• Get Crisis in your Inbox

  • Gingrich, Immigration, and the Election

    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.

     

    COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Print this   |   Share this

    • http://johnshope.blogspot.com/ Alan Shope

      I think Jesus would disagree with you. Why are we so determined, even as Christians, to hold on so tightly to our possessions? We are still the richest nation in the world. We can share what we have with the poor, wherever they come from, and still have plenty for ourselves.

      Most Americans have far more than we need and it distracts from our relationship with God and our fellow human beings. We would be happier if we shared more.

      Those among the poor who think more “stuff” will make them happy are wrong, too. But, to turn our heads and walk on the other side of the road when when we see hard working families in dire need, is not what Jesus would do.

      There’s plenty of “stuff” to go around. It’s just that a small group has far too much and wants even more.

      I’m not talking about “welfare” or other “unearned” handouts. I’m talking about a living wage, minimal healthcare, reasonable safety nets for those who fall through no fault of their own.

      The system favors the wealthy. The 99% need to stop feeding the system with our excessive consumerism, and the system needs to guarantee a more level playing field. For example, stop the tax loop holes, tax cuts, subsidies, lobbyists, insider trading, lucrative government contracts, “good ole boy” politics, etc. that protect the top 1%.

    • Sarto

      God in human flesh. Jesus was the ultimate immigrant. No wonder they had to crucify him.

      • http://johnshope.blogspot.com/ Alan Shope

        Great point! I’ll have to remember that.

    • Carl Eifert

      Dr. Sowell is correct in that immigrants should be coming to America to become Americans. And that illegals are here illegally regardless of how long they have been here. Those who arrived legally and became citizens would somehow be cheated if some sort of amensty were instituted. But just what is to be done? Deporting millions would cost billions. The economy would be worsened by such a massive action. Economic growth is dependent upon a growing population. This complex problem needs a solution; Gingrich may not have a correct suggestion, but it could lead to an acceptable compromise.

    • http://johnshope.blogspot.com/ Alan Shope

      I’m reminded of Jesus’ parable in which those who came to work late in the day were paid the same as those who arrived earlier in the day. Those who had worked longer were predictably upset. But Jesus challenged their attitude which valued fairness over mercy. Mercy is more important from a Christian standpoint.

      I think that also applies to immigration.

      • John Zmirak

        Except that Jesus was referring to the limitless riches of God’s kingdom, which He freely dispenses as He wishes. When we talk about using the power of the State to redistribute (for instance through leftist social programs which immigrants WILL vote to support) the limited resources of existing citizens, we may NOT pretend to merciful by violating justice. If we allowed (out of “mercy”) the whole population of the Muslim world into America, and they voted in Sharia, wouldn’t you agree we had committed an injustice toward the native non-Muslim population? Well the same thing applies to letting poor people come in and vote to confiscate (through taxes) the wealth of native-born citizens.

        Nor is America, great though she is, the Kingdom of Heaven.