-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Having just finished a piece on the politics of immigration for the magazine (one of the reasons for my absence from the blog), I turned to Ramesh Ponnuru’s immigration article in a recent issue of National Review. Ponnuru writes:
Some thoughtful conservative restrictionists concede that once the illegal-immigrant population is shrunk to a manageable level, some path to legality could be put in place. But even they warn that openly discussing this possibility could act as a magnet. That risk seems small enough to be worth taking - especially if the alternative is a total opposition to amnesty that proves politically self-defeating….
The debate over amnesty has sometimes obscured the more important question of whom, and how many, we should let in. Amnesty is itself important primarily as it bears on that question. Conservatives, like others, have dug-in positions, with a few saying we need to pass a law that includes a path to citizenship at the same time we step up enforcement and many more saying we should not do it at all. The right time for amnesty is in between now and never.
That’s not far from my own position. I think that if the illegal immigrant population were reduced to a manageable level, we could and probably should entertain an amnesty for the hard cases that remain. This is the implicit end game for the attrition through enforcement strategy of dealing with illegal immigration. And you’ll note that pro-enforcement conservatives generally describe themselves as being for enforcement first.
But when it comes to discussing a possible amnesty openly, I’m not sure I weigh the risks the same. Attrition has to be given a chance to work before amnesty can be discussed — any perception that amnesty is inevitable will dissuade some irreducible number of illegals from self-deporting, even in the face of stepped up enforcement. The only way that amnesty won’t be a magnet is if it seen in the same light as amnesties for draft and tax evaders: it must be viewed as a one-time event in a context where the law is usually enforced.
To me, where the risk seems small enough to be worth taking is the possibility that “total opposition to amnesty… proves politically self-defeating.” Real-world efforts to practice attrition through enforcement, such as in Arizona and parts of Virginia, have elicited a lot of criticism but no significant political backlash against enforcement supporters. When you look closely at the congressional races Republicans are said to have lost because of immigration, in almost every case there was a lot more going on that led to their defeat. Even supporters of a path to citizenship — that is, amnesty — bend over backwards to describe themselves as actually being totally opposed to amnesty.
If anti-amnesty Republicans like J.D. Hayworth continue to get voted out of office in political climates closer to 2010 than 2006 or 2008, I might revise my judgment. Or if I saw some empirical evidence that talking about an eventual amnesty made some voting bloc, such as Hispanics, more comfortable with immigration enforcement. Barring such evidence, though, it just doesn’t sound to me like it would produce political benefits worth the risks of undercutting enforcement.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/07/amnesty-someday
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- The Great Train Robbery
- The Demise of Money and Credit
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 11:44PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 6.7.10 @ 11:07AM
My opinion is that illegals need to be found/discovered, documented, investigated [for criminality/terroristic purposes], put in the back of the line [if they so desire to become citizens, if not deported], and eventually made legal. Hispanics/Mexicans are mostly hard working, patriotic, moral/religious, family-oriented; and as such, would make great additions to our citizenry. Many of us would be proud/honored to have them as our legal citizened friends and neighbors; but the problem is that until the previous filtering process takes place [weeding out the good from the bad], this country has a tremendous potential terrorist-criminal threat from the entire group. The Arizona law [and hopefully other states' to follow] is a great place to start that filtering process!!!!!
Grzmlyk| 6.7.10 @ 12:05PM
Right - we should decide who becomes a citizen here - not leave it to the viscissitudes of external geopolitical circumstances to determine who and how many people migrate to the US.
Back during our last huge wave of immigration, the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free weren't ushered directly onto a bottomless government teat whereby they could deplete national resources; on the contrary, they contributed to our national store of resources by entering the workforce, starting businesses and eking out hardscrabble lives until they gained a firm foothold on the ladder of success. Some failed, but most eventually became the bedrock upon which the American dream rests.
Nobody has an inalienable right to move to the US. That turns the entire concept of sovereignty on its head.
But of course it's not the hard working, patriotic, moral/religious, family oriented Mexicans that liberals want in this country; those people, heaven forefend, might become Republicans. No, it's the abject poor, replete with a left-wing manufactured victim psychology, with one hand outstretched for government aid and the other perpetually pulling the lever marked "Democrat" that the American left wants to see ensconced in every community across the land.
What liberals will never admit is that most conservatives believe immigration is healthy and a boon to our country. What we cannot tolerate is America's fundamental right to choose who can and cannot become a citizen or a refusal on the part of immigrants to assimilate.
An American is an American; when an immigrant chooses to enter the capitalist world that America used to represent, and assimilates into that world, he becomes a creative force that helps to build this country and create wealth for all irrespective of his race or country of origin.
But when an immigrant enters this country and immediately chooses membership in some balkanized victim group demanding recompense for a mythical wrong, nurturing an eternal grievance and unquenchable hatred against this country and its traditions and serves only to maintain the cynical fiefdoms of corrupt Democrat politicians, he is a destructive force, and one which the constitution, and common sense, compels us to expel.
But as usual, liberals are not honest about what this fight is about. For liberals, regardless of the topic, the goal is always the same: The power to coerce you to be subject to their will.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.7.10 @ 12:24PM
GRZ,
randyrocklin,
Thank you both. You nailed it.
One thought: freeze any action until after the November elections.
Red Phillips | 6.7.10 @ 12:31PM
"Hispanics/Mexicans are mostly hard working, patriotic, moral/religious, family-oriented; and as such, would make great additions to our citizenry."
Crime and out of wedlock birth statistics do not back that statement up.
William R| 6.7.10 @ 12:50PM
Mexican immigrants while hard working tend to stay poor most of their lives. Their children now have a higher school dropout rate than blacks. Importing poor people while we have a welfare state makes no sense. Milton Friedman upset libertarians when he said mass immigration with a welfare state just isn't a good idea. VIN SUPRYNOWICZ' is another libertarians willing to take on the open border folks. And once granted amnesty they will be able to bring in all their equally poor immediate family. It is time stop illegal immigration and greatly reduce legal immigration. End birthright citizenship and only accept skilled self sufficient immigrants.
Grzmlyk| 6.7.10 @ 2:11PM
Very good points.
The fact is, solving this problem is quite simple. the will doesn't exist among our political class.
This issue alone is enough to justify disbanding our kleptocracy.
randyinrocklin| 6.7.10 @ 11:25AM
The best and only solution to illegal immigration is to STOP hiring them and to CUT OFF ALL GOVT AID. They will go back to where they came from voluntarily.
Irish22| 6.7.10 @ 5:30PM
Find them in the workplace. Document them (fingerprints, retinas, DNA). Give them a card. If they get caught without it, they get deported -- no citizenship ever. Charge the employers a nickle an hour for the documentation and enforcement.
Long Ben| 6.7.10 @ 6:59PM
Build a high double fence with concertina wire from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico for starters. Have Apaches , Kiowas and Blackhawks with chainguns available for use against drug runners in Mexican Army uniforms. Then we can talk about what to do with the illegal invaders . Prime question should be , does the candidate to stay believe the Southwest United States should be annexed into that surppurating stankhole Mexico ?
Margie| 6.7.10 @ 7:44PM
Grzmlyk for Prez!
Jocon307| 6.7.10 @ 11:52PM
Gosh darn it, we HAD the one-time amnesty.
Don't you people get it, THAT WAS IT, we can NEVER have another or we will be flooded with illegals from then until forever and a month and a half.
Enforcement only, focus on criminals, of course.
A revision to our paths to LEGAL immigration. NO MORE LOTTERY, we pick and choose.
Our global role is NOT to provide work for the lowest qualified of the earth's workers, we want the best and the brightest for our own.
A COMPLETE revision to visas and visa over-stayers (I really am more concerned about illegals from Muslim countries than I am about Mexicans).
END all such nonsense as bi-lingual education, obviously no welfare or any such benefits for illegals.
Enact a rather large tax on money transfers out of the country.
Let another 25 years go bye and we'll see where we are then.
hoads| 6.8.10 @ 7:52AM
The problem with "a path to citizenship" as included in the 2007 bill is that it included all kinds of loopholes which practically nullified any type of standards of who meets the requirements for amnesty. For example, all that was required was a signed statement from another individual to verify an illegal immigrant had been in the country for 3?/5? years. And then, anyone could challenge deportation based on any number of exceptions AND be assigned a US lawyer at taxpayer expense.
I'm not opposed to amnesty for illegals proven to be taxpaying workers with a solid work history for a specified period of time, but its obvious that the left intends for every single illegal to have carte blanche amnesty no matter what. The bill, as written, was nothing but words on paper that was never intended to apply standards and restrictions.
Tom| 6.18.10 @ 10:14AM
The government should target the employers who knowingly hire illegals. Then take the heavy fines, like $10k per illegal, and give it to the illegals to take home with them.