Speaking in Las Vegas on May 5, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that her plan for immigration reform included a way to provide illegal aliens with a way to achieve citizenship. “The standard for a true solution is nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” stated a Clinton campaign statement released prior to Clinton’s participation in a roundtable discussion at Las Vegas’ Rancho High School, which has a student body that is approximately 70 percent Hispanic.
The campaign event, which took place on Cinco de Mayo — which has become a popular Hispanic-themed celebration of the Mexican victory at the battle of Puebla in 1862 — was Clinton’s third campaign stop following appearances in Iowa and New Hampshire.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The event was staged for maximum impact and placed Clinton amidst children whose parents faced deportation. “We have to finally, once and for all, fix our immigration system,” Clinton said. “It’s a family issue. It’s an economic issue, too, but it is at its heart a family issue.”
The New York Times cited Clinton’s statement that she supported the Obama executive actions on immigration and that it was “foolish” to think the government could deport the estimated 11 million people who are living in the United States without legal authority.
Clinton was also critical of those Republican presidential candidates who favor granting legal status for some illegal aliens, but oppose citizenship. “When they talk about ‘legal status,’ that is code for ‘second-class status,’” Clinton said.
CBS News quoted Clinton’s barbs directed against the Republicans:
We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship. This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistakes: today, not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly or consistently supporting a path to citizenship.
The Times noted that Clinton has apparently shifted her position on immigration since last June, when she told CNN that the large waves of Central American children who crossed the Mexican border into the United States “should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are.” That comment apparently angered some young Latinos.
Clinton’s remarks in Las Vegas were another story, however. “Wow. Hillary Clinton just bear-hugged immigrants and the immigration issue in a way that could shake up the entire 2016 race,” the Times quoted Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant advocacy group.
A report in the Washington Times for May 4 noted that Clinton’s position on immigration contrasts sharply with the policies of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who signed several bills cracking down on illegal immigrants. He also signed the 1996 welfare reform law that placed restrictions on legal immigrants, as well, requiring green card holders to have been in the country five years before getting taxpayer-funded benefits.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has reported that the highest number of deportations on record was in 2000, under the Clinton administration, when 1,864,343 aliens were deported.
The Times cited an explanation for the change in immigration positions from Bill to Hillary from Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates strong enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. Krikorian said that President Clinton favored tighter restrictions because it seemed to be good politics in the 1990s, while Mrs. Clinton advocates looser restrictions because it is good politics in the Democratic primary. “It was purely a matter of political calculation for Bill and I think it’s the same thing for Hillary,” said Krikorian.
Of course, when seeking political office, everything is a matter of political calculation. From Clinton’s attack on potential Republican rivals, it appears that the timid, compromising stand most have taken on immigration merely serves to give Clinton more room to move to the left and go beyond the amnesty offered by Obama. The smartest, as well as most principled, position that a Republican candidate can stake out is to stand by the rule of law. When the opposition fields a candidate who does not respect the Constitution, the constitutionalist position offers the best contrast and gives the voters a true choice.
Related articles:
Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program Funds Deportees’ Return
Immigration Services Promotes Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program
Illegal Alien Children Are Overburdening U.S. Schools
Cost of Illegal Immigrant Students Hits School Budgets
California Governor Brown Signs Bill Providing Student Loans to Illegals
Estimated Cost of Educating New Illegal Children at $760 Million
Local Georgia School District Overwhelmed With Immigrant Students
Illegal Immigrant Kids May Overwhelm U.S. Schools
Estimated Cost of Educating New Illegal Children at $760 Million
