Hillary Clinton’s Hugely Questionable Immigration Stance Could End Up Being Her Undoing

In the aftermath of her failures to reach out to minority voters, Hillary Clinton has now set her sights on immigration reform, promising to end raids and the deportation of children in order to “keep families together,” a positive-sounding sentiment that contrasts nicely with Trump’s Keep The Brown People Out Wall™.

However, it’s worth noting that this speech took place in front of a largely Latino audience in Los Angeles on Cinco de Mayo, so maybe emphasizing support for immigrants was akin to her attempt at being like “your abuela.” It’s also worth noting that in September 2014, Clinton advocated for deporting children back across the border so that they could be with their families; in other words, “keeping families together.” Same justification, opposite reasoning.

Of course, politicians should be able to adjust their views on complicated issues, and Hillary has never been one to stick like glue to the same position on something (which is probably the most common criticism lobbed at her), and frankly, that’s not always a bad thing: growing and evolving are healthy things; it makes sense that one might feel different about something after, say, 20 years of additional life experience. One could reasonably argue this is the case with Hillary on some things. It kinda feels like Hillary could neutralize the accusations of her being inconsistent and flip-flopping and pandering with the changing winds if only she would say that more clearly and often.

But even the whole “people change and so do their views” argument doesn’t do much to take the sting out of Hillary’s approach to immigration: doing a 180 on such a polarizing issue in under two years is surprising, to say the least.

Her statement is even more surprising given her description of urban youth and youth of color as “super predators” without “conscience” or “empathy” in January of this year. Basically, children of color have no souls, unless they have families who are trying to cross the border and can be used to score points against a political opponent…and even then, only if their families came to the U.S. after September 2014.

What about people from further away fleeing unimaginably terrible conditions?

Based on Clinton’s policy record, they can eat it.

Syrian refugees
CREDIT: Ververidis Vasilis/Shutterstock.com

Turns out that she’s fine with brown people in other world regions dying horribly, as long as it gives the American government space to topple regimes and move in. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that Clinton was directly implicated in the Obama administration providing sarin nerve gas to Syria and then blaming it on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad so his regime would go down.

Granted, Assad’s regime was a catalog of human rights abuses. But supplying nerve gas — which is normally associated with terrorist attacks, has the capacity to kill a lot of innocent people by making their own bodies turn on them, and potentially violates several international protocols — to an already suffering country is not the way to get rid of it.

What does this have to do with immigrants in America?

For one thing, it shows that Clinton’s sudden pro-immigrant statements are motivated by political gain rather than a belief in any sort of common humanity. That kinda went out the window when the nerve gas shipped. It also raises concerns about how far her presidency might go to protect America’s interests against evil foreigners (or perhaps “super predators”).

In light of her relatively sudden change of heart, who’s to say that immigrants won’t be grouped in with “bad” brown people once again, and what will happen if they are? Where will that classification stop?

Clinton, like everyone who wants to make it to the White House, has to recognize the humanity of all people of color if they want to succeed. You wouldn’t think this is asking a lot, but clearly it is. Despite the efforts of Trump and those who share his ideals, America is full of individuals from a huge variety of cultural, racial, and national backgrounds who are all entitled to respect and are legally allowed to vote. This is our country, too, and we’re more than just political talking points — we’re its future.