Video shocker: Matthews says he doesn’t think Democrats want to stop illegal immigration

OK, not so much a shocker because … well, it’s true. But Matthews, reverting to his early talk show host form, takes a shot at the Democrats progressive agenda for 2011, and illegal immigration is the eye of the impending storm. Says Matthews, “I don’t trust the Democrats when it comes to stopping illegal immigration”. There’s a lot to digest here my little “hostage takers” but suffice it to say .. he plays Hardball with progressives.

Matthews kicks off his interview with Richard Wolffe and Karen Finney with the question of the day … what will be the progressive’s agenda in 2010. Immigration,Cap and Trade, protecting the social programs passed in 2010. But what Matthews is really fishing for is a new social welfare program, and with these guests, as Matthews says, he comes up with zero. When Wolffe objects and says immigration is a social reform, Matthews bites and in the process exposes the progressives to progressives, the fact that Democrats really don’t want to stop the flow of illegals into the US. He’s right and it makes for surprisingly entertaining tele.


He’s right of course. But lest you think he’s anything but a progressive himself, you would be wrong. He wants to see a “positive” progressive agenda and what he doesn’t want is to see the Democrats become the very thing he and other Democrats hammered the Republicans for, becoming the party of no, which of course is exactly what they will become. Standing on principle?

UPDATE: You would think I would check AP before writing this stuff. Analysis on the Matthews rant from the man:

What he’s actually doing here, whether he means to or not, is making the case against the DREAM Act. It’s not that the subjects of that bill are unsympathetic — they’re probably the most sympathetic subset of America’s illegal alien population — but rather that because the left is transparently opposed to serious border enforcement, the right can’t afford to make any unilateral concessions on this issue. Period, full stop. In fact, Matthews could have and should have completed his thought by exploring the many wonderful little obstruction techniques that amnesty shills will use to roll back the enforcement part if/when a comprehensive immigration bill ever passes.

8 replies
  1. Marilyn
    Marilyn says:

    Unlike in the 80's We The People want secure boarders, diligence on knowing who is here and where they are, wheather here on a a work, student, or visitor visa.  Then we can deal with those here illegally. 

  2. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Neither party wants to stop the flow of illegals. The reason is the same as opening factories in China: cheap labor. BTW, the Courant yesterday had a picture of a piece of the wall at the US-Mexico border. It reminded me of the Great Wall of China: another failure to keep people from crossing a border.

  3. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Does anyone think that Matthews is trying to gain a bigger audience by lobbing some "Hardballs" at Liberals on conservative issues? I don't and never will trust a liberal to see the other side.

  4. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Matthews is one of those birther nuts so anything he says can be ignored. We need to move on to more important issues like how George W. Bush stole the 2000 election.

  5. BEA
    BEA says:

    "Well, all day long on Radio Vice I hear how great Matthews is at this or how wonderful Matthews did that! Matthews, Matthews, Matthews!!"

    Just kidding…but he certainly is giving us a lot to talk about lately isn't he? I don't know…if this is the real CM, he may be growing on me, albeit like a fungus.


    {As a side note…this morning on FOX I heard that a "society of professional journalists" (I'm pretty sure that's code for "raging liberal dems") finds the term "illegal immigrants"offensive. Seriously?!?! You want to know if we are a nation of wussies? You betcha!! and this is just another perfect example.}

  6. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    We could virtually eliminate illegal crossing at our southern border- it would require nothing more than a bureaucratic smack down with Mexico, ten snipers and $1,000 in ammo.  Ironically we can't enforce our border, but we can enforce the world's largest tax system of "voluntary compliance"…  There's no compassion if you're on the wrong side of the tax code, but there's unlimited compassion and not an ounce of cynicism if you're here illegally, in your 39th week of pregnancy, and using a stolen identity…  We're not a nation of wussies, we're Uncle Sam's B*tches!

  7. Dave in EH
    Dave in EH says:

    A couple of points.

    1)  The Great Wall of China failed primarily because the Chinese, lacking the will to man the wall with Chinese soldiers, hired barbarians from the North to man the wall against other barbarians.  Just as when the mother tongue of the Roman legions began to transitition more toward German than Latin was a sign of the internal rot of the Empire, when you start hiring barbarians to man the barricades to defend the Empire from barbarians, it is a sign of weakness.

    2)  Unless you maintain the borders, you don't have a nation.  Why should we, as a nation, permit Mexico and points south to use the U.S. as a dumping ground for their largest export, which is poverty?

Comments are closed.