Here we go again. The GOP got a drubbing on Election Day. But instead of talking about the poisonous effects of identity politics, economic illiteracy, the government school monopoly, and the Right’s woeful competitive disadvantage in mainstream American culture, the usual pandering suspects — led by GOP Sen. Lindsey Grahamanesty — have resurrected illegal alien amnesty-mania.
My work on illegal immigration, border security, and national security began as an editorial writer at the Los Angeles Daily News in 1992, where I first bore witness to the Balkanization wrought by open-borders multiculturalists. Invasion, published in 2002, documented how systematically lax enforcement of our immigration laws combined with suicidal political correctness paved the way for the September 11 terrorist attacks.
GOP “moderates” and strategists assume that waving the magic amnesty wand and opening up the welfare/entitlement state to generations of illegal immigrants will translate into electoral gains for the party. They’re deluded. They pretend amnesty will come at no cost to legal immigrants and native-born Americans. They pretend they can “secure the border first” by making the same empty, token gestures that have left our borders a bloody joke for decades.
The promise of “securing the border first” is a Kabuki compromise.
These GOP amnesty-peddlers are as deluded now as they were in 2007 when Bush/McCain/Kennedy spearheaded a failed amnesty campaign. They’ve learned nothing.
How about clearing naturalization application backlogs instead of expanding illegal alien benefits? How about tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals instead of handing out driver’s licenses to illegal aliens? How about streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases instead of indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?
Let’s drop the semantic games. Whether Shamnesty Twins Graham and McCain call it a “pathway to citizenship,” “regularization,” or “comprehensive immigration reform,” they are talking about permanently rewarding and incentivizing more mass illegal immigration above all else.
I repeat: There is no such thing as a temporary amnesty. And amnesty begets more amnesty. Since Reagan, there have been seven illegal alien amnesties passed into law since 1986:
·The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens
·1994: The “Section 245(i)” temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
·1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty
·1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America
·1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
·2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act
·2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]
Not one of those amnesties was associated with a decline in illegal immigration. On the contrary, the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic US citizenship.
Obama’s amnesty-by-executive order will produce more of the same.
Better Get Out The Vote efforts and data-mining by Republicans won’t solve the root causes of new generations of Democrats’ collective alienation from a common civic culture, core American values, and the sanctity of individual rights over the collective.
Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy, extreme multiculturalism, and a borderless continent.
J. Christian Adams gets to the heart of the problem (emphasis added):
Understand something — I have been ambivalent about the immigration issue for many years. But the vote this week was extremely racially polarized, and deliberately so. Sixty-two percent of whites voted for Romney. Ninety percent of black voters and 71% of Hispanic voters went for Obama. That’s how the race groups working for the Democrat Party want it. They are very very effective at keeping the races politically polarized.
Those numbers are frightening, and no amount of traditional “outreach” is going to change them, even a new-found acceptance of illegal immigration. Those calling for outreach to minorities are only half right. Something needs to be done, but they naively prescribe the mistakes of the past that will forever alter the demographic character of America, without altering the vote totals for the GOP. In time, the electoral percentages will actually grow worse for the GOP after concessions on immigration. More drastic and daring efforts are needed.
There is only one way to obtain the support of Hispanics and other minorities eventually. Conservatives must first confront and destroy the credibility of the racial interest groups that serve as the gatekeepers to these communities. Once-relevant and noble groups like the NAACP, and others less noble such as LULAC and MALDEF, must be exposed as the frauds that they have become in 2012. Their finances and racialist agenda must be revealed and lampooned. Their racial extortion of corporate America must be confronted. The entire political operation of these groups must be vivisected by some of the brightest investigative and journalistic conservative minds.
Otherwise, the skilled and experienced racial-antagonism operation of these racial organizations will keep the herd together, voting in solid blocks no matter how much “outreach” the GOP conducts after agreeing to amnesty.
Here’s a novel idea. Perhaps Republicans should ask themselves and the nation: What would the Founding Fathers say?
I’ve reminded you all before of our founders’ counsel:
The Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom, and it bears repeating this Independence Day weekend:
*George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”
*In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”
*Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”
Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”
The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
The late Texas Democratic Rep. Barbara Jordan, a fierce, iconoclastic advocate of the rule of law, defined comprehensive immigration reform this way: ending chain migration; ending the idiotic Diversity Visa Lottery program; enforcing strict deportation policies not just for illegal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies and other crimes, but for all border/visa violators; opposing welfare programs for illegal aliens; and pushing for real employer sanctions. “Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence,” she asserted. “[T]hose who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.” In the report from the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform following up on her work, the panel wrote:
We believe these truths constitute the distinctive characteristics of American nationality:
*American unity depends upon a widely-held belief in the principles and values embodied in the American Constitution and their fulfillment in practice: equal protection and justice under the law; freedom of speech and religion; and representative government;
*Lawfully-admitted newcomers of any ancestral nationality—without regard to race, ethnicity, or religion—truly become Americans when they give allegiance to these principles and values;
*Ethnic and religious diversity based on personal freedom is compatible with national unity; and
*The nation is strengthened when those who live in it communicate effectively with each other in English, even as many persons retain or acquire the ability to communicate in other languages.
As long as we live by these principles and help newcomers to learn and practice them, we will continue to be a nation that benefits from
substantial but well-regulated immigration.
Those principles have been abandoned, scorned, and sabotaged. You have not heard an iota about them from Washington. It is the erosion of Americanization and the ascendancy of the collectivists that helped create the conditions for Election Day.
Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for even greater GOP losses at at the ballot box.
Amnesty instead of assimilation is a recipe for the furtherance of American decline.
Related:blog comments powered by Disqus
February 3, 2016 08:10 AM by Michelle Malkin
December 31, 2015 01:17 AM by Michelle Malkin
December 30, 2015 07:43 AM by Michelle Malkin
December 17, 2015 07:35 PM by Michelle Malkin
December 16, 2015 07:12 AM by Michelle Malkin