Hillary Clinton needs a coherent policy on immigration, and it can’t appear to condone open borders. She needed it before Britain voted to leave the European Union. She needs it even more now.
Working class whites in Britain and in this country have shared a sense that mass immigration has contributed to their economic decline. They are not wrong, though they have vastly underestimated the role of automation in killing jobs and overestimated that of trade agreements.
That said, feelings on immigration differ in the United States and in significant ways. Here the anger focuses on illegal immigration. On this, Clinton can’t equivocate. She must draw a sharp line between legal immigration and the other kind.
Like Canada and Australia, the United States has a large and generally popular immigration program. What has set America apart from these other countries has been its tolerance of illegal immigration. Canadian and Australian diplomats, avid supporters of their immigration programs, have long shaken their heads at our lax enforcement.
Enter Donald Trump smearing America’s immigrants in formerly unthinkable terms. Some analysts say that the Brexit vote strengthened his prospects. But that’s only if Clinton falls into the trap of framing efforts to tighten enforcement of our immigration laws as “anti-immigrant.” She has that tendency.
Fortunately, she also has the inflammatory Trump as the alternative. With some careful positioning, Clinton can win the confidence of the great majority of Americans who back immigration as long as it’s legal. And her overwhelming support among Latino voters would slip little if at all.
Republicans feeling saddled with Trump have largely themselves to blame. In 2013 the Senate easily passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would have legalized the status of otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants while putting real teeth in the government’s ability to stop future illegal immigration.
The Republican-controlled House wouldn’t even vote on it. Had the leaders stood up to all that hollering about “rewarding lawbreakers,” the U.S. would today have a far more orderly immigration program. And Trump would have been denied his most prized populist bauble.
Instead, Republicans let the problem fester. When President Obama tried to enforce the weak law on the books — a brave move that won him the epithet of “deporter in chief” from many immigrant advocates — Republican leaders gave him no support.
Clinton’s vow last March to not deport any undocumented immigrants other than violent criminals and terrorists broke from Obama’s more disciplined policy. It also came off as major-league pandering.
We understand what Clinton is doing. She’s trying to secure the growing Latino vote. Polls giving her a lead in normally red Arizona confirm some success. But she has to balance ethnic politics with labor politics.
Trump has so offended Latinos that Clinton can take stances displeasing to a few advocates. She can strongly back a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. That’s supported by 90% of registered Latino voters, a recent Fox News Latino poll found.
Other nationwide surveys show a majority of Americans feeling likewise. But Clinton must also say that henceforth, only the documented will be allowed to come here to work.
Other realities of American immigration should help her. Most Latinos who’ve come to the U.S., legally or not, have been culturally a good fit. They work hard. They care for their families. The nationwide flood of concern for the mostly Latino victims of the Orlando terrorist attack reflects the widespread notion that they are “one of us.”
Meanwhile, an improving economy and lower birthrates south of the border have halted the net flow from Mexico. Working class Latinos, most of whom were born here and are full citizens, have a growing stake in an immigration program sensitive to labor conditions.
Clinton’s vision of an immigration system can be large, it can be generous, and it can be welcoming to people from everywhere. But it must have rules.
The Brexit vote is a reminder that even seeming to back open borders is a losing proposition — and that these are politically volatile times.
