ld88's Blog

This is an excerpt from an article on the CNN web site by Ruben Navarrette Jr.:

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- For most of last night's debate on CNN, the Democratic presidential candidates did what you would expect: They argued with one another and tried to separate themselves from their opponents on issues ranging from Iraq to health care to gay marriage.

But it was on immigration reform that things got really interesting. There, some of the candidates seemed to be arguing with themselves and trying to separate what they believe now from what they believed previously. And that needle isn't always easy to thread.

Gov. Bill Richardson initially said that he supported the bipartisan Senate compromise, and now he says he is against it. When pressed during the debate to explain why a proposed "earned legalization" doesn't amount to amnesty, he said that, under the Senate plan (which he opposes), illegal immigrants seeking permanent residency would have to return home temporarily as part of a "touchback" requirement. Yet, Richardson said, he considers that same provision "unworkable."

Sen. Hillary Clinton says that she favors giving illegal immigrants a path to legalization. It's a reasonable position, but who would have it expected from the same elected official who, in February 2003, talked tough on the issue by reassuring the listening audience of WABC radio in New York that she was "adamantly against illegal immigrants?" If you're "adamantly against" something, why support a measure that excuses it and even, if you believe the critics, encourages more of the same in the years to come?

Sen. Barack Obama voted last year to build 750 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. Now he supports giving illegal immigrants a path to earned legalization. What a confusing message that sends to those who are considering entering the United States illegally: "We don't want you here, and we're going to try to fence you out. But, if you get in, we'll give you the chance to stay permanently."

And Sen. Joe Biden admitted during the debate that a wall wouldn't keep out illegal immigrants. That would be the same Joe Biden who last year, yep, voted for the wall that won't keep out illegal immigrants. So why support something that you know isn't going to work? Biden tried to sell the line that his intent in supporting the fencing was to keep out illegal drugs not illegal immigrants, who can go over, around or under any fence. As if drug smugglers haven't known how to go over, around or under border fencing.

What the?........... Why would anyone vote for ANY of these people? This is ridiculous! How can they (in good conscience) back-peddle just to sound good? Why is it so hard for them to have an opinion and stick with it? Why would the American people want someone to represent them when they can't even make up their minds?