Redstate

By A Texan Posted in Immigration — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Friends,

Politically, McCain is in an apparently difficult position on the issue of immigration reform. Having supported a purportedly "comprehensive" program, a program opposed by the majority of the American people and by the vast majority of the coalition on which his election will depend--he has switched positions to one somewhat less repugnant to that coalition.

At the same time, it is at least plausible to say that a winning coalition for McCain would depend upon his rejecting a "comprehensive" reform that encompasses only border security, attrition, and deportation. In one relevant particular, such an approach could cost us a large chunk of the 40% or so of the Hispanic vote that Bush won in 2004, and could reduce us to 20% or less (a la 1996). In addition, it would also be a deterrent to other groups composed largely of first and second-generation Americans.

Moreover, my own anecdotal evidence suggests that the non-hispanic Catholic vote is somewhat deterred from an immigration policy that rejects any notion of generosity to persons who are unlawfully present but are otherwise decent and hardworking.

In sum, the issue of immigration law and its enforcement threatens McCain's coalition because it's an issue that divides a winning coalition--McCain versus many members of that coalition--and, I think, members of that coalition itself.

So in politics, the rule is unite your supporters and divide your opponents--and on this score, McCain has a vulnerability.

Ah, but so too does Obama, and so too, does La Raza and the other assortment of left-wing groups that purport to represent Hispanic Americans.

What is this vulnerability? Border security, border security, border security. And more generally, American national integrity.

How so? Well, as has often been noted here, many of the left-wing elites that dominate the leadership of groups like La Raza are indifferent, if not hostile, to ANY control of immigration. Whether from reconquistador sensibility or other anti-American ideologies, they are not in favor of regulating the inflow of immigration. And of course, there are tons of American business leaders who simply want an ever-increasing supply of cheap labor.

But what has not been emphasized here enough, is that the vast majority of Hispanic Americans and Hispanic aliens (whether lawful or otherwise) have no interest in an open border, for some obvious reasons.

1. As much as anyone else, their wages are diminished by the next wave from the south.

2. As much as anyone else, they are the victims of the resulting crimes of alien gangs, drug dealers, etc.

3. In sum, they did not leave their third world country to bring the third-world with them. They came to enjoy the benefits of a first-world economny and society.

In short, even if they hopped over the border just yesterday--they did not do so in the hopes of being the first of the next 20 million, but to be the last of the previous 20 million.

At the same time, they do have an interest in a generous immigration policy, one that gives SOME unlawful aliens a chance to remain, and to bring over (SOME) members of their families.

Parenthetically, it is family ties that show the political limits of continually emphasizing the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Many legal immigrants and newly-naturalized citizens do feel hostility from an enforcment-without-exception approach because it can mean the division of immediate families.

4. One last thing--La Raza et al's position on patriotism is also potentially exploitable. Again, speaking from anecdotal experience (I live in a heavily hispanic area and my Catholic parish consists predominantly in lawful and unlawful immigrants), many recent immigrants want to be patriotic. Not as much as I would like, but some want to be Americans and proud of it.

Given his current and past positions, and given the divisions within his coalition, what, then, should McCain say.

1. Title: A Secured Border is the Foundation of a Generous, Pro-American Immigration Policy.

2. Start, perhaps, by addressing the name of the group "la raza." Note, as a concession, that it is often mistranslated as the "race," whereas a better translation is "the people" or "the breed." And THEN add that as he is running for the presidency of the United States, he is happy to address the group, but wishes to speak to a larger, more inclusive "raza," what Ronald Reagan called, in his First Inaugural Address, that "breed called 'Americans.'"

3. Note that he, like many before whom he's speaking, has long believed that we should have a generous immigration policy. But that he has always considered such generosity to be decidedly pro-American. I believe that our immigration policy should always serve our national interest--the interests of the whole of the American people. The whole of the American people includes millions of Americans whose close family members are recent immigrants, many of them unlawful immigrants. And in assessing what is in our national interest, we must give as much weight to the interests of those Americans who desire family unity. Those Americans, regardless of race, color, oreed--those Americans whether native-born or naturalized, are equal citizens of our great republic. And as such, their interests are as important as those of any other Americans.

(Another issue that McCain might address here is the economic national interest. I hope he avoids this stuff, especially the garbage about "jobs Americans won't (or can't!)do.")

4. But a truly generous and truly pro-American immigration reform must be founded on national strength. A strong border is the foundation of a generous and pro-American immigration reform.

*Emphasize that generosity requires strength. Legalization of unlawful immigrants at present would be closer to surrender.

**Emphasize, as above, that legalization would be worthless if subsequently we import the wages and crime of third-world country. Latin-Americans did not abandon their homelands just for poverty and insecurity to follow them.

***Emphasize that, of course, an open border is an anti-American condition, as it undermines our national integrity.

5. Then explain that last year, I supported what I believed to be a generous, pro-American program. But its border-enforcement provisions were insufficient, consisting largely in promises, and the American people rightly rejected the proposal. I now understand that mere promises of border-enforcement are not enough. I will not support, and the American people will not support, any generosity that is merely a counterfeit generosity and in truth a surrender of our sovereignty. Unlike Senator Obama, I firmly believe that a secured border is a necessary prerequisite to any immigration reform that is truly just to those American citizens whose families include unlawful immigrants, truly generous to such immigrants, and truly pro-American.

Close by saying thank you, and saying May God bless OUR great country. In fact, say "our" country--use language of inclusion, and criticize the use of foreign flags in political demonstrations on American soil.

Such a speech, I think, will serve to exploit the divisions that exist between the left-wing elites and the large number of first and second generation Americans (Hispanic and others) that such elites claim to represent. Many of these Americans are potentially a part of the conservative coalition. Let it be so.