Last week media outlets grey and green, left and right, and with varying focuses breathlessly reported President Clinton’s bland statements of questionable newsworthiness on the important topic of immigration.
Perhaps the pent-up ink is due to the epic (but unsurprising) lack of interaction with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The President has clearly been the more inviting target lately.
Amidst a handful of boilerplate comments made at Univision’s upfront event, one phrase stood out for its remarkable irony:
If I were advising candidates, I would say you’ve got to have a credible position on immigration reform… The only thing that make sense is a path to citizenship.
Contrast Clinton’s approach with the Congressional testimony of Barbara Jordan – the chairwoman Clinton appointed to lead the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform during his administration:
Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.
This type of credibility continues to be in short supply. It’s hard to see how another amnesty under another President Clinton would succeed in achieving it.
ANDREW GOOD works on the Media Standards Project for NumbersUSA and is the former executive director for the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus
