Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Immigration: What Conservatives Should Say
Scott Walker’s response to the ambush was solid, but it felt like he was dodging the questions about deportation. Here’s my proposal for what candidates should say:
- Why is the United States an attractive destination for hard workers from all countries? Because it has rule of law. We need to enforce immigration laws to keep this place an attractive destination for talented, hard-working people from all countries. Countries fail when they fill with scofflaws.
- Not everyone who breaks the speed limit receives a ticket. But if you break the speed limit, you have to be prepared to deal with a ticket. Similarly, no-one is arguing for mass deportation. But if you are caught living in the country illegally, you need to be prepared for deportation.
- We need to reform our immigration laws to make it easier for legal immigrants to enter (No need to mention that they should have the right skills).
- With respect to the particular issue of our southern neighbor, the US can work with Mexico to help it become a better country for its people. This work includes promoting competitive markets, supporting Mexican law enforcement, and exporting education solutions.
As far as facts go, that first statement, unfortunately, admit many exceptions. But as far as a message goes, what else would you propose?
EDIT: If you want to see a great response, check out Dan Hanson’s at #26. Perfect.
Published in General
That would be a good reply. I’m not sure it’s the only good statement that could be made on the subject, but it’s a good one.
I think that is all reasonable. Maybe the order is bit off, but the substance is exactly right. We cannot allow for people to just be able to walk across our borders, or to stay past their visas. Security, security, security must be the first objective that we press for.
I’d like the candidates ask these plants questions. ‘You knew you were coming/staying in this country without permission – what do you expect from us? You expect us to educate any children you have in your native language? Do you expect government assistance with housing? Food? What violations of our laws do you think warrant deportation-drunk driving? Multiple drunk driving? Identity theft? Domestic/child abuse? Sexual abuse? Driving without insurance?
Why do you feel it is incumbent upon us to change our laws to accommodate you? Please, give me examples from your home country of laws that were changed and the types of aid available to legal and illegal immigrants in your home country?
Reject the Leftist premise that it is incumbent upon us to ‘do something’.
Not sure on this. It depends on the situation.
In this encounter, Walker was clearly the one in control. He did most of the talking and made the point he wanted to make. If he’d pushed back with aggressive questioning, he’d have given the activist a chance to give his talking points.
Now let’s say the guy had been more aggressively rude, had interrupted him, or had tried to give his talking points anyway. Then you have a debate.
I haven’t watched the video — but it sounds like Ted Cruz’ Code Pink encounter was more along those lines.
The first objective should be to make our country a good place – both for those who live here and for those who would like to come here to live. I like that JDF’s proposed answer emphasizes the traditional American values.
There have been other countries that have made security the first objective, and which were not such good places to live.
I should add that in the current discussion of what steps to take to reform our immigration system, security needs to be first. This is partly because politicians have repeatedly lied to us about it over the last 30 years. I’m tired of all the fakery, which is hurting our country.
I used to lean more towards free and open immigration for anyone who wants to come. And I could be that way again. But not before the Chamber of Commerce types get to work on ending corporate welfare and making ours more of an opportunity society for everyone, including those they now lure to this country and then discard when they have no further use for them. The way it is working now, it’s just making our country more of a welfare-police state.
I think it’s good to keep these points in the back of our minds, but when you are in a public forum, you need to emphasize the positive–all the more so when you are facing someone here illegally. The point is to at the very least remind him that you and he do have shared values that are worth preserving. Then he can consider for himself whether what he’s doing is helping to promote those.
This was a setup and Walker played along in the left’s sick and disgusting game. Weak. Very weak.
Weak, but electable.
What was the right approach?
Our country already is a good place, despite Obama and the Democrats.
My preferred approach:
“We want immigration – we want people who really want to become Americans, and participate in the American Dream. So I propose that we open the borders to all peoples who speak English, sign on to the principles that made this country proud, and do not take public funds.”
I would add that the illegals have to pay a fine and get to the back of the immigration line for legal status. Otherwise that’s pretty good.
“Today, America needs fewer immigrants.
“And the immigration policies of my administration will be aimed exclusively at what is best for average, middle-class Americans. No one else.”
I think this is a good blueprint on how to respond to the ‘amnesty’ crowd.
But the problem is that most republican candidates and ‘leadership’ wants amnesty. And they’re not really interested in stopping the influx.
– Their major donors want this cheap labor (and are PAYING for politicians’ support)
– They are afraid to ‘alienate’ the Hispanic community (although the native Hispanic community are as injured as the rest of us by mass immigration)
– They think it’s a fait accompli that Hispanics will be majority in this country soon – so they’re wasting no time being suck-ups to their new constituency.
Oh, and the new arrivals have no love for our constitution – so that’s going to be a thing of the past (such a crying shame! My heart breaks for our lost freedom.) Funny how we’re working on destroying the source of all the good the new arrivals came for – When this country falls, will they go home- or will they stand and demand that the government ‘fix’ the problems with more government programs?
But that assumes you do have shared values. People who arrive here and start voting for the same policies that turned their original countries into socialist hellholes don’t have shared values with us. They may well be in line with the Left in America, but the Left’s values are not what have been historically American values either. Illegal immigrants who come to a foreign country and demand that the laws of that nation not be enforced simply because they don’t like them also cannot be said to have shared values with us (although, sadly, we seem to be heading in that direction).
No. This is exactly the wrong answer. This type of law would very soon become the norm, then evolve into a paper game–very much like the problem we have today.
I would add: If we go after employers who hire illegals, then as jobs dry up for illegals, they will go back to their home countries.. and tell their friends and family members about the situation.
So are you advocating deportation? Or do illegals get a pass?
Your point about deportation is good. The opposition always tries to make us think that we have to choose between two stark alternatives: mass deportation or mass legalization. This is complete nonsense. And then they slip in “citizenship” as a synonym for legalization, which is also nonsense.
Neither. Just go after employers who hire them. The problem will take care of itself.
I think illegals create a lot of value for employers. And as long as they are not on the public teat.
Look: when I lived in the UK, we had au pairs from Eastern Europe. They wanted to learn English, and were willing to work for peanuts.
This meant that my wife and I could work more hours, creating far more value. It was a HUGE win for society, for us, and for the au pair.
Why is this a problem?
Do you mean “illegals” or just “immigrants?” Because there are some pretty obvious problems with illegality.
The problem you are trying to solve, I think, is the minimum wage.
It’s not. Anyone who trades a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage is hopefully creating value. But we are talking about illegals .. ILLEGALS. Do I really have to go through the rot at of saying that “not all illegals are bad. Some pay their taxes .. blah, blah” .. we are talking about illegals and the problems that they do create. If we cut off the reason why illegals come here, mainly jobs AND freebies, then they will stop coming. If they stop coming, then some that are here will leave–on their own, once that happens, we can take a look at what we have left.
I just do not see it. Technically, we are all in breach of the law thanks to unending and unhindered regulations.
Why do you get to pick and choose?
I am all for cutting off freebies. But jobs? Illegals taking jobs is great.
All the points in this post are dead-on, but I like the rule of law argument the most. I’d phrase it like this:
“Let me guess why you came to this country – because it’s free, because it’s the land of opportunity. Because you don’t have to know someone in high places to get ahead or ingratiate yourself to the ruling classes to survive.
What makes this country great is that we are ruled by laws, not men. We are all equal under the law, and that’s what gives the best hope for poor people, minorities, and the disadvantaged of society to rise up to the level of their ability. They are the ones who need the rule of law to protect them.
The rich, the connected, the powerful – they always do fine in any government system. It’s the poor, the unpopular, the minorities who need the rule of law to protect them, but rule of law means nothing if we ignore it whenever it’s convenient. It means nothing if a president can simply wave his hand and ignore the laws of the country. And if we ignore the immigration laws just because it’s currently in vogue to do so, then maybe a future president will ignore a different law – one that would protect you or your family from discrimination, for example.
When that lawlessness trickles down to the local level, you might find yourself back in a country where you can’t get a business license because the regulator doesn’t like the color of your skin or your religion or your politics. A government that will allow you to stay even though it violates the law can just as easily become a government that oppresses you even when you follow the law to the letter, just because it doesn’t like your kind.
The rule of law is not always easy. If it were, it wouldn’t be necessary. Sometimes hard choices have to be made. I feel sorry for you and your family, but the root cause of your current situation is your breaking of the law in the first place. The burden of your situation rests fully on your shoulders and is a result of the actions you have taken to this date.
As governor, my duty to the people is to follow the laws the people have voted for. My personal feelings on this matter must not interfere with the execution of my duties. So you have my sympathies for your plight, but there is nothing I can do about it other than to urge you to follow proper channels and bring your family back to this country legally. At that point, I will welcome you to this state with open arms, and I promise to continue advocating for policies that ensure this will be a great state for you and your children to live in.”
There’s a big difference between technically and unintentionally violating a regulation and having your very presence in the country be illegal. That puts you on the wrong side to start out with. You have less to lose from violating other laws than someone who is working “on the books.” Also, you’re very dependent on that employer. Not all of them are as nice as I’m sure you were.
Plus, if we know we’re letting someone in to take that job that’s one thing — you’re making a decent argument for more legal immigration. But when the border security is a mess, we don’t know.
Well said. I left my favorite parts. Ricochet word limit and all that. Thanks.
But that doesn’t answer the question of what to do with the people already here. That will be asked of any candidate. You have to provide an answer.
Everyone here is so sanguine about immigration, certainly the legal kind. It’s baffling to me.
For decades our so-called leaders have been telling us that we are a nation of immigrants, that diversity is a strength, that the desire for freedom beats in the heart of every human being and that the nation benefits from immigration.
All lies.
Contrarians say that immigration used to be good, but that you can’t afford immigration if you also have a welfare state.
A half-truth.
And our candidates for office make speeches about securing the borders and enforcing the laws.
Boilerplate.
No one wants to talk about numbers. But it is the numbers of immigrants which transformed California and it is the numbers that are fundamentally transforming the U. S. The great majority of those numbers are legal.
Imagine that you live in Vermont. Years ago you prided yourself on being a citizen of a state that was “rock-ribbed Republican.” But over time huge numbers of Boston-area liberals, fleeing the very conditions that their proclivities and prejudices helped to create and who were simply seeking a “better life,” began to transform your state. These immigrants didn’t come for welfare; they were hard-working and industrious. But they didn’t assimilate to your traditional Vermont values. Instead, they now felt free to practice the same liberal values their parents had held and that they too had always favored.
So now YOU have to assimilate.
Bernie Sanders. Great, eh?