Hillary Clinton

Hillary's Genius Amnesty Move

It'll prove the nemesis of Republicans if EmailGate doesn't derail her

|

Hillary Clinton might be ethically challenged, but she's politically gifted. And there is no better proof of that than her

Hilary Caricature
DonkeyHotey / Foter / CC BY

breathtaking amnesty flip-flop even in the midst of EmailGate. She is whole-heartedly for amnesty after being whole-heartedly against it. Not just that, she used to even oppose drivers' licenses for undocumented aliens who, she once said, she was "adamantly" opposed to. Now, however, she says, anything less than full citizenship is unacceptable because it'll relegate illegals to "second class status."

If she had made only a timid switch — been a mere triangulator like her husband on the issue — she would have raised a million questions about her credibility. But the boldness of her move is forcing everyone to ponder the place where she has landed rather than from the spot where she started.

However, that's not even the most brilliant part of her gambit, I note in my column at The Week. Its true genius is that it'll put Republicans in an electoral bind that they'll have a hard time extricating themselves from. "It's heads she wins and tails they lose, regardless of what they do."

Go here to find out how.

Advertisement

NEXT: No, the Cold War Didn't Teach us That Forcible Regime-Change Is Swell

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. LOL

  2. BECAUSE AMERICA CLAMORS FOR AMNESTY!

    Libertarian principles aside (we are talking about American voters here, not what is correct/right/worthy) where is the vast support for not just amnesty, but awarding citizenship to illegals?

    1. where is the vast support for not just amnesty, but awarding citizenship to illegals?

      Hell, half of them or more don’t even want it.

    2. My thought exactly, Swiss.

      American voters are opposed to amnesty, much less automatically granting citizenship to illegals.

      This may be a play to part of her base, but in the general its going to cost her.

      Maybe its a play to move a few percentage points in a few swing states by pandering to the Latino vote, but when you look at the states where this might actually matter, I think Florida is about it. She’s not winning Texas or Arizona no matter what, and not losing New Mexico or California no matter what.

      And it could bite her in her ample ass in some Midwestern swing states.

      Political genius? Unlikely. More like desperate pander.

  3. Seriously, the woman is toast. Why this charade that she remains a legitimate candidate? She’s more indictable than electable at this point, and it’s not going to get better for her.

    1. The thing is, ProL, I think I can speak for some people, and that’s that: she’s still in the race and still not in jail. That alone is so amazing that it kind of freaks me the fuck out. It’s like she’s some kind of political zombie, she’ll just keep shambling along until someone puts one in her brain. Anywhere else doesn’t even slow her down.

      1. Eventually, she’ll have to interact with non-sycophants and its going to be an epic meltdown. I’m hoping before Bernie Sanders is the only alternative. I think if O’Malley or Warren jump in, she will finally be out. Otherwise, she could ride all the way to winning against Rubio. Justt by being less scary (somehow).

      2. Oh, sure, it’s distressing that an open felon (on multiple counts!!) is running for office, unindicted, with no signs that’s going to change, but the shit is piling up so much that I don’t see her getting past all of the voters she’ll need to get past. Now if she were a lesbian black woman, maybe.

        1. it’s distressing that an open felon (on multiple counts!!) is running for office, unindicted, with no signs that’s going to change

          In that sense, she’s the perfect president to propose this idea.

          The good news is that it will never pass Congress — so that’s something.

    2. Obama was milk AND toast, and still got 2 terms.

      1. In a way, that’s true, but not like this.

        1. At the end of the day, she only has to convince a small margin of people in a few battleground states that she’s slightly less evil than whoever the Republicans choose as a candidate.

          I put forth the proposition that she’s warm bread, but not yet toast.

  4. LOL, genius move indeed.

  5. Hillary Clinton might be ethically challenged, but she’s politically gifted. And there is no better proof of that than her breathtaking amnesty flip-flop even in the midst of EmailGate.

    Yeah, because nobody ever lost an election by flip-flopping! Brilliant!

    1. At best, Hillary is maritally gifted.

    2. Or lost an election because she lied, and got called out on it.

      It’s not like she has never issued a public statement that completely contradicts her current assertion.

    3. I haven’t seen the slightest sign that she’s politically gifted. Her husband is, but he’s clearly not calling the shots. Before the latest series of scandals in a life of scandal broke, she was stumbling on merely political grounds, over and over and over again. She’s a buffoon which the left insists on treating as some kind of elder stateswoman, when, in fact, her record sucks ass, across the board, and her experience is quite limited. We’ve had people referred to as wet behind the ears that had more experience than her.

      1. Her husband was. He used it up, laid down his imperium and now just wants to live the high life and relax.

        1. Something like that. He’s either lost the eye of the tiger or just doesn’t give a shit anymore.

          1. He’s got bills to pay.

            Kids to feed.

    4. Just that one French-looking dude that served in Vietnam.

  6. This is clickbait trolling right?

    1. Nah, with Dalmia, it is the same as Richman and US foreign policy. Id?e Fixe

      1. ” Id?e Fixe”

        Don’t be cussing at me in no foreign language. You got something to day to me just come out and say it.

    2. Hence my LOL.

      Open borders informs everything Shikha thinks about. When she shops for a car, she asks how it will handle crossing the Texas-Mexico bridge. If you’re that devoted to this issue, you’re going to think at a brazen flip-flop is political savvy on parade.

      1. It so trumps all other considerations that if a Franklin Roosevelt ghola were the only candidate supporting amnesty and/or open borders, she’d endorse him in half a bleeding heartbeat.

    3. Nope, it’s a Dipshit being a Dipshit.

  7. Fuckin’ brilliant. Because it’s always such a winning political move to stump for full citizenship for illegal immigrants.

    Jesus Christ. Why the ever-loving fuck are the writers on this site obsessed with giving voting rights to people whose defining characteristics are a deliberate flouting of the law and a lack of connection to the country whose policies they will be determining?

    1. Two words: Cheap landscapers.

      1. It proves they’re not “racists,” and they can claim to be “ideologically consistent,” even if that consistency has bad real-world effects and works against other, more crucial parts of your ideology.

    2. Those cocktails don’t mix themselves 😉

      1. +1 “Fernando, won’t you top off this Old-Fashioned, dear boy?”

        1. “Try not to drown it.”

    3. Agree that Cliven Bundy should be deemed persona non grata.

      1. It’s too early in the morning for you to be strung out on bathtub meth and Elmer’s glue.

        1. Morning? He’s STILL strung out from last night.

    4. “Why the ever-loving fuck are the writers on this site obsessed with giving voting rights to people whose defining characteristics are a deliberate flouting of the law and a lack of connection to the country whose policies they will be determining?”

      Gee, maybe principles?

      1. Nope. Libertarian principles (at best) say that immigrants have a right to cross our border without interference from the federales. They don’t say a damn thing about voting rights, and only a goddamn fool thinks that giving the vote to every schlub who manages to make their way across our border is the recipe for either a libertarian society or even a marginally successful and stable one.

        If that’s the case, why the fuck should we have a naturalization system at all? My wife (who was trained as a doctor in Panama, speaks English competently, and hasn’t broken a single law) had to wait years before she was a citizen with voting rights — and rightly so.

        That is to say nothing of the fact that making immigrants citizens immediately provides them with access to even more types of welfare than are available to them at present.

        Citizenship for illegals (or any other type of immigrant) has zip to do with libertarian principle.

        1. Nope. Libertarian principles (at best) say that immigrants have a right to cross our border without interference from the federales.

          And libertarian principles that no one has the right to utilize the property of others without their approval. Libertarian principles also precludes a right of foreigners to access the stolen property of tax payers. At the end of the day, ‘immigration’ is just another government policy. You don’t ‘immigrate’ when you move into a new house down the street, that’s just called “moving”. And presumably you didn’t trespass or squat to get into the new house down the street either.

          My wife (who was trained as a doctor in Panama, speaks English competently, and hasn’t broken a single law)

          My wife was a law graduate from the Netherlands when she had to jump through the hoops to come here. But so as to not become enserfed to the US’s universal tax jurisdiction, we’re not pursuing citizenship.

    5. Jesus Christ. Why the ever-loving fuck are the writers on this site obsessed with giving voting rights to people whose defining characteristics are a deliberate flouting of the law and a lack of connection to the country whose policies they will be determining?

      That’s not even the half of it. They bring with them the political culture from wherever they call home. And for the vast majority of 3rd world immigrants, it’s a political culture that’s hostile to freedom and the accumulation of wealth by others.

      1. Eh. The extent to which Hispanic culture is supposedly unfree isn’t particularly different from that of the Southern European countries from which many immigrants came in the 19th century. Most Hispanics could easily integrate, provided that the welfare state were not available to them and that American culture remained confident and dominant.

        The real shitstorm will be if Muslims start to immigrate en masse.

        1. The extent to which Hispanic culture is supposedly unfree isn’t particularly different from that of the Southern European countries from which many immigrants came in the 19th century.

          Does this make *you* feel better?

          1. It’s better than what Europe’s dealing with when it comes to Muslim immigration, or than what a small country like Armenia or Georgia would be dealing in if their immigration policy were as incredibly fucked up as ours is.

        2. Eh. The extent to which Hispanic culture is supposedly unfree isn’t particularly different from that of the Southern European countries. Most Hispanics could easily integrate, provided that the welfare state were not available to them and that American culture remained confident and dominant.

          I agree completely. South America, I would consider mostly 2nd world these days, if you’ll excuse my deviation from that tired old “1st, 2nd and 3rd world” Cold War shorthand terminology. They’re not developed on par with Europe and North America, but they’re certainly more highly developed than Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. And South America, possessing a culture mostly descended from a branch of European culture, can much more easily be made compatible with the principles of liberty, property rights et cetera. Although the US government has done quite a lot to stoke the fires of socialism that predominate there.

          The real shitstorm will be if Muslims start to immigrate en masse.

          That’s precisely my point. Europe is dangerously proximate to such incompatible cultures to have such multiculturalist policies on the books, and you can see the results. North America is rather fortunate that multicultural fallacies haven’t been able to do as much damage yet. But if we continue to swallow this multiculturalism it won’t be long until all that is good about western civilization disintegrates everywhere.

        3. The extent to which Hispanic culture is supposedly unfree isn’t particularly different from that of the Southern European countries from which many immigrants came in the 19th century.

          Though I have to wonder how much that Southern European culture has to do with New Jersey being the way it is today…

        4. Oh brother. Europe has lots of Muslim immigrants and no Sharia law.

          Immigration has never been bad for a country ever.

          1. Oh brother. Europe has lots of Muslim immigrants and no Sharia law.

            I’m not sure that “no sharia law” is necessarily a good standard to measure successful policy. I can think of plenty of European cities where the addition of Muslim communities has not been a win for the culture, freedom from government or necessarily an economic gain. Not all cultures are created equal.

            Immigration has never been bad for a country ever.

            Worked out great for the Cherokee. American and English immigration to Mexican territory did good things for Mexico too. The Western Roman Empire was also significantly strengthened by the influx of Germanic tribes. Same for Celts in Britannia when the Saxons and Scandavians came ashore to find a better life in the land they would soon rename to better describe the lion-share of it’s inhabitants.

            Immigration is never a net loss by anyone who believes culture is valueless or relevant to the prospects of prosperity and liberty.

            1. We don’t have to go abroad, or even far back in time.

              Just look what happens to small population states that are inundated with immigrants from CA, MA, NY.

              Leave me the fuck alone attitude gets replaced with fuck with everyone all the time in all things.

        5. And before 1920, we had the Harrison Act, the income tax, and Prohibition…

  8. “…she’s politically gifted”

    [citation needed]

    1. Shikha really bringing the derp with this one.

      1. That phrase is on your copy-and-paste list, right?

      2. At this point, I think it’s fair to say she’s Rolling in the Derp.

  9. However, that’s not even the most brilliant part of her gambit

    It gets better??

    1. Free privacy violations for anyone who calls in in the next 15 min.!

  10. Dalmia articles are so tedious. At least Steve Chapman makes a point to beat more than one retarded dead horse.

  11. For the first time since Gallup began polling the question, as many Americans identify as socially liberal as socially conservative.

    1. Let us turn ours into a country of mushrooms by making mushroom cultivation scientific, intensive and industrialized!

    2. For the first time since Gallup began polling the question, as many Americans identify as socially liberal as socially conservative.

      Do they know the difference or did we just find out that half the country wants free invisible pink unicorns and the other prefers red mana to blue?

    3. I can identify as a Cyclops, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.

    4. Statistically speaking, we are all a dead Chinese woman.

  12. I like Dalmia and open borders. I will not defend this article however.

    1. Open borders have to be open from both sides, and no other country is likely to start that. Chalk that one up as an idea that will not work anytime soon.

      1. Your economic ignorance is showing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.