Skip to content

Some Sanity, Please

2 May 2010

Liberals accuse conservatives of terribly overwrought rhetoric.  But as is his wont, George Will exposes the left’s own overheated posturing and its neglect of plain facts, among which is this:  since 1952, aliens have been required by federal law to carry identification on their persons.  From the nave to the White House, liberals are trying to score political pionts with utter nonsense.

A sensible approach to immigration starts with the border itself.  Seal it with a serious-minded commitment by the federal government to do its job and to relieve states of the need to stand in the enforcement gap left by an impotent White House.  Then, when the border is sealed, invest in whatever resources are required to increase the INS’ capacity to process applications in a more timely way.  When we have improved those two conditions, then we can deal with the illegals already here in some rational way.

But first things first.  At the moment, the left’s rhetoric does not match the facts, and the hysteria is preventing a sane, incremental, pragmatic approach to immigration policy.

We conservatives do not hate immigrants; we welcome them.  Let them come across the border in such a way that their first act in our country is not an illegal one, and we can make good progress in giving them access to the blessings of America and, in turn, benefiting from their energy, creativity, and work ethic.


2 Comments leave one →
  1. 4 May 2010 10:02 am


    There is rhetoric and there is rhetoric. There are conservatives and conservatives even as there are liberals and liberals. And there are illegal acts and illegal acts. With rare exception, immigrants looking to better their lives by coming to America cause far less social and economic damage than those out-of-sight and out-of-control bankers, brokers, fund managers, and politicians. But the highly visible non-white immigrant looks different and sounds different and is relatively easy to demonize. And where they look and sound enough like non-white citizens–born or naturalized–there is likely a civil liberty issue.

    Impotent White House? Come on, qb, immigration has been neglected by bipartisan administrations and congresses because the status quo was and is largely desired. Easy of solution? If it were, it would have been solved already. Personally, I am inclined to be libertarian as far as entry. On balance, I believe undocumented immigrant contribution to our society–economic, cultural, religious–is significantly greater than the liabilities. I have no objection to requiring proof of citizenship and/or work permit from any inhabitant within our borders. But working out any policy details is devils work since old scratch is in those details.


  2. larry permalink
    5 May 2010 9:04 am

    libertarian view is “if pros outweight the cons”? i’m not that familiar with extensive libertarian views, but i always thought it was a limited, strict interpretation of the Constitution.

    as a refresher, it was “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”

    seems that establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility and providing common Defence are not exactly the actions guided by “pros outweighing the cons”. are we really only interested in border crossings during a declared war? and only for those non-citizens with ties to the enemy? if we have to wait for a war declaration, it is likely too late.

    immigration policy is frequently about “pros outweighing the cons”, since in times of peace, it’s a federal tool to keep cities/states from being overrun, or controlling the dumping of foreign prisons onto our shores. i’ll grant you that. but having established the rules which would assist us in times of peace or war, the “illegal” part of immigration must certainly fall within the first paragraph of our national document.

    and btw, i’m a less-is-better kind of guy, too. wouldn’t declare as libertarian, but share many views. was just surprised by pros/cons argument when the Constitution appears to have a place to weigh-in directly on the subject.

    thx for listening,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: