Hillary Clinton Says Mass Migration Has Gone Too Far

For years, Democrats insisted that concerns over illegal immigration were overblown, even cruel. Now, one of the party’s most recognizable figures is striking a very different tone. Hillary Clinton has admitted that mass migration has “gone too far” and has been “disruptive and destabilizing.”

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference during a panel titled “The West–West Divide: What Remains of Common Values,” Clinton acknowledged that the immigration debate is not only legitimate it’s necessary.

“There is a legitimate reason to have a debate about things like migration,” Clinton said. “It went too far, it’s been disruptive and destabilizing, and it needs to be fixed in a humane way with secure borders that don’t torture and kill people.”

For critics of the Biden administration’s immigration policies, Clinton’s remarks sound like a belated admission of what millions of Americans have been saying for years: border security matters.

The immigration crisis is not theoretical. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, there were more than 2.4 million encounters at the southern border in fiscal year 2023 alone one of the highest totals ever recorded. Since 2021, total encounters have surpassed 7 million. At the same time, fentanyl seizures at the border have skyrocketed, with the DEA reporting record-breaking confiscations in recent years.

Against that backdrop, Clinton’s acknowledgment that mass migration has been destabilizing carries weight. But it also raises questions.

As recently as last year, Clinton was praising the economic impact of immigration during an appearance at the Newmark Civic Life Series in Manhattan. She argued that the U.S. economy outperformed other advanced nations in part because of an influx of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, who replenished the workforce.

That stance aligned squarely with mainstream Democratic messaging, which has emphasized economic benefits while downplaying concerns over border security and illegal immigration.

Her earlier positions were even more expansive. During her 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton opposed a large-scale border wall and supported executive actions by former President Barack Obama that deferred enforcement for millions of illegal immigrants. She advocated ending family detention and expanding access to government programs.

Her 2016 platform even proposed expanding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to all families regardless of immigration status, stating her goal was to “expand access to affordable health care to all families … regardless of immigration status.”

Yet Clinton has not always held such views. In a 1993 congressional hearing, she took a far more restrictive tone: “We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration.”

Now, decades later, Clinton appears to be circling back to the language of border enforcement and security albeit paired with calls for a “humane” approach.

The political context is hard to ignore. Poll after poll shows that immigration consistently ranks among the top concerns for American voters heading into the 2024 election. A recent Gallup survey found that a majority of Americans disapprove of the federal government’s handling of immigration, and border security has become a defining issue in key battleground states.

Meanwhile, cities across the country from New York to Chicago to Denver have struggled to accommodate waves of new arrivals, straining budgets and social services. Even Democratic mayors have publicly pleaded for federal action.

Taken together, Clinton’s evolving rhetoric on immigration paints a picture of a political figure whose positions have shifted with the prevailing winds. From warning in the 1990s that extending benefits would encourage illegal immigration, to championing broad protections and expanded access, and now acknowledging that mass migration has been destabilizing, the arc is unmistakable.

For voters concerned about border security and illegal immigration, Clinton’s comments may feel less like a revelation and more like confirmation of what they’ve long argued. The question now is whether Democratic leadership will match this new rhetoric with substantive policy changes or whether it’s simply another recalibration as public opinion turns.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed.