Asking “if” Hillary Clinton flipped-flopped in her stance on immigration is not the right question? The question is, “Which time are you asking about?”
The Clinton’s both have a long history of using legal and illegal immigration as a political tool to drum up public sentiment that gains votes. That trend started with Bill Clinton and continued with Hillary as Senator of New York and now failed presidential candidate.
There is no better example of Clinton’s penchant for saying whatever appeals to her current audience than her thoughts about the status of undocumented children. During an MSNBC town hall in 2015, she said: “The children themselves need to be taken care of. They are children. They should be given every help that we can. And I think we’re doing a better job of that than we were.”
Just one year earlier though, when asked about undocumented children her quick answer was that the children “should be sent back.”
To understand how we got to where are with the current illegal immigration problem and Hillary’s constant vacillation one has to go back to where it began.
President Bill Clinton endorsed the Immigration in the National Interest Act when it was introduced in 1995. The 1995 version of Bill Clinton sounded like Donald Trump who is vilified by progressives, the media, and most prominently Hillary Clinton.
After Democrat Senator Harry Reid introduced legislation to cut legal immigration by nearly two-thirds, President Bill Clinton said during his State of the Union address:
“All Americans … are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. … That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders … by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.”
During Hillary’s last month as Secretary of State in 2013, agency officials instructed caseworkers to stop fingerprinting. Not long after that, they were also told to quit seeking personal and identifying information, requesting original copies of birth certificates, or checking criminal history.
Fast forward to 2018 when Clinton joined an online Q&A sponsored by Telemundo. When asked if she would stop using the term “illegal” that she had employed just weeks earlier at a New Hampshire town hall Clinton fluffed the question off with the excuse it was a “poor choice of words.” As generally happens the mainstream media gave Clinton a pass on her decade-long practice of referring to “undocumented immigrants” as “illegal aliens.”
In the midst of Clinton’s first run for president, Christiane Amanpour of CNN asked if minors escaping violence in Central America should be allowed to remain in the United States since it is safer. “Well — it may be safer but that’s not the answer,” Clinton replied.
That exchange is a prime example of what frustrates Clinton’s opponents, including Democrats, the most: a seeming total lack of conviction about anything with the exception of getting elected. It exemplifies what is, for her critics, the most consistently frustrating aspect of Clinton’s politics: her seeming lack of conviction.
Martin O’Malley, one of her opponents in the Democratic primaries of 2016 recently pointed out, “Before one audience, she will talk about immigration reform and the need for it. Before another audience, she’ll use the term illegal immigrants and boast about having voted to build a wall and barbed-wire fence.”
During a 2007 Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate at Dartmouth College, Tim Russert asked Clinton if she: “Would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?”
Clinton answered: “I don’t think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you’re a local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”
Just months later she was vocally supporting sanctuary cities and decrying Republicans who opposed them.
Hillary Clinton’s entire career is littered with reversals in policy and outright lies. This is the same person who claimed on multiple occasions that her private email account was used for personal use only and contained “no classified information”.
What else can we expect from one who perpetuated the now-debunked storyline that the deaths of four Americans were due to a YouTube video?
~ American Liberty Report