By Charles Krauthammer
Thursday, August 20, 2015
“This was not a subject that was on anybody’s mind until
I brought it up at my announcement.”
— Donald Trump, on immigration, Republican debate, August
6
Not on anyone’s mind? For years, immigration has been the
subject of near-constant, often bitter argument within the GOP. But it is true
that Trump has brought the debate to a new place — first, with his announcement
speech, about whether Mexican migrants are really rapists, and now with the
somewhat more nuanced Trump plan.
Much of it — visa tracking, E-Verify, withholding funds
from sanctuary cities — predates Trump. Even building the Great Wall is not
particularly new. (I, for one, have been advocating that in this space since
2006.) Dominating the discussion, however, are his two policy innovations: (a)
abolition of birthright citizenship and (b) mass deportation.
Birthright citizenship.
If you are born in the United States, you are an American
citizen. So says the 14th Amendment. Barring some esoteric and radically new
jurisprudence, abolition would require amending the Constitution. Which would
take years and great political effort. And make the GOP anathema to Hispanic
Americans for a generation.
And for what? Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a
cause. If you regain control of the border, the number of birthright babies
fades to insignificance. The time and energy it would take to amend the
Constitution are far more usefully deployed securing the border.
Moreover, the real issue is not the birthright babies
themselves, but the chain migration that follows. It turns one baby into an
imported village.
Chain migration, however, is not a constitutional right.
It’s a result of statutes and regulations. These can be readily changed. That
should be the focus, not a quixotic constitutional battle.
Mass deportation.
Last Sunday, Trump told NBC’s Chuck Todd that all illegal
immigrants must leave the country. Although once they’ve been kicked out, we
will let “the good ones” back in.
On its own terms, this is crackpot. Wouldn’t you save a
lot just on Mayflower moving costs if you chose the “good ones” first — before
sending SWAT teams to turf families out of their homes, loading them on buses,
and dumping them on the other side of the Rio Grande?
Less frivolously, it is estimated by the conservative
American Action Forum that mass deportation would take about 20 years and cost
about $500 billion for all the police, judges, lawyers, and enforcement agents
— and bus drivers! — needed to expel 11 million people.
This would all be merely ridiculous if it weren’t morally
obscene. Forcibly evict 11 million people from their homes? It can’t happen. It
shouldn’t happen. And, of course, it won’t ever happen. But because it’s the
view of the Republican front-runner, every other candidate is now required to
react. So instead of debating border security, guest-worker programs, and
sanctuary cities — where Republicans are on firm moral and political ground —
they are forced into a debate about a repulsive fantasy.
Which, for the Republican party, is also political
poison. Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points and he was advocating
only self-deportation. Now the party is discussing forced deportation.
It is not just Hispanics who will be alienated. Romney
lost the Asian vote, too. By 47 points. And many non-minorities will be
offended by the idea of rounding up 11 million people, the vast majority of
whom are law-abiding members of their communities.
Donald Trump has every right to advance his ideas. He is
not to be begrudged his masterly showmanship, his relentless candor, or his
polling success. I strongly oppose the idea of ostracizing anyone from the GOP
or the conservative movement. On whose authority? Let the people decide.
But that is not to say that he should be exempt from
normal scrutiny or from consideration of the effect of his candidacy on
conservatism’s future. If you are a conservative alarmed at the country’s
direction and committed to retaking the White House, you should be concerned
about what Trump’s ascendancy is doing to the chances of that happening.
The Democrats’ presumptive candidate is flailing badly.
Republicans have an unusually talented field with a good chance of winning back
the presidency. Do they really want to be dragged into the swamps — right now,
on immigration — that will make that prospect electorally impossible?
Yes, I understand. The anger, the frustration, etc.,
etc., that Trump is channeling. But how are these alleviated by yelling “I’m
mad as hell” — and proceeding to elect Hillary Clinton?
No comments:
Post a Comment