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.