Secretary Rubio's Speech Will Spark Change in Europe: Analyst

For more analysis on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's speech at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, we're bringing in Gerard Filletti, foreign affairs analyst and attorney specializing in international law. Gerard, thank you for joining us today this afternoon. So, former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also spoke at the conference in Munich and her comments on migration have drawn quite a bit of attention. Can we just first take a look at what she said? It's a legitimate reason to have a debate about things like migration. 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. So, Gerard, what do you think about that? Well, at first on a superficial level, it almost sounds like she is echoing Donald Trump and mentioning that and acknowledging that migration policies in the West have gone too far and they have been destabilizing. But where we really see a difference with what Hillary Clinton said in Munich is that she wants to see a different system of deportations than allowing people into the country. She would put more emphasis on what she calls a humanitarian method, which means allowing more people in and allowing the process to resolve itself in the United States, not blocking entry at the border. So, while some of the language is very evocative of what President Trump is doing, she still maintains a very different approach into the number and methods of allowing migration into the U.S. Do you think her position reflects the majority of her fellow Democrats in Congress? Why or why not? I don't think that it does. I think that many in Congress or the younger generation of Democrats, the ones we see supporting Zoran Mamdani in New York City or Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, these are people who have much more progressive views on immigration. They want unfettered, unchecked immigration. They don't care how many people come into the country and want to make it easier for people to migrate to the United States without checks, without controls and without institutional maintaining the border as it currently is. So, I think Hillary Clinton represents an older school of democratic thinking, which is not shared by younger Democrats who are more populist in their message and their progressive message. So, Gerard, we have another comment from former Secretary Clinton on deportation. Let's take a look at this clip. More people were deported under my husband and Barack Obama without killing American citizens and without putting children into detention camps than were in the first Trump term or this first year of Trump's second term. Very strong statement, forceful there. What do you make of this comment? Well, again, I think it shows the differences that Hillary Clinton has with the Trump administration in the manner in which deportations are carried out. But it's also interesting to note that, yes, it is true that the administrations of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did deport a significant number of people, perhaps more so than Donald Trump has to date. But the issue ultimately is that when the Democrats did so, they had the cooperation of democratic cities like Minneapolis, like New York, which you do not see happening today. So, in today's world, elected officials at the local level have politicized immigration more so than they did during the Clinton and the Obama years, meaning that it's much more difficult and much more volatile to deport people than it used to be. So, you said there were more deportations under Clinton and Obama, but there were no notable anti-ICE protests against those deportations during the Clinton or Obama administrations. What do you think accounts for that? I think a lot of that has to do with the shifting nature of the Democratic Party. It has become much more pro-unfettered immigration and anti-establishment, anti-rules, anti-laws, such as the immigration law. So, you see a shift within the Democratic people of a much more activist base, people mobilized by Black Lives Matter, by other activist organizations, and now joining together to protest ICE, essentially. You did not see this in earlier years. You did not see this in the Clinton or the Obama administrations. Back then, you had more support from local officials. Now, you don't, because those local officials have gotten increasingly more progressive and they share the views of their voters that ICE is bad and that immigration is good. So, you said earlier Hillary Clinton's school of thought is perhaps an older one. Do you think her position will be adopted by the Democratic Party as it is now? Why or why not? I do not think it likely that her position will be adopted by the Democratic Party. I think that what the Democrats are seizing on is the manner in which she is criticizing Trump's deportation policy, the way he's implementing it. I think that part, being more compassionate and making sure that everyone has due process, that will be adopted. But as for a border, I think that what we're seeing from most of the candidates who are likely to be Democratic frontrunners, both in the midterms and in the 2028 presidential election, they have a much more nuanced view where they view immigration itself as a net good. So, they do not share the view that Hillary Clinton seems to have that migration policies in the West have gone too far and that they've been disruptive. The newer generation of Democrats think that this disruption is good. Clinton does not. So, I do not think her views are shared or will be put on a Democratic platform anytime soon. Right. Okay. I want to get another couple of comments from you on Secretary Rubio's speech at this conference, widely seen, praised, as well as a unifying message. Do you think, I mean, what are your main takeaways? He says Europe and the United States belong together. What stood out to you in the speech? That is precisely what stood out to me in the speech, that he was conciliatory towards Europe, that he was pointing out that the United States is not looking to separate itself from Europe or European priorities, that we share the culture, the heritage, the traditions, and the obligations to our democracies that Europe has. So, I think that Rubio's speech was very conciliatory and it was very well received, especially at the ministerial level, which is very significant because while you may see heads of state take aim at Donald Trump and say that there is a break in relations with the United States, when you look at the mechanics, the administrative level, the ministerial level, people like Rubio, like foreign secretaries in European countries, they're still working together very well. So, that shows that whatever divisions are political on the outside, Europe and America are still joined at the hip and working very well together. So, just finally, with that being said, Gerard, do you think this speech will have any potential impact to spark meaningful change between these two parties? I think there will be meaningful change, but it will be gradual. Europe is understanding now that it does need to provide more for its own defense. It needs to invest more money in their armed forces, and I think part of the discussions that took place at Munich is the realization that maybe de-industrialization has gone too far. That China, even though it was not explicitly named by Rubio in his speech, does present a threat that's shared to Europe and America, and Europe is starting to recognize that they need to do more to step up to counter that growing threat. Okay, great comments, Gerard, as always. Thank you for your time. Always a pleasure. Thank you.