What Graham reminds us about Clinton’s immigration record

Washington Post (Right Turn)

By Jennifer Rubin

July 9, 2015

What Graham reminds us about Clinton’s immigration record 

There are times when Republicans should be very grateful they have a diverse and impressive field. Yes, there are the obnoxious and unhinged ones, Donald Trump especially, but there is also Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who said in an appearance yesterday: “I want to remind anybody who cares about immigration reform, that Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the stimulus went ahead of you. [Hillary Clinton] was a public voice in 2009; I never remember her saying ‘wait a minute, President Obama — you promised to do immigration reform. Honor your promise.’ She didn’t say a word.” Darn right.

Hillary Clinton, as on most every topic, has been a follower and not a leader on immigration reform. Huffington Post recounts:

Eight years ago, it was the topic of driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants that first tripped up the seemingly inevitable presidential candidacy of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). During an October 2007 debate in Philadelphia, Clinton was asked whether she supported the efforts of her home-state governor, Eliot Spitzer, to pass a bill authorizing those licenses. Spitzer was arguing that it would make the roads safer since undocumented immigrants with licenses would more likely to get insurance and cooperate with police.

But Clinton had fits with the question. She said the New York proposal “makes a lot of sense,” before adding that she did not support it. Her Democratic primary opponents on the stage let her have it, accusing her of deliberate vagueness and of wanting to have it both ways on the issue.

Then-Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) interrupted her answer: “No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.” Dodd opposed driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. Then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who supported such licenses, quipped that he couldn’t “tell whether she was for it or against it.”

About two weeks later, Clinton had a settled answer. “As president, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people,” she said in a statement, adding that she would push for broader immigration reform.

Now she is back to approving them. It’s typical of her finger-to-the-wind approach, and Graham is smart to make the case she has been weak on immigration reform. If the GOP nominates Graham, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Jeb Bush it will have a good argument that it is the responsible party that supports border security, reform of legal immigration and some form of legalization or citizenship.

Graham, as other Republicans have done, made clear that he denounces Donald Trump’s remarks. He did not hold back, arguing that Trump’s comment was “offensive” and “not accurate.” He continued, “The overwhelming majority of the 11-plus million illegal immigrants are good, hardworking people who need to get right with the law, among them are some really bad people, rapists, drug dealers and killers. As a party we need to reject the characterization of the 11 million as mostly drug dealers and rapists.”

Why must Republicans do this? Quite simply, Trump’s remarks were wrong and racist and, considering the mixed history of the GOP on immigration, it is incumbent on them to call him out. Whether they want border security only, or legalization or a path to citizenship is irrelevant. Unless they want to be permanently cast as anti-immigrant (and hence anti-most American families) they better not mince words. As Graham said, “We’re going to drive a wedge between us and Hispanics that’s going to last for a generation if we don’t knock this crap off.”

Those who don’t understand why Graham is right fundamentally misunderstand the composition of the electorate and the American values of inclusion and tolerance.  (And many of the same can’t figure out why the Confederate flag is regarded as hateful or why we should oppose discrimination against gays in the workplace.) If the GOP does not want to be the Doesn’t Get It party, it better start acting like it respects all Americans.

As Peter Wehner wrote, “If conservatives rally to defend Mr. Trump on the grounds that he’s ‘refreshing’ and has ‘passion,’ that he’s ‘anti-establishment’ and irritates liberals, they will do considerable damage to their movement and to the Republican Party. Mr. Trump is a pernicious figure on the American political landscape. He can’t be wished away. Which means the people who have to confront and expose him are conservatives. We’re the ones who have the most to lose from a successful Trump candidacy.” In that regard, Graham and others who have spoken out have done their party a great service.

For more information, go to:  www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com