Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Immigration and Extortion
National Review: The Corner ^ | January 28,2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on 01/30/2013 1:12:34 AM PST by rmlew

If sovereignty is to mean anything, then a country is entitled to decide whom it wants to join its ranks and whom it wishes to exclude from them.

If, on balance, an exhaustive amnesty for those who have deliberately ignored the law is determined to be a fair prospect for America, then there is a case for doing it; if changing the law to allow certain people to become part of the American polity is regarded by Americans as being advantageous to them, then there is a case for doing it; if allowing nobody in or everybody in is good for America, then there is a case for doing it. A desire to win the political affections of a given ethnic group, on the other hand, is not grounds for such a move. We should stop talking as if it is. To change the immigration laws to please a small but influential portion of the population is to submit to extortion. America should not be deciding who it wants on the basis of crass electoral threats. 

A popular conceit, issued as a grave and gleeful warning to a Republican party that is considered by swathes of the commentariat to be doomed by “demographics,” appears to be that “Hispanics will only vote for you if you pardon other Hispanics who have broken the law.” I don’t know if that’s true or not. But if it is, it’s utterly abhorrent. Rushing to pardon those who have violated the rule of law because if you don’t their friends won’t vote for you is inseparable from bribery. (I might as well offer my vote to any party who will release my family members from prison.) If it’s not true, the suggestion that it is is not only wildly offensive to Hispanics — who are always, grossly, treated as a single bloc — but should serve to cool passions and slow the rush to action too.

It is notable that the Republican party is not even pretending to have changed its mind on the immigration question. Instead, it is acknowledging that it lost the last election and it is buying into a particular theory as to why. Sure, politics has always born the hallmarks of prostitution and it would be negligent of any party wholly to ignore demographics. But could we at least be a little more subtle when calling the escort agency?

On his blog, Ezra Klein argues:

Two numbers explain why a rational Republican Party needs to do something dramatic on immigration: 27 percent and 2 percent.

Twenty-seven percent is the percentage of the Latino vote Mitt Romney received in 2012, according to the Fox News exit poll. Two percent is the projected increase in the non-white electorate come 2016. So Republicans are losing badly among Hispanic voters and Hispanic voters are becoming an increasingly important part of the electorate.

Klein is right to lead with this, and then to turn to a secondary discussion of Republicans who genuinely want to make changes to the system. Naturally, not everyone involved is acting in bad faith: Some Republicans do earnestly desire reform and likely see Democratic willingness as providing an opportunity to get something “bipartisan” done. Millions of Americans, too, seem to be in favor of doing something about immigration — if you believe certain polls, a majority is even in favor of amnesty. But you certainly wouldn’t glean this from the media coverage nor from the way in which Republicans and conservatives have tended to discuss the issue. The focus is squarely on the politics of this and politics of that, almost every story noting in its first paragraph the “increased importance of nonwhites” or some variant thereof. In our discourse, the notion that anybody wants to do anything on immigration simply in order to do something on immigration has taken a back seat to endless analysis of “the Hispanic vote” and of electoral politics, all underpinned by the frankly disrespectful presumption that “Hispanics” are predictable and uniform automatons who will openly their allegedly closed minds the moment an immigration bill passes Congress.

“Immigration reform,” meanwhile, has been melted down and recast into a synonym for “doing something about the illegal immigration problem.” There’s little discussion of the other vital components of our thoroughly broken immigration system — a system that allows 1 million people in per year on purpose. How much attention is there on the abominable visa lottery? Or on the fact that most immigrants come because they have family here and not because they are skilled or necessary or likely to succeed? Or on STEM? “Comprehensive,” it seems, has come to mean less a total overhaul of the existing system and more a “border enforcement + amnesty” deal. And discussion of whether it is a good idea (social security etc.) or a bad idea (widespread unemployment) for America to continue to import so many people is peripheral — rife among opinion journalists and economists, rare in the media at large. In my experience, Americans are both wildly welcoming of immigrants and spectacularly under-informed as to how their immigration system actually works. This is a problem going forward. Existing citizens must get to decide who joins them. The current debate is not helping them to do so in any “comprehensive” way at all. Hopefully that will change.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; identity; illegals; immigration; sovereignty

1 posted on 01/30/2013 1:12:43 AM PST by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rmlew

When is the treatment of American citizens in Mexico and their rights vs US treatment of Mexicans going to be an issue when we discuss amnesty ?

Ever hear of reciprocal aggrements ? These are arranged to protect the rights of American citizens working or living in other countries.

Why is it when it comes to citizens of other countries we are required to offer them the same privledges as we do to US citizens? But when it comes to US citizens who get in trouble or attempt to do business in other countries they do not get the same treatment their citizens get.

Americans can’t own coast land in Mexico. And get no title to it elsewhere. If they run out of cash they’ll get unceremoniously sent back or put in jail untill some relative comes up with the “fresh”. That’s just for starters as for granting them voting privledges yea let’s give Mexican citizens that right when American citizens vote in their elections

2 posted on 01/30/2013 2:00:24 AM PST by mosesdapoet (.Should this former Chicago "Mechanic" go out of retirement ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Obayma only wants amnesty so that he can become a citizen.

3 posted on 01/30/2013 2:01:14 AM PST by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

BS Sates quoted.

Here is the real stat:

Mitt Romney got 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, without actively campaigning on the Amnesty issue

John McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, a yar after he wrote the bill that would have granted millions of Hispanics Illegal Alien Amnesty

Illegal Alien Amnesty does not bring in Hispanic voters. All Illegal Alien Amnesty does is expose who the real America Hating PhonyCons are.

The Border needs to be sealed, and every Illegal Alien needs to be deported. Anything else is Amnesty

4 posted on 01/30/2013 3:35:24 AM PST by SeminoleCounty (GOP = Greenlighting Obama's Programs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

I want to know what laws I can break that not only will I NOT be punished for breaking, but I will be rewarded for breaking, as well.

5 posted on 01/30/2013 3:47:25 AM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

“The Border needs to be sealed, and every Illegal Alien needs to be deported. Anything else is Amnesty.”

That’s a fact.

6 posted on 01/30/2013 3:49:03 AM PST by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx; Cacique; Clemenza; dennisw; Paleo Conservative


7 posted on 01/30/2013 4:09:17 PM PST by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson