The GOP debate: Missing the banana boat on immigration
By Selwyn Duke
It's a tragic fact of man's nature that people prescribe an ounce of prevention when a pound of cure is needed — and a pound of cure when times call for a ton of desperate measures.
Immigration, rightly and largely thanks to Donald Trump, has become a big issue this election cycle.
But not big enough.
And last Tuesday's GOP debate was illustrative of the problem. When John "Can't do" Kasich and Jeb "Invasion is an act of love" Bush both scoffed at the idea of following the law, saying we "can't" deport illegals, the response was lacking. Only Senator Ted Cruz rode in to save the issue from their demagoguery. He said it was "offensive" to suggest that enforcing the law is anti-immigrant and warned that the Republicans will lose if they "join Democrats as the party of amnesty." He also quite eloquently pointed out that the media wouldn't be suppressing the dark reality of illegal migration if "a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press," and that there's nothing compassionate about diminishing millions of Americans' earnings.
Yet even the intelligent, staunchly traditionalist Cruz misses the boat on immigration. Even the intrepid, titillatingly anti-establishment Trump does. In 2013, Cruz proposed (at 3:28 in this video) increasing H1B visas 500 percent and doubling legal immigration. And Trump repeats the theme that immigration must be done "legally." The problem?
Americans are "legally" being done out of their jobs. They're "legally" being pushed into socialism. And they're "legally" having their culture stolen away. Yet much more than this went unmentioned during Tuesday's debate.
"Think about the families!" cried Kasich, alluding to family unification. "C'mon, folks!" Okay, c'mon, let's think about families.
The families argument is pure propaganda. Families can also be united by sending people the other way — back to their native countries, where most family members often are in the first place. Second, the families argument could be used as a pretext for not enforcing any law. Why imprison people for bank robbery or embezzlement? If they have children, the kids will be left without a parent, or even parentless and have to languish in foster care. And as with illegals, many other law-breakers engage in their crimes "because they want a better life." How many mafia figures didn't use their ill-gotten gains to support their families?
Moreover, failure to enforce immigration law is discriminatory. If such law can be flouted with impunity, why should any of us have to follow the law? The amnesty crowd are essentially creating a privileged group — illegal migrants — who alone will get a pass on their criminality. Is unfair discrimination compassionate?
Kasich also trumpeted Ronald Reagan's 1986 amnesty and said the idea of deporting "11 million people who are law-abiding…is not an adult argument." But is this a mature statement? The illegals by definition aren't "law-abiding" because they broke the law in coming to the U.S. in the first place. Here's something else unmentioned: Reagan reportedly called the 1986 amnesty "My biggest mistake."
And Kasich, Bush, "Gang of Eight" Marco Rubio and others think we should repeat it.
Note that since the '86 mistake there have been six more amnesties, each one attended by promises to secure the border. It's said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Should we play the fool an eighth time? Are we Charlie Brown with the football?
Transitioning to political footballs, there's the Kasich-Bush-Insane notion that we "can't deport 11 million people." Here's the ideal debate response:
Speaking of a treasonous spirit, the topic of H1B visas — which allow employers to recruit high-skilled foreign workers — came up during the second-to-last GOP debate on Oct. 28. Once again, no candidate fielded it sufficiently. Ideal debate statement:
Returning to Tuesday's debate, many candidates mentioned Islamic terrorism when asked to cite America's biggest current threat. Yet not a single debater pointed out the following. Debate statement:
Having said all this, none of the above addresses our main "legal" problem: legal immigration. Since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia; 70 to 90 percent of those vote for socialistic candidates upon being naturalized. This is a universal Western phenomenon, mind you, and was actually referenced by Labour Party operative Andrew Neather. A former aide to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, he admitted in 2009 that the massive immigration into the United Kingdom over the last 15 years was designed to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
Yet such schemes wouldn't be possible had Westerners, including conservative ones, not fallen victim to "immigrationism": the idea that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be unquestioned. The reality?
Immigration always presents problems of assimilation. It's just a matter of whether the likelihood of it is great or virtually nil.
As to the latter, a recent poll showed that a majority of Muslims in America prefer Sharia law to American civil law. Note also the studies showing that young Muslims in the West are actually more Islamic and anti-Western than their elders.
In addition, note that amnesty duly passed into law would be as "legal" as our widely accepted legal immigration. Legal is not synonymous with smart.