The early indications are that President Obama may not seek to torpedo the bipartisan immigration reform proposal put forward yesterday by six U.S. senators. Having wisely put their plan before the public before the president could grandstand on the issue and continue to use it as a partisan cudgel to attack Republicans, the group led by Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, John McCain and Marco Rubio made it difficult for the president to avoid endorsing their efforts even if he can be counted on to push for a more liberal approach than GOP members of the reform coalition will accept. But if Obama keeps his promise to Schumer and Durbin and doesn’t try to torpedo their scheme in the hope of making political hay out of a dispute with the GOP over its terms, the real drama will be on the right as conservatives begin their own debate on the issue.
Pushback against the proposal from the right wasn’t long in coming. Rush Limbaugh denounced it on the radio, as did many others who helped sink previous reform plans by branding them as “amnesty.” Even more troubling was the negative reaction on Fox News from commentators Jonah Goldberg and Charles Krauthammer, who both poured cold water on the bipartisan scheme by claiming that its promise of border control and enforcement of the laws was not credible and that, as had been the case after Ronald Reagan’s try at dealing with the problem, illegal immigration would continue unabated. Others took on the rationale that Republicans should back the bill in order to get more Hispanic votes. Heather Mac Donald wrote in National Review to rightly point out (as Seth did last year) that many Hispanics like liberal policies and are unlikely to switch parties even if the GOP stopped positioning itself as the anti-immigrant party.
These are reasonable arguments but they are not persuasive. Republicans ought to get behind the immigration compromise not because it will help them politically but because opposition to it is bad public policy.
A considerable portion of the conservative movement has always supported a more rational policy on immigration that recognized the need to do something to bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows. But most on the right have treated this issue as one in which the rule of law was at stake and saw any proposal that called for giving legal status to the more than 11 million illegals already here as an amnesty bill. Opposition to rewarding law-breakers is rational and understandable. But since, as Rush noted yesterday, nobody on the right is seriously talking about trying to deport all of those people (something that would, in any case, be virtually impossible anyway), it is hard to understand how a refusal to create a process by which the illegals could become documented is a defense of the rule of law. As Marco Rubio has argued, what we have now is de facto amnesty.
Charles Krauthammer’s objections are also not to be dismissed. After decades of neglect, there is good reason to be skeptical of any federal commitment to secure the border. But the strength of the bipartisan proposal is that this is probably our best chance to force Washington to deal with the issue that we are ever likely to get. Since the implementation of the plans for giving legal status to the illegals is dependent on concrete steps toward making it far more difficult to cross the border with impunity, the administration and its liberal supporters in Congress have an incentive to acquiesce to more security and to see that the law is enforced. Those who rightly complain about the porous nature of the border need to understand that absent a comprehensive immigration deal there isn’t likely to be any funding or backing either now or in the future for the kind of measures that are needed to tighten up the border.
That said, the idea that Republicans are trolling for Hispanic votes on this issue is troubling. Treating the issue as if it were a simple transaction in which the GOP would flip on immigration in order to purchase Hispanic votes is misleading and inaccurate.
No matter what happens in this debate, many Hispanic voters will not forget the inflammatory rhetoric about illegal immigrants used by Republican candidates like Mitt Romney. Were Republicans to approach this matter in such a cynical manner it would do them little good politically. Nor will Republicans ever be able to outbid the Democrats when it comes to offering more government benefits and entitlements.
The best Republicans can hope for here is to take the issue off the table and therefore deny Democrats the ability to falsely claim that they are the defenders of the immigrants. Dropping their opposition to reform won’t put the GOP on an even playing field with Democrats for Hispanics, but it will give them a chance to begin making inroads. Republicans need to recognize that pushing illegals to get on the citizenship track, pay taxes and get ahead like all other previous immigrant groups is good for America and the GOP. If they do, they will prosper and become, like their predecessors from Ireland, Germany and a hundred other places, the sort of people who will be inclined to embrace the conservative doctrine of free markets and limited government.
Leaving the Hispanic vote aside, the rationale for Republican support for immigration reform is actually about a core principle of conservatism: a recognition that government can’t try to use legislation to override basic economics. So long as there are jobs in the United States that Americans are not filling and there is a large population of unemployed workers just outside our border, those people will be finding a way to get to those jobs no matter what the laws say. It is far better to accept this and accommodate the laws to economic reality than to attempt the opposite.
Moreover, despite the issues in some border states where a large population of illegals has created serious problems, we also need to understand that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are here to work, not to try to collect welfare benefits. These are the sorts of people America has always needed and welcomed, and the idea that they are a threat to our way of life is grounded in inaccurate ideas about their role in our society and the economy. Worries about maintaining a large unassimilated population are best addressed through reform measures that encourage the learning of English in order to get on a path to citizenship, not empty talk about treating the immigrants as lawbreakers.
Those who refuse to contemplate any policy on illegal immigration other than punishment and stricter border security are living in a fantasy world. It is long past time for Republicans to stop trying to pretend that there is any solution to deal with millions of illegals other than to accept them. Any deal that strengthens border security and penalizes the illegals is the best conservatives will ever get. The GOP should embrace it and then move on to other, more important fights.
"we also need to understand that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are here to work, not to try to collect welfare benefits." n nThat may have been true a few decades ago—but today our own government informs Mexicans about the welfare benefits available to them in the United States. Many of these people are here for the goodies! This is not true regarding legal immigrants. It is the illegals who intend to game the system.
For what the GOP strategy should be go to NR on-line, Can not remember the guys name, but a good article. nCommentary is great!! I am just suggesting.
Krauthammer's objection re border security is well taken but Bill O'Reilly's concerns re (as you put it) access to the "goodies" even a more pressing concern. My understanding is that the group of eight proposal (assuming that Obama does not succeed in changing it) adequately addresses both this concern as well as the ancillary concern that, once legalized, immigrants can bring in relatives. n nThe "birthing" facilities recently identified in California for (wealthy) Chinese to have their child born in the US (to ensure not only the child's citizenship but ultimately their parents utilization of them as an anchor to legally emigrate to the US) points out an enormous problem that needs to be addressed in law or perhaps even in our Constitution to clarify citizenship by birth. We need to look at the Canadian example to mollify this abuse of the intent of the founders.
Mickey Kaus has six fundamental questions about the immigration deal and the Gang of Eight have no credible response to any of the queries. To say that economic realities dictate swallowing this package is ludicrous . There are estimates of seven or eight million people being added to the Obamacare rolls, which, in and of itself, will be an economic disaster. r n There is an overarching blight on this amnesty proposal. The American citizen witnesses, day by day, rights granted by God and the Constitution snatched away by arrogant Obama fiats, from health-care decisions to freedoms under the Second Amendment. What happens to the rule of law when a belief becomes self-evident that Washington persecutes the citizen but gives a pass to foreign nationals?
But this all devolves into yet another unfunded mandate for the states to manage, doesn' it? And since most of the most imperiled states are red states and while no one seems to ever worry how broke California gets, there's little political risk to Obama or the dems in general. If something good happens they take credit. If not – it's those evil red states trying to bring back slavery and defeating the plans of our Great Leader and His Party. No I'm afraid that the Democrats want to make and maintain immigration as a Too Big to Fail issue, where the only action is to do nothing and ensure that the 'base' stays angry and finger pointing.
To be honest, there is no reason for the right to support this bill, the Illegals that are here are going to vote for democrats anyways.
It's going to happen…it makes sense to get on board and shape it as much as possible. If you do this right, by the time they become eligible to vote, a reasonable percentage may find their interests better represented by the Republican party. There is a pattern with every wave of immigrants as they prosper and are assimilated in this country. Strangely enough, Jews would appear to be the outlier to that pattern.
Good try Mr. Tobin – amazing how the GOP is getting slammed every day with yet another Obama-distraction from jobs and the economy. nIt really is a good idea for the GOP to put immigration (and women in combat) out of the way because the truly big fights are on finding ways to stop the regulatory avalanche from HHS and EPA. Seems to be too late to stop the Hagel-hysteria and focus on Jack Lew, who will be far more dangerous to the economy than any other choice for SecTreas I can think of. n
and they are big government by and large. They will always vote for the dems. The GOP is diluded into believing this could change. We will never get a majority, and sacrificing your country for a few points in an election is cowardice and discraceful.
No. r nr nTo the pain, then.
So let me see. We can not prevent smuggling of goods (neither could the USSR) but we can prevent the smuggling of people? n n"Conservatives" are insane. n nWhat would I do? Make it easier to get in temporarily so there was less incentive to stay. And welfare reform might be in order. But fences? You have to put troops behind them to make them work. See Germany, East, Stasi. n nCare to station two or three divisions on the Mexican border with shoot to kill orders? Look up Esequiel Hernández Jr.
So we are supposed to accept millions of new citizens, people who are unlikely to pay taxes and more likely to suck more money out of the welfare state for the sake of moving on to another topic. I'm not anti-immigrant, both me and my wife are immigrants to this country and neither of us needed amnesty to become proud american citizens. I don't see why these illegal immigrants should get special favors just because a topic has become politically unattractive for the GOP. And maybe people should start talking about deportation. Shouldn't breaking the law have some sort of consequence. And why are we keeping PhD's and MD's from Eastern Europe and South Asia out while allowing unskilled labor to come here and become citizens? It seems like a great way for America to commit suicide. We should be doing the exact opposite, allow skilled labor to immigrate here as long as they don't have any criminal associations and keep the unskilled out or at least minimized (I'm all for letting political refugees in as America has and always should be viewed as a safe haven for those with no place to go.).
"So we are supposed to accept millions of new citizens, people who are unlikely to pay taxes and more likely to suck more money out of the welfare state for the sake of moving on to another topic." nOh yes! Isnt it wonderful. What about the next group and the next? We might as well be called Mexico North, because it wont stop.
Well, taking the long perspective, we are in a better situation than Europe (or Japan). At least we have a national identity that fosters assimilation and the primary sources of our immigrant population are at least susceptible of assimilation. As our native stock grays and fails to give us a sufficient replacement population, we need immigration…and immigration not just of the skilled. What is the alternative…the Putin three child policy? n n Frankly, of far greater concern is the population that emigrated from the Southern Plantation economy and is now living on public welfare and crime in the core of our rotting cities…ill prepared or disposed to any employment. Now there is our biggest assimilation problem. My apologies if I offend but it needs said .
I think I'd rather have a falling population than a drastically changed national character. Think of all the governments in Latin America, how many have governments that we even would want to admire? Two? The odds are much higher than we will start to resemble the dysfunctional system in Mexico or Argentina versus the more preferable Chile or Costa Rica.
I'm certainly not sanguine about the governments in Latin America but I'm not sure I would equate them with the populace, at least the common people. Having the alternative of the American lifestyle and values, they may be homesick, but they are voting their preference with their feet. And given the relative ease of returning home (as compared with trans-Atlantic emigrations), I believe it says something. n nBut even so, if I have to choose between the governments, civil liberties and culture found in Latin America and those in the Islamic world, I'll take my chances with Latin America. Mere corruption is so banal by comparison. Moreover, the immigrants from Latin America are open to assimilation. Have you observed the situation in Europe?
Is this our choice? Latin American socialists or Middle Eastern islamo-fascists? You know, before the immigration reform of 1965, which opened the door to third world countries, a very large proportion of our immigrants came from Europe (I think it was around 50%). Now its 10%. That means only 10% share our cultural heritage and values. Great way to kill a country.
I tried to respond earlier but I guess the politically incorrect nature of part of this discussion has kept the moderator from approving it, anyway, let me try again. n nThe choice is not that we accept immigrants from socialist/failed states in Latin America or Islamofascists from the Middle East. Since immigration reform in the 60's, the mix of immigrants has shifted dramatically, from 60% of our immigrants to under 10%. We should go back to the way it was. And the rest should be skilled labor and the educated from places like India, China and Korea. And of course political refugees from some places like South Sudan, Zimbabwe and other such places with genocidal governments.
Republicans should oppose amnesty because it is bad public policy. Millions of low-skilled badly educated welfare dependent immigrants are not a good public policy. The U.S. has no need of millions of stoop laborers, fast-food workers and ethnic groups that have high welfare use and out of wedlock births. 57% of Mexican immigrants are on welfare. They will not be saving Social Security or Medicare. But they will be using Obamacare and Medicaid, as well as TANF, SSI, and SNAP.
This post is completely other-worldly. In what "rational" universe does a conservative pundit support a policy that will assure the electoral defeat of his ideas and beliefs in all upcoming elections? Even if the GOP could miraculously get back to 40% of the Hispanic vote, a mass amnesty would still lock in a 2-3 million vote deficit in national elections. That would have made the difference in 2000, 2004 and (likely) 2012 as well. n nHonestly, what fight is "more important" for the GOP than assuring its future electoral viability?
This is a very good article, and Republicans would do well to at least consider what it says. As Condoleeza Rice rightly said at the RNC last year, the immigrations laws adopted by the US- which are already pretty strict, by the way, should show that the US is a nation of immigrants.
If conservativers are concerned about laws being broken they should do two things. First, pass and enforce strict, draconian laws punishing any employer who hires illegal immigrants. Take away the jobs, there will be a lot less illegal immigration. Second, force the IRS to turn over to law enforcement the list of people with ITINS (basically, a tax ID number for non-Citizens and other non-residents) and deport those people who are working and punish their employers (FYI many illegals do file federal tax returns and the IRS has the records). The government already has a list of people working here illegally. If these two things were done then we would have complete credibility in removing illegal aliens.
Let’s say that the Gang of Eight idea is passed into law. Since the law intends to instantaneously grant “protection” for illegals to stay here, what happens to those crossing the boarder illegally each and every day? And what about those that breech the boarder in the months and years ahead while the boarder is being secured? Do these folks get to stay as well? Has anyone asked that question? Also, look at the laundry list of things illegals must do before they can apply for citizenship. Does anyone really believe that illegals who are now able to stay in the US in their “limbo” state, will ever seriously want to become US citizens? Guess again. Numerous polls over the years clearly show that illegals are not interested in becoming US citizens. They just want to work and send money home so that one day, they will return to their home country…quite a bit richer. The fact that illegals send approximately twenty billion dollars a year back to Mexico (while they received welfare benefits here) do not intend to make the US their permanent home. Don’t fall for all this BS again.