2004 December 01 Wednesday
Hillary Clinton To Right Of National Republican Leadership On Immigration

Little noticed at the time (certainly I had no idea!) back in February 2003 Hillary Clinton came out firmly against illegal immigration.

Saying that she is strongly opposed to "illegal immigrants," New York Sen. Hillary Clinton announced Tuesday that she would support a national identification card for U.S. citizens if other measures to keep illegals out of the country failed.

"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Clinton told WABC Radio's John Gambling. Then, a few moments later, the Democratic Party presidential frontrunner added, "We might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens."

Clinton said she would support a national ID card as part of an overall effort to improve the U.S.'s national security.

"Clearly we have to make some tough decisions as a country," the top Democrat warned. "And one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry and exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them."


"People have to stop employing illegal immigrants," she told WABC. "I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau Counties, stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx (and) you're going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work. You know, this is not a problem that the people coming into the country are solely responsible for. They wouldn't be coming if we didn't put them to work."

On Wednesday November 17, 2004 Hillary repeated her argument that we should be using more technology to protect our borders.

"I don't think that we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better," Clinton told Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren.

To enhance border security, Clinton explained, "there's technology now available. There are some advanced radar systems. There are biometric and other kinds of identification systems that we've been very slow to deploy and unwilling to spend money on."


In December 2001, for instance, Clinton urged Canadian offiicals to "crack down on some of these false documents and illegals getting in."

Think about the electoral calculus for her position. She'd gain people on the Right and in the middle who are frustrated about illegal aliens. She might lose some Hispanic votes but she'd gain other Hispanics who do not want illegals coming in competing with them for jobs. So her Hispanic losses may be pretty small and her gains among white males (who are far more numerous) and even white females unhappy about the current immigrant influx could potentially be very large. If our choice in 2008 is pro-illegals Jeb Bush versus anti-illegals Hillary Clinton then I predict Hillary will win.

Mickey Kaus sees this as an attempt by Hillary to crack her stereotypical liberal image since that image is a liability for her.

P.S.: If Hillary's attacked by Hispanic groups for these sentiments so much the better for her! Her husband had an unformed, fuzzy image when he ran--he could show his heartening anti-liberal streak by dissing an out-of-line rap singer. Hillary, in contrast, has a hard, fixed liberal image--and probably needs to crack it with a high profile, revelatory fight against someone or something on the left more powerful than Sister Souljah. How about LULAC?

Hillary, as presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate in 2008, has put Republican Presidential aspirants in 2008 in a difficult position. The Republicans have gotten away with defying their base on immigration because their base had nowhere else to go. Well, Hillary just said "come on over". A lot of elections are won by very small margins. Hillary's position has made the standard national Republican waffle on immigration harder to sustain. In the run-up to the 2008 election national Republicans are going to be under greater pressure to take harder line positions against illegal immigration.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 December 01 12:39 PM  Immigration Politics

Derek Copold said at December 1, 2004 2:19 PM:

Maybe she is smartest woman in the country!

She's got a re-election coming up in 2006, and she's already got the liberal base secure, so why not go for the white vote as well? In fact, the blacks won't be too upset about it either.

Burley Morris said at December 1, 2004 4:43 PM:

Dear parapundit, re Hillary vs illegals
I wouldn't have believed this. But, I'll take it. 75% of the American citizens want no more amnesties, no more illegals, no more funny documentation, no 'totalization' soc sec deal with Mexico, and would welcome the government and sworn in pols enforcing Article IV, sec 4 U. S. Constitution with troops as needed on our southern border.
It would be nice if we could count on Bush to represent U.S. and its people, instead of Mexico and the criminal aliens. If there is any mandate this administration has it is to deport the illegals, and stop the invasion of our country. This is not their country. They had nothing to do with this country's founding, little to do with it's settling.
Mexico is a wealthy nation, 10th largest economy, but their elitists won't tax themselves (they take 12% compared to our 25-28%) to provide for their own people. Why should they when they have us as their preserve to take care of their own people for them. They are not our friend, but our enemy. They send those 'remitters' up here to illegally enter our country to boost the Mexican economy. U.S. taxpayers pay for all the entitlements, plus per Phyllis Schlafly: "Totalization is a plan for U.S. taxpayers to end up assuming the entire burden." for Mexico.

Red said at December 1, 2004 6:45 PM:

Talk is cheap. Scores of politicians, both Republican and Democract, have come out against illegal immigration in their speeches and policy plans but when push comes to shove, they simply back off. If Hillary or any other politico calls for an end to the illegals, I'll believe it when they follow Tancredo's lead and initiate and fervently shepherd through a bill on the floor of Congress in the teeth of their opponents. Otherwise, this is nothing more than old-fashioned political manipulation and pandering.

BTW, Hillary is categorically *not* the "presumptive Democratic nominee" in 2008. Go and browse the lefty and Dem blogs and you'll see that folks there are touting the "ABH" (Anybody but Hillary) candidate as the Dems' nominee in '08-- Clark, Bayh, Napolitano, Edwards, Schweitzer, but not Hillary. There's still way too much supposedly socialist baggage (at least enough for the Repubs to make hay out of it) from Hillary's national health care fiasco, and the one major vote in the Senate on which Hillary did try to establish her I'm-not-a-liberal creds (her "yea" vote on the resolution supporting war in Iraq) has turned out to be an utter disaster. The jury's still out for me personally, but the Dems in general are less than thrilled with the prospect of a Hillary candidacy.

Randall Parker said at December 1, 2004 7:43 PM:


Yes, talk is cheap. But this is much stronger language from Hillary than what Bush says about illegals. Heck, Bush won't even called them illegals.

This sort of language from a major liberal Democrat provides cover for any other Democrat in Congress who wants to agree with her too.

noone said at December 2, 2004 5:56 AM:

"Only Nixon could go to China".

It also reveals one of the motives for multiculturalism:

"We might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens."
"there's technology now available. There are some advanced radar systems. There are biometric and other kinds of identification systems that we've been very slow to deploy and unwilling to spend money on."

Heterogeneous societies are inherently unstable,add a system that encrouges the aggressive pursuit of ethnic identity and interest and you get our current tribal spoils system.

The question is,have the left made the country unstable enough to justify authoritarian measures in the name of social stability or has the country become simply ungovernable in the medium and long term?

Let me hit our economic situation again,we won't be able to afford the 3 big groups looking to public money in the future,somebody will have to do without.

Mark said at December 2, 2004 2:42 PM:

If Hillary keeps this up and Bush and the rest of the Reps can't respond, well, this member of the VRWC will gladly vote for her.

Can't wait to see Bill's painting among the other First Ladies' paintings.

Red said at December 2, 2004 8:13 PM:

"But this is much stronger language from Hillary than what Bush says about illegals... This sort of language from a major liberal Democrat provides cover for any other Democrat in Congress who wants to agree with her too."

This really isn't news, as many Dems have already come out against illegal immigration and promised strong action, w/o following through on it. It's actually not that politically difficult to come out strongly against illegal aliens in a speech since there's that term "illegal" attached to them and politicians can boost their law-and-order creds by promising to crack down more on it-- legislative action (and efforts to reduce the ridiculously high number of *legal* slots allowed through family preference and chain immigration) would be something else entirely. Back during campaign season in 2000, Bush and many of his Repub cronies also shouted platitudes about keeping our borders safe, halting illegal immigration (while, of course, keeping the legal numbers at their ridiculously high levels). Then they changed tune when it came time to pander as elected officials. Bill Clinton in his 1996 campaign talked a lot about "better enforcement of our borders," and of course that went nowhere once he was safely back in office-- same deal with other Democratic leaders. A lot of pre-campaign talk promising to crack down on illegal aliens, while simultaneously winking at the ethnic bloc leaders that the Dems still depend so much on-- "Don't worry, we're not actually going to *implement* any of these restrictions once we're in office." If Hillary's serious about her views on this (and I'm not saying she is or isn't, one way or another) then I'd like to see concrete action on it, in the form of a bill, say, co-sponsored with Tancredo. Otherwise my doubts will remain.

We should also recall that Hillary is vehemently in favor of other ethnic tension-inducing programs like affirmative action, and would likely appoint enough left-wingers on the Supreme Court and the federal bench to make racial preferences a part of US policy for decades even as it becomes increasingly unpopular. This is one reason that I dislike George W. Bush so much-- he is far too weak himself on this issue, but at the very least, he does not have a heavy-handed collection of ethnic-bloc voters to satisfy in his political coalition, and he's able to appoint judges who at least can help to more narrowly interpret the Constitution and realize the disastrous consequences of preferences based on race. The judicial legacy is probably more important than anything else, and Hillary's legacy in this area would likely be an utter fiasco and worsen our already-strained ethnic relations. As noone said, "a system that encrouges the aggressive pursuit of ethnic identity and interest and you get our current tribal spoils system." I agree, and in the form of affirmative action and other forms of ethnic politicking (we remember that 2000 Senate campaign) Hillary's policies and court appointments would exacerbate this even further. AA is the big bugaboo for the Dems and the very worst of their ethnic splittist doctrines and until I see Hillary stand up to her party apparatchiks on affirmative action and *ban preferences based on race, ethnicity, and gender, period*, my skepticism about her will remain. Sorry to throw cold water like this, but I don't think that Hillary's statements on illegals add up to much in the grand scheme of things, esp. when so many other politicos have done some measure of the same thing and we still allow 1,000,000 chain-immigrating legals to enter every year-- *that's* the real problem. I really don't see much of anything in Hillary's statements about illegals. It's the same as we've heard from quite a few prominent Dems and Repubs, a lot of hot air with little follow-up or reevaluation of the affirmative action policies that are just as bad.

Red said at December 2, 2004 9:05 PM:

I should add that Hillary already has been less than consistent on the immigration issue: see e.g. http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9765 and http://www.amren.com/003issue/003issue.html-- she freely aligns herself with MALDEF and other such pressure groups and embraces ethnic rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton if it guarantees a couple extra votes. Like many another prominent politician, Hillary seems to adjust her message depending on the audience, and she's done little even in her speeches, frankly, to address the root problem of the immigration crisis, which is chain immigration and the family reunification law stemming from the changes in the law in the 1960s. This combined with her vehemently pro-affirmative action stance (we might as well call it "how to turn the USA into Yugoslavia") and her inclination to appoint activist liberal (pro-immigration, pro-AA) federal judges would make her a disaster with respect to ethnic politics-- it would become 10 times worse.

Again I'm sorry to sound like a wet blanket here. I have great respect for what you're doing here, Randall, and you're thoroughly addressing the immigration issue when the mainstream media has all but shunned it. You've got one of the most valuable blogs in the blogosphere-- we're on the same team here. But I think that far too much is being made about Hillary's comments on the illegals issue when, as of now, it all seems like merely a transparent attempt to curry political favor w/o being intended to yield concrete results, the same disappointment that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush caused us. And a Hillary-appointed federal bench would be a catastrophe in immigration, affirmative action, and ethnic politics in general, the main reason why I can't imagine casting a ballot for her. I just don't think it's a good idea to become so enamored until we see something a lot more concrete. Our efforts are probably best spent in making sure that the immigration issue is debated in a free, frank, and intellectual manner and to force the mainstream media to stop ignoring it. Politicians are led by their noses ultimately and we have to make it clear that we want to see action on the part of our political leaders on the root causes of the immigration crisis, not just empty promises about illegals (ignoring the broader problem) which are themselves shelved after the election takes place.

Carol Moore said at April 9, 2005 12:34 PM:

Having been Independent who has in heart traditional southern Democrat leanings, next election my vote is up for grabs to candidate who convinces me he/she is going to take hard line on stopping invasion of illegal aliens, do strict employer sanctions on hiring them, get those border fences and walls up to keep them out once they are deported. I was reading about the 50's when apparently a little-discussed clearing away of people who should not be in our country was successfully accomplished. I am perfectly willing to pay even more tax for such a project if needed as it will be a great investment in the not-so-long-run. Think about it--there was little high-tech equipment back then, once employers knew they would be punished and saw some examples some of the illegals returned home by their own choice. I think it will take more state by state bills denying benefits to illegal aliens; which will require an ID system very difficult to forge or steal.

I think it is both a national shame and a wonderful tribute to American courage that the Minute Men Project is up and doing great. It is a shame that volunteers felt they had to leave comfortable homes and jobs and accept some risk to do the job our federal government should be doing, but refuses to do. It should be a source of pride that enough Americans did leave homes, families and jobs to do a job they saw that needed to be done. I think it is an even worse shame that President Bush has the brown nose from close association with Vincente Fox and aped Fox's description of the Minute Men as "vigilantes". Lately on television with Canada's leader and Fox, Bush looked like Bush's pet weasel, which may be more than looks.

America has gone downhill economically and socially all the while these illegal aliens have been pouring in. Last night's news was that one CA hospital had had to close and another in a border estate had to close it's maternity dept., due to non-payment from illegal aliens. Now in those border states there will be less services for American citizens and involve longer transport times for many. The last of 28 sought-after child molesters--all illegal aliens--was caught couple of month's back. This last one (of that group) had raped a three-year old girl. Our prisons bulge with them even when our government gives them preferential status against arrest. Our teachers have less time to teach citizen's children for doing dual classes for only Spanish-speaking. Too many of our elected officials are not representing citizen's interests--and most have to be aware of this. Perhaps they feel a mass amnesty will gain them a new voter crop--and it could--but only until they have candidates from their own countries. I do all I know to do, write my representatives often (for what that's worth) Fax on FAIR, numbersusa, email, phone and get others to do so as well.
All who can should attend American Resistance's protest at White House Monday, April 25th. I wonder if Bush could be recalled--or impeached? We need to look into it.

Carol Moore said at April 9, 2005 12:54 PM:

Will add P.S. I, too, have doubts about Hilary. While I would like to believe she means what she says (or that any other official does, either, for that matter)her voting record for bills that would have helped slow illegal aliens and reduce numbers of legal immigrants, or not to give amnesties, is really poor. There is always a chance she may suddenly have drawn a line on this stream of illegals--and does mean to try and put a stop to it if a candidate. we can always hope. While we are hoping, we will also listen carefully to the other candidate's stand on the matter? Someone PLEASE send us a presidential candidate who is serious about keeping America, as we know it, intact. And determined to prevent the devastation of American economy, government, language, culture and way of life.

Ivy Fenske said at April 5, 2006 4:15 PM:

Idea what to do with illegal immigrant problem. 1. Sent papers out, that all illegal immigrants persons from Mexico, that only want to work in this country, travel back and forth to take their money home, sign up on this form, you will be finger printed, picture take, fill out this form, a card will be issued for that only.
2. Those who wish to become U. S. Citizens, must sign up on this list, picture I.D., will be taken and fingers prints takesn, information sheet filled out properly. Then we will have set rules to follow to become a U.S. citizen on this form..................they must follow it.
(If in any event, we find they have criminal backgronds, they not come come to this country period.
(These papers that will be filled in, will be located at proper locations around the towns, with personnel, to help them fill out the papers, if they do not fill them out in either choice above, they will be given notice to be at the bus stop, that they will be sent home.
(I have read about the March on us. Their demands carrying their Mexican Flag in our country. I hope you Mrs.
Clinton, will not let them get away with that aspect. How can another 11 million people from another country, march on our streets and demand what they think are their rights.
If this march takes place, and if it gets out of hand, their should be buses, trains, or transportation, to immediately round up these illegals, and sent back to Mexico. Now Mr. Fox, has no business in telling us how to run our country. It is his job to protect his own people and feed and clothe them.
If we went to his country, we would have to have some sort of I. D. or a travelling card of sorts.
If America gives them amnesty.............then I think the government is more irresponsible than I could ever immagine. Please stand up, for the two choices you can give them.
Work here and take money home.
Work here and want to become a citizen.
But tell them if they march on us demanding what Mr. Fox says are his rights and their rights, flat send them home.
Since the over explosion of illegals are crossing the borders not to far from where I live, they are stealing trailers in broad day light, stealing cars, and driving up and down our streets looking for work, can't speak English and go back to truck and come back and say they can get licenses...........
It actually scares me.......When you see their faces on TV they laugh in our face on TV, I think they say, we are here, and you can not doing anything to us..............well I beg the difference.
Either send them home, or tell Mr. Fox, no more aid for your country, keep your people home, or we send them back.
I will vote for you in 2008. I think it is about time for a woman president.
I also believe Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, cooked up this so called Iraq war, so to speak, all before he got to be president, which was illegal at best..........and Mr. Bush just wants to make a name for himself.
Well he has made a name for hisself...and it is not good. He has caused thousands of our boys and girls to be killed in this Bush War of his...........(He needs to send his two girls over their to fight, and see how scarey it feels for all those mothers who lose their children for a worthless cause, why........because Bush did it the wrong way.......And they say the Democrats, have no plans to run the country. Well I think they have plans, but because they do not have control of House and Senate they do not have the opportunity to put forth their plan.
I am almost 73 years old.......And I am beginning to be very disappointed in our Government. One more point.
Where there is a bill put forward.........there should only be one item to be discussed, and not add bills that have nothing to do, with the main one. This is why the democrats can't get their bills through.
Thanks for listening..........But speak out Hillary.............we can't let 11 million people tell us what to do, I would send them all home first, tell them to fill out papers to get back in.
Ivy Fenske 623-853-0054 Litchfield Park, Arizona

Loke said at October 30, 2007 12:34 PM:

Who will our next president represent? Legal citizens or illegals!

Mexico is a country rich with natural resources. With its wealth of petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas and timber, it has all the resources a country would need to keep it from becoming a destitute Third World country. In essence, the Mexican government, through its lack of courage to engage in governmental and economic reforms, which would strengthen its economy to the benefit of its citizens, is exporting its most crucial economic problems unemployment and an impoverished citizen class to the United States.

The U.S. embassy in Mexico lists the amount of U.S. foreign aid received by Mexico through USAID in 2004 for its development assistance, child survival and health programs and economic support at some $33 million. This annual aid package comes on the heels of a stunning $20 billion 1995 US aid package that helped to avert a monetary crisis of the peso of global proportions. At the same time that massive amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars are allocated to the corrupt Mexican government through U.S. foreign aid, the same taxpayers are shouldering the burden of Mexico's impoverished citizen class right here on American soil.

The Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform cites statistics provided by The National Academy of Sciences that tally the fiscal cost of illegal immigration specifically from Mexico to the United States at $226 per household, or over $20 billion. These costs culminate through taxpayer-funded education, health care and an array of entitlement programs. In addition to draining taxpayer dollars from a system built to support the economically compromised among the American citizenry, much of the unlawful wages paid to illegally employed Mexican nationals are sent back to Mexico. According to a 2003 report by The Financial Times, figures released by the Bank of Mexico show that by June of 2003 over $6.13 billion in remittance was successfully transferred from the United States to Mexico. Today, because of the additional influx of Mexican nationals illegally entering the United States since 2003, logic mandates that this amount is much higher.

As American taxpayer dollars pour out of the United States and into Mexico, additional taxpayer generated revenue is used to financially support Mexican nationals here illegally, even as they facilitate the transfer of this ill-gotten wealth out of the US economy. Meanwhile, American lawmakers, blinded by political opportunism, propose opening the doors to the financial and political ruin of our country.

It is imperative that we, the American people, insist that before any immigration reform proposals are proposed, debated or even entertained, that:

1. The federal government first successfully and completely secure our borders.

2. Government officials enact policy that ties any future U.S. foreign aid to Mexico and any future trade agreements with Mexico with the reform of their government and economic community.

American taxpayers would be justified to threaten Election Day revolution targeting both the political opportunists of the Republican and Democrat parties. The majority of American have made it quite clear....NO AMNESTY or hand out using taxpayers money. Is Washington listening or are the in LA LA Land as usual?

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright