Senator Clinton Accuses GOP of Creating Police State with Immigration Bill
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) accused some Republicans of trying to create a “police state” in their plan to round up illegal immigrants. Members of the GOP proposed a new tough bill to crackdown on illegal immigrants who number between 12 and 20 million.
Clinton spoke out on the US immigration policy including several contradictions of previous speeches in which she accused the Bush Administration of not dealing with the illegal immigration problem.
Speaking at a rally of Irish-American immigrants, Clinton slammed a House bill passed in December that would impose harsher penalties for illegal aliens who were working in the US without proper documents or with false documents.
“Don’t turn your backs on what made this country great,” she said, adding that the House Bill “is a rebuke to what America stands for.”
The House immigration bill would make unlawful presence in the US, which is currently a civil offense, a felony. Clinton called it, “An unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do.” Yet, she did not explain how the bill would lead to a police state.
She called instead for immigration reform, “Based on strengthening our borders in order to make us safer from the threat of terrorism.”
Senator Clinton also sent a four-page letter to constituents outlining her views on immigration. While there were no specifics in her lengthy letter, she did say she supports allowing at least some of the estimated 12 million undocumented workers to earn citizenship.
Critics claim this is just more of the same flip-flopping by Clinton depending on her audience. In 2005, Clinton told an audience that she opposed illegal immigration and wanted tougher border security measures. But then she joined her New York partner Senator Chuck Schumer in voting against a bill that would have increased the number of border patrol agents and detention facilities.
Political analysts believe Sen. Clinton is attempting a difficult balancing act. She must shore up her support from the radical left while appealing to moderates and conservatives.
Recently, Clinton stood between the former heads of the US Military Academy at West Point and the Army War College and unveiled her plan that would add 100,000 soldiers to the Army, declaring that it should be a ”national priority” to field a significantly larger military. It was strangely similar to her husband Bill Clinton’s 100,000 more police officers, which never materialized.
While conventional wisdom says that Clinton will run for president in 2008, the last Rasmussen poll shows that only 28% of Americans would definitely vote for her, while 41% would definitely vote against her. Another 25% say it depends on whom she runs against. The same poll shows that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) would handily defeat Clinton, Gore, Kerry and other Democrat candidates.
“Once again Senator Clinton is demonizing the actions of her opponents by using the words ‘police state.’ Last month she used the word ‘plantation’ in her diatribe against the GOP in front of a black audience during a memorial service in Harlem for Rev. Martin Luther King,” says Mike Baker, a political analyst.
“Clinton keeps lurching to the right one day, then lurches to the left the next. However, on immigration she’s out of sync with a majority of Americans.”
Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.
The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of CaliforniaConservative.org
See our archives for much more on Hillary and immigration
March 10th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Republicans are choking on this issue. The real issue is the 500,000 new illegal immigrants running across the border every year, most of those very poor.
The millions of illegals already here have set up roots, they have family, friends, neighbors and do business here. Getting a substantial portion of the 11 million illegals deported is just not going to happen.
Going after those already here does little more than proving you have balls of brass without actually accomplishing anything. And what is up with President Bush’s guest worker program which allows pregnant women to claim guest worker status, then walk into the US to give birth, meaning mother and child can stay here indefinitely? My brain is going to explode, this stuff is so illogical.
Just build a fence. Action! Action! Action!
March 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Build the fence, hire more officers to patrol the border (with authority to use deadly force), THEN work to get the criminals out of the U.S. That would work for me, provided the politicians had the guts to follow the wishes of 67%-75% of the citizens of this country.
They all seem to bow down to the remaining 33%-25%, thinking they are the ones who control the future.
And stop issuing drivers licenses to illegals. They came here illegally - what make anyone with an I.Q. of above 50 think they’ll follow the law and get insurance? Besides, has anyone ever heard of the motor-voter registration? Last I heard, you had to be a living citizen (contrary to Gregoire et al) to vote.
March 10th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Fences and deportations are not necessary. All we really need to do is crack down on employers. Mandatory prison sentences, fines high enough to put companies out of business and cost individuals their homes would dry up employment opportunities. Couple that with a national id card with biometric data and they will walk out the same way they walked in. Jail the employers.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Thanks for the comment, greg, and I totally agree that employers should be held responsible, too.
My solution, though, is to arrest the illegals, then fine the employer enough to hold the illegal for a year (when the illegal won’t be able to send money out of the country, creating a disincentive for him/her), and enough to send them back to the country of origin. If it’s a small employer (like a local contractor) he will go out of business, but the debt will follow him. If he’s a major employer (like some of the supermarket chains, or everyone’s capitalist fall-guy that has trouble opening new stores anywhere), it will hurt the bottom line, and stockholders will not be happy.
Remove the incentive from both sides, and the problem will boil down to catching the ones who are drug runners, rapos and murderers.
About the third time around for any company, throw the CEO in jail. The fourth, the COO. The fifth, the CFO. And, BTW, if any particular local chain store gets caught the second time, send the manager to the cooler for a while. Then the personnel director.
Pretty soon, everyone will get the idea, even as slow as some people are about such things as employment laws.