| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Anchoress on the immigration bill |
| 2007-05-18 |
| Whatever your position on the merits of the bill, pay attention to the lady 'cause she's got some important points to make. Longtime readers know that I am no hard-liner on immigration. I lost lots of readers (and got de-linked by some bloggers) because I have never been able to hold with the ship em all back idea that engages some conservatives. Probably thats because deep down, Im still more of a classical liberal than a conservative, although those who identify themselves as liberal would strongly disagree. Whatever the truth is that liberal does not mean the same thing today that it meant when I was coming up. Anyway, I think this immigration bill is a start. I absolutely agree with Ed Morrissey when he writes: Heres the problem with the hard-liner arguments, which amounts to theyll never engage the border-security and workplace enforcement portions. Well, that could be true of any immigration bill, even if it completely matched the conservative position on immigration. Its an argument that only supports no action whatsoever on illegal immigration, including border controls. In fact, it applies to everything Congress passes. If thats our concern, its an argument for non-engagement in the legislative process which necessarily works through making compromises that the majority in the end can support. I think it takes more wisdom than any of us have, to know what is absolutely the best solution but we need to start somewhere. This is a start. And to be honest, Im much more concerned about the house passing a huge tax increase, a story thats flying under the radar because the right sphere is all about the immigration bill, today. Ronald Reagan used to say that you argued for what you could get, even if it was 60% of what you wanted then youd fight for the rest later. . . . The truth is, the hard-liners were never going to get what they wanted, and some steps finally need to be taken. One step would be revamping our choked INS, which doesnt really work, anymore. . . . I will remind some of the conservatives who insisted on an all or nothing, our way or the highway immigration bill, or that doing nothing would be preferable to not getting your way, well doing nothing is NOT an option - it never was - and all your sitting out the election to teach a lesson to the GOP while waiting around for ideological purity has done is put you in a very difficult minority. Lose in 06 to win in 08″ sounded a stinker of a plan back then. It has proved to be a stinker of a plan, I think. I have seen a lot of people, including many I greatly respect, proclaiming that they're so steamed that they're going to never vote for a Republican ever again, even Tom Tancredo; or they're gonna vote for the Libertarians or the Constitutionalists or the Pat Buchanan/Lou Dobbs ticket, or they'll never vote again, or some such. Please think carefully before you leap. If significant numbers of us sit out the next election, or vote for some fringe bozo who has not a snowball's chance of winning (*cough!* Buchanan *cough!*) as a protest vote, the 44th President of the United States will be someone named, oh, say, Hillary. Under President Hillary: 1. We'll retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan and hand the terrorists an unearned victory. 2. The SecDef will be someone with a name like "Murtha" who thinks only Americans commit war crimes, and only Americans are subject to the Geneva Conventions. 3. We'll dismantle our missile defense system as a gesture of goodwill toward North Korea. 4. Iran will get the bomb, and the civilized world will be out a few cities. 5. Your taxes will go up to pay for decontaminating the ruins. And in return for all that, you'll get an immigration policy that's probably just about on all fours with your worst nightmare. If immigration is your #1 or #2 issue, I do not think this is the result you want. Our adversaries on the Left have a strong sense of tactical discipline. Remember 1996? They were screaming white-hot furious at Bill Clinton for signing on to welfare reform--but they still stuck with him and got him re-elected. Why? Because however disappointed they were in Slick Willie, they knew that he was more likely to give them more of what they wanted than Bob Dole. They were willing to accept suboptimal results in the short term to keep their team in control for the long term. We need to show the same discipline. There's a war on, and al-Q needs the Left in power in order to win. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #12 |
| Posted by: Stop the madness 2007-05-18 23:47 |
| #11 |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-05-18 21:49 |
| #10 |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:15 |
| #9 |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:09 |
| #8 |
| Posted by: Stop the Madness 2007-05-18 19:38 |
| #7 |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-05-18 16:06 |
| #6 |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2007-05-18 13:06 |
| #5 |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-05-18 10:51 |
| #4 |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-05-18 05:28 |
| #3 |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-05-18 03:16 |
| #2 |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-05-18 01:17 |
| #1 |
| Posted by: Jan 2007-05-18 01:10 |