July 19, 2005

WALK LOUDLY AND CARRY A SMALL STICK

Clinton speaks before Hispanic civil rights conference (McCall.com, 7/18/05)

Speaking to the nations' largest Hispanic civil rights organization, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., received a standing ovation Monday when she vowed her support for legislation that would allow illegal immigrant high school students to attend college.
So much for Hillary running to the right on illegal immigration.

The problem is that the underlying policy is exactly right. She must know that if she makes this a campaign issue her opponents will oppose it as they run to her right. She is risking real harm to the country for short-term political gain, which I suppose may as well be the Clinton's political motto.

Posted by David Cohen at July 19, 2005 11:01 AM
Comments

If the US was serious about illegal immigration, it would build a wall across the Mexican border.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at July 19, 2005 11:33 AM

"She is risking real harm to the country for short-term political gain, which I suppose may as well be the Clinton's political motto."

Both of them:

She is risking real harm to the country for short-term political gain, which I suppose may as well be the Clintons' political motto.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 19, 2005 12:16 PM

So are you saying she should only run on issues where the underlying policy is wrong? And it's her fault that the GOP will choose to oppose her on it?

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2005 12:45 PM

I wasn't talking about the GOP.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2005 1:13 PM

The point still stands though. Who were you talking about?

Posted by: Brandon at July 19, 2005 3:11 PM

Hillary made a show earlier in the year of running right on illegal immigration, making some comments so extreme that a Republican would be accused of racism if he made them:

[I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports ... we can do more and we can do better ... I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants ... Clearly we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we are going to let people in for ... work let's have a system that keeps track of them ... People have to stop employing illegal immigrants.

Now she's telling La Raza about all the wonderful things she wants to do for illegal immigrants. That is obviously pure Clintonism -- tell each audience what it wants to hear and believe it when you say it. The first statements were wrong and the second are right, but given the politics of the Democratic nomination the bad policy is going to force out the good policy.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2005 4:10 PM

The DREAM Act is explicitly anti-American: it gives a discount to illegal aliens, while U.S. citizens are forced to pay the full price.

And, of course, it will lead to more illegal immigration. It takes very little time for the word to get around about our lax immigration policies. That's why there are so many OTMs, and as the Border Patrol tried to find out before they were stopped, Bush's amnesty talk led to an uptick in illegal crossings.

Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at July 19, 2005 4:17 PM

Yes, yes, the Senate is famous for its unAmerican activities.

The Act gives states the option, taken away by an earlier federal law, to allow illegal immigrants resident in the state to attend state colleges on the same basis as legal residents. Among other things, they can pay in-state tuition. I agree that we have too many college graduates as it is, but "anti-American" seems like an odd label for allowing states to treat residents better than non-residents.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2005 6:03 PM

Why would having our illegals get college educations damage the country?

Posted by: oj at July 19, 2005 6:09 PM

what do you tell the people who won't get into college, because their slot went to an illegal immigrant ? saying there are infinite slots will cause your answer to be disqualified.

Posted by: cjm at July 19, 2005 6:25 PM

I would say, "You didn't get in." Why is this any harder than any rejection?

Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2005 9:27 PM

Huddled masses, yearning to be breath free, are waiting and hoping around the world, and the wetbacks are jumping the line. Justice demands their exclusion from all benefits of citizenship.

Posted by: Lou Gots at July 19, 2005 10:53 PM

What benefit of citizenship?

Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2005 11:57 PM

Of course we grant most of these benfits to aliens lawfully in the country: driving a car, carrying a gun, working for any employer who does business with or holds a license from any government or who wishes to include wages paid as a business expense for tax purposes, and of course the entire social satety net, including education.

I continue to be shocked that gentlemen do not see the injustice of saying no to anyone from anywhere if illegals are thus rewarded for their misconduct.

Posted by: Lou Gots at July 20, 2005 1:02 AM

Lou: We don't educate for the sake of the student; we educate for our own sake. Education is (or should be) the ne plus ultra of assimilation and conformity to American norms. If children are in the country, we want them in the schools.

As for your fairness argument: Fairness to foreigners who are overseas really doesn't strike me as too weighty a concern compared to dealing with foreigners who are here. Also, while I'm by no means an open borders advocate -- it would be nice to have some control over who comes here, just to weed out the terrorists -- clearly we should allow in many more people. The fairest way to deal with foreigners who are overseas but want to come here is to let them.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 20, 2005 7:05 AM
« SIDE WITH THE PEOPLE: | Main | 9PM TONIGHT: »