Hillary: On second thought, maybe some of these illegal immigrant children shouldn’t be sent back
posted at 12:41 pm on July 28, 2014 by Allahpundit
Via America Rising, a few weeks ago she told Christiane Amanpour that kids coming across the border would have to be sent back. That was the same opinion held by Nancy Pelosi initially — in exchange for the GOP agreeing to Obama’s border funding request, the House could tweak the 2008 child-trafficking law to make it easier for the feds to send kids back to Central America expeditiously. Then the Congressional Hispanic Caucus declared that it opposed changing the trafficking law; suddenly Pelosi had an epiphany and decided that she opposed it too. And now, lo and behold, here’s Hillary having the same epiphany. She too opposes changing the child-trafficking law, no doubt knowing that the alternative — releasing young illegals to family members in the U.S. while they wait for a deportation hearing — means countless numbers will escape the system. Greg Sargent’s right: She’s moving to Obama’s left to start her pandering to Latino voters bright and early before 2016.
The comic charm of this video, though, is that she’s trying to pull this move while chatting with Jorge Ramos, which means no matter how hard she strains to move left, she ends up awkwardly forced to defend herself to a guy who’s even farther left than she is. No, she reassures Ramos, I don’t support the child-trafficking law; no, I don’t want kids who qualify as legit “refugees” to be sent home; yes, I do support Obama’s (terrible) idea to begin processing refugee applications in Central America. She’s pandering as hard as she can. The only line she draws is that kids who don’t qualify for “refugee” status must be sent back in theory, since, as noted above, in practice, many won’t be sent back anyway. But she’s saying all of this to a guy who’s on record as believing that America shouldn’t deport children, period. What you’re watching here, basically, is a debate between someone who’s avowedly in favor of open borders versus someone who prefers open borders on the sly, so that she can pretend to independents next year that she’s kinda sorta serious about border enforcement. In fact, I’d go so far as to say this is near-definitive proof that she’s running for president. If she wasn’t worried about alienating centrists, she could join Ramos in the “legalize ’em” parade.
By the way, per the Washington Times, immigration activists will be picketing the White House today demanding that illegal immigrants be included in White House deliberations on this issue. We normally invite foreigners into the Oval Office for negotiations on domestic policy, don’t we?