Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Tired of Facebook censorship? Join Tea Party Community.

Harry Reid: Democrats HATE Illegals, Blacks, Women, and Muslims

Just so we’re clear, Leftists know illegals should not be in America.

These clowns pretend to care about the plight of Mexicans (and others) who come to America illegally. But truth be told, Leftists HATE illegals.

That’s right Democrats, Progressives, Leftists, call them what you want, hate illegals. They hate illegals, blacks, women, Muslims, and I do mean hate them.

Why else would you belittle them?

The only thing that matters to Leftist when it comes to displaying their nature is who is in office. Take illegals for example.

President Donald Trump takes a lot of heat for his common sense approach to immigration. Illegals create problems, while legal immigration needs to be reformed. No argument there.

Using that reasoned logic, illegal trespassing must be stopped. Even the Democrats know this. They realize how much illegal immigration hurts American citizens, as well as the countries losing their human resource.

And there was a time when Democrats used common sense on illegals, and demanded what Trump demands now.

 

Indeed, back in 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said “no sane country” would ever reward illegal immigrants with citizenship or amnesty. Further, Reid attacked the use of the 14th Amendment that allows “anchor babies” to become U.S. citizens, just because they happened to be born here.

The question begs, “Why would Harry Reid flip on such a great stance?”

According to Politifact, it was between 1993 and July of 2010.

Reid was asked about the issue in a press conference on August 3, 2010. He did not answer the question directly but quoted extensively from Michael Gerson, a Washington Post columnist. Gerson wrote a column on July 30, 2010, in which he said that Sen. Lindsey Graham — a South Carolina Republican who is considering a constitutional amendment to change the birthright citizenship process — has “either taken leave of his senses or of his principles.”

So, in 1993, Reid was clearly for restricting birthright citizenship. He introduced a bill that would have “clarified” the 14th amendment to mean that children of illegal immigrants do not automatically become U.S. citizens at birth. Twenty years later, he seems to be agreeing with Gerson that Republicans have either lost their senses or abandoned their principles.

However, Reid has openly acknowledged his changed position on at least two occasions. In a House floor speech on August 5, 2006, he admitted that the “low point” of his legislative career came when he introduced the “travesty that [he] called legislation” in 1993. The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported on December 13, 1999, that Reid said that the legislation is “way up high” on his “list of mistakes” and that it was “short-sighted.” He added, “I didn’t understand the issue. I’m embarrassed that I made such a proposal.”

Did the Mexican Mafia threaten Reid, we may never know.

This story has Reid regretting the remarks sooner than 2010.

His reasoning proves very interesting, given the state of things in American then versus now.

“He had a change of heart on this issue brought about by several meetings in the community with immigrants and a conversation with his wife,” the spokesman said.

Rabin-Havt explained that not long after Reid introduced the 1993 bill, the senator was influenced by hearing the stories of immigrants and learning more about how his wife’s family came to the U.S. to live.

In an Aug. 5, 1993, news release unearthed today by the Drudge Report, Reid’s office said he introduced the bill ‘[i]n response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens.”

You can bet there is much more abuse of social programs today by illegals, than there was in 1993.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies:

This report is a companion to a recent report published by the Center for Immigration Studies looking at welfare use by all immigrant households, based on Census Bureau data. This report separates legal and illegal immigrant households and estimates welfare use using the same Census Bureau data as that study. This analysis shows that legal immigrant households make extensive use of most welfare programs, while illegal immigrant households primarily benefit from food programs and Medicaid through their U.S.-born children. Low levels of education — not legal status — is the main reason immigrant welfare use is high.

Among the findings:

  • An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
  • Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.

And what of terrorism? The uptick since the 90s is frightening.

Consider what we wrote recently of the escalation of Muslim attacks:

In the ’70s, the only terror attack took place in Saudi Arabia. In that attack The Grand Mosque was attacked. 240 people were killed and 180 wounded.

In the ’80s, 657 people were killed 303 wounded in less than a dozen attacks. The largest attack of this decade was at the Marine barracks in Beirut where 307 Marines were killed and 75 wounded. The countries of attack were the usual suspects. Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, and other Middle Eastern countries. Hardly a decade goes by without an attack on Israel.

Even European countries were not immune, as Denmark and Spain.

By the ’90s, Islamic attacks begin to escalate. There were almost 3 dozen attacks, and the total carnage for the decade came to 1,049 killed and 7,757 wounded. As you can see, things have begun to ratchet up quite a bit. The list of countries has grown significantly as well.

China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and many others have now joined the list of countries who’ve come under attack.

So let’s recap.

Decade  People Killed   People Wounded   # of Countries Attacked

’70s                       240                        180                                      1

’80s                        657                        303                                      9

’90s                     1,049                     7,757                                    19

These numbers are bad enough.

But when you get to the new millennium, things get far worse.

By the new millennium, they stopped measuring terror attacks by decade and began measuring by year.

In 2001 alone there were 4,687 deaths by Islamic terrorists and 13,500+ wounded. 

So in one year more people were killed and wounded by Islamic terrorists than in the modern era. The largest attack occurred in America, as the World Trade Center buildings were targeted. 2,996 people died, and over 6,000 were wounded.

In 2002, 821 people were killed, and 2,897+ were wounded.

In 2004, 1,066 people were killed, and 4,016 were wounded.

The list of countries grows and the number of attacks rises with deaths and wounded varying, but nevertheless numerous.

Only a fool would ignore what’s happening here.

But, what’s worse is we now have well over 2000 Muslim jihad attacks annually.

So, there exist no rational reason for Reid to have a change of heart on illegal immigration or the 14th Amendment. Nor does terror give him an out.

Harry Reid does have one out: sellout!

 



Send this to a friend