Jim DeMint, former far-right kingmaker, isn’t getting a lot of respect in his new role at the Heritage Foundation — even among conservatives.
Earlier this week, he put out a report suggesting that immigration reform as envisioned by the Gang of Eight will cost the country $6.3 trillion. The report is, quite understandably, ridiculed and excoriated on the left. But conservatives, people DeMint would once have counted as allies, aren’t very positively impressed either.
Kimberley Strassel made a point of that in her column in the WSJ today:
The Heritage Foundation on Monday released a report designed to kill immigration reform. A few days later, nearly 30 leaders, hailing from the core of the conservative movement—think tanks, faith groups, political and advocacy organizations—signed a public letter backing the congressional process. Which got more notice?
The media glory in conflict, and so they devoted this week to the angry feud/war/battle in the GOP over immigration reform. The evidence? One research document from one think tank. The real news is the growing unity among conservative leaders and groups over the need to at least embrace the challenge of reform. This is no 2007.
At the height of that past fray over immigration—as restrictionists whipped up seething grass-roots anger against reform, drowning out proponents—Heritage released a similar report. It fueled a raging fire, and played a singular role in derailing reform…
Very interesting. I don’t know to what extent this truly reflects a growing “conservative” consensus for sensible immigration reform, but it’s promising. (It would also be good news for Lindsey Graham for next year, although the DeMint faction in SC remains large.)
My own favorite comment on this general subject came more from the center-right — from David Brooks — earlier in the week. For him, it was a pretty scathing piece. An excerpt:
The opponents of immigration reform have many small complaints, but they really have one core concern. It’s about control. America doesn’t control its borders. Past reform efforts have not established control. Current proposals wouldn’t establish effective control.
But the opponents rarely say what exactly it is they are trying to control. They talk about border security and various mechanisms to achieve that, but they rarely go into detail about what we should be so vigilant about restricting. I thought I would spell it out.
First, immigration opponents are effectively trying to restrict the flow of conservatives into this country. In survey after survey, immigrants are found to have more traditional ideas about family structure and community than comparable Americans. They have lower incarceration rates. They place higher emphasis on career success. They have stronger work ethics. Immigrants go into poor neighborhoods and infuse them with traditional values.
When immigrant areas go bad, it’s not because they have infected America with bad values. It’s because America has infected them with bad values already present. So the first thing conservative opponents of reform are trying to restrict is social conservatism….
It goes on in that vein. Good stuff.
Related Posts
Turn the flood of illegals into a trickle first. After that, I’m prepared to be very generous to those who are here.
That sounds sensible to me. It also sounds a lot like what Graham, Rubio, et al., have been proposing…
Except that their plan isn’t what I’d call “very generous.” There are a lot of hoops to jump through to become citizens, and it takes years. I’m not saying that’s bad; it’s just that I realized that “very generous” would be an exaggeration…
I see two main issues here:
1) Opponents of the proposed reform bill don’t trust that the torrent of illegal immigrants will be slowed to a trickle. They don’t trust the government to adequately secure the border or enforce immigration law, and they don’t trust the government to provide accurate data on how many illegal immigrants are arriving or living in the US.
2) Even though there are many hoops to jump through to achieve citizenship in the proposed legislation, the intent of the bill is contrary to a sense of fairness, or fair play. By putting people who willfully violated immigration law ahead of people who tried to play by the rules and waited for visas, it effectively punishes good behavior, while rewarding bad behavior. Better to ask forgiveness than to beg permission, I suppose.
I do feel sympathetic to immigrants. My people immigrated here in the early 20th century to escape oppression in Eastern Europe. They came to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families. They accomplished their goal. Three or four generations later their descendents have achieved a quality of life and a level of success that they could hardly have imagined. But they came legally. They came through Ellis Island, were screened, and granted visas. Immigrants today want the same things that my great-grandparents wanted. They come and work hard, living in crowded houses or apartments, working long hours, trying to better their lives. I respect their efforts. Someday their children or grandchildren will be doctors, lawyers, professors, business owners, or whatever they want to be. But why should we bend the rules for them, when there are equally hardworking, willing folks who have played by the rules?
As long as economic prospects in the U.S. seem so much brighter than those in Central Mexico, the problem of illegal immigration will persist. You can no more stop Hispanics from risking their lives to come to this country than you could stop East Germans from trying to escape to the West in the days when that was still possible (before 1961).
I think the fallacy is that this “pathway to citizenship” is going to result in millions of illegal immigrants coming forward. The risk of being deported now is very low. The cost of coming forward is high, not just in monetary penalties but that it then makes them LESS employable simply because they will no longer have the advantage of working without benefits, employer paid taxes, etc. They have to expose themselves to background checks… and might have to give up using false identities.
And what do we do about those people who DON’T come forward? Can we implement policies to either force them to leave or at least remove the incentives to stay?
The only solution in my view is “go to your home country and get in line”. If you want to increase the number of legal immigrants in that line, fine. But no rewards for law breakers.
I don’t agree that “Go home” is the only solution. In fact, it’s an unworkable solution. The best solution is to secure the border. Stop the flood of illegals coming in to the US. You won’t be able to get it to zero, but you can get it to a de minimus number. (Obviously, folks are going to argue about what constitutes de minimus, but that’s another argument.)
Once the border is secured – actually secured, not projected to be secured, not promised to be secured, not hopefully secured – but actually secured, then we can deal with the people that are here in a fair way.
There’s no point in even discussing what to do with the illegals if you’re going to continually have more of them. Do one thing, then the other.
Drive west to the Rio Grande, north to the Maine woods, anywhere from the upper peninsula of Michigan to Puget Sound, anywhere south of San Francisco, or anywhere along the Florida Coast. Don’t forget Alaska, either. In other words, grow a conception of what “securing our borders” really means. Do you envision mine fields? Fighter plane Air patrols? Maritime boardings? This is one mammoth country with almost endless borders.
We could waste trillions of dollars and still never “secure” the borders. This is not the solution, either.
Everyone knows which border we’re talking about here, Mark. There aren’t waves of illegals coming ashore in Myrtle Beach, Norfolk, or Coney Island. There aren’t waves of people coming across the Pacific to land on the shores of San Francisco.
I’m talking about securing the southern border of the United States where it is adjacent to the country of Mexico. You don’t need mines. You don’t need fighter patrols. You don’t need maritime boardings.
You need a fence. A physical barrier a/k/a a fence or wall that is well patrolled is quite effective at keeping civilians from moving from one are to another. We’re not building a rocket here. It’s just a fence.
Now, if you want to get theatric about it, I would go for a fence with a moat in front of it, and put some gators in the moat. Gators don’t mess around. You could take them from Florida where they have an overabundance of gators.
Two birds; one stone. You’re welcome.
“There aren’t waves of people coming across the Pacific to land on the shores of San Francisco.” Byran Caskey
I have to disagree with you there. Have you heard about birth tourism? A lot of middle- and upper-class Chinese moms-to-be are now traveling to California to give birth. Since the US confers citizenship automatically on children born here, the baby gets a US citizenship and access to a US passport. And those can be a great insurance policy if China were to ever experience political instability or if the government ever reverted back to its Maoist roots.
Die,
I assume you’re talking about a situation where a pregnant Chinese woman comes to the United States on an airplane, goes through customs with a valid Chinese passport for a “vacation” and then has her baby in the USA while she’s here. It is not a crime to legally travel to the United States to give birth so that the child can have U.S. citizenship. Allow me to repeat: It’s not a crime.
The central problem is that thousands of people come across the southern border with no papers, no nothing. They don’t go through customs. That is a crime. Citizens of a foreign country are taking advantage of the fact that we don’t control our own borders very well. If Chinese mothers were boating across the Pacific and sneaking into San Francisco under the cover of darkness that would be a crime.
However, the vast majority (if not close to all) of illegal immigration comes along our southern border with Mexico.
Whats the difference both groups are simply gaming the system? And yes many of the Chinese nationals do enter the country legally claiming to be here on vacation, but many overstay their visa so in fact they do become illegal aliens. These women don’t hop on the plane when their nine months pregnant, I think most doctors advise against that. Many arrive months in advance and stay several months after giving birth.
I give up. You’re right. Let’s just have open borders, and give everyone who wants it free entitlements.
Let it burn.
“In other words, grow a conception of what “securing our borders” really means. ” – Mark S.
Agree, and who knows better than border state citizens and their governors what border security is actually required? If the federal government wants to boost immigration through state bordesr with Mexican, why not allow those states to actively manage their border security through federal contracts with reimbursement based upon accurate and compliant attainment of annual quotas and statutory laws?.
Interestingly, you will not “dignify my comment with a response”. More than a lawyer, are we?
Juan, Who are you addressing?
Juan,
If you refer to me, I have no idea how to respond; other than to say states cannot secure national borders. That is not their gig.
I would say who cares? Immigaration is good. Not saying open the floodgates, but I want people, like Silence’s forbears (or mine, too, at different points in time), to have the opportunity of coming here if they really want to. Those are good people. What is with all this handwringing? Who cares if people already here somehow cut the line (even though there was no line to cut); they are here and working hard to improve their families’ lives.
We need high hurdles, of course, but we also need to acknowledge that immigrants enrich our society and power it’s growth.
All I was pleased with about the Heritage “study” was that I didn’t hear South Carolina pinned onto DeMint. It’s been a week for small blessings…
I want people to but I personally don’t look forward to the day when America is Mexico North with 75% of the country born in or originally from Mexico. But that is just me.
Want people too…
The Native Americans said that about the pilgrim descendants and the Virginians. The Dutch said that about the English. The English said that about the Irish & Scots. They said that about the Italians, who said that about the Eastern Europeans. So now it’s time to fear the Central Americans? Sorry, not buying it.
I, for one, am grateful to the Heritage Foundation for getting DeMint out of the senate.
It’s just a doggone shame that the Foundation is now having to contemplate hiring a PR firm to help clean up the mess DeMint has already made. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/heritage-foundation-immigration-reform-91148.html
The Bush administration was successful at substantially slowing illegal border crossing by those seeking work. Of course, they did it by wrecking the economy, but still.
We could also program drones to gun down anything moving on the border. The wall could be built out of the pile of bodies of people seeking a new life in America.
That actually sounds like a fairly good idea.
Don’t use gators; they’re unlikely to attack a fully grown human. Use crocodiles instead; they’re much more likely to attack anything that moves.
Mexican immigration is way way down as conditions in Mexico improve while conditions here do not. This is demagoguery, pure and simple.
Same as Benghazi-gate
Incompetent folks at the State Department got people killed and all they cared about was saving their reputations. They lied to the american public (you) so they wouldn’t look bad. If you don’t mind being willfully lied to, I guess Benghazi isn’t really a big deal.
If the same level, if not more, of outrage were applied to inquiring into our involvement in Iraq, I might believe you.
Noted conservative, tea-party, far right-wing, wingnut rag has story on Benghazi. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html?mobify=0
Sure, a story. Not days on end of coverage, per Fox, or hearings without end….another Whitewater!
Bryan, if you think for one moment that Kathryn or bud won’t come to Hillary’s defense with knives and hatchets drawn, ready to do battle, then you are not as observant as I thought you were. Both will blame anyone and everyone who dares keep this legitimate failure in front of the public and especially if Fox has anything to do with it. And the Whitewater reference? Now that is really reaching.
Just as I do not want another Bush in the White House, intensify my desire to not have another Clinton in it either.
Benghazi is all about discrediting Hillary Clinton, the one person the Republicans fear the most. There really isn’t a whole lot here. This is actually a two part issue. (1) The failure to properly protect the consolate. Military decisions were made to not use scarce resources to shore up the security of the embassy. Our folks should have been withdrawn just like the British. When we get involved in these situations, like many Republicans want to do, then there are heightened risks and bad stuff will inevitably happen. There were 10 fatal embassy attacks during George Ws watch so this is a dangerous business. Given the fact that the GOP has reduced the security budget for embassy/consolate security the risks are even greater. All in all the Obama administration hasn’t done all that badly but in this particular case mistakes were made.
(2) The talking points. I’m still not sure what all the hubub is about this. There may have been some political gamesmanship regarding the initial rollout of the talking points but to suggest there is anything impeachable here is ridiculous. Given the repeated admonishens by Susan Rice and others that the investigation was ongoing this really is absurdly overblown. This is just a callous attempt by Republicans to politicize a tragic event. I suspect the voting public will get sick of this and it will backfire on the GOP before much longer.
It’s really simple. The State Department decided not to do anything about repeated warnings of increased terrorist activity. The State Department didn’t pull the people out beforehand. Americans were attacked and killed.
The State Department then realized that they had really messed up in failing to read the situation on the ground, so they decided to lie to the American public about what happened because telling the truth would have jeopardized the sitting President’s re-election chances.
They messed up big time, people were killed, and then government officials lied about it afterwards to save their skins. And it worked.
That’s what happened.
If all that is just “political gamesmanship” to you, then I don’t really have anything else to say to you about it. Enjoy your “game”.
All true except the lies part. Who didn’t know the consulate was attacked?
I don’t like the Clinton’s, either one, but this is just a stupid witch hunt. Of course governmental employees make mistakes and try to cover it up all the time. Every single day.
There are always going to be tactical failures, even when we are really trying. It’s a dangerous world we live in. Stuff happens. Learn and move on…
The fact that the GOP is politicizing this tragic event is the really disgusting gamesmanship here. Given their atrocious record of protecting American lives when they were in power it is a wonder that anyone can take these power hungry blowhards seriously. My bet is the American public will see this for the callous, disgusting attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton and there will be a backlash.
Even more fundamental than the obvious attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton the GOP is desperate to remain relevant. Given the gradual improvement in the economy and largely successful foreign policy by Obama conservatives need some issue, anything really to show their brand has something useful to say. Their one big ace in the hole during Obama’s first four years was the budget deficit. After hammering away at the large deficits for so long it is now apparent that the deficits are gradually shrinking and more importantly shrinking fairly significantly as a percentage of GDP. This terrifies Republicans who, despite there disasterous fiscal performance, see a real danger in losing this issue. It’s like all the folks who relied on horse buggies around the turn of the 20th century seeing their business model challenged by the automobile. But they ultimately adapted to the new reality. But the GOP is boxed in. They have for so long branded the Democrats as the party of fiscal irresponsiblity it a shock that this is slipping away. So we have stunts like the Benghazi hearings.
“They [a desperate GOP?] have for so long branded the Democrats as the party of fiscal irresponsiblity it a shock that this is slipping away.” – Bud
While your gut feel (any indisputable facts yet?) GOP branding “slips away”, how about a contrarian viewpoint from the the DNC:
“S.C. Democrats need to be patient, “We can’t get a quick fix. We might not win two years from now, four years from now, 10 years from now. We need to put down a foundation to win 10, 15 years out. – Former state Rep. H. Boyd Brown, DNC member
I saw that quote from Brown about 10-15 years out and my first thought was that’s what someone says who wants to keep his job for five years before moving on. The entire hope for the Democratic Party in SC rests in the Sheheen-Haley race. If he can’t beat her this time around, they may as well close up shop.
Susan Rice repeated a White House version of the events that according to an ABC investigation (a real paradox when it comes to the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton), not the demonic “Fox”, had been edited at least 12 times to scrub any reference to anything other than a “spontaneous” mob attack against the consulate/outpost over an innocuous, poorly produced video in the face of confirmed intelligence to the contrary. Now, if this is not perpetrating a “lie”, then please explain the difference to all of us who are not capable of understanding or interpreting the “nuances” of diplomatic speak.
Then the administration and State Department had the gonads to fully expect the American public to buy it “hook, line, and sinker” as the truth. The irony is that the only people who were fooled are in the same category as some who regularly post on this blog.
had been edited at least 12 times to scrub any reference to anything other than a “spontaneous” mob attack against the consulate/outpost over an innocuous, poorly produced video in the face of confirmed intelligence to the contrary.
-Bart
Not really accurate Bart. Everyone suggested this was a terrorist event and that the investigation was ongoing. No scrubbing, lies or any other such nonsense. The stress in the first few days was on the video but so what. Pretty tame stuff by Washington standards (like lying about Saddam’s WMD) wouldn’t you say? The specifics of what triggered the attack were irrelevant to any future actions to bring the perpetrators to justice. This is nothing but a witch hunt plain and simple.
“Not really accurate Bart. Everyone suggested this was a terrorist event and that the investigation was ongoing. No scrubbing, lies or any other such nonsense. “…bud
What universe do you dwell in bud? It most certainly ain’t in this one. Good thing I have stock in Reynold’s Aluminum – their foil makes really good hats.
“(like lying about Saddam’s WMD)”….bud
Since your memory is very selective, care to recall the words of one Bill Clinton in 2003 when he made a declarative statement that when he left office, it was a known fact that Saddam Hussein did possess WMDs. Care to recall the endless parade of Democrats who couldn’t wait to find a microphone and camera to declare that Saddam Hussein had WMDs ? Care to recall that Clinton made regime change in Iraq an official US policy?
No, of course not.
All of which is irrelevant. The Bush administration lied about WMDs and sought to find facts to fit their plan. When they couldn’t they simply made things up. That’s all that matters.
So, all of the speeches by Democrats prior to Bush declaring they knew for certain and intelligence proved that Saddam Hussein was developing biological and chemical WMDs is irrelevant and Bush somehow lied when he used the very words Democrats used in speech after speech after speech?
Gee, wonder where he obtained the information in the first place? Think maybe from Hillary, Albright, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats ad infinitum? No, couldn’t be from these people, they are incapable of putting out false information.
But, thats irrelevant since it was Bush, right?
@bud – What flavor Democrat Koolaid is your favorite? Obama Orange or Pelosi Passionfruit?
I vote for Goofy Grape.
Remember “Funny Face” drink mixes? There’s a blast from the past. How far in the past? Well, one of the flavors was “Injun Orange.” Really.
Another was “Chinese Cherry.” You have to see the picture.
Wikipedia explains that Chinese Cherry was changed to “Choo-Choo Cherry.” That explains why I didn’t remember “Chinese Cherry,” while I do remember “Choo-Choo.” I was out of the country when the products first came out.
And “Injun Orange” was changed to “Jolly Olly Orange.”
As I’ve stated many times here I’m not a Democrat but a liberal. Those are different animals. Also, I acknowledge the Obama administration made serious mistakes with the Benghazi embassy. They should have pulled our folks out given that the Republicans had cut funding for security there was no good way to defend everything so choices had to be made. Ultimately they screwed that up.
But what I don’t find scandalous is the talking points stuff after the event. There just isn’t that much to justify all this attention. This rates as about 1/10 as important as the Valerie Plame incident that many here defended the Bush administration.
The Valerie Plame incident didn’t end up with Valerie Plame in a grave, did it? Maybe you should hold a seance and channel Ambassador Stevens and ask him if his death is only 1/10 as important as Valerie being “outed” as a CIA agent. Tin foil, Aisle 10.
People almost ceretainly did die because of the Plame incident since her cover was blown and her sources revealed. Blowing the cover of CIA operative is pretty bad. Much, much, much, much worse than any word quibbling.
What is most frusttrating about Benghazi is that it was folks like McCain and Graham who were itching to get us involved. Once involved it is almost a certainty that bad stuff is going to happen. The odds increase even further when funding is cut for embassy security. The major blame for this incident should rest in the lap of the neo-cons who pushed so hard for involvement in Libya in the first place.
“People almost ceretainly did die because of the Plame incident since her cover was blown and her sources revealed.”…..bud
O.K. bud, now put your money where your mouth is and prove it!!! Provide proof that people “almost” certainly did die…..c’mon, I challenge you to provide proof positive from any credible source to support your allegation.
Buying more Reynolds Aluminum stock today!!
Also, those who would beatify Plame as a martyr conveniently ignore what the bipartisan Senate investigation found.
If you’ll recall, Ms. Plame was being punished because her husband, Joe Wilson, allegedly found evidence in Niger that undermined the case for Saddam seeking nuclear material.
But here’s what the Senate investigation found, according to The Washington Post on July 10, 2004:
One more time about the 16 words. “The British have learned…” are the first four words. The claim was false since what was allegedly learned was false. Therefore the statement was false and knowingly false since by definition to LEARN something means it is knowingly TRUE. Even if the Bush Administration BELIEVED the statement to be true they could not assert it to be true at the time of the SOTU. Therefore those words were a lie. End of story.