Nancy Pelosi: just being here illegally "is not reason for deportation"; cheers George Bush on immigration

Rep. Nancy Pelosi appeared on Telemundo yesterday and showed that she has little use for our immigration laws.

She went beyond 2009's "Pelosi Rule" and now says that illegal aliens that haven't committed other crimes shouldn't be deported. That's not the position of our laws: in general, anyone who's here illegally can be deported no matter if they've committed other crimes.

Pelosi's policy isn't completely open borders where anyone could come here at any time for any reason, but it's close: she'd supplant current U.S. law with her own law that anyone who comes here illegally and doesn't commit other crimes gets to stay.

Pelosi's position is not "liberal" in the traditional sense. It's a policy of "limousine liberals" and the "1%".

Those helped by Pelosi's position would be foreign citizens, foreign elites (who wouldn't have to take care of their own people), Big Business that wants as much cheap labor as they can get (such as McDonalds and WalMart), corrupt politicians that want more racial power, and those in the "Nanny Employing Class".

Those harmed by Pelosi's position would be struggling American workers who'd be facing increased competition for scarce jobs.

Some quotes from the interview [1] (bolding added):

PELOSI: Well, I don’t know whether [Obama] has the authority [to declare a broad amnesty be executive fiat]. But I think that there is discretion in the law as to the impl– implementation, enforcement of– of– the legislation that is calling for these deportations. And I myself– coming from San Francisco, representing– being part of California– we have seen deportations that were totally unjustified, you know?

PELOSI: Our view of the law is that it– if somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation. If somebody has broken the law, committed a felony or something, that’s a different story. And– when those people are apprehended, they are deported. So– I don’t see any reason for these deportations.

PELOSI: And– there has been un– it hasn’t been a uniform– enforcement of the law. So I think the d– prosecutorial discretion to say, “If your only violation is you overstayed or came in in a certain way, that’s no reason to split a family.” And we have seen the personal stories. And we presented them to the administration. So I think– I’m hopeful that with the documentation that we are providing to counter what others may be saying about who’s being deported, that we will see action from the president.

INTERVIEWER: Will you ask– D.H.S., for example– to make sure that prosecutorial discretion in reality is being practiced. Because, as you yourself have just described, there are a lot of people who are being deported, who do not have a criminal record.

PELOSI: Exactly.

INTERVIEWER: So is D– do you feel D.H.S. is– maybe is just not really– putting that into practice?

PELOSI: Well– we know what we see. And that– you know, we say the plural of anecdote is not data. They think they see a different set of data. But our anecdotes are– are illustrative. There– there are so many examples. And for years, we have been after the administration not to h– to have this– disparity of discretion that is used. It’s wrong.

PELOSI: I mean, I– I can give you– I– I appeared with these people in church myself, in public– and the rest. They– they have– it breaks your heart to see what is happening. It’s not the right thing. It’s not who we are as Americans. And if they need any more justification or documentation, we have been providing it. We stand ready to continue to provide it. We would frankly though like to move on and pass comprehensive immigration reform so that the problem is put to rest. In the meantime, 1,100 people, on average, a day, it’s just wrong.


PELOSI: ...We are a nation of immigrants. The constant reinvigoration (?) of America, of newcomers to our country, with their hopes, their determination, their optimism for a better future for their families.

Well, these are– American attitudes. So every immigrant who comes makes America more American. And we have to respect that. President Bush did. President George W. Bush, he was great on immigration. And he has also said, “Let’s be respectful of the people that we’re talking about when we have this debate– on policy...

See comprehensive immigration reform for just some of the many downsides of that plan, and see Bush immigration and George W Bush for some of the ways he was "great on immigration".

One of the main reasons Bush supported immigration "reform" and mass immigration in general was to help Big Business make more money. One of Bush's immigration plans would have reduced U.S. wages to near world levels. Pelosi's plans are an informal version of that.

Bush wanted to change the laws to achieve what Pelosi would achieve by simply ignoring our current laws, and the damage to Americans caused by her plan would only be limited by how many people could come here illegally.

Whether she intends it or not, Pelosi's policies would help Big Business make more money and would harm American workers, just like George W. Bush would have done.

Want to do something about this? Search for Pelosi supporters (those who tweet at @NancyPelosi in a favorable sense), and make the points above to them. Suggest that they be traditional liberals, not the kind that thinks George W. Bush was "great on immigration".

[1] drmactioncoalition . org/pelosi-urges-stop-deportations