Clinton endorses Trump’s immigration stance

Loading

hill-tired

 

Donald Trump has been widely scorned by the liberal elite for his stances on immigration. Trump called for a pause in immigration to “find out what’s going on.” Not unexpectedly, that statement was bastardized by the liberal media into a total and complete ban on Muslims for all time.

In August Trump refined his plan to call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants:

To fight “radical Islamic terrorism” and to “make America safe again,” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump proposed today administering a new, ideological test for immigrants who want to enter the United States.

“We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Youngstown, Ohio. “The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

“I call it extreme vetting,” Trump said.

Trump’s policy proposal is an expansion on his call in December for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims’ entering the United States.

“In addition to screening out all members of the sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law,” he said today.

“To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world,” Trump said, adding that if he becomes president, the State Department and Department of Homeland Security will curate the list of regions where the policy would apply.

It was met with derision from the clinton campaign:

Hillary for America Senior Policy Adviser Jake Sullivan released a statement today, saying, Trump’s “so-called ‘policy’ cannot be taken seriously. How can Trump put this forward with a straight face when he opposes marriage equality and selected as his running mate the man who signed an anti-LGBT law in Indiana? It’s a cynical ploy to escape scrutiny of his outrageous proposal to ban an entire religion from our country and no one should fall for it.”

As Tommy Vietor, one of obama juveniles, would say, “Dude, that was like, last month.”

This morning Hillary Clinton came out of the security closet and endorsed Trump’s policy:

“I am absolutely in favor of, and have long been an advocate for tough vetting for making sure we don’t let people in to this country and not just people who come here to settle, but we need a better visa system,” Clinton stated.

A better visa system sounds like a good idea, since Hillary’s State has been pumping out visas to Saudi’s:

Despite evidence Saudi Arabian terrorists exploit the U.S. visa program, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doubled the number of visas for Saudi visitors to the U.S., while helping cut a deal with the Kingdom to waive security procedures for Saudi nationals upon their arrival in the U.S, CounterJihad has learned.

The annual number of nonimmigrant visas issued to Saudi nationals soared 93% during Clinton’s tenure as secretary from 2009 to 2013, federal data show, hitting a record 108,578 in fiscal 2013 and reversing a post-9/11 pause in Saudi visa approvals.

Before leaving office, Clinton helped negotiate a little-noticed January 2013 administration deal with Riyadh to allow Saudi visa-holders to enter the U.S. as “trusted travelers” and bypass the normal border security process. The next year, the State Department issued an all-time-high 142,180 Saudi visas, consular data show.

It’s just (cough, cough) coincidence that Saudi is funding about 20% of Clinton’s campaign.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The present questions include asking if they are Nazis or supporters. Asking if they believe Sharia Law supersedes our Constitution cannot be asked. The Obama Admin has said Congress needs to change the questions. That is what Executive Orders are for; if the BATF can change smokeless power regs, why not EOs to change immigration vetting questions.

I’m confused… was she for it before she was against it or against it before she was for it?

HEY! Let’s talk about Trump’s positions!!

@Bill: Seems as if that bomber in New York has a Muslim name and is from Afghanistan. Seems as if the vetting process didn’t work. Since he survived the shooting, the Dims will probably set him free and let him continue to draw welfare and live on the taxpayers.
Interesting that Hillary has now adopted Trump’s position on Muslim visitors. I’ll bet no Dimocrat will label her as racist, bigot or xenophobic

uh, oh, your question…..she was against it before she was for it.

The totally blue delegate rich state of NY being bombed and the terrorist shooting a cop TG he was wearing his vest. First she called Dons remarks irresponsible, now New Yorkers might be a bit ticked that people are being attacked and they try to blow up the handicapped, by whom? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-let-500-pe/
Yes politfactless confirmed she wanted a 500% increase in refugees from terrorist hot countries.
So wassup with this flop wheres Mrs Huma Weiner?