GOP on immigration

(Note: see Sage McLaughlin’s comment on what’s wrong with the GOP’s position on the English language.)

Spencer Warren sends the Republican platform on immigration. He says, “It focuses on enforcement and opposes amnesty. It is silent on immigration legislation, but rejects ‘en masse legalizations.’”

Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law

Immigration policy is a national security issue, for which we have one test: Does it serve the national interest? By that standard, Republicans know America can have a strong immigration system without sacrificing the rule of law.

Enforcing the Rule of Law at the Border and Throughout the Nation Border security is essential to national security.

In an age of terrorism, drug cartels, and criminal gangs, allowing millions of unidentified persons to enter and remain in this country poses grave risks to the sovereignty of the United States and the security of its people. We simply must be able to track who is entering and leaving our country.

Our determination to uphold the rule of law begins with more effective enforcement, giving our agents the tools and resources they need to protect our sovereignty, completing the border fence quickly and securing the borders, and employing complementary strategies to secure our ports of entry. Experience shows that enforcement of existing laws is effective in reducing and reversing illegal immigration.

Our commitment to the rule of law means smarter enforcement at the workplace, against illegal workers and lawbreaking employers alike, along with those who practice identity theft and traffic in fraudulent documents. As long as jobs are available in the United States, economic incentives to enter illegally will persist. But we must empower employers so they can know with confidence that those they hire are permitted to work. That means that the EVerify system—which is an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees—must be reauthorized. Aphasedin requirement that employers use the E-Verify system must be enacted.

The rule of law means guaranteeing to law enforcement the tools and coordination to deport criminal aliens without delay—and correcting court decisions that have made deportation so difficult. It means enforcing the law against those who overstay their visas, rather than letting millions flout the generosity that gave them temporary entry. It means imposing maximum penalties on those who smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S., both for their lawbreaking and for their cruel exploitation. It means requiring cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement and real consequences, including the denial of federal funds, for selfdescribed sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of the federal and state statutes that expressly prohibit such sanctuary policies, and which endanger the lives of U.S. citizens. It does not mean driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, nor does it mean that states should be allowed to flout the federal law barring them from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, nor does it mean that illegal aliens should receive social security benefits, or other public benefits, except as provided by federal law.

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.

Embracing Immigrant Communities Today’s immigrants are walking in the steps of most other Americans’ ancestors, seeking the American dream and contributing culturally and economically to our nation. We celebrate the industry and love of liberty of these fellow Americans.

Both government and the private sector must do more to foster legally present immigrants’ integration into American life to advance respect for the rule of law and a common American identity. It is a national disgrace that the first experience most new Americans have is with a dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy defined by delay and confusion; we will no longer tolerate those failures.

In our multiethnic nation, everyone—immigrants and native-born alike—must embrace our core values of liberty, equality, meritocracy, and respect for human dignity and the rights of women.

One sign of our unity is our English language.

For newcomers, it has always been the fastest route to prosperity in America. English empowers. We support English as the official language in our nation, while welcoming the ethnic diversity in the United States and the territories, including language.

Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English.

English is the accepted language of business, commerce, and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of cultural integration, that our schools provide better education in U.S. history and civics for all children, thereby fostering a commitment to our national motto, E Pluribus Unum.

We are grateful to the thousands of new immigrants, many of them not yet citizens, who are serving in the Armed Forces. Their patriotism is inspiring; it should remind the institutions of civil society of the need to embrace newcomers, assist their journey to full citizenship, and help their communities avoid patterns of isolation.

Welcoming Refugees Our country continues to accept refugees from troubled lands all over the world. In some cases, these are people who stood with America in dangerous times, and they have first call on our hospitality.

We oppose, however, the granting of refugee status on the basis of lifestyle or other non-political factors

September 6

Sage McLaughlin writes:

This may sound like quibbling, but I think there’s something important underlying it. I tire of hearing things like, “English empowers,” as though the main concern with getting immigrants to speak English is that it’s beneficial to the immigrant. I know the platform you posted mentions “national unity,” but it does nothing to expand on this theme, while having plenty to say about the prosperity it offers to immigrants. Basic issues of mutual trust are at stake here. After all, the immigrant can always answer, “I can be prosperous in my own language if you will learn it and accommodate me in my own tongue. Why is the onus on me?” Republicans seem to have no real answer beyond very brief generalities about national unity. How about the mutual recognition and trust that are the fundamental prerequisite for self-government?

But of course, no one wants to say what we all know to be true—that being glowered at by people who do not know basic phrases such as “excuse me,” “please,” and “thank you” creates suspicion and hostility, and that everyone’s quality of life is poorer for it. Elites love this because it means that our affairs have to be managed by “experts” trained in the administration of differing peoples. It pushes the prestige and power ordinarily enjoyed by departments of state and foreign affairs all the way down to the local level, and creates imperatives for ever-more surveillance and other such intrusions, such as national ID card requirements for ordinary citizens.

Anyway, I don’t expect all that to be in a political platform. But some mention of the necessity of shared language to self-government would be nice to see, wouldn’t it? The real issue at stake here is whether we will continue to be a self-regulating people—or rather, whether we are in fact any longer a self-regulating people.


Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 05, 2008 11:10 AM | Send
    

Email entry

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):