Jeb Bush has a surprisingly vague stance on immigration
No wonder Hillary Clinton pounced

Between Donald Trump, scourge of Mexican immigrant rapists, and accused killer Francisco Sanchez, immigration is becoming the hottest issue on the 2016 campaign trail.
Behind every new controversy on the issue, some fundamental questions lie, both practical and political. Is there a way to deal with the 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States? Is there much more to be done on border security than we're already doing? And can Republicans talk tough enough to satisfy their base in the primaries, while not alienating Hispanic voters, at least some of whom they'll need to win in November?
Questions like those are behind an interesting disagreement Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are now having, and if they end up being the two parties' nominees, it will be one we'll see continuing into next fall.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
In an interview this week with CNN, Clinton said of Bush, "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does." The Bush campaign released an angry statement in reply, calling Clinton a flip-flopper and saying, "As he outlined in his book on this issue, Gov. Bush believes in a conservative legislative solution to fix our broken immigration system that includes earned legal status for those currently in the country after they pay fines and taxes, learn English, and commit no substantial crimes while securing our border." There are an awful lot of qualifiers in there, which shows how complicated the words "path to citizenship" can be for a Republican — even one who's trying to be the most open-minded and welcoming candidate in the field on immigration.
Here are the basic facts about Bush.
As late as 2012, he said in public that he would support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But when his book Immigration Wars came out in 2013, it declared that what he supported was only some kind of legal status — but most definitely not citizenship.
"Permanent residency in this context, however, should not lead to citizenship," he and his co-author wrote. "It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences — in this case, that those who violated the laws can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship."
This actually puts Bush to the right of some of his opponents in the primary. For instance, Marco Rubio may not use the term "path to citizenship," but when he describes his favored approach, he lays out an extended process for undocumented immigrants that ends in, yes, "citizenship." Even Scott Walker has at times endorsed a path to citizenship, murky though his actual position might be.
Of course, some paths are easier than others, but all the candidates, even the Democrats, propose something lengthy and involved that would take years; that's also what Democrats in Congress have advocated as part of comprehensive reform. When Republicans mention it — at this point anyway — they always say that the undocumented won't even be able to get on that path until we've "secured the border," which might or might not be a way of hinting that the path will remain forever over the horizon. (You can always say that the border isn't quite yet secure.)
As for the exchange between Clinton and Bush, she's right that he used to support a path to citizenship but he no longer does. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, and I'm sure Bush's rationale is one many people would agree with. But it's also true that in the last couple of years, Republican voters have shifted away from support for a path to citizenship as the issue has gotten more and more attention. In a recent Pew Research Center poll, only 25 percent of them said undocumented immigrants should be able to apply for citizenship. However, another 28 percent supported permanent residency, or something like what Bush advocates; put them together and you've got a majority who think those immigrants ought to be able to stay in the country legally one way or another (among Democrats, that figure was 80 percent).
So Jeb may be hoping he found the sweet spot for the primaries, where punitiveness meets compassion. For now, he can say loudly that he wants to secure the border, and if anyone should happen to ask, he'll allow that legal status for undocumented immigrants might be in the cards. And when the general election rolls around (if he's the nominee), he'll just reverse his emphasis: Yes, we need to secure the border, but we'll get that out of the way soon, and then those immigrants will be welcomed into America's loving embrace. That may not be quite what Republican voters want to hear, but by then they won't have anywhere else to go.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Paul Waldman is a senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for The Washington Post. His writing has appeared in dozens of newspapers, magazines, and web sites, and he is the author or co-author of four books on media and politics.
-
Why Serbian protesters set off smoke bombs in parliament
THE EXPLAINER Ongoing anti-corruption protests erupted into full view this week as Serbian protesters threw the country's legislature into chaos
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
How to do the 75 Hard trend the soft way
The Week Recommends The 75 Soft Challenge might be more your speed if you're trying to hit a soft reset
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
Rep. Sylvester Turner dies, weeks after joining House
Speed Read The former Houston mayor and longtime state legislator left behind a final message for Trump: 'Don't mess with Medicaid'
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published