Skip to comments.Stalled at the Border [National Review Editorial]
Posted on 12/24/2007 9:24:38 AM PST by The Pack Knight
Republicans have an opportunity on immigration, if only they will seize it. The Democrats are positioning themselves to the left of public opinion. Howard Dean denounces Republicans for using outrageous phrases like illegal aliens. Hillary Clinton ties herself in knots for days over granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, almost everyone in public life favors or, at any rate, feels compelled to claim to favor tougher enforcement measures.
Yet Republicans are blowing the opportunity. They are engaged in petty backbiting over one anothers records. Since very few politicians have good ones on this issue, thats a strategy of mutual assured destruction. It also obscures the choices we face now. Worse, the Republicans are picking on secondary or even tertiary issues. Gov. Mike Huckabee has taken a lot of criticism from the other presidential candidates, for example, for allowing the high-achieving children of illegal immigrants to receive favorable tuition rates at colleges and universities. It is the sort of question that would not even arise in a country that was serious about controlling its borders. A politicians position on the narrow question is important only insofar as it bears on what he or she would do about the broader one.
Even more beside the point has been the spectacle of Mitt Romneys attacking Rudy Giuliani for letting illegal immigrants in New York City talk to police without fear of being deported, or Giulianis counterattack on Romney for employing a lawn-care company that hired illegals. A sensible federal policy would not place cities in the position of choosing between solving murders and turning a blind eye to illegality. It would also not place the onus of law enforcement on individual consumers.
The important divide concerns what we should do now. John McCain and Giuliani would step up enforcement, create a guest-worker program to meet employers desire for immigrant labor, and allow illegal immigrants already here to become citizens if they meet certain conditions (such as learning English). We think that policy mix is a mistake. There is no pressing national need to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows, and the possibility that we will do so will only serve as a magnet for more illegal immigration. Moreover, immigrants would succeed, and assimilate, faster, with less friction from the native-born, if we took in fewer immigrants each year. Neither candidate takes any notice of this point.
Huckabees campaign has outlined a pretty strong proposal taken largely from the pages of National Review to enforce the immigration laws, but the candidate himself has seemed ambivalent about it in public forums. Romney has said he opposes amnesty and favors increased enforcement, but has not been forthcoming about his overall approach to immigration policy. Thompson, finally, has argued that we should follow a policy of attrition: If we step up enforcement, we can shrink the illegal population over time without having to deport millions of people all at once.
We would like to see more of the candidates pick up Thompsons banner, and wave it about with a bit more vigor than he has done. They should also explain that they will make it a priority to deport illegal immigrants who commit violent felonies. (Most people will be outraged to hear that we have not made it a priority already.)
Republicans should by all means remain open to immigrants of every hue. It would not be untoward for them even to express sympathy for people trapped in kleptocracies that crush their dreams and drive them to seek a better life elsewhere. But they should make no apologies for wanting a successful and sustainable immigration policy, and that requires both setting and enforcing limits. It requires that we keep up the pressure on Congress to build a fence at our southern border, and on the administration to penalize scofflaw employers.
And it requires one more thing, which may be the hardest of all to find: Republicans who are smart enough to see an opportunity and bold enough to take it.
Remarkably level-headed editorial . . . it will be interesting to see if this thread goes beyond folks yelling “Jorge” to no one in particular.
I don't think Thompson's vigor is the issue, I think it's that the MSM always points their cameras the other way when he's waving his banner.
There are very good remarks about Fred and his immigration position but aside from that this is a bland white bread article about mush.
>”” A sensible federal policy would not place cities in the position of choosing between solving murders and turning a blind eye to illegality. It would also not place the onus of law enforcement on individual consumers. “”<
Don’t eliminate anti-illegal immigration activism at any level.
We can pursue strong Federal activism, while at the same time fighting illegals and their champions at every other level.
Saving the Republican Party
Our party can not survive unless we adhere to our basic conservative principles and nominate a person whose values lie in those principles and one that all Republicans will support. If we fail, history will record the death of the Republican party as occurring during the caucus primaries of 2008. This is not speculation on my part, but the opinion of many other experts in political science. Many republicans and independents would either vote for a democrat or abstain, rather than vote for anything less than a person with "true conservative" values.
Take a closer look at the candidates
Rudy Giuliani is intelligent and has proven himself to be capable as mayor of New York City, however Rudy is a liberal in every sense of the word. He is pro-abortion, pro-gay, and pro-gun control. I just can't vote for someone who "cross dresses" and marches in gay pride parades. He is liberal, no other way to put it. He would not represent the values of the Republican party and would not garner the support of all Republicans by any stretch of the imagination. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.
Mitt Romney is sharp, intelligent and on the face seems to be a good candidate to save the party. If you look closer you will find that in the past few years he has supported sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, supported pro-choice on the abortion issue, supported gay marriages and was elected governor of the most liberal state in the union. Mitt's Mormon religion is not a factor and should not be a factor in America. Mitt may have made a real change as he has stated and may have come to embrace a conservative views on the issues, but he'll have to prove it to me AND that may take years. Mitt might be make a good president for the republican party one day, but not in 2008. Mitt should wait a few years and give us the proof we need that in fact he is a "real conservative" as he says he is. The Republican Party would not be united behind Mitt in 2008, due to his religion. This is a shame , but a fact. We would loose to the Democrats in 2008 if Mitt was nominated.
Mike Huckabee is a good speaker, probably a nice guy and I'm sure an excellent preacher. Mike is conservative on only two issues, abortion and marriage. He is a populist liberal on all other important issues. His popularity base is evangelicals who can't seem to separate religion from electing the leader of the free world. . He was even endorsed by the Democratic governor of Ohio, who said that he reflected Democratic liberal views as well as the other Democratic candidates. He has even went so far as to criticize President Bush, calling his foreign policy "bunker mentality". Huckabee is a Democrat running as a republican, no other way to put it. He would divide the republican party and cause a division from which we could not recover. He is more dangerous to the republican party than having a democrat elected. Probably the most dangerous thing about Huckabee is his naivetie on how to deal foreign policy and the threats facing our nation today. To put it bluntly, he is ignorant on foreign affairs and the part the United States plays as being the premier world superpower and bastion of freedom. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.
John McCain is a true American hero and I honor and respect him for all he has given in the service of his country during the Viet Nam war. John is a conservative on most issues, but John tends to flip -flop on the issues. Last year he and the despicable Edward Kennedy were two of the main players in the Amnesty Bill that Pres. Bush was pushing down the throats of the American people. Thank God the people spoke up and the bill was defeated. If McCain was the nominated and elected I have no doubts that he would revive that very bill and the next time it may pass. I don't trust him to stop illegal immigration and therefore he gets "thumbs down" from me. He also tends to be a little "hot headed" at times. I'm not sure we need an emotional "hot head" with his finger on the button, if you know what I mean. The Republican party would not unite behind McCain due to a lack of trust. We would loose to the Democrats in 2008 .
Ron Paul...can you say "nut case"....Ron has a libiterian view of what the world and the US should be like. He is so far off having "true conservative" values, he is not worth discussion. The fringe radicals seem to like his message , much the way people who bought in to Ross Perot did some years ago. Ron's idea of US foreign policy is for the US to withdraw from everywhere and become an isolationist country and "everybody would leave us alone" Total BS. Ron could not unite the party, in fact he would cause a split. Death of the Republican Party as we know it would occur if he was the nominee.
Duncan Hunter..... A "true conservative" in every sense of the word. Duncan is strong on all conservative issues, especially illegal immigration. Duncan could unite the party behind him. Our party would have someone that all republicans could support. The liberal media has failed to get behind Duncan, which is what should be expected. They would prefer a republican candidate , like Huckabee, which would divide our party and be easier for the democrats to defeat next November. Duncan gets a "thumbs up" from me.
Fred Thompson. Fred is the only candidate that is conservative on all issues. He is a Federalist, meaning that he is a supporter of states rights and less government. Fred is the candidate that there are absolutely no negatives. He has never flipped his position on any issue. Fred is the one candidate that would appeal to every Republican. Ron Paul supporters might be the exception, but most of them are libertarian and nothing short of a revolutionary would please them anyway. Fred is for lower taxes, stronger military, anti abortion, anti gay-marriage, stopping illegal immigration and less government involvement in our lives, all main stay issues of the Republican Party. Fred is the only candidate in the list that could unite the party and defeat the democrats in 2008.
Just the Facts... check them out for yourself. America awaits your decision.
Yup. For all the same reasons. Very nice summing-up.
Actually, this is kind of a dumb article. Every once in a while NR recaptures it’s old elan, but for the most part the new editors are disappointing.
“Gov. Mike Huckabee has taken a lot of criticism from the other presidential candidates, for example, for allowing the high-achieving children of illegal immigrants to receive favorable tuition rates at colleges and universities. It is the sort of question that would not even arise in a country that was serious about controlling its borders.”
What the hell does this mean? Of course it’s important that Huckabee still supports giving illegal aliens favorable tuition rates WHILE DENYING THEM to American citizens from other states. How the hell can anyone say that isn’t clearly indicative of where he stands?
As long as you shovel out gravy to illegals, they will come, no matter how high a fence you build. How stupid can you get?
NO other candidate has been tougher on this issue than DUNCAN HUNTER!
I actually rather think that’s their point. The question of whether the children of illegal immigrants should receive in-state tuition ought to be a moot one.
So, is NR being schizophrenic? Picking Romney but slamming his immigration record?
There’s no point deporting anybody until we BUILD THE FENCE.
There’s no point building the fence if we don’t remove the incentive for breaching it.
Enforcing our immigration laws is a no brainer for any candidate. Fred and Duncan are the only two that seem to understand the simplicity.
We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
There have been several leaks against NR’s pick of Willard -— generally in favor of Thompson.
Basically, KLo has a crush on Willard, thinking he’s “hot” and pressed her pick based on her loins.
Hunter is not a genuine supporter of trade and he has a bit of an earmark problem, if ever so slight. Many, however, actually find those two items as something to embrace and solidly conservative. I’m not amongst the many, though . Nor am I a self-professed conservative.
The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor.
- Theodore Roosevelt
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.