5 Points On Hillary Clinton’s Far- Reaching Immigration Speech

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks on immigration at an event at Rancho High School Tuesday, May 5, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

In a major immigration policy speech on Tuesday in Nevada, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) not only threw support behind President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform, she went a step further to say that anything short of a pathway to full citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally would not be enough.

Here are five key points from Clinton’s speech:

Backs Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Even before Clinton formally jumped into the 2016 presidential race, many wondered how closely she would align herself with Obama’s policies. On Obama’s immigration actions, she didn’t leave much – or really, any- daylight.

Clinton, specifically, said she supported Obama’s executive actions halting deporting DREAMers and parents of American citizens.

“I don’t understand how anyone can look at these young people and think that we should break up more families or turn away young people with talent,” Clinton said. “So I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to
citizenship.”

Anything short of full citizenship isn’t enough.

Arguably the biggest statement Clinton made in her speech was that anything short of a full pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants would not be enough in an immigration reform proposal.

“The standard for a true solution is nothing less than a full and equal path to citizenship,” Clinton said.

Clinton is more direct than in 2008.

In 2008, Clinton seemed to go back and forth on whether undocumented immigrants should be allowed to get a driver’s license. But in the 2016 campaign, Clinton has been unequivocal.

Even before the speech on Tuesday, Clinton’s campaign said she supports “state policies to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.”

Better treatment in detention centers.

While her comments about citizenship gained the most attention, equally important were her comments about detention centers for immigrants in flux. Clinton said the conditions in such centers must be improved.

“I think we need to look at how we make our entire system more humane,” Clinton said. “I want to protect people. I want more humane treatment no matter how the law is written or enforced.”

GOPer code for ‘second class status’ is ‘legal status.’

Clinton didn’t hold back on the 2016 Republican presidential contenders. She bashed the Republicans candidates on immigration reform, including the ones who have signaled some interest in changing the system (as opposed to the hardliners who have suggested strong opposition to any kind of “amnesty.”)

“Today, not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly consistent in supporting a path to citizenship,” Clinton said. “When they talk about ‘legal status,’ that is code for second-class status.”

Latest Five Points

Notable Replies

  1. I can see some compassion for the children; but those who knew damn well they were breaking the law when they came here illegally should be jailed or deported.

    I can agree there should be no second-class citizens. We don’t want to be like Japan where Koreans have lived among them for generations and are still not citizens.

  2. I agree with Hillary 100 percent. We are not going to deport 11 million people who have been here for 5 years or more. We need to do something about it now. Those who have broken the laws should be penalized, but should not be thrown in a detention camp and left to rot there for months or even years. That is just wrong. Some of those detention centers children get put in is barbaric. If we are going to have detention centers than they should damn well be humane. Also, I agree with her on doing executive orders if congress is not going to do their part. Expanding them when necessary is not only right, but the only choice to be made when congress does nothing.

  3. Why not be hard on those who break immigration law? We certainly have no problem being hard on the people who apply to move here legally; we’ll let them spend years waiting for permission to come here. Meanwhile, we’re all set to do another amnesty for the cheaters who think the law does not apply to them.

    Rewards for the lawbreakers and indefinite detention for those who follow the law is no way to run a country.

  4. Anyone hoping to see daylight between Hillary and Obama, or to see her “running away” from him, will be disappointed.

  5. Avatar for meta meta says:

    And, for me, this is what will bolster support for Hillary Clinton. I know the negativity for the President is monumental in terms of the Republicans and the irrational wing nuts. This seems to be a reaction to the successes of Progressive objectives at least among Republicans.

    It seems, at least to me, we have been very fortunate for the reset of the past six years, but if the opposition succeeds in a return to the culture wars we will be putting everything at risk.

    Long term change does not happen with one president, especially with the bust it and blame attitude of many in the Congressional bubble. Will there be a retreat from opposition at all costs as a strategy that has been in place since before PBO’s inauguration? I don’t think the fever has broken yet. When the only policies that make sense to the Republicans are to destroy others for the sake of power; it seems to be the reason they do not deserve more power. (See; Neoconservative, they have never gone away folks.) A Netanyahu/Cotton alliance is proof of that and Newsmax will tell you all about it with their usual flair.

    Just a cursory examination of Republican’s policies on voting, immigration, civil rights is proof of their willingness to stop progress and court the most negative among us. Pity, really.

    The Republican(t) Fight Club won’t be talking about their scorch the earth objectives, but don’t forget eight years of dick and w. They will be defending themselves in perpetuity unless they retake power. We don’t have the time and resources for that, but it is survival for them.

    I think the question really comes down to more war or not. It will be interesting to see this play out during the Primaries, but neoconservatism is alive and well just like bad religion. The only wild card is us and this is pretty much life and death. We’ll choose the direction.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for condew Avatar for randyabraham Avatar for rssrai Avatar for meta

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: