ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Matthew Kolken on Deportation And Removal

In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration

Rate this Entry


Here is video from an Iowa town hall in 2007. Hillary Clinton was asked by a member of the audience about her positions on denying driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants and border security.

Her response included a list of priorities.

Priority 1. "First you've got to toughen border security." More personnel and technology.

Priority 2. "Crack down on employers who employ undocumented workers." She called for much tougher sanctions and penalties.

Priority 3. Help communities get more "financial aid" to help deal with the consequences of a broken immigration system. She stressed that local communities shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, education, and law enforcement required as a result of a broken Federal immigration system.

Priority 4. Help countries "to the South" create more jobs for their citizens.

Priority 5. Get people to come out of the shadows by giving them sanctions, penalties, and fines. She said "I want to know who is in this country. I want to keep track of them." She then illustrated her point by comparing the undocumented population to 9-11 terrorists.

Mrs. Clinton was adamant that people with ANY conviction should be deported without due process. She stated "if they ever committed a crime either in the country they came from or in this country deport them immediately no questions asked." This sounded like a one strike policy. She didn't specify what kind of crime or if the recency of the violation would result in automatic deportation without due process. Mind you, the definition of "criminal alien" under the Obama administration, of which Mrs. Clinton was an integral part of, includes people with traffic tickets, and nonviolent or victim-less crimes.

The tenets of Mrs. Clinton's reform plan were for the undocumented population to pay fines, back taxes, and try to learn English. There was no path to citizenship, only a path to legalization after a long, long wait. In this regard, she said "they have to wait in line... And maybe in 10 or 15 years they can get legalization... I think that is the ONLY answer."

Sounds enticing huh?

Point being, in 2016 if Hillary would have run for President on this platform she would have been a lock for the Republican nomination.

Submit "In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration" to Facebook Submit "In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration" to Twitter Submit "In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration" to Google Submit "In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration" to StumbleUpon Submit "In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration" to Reddit Submit "In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration" to Digg Submit "In 2007 Hillary Clinton Sounded Much Different on Immigration" to del.icio.us

Updated 09-16-2016 at 04:25 PM by MKolken

Comments

  1. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Also, when Hillary Clinton was a senator, she voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized the building of 700 miles of physical barriers along the border with Mexico.

    And
    IIRIRA was signed into law as part of a larger bill by Hillary?s husband, Bill, who apparently agreed with Republican enforcement policies. When his chief of staff, Leon Panetta, gave a briefing on IIRIRA, he said, ?We were able, I think, as a result of this negotiation to be able to modify ? eliminate the large hits with regards to legal immigrants while keeping some very strong enforcement measures with regards to illegal immigration.? Moreover, Bill?s formal statement at the signing ceremony explicitly acknowledged that he was in favor of strengthening the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration. The pertinent part of his statement reads as follows:


    This bill, ... includes landmark immigration reform legislation that builds on our progress of the last three years. It strengthens the rule of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system?without punishing those living in the United States legally.
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I am surprised that a top-ranking lawyer like Matt, who has done so much to help immigrants and advocate for their rights and earned the gratitude of all Americans of will and immigrants alike for his efforts, would spend so much time and energy sniping at Hillary Clinton, while this country and our entire immigration system is faced with the incomparably greater threat of would be mass deporter, Wall builder, Muslim immigrant banner, legal immigration restrictionist and torture advocate, to mention only few of the problems that our immigrant communities and Americans in general would face in a Donald Trump presidency.

    I will give Matt credit, however, for doing a great job of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by sharing Hillary Clinton's shortcoming with us ad infinitum.

    It would also be nice to hear a little more from Matt about the Donald Trump iceberg.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-16-2016 at 03:51 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    With regard to Nolan's comment, as I read at least some of his previous articles and comments on this site and in the Huffington Post, he does not appear to be entirely opposed to stricter immigration enforcement himself, to say the least. Therefore, it would not be unfair to assume that he agrees with at least some of the enforcement-oriented proposals that Hillary and/or Bill Clinton may have allegedly supported in the past.

    Has Hillary got your vote locked in yet this fall, Nolan?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  4. MKolken's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    It would also be nice to hear a little more from Matt about the Donald Trump iceberg.

    I will give Matt credit, however, for doing a great job of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by sharing Hillary Clinton's shortcoming with us ad infinitum.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Weren't you the same guy who just wrote this?

    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    Matt, thank you for sharing this timely warning about Donald Trump from Vincente Fox as reported in the Washington Post.

    Yes, in all probability, there may have been problems with the deck chairs on the Titanic that might have needed some attention. But was that the reason that we still talk about the Titanic today?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    As an aside, maybe you should consider retiring the Titanic analogies considering the fact that your candidate is sinking in the polls.
    Updated 09-16-2016 at 04:40 PM by MKolken
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan has also recently written some interesting, informative and well-researched comments explaining how he believes that Hillary's immigration policies fail to meet Republican immigration objectives (largely, if not entirely, in the direction of enforcement) and that, even worse, Hillary's policies (such as deporting only criminal immigrants) would (in Nolan's view) actually encourage more illegal immigration.

    Donald Trump has gone even farther in his attacks on Hillary - calling her an "open borders" supporter who would like to flood America with illegal, dangerous or criminal immigrants - a statement that is about as true as his most recent one on September 16 accusing Hillary, not himself, of starting the infamous "birther" lie to the effect that President Obama is not a US born American citizen but was allegedly born in Kenya

    Which Hillary Clinton is the real one, in Nolan's view? The enforcement oriented one that Nolan describes above, or the one who is allegedly blocking a bipartisan immigration compromise by not paying enough attention to Republican enforcement goals and whose policies would allegedly encourage more illegal immigration?

    Nolan can attack Hillary from the left and he can attack her from the right on immigration.

    But if he does both at the same time, isn't Nolan contradicting himself as well as (Oh - No!) going against the wisdom about Hillary from Donald Trump himself (not to mention Trump's supporters at his rallies who yell and cheer when he calls for her to be deporte4, or, on occasion, scream and shout for her to be executed for "treason")?

    The point is, one can attack Hillary as a restrictionist, or one can attack her as an open borders advocate who allegedly doesn't care about protecting America from "uncontrolled" immigration.

    But no one can have it both ways.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-16-2016 at 06:00 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Matt, you have done a great public service by writing about Vincente Fox's comments about Donald Trump. Hopefully there will be more from you forthcoming along this line rather than nitpicking at Hillary - which is easy, almost anyone can do that - while apparently ignoring that Hillary, for all her real and perceived baggage and shortcomings on immigration policy and as a candidate, is the only person in America - I repeat, the only one - Hot Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, who stands between America and the reality of a Caudillo (my word) Donald Trump which Vincente Fox so aptly describes in the comments you quoted from.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
  7. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I am surprised that a top-ranking lawyer like Matt, who has done so much to help immigrants and advocate for their rights and earned the gratitude of all Americans of will and immigrants alike for his efforts, would spend so much time and energy sniping at Hillary Clinton, while this country and our entire immigration system is faced with the incomparably greater threat of ... a Donald Trump presidency.
    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, you sound like a bigot when you criticize Matt for pointing out that Hillary's current campaign promises on immigration issues are contradicted by things she has said in the past. "Surprised that a top-rankin lawyer like Matt," etc. That's an ad hominem attack. I thought you saved that for Republican politicians.

    I no longer read your comments about Trump. Despite my frequent challenges, you are yet to substantiate a single claim you have made about Trump.
  8. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs

    Which Hillary Clinton is the real one, in Nolan's view? The enforcement oriented one that Nolan describes above, or the one who is allegedly blocking a bipartisan immigration compromise by not paying enough attention to Republican enforcement goals and whose policies would allegedly encourage more illegal immigration?

    The point is, one can attack Hillary as a restrictionist, or one can attack her as an open borders advocate who allegedly doesn't care about protecting America from "uncontrolled" immigration.

    But no one can have it both ways.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Roger, I have told you this a number of times already, but I will say it again anyway. Politicians say what they think will get them elected and when they are elected, they do what they think will get them re-elected. When it suited Hillary's political strategy, she was tough on enforcement, and now that she is better served by going in the other direction, that is what she is doing. If you want to know what Trump is likely to do with immigration issues, look at his businesses and investments and see how they would be effected by changes in immigration practices and forget about his campaign promises. Unfortunately, you can't do that with Hillary. She is obligated to large donors to the Clinton foundation and the people who have paid ridiculous fees for the speeches she and her husband have given. And that is a mixed bag of interests. But she could turn her back on all of them and go her own way. Who knows? I wouldn't even try to predict what she will do as the president.

    But you will continue to hang on every word Trump says looking for ammunition to use against him regardless of what I say.
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nolan doesn't seem to think that we should take Trump's own campaign statements seriously or that they are worth very much as indications of what Trump would actually do about immigration or other related issues as president.

    I have been following presidential elections since I was a young child, beginning almost 70 years ago in 1948, when one of the candidates, by coincidence, also had a name beginning with the letters "Trum".

    I have found, over these many years, that what candidates say during an election campaign is, quite often (though certainly not all the time) a reasonably good guide to what their general policy positions will be on the issues, even if the details work out differently from what might have been expected.

    If there is any policy issue that Trump has been consistent about during his campaign, it is immigration, with a negative attitude toward immigrants in general. Illegal immigrants, according to Trump, are not only breaking the law (which no one can argue with -this is obviously true by definition) but they are a source of crime, terrorism and the eventual destruction of America: "You won't have a country anymore.", as Trump has said many times.

    Legal immigrants are not much better, according to Trump, as he most recently made clear in his August 31 Arizona speech. They are a drag on American society, they steal jobs, there are too many of them- some of the most important legal immigration programs, such as H-1B visas and Labor Certification green cards - need to be eliminated or sharply curtailed, etc. etc..

    This is in addition to disparaging comments (OK, let's forget euphemisms for the moment, get real and use the mist accurate term of all - hate) against Mexican, Muslim, and other non-white immigrants coming from a candidate who, up until today (September 16) was arguing for years that America's first African-American president was not really an American, but was born in Africa.

    Even after finally abandoning this long-standing, utterly outrageous lie, Trump turned it around and without a shred of truth to back him up, tried to blame Hillary Clinton for supposedly originating this outrageous, utter falsehood.

    Nolan argues that despite all of Trump's negative comments about immigrants, especially those from outside Europe (where his own immigrant wife is from and where his immigrant grandparents were from), and despite a whole raft of statements that force him constantly to be on the defensive against accusations of racial prejudice, Trump can be relied on to support rational immigration policies that could garner bipartisan support.

    With all due respect to a distinguished legal scholar and former Congressional staff immigration expert such as Nolan, I am not so sure.

    Sometimes, even candidates running for office actually mean what they say, even if that includes Trump's stated, on the record, never withdrawn, support for torture, an extremely serious crime under US law even if committed by American officials overseas (See 18 U.S.C. Section 2340 et seq.), as well as forbidden by international law and our own US Constitution; for putting American citizens under surveillance only because of their religion; or, equally frightening for everyone who cares about democracy and due process, sending US citizens to Guantanamo.

    Nolan is fond of accusing me of making unsupported statements about Donald Trump, but it is impossible to deny that Trump has in fact said all of the things I have mentioned above.

    All of the above statements by Trump are supported by cites and links which I have mentioned in previous posts and would be glad to provide again if Nolan requests them.

    For those who do not take candidates who make extreme statements such as those Trump has made (and I have left out many others, such as Trump's wild, delusional accusation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were "founders" and "MVP's" of ISIS, or his utterly shameful attempt to degrade and humiliate the Gold Star parents of an American Muslim soldier who gave his life for his country) seriously and at their word, the consequences can be severe and irreversible, as still recent history has shown.

    It has happened before, many times, in other countries which there is no need to mention by name. It can happen here.

    If we Americans don't wake up (though I hesitate to use this term for reasons that Nolan will certainly understand as a scholar of history leading up to the Holocaust) and take what Trump has been saying about immigration and other related issues with the utmost seriousness, it could become very likely that it will happen here.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-16-2016 at 10:57 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs

    I have found, over these many years, that what candidates say during an election campaign is, quite often (though certainly not all the time) a reasonably good guide to what their general policy positions will be on the issues, even if the details work out differently from what might have been expected.


    Nolan argues that despite all of Trump's negative comments about immigrants, especially those from outside Europe (where his own immigrant wife is from and where his immigrant grandparents were from), and despite a whole raft of statements that force him constantly to be on the defensive against accusations of racial prejudice, Trump can be relied on to support rational immigration policies that could garner bipartisan support.

    Sometimes, even candidates running for office actually mean what they say, even if that includes Trump's stated, on the record, never withdrawn, support for torture, an extremely serious crime under US law even if committed by American officials overseas (See 18 U.S.C. Section 2340 et seq.), as well as forbidden by international law and our own US Constitution; for putting American citizens under surveillance only because of their religion; or, equally frightening for everyone who cares about democracy and due process, sending US citizens to Guantanamo.


    For those who do not take candidates who make extreme statements such as those Trump has made (and I have left out many others, such as Trump's wild, delusional accusation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were "founders" and "MVP's" of ISIS, or his utterly shameful attempt to degrade and humiliate the Gold Star parents of an American Muslim soldier who gave his life for his country) seriously and at their word, the consequences can be severe and irreversible, as still recent history has shown.


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Yes, what a politician says does provide a general idea of what he intends to do. I overstated my point a little.

    I never said Trump could be relied on for anything, but I stick by my statement from a previous comment that he is more likely to achieve comprehensive immigration reform than Hillary. I don't think Trump has as much invested in immigration reform as Hillary. I would be surprised if he cares much about illegal or legal immigration beyond his need for foreign employees to run his businesses economically. I think he would like succeed at negotiating a deal between the parties on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. That would feed his image of himself as a great negotiator...which he may be for all I know.

    Yes, he does support torture in the war against terrorism, but "torture" is a vague word. Has he given details on what techniques he would approve under the torture heading? And I doubt that he is alone in that regard. But when did he say he would break the law? He might well push the limits of lawful interrogation techniques, but I haven't heard anything indicating that he would go further. The techniques I recall him mentioning were all being used by the US until a president reigned it in. And I stand by my earlier comment about your character assassinations of Trump. Give me a list of reasons for one of your claims about him. Don't give me reading assignments. Try your claim that he is a racist. Show me reasons that substantiate that claim.

    A better example would be your claim that he made an "
    utterly shameful attempt to degrade and humiliate the Gold Star parents." Tell me what he said and explain your basis for concluding that it was an utterly shameful attempt to degrade and humiliate the Gold Star parents.

    I'm not claiming that Trump should be the president. I am just tired of hearing people make wild, unsubstantiated claims about him instead of discussing the issues on their merits. That is especially important on immigration issues.
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Trump's offensive statements against the Gold Star parents are so well known and have been so widely condemned that I am surprised that Nolan would challenge my characterization of them. To give just one example, Trump suggested that the reason that the fallen US Muslim soldier's mother initially remained silent by his side while her husband, Khizr Khan, spoke, was that she had been not allowed to speak because that was the Muslim practice toward women, something that was totally untrue, as she subsequently demonstrated. I will provide a full link.

    With regard to Trump's false and outrageous claim that Hillary Clinton started the "birther" myth about President Obama, rather than Trump himself, who has been spreading it for years until he finally admitted yesterday that Obama was born in the US, I will give Nolan time to catch up on yesterday's news stories about this, which are too numerous to mention, before responding further. .

    With regard to torture, which I have also written about previously, with links and quotes, Trump has made clear that he would use not limit his treatment of alleged terrorists to waterboarding, which is regarded as torture by almost everyone except for a small handful of former Bush officials such as law professor John Yoo who wrote the notorious "torture memos" and who according to Fox News, now himself opposes Trump's reported advocacy of waterboarding as acceptable for "punishment", not just interrogation!

    See: Fox News: February 9,

    John Yoo on Donald Trump's Position on Waterboarding: He Thinks of Waterboarding as a Kind of Punishment, That's Not Its Purpose

    (Sorry, I can't find the link to this story- please go to Google.)

    Instead, Trump has stated that he would would use "much worse than waterboarding" methods, and that he would abolish the Geneva Convention against torture (see link to the POLITICO story in my next comment below). If that doesn't mean supporting torture, (not just waterboarding, which according to John Joo's tortured argument in his widely criticized memo, is allegedly not torture) then nothing does.

    Advocating waterboarding as "punishment" and recommending using methods that are a "hell of a lot worse" is adherence to "lawful interrogation techniques?" Come on, Nolan.

    See my full quotes and links below.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-17-2016 at 07:09 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  12. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Here is what Trump said about torture at a Republican presidential debate in Manchester NH according to a February 6, report in The Hill:

    "I would bring back waterboarding...And i would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."

    See: The Hill:

    Trump calls for a 'hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'


    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-waterboarding

    (If the above link doesn't work, please go to Google to look up the above story in The Hill.)

    See also:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...entions-221394

    Lawful interrogation techniques", Nolan? I don't think so. Please check out the definition of "torture" in 18 U.S.C. Section 2340.

    Nolan is free to throw around the words "character assassination" as much as he likes to characterize my comments about Donald Trump's speeches and policy proposals, which are almost always the focus for what I write about Trump.

    Perhaps Nolan could explain further how quoting from Trump's own statements can be called "character assassination."

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-17-2016 at 06:42 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  13. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    For the story on Trump's totally unfounded accusation that Hillary Clinton somehow initiated or supported Trump's own racist "birther" campaign against President Obama, see:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...ologies-228289

    If Nolan has any evidence that Hillary Clinton ever questioned the fact of President Obama's birth in the United States, I would look foreward to seeing Nolan's quotes or cites to support that.

    Otherwise, my statement that Trump lied about this issue stands uncontested.

    And for the story about Trump's unconscionable attacks against the Gold Star parents of a brave Muslim-American soldier who died fighting for America in Iraq, see

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us...zala.html?_r=1

    If posting Trump's own statements, with the cites or direct links to them, is "character assassination", then we have an entirely new definition of this term, known only to Nolan Rappaport.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-17-2016 at 09:07 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  14. Nolan Rappaport's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs

    And for the story about Trump's unconscionable attacks against the Gold Star parents of a brave Muslim-American soldier who died fighting for America in Iraq, see

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html?_r=1

    If posting Trump's own statements, with the cites or direct links to them, is "character assassination", then we have an entirely new definition of this term, known only to Nolan Rappaport.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    I did your reading assignment on the Gold Star family. It does not provide quotes of what Trump said to the Gold Star family. It just provides interpretations of what he said.

    Donald J. Trump belittled the parents of a slain Muslim soldier who had strongly denounced Mr. Trump during the Democratic National Convention, saying that the soldier?s father had delivered the entire speech because his mother was not ?allowed? to speak.

    I listened to Trump's comments about the mother. He never said that the mother was not allowed to speak. And where is the author's explanation for how Trump's comment belittled the family? In other words, you are relying on unsubstantiated statements to support your unsubstantiated statements. Please read the following carefully

    1. Provide a quote of the Trump statements you are criticizing.

    2. Explain in your own words why you think those statements are an inappropriate attack on the gold star family.



  15. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs


    If Nolan has any evidence that Hillary Clinton ever questioned the fact of President Obama's birth in the United States, I would look foreward to seeing Nolan's quotes or cites to support that.


    Otherwise, my statement that Trump lied about this issue stands uncontested.


    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law



    Apparently, the birther issue was raised by Hillary supporters, not Hillary or her staff. The fact that the claim was going around may have misled the staffer who prepared that talking point for Trump. Yes, Roger, I am saying that Trump has staff writing talking points for him. But it is apparent that some of his abrasive statements are his own...or he should be firing the staff who wrote them for him.


    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/

    Nolan Rappaport
    Updated 10-04-2016 at 04:44 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  16. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Thanks for the explanation, Nolan. That really clears it up. Do you think that this same Trump staffer also wrote Trump's statement that he would use interrogation/punishment methods "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" if he becomes president?

    It would be reassuring if Trump would promise the American people that this particular staffer, whoever he or she might be, will never be allowed anywhere near the White House.

    It would be even more ensuring if the American voters see to it on November 8 that Trump, with his attachment to torture and the Big Lie, both of which belong to dictatorships rather than democracies, is never allowed anywhere near the White House himself.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 09-17-2016 at 08:54 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: