Clinton: Saying 'illegal immigrants' was poor word choice
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton says her use of the term "illegal immigrants" was a "poor choice of words" and she's pledging not to use it anymore.
Clinton was asked about her use of the term to describe people who are in the U.S. illegally during a question-and-answer session Tuesday on Facebook held by Telemundo.
During a stop in New Hampshire earlier this month, the Democratic presidential candidate referred to immigrants that way while discussing her support for a barrier along the Mexican border as a New York senator.
Clinton says on Facebook that the people "at the heart of this issue are children, parents, families." She says, "They have names, and hopes and dreams that deserve to be respected."
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2c321e5c8f1a43169a7f4a46f312050c/clinton-saying-illegal-immigrants-was-poor-word-choice
while discussing her support for a barrier along the Mexican border as a New York senator I didn't know that.
earthside
(6,960 posts)... I'll defend her or anyone on this point.
Individuals who immigrate into the United States outside of the law are illegal immigrants.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Does your premise and labeling include all of north American history, or merely in the here and now? If the latter, what is the precise, relevant and objective distinction?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)which has chosen to exercise its legitimate right to set laws controlling its borders.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)since they don't exist in reality.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is inherent in the concept of sovereignty. And just because nobody has gone around with a big piece of chalk and drawn all those lines on the ground doesn't mean that there aren't or shouldn't be any borders.
If you think there should be no such thing as countries or nations or states, and that everyone on earth should just mill around wherever they please, just say so. You would find it very hard to collect taxes, provide services, or accomplish much of anything, though.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)does have a physical existence and does mark the agreed upon border between Mexico and the US state of Texas. And yes, there is a right by both the US and Mexico to control the integrity and passage of migrants across this border.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I think you will find some conflict of opinion among Native American peoples as to the legality of the people currently making such distinctions.
ileus
(15,396 posts)and still others won't admit we are a country...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)They are in this country in violation of our laws, laws which we have every right to put in place. Lots of people try to paper over that fact with clever euphemisms, but shouldn't one of the main expectations of a visitor to this country be that they respect our laws and customs, even those they find silly or inconvenient, just as they would expect of an American visiting their country?
Our immigration laws may leave a lot to be desired, but that does not give people the right to violate them with impunity.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Glad she's moving away from it.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,658 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I hope she meant it when she misspoke. I'd feel the same way if Bernie did too. I would hope both don't think that way towards people who want a better life for their family. I think both are good people and she made a mistake.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Because the PC speech police have designated that as the only acceptable phrase? Because no one is willing to be honest about the fact that they are in this country illegally?
Omaha Steve
(99,658 posts)That is what she will have to use.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)if Hillary isn't PC enough about it.
ileus
(15,396 posts)ripcord
(5,408 posts)But please don't use it.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's is consistent... depending on which candidate is engaged as such, it's either a flip-flop and triangulation, or the candidate is merely reaching out to its constituents with a maturation of wisdom.
Human bias is ever on display... yet most obvious during primary season.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)she seems to change with what is politically convenient for her at the moment.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I'm not going to vote for her anyway.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)When she is the Democratic party nominee?
coyote
(1,561 posts)I won't vote for her in the GE either. I cannot vote for a corporate candidate that actively works against my best interest, not to mention her history of bad judgement. Most likely, I will sit that election oupt. This country needs a hard turn to the left, not some status quo candidate that is out for herself, not the people.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But you'll help a racist nutball warmongering corporate Republican get elected by sitting home on election day.
Got it.
McKim
(2,412 posts)She clearly needs training to get up to speed with what people are thinking out there. Too many fancy dinners and too many managed "focus groups" from the uninformed leave her thinking in the past. But is there time enough for training or do we go with Senator Sanders who needs no training on social justice talking and doing points.