A Reader Notes That NATIONAL REVIEW, Instead “Standing Athwart History Yelling Stop” On Amnesty, Has Chosen To Surrender “Wisely and Slow“
April 05, 2013, 03:58 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

From: Virginia Paleoconservative [Email him]

The NRO Editors have been, to some extent, against the current Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) legislation in their (Lowry’s?) unsigned editorials. Even though they have concurrently provided an ample forum for mass immigration advocates such as Charles Krauthammer, Michael Barone, casino executives, and their “science?” writer Robert Zubrin who made a rather nasty correlation between immigration patriots and….Adolph Hitler? [Towards an Intelligent Immigration Policy , November 12, 2012]

However, now comes this rather curious article penned “By The Editors” (Lowry again?) which, instead of demanding the Republicans just walk away from this treasonous CIR legislation, advocates giving it a thorough review.

Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), himself a supporter of broad-reaching immigration reform, has specifically and repeatedly warned that the legislative process here should feature ample time for open, public debate and comment, along with a generous allotment of time for amending and revising the legislation. Responsible legislators on both sides of the aisle would do well to listen to him.

[Wisely and Slow, April 2, 2013]

But the majority of components of CIR are so inherently toxic that, regardless of how they are “amended and revised,” the final legislation will invariably be damaging to the nation.

The NRO editors also express their heartfelt concern for “millions of immigrants.” But most Americans, not to mention the Republicans’ conservative base, would rather they find their futures back in their countries of origin:

Immigration reform is too important to go about willy-nilly; there are key questions of national interest at stake, not to mention the futures of millions of immigrants.[Emphasis added]

Delving further into the CIR legislation, the NRO editors appear to at least entertain the possibility of a border-security-for-illegal-alien-citizenship deal—something so foolish and unenforceable it should be rejected outright:

What the Senate has produced so far is not a piece of legislation but a set of principles. It is one thing to say that we will offer a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants contingent upon certain triggers related to improved border-security measures. Even if one accepts the underlying tradeoff, the questions of how such measures would be structured, how such a program would be implemented, and how security benchmarks would be verified are critical, and the answers to those questions are far from self-evident. [Emphasis added].

This shift by the NRO editors to a more ambiguous stance on CIR is an indication of the tremendous pressure being exerted by the Republican/conservative/business establishment for passage of this legislation.

It's typical of NRO's Conservatism Inc. positioning—permanently subordinate to the left, existing only to represent special interests such as the cheap labor lobby while perpetuating the charade of a meaningful two-party system on the American citizenry.

Virginia Paleoconservative has been annoyed with NRO since 2006 when the supposedly conservative web site published Open to Greatness | We need immigrants, by Ben Wattenberg .