Christian conservatives propose immigration compromise

Christian conservatives, who have avoided the immigration issue, uh, forever, have come forward with a compromise proposal: Instant citizenship for all illegals related to a U.S. citizen, in exchange for the end of birthright citizenship, under which (as a result of a liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment) anyone born in the United States to an illegal alien is a U.S. citizen. In itself, I don’t like it. If birthright citizenship is bad, let’s simply get rid of it, instead of signing on to some other horrendous thing in order to get rid of it. Also, the proposal seems very fragmentary, only dealing with one aspect of the immigration issue. Still, it will probably set off a lot of discussion, and it is certainly bracing to see the Christian right say anything at all about immigration, let alone to see it address the important problem of birthright citizenship, which has never gotten the attention it deserves. As Phyllis Schlafly told me five years ago, immigration was not even on the radar screen of the mainstream conservative movement.

- end of initial entry -

Tom S. writes:

Of course, this proposal is absurd (Everyone related to a citizen? for Lord’s sake…), but it does address one core problem—birthright citizenship. Until this problem is tackled, nothing can really be done, so it’s actually a good start. But where were these people when conservative actually (allegedly) controlled Congress? Isn’t it remarkable that this proposal bobbed up at just the moment we lost any chance of actually passing it? I smell at least one, maybe several rats. Or maybe I’m just too cynical. At any rate birthright citizenship is as good a place to start as any…

Joseph C. writes:

This proposal is absurd for two reasons. First, as with the wall, where the restrictionists give up something (i.e., amnesty) now with the “promise” of getting something (i.e., enforcement) later, this proposal gives up something (i.e., amnesty) now with the promise of something (i.e., ending jackpot baby citizenship) later. Do they really believe that once Congress has “done something” and the drumbeat ceases that they will deliver on part two? Unless the drumbeat is deafening and people are ready to literally march on Washington, this problem will be swept under the rug.

Also, any legislation to end birthright citizenship would be challenged and subject to judicial review – by the same wastes of human conceptions that have “interpreted” the Fourteenth Amendment to mean citizenship for all regardless of legal status. The legislation has no chance of ever being enforced. The only way to end birthright citizenship is via a Constitutional amendment.

Alternately, Congress could (but wouldn’t) pass a law ending birthright citizenship, and restricting the jurisdiction of any court to review the law. But that would have to be followed up by the threat of mass impeachment of any judges anywhere that even heard any arguments about the law, and the follow through with swift and decisive action, and an unequivocal statement that they intended to continue enforcement and that the days of having a judiciary independent of the Constitution were over. Imagine the battle to impeach Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Steven Breyer, and replace them with Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly and Robert Bork. Then multiply that by 100 to account for the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, and the other lower courts.

Do you think Congress has the will and guts to take these steps? I don’t, and I think the conservative Christians know this too. If they thought this had any chance of making it past first base, they would have proposed it last year, preferably one month before the election so that Congress would have had to take a stand on the issue and campaign on that stand.

LA replies:

These are excellent insights. I admit to being momentarily confused, or perhaps distracted, and wasn’t sure how to take this proposal, but Joseph has straightened me out.

Christ L. has a more hopeful view of this compromise: Amnesty as the bargaining chip for getting everything we want. He writes:

As you yourself have stated, people have to feel the problem before they recognize it. Most conservative Christians are in states that are only now starting to feel the effects of massive immigration. Add in the general Christian desire to treat all people with kindness and the general blasting Christians take on a continual basis. The result is a slow response to the danger by conservative Christians.

Admittedly, the Religious Right is coming late to the party, but I do not think the proposal should be disparaged out-of-hand. While it is not comprehensive or close to ideal, the proposal offers a good starting point. Joseph’s concerns are well received. However, if the deal is structured so that amnesty is not granted until all legal challenges are completed, then his concerns are avoided. Basically, until the Supreme Court rules on and agrees to the Constitutionality of the law, there is no amnesty. If that is done, then it is not an empty gesture.

I believe we should use amnesty as a bargaining chip to get what we want. If we can get a 20 year moratorium or extremely limited immigration, true border/internal enforcement, and the end of birthright citizenship, I believe the long term win outweighs the short term loss on amnesty. The way to achieve that though is to tie amnesty to actual results, not future promises, on the other items. For example, a limited immigration law has to be passed for a fixed period of time. An actual border wall has to be built. An actual number of deportations have to occur over an X year period. In other words, turn the tables and get concrete concessions for a future amnesty.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 09, 2007 04:29 PM | Send