« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Let’s Get Serious About Immigration, Conservatives

Immigration is a difficult issue for conservatives these days. It is fraught with emotions and passionate feelings. Worse, whenever someone tries to discuss the issue dispassionately, the old canard of “no true Scotsman” is employed against them. But conservatives need to continue to have this discussion and get their ducks in a row on the issue because the other side has a successful call to arms that we need to prove wrong. It is too easy for the left to claim that it has “compassion” for immigrants and we don’t. We need to pull the debate away from faux “compassion” and toward the facts.

On the right we have at least two main ideas about immigration. Some want open borders and easy employment for illegals so that business has a quick and constant source of cheap labor. These business-oriented conservatives (some might call them country club Republicans) are less interested in social issues and more interested in money and economic growth. Opposing the open borders folks are those that might be called nativists, those that feel America should not have a wide open border and that America is for Americans.

The problem we have here is that there is no reason why conservatives cannot be both a nativist and an economic expansionist that wants to employ some foreign-born workers where they are needed. There is no reason why we can’t be both strong border advocates and interested in making new Americans from immigrants. Our two sides do not necessarily have to be as diametrically opposed as they seem to be.

Of course, the passion erupts when we try to reconcile these two positions. The closed borders folks all too often employ a sort of “no true Scotsman” theory against anyone that wants to make some sense of this situation. If you seem to waver from their view you aren’t a “real” conservative to too many of them. But nativists aren’t the only ones to blame as the open borders crowd dismisses everyone on the other side as yahoos and hatemongers when the truth is that Nativists only want to follow the Constitution and protect American culture. We need to get past the name calling and remember that we need to be on the same page of this matter or the left will win making things unsuitable for all of us on the right.

Some of the open borders crowd have come to realize that open borders are no longer a good idea. Not long ago, for instance, I spoke to Richard Nadler, president of Americas Majority Foundation, and he realized that after 9/11 open borders was suicide. Nadler’s group is a conservative pro immigrant-labor organization that specializes in minority outreach. Nadler feels that to be seen as the anti-Hispanic party will destroy the GOPs electoral future. He makes a good argument in many ways.

To my personal experience, I have seen many sons and daughters of immigrants — both legal and illegal — and these kids don’t want to be Mexicans, or Guatemalans, or what have you. They might not mind visiting the country of their parent’s birth but they generally would rather stay here and they think of themselves as Americans. But I will have to agree with Nadler that if these young people grow up thinking that the GOP is filled with people that hate them, then these new voters will reflexively vote Democrat in huge numbers. I believe Nadler is right that we could be committing electoral suicide if we allow this perception to grow.

But this need to seem more friendly to Americans of Hispanic origin does not mean we have to throw away American principles, our culture or our laws. Nor do we need to open the border wide and let just anyone come here. We have every right to try to put breakers on the flow of foreign immigrants and a responsibility to think of America first.

Now, many thousands of illegal immigrants have returned home over the last two years. This is because the economy is such that the easy jobs these people filled have dried up. But at some point our economy will pick up again and the influx of illegals will resume to fill the jobs a stronger economy creates. We need to try and solve this problem now, before our economy picks up and the influx resumes. So, at some point the left is right that now is an ideal time for comprehensive immigration reform. But let it be on our terms, not the lefts.

Here are some of the points we must consider:

  • Tougher border security measures
  • A logical path to citizenship for those here
  • A robust guest worker program
  • Broader enforcement of the laws already on the books
  • Implementation of the e-verify system to determine whether a worker is a legal resident
  • An end to welfare and free in-state tuition to illegals
  • An end to automatic citizenship to babies of foreigners

Am I suggesting total amnesty? Certainly not. But this problem is bigger than just imagining it is possible to deport millions of people all at once. We are past the time when we can stick our fingers in our ears and yell “la,la,la” in hopes that the problem will go away. Our past politicians have failed us on this issue. It is up to us to fix it.

There is one final area that impinges on immigration that must be considered here: education.

Currently our educational system coddles illegals by teaching kids in Spanish only classes. Our schools also fail our society by downplaying American principles and eschewing American exceptionalism. We must return American principles to our schools. After all, if kids are taught that America is a bad place, why should they grow up to want to protect our American heritage? This is no less true for the child of a natural born citizens than that of a foreign born immigrant. Further, how do we expect the kids of immigrants to grow up to want to be acculturated to American ideals if we tell them that America is a bad place? An important place to make American citizens is in school. As conservatives we need to take back our schools from the extreme left that now runs them.

COMMENTS

  • acat

    Securing the border is job one.

    Once the illegal flow of people across the border – in *both* directions – is reduced, we can talk about the rest of your points.

    Providing some form of guest worker program to people who have jobs here who want to travel back and forth would be part of securing the border.

    Fully building out eVerify and requiring it for not just employment, but also to rent or purchase of a home, register and obtaining license plates and (if the State requires it) insurance for a motor vehicle, etc. makes sense, especially if it’s a front end or gate for a system to document people and enroll them into a guest worker program. “Jesse, I checked and you don’t seem to be legal – the next page is for you to register as a guest worker, so I need to ask you a couple questions.”

    This would allow building documentation and then working out what a path to citizenship looks like for each group. Those who want to travel back and forth would not need to become citizens, but would need a sponsor, similar to the H1-B program.

    This would, of course, require shining the light of truth on the Country Club Republicans – if eVerify is required for employment, then the businesses that hire illegals have to declare (sponsor) their employees, start paying proper taxes and witholdings, etc.

    Mew

    • acat

      Everything else waits on border security.

      http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/29/the-death-of-an-arizona-rancher/

      Mew

  • loneprotester

    Let me see now-
    1- Tougher border security measures-
    Promised to the American people after the mass amnesty of 1986- never
    happened.
    2- A logical path to citizenship for those here- We already have a logical
    path to citizenship. It’s called legal immigration. You fill out the forms,
    pay your fees and wait in line like my wife and daughter did for two years.
    3- A robust guest worker program- We already got that. It has been in
    effect since 1965. Does 25 million Americans out of work mean anything
    to you?
    4- Broader enforcement of the laws already on the books.- Been there and
    waiting for the enforcement part since 1986.
    5- Implementing e-verify. Already has but useless when the illegal population
    is north of 40 million.
    6- And end to welfare and in state tuition to illegals- Pass this bill you say isn’t
    amnesty and watch welfare quadruple.
    7- An end to automatic citizenship- Never happen with the politicians we
    got now.

    Everything here was proposed straight out of the McCain-Kennedy
    amnesty plan in 2007 and is probably in Graham’s this time around.

    • acat

      cringing has been a member for a while and has posted on other threads.

      You’re right, though. We’re still waiting on the tougher border security, and all the rest – including the education issue – are just as useful as a UN sanction until there’s some real problems crossing the Rio Grande.

      Mew

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehoboam rehoboam

        …and also undefined. What exactly would the “guest worker program” look like? We already have guest worker programs. How would this differ?

        At the heart of the matter is the problem of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. Total and automatic deportation is not in America’s best interests, but by removing birthright citizenship we stop handing out undeserved rewards to illegal immigrants. And why is there no mention in your post of a national Proposition 187? Surely this is a completely uncontroversial idea among conservatives but amazingly it gets left out of the agenda of nearly all conservative immigration organizations. Finally my own ideas about punishing illegal immigration with ongoing community service are outlined here.

        http://www.redstate.com/rehoboam/2010/03/28/make-illegal-immigration-a-felony-2/

        • acat

          Let’s just assume, for giggles, that there are 10 million illegals, and that, we’ll be generous, 80% of them can be persuaded to go home or renew their student visas or what have you. That leaves 2 million to be found, arrested, and put in a prison.

          I’m all for creating jobs, the Illinois prison system employs quite a few people both directly and to provide the necessary services, but it’s a very expensive way to go.

          If we assume that a day in jail costs around $100 – covering three meals, laundry, maintenance to the facility (only some of which can be done by prisoners and trustees) guard salaries, etc. – we’re talking two hundred million dollars a day to house the illegals. That does not take into account the cost of finding them, nor the cost of proving they are here illegally.

          The Bush administration spent over six hundred million on the “virtual fence” boondoggle but .. that’s only enough to cover three days of detention.

          Why not build a proper fence? Dedicate, say, a *month* of detention costs to it, then expel the illegals as we find them, knowing for certain that they won’t be able to return?

          Mew

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehoboam rehoboam

            Community service or work release is to be the sentence, not prison.

          • mbecker908

            that comment is king.

            Community service for 10MM felons is just stupid.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehoboam rehoboam

            See: alternative sentencing.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehoboam rehoboam

            …one might ask why not just keep it as a misdemeanor if you want the sentence to be community service or work release. The answer is that misdemeanor community service is typically not long-term and so might not be a credible enough deterrent.

          • mbecker908

            And frankly I don’t want them doing cs, I want them deported.

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehoboam rehoboam

            I see no reason to deprive ourselves of useful laborers. The main issue for me is to make sure they are not seen as Americans and do not gain the benefits of being American.

        • cringinghere

          I agree and I think that is why we need to talk about this. But to be fair I was making no legislative language, though.

    • jackbenimble

      I think you pretty much pegged it. Why must a “serious” discussion of immigration always include some discussion of amnesty?

      Comprehensive reform will be a whole lot of amnesty and just like the last time, the enforcement will never happen. Fortunately the American people are not quite as stupid as Charlie Brown. Unfortunately, judging by the way comprehensive health care reform just got shoved down our unwilling throats, Congress apparently does not care if they represent the will of the people or not.

      Why must we always have massive comprehensive bills? To my ears, when I hear the word comprehensive, I hear hose-job! Why would anybody take promises of enforcement seriously when we have watched Obama systematically dismantle the very meagre enforcement that President Bush was finally shamed into putting in place. We must continue to demand that ENFORCEMENT COMES FIRST.

      Most aspects of immigration reform should be addressed individually as individual small bills. Some of these things would be wildly popular with the American people and if Congress wanted to represent the American people they would easily pass.

      There could be individual bills to:
      - strengthen border security
      - strengthen interior enforcement
      - strengthen workplace enforcement
      - ending family reunification based chain migration

      These bills (if enforced) would fix almost everything that is wrong with our immigration system

      Other bills would be less popular and I doubt they would pass:
      - Adjustment of status (amnesty)
      - Expanded Guest Worker Program

      Personally I would fight against a bill that allowed most illegal immigrants to adjust their status. I much prefer the attrition by enforcement approach to solving this problem. I think if we have steady enforcement at the border, in the interior and at the workplace and if we cut off the freebies, that the problem can largely be solved without amnesty. I might support a limited version of the Dream Act but it would not include adults as the currently written legislation does and there would be a significantly greater price associated with adjusting status. Unless Family Reunification driven chain migration is fixed, the Dream Act is a non-starter with me because the kids should not be allowed to sponsor their parents (who broke the law in the first place) as citizens.

      I would also fight against an Expanded Guest Worker Program. There are already about half a dozen different types of guest worker visas on the books. The agriculutural guest worker visa could probably use some fixing to make it more flexible. Even during the boom years, I never saw evidence that we needed an expanded labor force. Generally in the industries where illegal aliens were working, wages were falling, not rising. I think the Republican Party should stand-up for the working people of America and quit catering to the cheap labor lobby when there is no evidence (like rising wages) of a labor shortage. If we do implement a guest worker program, it should be designed with special employment taxes so that guest workers are MORE EXPENSIVE to hire than natives. There are two rationals for this approach. 1) Guest workers should be the workers of last resort. They should not be used as a club to beat down wages for working Americans. And 2) guest workers impose costs on the communities that host them. Employers have long gotten away with internalizing the profits that come with cheap immigrant labor while socializing costs onto taxpayers. If they want the immigrants (nobody else does) then they should pay the costs that are associated with them. Everything I read about our economy suggests that we are in for many years of high unemployment and rather than talking about guest worker programs it makes more sense to be talking about sharply curtailing legal immigration until our job market comes back in balance with our abundant labor supply.

      With respect to in-state tuition and welfare, this law has been on the books since immigration reform in 1996. Like all immigration laws accept those that grant amnesty or increase the numbers of legal immigrants, these laws are flatly ignored. Why would we believe any fixes to these laws when the Feds made not even the slightest attempt to force states to follow the previous set of laws?

      I I were reforming the immigration system I would also clarify and greatly expand (on a volunteer basis rather than a mandate) the role of local law enforcement.

      The “No true Scotsman” argument comes into play because the cheap labor wing of the Republican Party represents special interest politics that are every bit as odious as the labor union special interests that play a huge role in Democratic politics. This sort of catering to special interests was largely responsible for getting us tossed from power in 2006 and 2008. We can choose to be a party that represents the interests of the American people or we can represent cheap labor interests but I doubt we can do both.

      • acat

        Because the debate has been framed for us.

        Because McCain and Graham framed it that way.

        Because the Mainly Stupid Media insist on lumping together all immigrants, legal or not, and then crying “racist”.

        We have to start the debate by saying “Amnesty is a problem because”. IIRC, one of the reasons McCain’s amnesty push got killed last round was people were reminded of the broken promises in the previous amnesty.

        So, we have to start with amnesty to make sure we shut it down, then come back with other proposals.

        Mew

      • David123

        If you get caught robbing a bank you don’t get to keep the money.

        If you get caught with illegal drugs you don’t get to keep your stash.

        If you get caught being in America illegally you shouldn’t get to stay in America.

        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehoboam rehoboam

          …you don’t get to keep your car.

          Oh yeah. You do.

          (Just saying.)

          • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rehoboam rehoboam

            Never mind.

          • gekster

            Don’t back down after 1.