Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions pushed back against Hillary Clinton campaign’s “radical” suggestion that foreign nationals living in foreign countries have a global right to immigrate to the United States.
As Byron York first reported, earlier this week, Clinton’s campaign indicated that she believes the world has a global right to immigrate to the United States—a position that essentially dissolves the United States’ status as a sovereign nation.
York explained that on Monday, Donald Trump delivered a speech in which he declared, “We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally, through a process. … No one has a right to immigrate to this country.”
As John Hinderaker noted, such a statement should be understood as a truism. However, via Twitter, Clinton’s campaign responded directly to Trump’s statement and indicated that she “disagreed” with it:
"No one has the right to immigrate to this country." —Donald Trump during his rally in Florida today
We disagree. https://t.co/9gS9q5vQS9
— Hillary for Ohio (@HillaryforOH) September 19, 2016
Sessions explained that with this tweet, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign revealed the true extent of her radical views on immigration—which apparently are that anyone has the right to demand entry into the United States.”
“In a telling admission, Hillary Clinton’s campaign indicated it disagrees with the fundamental premise the world does not have a right to immigrate to the United States,” Sessions wrote in a Friday statement.
“Hillary Clinton’s policies are as radical as they are unprecedented,” Sessions explained. “We must restore legality to our immigration system to ensure it serves the interests of all Americans, including lawful immigrants. This election may be our last chance to do so.”
Sessions warned that Clinton’s “radical position, if enacted into policy, would result in an unmitigated fiscal disaster for the American people.”
According to Dr. George Borjas’ analysis of recent findings in a report by the National Academy of Sciences, “The national economic gains that accrue from immigration come directly at the expense of wages from those most adversely impacted by immigration—to the tune of roughly $500 billion every year,” Sessions wrote, adding:
Among those hardest hit are minorities and recent immigrants. The large immigrant flows tend to arrive in existing immigrant communities, thus, those communities suffer the greatest wage declines. This means that the dreams for economic prosperity of even recent immigrants are dashed, all because of an insatiable demand for ever more lower-skilled, lower-wage labor.
“For far too long, our immigration system has served the interests of the open-borders advocates—corporate interests who benefit from lower wages that result from greater labor flows,” Sessions wrote.
John Hinderaker echoed Sessions’ sentiment and said that “in a sensible world, Hillary’s apparent belief that foreigners have a ‘right’ to emigrate to the United States would disqualify her from the presidency.”
In the first place, [Clinton] is simply wrong as a legal matter. … The ability to control who enters a country is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty. It is appalling that Mrs. Clinton fails to understand this basic fact. As a practical matter, a pure open borders policy, as implied by the claim that foreigners have a “right to immigrate to this country,” would be a disaster. Of the world’s 7.4 billion people, at least three billion would be infinitely better off if they were living in the U.S. How many of those three billion–a conservative estimate–is Hillary prepared to accommodate?
Hinderaker added, “Hillary Clinton, with her vast wealth and phalanx of armed guards, may be insulated from the consequences of unprecedented immigration, both legal and illegal. But the rest of us are not.”