Hillary Clinton: Basket Case
Who really belongs in the basket of deplorables?
On September 10, 2016 Fox News reported, “Clinton: Half Of Trump Supporters ‘Basket Of Deplorables’ — ‘Racist, Sexist…You Name It.’”
This is the same Hillary Clinton whose campaign slogan, “Stronger Together” clearly does not include Americans who support Donald Trump and the effective enforcement of our immigration laws.
My recent article “Balkanized America: Politicians, pollsters, and pundits are all responsible for the nation’s division” addressed the way that Americans are being turned against each other by flawed polls and the disgusting notion that voters’ desires are determined by their race, religion or ethnicity.
This is the parallel universe of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their immigration anarchist cohorts wherein “Latino voters” supposedly oppose border security and effective immigration law enforcement.
To suggest that the conduct, goals and aspirations of Americans can be predicted solely by their race is, by definition, a blatant example of racism. This constitutes a vile form of profiling that would never be and should never be tolerated if done by law enforcement officers.
Furthermore, Hillary labels anyone who wants our borders secured and immigration laws enforced as xenophobic and racist, blithely ignoring the irrefutable fact that our immigration laws are utterly and completely blind as to race, religion and ethnicity.
America’s immigration laws were enacted to protect public health, national security, public safety and the jobs of American workers.
While Clinton brands as “racists’ those who understand the truth that our nation’s borders and immigration laws are our first line and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals and who therefore want our borders secured and our immigration laws enforced, in reality, she is actually the racist.
Furthermore, Americans who want our immigration laws enforced are not “anti-immigrant” as Hillary would have Americans believe, but are simply “pro-enforcement.” To be pro-enforcement is to be “pro-immigrant.” Under our immigration laws, the United States admits annually roughly one million lawful immigrants. The number of new immigrants the United States admits each year is greater than the number of new immigrants admitted by all of the other countries of the world combined.
These immigrants are immediately placed on the pathway to United States citizenship and are issued Alien Registration Receipt Cards (Green Cards) to signify their immigration status.
Under our immigration laws hundreds of thousands of lawful immigrants each year acquire United States citizenship via the naturalization process.
It defies reason to deem those who support the immigration laws under which one million aliens legally immigrate to America annually as “anti-immigrant.”
Hillary Clinton has used false assertions about the necessity of securing America’s borders and effectively enforcing our immigration laws to attack Donald Trump and those who agree with him about the immigration crisis.
In reality, failures of the Obama administration, and those that preceded it, to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws have facilitated terror attacks, enabled members of ethnic criminal gangs to flood neighborhoods across America and flooded communities with heroin and other illegal drugs.
Those ethnic immigrant gangs pose a threat to everyone but they pose the greatest threat to the safety and well-being of the residents of those ethnic immigrant communities where these aliens ply their violent trades. This is true for all such communities whose residents come from all over the world.
These failures and lack of integrity of the immigration system resulted in a massive influx of foreign workers who have displaced millions of American workers and driven down the wages of those who still have jobs.
In a very real sense, Obama and Hillary Clinton have weaponized the compassion of Americans where immigration is concerned, to convince Americans to support open borders and policies that would undermine national security, public safety and the overall well-being of Americans.
She has aimed that weapon against Donald Trump and his supporters because they understand the true significance of America’s borders and immigration laws.
In Clinton’s parallel universe, anyone who would bar entry of aliens into the United States for any reason is a bigot, a xenophobe or a hater who sits in her mythical “basket of deplorables.”
For Hillary though, facts and the truth are impediments to her goals.
The former Secretary of State must know what is contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The State Department is responsible for issuing visas to foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States. Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens is the section of the INA that guides the visa process.
The official website of the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, the division of the State Department that is charged with issuing visas for foreign nationals, contains the following pithy mission statement:
We protect the lives and interests of American citizens abroad and strengthen the security of United States borders through vigilant adjudication of visas and passports.
Hillary Clinton has promised to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with lawful status. These are illegal aliens who evaded the inspections process conducted at ports of entry altogether by entering the United States without inspection. She refers to them as “undocumented.” In reality they are un-vetted.
There would be no resources to conduct in-person interviews or field investigations of these millions of aliens to determine their true identities, including their true backgrounds or possible affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations. It would even be impossible to determine when they actually entered the United States.
Clinton is not alone in weaponizing the compassion of Americans where immigration is concerned. Terror operatives of ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terror organizations have used the immigration system as a means of entering the United States and embedding themselves in preparation for deadly terror attacks.
Yet Hillary Clinton has promised (threatened?) to increase the number of refugees that America would accept by more than 500%. On September 20, 2015 CBS New’s Face the Nation reported, “Hillary Clinton: U.S. should take 65,000 Syrian refugees.”
The massive flow of refugees out of Syria has provided ISIS with opportunities to embed their operatives within that human tsunami. This was the concern voiced by CIA Director John Brennan.
On June 16, 2016 CBS News reported, “ISIS working to send operatives to the West, CIA Director John Brennan says.”
Here is a significant excerpt from that news report:
Giving the Senate Intelligence Committee an update on the threat from extremists, Brennan said ISIS has been working to build an apparatus to direct and inspire attacks against its foreign enemies, as in the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels - ones the CIA believes were directed by ISIS leaders.
“ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West,” Brennan said, using another acronym for the group. He said ISIS probably is working to smuggle them into countries, perhaps among refugee flows or through legitimate means of travel.
Brennan also noted the group’s call for followers to conduct so-called lone-wolf attacks in their home countries. He called the attack in Orlando a “heinous act of wanton violence” and an “assault on the values of openness and tolerance” that define the United States as a nation.
Brennan’s concerns are hardly new.
In my article “Ignoring the 9⁄11 Commission’s Warnings: Even as terrorists expand operations in Europe,” I cited a segment under the heading “Terrorist Travel” found in Chapter 12 of the 9⁄11 Commission Report. Here are a few key paragraphs from that segment:
For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons. Terrorists must travel clandestinely to meet, train, plan, case targets, and gain access to attack. To them, international travel presents great danger, because they must surface to pass through regulated channels, present themselves to border security officials, or attempt to circumvent inspection points.
We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.
Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9⁄11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.
The optimistic statement that weaknesses have been reduced was written long before the Obama administration took office. In my judgment, any progress that may have been made was rolled back through Obama’s executive orders and other impediments the administration erected to thwart immigration law enforcement efforts.
The segment on Terrorist Travel ended with this recommendation:
Recommendation: Targeting travel is at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their money. The United States should combine terrorist travel intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.
Given the findings of the 9⁄11 Commission it is likely that Hillary Clinton would place the members of the 9⁄11 Commission and their staff in her “Basket of Deplorables” while ignoring that she herself should truly be the first one who should be dumped into her own basket.