CPAC Blogger Round-UP: Immigration

It's a mixed bag to be sure, let's start with the worst. Scott Olin at Spot-On delivers a post filled with conflations and half truths...

I can imagine Schlafly getting in the face of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and saying that by turning a blind eye to immigrants in his City, he is condoning a new, government-sanctioned slavery. If he didn't slap her, I cannot figure how he'd respond.

But here's where the conservative argument breaks down. The message that we should treat immigrants as human beings with dignity and personhood goes in contrast to the remedy that conservatives propose.

There is no dignity in militarizing our borders and no respect of personhood when the best you can offer is "go home." As one speaker pointed out, to deport every illegal alien in America would take 200,000 busses and $200 billion…if you were able to round 'em up like some have proposed (and, um, what about rounding 'em up conveys a respect for human dignity, might I ask?).

Although it is impossible to reach a logical conclusion about immigration policy from the new course Conservatives are taking to frame the debate over immigration, it will be important for the President and others who hope their side will prevail to find a way to refute the contention that the Party hasn't lost the spirit of Lincoln...the first Republican President.

Miscellaneous Objections serves up even more...

So, here's the rub with all the people who think that immigration is going to be the defining issue within the Republican Party for years to come. They're wrong -- and not just because their policies are based on economic ignorance and not-so-subtle racism.

Why? Because the modern Republican Party doesn't work without a decent segment of the Hispanic vote. The party George W. Bush has built will lose if it morphs (back) into the old Republican Party that wants to keep brown people out.

The numbers don't work. (And, well, the economy would fall apart if any of the anti-immigration folks got their way ... but that's another set of numbers.)

Save The GOP comes down in the middle...

Immigration is the topic of conversation this morning, but it should be an interesting to see the crowd reaction. This group of folks is usually on his side.

I have a tremendous ammount of respect for Tom, because I think he has just been a very brave advocate for what he believes in, even if I am not 100% on his side. I do think though that he is fighting a fight that needs to be fought.

Shape Of Days is confused and honest...

I really don’t know what to think about immigration. On the one hand, yes, it’s self-evident that having undefended borders pose a vast security problem. Anybody who wants to smuggle a truck bomb across the border into the United States would be harder pressed to decide what color truck to rent than to figure out how to pull off the caper.

But on the other hand … the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. You know? Our country was created as the place where people can come to be free. People who want for opportunity or for liberty can come here and live as free men and women, afraid of neither their fellow citizens nor their government.

Do we really want to change that? Do we really want to take that away?

Little Miss Attila just listened...

The main two debates seem to be (1) between those who believe that some sort of guest worker program must be a component in whatever we set up, vs. those who feel that this would be tantamount to amnesty. And: (2) those who feel that enforcement of our existing laws should come first, before we address the issue of how to deal with those who already live in the "shadow world" of illegal immigrants.

James S. Gilmore talked today about the necessity to design a system to deal with immigration in a way that is humane. He maintains that we cannot take punitive action, because other miniorities might then think that "they could be next." Also, in the Hispanic areas of American cities, illegal immigrants are intermixed with legitimate immigrants, so it's more complicated to identify the illegals than one might suppose.

Anchor Rising brings us an interesting point from Tom Tancredo...

Congressman Tom Tancredo, talking on a panel about immigration issues, made the following point that I had had been previously unaware of. Why are “free trade agreements” agreements and not treaties?

Tancredo’s answer is that if they were treaties, they would require 2/3 approval of the Senate to be ratified, and thus would never pass.

I think the statements speak for themselves. Let me know what you think.

**This was a production of; The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate please go to The Uncooperative Blogger or Freedom Folks and email us. We will add you to the blogroll, and send you the rest of the info you will need.

H/T LoneWacko

illegal immigration
CPAC
Conservative Bloggers illegal immigration