If they think like Ann Coulter, they do.
And that is disgusting.
I’m sure Coulter has written in the same vein, but I refuse to read her sometimes amusing but uncivil rants—and they are all rants. Caught in a traffic jam on Route 50 in Arlington, however, I heard her verbal rant on Sean Hannity’s radio show, and of course Sean aped her sentiments, which are roughly these:
It’s outrageous and stupid for Republicans to support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here, because they and their relatives will all vote Democratic, and within ten years, that will mean that GOP will never win another election.
The short answer to this is: So what?
So what if the new American don’t like the Republicans? That is not a reasonable, fair or ethical reason to withhold a path to citizenship, if a path to citizenship is the best and fairest course for all concerned. I thought that the conservative objections to “amnesty” were principled, and based on the rule of law: it’s wrong to allow scofflaws and cheaters to benefit from their wrongdoing. That would be true if every single former-illegal was a Ronald Reagan worshiper, and a group as dedicated to principle as the opponents of so-called immigration reform claim to be would oppose giving potential Republicans an un-earned pass to the voting booth as vociferously they would block an illegal immigrant Hillary Fan Club.
Is this really all that the opposition amounts to ? A self-serving effort to avoid adding votes to the Democratic column? Coulter says that if the illegal immigrants turned eventual citizens weren’t candidates to join the Democratic base, Democrats wouldn’t care about their plight or be pushing for what she calls amnesty. Whether that’s correct or not, and I hope it’s not, that doesn’t excuse Coulter’s motives being equally cynical and wrong. What she is saying, in essence, is that Republican should block a path to citizenship for illegal residents of the U.S. in order to win elections, whether such individuals ought to be given a path to citizenship or not. And how is that motive less unethical than trying to block legal citizens from voting in order to prevail in the same elections?
I think it is exactly as unethical, because it elevates expediency over considerations of right and wrong. And because elevating expediency over right and wrong is supposedly the justification for anti-amnesty absolutism, this position is hypocritical as well.
Do you know what other position is exactly as unethical? The position of Ann’s foes in the Republican party, like Sen. Lindsay Graham, who appear to oppose the principle of legalizing illegal residents but who believe it is the only way to win future elections. The ethical analysis of creating a pathway to citizenship should be a product of realism, fairness, and finding the best course for a nation that has already precluded any good solutions by its negligence weak leadership, greed and incompetence. If the analysis on all sides truly cares nothing about human rights, integrity of boarders, the meaning of citizenship, fairness, compassion and responsible governance, but only is crass maneuvering for future power to abuse, I’m not sure the American citizenship illegal residents seek is worth the effort anymore.
21 thoughts on “Are Republicans Really Opposing The Senate Immigration Reform Bill Because They Fear The New Americans Would Be Democrats?”
The Republican concern is both real and ethical, but may become moot. They have an obligation to AMERICANS to represent a certain ideology, and that choice should not be minimized by external foreign influence.
However, considering that most of the population growth in this country is Hispanic (i think 70% of the growth), and that they are voting 75% Democrat, the real problem Republicans face in the next 10 years is not the possibility of illegal immigrants becoming legal Democratic voters, but that most of the growth in this very large country will be Democratic voters. Their Republican base will not be able to carry national elections.
Republicans better learn to adapt or die, regardless of illegal immigrants… One way for them to adapt is to accept that the only practical solution is to allow the 10 to 15 million illegal immigrants to become Americans at some point.. This won’t turn Hispanics into Republican voters over night but at least it will be a start. There are conservative Hispanics.
Accepting the practical solution (that is the only solution at this point) is fine. Believing its wrong and pretending to support it to get votes is dishonest and a disgrace. Ditto abortion. The current GOP, apparently, would decide to support gun confiscation and shooting dogs in the street if the polls were strong enough. Who needs a party with no integrity? Or perhaps I should say, TWO such parties…
I read that hispanics are converting to Protestant Christianity in high numbers. If that’s so,Republicans should welcome them. 😛
There is no ethical reason to support amnesty for illegals, and only one good reason to oppose it – It rewards breaking the law, and encourages more.
All else is sophistry.
Indeed. These are not immigrants, but invaders who despise our laws, our culture and our country itself. Our first duty as Americans is to our fellow citizens. Importing cheap labor from hostile, unfree nations while simultaneously depressing the economy by legal repression- all with an eye for establishing an alien voting base with which to ultimately rule the national perpetually- is the hallmark of Obamanism. The issue of amnesty might well be the spark that sets America into civil conflict.
Is the opposite line of thinking ethical? Is the “lets give citizenship to 1 million illegal aliens just in time for them to vote in the next election” OK? It isn’t just the Republicans who are merely thinking of illegal aliens as pawns I their election plans.
It’s not OK, and that was the thrust of the final statement about “all sides” at the conclusion of the post:
“If the analysis on all sides truly cares nothing about human rights, integrity of boarders, the meaning of citizenship, fairness, compassion and responsible governance, but only is crass maneuvering for future power to abuse, I’m not sure the American citizenship illegal residents seek is worth the effort anymore.”
They aren’t being made citizens. The proposals have them made legal residents, and only after a multiple year waiting period.
They are being given official access (as opposed to the default, law-violating access they currently enjoy) to federal programs, and shortcut a huge part of the current legal immigration process.
That’s close enough for me.
Michael R’s complaint was a counter factual. Your comment (while valid) doesn’t seem to fit here.
I think all of this is un-American truthfully. If we are granting amnesty, that’s great — but let’s do it only because it is a pragmatic solution to a problem that cannot be solved in any other way. If elected officials are passing it/or opposing it because of ideology then they should be kicked out of office.
I couldn’t disagree with your assessment more. If we accept your argument, then FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court was completely ethical. There was no reason to oppose his new Supreme Court justices just because they happened to agree with FDR’s New Deal. I guess we are supposed to accept that the 11 million (probably at least double that) just happen to be strong Democrat supporters. It’s just a coincidence that their living illegally in the US has been aided and abetted by the lawless left for decades.
Huh? In fact, HUH???? FDR’s court-packing scheme was unconstitutional…that’s why it was unethical. When you come up with a better analogy, I’ll respond to the rest of your comment.
Except the last line. Since 1986, the right has had as much opportunity to stop illegal immigration s the left. This is a bi-partisan fiasco. It’s just that only the left specializes in rationalizing an indefensible policy of non-enforcement. The right’s motivation was pure, unvarnished, greed.
Court packing isn’t explicitly unconstitutional and its constitutionality had nothing to do with why the plan failed. It failed because it was politically unpalatable to the public. Besides that his court packing scheme became unnecessary because of the “switch in time that saved nine.” The threat of court packing was enough to blackmail the court into approving unconstitutional provisions of the New Deal.
And yes segments of the right backed the illegal influx out of greed but the ALL significant opposition to illegal immigration also came from the right. Let’s not pretend that left isn’t trying to use illegal immigration to wipe out its political opponents here. They are adopting the same immigration strategy that the English used in Ireland to secure their political control. Or to put it another way they are trying to fulfill the totalitarian dream and dissolve the people to elect another.
1. Court packing violates the separation of powers and was a blatant attempt to manipulate the Court. Who do you think you’re kidding?
2. The “significant opposition” from the right gets no points from me as long as it wasn’t backed by action…and it wasn’t. Words with no intent to follow with policies aren’t significant.
Court packing was a blatant attempt to change the rules to ram through dramatic political change. This round of comprehensive immigration reform is a blatant attempt to change the rules to dramatically change the political landscape. I think it is analogous but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. But that still doesn’t address my other points.
The left has aided and abetted illegal immigration for decades. They have routinely called everyone who raised an objection to illegal immigration racists, nativists and too low to even debate. At the same time they have worked tirelessly to implement multiculturalism and destroy every institution that has traditionally helped immigrants assimilate. But of course Coulter and the admittedly impotent conservative opposition is terribly rude and unethical to point this out.
1. I never agree to disagree.
2. Republicans have also aided and abetted illegal immigration for decades—and hired a lot of illegal immigrants while making noises that it was unconscionable. They are the greater hypocrites in this fiasco, by far. The Democrats were just wrong.
3. Name-calling is irrelevant.
4. How would assimilation help illegal immigrants, other than make them harder to detect?
5. Republicans didn’t make this issue a high priority until they realized it was losing them votes. Idiots. I have no sympathy for them at all.
6. Coulter and others could have allowed the path to citizenship occur under Bush, and instead played the amnesty song. The problem would have been easier to solve AND less toxic for the GOP the earlier it was addressed. She is estopped from complaining now, in my book. She’s part of the problem.
6. “Pathway to citizenship” that doesn’t include “go home and try it the legal way” rewards criminal behavior and encourages more of the same.
It’s worse than unethical to base all your decisions and beliefs on whether they are popular or if they carry a political element. Some things are just wrong, morally wrong, besides ethically wrong. Those things are not for sale to politics or popularity. Winning is a poor way to structure a belief system.
That is one of the best images of Ann I have ever seen…it’s a good thing I went to church first today, before looking.
The Republican party is already dead. Those sounds you hear are just Democrat ventriloquism through various cadavers. But, true to form, the Democrats know how to use the dead to their advantage. Looking back, it’s clear now that we “murcans” have been subjects under a one-party racket since at least 1992, maybe even earlier, even under (gasp!) Reagan with Tip.
Jack, you do know that past waves of immigrants, like the Irish, Italians, Poles, Chinese, etc., became Democratic constituencies, right? And you do realize that Republicans in Congress passed immigration restrictions around the 1920’s, right?
Senator Graham knows his history.