Teachers Union Boss Says Hillary Clinton Opposes Child Deportation, But Is That True?

Clinton, Trump, and Obama are all bad on deportation


Screenshot via MSNBC

Lily Eskelen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, told the mainstage crowd at the Democratic National Convention that, "Hillary Clinton believes in keeping families together. She believes that educators should be focused on education not deportation."

It's a great line, with one major problem: it's hard to believe it.

As The Daily Beast's Betsy Woodruff reported earlier this year, Clinton was wholeheartedly in favor of deporting illegal immigrant children "on a case by case basis." And that's actually an improvement from her previous position:

In fact, as recently as 2014, she expressed support for sending undocumented children who crossed the Mexican border back to their home countries.

Immigration attorneys who represent children say Clinton can't have it both ways—given her history of support for deportation-heavy enforcement of immigration law, they're not convinced she's had a change of heart.

Clinton appeared to change course in March, telling Jorge Ramos that she wouldn't deport children. But it's hard to take her at her word, given that her opinion on the matter seems to change based on who she is talking to.

Would the Clinton administration treat immigrant children better than the Trump administration? Perhaps, but only because Donald Trump is uniquely horrifying on immigration issues.

Besides, Clinton wouldn't be the first Democrat to talk a big game about having a humane deportation policy and then failing utterly to live up to expectations, of course. President Obama, in fact, has deported record numbers of illegal immigrants.

This post has been updated to reflect Clinton's latest position on deportation.

NEXT: Florida Judge Says Bitcoin Not Money, Selling it Can't Make You Violate a Money Transmitter Statute

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “It’s a great line, with one major problem: it’s absolutely false.”

    What difference, at this point, etc.

    1. was “absolutely false” in fact the original?

      or you were doing robby the favor of pointing out how ridiculous “”it’s hard to believe”” sounds, when the characterization he is describing is patently untrue?

      1. Robby edited it in the last 1/2 hour. Original was as I quoted.

      2. oh =

        “This post has been updated to reflect Clinton’s latest position on deportation.””

        Could have been more-artfully done, i suppose.

        1. Latest position on deportation*

          *Who am I giving a speech to tonight?

    2. Something, something, “vast right-wing conspiracy”.

  2. uniquely horrifying

    Why must reason continue to make me defend The Don? You guys seem to routinely take The Don’s more reasonable positions way out of proportion. I concede that a border wall is unreasonable, even if only from a cost standpoint. But what is “uniquely horrifying” about enforcing immigration law and maybe putting a little more scrutiny into the acceptance of immigrants from places where people want to kill you bc you’re an “infidel”?

    1. Funny I didn’t read a whole lot of ‘but Hillary too’ during the 11 anti-trump post per day last week.

      1. Sad.

      2. Funny that. As usual the MO is “Republicans are evil” and “Democrats suck to but so are Republicans and pox on both houses”. It is so pathetically transparent. It makes you wonder who reason thinks the are fooling.

        1. Themselves.

    2. what is “uniquely horrifying” about enforcing immigration law

      if libertarians continue to constantly pretend that immigration enforcement (or even ‘reform of immigration laws’ which fails to be as liberalized as they’d prefer) is a “deal breaker” with any potential candidate, then they’ll never see any progress on any other issues in their lifetimes.

      We could theoretically end the drug war as we know it, and make huge inroads in other areas (education-choice, pulling back from the aggressive WoT posture, repealing aspects of the patriot act, etc)…. but if we always make “open borders” an unseverable part of the package of demands, we will get absolutely nowhere on anything.

      *i can imagine the retort – and i’ve heard it before… which i think matt once made…. – which is basically, “Isn’t that what people would have said about the ‘Same Sex Marriage’ in the early 2000s?” I think that’s a fair point in spirit, but one which papers over huge differences in the actual issues.

      I think we *could* actually make far more progress with immigration issues themselves, simply by dropping the “open borders”, idealistic rhetoric. Much like gay-marriage, a lot of ‘reform’ would involve simply ‘recognizing reality on the ground’ (e.g. that we already have very open-borders); however, i think the case is better made as a pragmatic one rather than a moral imperative.

      1. By contrast, many libertarians support “taxation is theft” as a moral principle, yet Reason has advocated for new and additional taxes, and for very moderate tax reform mostly concerning marginal rates and ease of calculation and payment. None of those proposals has been caveated with a demand for amnesty for tax scofflaws and emotional appeals for the poor white collar babies who will be left without daddies.

        1. taxation is theft

          It is. And income/property taxes should not exist. If the gov’t can levy an annual tax on my property, which may be otherwise completely paid for, then I don’t actually own my property.

          1. I believe you may have missed the point. I agree, as I’m sure most self-described libertarians would. But when Reason writes think pieces on taxes they do not treat it as a moral absolute in the same way that the tend to with immigration, as Dennis described. Quite the opposite, as I mentioned they have actually advocated for new taxes. By way of comparison, you will never see Reason advocate a compromise immigration solution that includes new immigration restrictions. Immigration is fairly unique in that regard, as Reason is a pretty soft-libertarian magazine and often advocates fusionism and compromise on most other issues.

            1. I understood your point and think it was a very good one.

              Its not even that Reason necessarily writes about immigration in all cases as a moral absolute –

              its that they seem to never quite acknowledge that any practical reform will necessarily be incremental, and that – for example – if you want to make progress on something like “free movement of labor w/ mexico”… and improving the cross-border flows, ending the gestapo security-checkpoints, etc.

              …maybe you shouldn’t take the hardest stance on the moral-imperative of taking in 100s of 1000s of Syrian refugees? they don’t necessarily have to be bundled and dealt with as a package.

              And i think its unreasonable to think that every single flavor of libertarian is supposed to be entirely univocal about this issue; any more so than they are about, say, abortion, or other issues.

              Hyperbole here like “Uniquely horrifying” is probably also a tad ridiculous – given that the current administration’s actual behavior has been closer to “Trump’s theoretical reality” than the Democratic party’s bullshit-feelgood-rhetoric.

      2. Oh frigg off. No cause has ever advanced by watering itself down. There is no reason for us to back off of open borders.

        Now at the *party*/applied politics level it gets different. Here, it makes sense to be less radical. In this case it would mean the LP drops explicit language about open borders and pushes some bullshit about ‘tall walls and wide gates’. Then, once in power, open the floodgates.

        1. And here comes the Trudeau acolyte who thinks immigrants should be given priority access to welfare over anyone else to prove my point.

        2. “Oh frigg off. No cause has ever advanced by watering itself down”

          Are you plagiarizing Josef Stalin?

    3. ” But what is “uniquely horrifying” about enforcing immigration law ”

      The horrifying consequences of those immoral laws.

      1. I’m sure it would be comforting to all of those who’ve died in drug raids to know that taking a 5 hour bus ride is a “uniquely horrifying” consequence of law enforcement.

  3. “‘Hillary Clinton believes in keeping families together. She believes that educators should be focused on education not deportation.’

    It’s a great line, with one major problem: it’s hard to believe it.”

    Eh, Hillary could genuinely believe that educators shouldn’t focus on deportation. Seems like a Hillary-type line actually.

  4. Teachers Unions are evil, 100% not for the students or education.

    Hillary is a cunt.

  5. Obama didn’t deport record numbers of people. He changed what was considered a deportation to include people who are turned away at the border. The claim that Obama deported more people than Bush has been debunked dozens of times on this comment board. Yet, reason continues to insult the intelligence of its readers and repeat it as fact.

    Learn what the fuck you are talking about Robby. Stop repeated talking points and start thinking a little bit.

    1. +10,000,000 Unemployed

      1. The facts are what they are. Depending on your prospective, I just defended Obama from the charge that he is really closed borders and more deportation happy than Bush. Whether actually deporting fewer people is a good or bad thing depends on what you think of deporting people. The fact is Obama didn’t deport more people than Bush and reason should not be repeating the bullshit claims that he did.

        1. In agreement. I was referring to this. Number fudging is becoming a national pastime.

          1. Okay. Sorry to be so dense. And yes, it has.

  6. I’m not sure I’ll ever understand the open border concept being supported by Libertarians. Sure, non-Americans should be free from the same shit Americans should be in an ideal world. But it’s not the American government’s job to worry about non-Americans.

    1. “I’m not sure I’ll ever understand the open border concept being supported by Libertarians”

      It’s called ‘freedom’.

      1. So what, you support the idea of one world government and the elimination of countries? And that’s just in the abstract sense.

        In reality, immigrants receive lots of welfare in the US. Explain to me how a non-citizen is entitled to benefits they paid nothing into a system for under the auspices of “freedom.”

        1. In reality, immigrants receive lots of welfare in the US. Explain to me how a non-citizen is entitled to benefits they paid nothing into a system for under the auspices of “freedom.”

          So what? Better they get it than the natives.

      2. It’s not freedom. Immigrants are subsized at the expense of legal residents. You obviously have no concept of freedom of association.

  7. Presumably this line was in reference to the scads of unaccompanied minors at the southern border in recent years, 80% of whom have been placed in the custody of undocumented immigrants already in the US. In which case it doesn’t really appear that we’ve gone Gestapo on them in the first place.

  8. Did she speak up when Elian Gonzales was violently taken from his family and deported?


    1. Now THAT is a stinger!

    2. But that was different, he was being reunited with his loving family in an island paradise with the only first-class medical system in North America.

  9. I quit my nine to five work and now I am making85 dollars hourly. …How? I am freelancing online from my home! My old workwas bad for me ,so I was forced to try something new? Two yrs have passed sinceAnd I say it was the wisest decision i ever made! Here is what i do?


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.