As we all know, the debate over the immigration bill has become a highly contentious one, so much so that Republicans are battling Republicans on the issue to the point where it almost seems like the bill can’t be discussed rationally. There are some blogs whose posts on immigration I won’t even read, because the level of vitriol is outright toxic. Others act like apologists for the administration on the issue, which I find a little too passive.
I’ve been reading Captain Ed’s posts on immigration and the controversy surrounding the bill, and he’s got a couple of good ones up that I recommend reading. The first one is about the word “amnesty,” what it means in terms of the immigration problem, and why what some would call “amnesty” so often becomes part of the “solution” on issues like this one.
The second one calls for civility in conservative circles while debating the immigration bill - and he doesn’t just single out one side, but both. The administration was out of line last week when it questioned the patriotism of conservatives who opposed the immigration bill, but by the same token there are conservatives who have been engaged in that sort of questioning as well, acting as though anyone who doesn’t strongly and dogmatically oppose this bill supports “amnesty” and “doesn’t give a damn about protecting our borders.” Both sides obviously have their definitions on what “doing what’s right for this country” means as it relates to this issue and the highly inflamed rhetoric solves nothing. It only makes trying to come up with a solution that much harder.
To see conservatives use arguments on one another that have in general been used almost exclusively towards the far left is disappointing and is one of the reasons I haven’t been blogging extensively on the issue. Not only that, but my position on the issue can best be summed up as “middle of the road” which sounds wishy-washy, and I hate sounding that way. Along with that, I don’t care to have my inbox fill up with messages about how I’ve ‘betrayed’ my country by not being a vocal opponent of this bill. That’s not to say that I can’t take the heat, because as longtime readers and commenters know, I don’t shy away from talking about controversial topics - for example, my opinion on the failed UAE port deal was at odds with a good 50-60% of the party. But this time around, I’ve taken a decidedly low-key approach to talking about the issue. This is my first significant post on it since the issue flew to the forefront again earlier this year.
Regulars to this blog have been respectful about what little I’ve written about the bill and have given their own thoughtful opinions on it, but some driveby newbie readers have not been so respectful and have let me have it via email, and that’s a real shame, because I don’t view this in terms of “you’re either with us 100% or against us.” Since when did not marching lockstep with other Republicans mean you’re not a ‘real conservative’?
Lost in all the back and forth is finding “common ground” - yes, that sounds like a liberal thing to say, but that’s about the best we can do on this issue because we couldn’t even get sensible immigration reform passed when we had control of Congress, and sensible immigration reform is even more of a remote possibility now. And as Captain Ed wrote, in essence, it’s now or never on immigration reform. It’s become such a hot potato(e?) that after this round of hostile negotiations, if nothing gets done on it politicians of the future are only going to pay lip service to it rather than actually do something about it because they aren’t going to want to touch the issue.
Everyone has their “no compromise” issue. Mine is abortion. For other people, it’s immigration. So I fully understand that there are Republicans who will no longer support the GOP over this. That’s fine. I just hope those Republicans remember that that next time they think about taking another conservative to task over refusing to vote for a candidate or support a politician over one issue.
You and me both. I loathe the issue because of the way people have behaved. And yes, your inbox would be filled with (absurd) accusations of treason, sympathy with La Raza (!), and other ad hominem fallacies. And this being the blogosphere, you’d see some of the ugliest language used (”wetback,” “spic,” etc., all while complaining that SOME are called bigots!).
This issue has shown that stupidity really has nothing to do with political affiliation…you can see it on full display on all sides of this issue. Our own side has made me uncharacteristically apathetic about this issue–and it’s too bad for the hard-liners that they just don’t understand how repellent their rhetoric is, or the effect it’s having.
I still can’t believe the reaction to last week’s Linda Chavez column, where she rightfully called out those who are making it an ethnic issue. I wasn’t offended, but then to me, immigration isn’t just about Mexicans. I’m a lot more concerned with people like the Fort Dix Six and the 9/11 hijackers(!) than I am with a bunch of freakin’ day laborers and blue collar workers.
Pffft. Life’s too short to be so damn angry. I thought we, as conservatives, knew as much.
(Don’t even get me started on the “Imp**** Bush” morons–they’re DEAD to me.)
Comment by Beth @ 6/5/2007 - 1:00 am
Respectfully….I have given this more thought than necessary.
As a conservative first and a republican second this issue is a no-brainer to me.
Politicians work for their constituents. If they don’t respect and represent them they will suffer defeat hopefully in the primary or worse in the general election. And I too hope they would keep their debates civil.
I am sick of socialist politicians creating laws for “The Greater Good™”
As I understand, most Americans are in favor of halting illegal imigration and expelling landed criminal entrants because it favors law-breakers over those of us who pay into the system legally, obey the law and the legal imigrants who played by the rules and became citizens. It also opens the door to potential terrorists and wandering foreign debris (I refer to them “takers”). As if we don’t have enough of that already.
IF the government cannot export millions of illegal entrants how can it process and filter out the millions we have already acquired?
IF you like this bill you may also compromise in favor of the fairness doctrine, hate crime legislation, gun control, late term abortion, gay marriage and just about any liberal unequal playing field for whatever hand-wringing compassionate excuse they come up with. Compromise is not always an option.
IF republican congressmen side with big business (and I have large investments in big biz) over the electorate they will suffer the consequences.
Our system is designed to work for those of us who legally live here, work here and continue to obey the law of order.
Call me a hard-liner if you will, but that’s the way I see it.
Comment by CZ @ 6/5/2007 - 1:01 am
I blogged earlier about how the GOP is starting this lockstep nonsense. That is donkey territory and I would like for it to stay that way.
We need to have this discussion, as it stands right now I don’t support this bill because it does not go far enough to secure our borders. I’m not totally thrilled with how we would deal with the illegals here either.
Comment by Vegas Art Guy @ 6/5/2007 - 1:37 am
What’s been completely lost in the debate is the stupid barriers preventing people from coming here legally. High tech visa quotas are too low and the immigration bureaucracy is a mess. Making it easier to come to the U.S. and work legally would reduce the desire to sneak across the border. Sadly there are many who would like to see the U.S. closed to legal as well as illegal immigration. For me it’s simple: the U.S. is welcome to you as long as you obey her rules. Immigration laws being some of them.
Comment by Sean Hackbarth @ 6/5/2007 - 1:49 am
Wait a minute. Big business built America. If the GOP isn’t the party of business, what is it? Everybody has the right to start a business and get rich, and the government should do all it can to help — including holding wage costs down by encouraging immgration. How do you think we’ve been so successful at breaking the power of the unions?
Comment by Dan @ 6/5/2007 - 10:39 am
You know my Dear that I hate to disagree with you, sadly I must. This country does not need immigration reform, it needs to enforce the laws that are on the books already. This country has the loosest immigrations laws of any country in the world. You think just anybody can become a resident of Mexico??? Noooo they only want the best and the brightest. But we do take the “wretched refuse” of the world, and we do give to them the opportunity to make more out of their lives, and that is the most awesome thing about this country.
What we do need is Border Security, these are actually 2 seperate issues. I hate to overuse the military, but we need true security, and they bring that most definately. What other country doesn’t have the military on their borders?? None. If we bring security to your borders, then the “illegal alien” problem will work itself out. Eventually the illegals will either leave, and not be able to come back in, or they will become citizens, and all we have to do is follow our present laws. In my mind this is our best course of action, and leads to the solution that would make everyone happy. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 6/5/2007 - 1:45 pm
But we do take the “wretched refuse” of the world, and we do give to them the opportunity to make more out of their lives
True, Lorica. But to do that, in previous generations we required the immigrants to assimilate. The immigrants who came in via Ellis Island wanted to become Americans - to learn English, become citizens, and contribute to building this country.
As a rule, the illegals aren’t here for such reasons. For the most part, they want no part of assimilation. They want to set up small outposts of their old country here. They have no allegiance to America, and no desire to do much more than make more money than they could back home.
So exactly what part of the current proposal would hold any appeal for them? Citizenship? No, they’re not interested. Their loyalty is elsewhere. So the current bill would have little effect on the problem. I suspect most of the illegals would simply ignore it and continue with the status quo.
I’m very much on the same page as CZ. I welcome anyone from another land who wants to come here and become part of the American experiment. I do insist that the laws be obeyed. If we grant amnesty to people who are here illegally, the biggest losers would be those who followed the rules and arrived legally. They’ll have learned a very disillusioning lesson: in America, it pays to break the rules.
I don’t think people of the right who disagree with me are traitors, or any of the other epithets Beth cited. I think they’re simply wrong, and I don’t see how that path can benefit America in the long or short term. The other side of that coin is that people like Linda Chavez who conclude I’m a racist for that view need to think hard and long about whether playing that card to score points on this one issue is worth the accompanying loss of credibility.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 6/5/2007 - 3:29 pm
I have to say I am fed up with the hardliners. I am an Independent and have been voting GOP for some time and was thinking of becoming a Republican…. but after hearing some people on the right call McCain and Bush traitors because they failed to do their bidding, I have decided I will remain Independent. It seems the Buchanan wing is alive and well in the Republican party and I want no part of them, especially when they assume they have the right to tell me what my duty as an American is.
Comment by Terrye @ 6/5/2007 - 9:57 pm
Terrye -
I guess on this thread CZ, Vegas, and I qualify as what you call ‘hardliners’. Please go back and read our comments. None of us has called anyone a traitor. We’re saying they’re mistaken. Big difference there. All we want is to have the laws already on the books enforced better. Is that so unreasonable?
ST says abortion is her no-compromise issue. It may surprise you to know that immigration isn’t the line-in-the-sand issue for me. National security is, but this one’s related. Even Beth, who seems to be more aligned with you than with me, noted the potential for jihadis to slip through lax border security.
As for assuming we have “the right to tell you what your duty as an American is”, where do you see that? We’re expressing our opinions, not dictating. We have that right, just as you do. It is possible for people of good intention to disagree.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 6/5/2007 - 10:56 pm
GWR, if all conservatives treated the immigration debate like the thoughtful commenters to this blog did, the immigration debate would be much more fruitful, I think. Immigration threads past and present have been good ones for the most part, and I wish I saw more of it in the blogosphere.
My issue with the tone of the debate certainly doesn’t have anything to do with anything posted here. It’s what I’ve seen elswhere (other blogs, pundits, email, etc) that’s bothersome. And as I noted in my post, the admin is just as guilty of over the top rhetoric so their hands aren’t clean either. It’s just that once the name-calling starts, no matter how much you try and move beyond it, the substance of the issue gets lost in the effort to attack personalities rather than the actual meat of the various arguments.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 6/5/2007 - 11:13 pm
A related point:
Hazleton, Pennsylvania is a blue collar town near Philly, population about 30,000 or so. Democrats outnumber Republicans by a significant amount, but the incumbent mayor, Lou Barletta, is a Republican.
Barletta just won the GOP primary to run for a third term. Nothing shocking there.
But this IS a shocker: he also won the Democratic nomination, purely on write-in votes.
What’s significant about this? Just that Barletta has been a steadfast ‘hardliner’ on this issue. He’s repeatedly called for enforcing the immigration laws. The ACLU has devoted more than a few resources to dragging him into court, but he has no plans to back down.
So maybe - just maybe - the idea of enforcing the immigration laws is a winner, and the first party to embrace it may gain big. It appears there’s an undercurrent of public support waiting to be tapped.
LINK
Comment by Great White Rat @ 6/5/2007 - 11:16 pm
Beth, I haven’t seen the racial arguments you have - my big issue is with some of the more vocal opponents making those who don’t strongly disagree with the every aspect of the bill out to be people who don’t give a damn about this country.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 6/5/2007 - 11:18 pm
GWR - Totally agree on enforcing the existing immigration laws. It goes without saying that had that been going on instead of politicians in both parties pandering for the Hispanic vote we might not be in this bind today.
I hate that we have to rely on the federal government for border/immigration rule enforcement. The gov’t has been a miserable failure on this issue time and time again, and they likely will be again, no matter what passes in Congress on this bill. It’s a vicious cycle.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 6/5/2007 - 11:22 pm
If it’s now or never on immigration “reform”, then my vote is for never. Stopping smoking will not cure lung cancer, but without stopping there is no hope of recovery. The same applies to immigration “reform”. Anyone here remember campaign finance “reform”?
There is nothing good about passing the current bill - absolutely nothing. And given the current immigration system that we have, doing nothing is a wonderful, beautiful idea compared to passing a bill anything like the current one.
USCIS, the government agency that will deal with processing the paperwork of these new “immigrants”, has shown itself to be nothing but a nest of incompetent bureaucrats. They cannot process the current low level of legal immigrants in the system, and this bill (if it becomes law) will dump even more into their hands. Guess what will happen? USCIS will start rubber-stamping applications, especially if Congress and the President want things “to move along”.
My wife and I have actually been through the immigration system, and it is a complete mess. Legal immigrants like my wife are treated like criminals, while under this bill real criminals (meaning illegal aliens) get the red-carpet treatment. Unless you believe that tax money will suddenly buy an efficient bureaucracy, and that the government will do what it has refused to do for decades - namely, enforce the law.
I guess that this makes me one of Terrye’s dreaded “hardliners”. Who do I think I am - demanding fair treatment for legal immigrants who obey the law?! A regular Buchananite, I am!
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 6/6/2007 - 12:44 am
I said it before- enforce the laws -that’s why they’re so freshly made, in hopes they would be applied for all the obvious reasons. We have been infiltrated and are still under invasion mostly from the south - stop it El Presidente.
Entitlement mentality demands that they be granted shamnesty. Hogwash! As MD pointed out- follow the flippin laws and work through the miserable lefty laden bureaucratic layers, if you want to be in America.
The main differences in being in America and being an American are well known Terrye, but raping for the short term grab is why the illegal aliens want to be in the great land north of Mehico. They jeopardize all US citizens and do not belong, period. Selfish motivations are not and never will be a reason to be in America. I would apply that same logic to the no accounts born under her flag who create nothing but problems.
Comment by forest hunter @ 6/6/2007 - 3:48 am
GWR, I agree with that, but also Ellis Island was used to ensure the health of each candidate. TB was running rampant in Europe, and there were candidates that were turned back to their own country because of health issues. I say bring back Ellis Island. Seemed to be a better system, with better checks and balances that what we have now. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 6/6/2007 - 12:53 pm
Yikes….now Harry Reid has a new term for illegal aliens. Now they’re “undocumented Americans“.
So according to Harry, if you sneak across the border, you’re an American. Presumably, Harry’s already got ACORN out there registering them for the next election.
Meanwhile, honest immigrants like MD’s wife get nothing from this poorly drawn bill. Sickening.
The video of Harry’s statement is here at Hot Air.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 6/6/2007 - 10:09 pm
Enforce the laws.
Close the back door.
Workplace enforcement.
Offer incentives to bring the hidden out of the shadows. Those that come to us willingly make it a lot easier to find the ones that are here for nefarious reasons. That’s why there must ultimately be some kind of regularization - unfair as it may seem - because it’s far better than pulling crying families out of crumbling apartments in Los Angeles right before the November elections.
Remember Elian Gonzalez? Dems will have a thousand pictures like that portraying Republicans as jack booted racists.
The issue now is about trust, and Republicans don’t have any for this administration or the government in general. But anything we need to get done on the border needs to get done before Hillary becomes president.
So get your priorities in order - and be prepared to compromise - or nothing changes and ten years from now it will be 30 million illegals demanding rights…
Comment by Evrviglnt @ 6/7/2007 - 3:55 pm