The immigration patriot movement generates a sophisticated rationale about why the historic American nation should militantly oppose so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty/ Immigration Surge. Unfortunately, the Main Stream Media runs shrieking away from rational discussion of this important issue.
But the public can still break into the MSM through writing Letters to the Editor—and these days, the letters to the editor and the comments sections contain the only things worth reading in the Establishment media.
With the economy listing to port, citizens below decks growing restless, and Captain Obama seemingly deliberately seeking out icebergs, the American ship of state seems likely to sink at any moment. Luckily, at least some people are sounding the warnings.
The letters section of the February 5, 2014 Wall Street Journal is headlined with the timely words: "The GOP Should Be Wary of An Immigration 'Breakout'.”
Reader Jonathan Rothenberg of New York City lays out some common sense principles that instantly cut through the thousands of words of corporate propaganda littering the Journal:
Regarding your editorial "Immigration Breakout" (Jan. 30): American citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and handing it out en masse to illegal immigrants is simply indefensible. They do have a "path to citizenship" today and will continue to do so under a plan that provides legalization without a path to citizenship: the current legal process.
As faulty as the policy logic is, however, the political logic is worse. Leave aside the fact that immigration is unimportant to most voters. With ObamaCare sucking the oxygen out of the political atmosphere and weighing down Democrats nationwide, Republicans would be making a move of colossally idiotic proportions to hand the president a substantial legislative victory to change the subject. Furthermore, the notion that ethnic pandering will buy Latino votes is dubious at best."
Rothenberg continues with insight on the mid-year election outcome:
"More certain is the catastrophic and lasting damage it would inflict on the Republican coalition. At a minimum, grass-roots conservatives will stay home in droves this November, likely costing the party the Senate. More significant would be the fracturing of the party as small-government Tea Partiers part ways with the big-business cronyism that would drive the GOP to this suicidal act."
The second writer, Clyde Harkins, from Corona Del Mar, CA, reminds us not to push the panic button:
The GOP wasn't the majority party when Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes won their elections, most of which were landslides. They won because their policies were superior to those of the Democrats' and they created an expanding economy that provided millions of new jobs.
I have some quibbles—Harkins says, "Opening the gates for more H1-B visas and establishing a generous guest-worker program are both sound proposals the GOP supports because they help legal immigrants, are good for the economy and honor the rule of law. However, securing the borders is required first to prevent having to address the same illegal immigration issue 20 years from now." I oppose the continued push for more and more H1-B visas. But he is dead on about our precious Rule of Law.
And Harkins is particularly correct when he notes:
Endorsing legalization without full citizenship is a nonstarter because President Obama has shown he cannot be trusted to honestly implement the law. Republicans should pass a bill dealing solely with legal immigration and leave the issue of addressing those who have broken our laws to a time when this president has left office.
Tom Day of Sunnyvale, CA, reiterates the fact that
Permanent legal residence isn't partial citizenship, nor faux citizenship. It's just legal residence, an honorable status. There's no need to muck up our discussion of the options with a term like "full citizenship."
However, Royal S. Dellinger of Olney, Md, is prescient when he anticipates that
…when Republicans agree to reform with a "path to citizenship," the Democrats would make outrageous new demands within minutes of the President's signing of such a law. Most likely led by Sen. Chuck Schumer, Democrats will cry that we must pave the illegals’ path with federal largesse, grant them the right to vote, and scold us that America is being unfair by forcing these recent immigrants to pay taxes yet denying them a say in how they, and we, are governed.
Business gets workers. Democrats get voters. Republicans get downsized. And the people get the government they deserve.
We are hearing Republican panic about the changing demographics of the USA. However, the USA has absorbed large inflows of other ethnic groups in our history. We can survive this to if we remember the bedrock value of enforcing and upholding our Rule of Law.
As experience shows us, an Amnesty that ignores our laws will only prove to be an incentive for more large future illegal migrations.
Therefore, why don’t Republicans take the first step of making E-Verify permanent and mandatory for all employers?
If we start there, we might have a chance of electing a President who believes in enforcing the laws passed by Congress.
Once we do that, we’ll at least have a chance of listening to the type of people who are writing these compelling letters to the editor—and righting our listing Ship of State.
Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.