Thursday, July 11, 2013

Conservatism Contra CIR And America

Is comprehensive immigration reform already dead?

That might depend on what your media outlet of choice is.  If you're a reader of The Weekly Standard (and my sympathies to you, if you are), you no doubt want to believe that the answer is, or should be, yes.  But this article is less interesting as an argument against CIR than it is as an indictment of what passes for conservative political discourse and, ultimately, conservatism itself.  Where to begin?

Oh, I know.  Let's start with a little expose of hypocrisy, Bill Kristol style,  Previously, he published a piece in TWS in which he accused Vice President Biden of being a liar, based on a rhetorical stumble in a fundraising piece in which the Veep used the word "district" when he meant to say the word "state."  Seriously, Bill?  This is Joe Biden.  He's made an entire political career out of tripping over his words.  I mean, it's not like he's talking about the president delaying "aspects of Obamacare" when all the president has done is to delay enforcing the employer mandate ... Oh wait!  That's YOU, Bill, in the fourth paragraph of your own article.  Or was that one Rich's idea?  I'll leave the two of you to duke that one out.

With that out of the way, I'm happy to deconstruct the rest of Kristol and Lowry's nonsense.  Let's start with the idea that the bill "doesn't solve the illegal immigration problem," because it merely reduces said problem by 50%.  Ordinarily, solving a problem by that magnitude would be cause for naming an airport after someone--if the solution was authored only by Republicans.  If Kristol and Lowry have a plan for getting it down to zero--one that could actually exist in the world that you and I wake up in--what's stopping them from putting it on the table?  And that doesn't even take into account the fact that, contrary to a lot of conservative "rhetoric" (dare we call it lies?), Obama has set a record pace for deportations and Mexicans have set a record pace for returning to Mexico.  If there's an argument against CIR on this basis, it could only be because the problem has already largely been solved.  The argument that Obama has been lax on enforcement is right up (or down) there with Kristol's misguided Biden attack.

This leads into the next problem with their argument--that the Senate bill would unleash upon an unsuspecting nation "a flood of additional low-skilled ... wage-depressing" workers.  News flash, guys:  wages right now could only be more depressed if the minimum wage was repealed (and yeah, I know your working on that, but you're not there yet).  And there's a crying need for low-skilled workers; crops are rotting on the vine in anti-immigration states like Alabama in no small measure because of the local anti-immigration laws that geniuses like you have encouraged.  Contrary to what the Mickey Kauses of the world predicted, there's been no Steinbeck-like migration of American citizens to agricultural states to take these jobs.  And yes, low-skilled immigrants WOULD boost entitlement finances--because these workers will pay taxes but not be around long enough to collect benefits (or even become eligible for them).

Then, Kristol and Lowry are allegedly concerned about the process by which the bill passed.  "[A] mistaken belief in central planning ... a stew of deals, payoffs, waivers, and special-interest breaks. ... the opposite of conservative reform, which simplifies and limits government, strengthens the rule of law, and empowers citizens."  For the record, the bill was introduced, amended and passed in "regular order," the very thing that Speaker Boner is constantly demanding from Democrats.  It was done with full input from members of both parties, and approved by more than a two-thirds majority of the Senate, including 14 Republicans.  It's a masterpiece of due process compared to that well-known, government-limiting, citizen-empowering triumph of conservative legislation known as the PATRIOT Act, which sailed through Congress in 48 hours, shredding the Bill of Rights along the way. 

In some ways, however, the most damning part of this article is its conclusion.  There's no rush for this, according to Kristol and Lowry.  If current polls are to be believed (a big if), Republicans will take the Senate and keep the House in 2014.  Why not wait until then, and REALLY stick it to Obama and the illegals?  And, above all, no compromises with Democrats.  All compromises with Democrats are inherently evil, because all wisdom resides with Republicans, and the real greatness of our system is that the Framers rigged it so that the status quo always wins, right?

Okay, I'm paraphrasing.  A little.  Okay, maybe more than a little.   But, unlike Kristol's slander of Biden and Obama, I'm not telling any lies.  Kristol and Lowry are actually making the case here for the following two propositions:  national issues can wait to be addressed until it's to the advantage of one party to do so, and, when they are so addressed, political victories are more important than national ones.  Putting it simply, Kristol and Lowry have no faith or trust in democracy, and love conservatism more than they love America.  In other words, they are what conservatives have been, for the most part, for the past 60-plus years at least:  un-American.

And it's time to just say so.  So that we can get them out of the way of comprehensive immigration reform ... and the fulfillment of the American dream, if not the conservative one.

UPDATE, 7/12/13:  And thank you, David Brooks, for a saner conservative view of the subject.

No comments: