldn't someone tell them that those who support illegal immigration - such as themselves - are partially responsible for those issues? Is it that they can't figure that out, or that they don't care?

Comments

If those are the best arguments that the Open Borders Lobby has, they are lamer than Tiny Tim.

Issa has forgotten -- or never knew -- that it's the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Illegal Immigration. The official name is "Liberty Enlightening the World," despite the familiar words of Emma Lazarus.

eh is right once more, the fact is all that you see is only for the show, the deal has been made and this non nation will become nothing but one more third world hell, but a hell with nukes! I only wish is to know what mexican drug cartel will control the WMD? After all the drug dealers( read mexico city ) are now controlling the pigs inside washington.

thank freedom thank gun's of freedom against evil doers that hate your freedoms. population is a weapon of evil.

"...the Statue of Liberty intended us to look at the downtrodden of the world equally?"

If this is seen as some sort of responsibility of America -- to forever welcome the world's "downtrodden" -- then we are in even bigger trouble.

Isn't it time that America be recognized as a fully-formed nation, with its own national identity? A national identity that is worth protecting, but that is threatened by today's mass immigration, legal and illegal.