01/28/2012
By Peter Brimelow writes: “One spark could start a conflagration. It may still be struck,” I wrote when I complained about the short shrift given to the patriotic immigration reform issue in the last GOP candidates’ debate in South Carolina.
Well, it’s happened, sort of. In the next debate, in Florida on January 23, Mitt Romney annoyed me even further by abruptly agreeing with Newt Gingrich on a mini-DREAM Act for illegals who take American jobs in the military. But Romney’s throwaway line about encouraging “self-deportation” for illegal aliens has indeed caused something of a flare-up, because the Main Stream Media (and Gingrich) reacted with boneheaded incredulity to a concept that has extensively discussed among immigration patriots (who usually call it “attrition through enforcement”) over many years.
Tellingly, by the most recent debate on January 27, even Gingrich felt compelled to concede, grudgingly, that the concept has merit. (See transcript below).
That’s the great thing about election campaigns and debates. They are the growth point of politics.
And that’s particularly true for immigration. Contrary to what they claim (but what else is new?) it is the immigration enthusiasts who control Establishment debate who are consumed with emotion on the issue, not immigration skeptics, who are usually coolly rational. Hence Michele Bachmann had only to hint at criticizing the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act, which unleashed the current mass immigration, to provoke a hysterical editorial in the Washington Post. This is the kind of “earned media” that candidates are supposed to long for. Unhappily, Bachmann — or her handlers — chose to fall silent.
Self-deportation/ Attrition Through Enforcement was just one of five key immigration reform concepts that I listed after the last South Carolina debate. All are potentially incendiary. The others:
(2) Obama’s Administrative Amnesty — a new development to which the GOP has, incredibly, not yet responded;
(3) Better visa control, since up to half of all illegal aliens in the U.S. came here as legal visitors and overstayed;
(4) Strategic deportation — let’s start an Operation Wetback–style stampede for the exits;
(5) An anti-unemployment immigration moratorium — aimed at curtailing legal immigration.
There are more. For example, with a Republican audience, it would certainly be legitimate to point out that
(6) “Electing A New People” — the Democrats are deliberately openly boasting that they intend to swamp the historic American nation with non-traditional, left-leaning minorities; and
(7) End Birthright Citizenship — something that even Establishment Republicans have discussed, albeit without doing anything about it.
Mitt Romney does not come naturally to immigration patriotism — or, apparently, to any strong position.
Thus Romney was not asked about Puerto Rico in this debate, but he went even further than Rick Santorum (“I don’t take a position one way or the other on statehood, commonwealth, independence, that’s for the people of Puerto Rico to decide”) the next day, saying he will actively work for Puerto Rican statehood. (Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich Pressed on Puerto Rico Statehood in South Florida, by Matthew Jaffe, Emily Friedman and Elicia Dover, ABCnews, January 27, 2011).
VDARE.com’s reaction: Americans should be asked if they want to take Puerto Rico on as a state.
And how does Romney reconcile admitting a Spanish-speaking state with his professed support for English As An Official language (see below)?
Q: Can you tell me what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal immigration while preserving the rights of those who seek to immigrate legally?
BLITZER: All right.
Senator Santorum, let’s take that question. But also, in the course of that question, express your opinion on what we heard from Governor Romney, that self-deportation, or illegal immigrants leaving the country voluntarily, is a possible solution.
RICK SANTORUM: Well, the possible solution is — I actually agree with Governor Romney. The bottom line is that we need to enforce the laws in this country.
We are a country of laws. People come to this country. My grandfather came to this country because he wanted to come to a country that respected him.
[James Fulford: Santorum always mentions his grandfather. People who can’t boast of immigrant grandfathers may find it a little tiresome, but it’s a legitimate point…I guess ]
And a country that respects you is a country that lives by the laws that they have. And the first act when they come to this country, is to disobey a law, it’s not a particularly welcome way to enter this country. What I've said is from the very beginning, that we — we have to have a country that not only do you respect the law when you come here, but you respect the law when you stay here.
And people who have come to this country illegally have broken the law repeatedly. If you're here, unless you're here on a trust fund, you've been working illegally. You've probably stolen someone’s Social Security number, illegally. And so it’s not just one thing that you've done wrong, you've done a lot of things wrong. And as a result of that, I believe that people should no — should not be able to stay here.
And so I think we need to enforce the law at the border, secure the border. Secondly, we need to have employer enforcement, which means E-verify and then we need to have not only employers sanctioned, but we have to have people who are found who are working here illegally, they need to be deported. That is again the principle of having a rule of law and living by it. I am very much in favor of immigration. I’m not someone — my dad came to this country and I’m someone who believes that — that we need immigration. We are not replacing ourselves.
We have — we need not only immigration for — to keep our population going, but we need immigration because immigrants bring a vitality and a love of this country that is — infuses this country with — with great energy. And so, I support legal immigration, but we need to enforce the law and in fact, if you don’t create an opportunity for people to work, they will leave because they can’t afford to stay here.
[PB: This is a fairly good answer from Santorum on illegal immigration, putting it in context and even mentioning E-verify, which activists in Florida are trying to pass at the state level — but, again, a sad regression by Santorum on legal immigration, which he had broken ranks to criticize just days earlier. Why?]
BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, you've suggested that self- deportation as advocated by Governor Romney is in your words, "An Obama level fantasy." Why?
GINGRICH: Well look, I think that first of all, you should control the border, which I have pledged to do by January 1, 2014. You should fix legal immigration in terms of visas so people can come and go easily — more easily than doing it illegally.
[PB: i.e. Gingrich will increase legal immigration.]
You should also make deportation easier so when you deport people who shouldn’t be here. The MS-13 gang members, for example. It should be very quick and very clear.
You should have a guest worker program, probably run by American Express, Visa or MasterCard so they minimize fraud, which the federal government won’t do.
[PB: Note no mention of Birthright Citizenship reform — i.e. any U.S. born children of these guest-workers will be anchor babies. This is the Achilles Heel of guest worker programs — which is presumably why legendary immigration enthusiast economist Julian Simon used amusingly to repress the problem]
And you should have much stronger employer penalties at that point because you can validate it. I actually agree that self-deportation will occur if you're single. If you've only been here a short time. And there are millions of people who faced with that, would go back home, file for a guest worker program and might or might not come back.
The one group I singled out, were people who have been here a very long time who are married, who may well have children and grandchildren. And I would just suggest that grandmothers or grandfathers aren’t likely to self-deport. And then you've got a question.
I — I offered a proposal, a citizen panel to review whether or not somebody who had been here a very long time, who had family and who had an American family willing to sponsor them, should be allowed to get residency, but not citizenship so that they would be able to stay within the law, but would not have any chance of becoming a citizen, unless they went back home. I don’t think grandmothers and grandfathers will self-deport.
[PB: Actually, it’s quite common for older immigrants to retire back to their home countries].
BLITZER: Governor Romney, the few times and I think it was only once, that they experimented with self-deportation, only a handful of individuals voluntarily left. What makes you think that — that program could work?
[PB: Of course, this “experiment” was without any attempt to turn-of the jobs magnet. Romney ignores the question, so he probably doesn’t know this]
ROMNEY: Well, you've just heard the last two speakers also indicate that they support the concept of self-deportation. It’s very simply this, which is for those who come into the country legally, they would be given an identification card that points out they're able to work here and then you have an E-verify system that’s effective and efficient so that employers can determine who is legally here and if employers hire someone without a card, or without checking to see if it’s been counterfeited, then those employers would be severely sanctioned.
If you do that, people who have come here illegally won’t be able to find work. And over time, those people would tend to leave the country, or self-deport. I don’t think anyone is interested in going around and rounding up people around the country and deporting 11 million
[PB: They aren’t? Well, what about Strategic Deportation? Note also that Romney accepts the low estimate for the illegal stock, unlike even CNN’s John King, who acknowledged in the January 19 debate that some estimates run as high as 20 million]
Americans — or, excuse me 11 million illegal immigrants into America.
[JF: Saying “11 million Americans” is a bad slip — even Harry Reid called them "undocumented Americans". It reminds me of what Steve Sailer called the “ultimate euphemism” for illegal aliens: “citizens”.]
Now, let’s look at — and — and I know people said, but isn’t that unfair to those 11 million that are here and have lived their lives here and perhaps raised children here? But I think it’s important to remember, that there are three groups of people that are of concern to us.
One are those that have come here illegally, 11 million. The second is the group of people who are brought over by coyotes and who are in many cases abused by virtue of coming into this country illegally. And the third, are the four to five million people who are waiting at home in their own nations trying to get here legally. They have family members here asking them to come here. Grandparents and uncles and aunts. Those are the people we have a responsibility for. And the second group as well, those that are abused. We — we're concerned about them.
Let’s focus our attention on how to make legal immigration work and stop illegal immigration.
BLITZER: All right. Governor Paul — sorry, excuse me, Congressman Paul you're from Texas. The state with the longest border with Mexico. Is this a viable option, what we just heard?
PAUL: Well, I'd talk about it, but I don’t see it as being very practical. I think it’s a much bigger problem.
You can’t deal with immigration without dealing with the economy. The weaker the economy, the more resentment there is when illegals come in. If you have a healthy, vibrant economy, it’s not a problem; we're usually looking for workers.
[PB: This continues Paul’s sad regression into dogmatic left-libertarianism. Also, note his odd implication that immigration should increase if and when economy expands, i.e. government should allow immigration to keep American wages low].
Even under today’s circumstances, a lot of businesses are looking for workers and they don’t have them. They're not as well-trained here.
[PB: Untrue and ominous]
But also, the way we're handling our borders is actually hurting our economy because the businesspeople — you know, visitors have a hard time coming in. I mean, we don’t have a well-managed border. So I think we need more resources and I think most of the other candidates would agree we need more resources. But where are the resources going to come from?
I have a suggestion. I think we spend way too much time worrying about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Use some of those resources on our own border.
(APPLAUSE)
[PB: Note the applause here — Paul could have won the anti-immigration vote had he stuck to his Paleolibertarian 2008 property rights-sovereigntist position. Sigh.]
BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, you had an ad, but you pulled it this week, in which you described Governor Romney as the most anti- immigrant candidate. Why did you do that?
GINGRICH: Why did we describe him that way?
Because, in the original conversations about deportation, the position I took, which he attacked pretty ferociously, was that grandmothers and grandfathers aren’t going to be successfully deported. We're not — we as a nation are not going to walk into some family — and by the way, they're going to end up in a church, which will declare them a sanctuary. We're not going to walk in there and grab a grandmother out and then kick them out.
We're not going — and I think you have to be realistic in your indignation. I want to control the border. I want English to be the official language of government. I want us to have a lot of changes.
(APPLAUSE)
[PB: Amazing — Gingrich can get immigration patriot applause while openly planning to betray them! That’s why I think he’s an (inverted) boggart.
Of course, there’s a fundamental distinction between being “anti-immigrant” and being “anti-immigration” — a distinction immigration enthusiasts fight to obscure. Gingrich here, not for the first time, is accepting the language of the left]
I am prepared to be very tough and very bold, but I’m also prepared to be realistic, because I've actually had to pass legislation in Washington and I don’t believe an unrealistic promise is going to get through, but I do believe, if there’s some level of humanity for people who have been here a long time, we can pass legislation that will decisively reduce illegality, decisively control the border and will once again mean the people who are in America are here legally.
BLITZER: I just want to make sure I understand. Is he still the most anti-immigrant candidate?
GINGRICH: I think, of the four of us, yes.
BLITZER: Go ahead, Governor.
ROMNEY: That’s simply unexcusable. That’s inexcusable. And, actually, Senator Marco Rubio came to my defense and said that ad was inexcusable and inflammatory and inappropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico. My wife’s father was born in Wales. They came to this country. The idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive.
Don’t use a term like that. You can say we disagree on certain policies, but to say that enforcing the U.S. law to protect our borders, to welcome people here legally, to expand legal immigration, as I have proved, that that’s somehow anti anti-immigrant is simply the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that has characterized American politics too long.
And I’m glad that Marco Rubio called you out on it. I’m glad you withdrew it. I think you should apologize for it, and I think you should recognize that having differences of opinions on issues does not justify labeling people with highly charged epithets.
GINGRICH: I'll tell you what …
(APPLAUSE)
I'll give you an opportunity to self-describe. You tell me what language you would use to describe somebody who thinks that deporting a grandmother or a grandfather from their family
[JF: This sentimental bunk is unacceptable in an alleged conservative. Let’s examine the propriety of grandmother-deporting in an unsentimental fashion.
Hasn’t she done enough damage?
— just tell me the language. I’m perfectly happy for you to explain what language you'd use.
ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, I think I described following the law as it exists in this country, which is to say, I’m not going around and rounding people up and deporting them.
What I said was, people who come here legally get a work permit. People who do not come here legally do not get a work permit. Those who don’t get work will tend, over time, to self-deport.
I’m not going to go find grandmothers and take them out of their homes and deport them. Those are your words, not my words. And to use that rhetoric suggests to people that somehow, if you're not willing to keep people here who violated the law, that you're anti- immigrant. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am pro-immigrant. I want people to come to America with skill and vitality and vibrance. I want them to come legally. There are grandmothers that live on the other side of the border that are waiting to come here legally. I want them to come here, too, not just those that are already here.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: Well, so we have gone — we've gone from your Washington attack when I first proposed this and you said it was outrageous; it would be a magnet to you're accepting the fact that, you know, a family is going to take care of their grandmother or their grandfather.
The idea that you are going to push them out in some form by simply saying they can’t go get a job — I think the grandmother is still going to be here. All I want to do is to allow the grandmother to be here legally with some rights to have residency but not citizenship, so that he or she can finish their life with dignity within the law.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: You know, our problem is not 11 million grandmothers. Our problem is — all right.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Our problem is 11 million people getting jobs that many Americans, legal immigrants, would like to have. It’s school kids in schools that districts are having a hard time paying for. It’s people getting free health care because we are required under the law to provide that health care.
And the real concern is the people who want to come here legally. Let’s let legal immigrants come here. Let’s stop illegal immigration.
(APPLAUSE)
[PB: From the point of view of patriotic immigration reform, the highlighted lines above are perhaps the high point of the election season so far. Roy Beck over at NumbersUSA is understandably excited about them. They reject immigration enthusiast sentimentalism about illegals, raise the jobs issue (finally!) and even note school overcrowding and the Emergency Room emergency. This from the same candidate who brought us “self-deportation”. Great. Maybe someone has been briefing him.
But obviously not enough, because Romney makes no further use of the jobs issue — and remains blindly enthusiastic for legal immigrants, although they also displace American workers, overcrowd schools etc].
BLITZER: The rhetoric on immigration, Governor, has been intense, as you well know, as all four of you know, and anyone who watches television knows. You had an ad running saying that Speaker Gingrich called Spanish "the language of the ghetto."
What do you mean by that?
ROMNEY: I haven’t seen the ad, so I’m sorry. I don’t get to see all the TV ads. Did he say that?
BLITZER: Did you say that?
GINGRICH: No. What I said was, we want everybody to learn English because we don’t — and I didn’t use the word "Spanish." We do not want anyone trapped in a situation where they cannot get a commercial job, they cannot rise, and virtually every parent of every ethnic group — and by the way, they are 94 languages spoken at the Miami-Dade College — 94 languages. And that’s why I think English should be the official language of government, and that’s why I think every young American should learn English.
And my point was, no one should be trapped in a linguistics situation where they can’t go out and get a job and they can’t go out and work. So I would say as much as Governor Romney doesn’t particularly like my use of language, I found his use of language and his deliberate distortion equally offensive.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: I'd like — I doubt that’s my ad, but we'll take a look and find out. There are a bunch of ads out there that are being organized by other people.
But I think our position on English in our schools and in our nation is the same, which I believe English should be the official language of the United States, as it is. I also believe that in our schools, we should teach kids in English.
So, when I was governor, I fought for — actually, before I was governor, I fought for, during my election and thereafter, a program to have English immersion in our schools so our kids could learn in English. I think we agree on this, which is, you know what? Kids in this country should learn English so they can have all the jobs and all the opportunity of people who are here.
[PB: Romney was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 partly because he hitch-hiked on Ron Unz’s “English For The Children” anti-bilingual education initiative that also on the ballot and carried 68%-28% — just as California Governor Pete Wilson hitch-hiked onto Proposition 187 to win re-election in 1994.
But this means Romney has seen the power of the Official English issue — and he still let Newt Gingrich take it away from him. A bad sign.
Also, this stuff about wanting immigrant children to have “all the jobs and all the opportunity of people who are here” is not great news for the people who are here and who must compete with them — a.k.a. Americans]
[Later in the debate…]
BLITZER:
We did double-check, just now, Governor, that ad that we talked about, where I quoted you as saying that Speaker Gingrich called Spanish "the language of the ghetto" — we just double-checked. It was one of your ads. It’s running here in Florida in — on the radio. And at the end you say, "I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this ad."
So it is — it is here.
(BOOING)
ROMNEY: Let me ask — let me ask a question.
Let me ask the speaker a question. Did you say what the ad says or not? I don’t know.
GINGRICH: It’s taken totally out of context.
ROMNEY: Oh, OK, he said it.
GINGRICH: I did not — no. I did not say it about Spanish. I said, in general, about all languages. We are better for children to learn English in general, period.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Let’s take a look at what he said. (APPLAUSE)
[PB: This isn’t strictly germane to our National Question critique, but I personally found Romney’s weaseling here repulsive. But, of course, if Gingrich were to be nominated, the Democrats will say worse]
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.