I'm completely astounded, but Hillary Clinton is proposing the most practical approach to dealing with illegal immigration that I've yet heard. I don't trust her one bit to implement it, but I'd still vote for her plan.
A fence or a wall? She's for it.A two-step process, where our borders are secured before the 11 million illegal immigrants already here begin to get legalized? She's for that, too.
The sudden crackdown by Washington on employers who hire illegal immigrants? She welcomes it.
The work and school boycott advocacy groups are planning for May 1? She's against it.
And she said she favors a "carrot-and-stick" approach with Mexico to provide that government and its "oligarchs" the incentives to give Mexicans more and better jobs in their own country.
"A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations," she said of America's "broken system." She also said that "we do need an earned path to citizenship" for illegal immigrants here. ...
Most important, her support for a time lag between the two steps, with border security coming first by as much as two years, could be the right mix that breaks the congressional deadlock and solves much of the immigration problem.
"I would not support it if the legislation was just for border security and we had to come back to Congress for everything else," she said. "We need to structure it as one piece of comprehensive legislation, with a staged implementation." For example, she said, the legalization process could begin "12 to 24 months" after border control measures take effect.
As for how to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, "A physical structure is obviously important," she said. "A wall in certain areas would be appropriate," as long as it was not a "dumb wall" that could be scaled or tunneled. Advocating "smart fencing," she added, "There is technology that would be in the fence that could spot people coming from 250 or 300 yards away and signal patrol agents who could respond."
She also talked of using drones and infrared cameras and, when asked, agreed that Israel's anti-terror wall, which she has seen, might help guide the U.S.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know what to say. I think this would be just about exactly the right approach.
Let's all try to remember that a Democrat will say anything at all if he thinks it will get him elected -- and that most certainly applies to Hillary! [Rodham] [Clinton].
Republicans are replete with that sort of behavior as well.
On this particular issue, there would not be a huge variety of opinion among Republicans in Congress if they weren't worried about re-election later this year.. or in 2008 and, more broadly, losing the Hispanic vote for years to come.
The prescription drug bill.. a program that is very non-Republican.. wouldn't have come about if Republicans didn't think it would help them get elected. (No politician would want to risk upsetting senior citizens; they always turn out to vote in record numbers)
Republicans in Congress would probably not have backed away from the Bush administration on Iraq to the degree they did were it not approaching time to go back to their individual districts and face citizens who are displeased with the war.
Karl Rove would likely have remained where he was in the hierarchy of the administration were it not time for Republicans to concentrate on winning elections.
So let's not play this game of one-party-is-more-virtuous-than-the-other when we both know better.
What Francis said. Also, remember Hillary seems to be gaining some traction when she runs to the right of Bush on some issues.