In a recent piece at Ordinary Times, Vikram Bath provides some striking examples illustrating how much the Democrats’ position on immigration has changed since 1995:

Check out the New York Times in 1995:

The White House today welcomed a Federal advisory panel’s recommendation to cut legal immigration by one-third. But the proposals met fierce opposition from Hispanic, Asian-American, Roman Catholic and Jewish groups, as well as from the National Association of Manufacturers. …

Mr. Clinton said the panel had “laid out a road map for Congress to consider.” His press secretary, Michael D. McCurry, said that “the President indicated to Barbara Jordan today that he will support such reductions,” which would represent the biggest change in immigration policy in more than 40 years.

In addition, Mr. Clinton said the proposal “appears to reflect a balanced immigration policy that makes the most of our diversity while protecting the American work force so that we can better compete in the emerging global economy.” …

Among the changes proposed were to impose substantial fees on employers who employ foreign workers within the United States. Additionally, they were required to speak English and have at least a baccalaureate degree.

They also sought to cut the number of refugees admitted by more than half. …

Where were the Republicans? Here:

Representative Dick Armey, the Texas Republican who is the House majority leader, said: “The commission fails to tell us why we should so dramatically reduce legal immigration. It is long on recommendations, but short on analysis.” He said the proposals were “a misguided attempt to make legal immigrants the scapegoats for America’s problems.” [emphasis added]

As Bath points out, the Democrats’ anti-immigration position in 1995 wasn’t a new development:

Barbara Jordan, who led the commission whose report Clinton so loved, delivered the keynote address at the 1975 Democratic National Convention (the first woman to do so). She was a border security hawk:

It is far better to deter illegal immigration than to play the cat and mouse game that results from apprehensions followed by return followed by re-entry. To accomplish a true deterrence strategy will require additional personnel as well as a strategic use of technology and equipment. We will also require new measures of effectiveness because apprehensions alone cannot measure success in preventing illegal entries. Our goal should be zero apprehensions-not because aliens get past the Border Patrol but because they are prevented entry in the first place. …

There are people who argue that some illegal aliens contribute to our community because they may work, pay taxes, send their children to our schools, and in all respects except one, obey the law. Let me be clear: that is not enough. …

Certain legal immigrant populations may impose other costs: refugees often have special needs for health and other services, making resettlement significantly more costly than overseas solutions to refugee problems; elderly new immigrants are more likely to draw upon public services than elderly native-born Americans or immigrants who came to the United States at a younger age. …

This did not make her unique within the Democratic Party; it made her fit right in the Democratic Party. She gave the opening statement at the House Judiciary Committee hearings when the House took up the impeachment of Richard Nixon. She was an early rumored running mate to Jimmy Carter. She was a noted and worthy Civil Rights leader. Her legacy of service to her party is secure.

Bath also provides a link to a You Tube video that’s guaranteed to make progressives wince: