Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Advice for the Candidates on Illegal Immigration

Is here offered by Victor Davis Hanson. I find it very difficult to argue with any of his eminently reasonable points. I cannot claim to have studied with any kind of rigor the details of each and every point he addresses here, but I defy anyone to suggest that the overall tone of his argument is wrong. It seems to me to be spot-on. The problem that most of the GOP candidates will have in adopting it, it seems to me, is one of trust. The GOP base is going to have to trust that the candidate is operating on the basis of good faith with the American people on this issue and that he means what he says when it comes to it. It’s not entirely the fault of each candidate that their positions on this issue look so fuzzy. I think the question is one that is so convoluted and complicated that any solution--real or imagined--is going to look fuzzy. As Hanson rightly notes, it is a messy, messy business. It’s certainly one that begs for gravitas.

Discussions - 12 Comments

But the Republican candidates have to watch it, too. If blanket amnesty is a losing issue, so also is mass deportation -- the practicality and morality of which are rarely considered by those rightly calling for an end to illegal immigration. Busing every illegal alien back to Mexico right now might resemble the past messy partition of India and Pakistan, and reopen the issue in a way that Democrats can legitimately exploit.

This is complete and utter BS, straight from the McCain/Kennedy playbook. There is not a single politician in America suggesting such a course of action. The people who make this "argument" are amnesty supporters trying to pose as moderates by conjuring up a non-existent extreme which they can bravely oppose.

I believe VDH is supporting McCain, which would explain this gibberish. On the bright side, at least he did not instruct us that we need to open the borders because we are all Gods children, as McVain has a habit of doing.

A candidate, any candidate, should come out and simply blurt out the truth, that his position has changed on the issue, LIKE THAT OF MOST AMERICANS. The tenure of the Bush administration has witnessed a tectonic shift on immigration policy in this country. The people want the border secured, and they want a dramatic and radical tightening of the standards for legal immigration. It's as Tancredo said during the debates, it's no longer merely about illegal immigration, it's about the entirety of our immigration policy. Not coincidentally, that shift occurred because of the endless videos of illegals crossing our border with no more difficulty than they were just crossing any old street. The people now fully understand that Bush is determined to have an open border, and that it's not just Bush, but an entire administration, an entire governmental bureaucracy. It's an establishment position. It's helpful at this point to point out Mark Steyn's definition of "bipartisanship," "it's the process where both parties and the establishment gang up on the American people." That's exactly what we're seeing on the issue of our borders and our sovereignty. The American people are becoming increasingly sensitive about sovereignty, and sovereign prerogatives.

Go check out Hugh Hewitt's website today, because he posts an interview he had with Rick Santorum, and Santorum spills the beans about McCain and immigration. And it's also about sovereignty. And it isn't pretty, and it's COMPLETELY foreign to the views of a vast, supermajority of American citizens.

SOVEREIGNTY HAS to be one of the top issues during this presidential race, otherwise we'll lose. And that's THE reason why John McCain, former Naval Aviator, former POW, present senior Senator from Arizona, cannot and MUST NOT be the standard bearer of the GOP.

A border that is as open and porous as the administration and as economic fetishists would have, is a border for a nation/state that won't long remain a nation/state. And the people get it, and the bureaucracy and the establishment are now wise to the fact that the people get it, and now they're trying a drumbeat of castigation, calumny.

On a somewhat related note, normally reliable David Frum wrote a piece about how the Koran needs to be "reread," about how people find within the Koran what exists within their own souls. Effectively, David is saying words are meaningless, prism is all. I couldn't believe that so intelligent a man could subscribe to such postmodern tripe.

SOVEREIGNTY HAS to be one of the top issues during this presidential race, otherwise we'll lose.

Does this mean you've had second thoughts about Giuliani, Dan?

The issue of deportation is a tricky one. Whether one wants to term it "mass" or not, the simple truth is all it would take to turn public sentiment would be scene after scene of mothers with crying babies being herded onto buses for deportation. And you can be assured that the MSM would frame the narrative in that manner, even if the quantity of people deported was something less than your notion of "mass."

That's why it's sensible that forced deportation be limited first to criminals. There is little to no opposition to that. But there would be opposition initially to a more wide-spread deportation, particularly when the MSM would surely present it in as unflattering a light as possible.

I am reminded of the close of the first Iraq war, when retreating Iraqi troops were stuck on the road out of Kuwait. American forces were slaughtering the exposed Iraqi forces. It took very little film footage of that to quickly sway public sentiment against the killing.

I'm having serious second thoughts about Giuliani waiting till Florida, but of the field, no, I think Giuliani is the guy from this field of candidates. I would have much preferred Gingrich. And I wonder if he hasn't regretted his decision not to enter the race.

Our party now has a serious competency problem. The Bush administration has blown up our brand name, because we used to enjoy a reputation for competence. We need a guy who can make government work, who isn't about to repeat that Bush family mantra about "public service." We need a guy who will take a blow torch to Washington.

I don't agree with Giuliani on everything, I thought it was nothing short of bizarre for him to dress in drag for instance. But from this field, Giuliani is the guy.

We could easily have a completely wide open race. Say Romney wins Michigan and Nevada, which would mean HE'S BACK, say now that Thompson takes South Carolina and Giuliani takes Florida.

I don't think it's going to be McCain, too many radio hosts are going after him with a vengeance. Just listen to the first hour rant last night by Mark Levin. You can hear at his website, MARKLEVINSHOW.COM. He has his show archived. It begins slow, and it builds to a roaring fury.

Florida will tell us what's up.

I would have much preferred Gingrich.

Dan, do you support Gingrich's take on federalizing (i.e. socializing) medicine? He is perhaps the leading GOP member on this, having taken a leading position behind the scenes on getting the Prescription Drug Giveaway. Curious because other Gingrich supporters are either unaware of his socialism or explain it away...


Dan

I'm having serious second thoughts about Giuliani waiting till Florida, but of the field, no, I think Giuliani is the guy from this field of candidates.

How do you square that with your claim that "SOVEREIGNTY HAS to be one of the top issues during this presidential race, otherwise we'll lose" ? Giuliani is as big an open borders internationalist as you'll find in either pary.

And Giuliani has no support. He got 3% in Iowa, 9% in New Hampshire, and is polling in the single digits in MI and SC. Please explain your electoral argument for him, if you have one. And your policy argument, if you have one.

I don't agree with Giuliani on everything, I thought it was nothing short of bizarre for him to dress in drag for instance. But from this field, Giuliani is the guy.

I would love to hear you explain how a social liberal who hates guns and loves gays and endorsed Mario Cuomo and has no support outside of Democratic states is "the guy" for Republicans. Unless you think it desirable for the GOP to be a pro-war version of the Democrats.

A couple of grassroots observations:

But the Republican candidates have to watch it, too. If blanket amnesty is a losing issue, so also is mass deportation -- the practicality and morality of which are rarely considered by those rightly calling for an end to illegal immigration.

I truly believe most of us who favor an end to illegal immmigration fully support mass deportation. Today.

That's why it's sensible that forced deportation be limited first to criminals.

By definition, illegal immigrants are criminals!

Whether one wants to term it "mass" or not, the simple truth is all it would take to turn public sentiment would be scene after scene of mothers with crying babies being herded onto buses for deportation.

Why deport the crying babies, after all, they're citizens in many cases! Regardless, sovereignty is a keystone issue that must be addressed.

Julie, unless you were trying to say that Hanson's points are NOT, as of yet, reasonable - and, as it's right-winger Victor Davis Hanson's points at issue, I seriously doubt you were trying to say that - I think you meant to type "EMinently reasonable" and not "imminently reasonable," no? Big difference in meaning there...

Because it's always eminently reasonable to take constructive criticism in good humor, I'm happy to be a big girl and take yours, Craig. The eminence of the critic ought not to have any bearing on the imminent acceptance of said criticism. On the other hand, it may be that VDH's eminently reasonable suggestions may be the imminent policy of a sensible GOP. I hope so. I have corrected the original per your kind suggestion.

Chris, I haven't followed Gingrich's explanation of what do with health care. There is a limit to my policy wonkness. He pushes it over at his website, Newt.org. But I haven't read it.

And John, your questions would require me to respond by lengthy essay. Now I can be long-winded, but you are asking a bit much.

Rudy is from NYC, he's different kind of Republican. But he's been in the trenches. When the Libs and the NY media were branding him as a NAZI, he must have been doing something right.

Were he to get the nomination, and we should know who will get it by the evening of Super Tuesday, {but maybe not...} the nation would have a good period of time to compare his lengthy record of accomplishment to his Democrat opponent, either Obama or Hillary.

I'm convinced that the American people would elect him after comparing their records.

Rudy made a good point tonight that ever since GHWB, we've limited the party. We've forewent states such as Pennsylvania. Rudy promises to bring New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the table. And he can.

Italian Americans will go for him, which means we should carry New Jersey, and we'll blunt the Dem turnout in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties, which means we'll take Pennsylvania.

THERE'S NO WAY the Dems can win without the Keystone and the Garden states. No way.

Throwing Rudy overboard for McCain isn't smart. We can't go with Thompson because the guy doesn't really campaign. We can't go for Paul, he's a nut. We can't go for Huckabee, he'll turn some people off.

Rudy is the guy.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/11735