The Immigration Debate is About One Thing Only
Here are a few interesting numbers to be chewing on while you read the rest of the article:
2012 U. S. Presidential Election Results1
|Obama received||65,899,625 votes|
|Romney received||60,928,981 votes|
|Obama won by||4,970,644 votes|
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan went along with amnesty for 1.3 million illegal aliens because he thought he could trust people like Senator Ted Kennedy (yeah, I know) when they told him that the amnesty would be a one-time thing, that they would secure the borders, and that it would be fixed and never have to be done again. Reagan later said that it was the biggest mistake of his presidential career, but that doesn’t change anything. It happened.
Well, you know the result – they didn’t secure the borders, and, in retrospect, it seems obvious that they wouldn’t. After all, it was such a good source of new Democrat voters. Today, we are hearing the same promises from the current group of amnestyites, which includes many Republicans, not the least of which is RINOi poster boy, John McCain. Do these Republicans think that this will help them win more Hispanic voters? If so, what is the evidence? Reagan did amnesty in ’86. His veep, George H. W. Bush, was elected president two years later. If the stated theory is correct, then he should have been the beneficiary of Reagan’s amnesty which should have manifested in a higher percentage of Hispanics voting for him than voted for Reagan before amnesty. Did that happen? It did not. In fact, not only did the Reagan amnesty not bring Hispanics into the GOP fold, but in 1988 Republicans lost almost 1/5 of the Hispanic share that they had enjoyed in 1984 before the amnesty – from 37% to 30%.
So, why is that? The answer may be found in the character of the group of people receiving amnesty. They were not law-abiding fair-minded people who would have been an asset to the American society but were, instead, law-breakers and scofflaws who suffered no twangs of conscience over breaking in line in front of millions of more deserving people who had obeyed all of the rules and patiently waited for the legal process to work. They were not the kind of people who could have been reasonably expected to recognize their friends and reward their friendship. So, why do some want them? One reason and one only, but more on that below.
As you saw in the table above, in last November’s election Romney lost to Obama by 4.9 million votes. We can assume that many of those votes came from those given amnesty in 1986 and their progeny. Today, we are considering giving amnesty to as many as 20 million additional illegals of the same character as those of the class of ’86 – selfish scofflaws with no sense of, or desire for, justice or fair play. And, as for the question of how this will likely go, here’s what Charles Krauthammer had to say yesterday on Fox News,
[Note: apparently, the following was created via voice recognition and so is not perfect]
“Look, I think a large consensus of Americans have had the view which I have advocated for about seven years that if you do legalization after you get enforcement of the border, Americans would accept that. That is what the bill here, or the proposal here appears to do. It says once you get enforcement you have to go through a path to get a green card and citizenship.
“But that is highly misleading because under this proposal, the day the Bill is filed you get instant legalization for 11 million illegal immigrants. It’s called provisional, but that’s nonsense. No one is ever going to revoke this legalization. If there is trouble with enforcement of the border, you are not going to get the government revoking legalization after people have come out of the shadows, given information to the government, including where they are domicile is, and say, oh, we are going to revoke your status and lose your job you have to left.
“So what we’re getting is instant legalization, which is the functional equivalent of a green card. Yes, you have to wait to get the actual green card. But that is why you have this in reverse order. The insensitive for real enforcement is gone.” 2
And here’s some interesting insight from the folks at ijreview.com:
“Since Democrats (and virtually only Democrats) run the schools, the universities and the media, these new documented residents will be taught nothing about our system of Constitutionally limited government. Instead, they will be inundated with foreign-language ads telling them to go on food stamps and other awesome government programs that will lock them into dependency and servitude to the Democrat Party in perpetuity.” 3
So, it is more than just an active imagination that leads me to believe that, once this current group of scofflaws is legalized, Republicans will lose future presidential bids, not by a paltry 4.9 million votes, but by 10 million or more and, in fact, may lose nearly every single future congressional election as well. I’m not saying that this is a good reason to oppose the current plan. It isn’t. We should decide such things upon principle – upon what is legal, moral, and just – and then let the chips fall where they may. As the ancient Romans used to say, “Fiat justitia ruat caelum”, or “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
Now, back to the question as to why some might want to welcome these people into our society? Here’s one way to answer that question: Rush Limbaugh has said that he will support amnesty – blanket amnesty, total amnesty, no questions asked – for all current illegal aliens, and more than that, will lead the support or it, provided that it is stipulated that none of this group could vote for 25 years after the granting of amnesty. Guess what? No takers! Not one! Not to be repetitious, but why, then, do some want them? Many very good reasons, including:
- To engorge the permanent needy underclass that is always clamoring for handouts
- To significantly decrease the percent of people who appreciate individual liberty, individual responsibility, and capitalism
- To destroy the Republican Party
- To create a permanent ruling class, aka the Democrat Party
- To assure that no future president will have an R after his name
- The 100-100 rule – To finally have a 100% Democrat Congress and keep it that way for 100 years
All of those are good reasons, but none are the one thing that this debate is all about. Before we get to that, though, allow me to state my position on this issue:
To be absolutely clear, I am against any discussion of legalization at this point in time, and to my national representatives I would say this: Anyone who wants to get my attention on the immigration issue and a possible solution for those illegals already here can do that very simply: Just secure the border – finally, permanently, absolutely, and unquestionably. Then, and only then, let’s talk. You might say that such a plan would take too long. Then you should have started five years ago, and if you do not begin today, then five years hence we may still be saying the same thing – that you should have started five years earlier.
Oh, yeah. What is that one thing and one thing only that the immigration debate is all about? Compassion? Humanitarianism? Brotherly love? Fairness? Justice? The American Way? Nope. None of that. What then?
Votes. Just votes. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing else.