OPPOSITION TO IMMIGRATION REFORM COLLAPSING

I could consider some sort of amnesty if 4 conditions were met:

1) A wall was built and fortified. No repeat of 86 when Amnesty led to more illegal immigration

2) The "amnesty" did not push back the immigrants who were doing things the right way going through the proper hoops back in their home nations.

3) Some sort of border enforcement of the Northern Border (technical perhaps) as well as massive increase of the Coast Guard to patrol our coastlines for illegal entry.

4) A special case consideration, including background checks, (such as Hugh outlines) for immigrants from CIA watch nations.

In the end, it isn't some heartless racist desire to punish those different than us, it isn't hatred of a separate ethnic group, it is two things that motivate me: A stop to the crime that enters via our borders, and the serious consideration of the entry of terrorists over our borders.

We are a nation of laws, a nation that must enforce its laws consistently. We have hardly enforced immigration laws at all over the past 21 years, and we need to decide, what is the true purpose of immigration law?

Steve, I respectfully disagree with you on the fence and on Duncan Hunter. Coupled with technological enforcement, it could be very effective. Look at San Diego. Do you then propose that the Southern Border remain as is? California is collapsing under the weight of social programs, and a large part of that is due to illegal immigration. Legal immigrants pay taxes, which partially support the systems they use either way, and provide for at least some recovery of the tax base used for this issue.

I also disagree that Duncan Hunter is a 1 issue candidate. I was first attracted to his candidacy based on his clarity on the war. Immigration to me is not the main issue. I agree that we need to work with the current bill, in part because if we wait, as you say the next one will be entirely Democrat crafted. But we do need to demand some things. We cannot simply sign what they give us, and pretend we did our duty. Just as Bush stood tough on the war funding bill, and now Democrats are caving, so to can we make demands on this issue. We must.

will wrote: "In the end, it isn't some heartless racist desire to punish those different than us, it isn't hatred of a separate ethnic group..."


Will,

I truly do believe that YOU are not motivated by racism in the least. I also believe that an unfortunately high percentage of the opponents of immigration legislation ARE motivated to a significant degree by an anti-immigrant, isolationist, xenophobic philosophy.

Don't believe me? Just read some of the comments being posted here at TH. It is enough to make your skin crawl.

It would be a healthy development for opponents of the legislation to proclaim to the world--in no uncertain terms--that the anti-immigrant, isolationist, xenophobic and racist fringe, in no way, shape or form represents the conservative movement or the Republican Party.

Opponents of the legislation would actually strengthen their hand by unambiguously and adamantly rejecting the lunatic mob.

Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon

I agree with Bruce's statement. Did I paint with too broad a brush? Maybe I did. But I look back to the 1950s and 1960s, and I see Rosa Park paying a fine for "breaking" the law, which stated that Black people had to sit in the back of the bus when asked to do so. Such things happened in America, which Bruce, Wil, and I truly love. In seeking basic justice, leaders like King (whom I often disagreed with) and Andrew Young were denounced as outside agitators, lawbreakers, and creators of civil strife. This didn't happen in the Middle Ages.

My attitude toward immigration is based less on WWJD that on what would I do? What would I do if I was a Mexican, and there were no jobs, and I couldn't feed my family, and my children were sick and had no hope for a future of their own. Would I "break the law?" Of course I would, and so would everyone who's denouncing the illegals.

Maybe I'm asking too much for the Pasadena Phils of the world to admit these simple truths. If they don't admit them, then I wonder about their real motives.

As Bruce notes, much of the commentary on TH has nothing to do with illegals. The Hispanic culture is different from the White Anglo one that prevails. There are people who just hate "Mexicans" (Hispanics), and some of them are on TH. I believe many Americans are embarrassed at our country's treatment of Blacks. I think in a generation the country will feel the same way about Hispanics. But it will be a rocky road from here to there.

Steve Maloney

I see your point. And for the record, Patrick Henry was the first American to counsel opposing unjust laws, and many of our founding fathers profoundly distrusted his zeal.

To me, a part of reform is simplifying legal immigration, making it possible to comprehend and follow its dictates, and possible to emigrate in a reasonable amount of time. Part of it is a security issue, to keep track of who is here and where they come from, and their activities during a probationary period. And part of it is to control the criminal element, not just coming from Latin America, but also from Asia and Eastern Europe (In Sacramento, there is a gang problem among Russian immigrants, yet when I taught there, my top 3 students were in no way gang affiliated and were all Russian immigrants.) The point is, open borders are not ok both economically and for security. And the current bill, without enforcement provisions, is little more than open borders.

If I am siding with racists, that is disturbing, but that does not change the need for border access reform, not just on the Southern Border, but also in the North and the coastlines. I absolutely will denounce those who make this a racial issue, but that does not end the need for action on this issue.

Wil, I don't really disagree with you to any great degree. I absolutely agree that we need to know who is in this country and where they are. I wish we didn't need to, but we do.

I have the new proposal will solve a lot of the obvious problems. What we need to do with something this complex is to keep re-visiting it and make adjustments when things aren't working. That's almost my "philosophy of life." If it "aint' broken," as they say in the South, then of course don't fix it. But when it is broken, it's critical to take action.

My liberal friend, Maria, is vaguely anti-military, and she and I were "arguing" about Iraq. She asked me if I would have been in favor of intervening in Rwanda. I said I would have. She then asked me (her eyes wide) if I was in favor of intervening in Darfur (her favorite issue). I said I was. Now, I do realize I'm starting to sound like the Catcher in the Rye, trying to save the world. I do know that we can't solve all mankind's problems and that we run out of soldiers (all those Wils of the world). Usually, we can do something even if we can't do everything.

I do know about 800 million people would like to come to the U.S. I don't blame them, but we can't assimilate them all, so . . .

wil wrote:"If I am siding with racists, that is disturbing, but that does not change the need for border access reform, not just on the Southern Border, but also in the North and the coastlines. I absolutely will denounce those who make this a racial issue, but that does not end the need for action on this issue."

Wil,

That is a completely fair point. Reasonable, patriotic people can certainly disagree on the merits of the proposed legislation.

What is so terrible for our country, our party, and the conservative movement is the difficulty the general public will have in separating the people who hate the legislation from the people who hate Hispanics or immigrants, generally.

There was a time when the GOP was profoundly anti-immigrant and isolationist. The result: The Democrats became the party of the immigrants while the Republicans cornered the John Birch Society vote. Needless to say, that was not a winning formula for the GOP.

That is why clarity regarding immigration is so critical. Failure to do so may keep the GOP wandering in the wilderness for generations.

Bruce

The Republicans have been more the isolationist party, and the Democrats the interventionalists, but I am definitely an interventionalist.

Much as you, I thought we should have done something in Rwanda, though it is isolated and remote, and stopping the killing only temporarily solves the problem. I think we need to act in Darfur (it relates to the war on terror), and I agreed with Clinton on acting in Bosnia and Haiti (though I disagreed with the Bosnia partition plan for the same reasons I struggle with those who like Brownback/Bidens 3 state Iraq plan) Unfortunately we can't save the world. And we must prioritize. Iraq is priority 1.

As for immigration, our first priority is security. I too would love to welcome the "huddled masses" but we can't take them all in. So we need rules on immigration, and we must enforce them. If we want to get rid of some of them (many of them) fine, but we need clear rules about what is or isn't ok. Like in school or as a parent, the first key is clarity, second consistency, third compassion.

This isn't solving anything, but its where I am coming from.

You must have posted that while I was writing. Yes, most of the people in America do not note the distinctions between common sense immigration reform and anti-immigrant racism. Some of this is because they just don't look that close. Unfortunately, the answer isn't to cease debating, but I do think clear distinctions must be made.

wil wrote: "Unfortunately, the answer isn't to cease debating, but I do think clear distinctions must be made"


Wil,

We are in complete agreement on this point.

Bruce

I'm hearing on CNN "American Morning" that they're going to have as a guest Tom Tancredo, who is going to come out the proposal, etc. Tom is a single-issue candidate, and his issue is being removed, thereby making him The Most Irrelevant Man in DC. The second most irrelevant, sad to say, is Duncan Hunter, a good man but also stuck with the single issue label. Ron Paul? He inhabits his own parallel universe I guess.

Wil and Bruce, I really don't think we disagree all that much on essentials. We all dearly want to win elections, without which it all become a rhetorical matter.

I believe people have a right to espouse the views of the John Birch Society (if there many such still around). The problem is that some people associated with the Birch Society (or, on the fringes of it, like Pat Buchanan) were or are anti-Black and anti-Semitic. That's one reason people of Jewish heritage still look to the Democratic Party, even though it has moved more toward an anti-Israel stance. It still wants the money from a few souls in Hollywood, but the Democrats do not favor positions that enhance the security of either Israel or the U.S. However, old allegiances die hard. Some people are still voting for FDR and JFK, neither of whom is with us anymore.

I keep pointing out that in 1960 Richard Nixon got 32% of the Black vote. If Republicans were still getting one-third of the Black vote -- it's more like one-twelth now -- they wouldn't even have to both to hold elections. Republicans would win every state and would even be representative in DC. It would be a very different country.

In one of my columns, I made the very conventional point that "perception is reality." I got blasted for that, perhaps because it didn't jibe with Plato's philosophy of "ideals" (the ultimate reality to him). But we don't have the opportunity to give 300 million Americans a four-year seminar in appearance and reality. What people believe is true may not be totally accurate -- and sometimes is completely false -- but it's what we have to deal with. Sneering at them is NOT the way to go.

There are ways to sell conservatvism, but one of them is NOT by shouting slogans -- or even giving the appearance of racism or nativism.

What laws do we have to enforce? What laws should we change? Those are the questions, as Hamlet didn't say.

I'm on my soap box, I admit, but that's one of the nice things about blogging . . . right?

steve