printWhile demonstrating clearly why neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer is no great shakes at all, Mark Krikorian—who nevertheless insists CK is a rigorous and independent scribe—demolishes the neocon’s contention that “inside each Latin American immigrant there’s a Republican waiting to get out.”
Sixty-two percent of whites voted for Romney. Ninety percent of black voters and 71 percent of Hispanic voters broke for Obama.
Latinos do not “go Democratic” because of the plight of illegal immigrants under Republicans. The reason Mexican immigrant families seldom vote Republican is that, “Two-thirds of [these] families are in or near poverty and fully 57 percent use at least one welfare program.”
But there is more to the legal/illegal distinctions made by Krikorian and Krauthammer. “Please, Can My Sister Become An Illegal Immigrant?” (and many other columns) demonstrated how America’s immigration policies carefully weed out people of early American probity (to paraphrase Mary McGrory). Our immigration policies, in fact, select for low moral character by rewarding unacceptable risk-taking and law-breaking.
An example should clarify what I mean by “select for low moral character”: Most of our South-African friends, highly qualified, upstanding family men and women, have opted to go to Australia or the UK. Why? Well, legal immigrants to the U.S. don’t “wait their turn,” as the uninformed pointy-heads keep chanting. It is usually their qualifications that, indirectly, get them admitted into the country. The H-1B visa, for one, is a temporary work permit—and also a route to acquiring legal permanent resident status. However, if one loses the job with the sponsoring company, the visa holder must leave the U.S. within ten days. What responsible, caring, family man would subject his dependents to such insecurity and upheaval? As I say, most of the people we know would never contemplate breaking the law by remaining in the country illegally. And not because they’re dull or unimaginative (an “argument” I’ve heard made by Darwinian libertarians, who praise immigration scofflaws for their entrepreneurial risk-taking, no less). But because they have the wherewithal—intellectual and moral—to weigh opportunity costs and plan for the future, rather than say “mañana” to tomorrow and live for today. Unhip perhaps, but certainly the kind of people America could do with.
If Republican Carlos Gutierrez has his way, English will become just one among many official tongues babbled in the Tower of Babble that is the US. (So I guess there is no point fussing about the language in which America’s founding documents were written, and asking scribblers to quit “verbing” the amnesty noun. “Amnestying” is as awful as “verbing.”)
What I find particularity loathsome about the Republican turncoats is that they are blasting Romney for staking out a hardline on immigration, and other arguably state-rights issues, the legitimacy of FEMA, for example. (Incidentally, to call them Republican turncoats is a redundancy; a Republican is a turncoat by definition.)
Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better … We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids.
For the above, Mitt Romney was bad-mouthed by eager-to-win Republican establishmentarians.