Hillary Clinton

Hillary Stakes Out Ground As More Pro-Immigrant Than Jeb

The Clinton campaign insists "second-class status" isn't good enough.

|

Hillary Clinton announces her 2016 campaign
Hillary Clinton / Facebook

If Jeb Bush is hoping to stand out from the Republican field with his support for a "path to legal status" for 11 million undocumented immigrants, the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, is hoping to stand out from Jeb with her support for a path all the way to citizenship. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Hillary Clinton, making her first visit to Nevada since she announced her 2016 presidential run, will call for a path to citizenship for some 11 million people in the U.S. illegally, and contrast that position with Republican contenders who stop short of that stance. …

"She will say that the standard for a true solution is nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship," said a Clinton aide, previewing her remarks. "She will say that we cannot settle for proposals that provide hardworking people with merely a 'second-class' status."

This is pretty clearly an attempt by the former secretary of state to place herself to the left of Bush, the current GOP frontrunner, who has been making a sustained effort to court Hispanic voters the past few weeks. His wife Columba is a Mexican immigrant, and it's well-known that the former Florida governor speaks Spanish fluently. Earlier today, in fact, he posted a video to his Facebook page wishing "his friends of Mexican origin" a happy Cinco de Mayo and celebrating the "great contributions of the Mexican-American community to our country."

Clinton's support for comprehensive immigration reform is nothing new, but her insistence that full citizenship and not merely legal status must be the outcome is a stronger position than the one she campaigned on eight years ago. "We need to bring the immigrants out of the shadows, give them the conditions that we expect them to meet," she said during a 2008 primary debate. "If they had committed a crime, then they should be deported. But for everyone else, there must be a path to legalization. I would introduce that in the first 100 days of my presidency."

Advertisement

NEXT: Charlie Hebdo censorship controversy at the University of Minnesota

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Her husband was just immigrating his penis into Monica’s mouth.

    1. Condoms? We don’t need no steenkeen condoms!

    2. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. oooooooo – super edgy!

  3. This is pretty clearly an attempt by the former secretary of state to place herself to the left of Bush.

    So wait, supporting open emigration is a left position? Do…does that mean I’m left? I don’t feel left. I certainly don’t recall signing up for left. It’s all so confusing.

    1. But she’s not in favor of ‘open immigration’. In fact, she’d have vapors if 11 million Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians showed up and demanded citizenship. She wants immigration system to remain closed, and South Americans who sneak in to be given full citizenship, because she believes this will mean 20+ million votes for her party over next decade or so.

      1. I don’t know that anyone is demanding citizenship. Except Clinton. I’ve been resistant to the idea that some pro-immigration people are trying to engineer the electorate. But nothing would surprise me with Clinton.

        All I know is what I read and what people tell me, so I could be wrong (as could all the people who are sure immigrants just want to come here to steal our welfare and turn the US into Venezuela.) But it seems to me that most immigrants who come here from the south want to come and work. And many would like to return home eventually for a better life. So it seems to me that open immigration without a path to citizenship would solve a lot of the problems. When the borders were more permeable, a lot more immigrants came and went rather than permanently relocating. If people were allowed to freely cross borders for work, they would be a lot more likely to go back home, either seasonally or once they made enough to do what they want back home and not stay and have Democrat voting anchor babies.

        Ending the drugwar would also help by making their home countries less shitty and violent.

        1. I’ve been resistant to the idea that some pro-immigration people are trying to engineer the electorate. But nothing would surprise me with Clinton.

          The entire argument about voter id is largely just that. It has never been successfully explained… here or anywhere, why demanding an ID to see if someone is eligible to have an influence on the political landscape is racist where… demanding that someone register to vote or jump through the considerable hoops to attain a conceal carry permit is not. Or insert any series of hoops that government demans you get licensed or registered, almost all of which are more difficult than acquiring an ID, are not racist.

          I believe that it is the gambit that illegal immigrants will probably vote in the general direction of those likely to scream “racist”.

          And I say this as an open-borders person who has argued vociferously with John that one shouldn’t restrict immigration because you’re afraid the immigrants won’t vote the correct way. /endsocialsignaling.

        2. I don’t know that anyone is demanding citizenship. Except Clinton. I’ve been resistant to the idea that some pro-immigration people are trying to engineer the electorate. But nothing would surprise me with Clinton.

          Well the article, and my comment, were about Clinton. And why she’s not into ‘open immigration’ at all. As per article:

          “She will say that the standard for a true solution is nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” said a Clinton aide, previewing her remarks. “She will say that we cannot settle for proposals that provide hardworking people with merely a ‘second-class’ status.”

          Note that this only applies to ‘undocumented’ immigrants already in the country. Everyone else? Fuck you. Break the law and sneak in first, then we’ll talk.

          Sadly, the approach of ‘we will let you work here, but you can’t have benefits and citizenship, and you will of course go back home’ was attempted by the Germans (and most of West Europe, too, but not as much) with Turks and turns out, if you come from shitty country to a non-shitty country, you want to stay, rather than take money home so fuckers can steal it from you.

          1. Yeah Europe’s recent immigration doesn’t seem to be working out too well for them. The Muslims don’t seem to want to assimilate into European society, and they have a vast welfare state that allows them to not assimilate.

            I wonder if immigration there would even be an issue without the welfare state. Without it they would have to work with the natives which would force them to assimilate at least somewhat, plus they would have support any kids they have instead of being paid by the state to have more.

            Europe’s combination of open immigration from Muslim countries plus a vast welfare state is leading them down the path of disaster.

            1. Europe’s “vast welfare state” can be overstated, though. First, it vastly differs from country to country (Germany isn’t particularly generous compared to UK), a lot of it is not available to immigrants, especially ones from outside EU. Even for EU citizens working outside their home country, the requirement is simply to give them benefits that in-work natives are eligible for (so you must give them equivalent of ETC, but you don’t have to give them public housing).
              Immigration from Muslim countries isn’t ‘open’ either, though some (e.g. Sweden) take a large amount of refugees willingly. Nor is assimilation a one-way process: it’s true that in France, for example, it’s harder to get a job if your name is Mohammed rather than Michel. But if your child is third generation born in France, should you not be naming him Michel anyway?

              1. The EU is rapidly moving towards interpreting their equivalent of equal treatment as requiring all EU citizens are treated equally regardless of what EU state they are in. So I would not be surprised if an EU citizen could successfully challenge being denied public housing in another EU country. They are in many ways becoming more of a federation by the day (a trend somewhat tempered by recent financial issues).

        3. “So it seems to me that open immigration without a path to citizenship would solve a lot of the problems.”

          Is that even possible politically? If we gave 11 million illegal immigrants green cards and gave them status as guest workers how long do you think it would be until the left started crying racism, and comparing their status as non-citizens to the Jim Crow era south?

          I think an open system that allows non-citizens to come in to work here and then go home sounds great, but I also know how the left operates.

          1. It may be possible if you make it truly ‘open immigration.’ If EU continues going down the shitter, and UK pulls out of it, you could have lots of Greeks, Poles, Romanians or Spanish come work in US. Plus, would make it possible for Russians, Ukranians, Vietnamese, Philippinos and others to come more easily then they could get into EU (depending on if they are allowed to leave the country, of course). Once you have a mix that’s harder to pander to, is racially diverse by (insane, but that’s a different discussion) progressive standards, and is less socialist-minded (living under socialism will do that to you), there will be less interest to get them into political system.

          2. I don’t think it’s any less possible practically or politically than more severely limiting immigration or effectively controlling the border or giving citizenship to all the illegals.

            Most likely we will end up with more of the same weird hodge-podge of conflicting policies.

    2. supporting open emigration

      I too support open emigration, especially for Mx. Clinton.

    3. Left means stuff that Democrats like and Right means stuff that Republicans like.

      Does that help?

  4. Let me guess, that “path to citizenship” will be made of steel rails and require boarding a boxcar.

  5. I hope she made the announcement in a Mexican accent.

    1. Taking campaigning tips from Dukakis is a great strategy.

      1. That was so terrible, I think you gave me cancer! I don’t care how popular you are, you will never work on my show!

    2. An interactive hologram of Ricardo Montalban would be better.

      1. I thought he was a Sikh.

        1. He offered the world borders!

          1. And rich Corinthian leather.

            1. Corinth is a leather city?

              1. Corinth is famous for its leather!

          2. Let him introduce you to the United States’ only remaining indigenous life form.

            1. Tribbles?

              1. From hell’s coraz?n I stab at thee.

          3. Open your borders. Will you open your borders? I intend to take this country.

            1. Go. Or stay. But do it because that is what immigration law permits you to do.

              1. Have you ever read Milton…Friedman, Captain?

            2. Your pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.

  6. Dems are really going all-in on the belief that Hispanic demographics can swing an election. Don’t see it working out that way.

    1. Hil-Dog is whooping ass on the two GOP Hispanics. In a new NBC/WSJ poll, Hillary leads both Jeb (66%-28%) and Rubio (63%-32%) among Latino voters.

      1. Jeb is Hispanic?

        1. He seems to think so.

        2. 8% Hispanic

      2. I for one hope she continues her husband’s war in the Balkans.

        1. Hey, haven’t we suffered enough?

          Besides, there’s also her husband’s bombing of Iraq to consider, and she can just take that over!

  7. “She will say that we cannot settle for proposals that provide hardworking people with merely a ‘second-class’ status.”

    Really? Second-class status for immigrants is far better than the fifth-class status to which Hillary would gladly consign prospective hardworking people who have yet been fortunate enough to enter the United States.

  8. Hillary Clinton is having a libertarian moment.

    /the jacket

  9. What do I care what two people who are not going to be president have to say? Ignore.

    1. I like your attitude, ProL. I just wish I could believe it as strongly as you do. I mean…it’s a Clinton and Bush. Isn’t that all we’re ever going to be offered for the rest of time now?

      CHELSEA VS JENNA 2024

      1. Well, Bush is pissing off almost everyone in the GOP, except for the establishment moneybags, but, as we’ve seen for a while now, they alone aren’t enough.

        Clinton couldn’t implode more if she set herself on fire.

        1. Hey, there’s no reason she shouldn’t try! Can’t hurt, right? At least not us.

          1. If Mayweather’s take from his last fight was $100 million+, how much more would America pay to see a Clinton self-ignition?

            1. It would make Wrestlemania 3 look like a joke! More of a joke, I mean!

              I miss Andre.

              1. Oh, that would’ve ruled–Andre vs. Hillary. Of course, it would be “Good” Andre versus inherently evil Hillary.

        2. First, she has to implode with Democratic primary voters. Is that happening? Because I fear she can still take that.

          Once she has it, she has most of the people who vote Democrat, even if they don’t like her. Then it is up to the media to make whomever Republicans pick into a horrible, evil, racist monster who will destroy the world if given the chance. So she’s got good odds at a win there.

          1. She’s been imploding on so many issues that I don’t see how she can survive through the nomination.

            1. I don’t see how she can survive through the nomination.

              Destroy any fool who tries to compete with her? That’s the Clinton Way! Last Woman Standing is legitimate way to win.

              Though I will change my mind about her odds if Chicago Machine decides to go against her. They know how to play the game better than Clintons (as Obama proved) and when they declare something a scandal, the faithful will listen.

          2. It never ceases to amaze me how whoever the nominees are that somehow the Democrat voting block will convince themselves that the Republican is an absolute monster.

            1. In my town, it’s so progressive that even the local progressive media admits that the way a democrat wins in an entirely democratic field is to convince the electorate the commie next to you is secretly a right wing republican.

              1. What’s up with Seattle being all commie, anyway? Is it the coffee? The lack of sun?

                1. Too close to Canada?

                  That’s actually unfair – shitty commie ideas come up here from Seattle, not the other way around.

                  1. It’s the whole western seaboard. WTF?

                  2. shitty commie ideas come up here from Seattle, not the other way around.

                    There was a time when I would have disagreed. No longer. Canada is a free wheeling libertopia compared to the retard that pervades this place.

                    1. Nah. Canada is just six to twelve months behind US in shitty commie idea factory.

                      I knew when, six months after idiots in US shat out $15 minimum wage, it became a campaign up here.

                    2. But is that $15 American or $15 Canadian?

                    3. Canadian, of course! While parroting whatever the idiots in US say, they are also fiercely anti-American, and have nothing whatsoever to do with those racist, gun-mongering savages from below!

                2. I’m not being fair. There is political diversity in Seattle. There’s Stalinism, Leninism, Marxism, Maoism, fabianism, and most recently, Pol Potism.

                  1. There must be some crazed rightwingers who crossed the desert from Spokane or somewhere even more remote, if Spokane is commie, too.

                    1. There must be some crazed rightwingers who crossed the desert from Spokane or somewhere even more remote, if Spokane is commie, too.

                      Compared to Seattle, Spokane is like a Stormfront compound.

  10. You know, I favor free migration, but having Bush and Clinton come out in favor of reform makes me put both hands on my wallet and clench my sphincter reflexively. Somehow I’m getting fucked on the deal.

    1. That’s because free or open immigration to them means they need to radically increase the size and scope of government to allow it.

  11. Yeah, you can’t really take her anymore seriously on this than on criminal justice reform.
    The woman has no fixed principles. She just stands for whatever she thinks will get her into power.

    1. She moved to a different state after running polls and studies to find the most Clinton-favorable population in the country. Prior who do that don’t have principles.

  12. If this “path to citizenship” is at the end of the line that everyone else was duped into waiting on, I’ll be fine with it. And while we’re at it, no more greasing the wheels for celebrities.

    1. Yeah it really is a giant “fuck you” to everyone who tried to everything legally. We treat the immigrants that obey our laws like shit while opening the door for the ones that do not.

      1. That’s not what this is about.
        The aliens we are talking about are generally people who would be eligible to immigrate in the regular way, except for the fact that they have been in the country illegally. We have a very stupid law which forces people who have a past history of illegal immigration to leave the country and wait 2-10 years before they can legally apply for a green card. In many cases, they are never allowed to return and are permanently separated from their families.

        The change here is basically just saying “ok, you can apply for a green card and get in line like everyone else while living here“, Instead of forcing them to leave the country with the risk of never getting back in.

        1. I agree with your position here. But my understanding is that this description covers perhaps half the illegal immigrants.

          Isn’t Clinton advocating a path to citizenship for all of them?

          1. I assume she’s talking about the various pieces of legislation currently working their way through congress, in which case the answer is no. The ability to legalize and get citizenship is supposed to only apply to immigrants who have been here a long time and have direct ties such as having children or husbands/wives who are US citizens.

            Many people are not aware, but you can’t legalize an illegal alien by marrying them. That’s a myth. You have to marry them before they go “out of status”. If the State Department finds out they were in the country illegally at any point, they will be denied an immigrant visa. They must return to their home country and wait a minimum of 2 years before applying again. As a result there are currently millions of illegal immigrants who are technically eligible to immigrate, but can’t. These people are married to US citizens and often have children with them.

        2. The aliens we are talking about are generally people who would be eligible to immigrate in the regular way, except for the fact that they have been in the country illegally.

          All 11 million of them?

          You know, legal immigration only happens within the quotas that we set for the various countries, right? And that it generally requires that you have a sponsoring employer, right?

          Imagining that the majority of current illegals could have immigrated legally if they had just done the paperwork is a fantasy.

          1. The per-country quotas don’t matter, what matters is the category limits on types of family or employer sponsorship.

            There are two main ways of immigrating, employer sponsorship and family sponsorship. Employer sponsorship is pretty much limited to people with college degrees. The other mechanism is having an immediate US relative, such as a spouse, parent, child, or brother/sister. Aunt or uncle is not allowed.

            Most of the legislation currently being proposed is to allow certain kinds of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. AFAIK, nobody is proposing legalizing all illegal aliens, just those who have direct US relatives – in other words, the same categories of people who would be eligible to immigrate legally, *except* that our inhumane laws have declared that because they once came here illegally they can’t get a green card without returning ot their home countries. There are an estimate 4 million such people in the US. People who have married, settled down, had children, but still can’t get a legal visa because of this absurd requirement, not without risking being permanently separated from their children.

            1. Sure, sure, fine.

              Still, your statement that the illegals could have immigrated legally if they had just filed the paperwork at the time is, well, a fantasy.

              Leaving aside whatever (small) percentage could have gotten in with family sponsors, you’re going to have to convince me that the folks who employ unskilled and semiskilled labor (a plurality, if not a majority, of current illegals) would have been willing to go through the incredibly daunting process of getting them green cards.

              Hell, I’ve seen actual doctors unable to find an employment sponsor. And you’re telling me that un/semi-skilled workers could get them? No way.

              Most illegals could never have gotten in legally, under current law or the law in effect at the time they came.

        3. The change here is basically just saying “ok, you can apply for a green card and get in line like everyone else while living here”,

          Seems like a good time to trot out an Iron Law:

          You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.

          If we reward people who came here illegally, and punish people who try to do it the legal route, what do you think the outcome is likely to be?

  13. we cannot settle for proposals that provide hardworking people with merely a ‘second-class’ status.

    “We reject practical solutions, in favor of absolutism. We’ll make those people American citizens, whether they like it or not.”

  14. I’m surprised no one has asked : is New York ready for Hillary?

  15. I can hardly wait to hear The Smartest Woman in America square the circle of open borders AND a higher minimum wage.

    I mean, cranking up the supply of unskilled labor while jacking up the price of unskilled labor can’t possibly go wrong, can it?

    1. The magic ingredient is good intentions.

    2. Isn’t that actually sane compared to the Libertarian plan of doing that, but putting them all on welfare? At least by jacking up the minimum wage, you’ll have some people off of welfare.

      While the other way, you drop wage prices so both the unemployed and employed will need welfare…

  16. So where’s the Hillary endorsement?

  17. Love Status for Whatsapp are best selected Love Status you can Pick that Love whatsapp Status Quotes Collection And Use it on Your Whatsapp.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.