Bernie Sanders killed immigration reform

Bernie Sanders, a foe of “open borders,” voted against the 2007 immigration reform bill. And he did so for purely political reasons. Fast forward to 2016, and suddenly Sanders favors immigration reform. Why? Because he wants to win Latino votes in tomorrow’s big California primary.

Hillary Clinton voted for immigration reform in 2007.

I’m not writing this to criticize Sanders, per se. I am writing this to show that Bernie Sanders is not ten feet tall. Sanders, like all politicians, sometimes makes decisions — even rather important decisions — based on the political winds of the moment, rather than the overall merits of the issue.

Vermont, the state Sanders represents in Congress, doesn’t have many Latinos. While at the same time, unions, which Sanders strongly supports, were not terribly keen on letting more foreigners into the US, lest it lower wages for native-born workers.

Gay & trans contingent at the huge immigration rally a few years back in Washington, DC.

Gay & trans contingent at the huge immigration rally a few years back in Washington, DC.

Then, in the lead up to the California primary, Sanders started changing his tune. In order to woo younger Latino voters. Sanders no longer complains about our “open border” with Mexico. And Sanders no longer talks about Mexican immigrants hurting American-born workers. Instead, Sanders is now claiming that he opposed immigration reform because it didn’t include enough protections for farmworkers.

More from the Washington Post:

To get votes, Sanders has changed his tune on the issue. He used to decry “open borders.” No more. Sanders has been heavily emphasizing his opposition to the Obama administration’s deportation of undocumented immigrants.

— In 2007, Sanders helped torpedo comprehensive immigration reform. Bernie hails from a state with very few Latinos. Throughout his career, when forced to choose, he has consistently put the interests of labor unions (who have historically wanted to minimize immigration in order to increase wages for native-born workers) ahead of Latinos. Now he claims he opposed the bill because it didn’t include enough protections for farmworkers, but the people who were closely involved in the effort remember it very differently.

And if you don’t believe the Washington Post, here’s independent fact-checker Politifact:

Sanders’ presidential campaign website says he would “sign comprehensive immigration reform into law to bring over 11 million undocumented workers out of the shadows.”

However, he wasn’t always on that side of the issue. In 2007, when George W. Bush was president, Sanders joined with some conservative Republicans in opposing a comprehensive immigration bill. The bipartisan bill, sponsored by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., went down in defeat.

At the time, Sanders worried that an influx of legal immigrants would lower wages for workers. “Sanders was basically one of our only allies … especially for low-skilled workers” in 2007, Ana Avendano, a former top immigration official at the AFL-CIO, told Politico earlier this year. “He adamantly put his foot down and said these kinds of programs (allow) employers to bring in more and more vulnerable workers.”

“I wasn’t happy when he voted against the bill and I wasn’t happy we lost. It hurt,” immigration-reform advocate Frank Sharry told Politico.

Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Tom Harkin of Iowa joined Sanders in voting against the measure. Clinton, by contrast, voted for the immigration bill, as did then-Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Bernie Sanders is a good guy with some exciting ideas. But he’s not the liberal purist that some try to make him out to be. On one of the core liberal issues, immigration reform, Sanders was on the wrong side, helping conservative Republicans kill legislation that was of critical importance to the Latino community. And now that Sanders desperately wants to win the California primary, he’s suddenly flip-flopping on his support for California’s Latinos.

I don’t think any of that makes Bernie Sanders a bad man. It does, however, make him a typical establishment politician who is willing to hurt working class people when it helps him politically.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

74 Responses to “Bernie Sanders killed immigration reform”

  1. Don Chandler says:

    Thanks for the republican rant.

  2. johnsmart says:

    she wasted the old vermont turd. that is all the matters.

  3. johnsmart says:

    she did not debate him because she was busy with more important things. Sanders is not and was not important in CA and those of us who live here sensed it – her SMASHING victory here and NJ proved it. Sanders was toast. Is toast and needs to hush up and get on board . Or just go away.

  4. Moderator3 says:

    It’s like waving a red cape in front of a bull.

  5. Moderator4 says:

    You will have to find him on another blog to discover his answer to this, Badgerite. He has been banned from this blog.

  6. Moderator4 says:

    One sometimes wonders what certain commenters are thinking when they insult, not just other commenters, but the moderators, after they have been warned.

  7. Moderator3 says:

    Don’t mess with Mod 4.

  8. Moderator4 says:

    We are volunteers. And since you apparently do not like it here, let us help you out the door.
    You are banned.

  9. Richard Turnbull says:

    Oooh, the big bad idiot corporate stooge censors hate vigorous debate against despicable people — enjoy your collective safari into irrelevance, poltroons.

  10. Badgerite says:

    Something tells me you are not even a Sanders supporter.
    How’s that Mexican judge thing going for you?

  11. Badgerite says:

    They opined that it would be the only way he could win the nomination and basically said, “Help us, Obie Won (FBI). You’re our only hope.”

  12. Patriciabmiles2 says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!tr944ur

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !tr944u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsMaxGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!tr944o….,..

  13. Bill_Perdue says:

    The parties are the same and both, happily, are in trouble. A vote for Trump is a vote for Clinton, and vice versa.

    Sayonara, Democrat.

    ”The dominant political Parties are anything but dominant in terms of representing the people they claim to represent. The largest category of eligible voters are those that don’t vote followed by political Independents. Data Sources: Gallup, Pew.

    Here the term sleight-of-hand is brought to bear through the presentation of local choices as global— through the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump for President as the realm of political possibility rather than the limitation on possibility that they represent. The illusion of putting Hillary Clinton, who is a full-time employee of Wall Street and Exxon-Mobil and has the paychecks to prove it, or Donald Trump, who inherited a real-estate empire worth millions (billions in today’s dollars) and who is friends with the rich and powerful (including Hillary Clinton), forward as representatives of ‘the people’s’ interests requires radically misrepresenting those interests. By posing Clinton and Trump as oppositional a realm of difference is created that limits political choice to one or the other. Left unsaid is that registered Democrats plus registered Republicans constitute less than one third of the electorate— both candidates are ‘fringe’ in terms of public support for their Party’s programs.”

  14. Nick010 says:

    The reality is that slave labor provides unfair competition with free labor. Mexican “guest workers,” who would be denied basic human rights and paid subsistence wages, would provide unfair competition, just as children chained to machines in Bangladesh do. What we need to do, and what Clinton and her Republicans allies do not do, is to support human rights of workers everywhere. So the exploitation of foreign workers and unemployment of domestic workers are two sides of the same coin.

  15. Moderator4 says:

    Disagree all you want, but cease the ad hominem attacks. This is a warning.

  16. Richard Turnbull says:

    Look, it follows from my training in the law that I can offer an assessment of what might very well go down, based on publicly available information. Don’t be shocked if HRC and her staff really do get indicted, there’s plenty of grounds for it based on what’s already out there, and she can arrange a vigorous defense.

  17. Richard Turnbull says:

    You don’t realize how damaging indictments will be WHEN they happen closer to the GE and help elect Trump, got it. You really need to research further as to all the ramifications of the private server, bringing in companies with no security clearances, the Clinton Global Initiative shenanigans, and much more. Good luck.

  18. Jessica Piedra says:

    Or perhaps they should tell the whole story. We got a terrible set of immigration rules under Bill Clinton in 1996. The 2007 bill was also a terrible sell-out of the Latino community. Grassroots advocates worked to defeat it in the end because it would have made things worse.

  19. Badgerite says:

    Well, I will take your word for it. And if so. You have made a valid point.

  20. Badgerite says:

    Well, all right. If that is the case. At least that is a valid point.
    it does not change my opinion of his desire to see Hilary Clinton indicted for jaywalking because it would be convenient to his campaign.
    That, for me, is where he is no different than Karl Rove, mam.

  21. Jessica Piedra says:

    The current bills are very different – only addressing people who are already here. The 2007 bill would have brought in tons of temporary workers who would have been completely dependent on their employers for status and thus very vulnerable to exploitation and undermining american workers.

  22. Badgerite says:

    Alright. Talk about the difference in the bills proposed. At least then you would have a basis to say that the change in his stance was not simply political opportunism.
    And, so, what are the differences in that regard? Pray tell. Are there any at all?

  23. Jessica Piedra says:

    Yes, it is very different. The newer bills do not create huge temporary worker programs that could be very bad for working class Americans. The 2007 bill was terrible – immigration activists started working for its defeat.

  24. Jessica Piedra says:

    Most legitimate immigration activists started working against the passage of this bill that would have brought more prisons and more slave-labor temporary workers without really giving relief to the 11 million immigrants already here. It was a very bad bill that the unions were right to oppose. Let’s talk about 2013 and how the republicans blocked that bill.

  25. Badgerite says:

    Well, that is what Hilary Clinton says. I think her interpretation of the law is probably more accurate than yours.
    Did I mention that according to FBI sources they have found no evidence of any “malicious” flouting of regulations or laws. f se
    And no actual breach of security. What’s more, the IG report makes clear that Colin Powell engaged in the very same practice.
    The IG does not rip into Powell apparently on the basis of contention that there were more frequent and detailed warnings issued as to the dangers of private email usage during her tenure. Uh huh. That sounds like a real basis to send one person to jail and another one not.
    Indeed, the report itself is about State Department compliance with Federal records law. Not just Hilary Clinton. And yes, the report is supposed to detail a long standing and systemic problem with updating record keeping and communications in the digital age. But I don’t suppose that would fit your narrative.

  26. Badgerite says:

    In other words, his position now in supporting a bill that he previously opposed probably is phony stance. You mean he isn’t Superman?

  27. Badgerite says:

    Jane Sanders and various an sundry supporters too legion to list.
    But, you know,,,,,,Jane Sanders. On national TV.

  28. Badgerite says:

    Well, this stuff is coming out in dribs and I have to rely on press coverage as I don’t really have time to read and 83 page report, let along in depth. But,,,already responded. See Washington Post article .
    And also see the phrase “maliciously flouted” as to gross negligence.
    The bottom line is that the IG review was a review of State Department compliance with Federal law requirements. As such, he can make recommendations to the State Department. Use of personal email accounts is not uncommon. Only three people have used them exclusively one of whom was Colin Powell. One person has received an internal rebuke for this. And that was Scott Gration who was an ambassador to Kenya during the Clinton tenure at State.
    Clinton is right that the FBI probe is the definitive one with respect to any kind of criminal charges or fines. The IG has authority only to make a report to the State Department. They have not said they would even issue an internal rebuke. Which is what they would do.
    This is the ridiculousness and offensiveness of he basic Sanders supporter and his campaign. Clinton supporters are actually pretty chill about this. It is the Sanders supporters who are apoplectic over the prospect that Clinton will not be indicted. And it will, indeed, be a big nothing burger. With fries. HAAa Goodman is the proverbial pot.

  29. Richard Turnbull says:

    She was NOT “following allowed past practice” — look, you are really too dense and biased to bother with any longer. It will become clear when the FBI investigation concludes.

  30. Badgerite says:

    Okey dokey. Back to the Washington Post article ‘.
    “The IG ‘s Review found that many employees sometimes used personal accounts for public business, the report identifies only three who used it exclusively: Clinton, Powell and Scott Gration who served as ambassador to Kenya under Clinton in 2011 and 2012. But only one -Gration-faced an internal rebuke. for doing do.”
    It is a crime to violate some administrative rules. In this case, the IG was charged with reviewing compliance for the State Department with respect to governmental laws. There is no enforcement authority in that position. The State Department can issue a rebuke should it so choose. Any criminal assessment of conduct is left to the Department of Justice which is the probe that Hilary Clinton and her aide are awaiting and during which she and her aides will be made available.

  31. Badgerite says:

    Here we go, Ipso facto. It is at the Washington Post and is entitled: State Inspector General’s Report Sharply Criticizes Clinton’s email practices. Google it.
    “While the IG review dealt with the State Department’s compliance with public records laws, Clinton is still awaiting the the conclusion of a separate FBI inquiry into whether she mishandled classified information through her use of the private e-mail setup.”
    “Officials have told the Washington Post that the FBI investigators have so far found little evidence that Clinton maliciously flouted classification rules. Clinton and her team have cooperated with the FBI and officials have said they plan to interview Clinton about the matter soon.” I believe the phrase is “maliciously flouted”. Gross negligence is a term and how it is defined by the Justice Department, I’m guessing, is “maliciously flouted”.
    Further things to note. Colin Powell engaged in the same practice during his tenor and no one is proposing to prosecute him or that he “maliciously flouted” the statute. Hilary Clinton was following allowed past practice. No evidence of hacking was found.
    The appropriate action for anything to come out of this report would be an internal rebuke as has happened in the past.
    “While the IG Review found many employees sometimes used personal accounts for public business, the report identifies only three who used it exclusively: Clinton, Powell, and Scott Gration, who served as ambassador to Kenya under Clinton in 2011 and 2012. But only one, Gration, faced an internal rebuke for doing so”
    Her actions in terms of using a personal account were known and were not unusual or out of line with past practice. Only one person has ever received even an internal rebuke for this. There is no showing of classified information being compromised and there is no showing of gross negligence in its handling and that would be a “malicious flouting” of he rules. The idea that Hilary Clinton should be prosecuted because “the report notes that by Clinton’s tenure, the department’s warnings about the ‘obligation’ to generally use government email-and the risks of not doing so- had become more detailed and frequent.” is ludicrous. As of yet, there has not been even an internal rebuke from the State Department Which would be the appropriate action for any alleged impropriety.
    HAAAA Goodman is not the least bit biased. As we all know.

  32. TiberiusB says:

    “his campaign opining that Hilary Clinton should be indicted for a non crime”

    When did his campaign call for Hillary to be indicted?

  33. TiberiusB says:

    I would be interested to know the differences, as well. That, again, would be a VASTLY better article. Again, journalism.

  34. Richard Turnbull says:

    It’s a CRIME to violate administrative rules, the only question is appropriate penalties. For most of these they stipulate up to five years and a fine of no more than $2,000 for the less serious violations. Claiming that what she did is a “non crime” is just false.

  35. Richard Turnbull says:

    Hahahahahahaha — you don’t even grasp the difference between “then” and “than” after writing that? You haven’t used it correctly, but then on the other hand, your incoherent rant about the First Amendment rather than sticking to the issues is very damn funny, so make the most if it.

  36. Richard Turnbull says:

    A total and utter failure. More Latin for you: Ignoratio elenchi fallacy.
    Try reading the background in more depth, you seem totally confused about what the FBI is investigating and what the OIG report was about. It’s amazing.

  37. Badgerite says:

    What it proves is that you 1) don’t know the answer or 2) know the answer but it does not favor your particular take on Bernie Sanders explanation as to why he changed his position.

  38. Badgerite says:

    Again. Unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority is the controlling principle here. The statute controls and she clearly did not violate the statute by not collecting to the server for the State Department record emails to her daughter, her husband, her friends.
    This is actually pretty simple. As most legal principles are when you boil them down to basics and don’t try to hide behind obscure terms.

  39. Badgerite says:

    Not to me. I find his wife and his supporters opining that she should be indicted for a non crime highly offensive. I can live with income inequality. It is not a straight jacket. You still have options. But the use of the law, the power of the state, to silence opponents and critics, imperils the First Amendment which is really the foundation of everything in our republic. This is what happened with Siegleman in Alabama and Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin. It is no minor thing.
    Actually, “then” is the correct usage as it is indicating a time frame of the bill “then” verses the bill “now”. Than is comparative. As in “that is a dumber argument ‘than” the other one. Then is time related. You’re welcome.

  40. Richard Turnbull says:

    Did you bother to look up the meaning of “instantiate”? Because if you do, you will discover that it is arguendo the most apt verb for this procedure — we have abstract legal principles and the concrete descriptions (of prohibited acts) instantiate them.
    As for ipso facto, arguendo, by the multifarious nourishing mystical teats of Diana of Ephesus, would it KILL YOU to learn a little Latin or even some French, German, or Greek?

  41. Badgerite says:

    Well, apparently he did. Not all by himself but with a few other votes. And I would be interested to know exactly the difference between the bill he was opposed to and the one he supports now. Is there any difference? I’m guessing no but I haven’t really checked. But I will bet not.

  42. Richard Turnbull says:

    “Than” not “then.” You’re welcome.
    Also, it’s a strange notion that any departure from some kind of imaginary rectitude means a person like Sanders has become conceptually indistinguishable from Karl Rove!

  43. Richard Turnbull says:

    What is this even supposed to prove? That you are able to make ungrounded guesses?

  44. Richard Turnbull says:

    No, it’s the OFFICIAL government records in any form that are at issue. It has nothing to do with what Clinton at least claimed were “private” emails. The OIG simply explained the legal framework.
    Are you kidding when you ask what regs and laws are involved? OK, go with Title 18 United States Code 794, and 18 U.S.C. 2071 for starters. The State Department rules are meant to be enforced in concert with those and several others. 794(f) enunciates a standard of “gross negligence,” which can exist consistently with honesty of intention and acting in good faith.
    She and her staff will in all probability be indicted on multiple counts, and can defend on the grounds the “entire classification system is broken” or something. But anyone else would already have been indicted. See also:
    from today’s Huffington Post, “Why Hillary Clinton could face indictments and how this makes Bernie Sanders nominee” by H.A. Goodman, also the comments on that article.
    Edit: What’s wrong with the verb, “instantiate”? I was in grad school in philosophy, but even so, being prone to use words I understand from that and my legal background, I don’t think that is very misleading “jargon” or anything.

  45. Badgerite says:

    A better question is, is there any difference between the bill he opposed then and the bill he favors now? I don’t know but I’m guessing not much.
    I would hope to see my name on that list as I am a donor.
    I do understand. Bernie will compromise legal principles to win a contest. He will opine that his opponent has not been indicted in an investigation started by the GOP to try to find something to embarrass the probable Democratic party nominee in 2016 and found that she merely had her personal and private emails filtered out from government collections. Which is thoroughly legal and appropriate.
    If you are willing to bend he laws for a political advantage, how are you different then Karl Rove?

  46. Amwatching2c says:

    “unaddressed by Obama” with a willing GOP. The rage is in your rhetoric. Trump and Sanders “16

  47. Badgerite says:

    And what was the ‘regulation’ violated here? Pray tell?
    Regulations implement laws but they cannot literally make them up out of thin air. They must be true to the basic intent of the law or they become an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. This is always a concern in administrative law.
    Show me the regulation that states that any private communication by a government employee is per se a governmental communication and thereby even covered by any regulations.
    The OIG seems to insist that that is the case. I don’t see how that is possible. It would contradict the clearly stated intent of the law which is to maintain the security of governmental communications as defined by the list in the statute. It would mean that any communication by anyone in government would become covered under the regulations, even the most private and clearly personal. I thought the left was all concerned about “privacy”.
    Apparently that is a concern for porn viewers and not much else.

  48. Richard Turnbull says:

    Actually, I learned in law school that administrative rules and procedures which instantiate the relevant laws and statutes guiding an agency have the full force of law; thus, a violation of one is ipso facto a violation of the background framework of laws.
    But perhaps you can explain that away and prove the Inspector General’s view is a “nothingburger.”

  49. Richard Turnbull says:

    Did the provisions of the bill contain or not contain sufficient protections for farmworkers?
    Bernie Sanders campaigns funded with zero corporate donations, Hillary Clinton: a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street, Big Pharma, and the Military-Industrial Complex — you can see some of her main donors listed in the devastating YouTube video “HILLARY CLINTON lying for 13 minutes straight.”
    If you can’t understand the difference between those two politicians, try harder.

  50. Richard Turnbull says:

    Did the bill contain enough provisions protecting farm workers or did it not? That crucial question is raised but left unanswered.
    All nations can and should control their borders; to argue otherwise is to play into the hands of the corporations and other businesses eager to import undocumented workers and exploit them shamelessly. Of course Trump exploits this legitimate issue in a deeply xenophobic and offensive way, but that’s de rigeur for Trump. It doesn’t alter the fact that all borders need strict monitoring in a time when terrorists have zero compunction about plotting mass murder and traveling thousands of miles to bring it about.
    Bernie Sanders can defeat Trump and isn’t under an FBI investigation, Clinton will manage to lose, in all probability, with or without Clinton and her feckless staff being indicted.

  51. Richard Turnbull says:

    Well, Hillary Clinton did make the brave decision to not give any press conferences this year, to spare the Fourth Estate from overwork. It shows her compassion as well.
    It was not as brave as her stellar behavior when she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, yet took the time to have tea with a little girl who greeted her with a flower, yet still very brave of her.

  52. Don Chandler says:

    Hillary had a chance to elaborate her positions in a California context. She didn’t do it. What you are saying is California isn’t very important. But it is to Californians. People would like to know her views on BIGPharma and how it relates to healthcare in general. Tactics are up to the campaign. Maybe it will work out well for Hillary. If she wins California, she will win it all. If she lose it, Bernie will have a stronger position in the Convention.

  53. Badgerite says:

    Hilary Clinton, as has Elizabeth Warren, has turned her attention to Donald Trump. As well she should The Convention is contested in Bernie Sanders mind only. He and his supporters will have a say in policy and platform, as they have certainly earned that right. They will have their time to speak, as they have earned that as well. But tactics in a campaign are up to the campaign. This is about as valid a complaint as the one that she wouldn’t interview with the OIG and wished to defer to the FBI investigation. After his report, I completely agree with her stance. He alleges that the fact that, where the server collected both personal, ( see email to friends and family, etc) as well as governmental communications, the fact that she gave instructions to filter out purely personal and private communications from collections is a felony. If you actually read the statute, that is beyond “biased”. That is absurd and ridiculous. He does not even dispute that the communications were purely personal and private ones.
    I don’t mind that she has developed a good tacticians skill. She would certainly need that to get anything done as president.

  54. Badgerite says:

    Yes, we are all shills here. Look, dispute the substance, if you can, which of course, you can’t or you wouldn’t be going down the “neo-liberal shill” route.
    Otherwise, accept the truth of it. Bernie Sanders is no different than any other politician when it comes to winning votes. Duh. In fact, in some respects, he’s worse.

  55. darkstar1729 . says:

    Exactly, what timing right? Hmm, latino vote is quite important right this second in California, think this bs trash failure article might be a political hit piece told through the mouth of the Clinton campaign.

  56. Don Chandler says:

    John, you really can’t blame Hillary for not debating Bernie in California. It’s not an easy place to take sides. Or to put forward positions. Or like Bernie, make a commitment. Hillary is playing politics. I don’t even know her position on big Pharma or … open borders and how they apply to California. Smart move not putting it front and center. What’s Hillary’s favorite ice cream flavor? “I like all flavors equally!!!”

  57. Badgerite says:

    Truth hurts.

  58. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Oh, for Pete’s sake!

  59. Guest says:

    Is this the MEDIA BOMB against Bernie the day before the primary? If so, ignore it.

  60. Don Chandler says:

    As if immigration is cut and dry. Wonder how Hillary explains the intricacies of open borders. Not a simple issue. Running for president isn’t the same as running for senator of a state. Sanders has to look at the issue differently. Don’t blame him for refining his views as a presidential candidate.

  61. Bill_Perdue says:

    What on earth makes you think that leftists and unionists are disruptive. That’s the work of Democrat and Republican leaders. Social dislocation, low wages and union busting contributed to the disruption and widespread rage that characterize this campaign and have their origins in the economic crises caused by the Clintons NAFTA, deregulation, their racist attacks AFDC and other forms of welfare. Those economic crises went went largely unaddressed by Obama.

    He also continued the wars of the Bushes and the Clintons. Both Sanders and Trump are feeding off that rage.

  62. Amwatching2c says:

    If you think demonstrations, threats and violence will change the outcome of the voters will, you should find a new country to disrupt. Venezuela and Brazil need your expertise.

  63. TiberiusB says:

    “Sanders has changed his tune on the issue. He used to
    decry “open borders.” No more. Sanders has been heavily emphasizing his
    opposition to the Obama administration’s deportation of undocumented

    Some people struggle to hold two ideas in their head at once. Let me help. It is possible to oppose the idea of completely open borders and yet still oppose the deportation of immigrants who are already here (often referred to as amnesty or some variation on that idea). That’s not flip flopping.

    “He adamantly put his foot down and said these kinds of programs (allow)
    employers to bring in more and more vulnerable workers.”

    So, he felt the bill was sufficiently flawed that he shouldn’t support it
    and he gave a reasonable explanation, or he’s lying because some people remember things “very differently”.

    This clearly proves he is against immigration reform…which he killed…just him, all by himself, like the headline suggests. You know what would have been an awesome article? One that broke down the bill he opposed and laid out a case for why he was wrong, or, as it is sometimes called, “journalism”.

    But this isn’t to bash Sanders and puff up Hillary…again. Disagree with Sanders all you want, but don’t pretend that the endless string of negative articles coming from you is anything but virtually non-stop bashing. Good lord.

  64. The tone of this post is much more palatable than most, so, that is progress.

    I will point out: you stated, “a typical establishment politician who is willing to hurt working class people” directly after three sources state that Sanders:

    1) “has consistently put the interests of labor unions (who have
    historically wanted to minimize immigration in order to increase wages
    for native-born workers).” Doesn’t exactly sound like trying to “hurt working class people.”

    2) “He used to decry “open borders.” No more. Sanders has been heavily
    emphasizing his opposition to the Obama administration’s deportation of
    undocumented immigrants.” These are not the same… one can not want “open borders” AND still oppose deportation, BOTH of which are the exacy opposite of trying to “”hurt working class people.”

    3) “Sanders was basically one of our only allies … especially for
    low-skilled workers” in 2007, Ana Avendano, a former top immigration
    official at the AFL-CIO, told Politico earlier this year. “He adamantly
    put his foot down and said these kinds of programs (allow) employers to
    bring in more and more vulnerable workers.”

  65. Jeff Ryan says:

    Heresy! How dare you suggest that Saint Bernie ever did anything for crass, political motives! He is incapable of that.

    Just like he’s incapable of recognizing reality, or squelching bullshit plans to blow up the convention.

    Because it doesn’t matter if Hillary goes down. As long as Bernie is vindicated.

    Gotta change the rules all right. Limit the field to actual Democrats.

  66. Yes, Sanders represented Vermont’s interests first and most as Vermont’s senator.

  67. Michael Allen says:

    In Re: Webster: Empty barrels make the most noise.

  68. 2karmanot says:


  69. Bill_Perdue says:

    In other news, plans are underway to “Shut Down the Democratic National Convention”.

    At this point it’s likely to be a repeat of Chicago in 1968 for both bankster parties.

  70. Polar Girl says:

    Bernie Sanders never did imply he is for open borders. The only thing that has changed is he is emphazing allowing those already here illegally to stay unlike Trump but not keep the borders open unlike Clinton.

  71. Phil in FLL says:

    A U.S. senator’s voting record is what it is. John Aravosis is not making it up. Do you have a response based on the actual substance of the issue that John is raising? Oh. come on, give it a shot. No?

    FIFY = “Fixed it for you”? No, Webster, I don’t think you’ve fixed anything until you can finally, at long last, form an argument based on substance rather than stringing a few insults together.

  72. Webster says:

    I’m not writing this to criticize Sanders, per se.

    I’m writing this to gleefully bash and smear Bernie Sanders. Again.


  73. dcinsider says:

    This should have received more attention form the media than it did. Just saw Bill Clinton on Morning Joe making the same point to a crowd in LA yesterday. There was also a story about how young Latinos are for Bernie, while their parents are for Hillary. Perhaps these young Latinos need to understand a little more about Bernie’s history.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS