Still standing athwart.
By Paul J Cella Posted in 2008 | Immigration — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We’re coming up on two full years of wrestling with the immigration question in a highly public way. The striking fact is this: catastrophe has been averted. We have, admittedly, made precious few positive steps toward improvement; but fewer still have been the advances of that plutocracy which conspires to subjugate the Republic on this issue. A stubborn, noble resistance endures. I find this remarkable. 
The weight of elite opinion — business, government, media, intelligentsia, ecclesiastic — is quite overwhelming. In virtually every field of affairs, the elite wants “comprehensive” reform and will not compromise toward an incremental policy of enforcement by attrition. Its failure bespeaks the lasting vitality of American democracy.
Read on.
We hear a lot about that “small but vocal” anti-immigration faction. We might as well talk about the small but vocal anti-Communist faction that drove Liberals to distraction throughout the Cold War, finally culminating in the twin landslides of Reagan victories. Or we might as well talk about the small but vocal Federalist faction in the late 18th century. It is true that that these factions, too, were opposed, bitterly opposed; but this does not vitiate the plain fact that they were broadly popular coalitions of opinion.
The Federalist gives us a fine phrase to describe enduring coalitions of opinion that shape the politics of the Republic: the deliberate sense of the people. The deliberate sense of the American people favored a federal constitution bringing the several States into a national union. The deliberate sense of the people opposed Communism on principle, judged it not merely unworkable but wicked and menacing, and set itself stubbornly against it.
Today the deliberate sense of the American people is against immigration. Its persistence is amply demonstrated, not least in the fact that even a dramatic change in congressional majority could not shake it loose. We opponents of immigration were warned in strident terms, back in late 2006, that parlay was our only option: “Work for the least bad bill you can get,” they told us, “because once the Dems take the Congress, you’ll get steamrolled with something even worse.” Didn’t happen, and not for lack of effort. I suppose the next piece of pedantry will be: “sue for peace, you fools, or the next President (Clinton) will sign a bill that makes these current ones look like child’s play.”
Sorry; not buying that one either. The great virtue of the anti-immigration coalition, like so many achievements of Conservatism in the past, is its transcendence of party. This is why I have long thought that the real dynamic at work is party versus party but plutocracy versus democracy.
The open borders bloc takes Leftist sloganeering and unites it to Capitalist financial muscle — a potent mix to be sure, but rather unpopular. Capitalism may be popular enough, but in this it is heavy-laden by an alliance with an ideology of national dispossession. The Leftist bromides amount to a repudiation of American sovereignty, a concomitant embrace of managerial bureaucracy, and a general drift toward European-style soft despotism. Take that collection of policies to the American people and see what they think of it. To this abortive ideology of dispossession the plutocracy adds the emollients of profit and prosperity, generally formulated in the negative: our economy needs cheap labor.
Without the patina of free enterprise, without the conceit that nationality is an impediment to prosperity, and citizenship to free markets, the whole project would be quite doomed. Left-wing globalization is about as unpopular a system as one can imagine. But right-wing globalization: now there is an idea with some legs. Making bureaucratic despotism, a la the EU, our world empire, fills most sane men with visceral horror; but making American Capitalism our world empire is a more cunning and seductive sophistry. That the anticipated empire may be Capitalist, but it won’t be American, is a difficult proposition for optimistic Americans to credit. A lot of Americans really believe that everyone else is just America-in-embryo.
Thus the open borders bloc unites the elites of both parties against the people themselves. Plutocracy vs. democracy.
Before the 2006 election, I ventured recklessly to offer advice to GOP House candidates on how to hold their seat: defend the House’s “obstructionism” on immigration. Defend without apology that body’s heroic resistance to the overthrow of our national sovereignty. I venture now, in light of this fascinating report, the same advice:
“Fellow citizens, I know almost everyone is lecturing you about the need for what is called ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform. I know you have heard a great deal of fulmination against the ‘obstructionism’ of the House or Senate, as the case may be. Our leading newspapers tell you that we have ‘abandoned’ immigration reform. We have done no such thing. What we have done, in fact, is quite simple: we have blocked a terrible bill. Actually several bills: Bills that are cheered by the agitators who organized great crowds of people to march on our streets, which an edge of militancy, under the flag of a foreign power — the sort of thing that earlier generations of our countrymen would not have failed to call sedition. Bills virtually written by an organization calling itself The Race. Bills that even their authors have made no serious compass of. How many more immigrants these ‘reforms’ will bring to our shores is a matter for conjecture, with the figures rounded to the nearest million. Bills that betray the good men who guard our borders; bills that insult those immigrants respectful enough of our laws to endure our bureaucracy and enter the legal way; bills that subject us all to the tyranny of King Mammon. I tell you truly, fellow citizens, that I have not the least tincture of shame in admitting that I have done everything in my power, every trick of parliamentary guile, every artifice of obstruction, to block this legislation; nor that I will continue to do so, until I have no power left. I stand on this ground — that a plutocracy connives to dispossess our beloved nation — and on this ground I ask for your vote.”
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | It's the War, Stupid. No, wait, It's the Economy, Stupid. — Comments (5) »
Still standing athwart. 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Frankly, while most on Red State are saying they are firmly against illegal immigration, I believe over the last couple of months that this is mostly talk in vague and theoretical terms.
There is a bill that is being floated through Congress called the SAVE Act. This bill has been mentioned with nothing more than a passing interest on Red State.
All I hear out of people is how we need to do this and we need to do that vis a vis illegal immigration. Well, the SAVE Act takes some substantial steps toward fixing the illegal immigration mess, and there is barely any mention of it on here.
For all the talk about how serious some of you claim to be about fixing illegal immigration, given that SAVE Act is barely registering here, I find that for the most part it is rhetoric.
This entire post and every response so far is nothing more than theory. The SAVE Act is not theory but something that is potentially practical and frankly most of you have never even heard of it. How can you all claim that you are firmly against illegal immigration and not debate this bill fervently.
There are literally ten anti Huckabee posts daily, and almost nothing on the Save Act. I don't frankly believe that most of you are nearly as serious as you claim in dealing with illegal immigration.
Here is the dossier I put together on it.
I hope folks take some time to familiarize themselves with this bill. I hope somewhere between claiming that Huckabee will end our party as we know it and Rudy will do the same someone on here will open a debate on this important topic.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Everyone needs to contact their congress-critters and senators and tell them to pass this bill!
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
I see some potential problems with this bill, which is why Red State is a perfect place to debate it, however there are all sorts of posts about illegal immigration. They are all vague and theoretical. This bill is real. How come no one on Red State is talking about it?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
it does some things to beef up security and other measures however that isn't the beef of the bill.
It is called Secure America through Verification and Enforcement.
It sets up an ID card that businesses can use to verify if their employees and potential employees are in fact legal.
Now, this all sounds great in theory, but as Yogi Berra once said,
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is
While I applaud its intentions and I firmly believe that it has the potential to do a lot of good, I see a whole new massive bureaucracy being created, and nothing has told me that this new bureaucracy will be any better than any other. In other words, I fear that this bill while good intentioned, is potentially quite counter productive.
This is my fear which is why I hold off on support. The bill has turned into an almost rock star. All sorts of strange bedfellows from Tancredo to Murtha, to business groups to members of the Hispanic caucus have gotten behind it. They have gotten behind it because for the first time in the illegal immigration debate we have something that works conceptually. That doesn't mean it will work in reality. Which is why debate here is so vital.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
I'm reminded of how well FedEx and UPS track their packages. VISA and MasterCard never have a problem verifying my funds/credit. I hear we can even track individual cows from birth to the slaughterhouse.
We don't a national ID though. All we need to do is create a database that keeps track of who's legal and who's not - based on the state-issued ID card they already have. Make it the ONLY card required and make it mandatory.
I don't see why this would be such a problem. No matter what state I'm in, a cop can verify my privilege to drive with my license. I can't buy beer without it either. But somehow people think that demanding I have some form of verifiable ID to vote or work is a bad thing. Even people who don't drive can get a state-issued photo ID. They even have magnetic strips and barcodes - just like my VISA.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
I am not saying it can't be done. I am saying that I am skeptical that it will. This isn't the first time the Federal government has attempted to put in place a system in which someone can verify a person's legal status. In fact, your social security card is already supposed to do that and that system has failed miserably. I am afraid that people will fawn over this bill, get behind it unconditionally, and no one will critically analyze it. Thus, we will get another well intentioned and ultimately counter productive bill.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
I fear any bill which includes a national ID.
Mike, I will have to look at the bill. I believe that you are right for the most part. I certainly haven't done much on the issue besides talk about it.
I dont' want to see any form of identification required on a daily basis. The only time a person should have to prove their citizenship is when voting, getting a job, or when applying for a driver's license or federal or state aid (including public schooling). The rest of the time, it isn't anyones business, barring a crime.
this bill would be used for when one is first hired and also to check everyone that is already hired initially. Now, it is being rolled out in a staggered form. I can't remember if it goes from largest to smallest or vice versa as far as the number of employees. In other words, it would be the companies with the largest number of employees first and so on year over year.
Heath Shuler has some information attached on his site.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Heath Shuler, yes the former QB, is sponsoring this bill. Since a Democrat is sponsoring an enforcement only bill, you can see that the politics are totally unpredictable. So far this has created momentum for the bill. I have no doubt it made it easier for Murtha to back for instance as well as several members of the Hispanic caucus. The Republicans are in a tough spot. They certainly don't want to give the Dems a win and I am sure Shuler is one of their targets. Yet, this is exactly the sort of bill that their constitutuency supports. So far, most have gotten behind it namely Tancredo.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
I'll have to look into the SAVE Act, but I have doubts about it already.
The last very good immigration bill that I know of was the Sensensbrenner bill in 2005, which I toiled through and analyzed for Redstate. This was the bill ruthlessly demonized for making illegal immigration a felony (which was actually a cunning Democrat amendment-cum-poison pill). It was literally enforcement-only; it said nothing about what to do with the 11-20 million illegals. It tightened up some loopholes and added some more enforcement tools and was basically a fine bill. But its limited nature only served to demonstrate this whole thing is a matter more of will than legislation.
Here is what I said about the Sensensbrenner bill:
As enforcement goes, this is a fairly mild bill. The only component that even approaches the level of severity that our rhetoricians have implied is Section 201, which makes unlawful presence an aggravated felony — and it was the Democrats who, cynically and slyly, inserted this provision. There is no wall. There is no fence. There is some new surveillance. There are a few new inspectors. Some increased penalties. Some tough language for smugglers. And that’s it.
The proper role for Congress, were it serious about immigration reform, would be empowering legislation to give force to law, and efforts to drive the Executive to act when it might otherwise be reluctant.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
That is why I said that I was disappointed that the bill wasn't DEBATED HERE. Whatever doubts you may or may not have, there is no doubt that it is relevant to the overall illegal immigration debate. As such, I find disappointing that so much time is used talking about illegal immigration in an abstract form when you have something tangible that can be discussed.
Here is the reality. While you may have reservations, this bill is gaining huge momentum and is very likely to become law. We have a chance to debate it and make suggestions to make it better.
There is no doubt that it is well intentioned, and so it needs to be carried out properly. Unlike most of the other garbage that has been proposed this bill is at least great in theory. Now, we need to look it and examine how it would become great in practice.
That is why I am disappointed that this bill has gotten almost no voice on this site so far.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
The SAVE act has been out there for a month now...I get the feeling that this is just another pony show put on for the soft Independents and to give some red meat to the Republicans.
But to discuss the points above. I am comfortable with a national ID card - we have a pseudo-one right now that doesn't work right. The social security card was never originally meant for identification purposes (name, picture match, etc.) - it was meant for social security. If we had an ID that was difficult to impossible to counterfeit, ensured businesses had to check the ID against a national database and for fraud.
Again, use the best practices of companies in implementing this (FedEx, VISA, etc.). And of course, we do know that they get things wrong as well - identity theft. But, SSNs are so much easier to rip off, get, or fraudulently create.
Can the federal solution include having states implement so that the states are running the problem closer to home?
Thanks for bringing the topic up - it definitely needs to be discussed.
Erik
that addresses something important that you bring up
If if was a fifth we'd all be drunk
I agree that if we have a tamper proof ID card, that would make things easier. If the SAVE Act does that I would be happy, however besides merely saying it will do it I don't see anything specifically that makes me think that it will.
I am quite comfortable with a national ID card as well, however that won't mean it will be tamper proof. Social Security wasn't meant as a means of identifying, but driver's licenses were. They are certainly NOT tamper proof.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
To issue an ID card, you should have to do a background check/verification that the person receiving the card matches the data they provide. Without this, the card is just another tool to allow illegals/criminals/terrorists to legally function in our country.
As mentioned above, this will require a huge bureaucracy. What information out there leads ANYONE to believe that the Federal or State Gubmints will be able to accomplish this task any better than they have already failed to do??
How does giving illegals/criminals/terrorists an ID card increase our safety or control over this issue?? The pro-immigration and PC forces will GUT any reasonable rules and processes either in formation or in execution just as they have already done with LEGAL immigration end enforcing the law. Not to mention what has been done to Customs and the Border Patrol.
I would also point out if the requirements for the card are reasonably strenous then virtually no one will apply for them and nothing will change. If they aren't strenous we make the situation WORSE by blessing people who should not have the cards.
Let us concentrate on ENFORCEMENT with the tools available and IMPROVING the use of those tools rather than creating more useless, money wasting bureaucracy.
I do so detest the casual tossing about of the term "elite." Tell me, Paul, would you consider yourself a member of that fraternity, albeit of a differing opinion than what the majority of your peers put forward on this issue? Surely your education and training would not make you a man of the throng, would it? And what, praytell, will happen should you find yourself on the receiving end of "the sense of the people?" Surely you have to recognize you are not comfortably within the mainstream of political and social thought in your fulminations about the decline of the West.
I'm pretty clearly on the "receiving end" of the deliberate sense on the question of the welfare state, which I would like to dismantle. What do I do about it? Well, occasionally repeat the arguments, but mostly just swallow hard and accept my minority position.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Unfortunately, I'm on "the receiving end" of quite a few senses of the people, and at some point the old canard that people would feel differently if they were truly informed of the "facts" begins to sound a bit hollow.
Anyway, yeah, still lurking, always read your pieces, enjoy them, and rarely agree. You've turned into the George Will/Cal Thomas of Redstate for me...I eagerly flip to see their editorials to foment some righteous indignation (and see if I can handle their jabs) and likewise, I always read your posts here :-).
We need to have immigration reform, or we may soon look like Denmark.
http://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/the-muslim-trojan-horse/
Erik
The states are (for now) still sovereign and we are winning. States like Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Georgia are implementing common sense laws that essentially make the illegals deport themselves. So the whole, "even if we close the borders we can't deport 20 million people," is empty rhetoric. More . . .
http://patriotroom.com/?p=52
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
"anti-immigration"?
I'm not sure if this was deliberate or an oversight, but you keep calling yourself and the majority "anti-immigration". That might be true for you, but not for the majority of Americans. Most Americans are steadfast against illegal immigration. There is an important difference.
website: The Shield of Achilles
...we have a problem with. I know that's what you meant but the elitists just LOVE to leave that word out as a way to discredit us and push the meme that we're just a bunch of "mean, reacist xenophobes who don't like Mexicans".
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.