Illegal Immigration: Just Not That Simple
Harold Hutchison's post at Called As Seen inspires a few comments here.
First, I am as interested in controlling the border as the next Republican, but people! Can we not be civil about this debate? We criticize the Kos Kool-Aid drinkers for their nastiness, but calling other conservatives quislings, agents of Mexico, and the like? Please!
Second, it is as clear as day that the electorate has a very mixed view of this issue. Harold's post here lays out the data. If I hear one more talk show host yelling about how Congress is not listening to "the American people," I may scream. "The American people" are all over the place on what to do about illegal immigration.
Third, compromise is possible. Gary Bauer discusses here the Pence solution I blogged about two days ago. The Pence plan could work. So could the phased-in earned amnesty mentioned by John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics, which would not kick in until border-control targets are met. Why aren't we talking about those ideas?
Finally, neither the Republican Party nor the conservative movement is a church. No one has the right to excommunicate a fellow conservative for failure to toe the line on a principle that one segment of the group has decided must be inviolate. PoliPundit destroyed his blog with that kind of thinking. Let's not destroy our party and movement the same way.
posted by Lowell Brown at 9:10 AM
|
5 Comments:
Are there any principles that are more important to you than party loyalty is? You've made it quite clear that enforcing immigration laws and border security are not. So I'm seriously wondering if there is anything more important to you than overall Republicanism. I realize that this question could be perceived as a slam, but I am sincere in asking it.
And to follow up in advance of the answer, if you are willing to sacrifice your principles to avoid hurting your party, aren't you by default declaring which is more important to you?
Posted by Watchman
Watchman, I have very little patience with that argument.
Take a very good look at the Democrats. Do you really think that Speaker Pelosi, with Chairman Murtha and Chairman Conyers, would be capable of handling the war on terror? Since 1993 (vis-a-vis al-Qaeda) and since 1976 (when Jimmy Carter won the election), the Democrats have proven their incompetence in dealing with people who want to kill us. That incompetence is dangerous to this country, and Clinton's arguably was responsible for 9/11, with its resulting body count.
My country's victory in the war on terror is far more important that the pet issues a lot of conservatives seem to be complaining about.
Posted by Harold C. Hutchison
I am not one of those who is willing to sit at home and hope a loss teaches the Republicans a lesson. I'm more of the Pennsylvania state races, or the Nebraska gubenatorial primary school of thinking...let's beat the wimpy Republicans with true conservatives in the primary and then win the general. No I don't want to see the Democrats in charge. But that still doesn't excuse Republican bad conduct.
And there's no way to separate effective control of the border from victory in the war on terror. The link was clearly demonstrated when some of the 9/11 hijackers used the 7/11 fake docs bureau in Virginia set up for illegal Mexicans to get the ids that got them on their plane. It's just not plausible to say you are serious about the war on terror when you oppose border control (like, unfortunately our President does). And please don't try to tell me that sending 6000 Guardsmen on temporary assignments that do not include enforcement is a serious step. It's just window dressing, and it's wrong.
Fence the border, jail the employers, deport the illegals, and then I'll believe you're serious about the war on terror.
Posted by Watchman
Watchman, when you say "jail the employers, deport the illegals, and then I'll believe you're serious about the war on terror," it's hard for me to believe you knw what "serious" is. You are certainly not making serious arguments. Especially saying "deport the illegals." Anyone who really thinks we can deport 12 million people who don't want to be deported does not deserve to be taken seriously, at least not outside the pages of vdare.com.
Posted by The Hedgehog
OK to be serious (and to note in passing an entirely predictable failure to answer the questions) here's what should be done. Serious workplace enforcedment immediately. Six figure fines for businesses who hire illeglas. Jail time for repeat offenders. Take the shackles off of the Border Patrol. In Arizona they're required to give three days notice before inspecting a workplace!!!
We don't have to deport millions if the job supply dries up. They're here for the money, and if the onlyl way to get a job is to come in through the system, that's how they'll do it. It's basic psych...what gets rewarded gets done. Currently we're rewarding bad behavior. I'm in favor of the fence, but the real solution is to cut off the supply and the demand problem will largely take care of itself.
Posted by Watchman
Post a Comment
<< Home