Clinton’s Immigration Game Changer

Jamelle Bouie, Slate, May 6, 2015

For the second time in two weeks, Hillary Clinton has surprised progressives. Last week, in the aftermath of rioting in Baltimore, she gave a strong speech on criminal justice reform, endorsing body cameras and police reform, and calling for an end to mass incarceration.

On Tuesday, speaking to a group of DREAMers–unauthorized kids brought to the country as children–at a Nevada high school, she gave the same full-throated support to comprehensive immigration reform, going beyond President Obama–and activist expectations–to endorse changes to the immigration detention system, a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, protections for children brought to the country illegally, and an expansion of the president’s executive order, meant to keep millions of unauthorized immigrants from deportation and give millions more the right to apply for work permits and other documentation. “The American people support comprehensive immigration reform not just because it’s the right thing to do,” Clinton said during the roundtable meeting, “but because it will strengthen families, strengthen our economy, and strengthen our country. That’s why we can’t wait any longer, we can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship.”

This is a line in the sand. Hillary Clinton is for expansive immigration reform. And the implications–in policy and in politics–are huge.

First is the policy. Unlike Obama, who excluded large groups of unauthorized immigrants from his deferred action programs, Clinton wants to “do everything possible under the law to go even further” for large groups of people, including “many parents of DREAMers and others with deep ties and contributions to our communities.” Whether it’s possible is unclear; according to Obama’s Office of Legal Council, it’s illegal. At the same time, such a move might fall within the “broad discretion” enjoyed by the executive branch on matters of immigration. Either way, it would mark a substantial change from the status quo.

Clinton also wants to reduce the number of vulnerable people in detention facilities, including children, LGBT individuals, and the elderly. “I’m very worried about detention, and detention facilities for people who are vulnerable and for children that I think we could do a better job if we kept attention to the people who have a record of violent, illegal behavior and that we have a different approach toward people who are not in that category,” she said. {snip}

Second is the politics as it relates to Democrats. Clinton is already well-positioned with Latino voters. By tacking to the left of the president–and essentially giving immigration activists their core demands–she moves closer to rebuilding the coalition that elected Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. {snip}

Which leads us, finally, to how this relates to Republicans. According to the latest poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, she leads both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio with 66 and 63 percent support among Latinos versus 28 and 32 percent support, respectively. This isn’t far from Obama’s performance versus McCain in 2008 (67 percent to 31 percent) and Romney in 2012 (71 percent to 27 percent). {snip}

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Chip Carver

    She has to keep her handlers happy. The usual suspects keep their puppets on short strings.

    • Katherine McChesney

      Hillary will be our next pResident.

  • And it’s a huge gamble for her. Like I said yesterday, it’s not going to get her any more Hispanic voters, who, if they care about immigration amnesty, only really want the legal status and work permits, and her fanaticism may well get noticed by white voters.

    There’s a lot of propaganda going around that she’s reversing her husband. In reality, Bill Clinton was pretty much open borders.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Please note the closing paragraph: the Stupid Party wants to nominate a real (Rubio, Cruz) or fake (Jeb) Hispanic for president in order to win Latino votes.

      Yet Hispanics STILL favor Hillary Klingon over these GOP Hispanderers by a 2-to-1 margin!

      • There’s a danger in that. Say it’s HRC versus Jeb, and Hispanics vote for HRC by their usual 2-1 margin (or so, give or take) that they vote for the Democrat every time. The Beltway “logic” consensus from the ZOMG GREAT HISPANIC VOTER TIDAL WAVE LOL~!!!!!1 screwballs is that since HRC advocated full monty citizenship while Bush only advocated legal status, that you need to advocate citizenship to get the Hispanic vote. When in reality Hispanics will always vote Democrat by 2-1 margins (give or take) because of giveaway and welfare politics.

      • NoMosqueHere

        Well, the pandering orgy hasn’t started yet. Can Senor Yeb out-pander Hillary? Stay tuned.

  • Hilis Hatki

    Hillary has “Scooby Doo villain” appeal.

  • guest

    “She says Obama hasn’t done nearly enough.”

    Obama has already done more than enough for these parasitic illegals. From allowing them to enter this country illegally to giving them free handouts and special and preferential treatment all at the expense of the hard-working native-born Americans who may not have their jobs for very long in this worsening economy, Obama has shown to work for the best interests of these illegals and being an enemy to the American people.

    Hillary’s problem must be that the entire populations of Mexico and third world muslim countries aren’t all in this country yet.

    • Deacon Blue

      Hillary’s problem is she will do anything and say anything to be president.

  • Luca D.

    Lesson from the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act: Amnesty equals more illegal immigration.

    When something is tried and is proven to be a failure, liberals will insist that more of the same is the cure.

  • MekongDelta69

    Anybody who votes for the Hildebeast should be institutionalized and put in the same padded cells as the insane losers who voted for NoBama.

    • Whitetrashgang

      Or George Bush, they all could be the same robot. Best to check their exp date.

  • JohnEngelman

    “The American people support comprehensive immigration reform not just because it’s the right thing to do,” Clinton said during the roundtable meeting, “but because it will strengthen families, strengthen our economy, and strengthen our country.

    – Jamelle Bouie, Slate, May 6, 2015

    Whenever anyone says something will strengthen the economy we should ask, “Whose economy?” How will it strengthen the economy of American citizens who work for wages to flood the country with immigrants?

    How will it “strengthen our country” to flood the country with Hispanics whose first loyalty is their people, rather than the American people?

    • “Whose economy?”

      That of those who are on the Forbes 400 list.

    • listenupbub

      “The economy” is code for GDP or stock prices.

      This is important to voters who have money invested. It is important to donors and lobbyists who provide politicians with luxurious lives. It might be important in ways I do not understand with the whole monetary system.

      Nobody cares about the average white worker; does this surprise you?

      • JohnEngelman

        I am not that cynical about Democrat politicians and liberals. Their problem is that they are unwilling to acknowledge that immigration conflicts with most of their other goals. They do not make connections.

        Republicans are the same way when the fail to see the contradiction desiring a strong military, lower taxes, and balanced budgets.

        • listenupbub

          Immigration does not conflict with the single greatest goal of the anti-white party: diversity (a.k.a. cultural marxism).

          Tell me if my conclusion is not valid:

          When there are conflicting goals, and where the action taken is in support of one goal, that goal is almost certainly the most important goal.

          • JohnEngelman

            You seem to think that “cultural Marxists” are motivated by hatred for white people, and want to ruin the United States.

            I think liberal Democrats want what is best for people who are not rich. However, immigration contributes to the growing income gap, by depressing wages and raising profits. Immigration contributes to environmental problems. A diverse work force is more difficult to organize than a homogeneous work force. As more non whites move to the United States, more whites vote Republican.

            Liberal Democrats are not willing to acknowledge that. They do not make connections.

          • Deacon Blue

            John, most liberal Democratic pols are rich. You don’t see the inherent…”problem” with this. They are conflicted. They may need to choose between their personal wealth and doing what is best for people who are not rich. The latter will usually win out unfortunately for you.

          • JohnEngelman

            One has to be rich in order to run for office. That is a flaw in American politics.

          • John Smith

            Many get much richer afterwards and you don’t have to be rich if you sell out like a prostitute, which definitely explains the Clinton wealth.

          • Deacon Blue

            John is repulsed by enemies of the Clintons. Far be it for me to put words in Engelman’s mouth but I suspect he views both Clintons as heroes. I, however, find them to be mendacious pond scum. Obama has an excuse, he is afterall, at least 50% Bantu. Bill and Hillary should know better. They are nominally White.

          • listenupbub

            I don’t want to waste your time with a full response, but I’ll say you jumped to a few conclusions.

            One interesting insight I have that will help you make sense is that I believe there are two types of liberals: the rationals (motivated by a belief in objective morality) and the followers of the “multicult” (motivated by a desire to assuage wounds and fears rooted in psychological issues).

            The two types interact. The multicult has too much influence over the minds of the rationals.

            You pretty much know my opinions on cultural marxism, social democracy, etc. by now, if you keep track of who is who around this comment section.

        • Deacon Blue

          I disagree. Lower taxes do not mean no taxes. John McCain published his Annual Waste report, did you see it? Close to $300 billion dollars on expired and dead programs.

          Because you know, we need a feasibility study done on bomb sniffing ELEPHANTS and the National Guard needs to spend $49 million advertising in professional sports. There is also $14 million for a duplicitive “catfish inspection office” and $391,000 for the National Institute of Health dog bite prevention website and my personal favorite, $150,000 for an EPA study into pollution generated from backyard barbeques. This $300 billion is waste could be much better utilized for a strong military or applied to helping balance the budget.

          Don’t you even want to see if or how much reducing waste and fraud and nepotism will help the country, John? This waste is my money, your money and every other person here who pays taxes. The government has a fiduciary obligation it clearly is not meeting.

          Here is my challenge – OK, let’s cut out 75% of the identified waste and if that does not help us get to a balanced budget and a stronger military then we can discuss raising taxes.

          Fair?

          • JohnEngelman

            You can always find this or that program that seems like “waste.” You cannot find enough of those that 51 percent of the voters want to eliminate.

          • Deacon Blue

            Wow! Cynicism is very high. I am sure you have thought your position through and thought it through well. But I am curious how you accommodate for the “sympathy is not empathy” factor, John? Here is what you “miss” because you don’t have the “same skin” in the game as someone like me. Apologies if that sounds arrogant but bear with me, OK?

            Yes, you understand on a rationale level that wealthy people, “1% people” {vernacular de diem?} are not going to tolerate being taxed at marginal rate of 70% never mind 90% on ANY income {say for the sake of argument my tax rate is 0% on the first million dollars I earn in a calendar year and then 70% on anything past that – we’ll skew your progressive tax theory radically to make my point because it is more illuminating to see it this way – the net effect is still the same even with the “death by a thousand cuts” method you might prefer to make you feel better or two pretend to trick folks like me}.

            Sounds good & fair? Well this is likely just hyperbole and theorizing by you. You’re an arm chair quarterback here, John.

            So what are you are missing?

            John, I am genuinely in the game. And people like me – of
            which there are plenty albeit a certain percentage are just
            not as transparent and honest about all this – they want to hide behind various liberal facades of shall we say, “do goodism?”

            People like me want to keep what we have earned. What
            we have created and worked quite hard for. Sacrificed for. You don’t have to like this either. There are a lot of facts we do not like. Hence the rationale behind this board if you really mull it over. But “it is what it is.” I am not giving up my pile of gold. Not without fighting tooth and nail!

            By “I” I of course mean “all of us wealthier folks.” Just because you and others like you think I earn too much money {whatever that means} and that out of some altruistic notion or for whatever other reason you justify, I should just accept that the government is going to take a bigger bite out of my income, the more success I have {the more I make} I can tell you I am quite attached to my pile of gold.

            In fact John, my aim is squarely to make my pile a lot bigger.

            Imagine that! Greed bugger, right? This allows me to have more & more “stuff” and to have more & more influence over how things are compared to folks who have no gold or less gold.

            You know its not a democracy, right?

            A friend of mine who is the managing partner of a good sized law firm has told me she is happy to “throw more of her gold” at the poor underclass so long as they basically leave her alone with the rest of it. She is deluding herself that “more of her gold” {e.g., enough money} is just a little more than what she bribes them with now. Its an unwritten social contract, she pays more and the poor leave her alone to spend the rest in her lavish way. Or in any way she chooses.

            I don’t agree. Because you and I know something she does not. That being, “there will never be enough gold.” There will always be some new and exciting social engineering project that smart Progressive Leftists like John Engleman will devise that require more of my money to fund of course.

            After all, I can afford to give a little more gold every time, right John? So as I am sure you can see by the increasing flight of both personal money and business money OUT of this country {those who emigrate to more tax friendly geographies and businesses that do the same} that there are – shall we say? – an abundance of wealthier folks like me who really don’t want to pay any more, John.

            I am quite sure you are well aware of what Margaret Thatcher once said about you Progs eventually running out of people like me to tax. There is much truth to that!

            It may be ugly and my words may seem grotesque to you but I am not keen to pay more, to give up anymore.

            Not when my gold is being used to fund social programs for illegal aliens and feral Black savages. I have a very real issue with such. So here is what happens when you raise my taxes more to pay for social stuff. Either I leave with my gold or I stop earning more gold once the marginal tax rate hits some point where I feel its just not worth the trade off.

            In the above instance, I would not work once I earned a
            million dollars in personal income. If that happens 5 months into a year? I shut down my business for the last 7 months and go on vacation, laying off all my employees, etc.

            That is bad for the economy John. But I am sure you have a solution. That solution probably involves some law or regulation impinging on my personal liberty and freedom to do with my property {i.e., my business} as I see fit.

            You’ll regulate me that I must keep my business open for
            say 11 months, in order to keep the economy humming,
            my employees gainfully employed and the tax coffers fuller.

            We both know that’s not a good long term solution either.
            But you’ll try it anyhow. Because like all good liberals
            you think you are smarter than you are and more regulation is the solution to all the societal woes. If only we listened to the new Platonic Philosopher KIngs all we would have utopia now. Korrect, Komrade?!?

            You can’t empathize with me today. I know. But I would have thought a smarter guy like you would have taken this into consideration, a variable into your calculus on how to create the Engelman Utiopia?

            I suppose if I were inordinately wealthy, I could enter national politics as a Democrat, it just takes a lot of money now, promise the various underclasses more stuff {around here I believe its known as “gibs?”} all the while legislating special protections and perqs for myself and others in government with money like myself. Aye?

            Maybe some day I will be Senator Blue. Not today. And like virtually every other Senator {or Governor or Mayor} we all know my 1st goal is not doing stuff for the average folks.

            Sure, if I can do something for everyone incidentally that’s
            cool too and a good way to keep me in office.

            But when has politics really been about anything other that rapacious greed and cronyism, John. 🙂

            There are no “u’s” in politics. Just “I’s” right?

          • JohnEngelman

            Do you expect anyone to read all that?

          • Deacon Blue

            I am sorry John. I did not take you for a Twittertard. Duly noted though.

    • Deacon Blue

      In the event of a Clinton presidency {assume the full 8 year deal} this country
      shall end up fully balkanized even if latently. It can not survive another Democratic
      presidency just on economics alone. I know you like the Demos, John. But Hillary
      or Bernie Sanders? Really?!?

      • JohnEngelman

        Yes really. I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I will have an easy time voting for Hillary in the general election. I have always liked the Clinton’s.

        The only reason I voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 primary was because he was ahead of Hillary in the polls, and I thought he had a better chance of winning in the general election. In retrospect I wish Hillary had won the 2008 primary.

        I think Hillary would have been a better president than Obama because she is more intelligent. Also, with the Clinton’s, if we elect one, we get one free.

        Obama has lost on issues where he has public opinion on his side. If he had any chance of being a post racial president, that was lost when he said, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.”

        I like Obama, but I am disappointed in him In order to be effective a Democratic president needs to out think and out maneuver the Republicans the way FDR did.

        • Deacon Blue

          I believe I understand you with greater clarity now.

          While I respect you because you tend to back up your opinions
          with decent citations and logical thought, part of your post above leaves me perplexed. The Clinton part. What do you
          find appealing about Hillary?

          I find both Clintons to be repugnant politically. I admit, had Hillary been running for the Presidency or to be CEO of a company I am long in, I would vote for her in an annual meeting for sure. That she will do what is needed to keep her job by
          maximizing my ROI I have no doubt whatsoever.

          But sometimes, what makes a fantastic executive of a company does not translate into making a good executive of a city or state or the country.

          She will do anything and everything for the sake of making
          history as the 1st female president of this country.

          And if that means she has to burn it to the ground? So be it.

          I think she is conflicted. By that, I mean moreso than the
          average politician.

          • JohnEngelman

            My affection for Bill Clinton has always been visceral. I like what I see on politics. Also, his enemies are so repulsive. I feel pretty much the same way about Hillary.

          • Deacon Blue

            So shall I assume you are attracted to Bill and Hilllary physically?
            A bit like Olbermann on MSNBC talking about how his leg twinges
            or twitches when he thinks about Obama?

  • A Freespeechzone

    Make NO MISTAKE, Clinton will NEVER be President–she is ‘self destructing’ as each day passes.

    • Katherine McChesney

      I think she’s a shoo-in. She will have the liberal White, black and illegals eating out of her hand. She’ll also have the money.

    • listenupbub

      We will see if this kind of wishful thinking comes true. I doubt it.

  • phillyguy

    If this creep is elected president she will be worse than black jack Obama, next to her the next worst would be Jeb Bush.

  • listenupbub

    I have stopped caring about politics. The social trends towards accepting diversity, as I have read them, are too strong to be stopped.

    It is time to consider other options. The millenials are not going to support anything pro-white.

  • Deacon Blue

    Hillary is a cucking funt. Expect her to be worse than President Dindu.
    I see a lot of animosity towards GOP candidates both here and on other boards.
    Fine folks. Not wild about most of the GOP field myself. But I would *MUCH* rather
    have President Paul or President Rubio or President Walker than President Cuntery.
    She stands for nothing. Which means she will of course, stand for anything {that
    fattens her pockets}. When she is prez, think she will banish Bill to “Pedo Island?”

  • LAGERTHA

    And isn’t it interesting how the Latinos are allowed to vote as a racially-conscious ethnic group in support of “their” Illegal Immigration to our country!

    This just boggles my mind.

    So in the mean-time, let’s just continue the absurdity with “The Wicked Witch of the West” contest.

  • De Doc

    Anything to get elected. That’s our Hillary. *sigh*

  • Light from the East

    In fact, calling for an end to mass incarceration = calling for decreasing population of criminal-prone minorities.

    She said it as if incarceration rate has nothing to do with crime rate.

  • John Smith

    I would vote third party for certain then.

    • antiquesunlight

      If we end up with Jeb vs Hillary, it’s time for me to start seriously considering extreme options, like moving to another country. America is already about dead, and either of those goons will pull the trigger.

  • InitialSegment

    It would sure be nice to have a major political party which was simultaneously populist on economic matters, traditionalist on cultural issues affecting society at large (like immigration and education), and libertarian on individual rights.

    The Christian Democratic parties of postwar Europe seem to have come pretty close to this kind of synthesis — too bad we’re not allowed that option here.

  • Hilis Hatki

    For all the difference voting makes you might as well close your eyes and select the candidates. Voting is not going to change our course.

  • Realist

    “She says Obama hasn’t done nearly enough.”

    And Republican hopefuls agree .

  • Eagle1212

    Enforcing our immigration laws is the best way to handle this ever growing problem and the fat cat politicians just sit there and do nothing.