Skip to content Skip to footer
|

The Clintons Have Failed Latinos on Immigration Reform

The Clintons have championed “get tough” policies that have bolstered those who have a financial incentive to maintain the status quo.

Don’t trust the corporate media? Neither do we. Make a tax-deductible donation to Truthout and support accurate, independent journalism.

It has been 10 years since the immigration marches of 2006 began when activists marched against a proposed federal crackdown on immigration. In spring 2006, a bill passed the US House of Representatives that would make it a felony to be in the United States without documentation; ultimately this bill did not become a law. Instead of advancing a progressive and humane agenda on immigration, both Hillary and Bill Clinton have failed the Latino community on immigration reform.

Weeks before voters in California passed Proposition 187 in 1994, which called for preventing undocumented immigrants from receiving any public benefit, the Clinton administration announced Operation Gatekeeper, which was designed to curtail illegal immigration at the southern border between San Diego and Tijuana. One of the goals of this effort was to push migrants who sought entry into the US to the east (to the desert). Since Operation Gatekeeper was implemented, it is estimated that over 6,600 migrants have died on the US side of the southern border, and the remains of another 1,000 migrants have been unidentified.

In October 2014, on the twentieth anniversary of Operation Gatekeeper, Pedro Rios, the director of the American Friends Service Committee’s US-Mexico Border Program in San Diego stated, “Operation Gatekeeper has created a human rights disaster along the border, and our policymakers are silent about it. It is a shameful legacy that represents a failure in policy making when militarization is prioritized over human needs.”

Not to be outdone by Republican opponents in 1996, just weeks before his re-election, President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, whose goal was to prevent the flow of undocumented migration into the US This law increased resources for border patrol, enhanced enforcement and penalties against migrant smuggling, created tougher sanctions for undocumented immigrants caught inside of the US, and gave rise to the 287(g) program that enabled the federal government to delegate immigration enforcement to state and local law enforcement agencies. The 287(g) program empowered local law enforcement officials like Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to engage in racial profiling and to allow local law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of anyone booked into jail.

The 1996 immigration bill that President Clinton signed is credited with fueling the massive incarceration of immigrants in the US. In 1996, there were 6,280 beds for detaining undocumented migrants on a daily basis. In 2010, the daily capacity for immigrant detention was 33,400. During his re-election campaign against Senator Bob Dole, the Clinton campaign even ran an ad highlighting his “tough anti-illegal immigration law.” When he could have displayed courage by advocating for a more humane and progressive “immigration reform” bill in 1996, Clinton pandered to the kind of voter who supported Proposition 187 in California in the general election.

As a senator, Hillary Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which began construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border. In November while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton said, “I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, and I do think that you have to control your borders.” Clinton has now tried to pivot away from the rhetoric on the border fence (or wall) saying that it is now “time to do comprehensive immigration reform.”

In 2007, Senator Clinton supported then-Governor Eliot Spitzer’s (New York) decision to withdraw his plan to give driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. She then went further, saying that as president she would not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people.

By continuing to support a “get tough” approach on immigrants, Bill and Hillary Clinton have tacked to the right on immigration, making it more likely that their Democratic colleagues adopt the “get tough” rhetoric and implement the accompanying policies. In many ways, President Clinton set the stage for President Obama’s record-breaking deportations and booming immigrant detention situation, and Hillary Clinton has enabled it with her own rhetoric about sending a message to people fleeing violence in Central America.

When the unaccompanied minor crisis was heating up along the southern border in 2014, Hillary Clinton said that the children “should be sent back” to their native countries. Then in August of last year, Hillary Clinton defended her call to deport children who are fleeing violence in Central America.

The initial response from the Clintons on immigration has historically been about more enforcement, less relief, and deportation. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have had opportunities to show leadership on immigration related matters that would be more tolerant and humane, but over time, they have sought approval from anti-immigrant voters only to soften their language later about “comprehensive immigration reform” and keeping families together after the damage has been done. One of the reasons why there hasn’t been meaningful “immigration reform” legislation since the mass marches and protests from ten years ago is because Democrats like the Clintons have championed ‘get tough’ policies that have bolstered bureaucracies and enterprises (private prisons) who have an incentive to maintain the status quo.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.