For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Gingrich and Immigration
Written By : Thomas Sowell

Now that Newt Gingrich has become the latest in a series of Republican front-runners, he is getting the kinds of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other front-runners.

One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be “humane” to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.

Let’s go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.

There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.

The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich’s claim that it would not be “humane” to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be “psychotic” to do so.

“No one honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

What we have today is virtually the opposite of that. Cities that openly proclaim themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants put their own policemen under strict orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, with the result that illegal immigrants who have committed crime after crime are free to stay here and commit more crimes, including murder.

You don’t have to launch a “manhunt” when a known criminal is also a known illegal alien. What many local policies have done has been to virtually put illegal aliens in a witness protection program.

The more doctrinaire libertarians see the benefits of free international trade in goods, and extend the same reasoning to free international movement of people. But goods do not bring a culture with them. Nor do they give birth to other goods to perpetuate that culture.

Why do people want to come to America in the first place? Because America offers them something that their native countries do not. This country has a culture which has produced a higher standard of living and a freer life than in many other countries.

When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.

At one time, immigrants came to America to become Americans. Today, the apostles of multiculturalism and grievance-mongering have done their best to keep foreigners foreign and, if possible, feeling aggrieved. Our own schools and colleges teach grievances.

European countries have learned the hard way how massive imports of a foreign culture can undermine your own culture, polarize your population and create internal dangers that are irreversible. Victor Davis Hanson’s chilling and insightful book “Mexifornia” shows similar patterns in California.

Moreover, in an age of terrorism, everyone who comes across the border from Mexico is not Mexican. It is the height of irresponsibility to leave that border open and the people who cross it a protected group. Punishing employers who hire illegals is punishing an accessory to an illegal act more harshly than the one who committed the illegal act in the first place.

As for Newt Gingrich, his position on immigration is just one of the items in the “baggage” he has to overcome. But what the voters have to overcome is an insistence on a perfect candidate. Ronald Reagan, after all, supported an immigrant amnesty bill, but that did not prevent him from being a great president otherwise.

A Republican Congress would be unlikely to make that mistake again, even if a Republican president wanted to. The big question for 2012 is whether Republicans will win Congress and/or the White House. If Democrats win Congress and the White House in 2012, amnesty is virtually certain, along with other disasters.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

4
  • Anonymous

    Well thought out & written as always.

    Newt has a lot of policy baggage that will make a lot of Conservatives seriously think abut a third party to support.  America has had a bellyfull of the Old Guard politicians & are longing to support fresh people.  Too bad the Lame Stream Media is intent on making the choices for us.  It is time to refute that whole upside down thinking & get back to our Constitution & people who will TRULY support it.

    Powder is dry 

  • Anonymous

    Of course Newt favors open borders. All the Beltway insiders do. They never have to see or deal with the problems, but collect all the accolades for being so ‘tolerant’ and ‘progressive’ from the press. They also get nice payoffs from agribusiness and real estate/construction lobbyists who enjoy the cheap labor.

    Don’t be fooled by Newt. He cheats like Cain, spits on US citizens like Perry, and has the experience of Obama. He’s a fraud and will sell out the base in an instant. If we’re stuck with a squish, at least Romney has experience in the big chair.

  • Anonymous

    The greatest achievement of Sarkozy in France has been his unrelenting efforts at deporting ILLEGALS (about 25,000 per year) and restricting ILLEGAL immigration into France. Of course, NONE of these efforts have been reported by the US socialist media. There are NO limitations on deportation – a violation of the law 10 years ago is treated the same as a violation of the law today. If France can enforce it’s laws, why can’t the US?

    • http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

      The Obama admin deported more people in his first two years than Bush did in his entire eight years. Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. We deport more than 25K people a year.

      • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

        Yeah President Obama has been doing more to deal with the problem than Bush before him – who was frankly awful, nearly treasonous in his immigration policy.

        • http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

          I wouldn’t go that far either. I think the Obama admin actually went out of their way to enforce immig law, along with a host of other fed laws. (Actually enforcing marijuana laws more aggressively than the Bush admin? I thought he was going to be the first Trees President! TSA? The Patriot Act? EPA?)

          Like they didn’t want to get pinned as being soft on fed crime. That is, except for the banks, one thing that his liberal base really wanted.

          And they still get a bad rap as being soft on federal illegality.

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    Actually I didn’t think his response on immigration was actually that bad, it wasn’t the best and I’d prefer a much stronger stance on immigration, but right now we have to have someone deal with the economy first, and this kind of stuff distracts from the main goal.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s my idea to put a dent in the illegal immigration problem.

    Every time a liberal complains that the USA sucks and Europe or China or wherever is so much better, offer to let him voluntarily give up his US citizenship and move to another country of his choice. The federal government will take care of all travel costs and pull all the necessary strings to make him a legal citizen of whatever country he wants to live in.

    In return, his US citizenship transfers to an illegal alien. The illegal must have broken no other laws and be willing and able to work for an honest living.

    • http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

      Sounds good, the same should apply to conservatives who say this country is going to shit. Bye-bye!

      • Anonymous

        Conservatives don’t go around saying other countries are so much better than America.

        • http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

          I dunno. They seem to be infatuated with Chile.

          • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

            Sure thing Vega, we’re all in support and envious of China! ROFLMAO

          • http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

            Chi-le.

      • Anonymous

        Oh and also, there is a difference between saying “liberals are ruining America” and “America sucks”.

        I know that might be hard for you to understand, since you and the rest of the left seem to think criticizing a Democrat President is the same as hating America, but facts are facts.

        • http://www.vega.com Vega – NY Liberal Honey Badger

          Right, like you say when OWS says the investment banks and multinational corporate influence on politics is killing the American middle class…

          that to you means they are antiAmerican and extreme. Gimme a break.

          • Anonymous

            No, the fact that they hate America makes them anti-American.

            I know your tongue habitually finds itself inside the anuses of the OWS babies, but facts are facts.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info