Thompson On Immigration
December 20, 2007 – 3:17 pm“It is not good, in my opinion, for our country to start becoming dependent on a constant flow of illegal immigrants that are usually less educated and come here only because they’ll work cheaper than somebody else will. And when and if they were to assimilate into American society, we would need another 11 or 12 million, and another 11 or 12 million after that. We have to look out No. 1 for what is right, what is the law.
If you’re coming and saying ‘It’s against the law, but,’ I think you’ve got to have a very good reason, and I very seldom see a reason that justifies the ‘but’ if it’s against the law. We can address, I think, our needs … without succumbing to the notion that we have to have a constant flow of illegal immigrants.
Over a period of time, I think the situation will reverse itself. The parents make that decision, just as parents would under any circumstances. If they are going to be leaving the country, I would expect them to make the decision to take their child with them. But, if they make other arrangements with a loved one or someone who is here for that child, then they could do that, too. That’s not really as much of a current issue in terms of our illegal immigration problem as chain migration is. These children can be used as so-called anchor babies and they can grow up and bring in many, many other members of their family. I think that ought to be limited … to spouses and children. I think that’s where our concentration needs to be focusing.”
5 Responses to “Thompson On Immigration”
If these were spontaneous remarks, Thompson is about as incoherent as George W. Bush.
If this was a prepared speech, he’s even dumber than I thought.
Either way, the man is a joke. How did he ever become a US Senator???
By Steve Levine on Dec 21, 2007
Those were responses to questions about his immigration policy. I agree, he rambles on endlessly and incoherently.
How did Bush become our President?
By Joshua Rosenstock on Dec 21, 2007
As we’ve noted before, Josh, Bush is no brighter than a disappointingly-large segment of our voting population, which was conned into voting for Incurious George by a combination of pandering and fear-mongering.
What was it Bush couldn’t get straight? “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on…”
We get the government we deserve, and until we deserve better by becoming better-informed voters (and therefore less subject to being manipulated), we’ll continue to elect candidates like Bush.
By Steve Levine on Dec 21, 2007
Steve,
I agree. It is the role of the media to act as the public’s eyes and ears and hold our elected leaders to account, especially when things go awry. Unfortunately, the White House press corps was far more interested in fawning over and deferring to Bush and his team, for fear of being labeled anti-American or losing a potential big scoop. Matt Cooper and Judy Miller saw how well that approach worked.
It is the duty of alternative media such as the blogosphere to perform this essential function for our democracy, because it is clear the mainstream media has repeatedly failed this basic test of reporting and journalism.
I like to think that my little corner of the internet serves a higher purpose besides showing the world how astute and bright I am.
By Joshua Rosenstock on Dec 21, 2007
Personally, I think this is a model of clarity compared to any off-the-cuff remarks by Bush, which his handlers have striven mightily to prevent him from making.
I always assume that an inability to articulate your thoughts clearly is the sign of a disordered mind. There may be exceptions, but it’s served me well as a general principle.
It’s his manner of substituting theatrical poses for substantive commentary that turns me off most to Thompson.
By Vince Williams on Dec 21, 2007