Isn’t it a tad bit ironic that one of the most controversial conservative positions out there happens to be the one that, if implemented, would actually do the most to ‘conserve’ the United States as a functioning, liberty-respecting republic? In fact, to make a cogent case for that position - an all-out immigration moratorium - is to practically ask to be called every knee-jerk name in the book by the left and even by some on the right eager to distance themselves from a position the left has successfully managed to brainwash most of a gullible public into believing is somehow evil.
Even so, it’s where we are in terms of discourse, unfortunately. That’s because, arguably next to President Trump getting reelected, an all-out immigration moratorium is quite possibly the left’s worst nightmare, because it would represent a halt to their ongoing plans to implement, then use demographic change to seize and maintain power.
But sadly, conservatives are far from united. Mainline conservatives are generally OK with calling for an end to illegal immigration. You’ll often see them on the primetime news shows sliding in that ubiquitous “I’m really, really a good person, I promise. I LOVE immigrants. I just want them to come LEGALLY, that’s all. Oh, and the more the merrier!” as they argue against the illegal kind, or even using some variation of President Trump’s “big, beautiful door” visual as they make their case for a border wall.
Sure, curbing illegal immigration and controlling who comes into the country with the help of a giant border wall, even if it has a “big, beautiful door,” are both noble, moral imperatives. Not knowing who is here and not controlling who is allowed to come much better than the alternatives, particularly when it comes to combating terrorism. However, that’s generally as far as the so-called “Conservative, Inc.” crowd will go when it comes to the immigration issue. Their motives probably have something to do with a combination of big-business interests and thinking that ‘not being a meanie’ will somehow endear them to the left. (That and not wanting to be called the dreaded R-word, of course.)
Yet, the more than a few problems with their “the more the merrier” approach include the questions of just how many more, and will things really be merrier? If you say you love “legal immigration,” then why not just give the left its wish and legalize it all? Or make it where the United States is accepting, instead of its current 1 million, 10 million, or 20 million, or even more? I mean, if we legalize it, it’s LEGAL, right … as in ‘legal immigration’? If being illegal is your only problem, there’s an easy solution the left would doubtless cooperate on implementing. We could even make a giant wall, impenetrable even, but if we leave the “big, beautiful door” open to whoever wants to come in, even granting that we know who they are, that doesn’t change the societal, structural, and economic problems such a massive population shift would create.
Which is why some on the right, including North Carolina District 7 Congressional candidate Pete D’Abrosca, are arguing for a complete moratorium on legal immigration. In D’Abrosca’s case, he’s asking for a 10-year period where the number that is allowed to enter the United States is equal to the number who leave. “About 200,000 people leave the United States every year,” D’Abrosca told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Thursday. “Bringing in 200,000 legal aliens would be fine, but the bottom line is we would like to have no population increase from legal immigration.”
“Oh, you’re not allowed to say that,” Carlson sarcastically replied before summing up the state of affairs when it comes to discussing the immigration issue in 2020: “Because the left controls the terms that the right uses, as you know, and you’re allowed to say under duress that you’re against illegal immigration, but you’re never allowed to say that there should be some absolute cap.”
Because the left considers such a discussion ‘evil,’ for some reason. But is it really? Even the most ardent leftist might acknowledge that we can’t possibly admit the hundreds of millions (if not billions) who would come here if they could. Is a family ‘evil’ for not adopting every orphan available to adopt? Is the captain of a lifeboat ‘evil’ for not bringing on so many passengers that his boat would sink? And yet, they call US names for opposing their sick power schemes.
So what ARE their motives, then, since they are so quick to judge ours? In a moment of candor, National Office for the Advancement Project executive director Judith Browne Dianis got an “Amen!” from former Obama administration official Stephanie Valencia for the following statement, said on a panel last week:
“So that when we get to 2042 or 2045, whatever year you want to use, that we actually will not be suffering from what other countries like South Africa had, which is having the numbers but not having the power. We want … You know, people say demographics are not destiny. Well, we’re trying to make it destiny so that’s the work that we are doing.”
What Dianis said is absolutely true, of course, both in terms of demographics being destiny and the left knowing and using that fact. But don’t dare call them out on any of it, or you might get called the ‘R’ word.
Follow Scott on Twitter @SKMorefield