Will Hillary Clinton’s “Open Borders” Dream End Up Deciding Election — for Trump?
Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategists surely breathed a huge sigh of relief when the 2nd Presidential Debate ended without any mention of Clinton’s “open borders” comments, which had recently been released by WikiLeaks. They know that, as with the Brexit vote in the UK in June, the deadly reality of “open borders” could end up having a much greater impact on Election Day than the pro-Hillary media polls are showing. British voters revolted against the massive “Project Fear” campaign waged by Prime Minister David Cameron, President Obama, and virtually all of the British political, banking, academic, and media establishment. British voters demanded a return of their independence and sovereignty. Especially, they demanded control over their own borders, defying the European Union’s claim of the right to decide who (and how many) may migrate to Britain.
So, Team Hillary’s strategists were undoubtedly relieved when CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Martha Raddatz did them a big favor in the second presidential debate last Sunday by saving their candidate from having to face her record and policies on open borders, immigration, refugees, illegal alien amnesty, and trade treaties. Specifically, Cooper and Raddatz made sure nobody brought up the matter of Hillary Clinton’s speech to Brazilian bankers in which she told of her “dream” of an EU-style hemispheric union of “open trade and open borders.”
The “open borders” speech was one of many Clinton bombshells to be dropped by the WikiLeaks organization, in a dump of thousands of hacked e-mails, two days before the debate. It goes to the heart of a timely and vital issue that millions of American voters consider very important. However, Cooper and Raddatz were intent on avoiding the open borders issue and insisted on obsessing instead on the conveniently leaked video of Donald Trump’s vulgar comments from more than a decade ago.
Specifically, in a speech to the Brazilian megabank, Banco Itau, Mrs. Clinton said: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
The social chaos, terrorism, debt, banking crisis, currency crisis, and other crises under which the European common market is disintegrating, offer little to commend the European Union as a hemispheric model for Americans. The ongoing migration tsunami that is wracking and ruining the EU gives us a pretty good picture of what “open borders” look like. Europeans are finding out that the ugly reality is far different from the rosy pictures painted for decades by their politicians — politicians of the same internationalist mold as Hillary Clinton. Borders matter; if you don’t have them you can’t enforce them, and you don’t really even have a country.
Hillary Clinton is extremely vulnerable on this issue, even if we do not experience another terror attack by Islamic extremists in this country before the November election.
Clinton has leapfrogged over her former boss, President Obama, and called for an even more radical Syrian refugee policy than his very unpopular program. In fact, she called for more than six times the number of refugees proposed by Obama. In a 2015 interview, she said the United States should accept 65,000 refugees from Syria; President Obama’s Syrian refugee plan, at the time, was for 10,000.
“We’re facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II and I think the United States has to do more,” the former secretary of state said on CBS’s Face the Nation. “I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in.”
Of course, the “mechanisms for vetting people” comment was an obligatory throwaway line meant to placate voters’ national security concerns. But it was totally devoid of content, since our top security officials have repeatedly pointed out there is no way for us to properly vet these “refugees.” However, the refugee issue is only one part of Hillary’s “open borders” equation; she has also spent a political lifetime — as first lady, senator, secretary of state, Clinton Foundation chieftess — promoting and supporting illegal alien amnesty, increased immigration, entitlements of every kind for immigrants (legal and illegal) and fast-track citizenship, and fast-track voting.
Beyond the refugee/migrant/immigrant matters that are big-ticket items for the large pool of voters Donald Trump is aiming at, there is the “open trade” and “hemispheric common market” component that crosses party and ideological lines, energizing huge numbers of conservative Republicans, Ron Paul Libertarians, and Bernie Sanders Democrats and Independents. To this broad swath of Americans, the WikiLeaks “open borders” leak confirms Hillary’s firm commitment to the deadly trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
For the past year and a half, Hillary has been trying to convince voters that despite her role in helping craft the TPP and TTIP (as secretary of state), publicly praising it more than 45 times (as even the pro-Clinton CNN notes), and having described the TPP as the “gold standard” of trade agreements. Much of the opposition to the TPP, the TTIP, and other multilateral “trade” agreements of this type has focused on the enormous economic harm that NAFTA has done, especially in terms of millions of lost jobs and the loss of America’s once world-dominant manufacturing and technology base. Equally important, though less understood, however, are the numerous attacks on national sovereignty woven into the fabrics of NAFTA, TPP, and TTIP. Like the various treaties that have incrementally transformed the EU into the centralized and increasingly tyrannical behemoth it has become, these regional “trade” treaties actually establish bodies with legislative, executive, and judicial functions that are designed to gradually transform into a regional government that will override our own constitutionally limited government. Hillary Clinton is well aware of these dangers that she has helped build into the TPP and TTIP. The believability of her convenient flip-flop on this crucial issue is about zero; she can be counted on to flip again, if she gets to the Oval Office. Her current anti-TPP stance is most certainly her “public position,” at the moment, but what does she really intend to do on the matter? One of the other inconvenient (for Clinton) WikiLeaks revelations concerned her admission of duplicity, in one of her high-paid speeches to high-end investors, asserting that politicians need to be two-faced, having “both a public and a private position.”
Project Fear/Project Smear
The political/business/media/academic elites that targeted the Brexit vote for defeat with “Project Fear” are the same combined forces that have targeted Donald Trump with Project Smear. Following the Brexit victory, an obviously chastened Richard Haass, president of the world government-promoting, pro-EU, pro-open borders Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), commented: “For Hillary Clinton’s campaign, this is something of a warning not to underestimate this disaffection, not to underestimate political and economic nationalism.”
Hillary Clinton, who, while secretary of state, famously said (in the presence of her “good friend” Richard Haass) that she depended upon the CFR to tell her what to do and what to think (see video of her confession here), is obviously listening to the advice of Haass. She has flip-flopped on TPP and has sort of flip-flopped on migration-refugees. She is trying to appeal to all sides; appealing for the Hispanic/immigrant vote by supporting “comprehensive immigration reform” — the longtime code phrase for amnesty and open borders — while at the same time attempting to appeal to Middle America by insisting she intends to implement stringent vetting of refugees/immigrants. The open question is how many American voters will believe her new “public position” on open borders — and how many will believe — or be influenced by/distracted by — Project Smear.