CPAC presented a panel on immigration today. I wasn’t there, but this report suggests that the panel was an improvement over last year’s, which was basically a cheerleading session
for amnesty and a path to citizenship. Unlike last year, today’s panel
included one member, Derrick Morgan of the Heritage Foundation, who
opposes that agenda.
The panel was supposed to discuss this question: “Can there be
meaningful immigration reform without citizenship?” The answer is “yes”
if one believes that amnesty represents meaningful immigration reform.
And because illegal immigrants would gladly accept amnesty, there is no
credible argument against the proposition that amnesty represents
meaningful immigration reform.
The real question is not whether amnesty without citizenship is
meaningful, but whether it would be acceptable as a resolution of the
immigration debate.
Many, perhaps most, conservatives would accept that resolution if (1)
they could be confident in border enforcement going forward and (2)
they could be confident this resolution would be final. Most
conservatives understand that large scale deportation, even assuming
that it is desirable, isn’t feasible.
Thus, the main argument against amnesty isn’t the pretense that we
can purge the country of large numbers of illegal aliens, but rather
that granting amnesty would encourage more illegal immigration.
Confidence in border enforcement, if it could somehow be attained, would
take care of this concern.
But conservatives still couldn’t be confident that amnesty without
citizenship would hold as a final resolution; to the contrary, I’m
fairly confident that it wouldn’t hold. The fact that CPAC asked whether
there can be meaningful immigration reform without citizenship strongly
suggests what should be obvious in any case: most of those pushing for
comprehensive immigration reform are unwilling to stop with amnesty.
Accordingly, if Congress implemented the House leadership’s amnesty
but no path to citizenship approach, the Democrats would immediately
begin clamoring for a path to citizenship. They would argue, correctly,
that the U.S. has created a permanent legalized underclass deprived of
basic rights available to their neighbors (taxation without
representation, and all that). It would no longer be valid to reply that
this underclass consists of those who are here illegally and who, under
the law, should be deported.
Democrats would thus be as well-positioned as they are today to flog
the immigration issue with Hispanic voters. And the next time Hispanics
voted en masse for a successful Democratic presidential candidate, we
would be basically where we are today on immigration, except that
conservatives would no longer have a strong argument as to why the
immigrants in question shouldn’t have all rights associated with
citizenship.
(Click link below to read more)
READ MORE
Sphere: Related Content
About Me

- Judy Chaffee
- This site is the inspiration of a former reporter/photographer for one of New England's largest daily newspapers and for various magazines. The intent is to direct readers to interesting political articles, and we urge you to visit the source sites. Any comments may be noted on site or directed to KarisChaf at gmail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment