By Ian Tuttle
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Paul Ryan is not for open borders. In the Year of Donald
Trump, these are fighting words. They are also true. On his campaign website,
the speaker of the House lists four principles that he believes should guide
any attempt to reform our immigration system, among which are: “First, we need
to secure the border,” and, “Second, we need to enforce our laws.” Ryan has
called illegal immigration “an affront to the rule of law and an unacceptable
security risk.” He voted for the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” which aimed “to
establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders
of the United States.” Other examples abound. Paul Ryan is not for “open
borders.”
Unless, that is, you read publications such as Breitbart, which has made a cottage
industry out of “exposing” the “open borders” machinations of Republicans.
“Speaker Ryan is perhaps Congress’s greatest advocate for open borders,” a
recent piece declared, also calling him the policy’s “architect.” Breitbart has also attached the label to
Jeb Bush, to Scott Walker, and, of course, to Marco Rubio. And, it’s not just Breitbart. It’s Ann Coulter and Laura
Ingraham. It’s Jim Hoft (a.k.a. “Gateway Pundit”) and Infowars’ Alex Jones (for whom open borders is the plot of a
“globalist” cabal). It’s Matt Drudge. And it’s their straight-talk messiah,
Donald Trump, the first line of whose immigration plan reads: “When politicians
talk about ‘immigration reform’ they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open
borders.”
Here’s the problem: Almost no prominent conservatives are
for “open borders” — not Paul Ryan, not Mitch McConnell, not Jeb Bush or Ted
Cruz or Scott Walker or (brace yourself!) Marco Rubio.
That’s because “open borders” is not a pejorative; it’s
an actual policy position: in the language of OpenBorders.info, one in favor of
“a world where there is a strong
presumption in favor of allowing people to migrate and where this
presumption can be overridden or curtailed only under exceptional
circumstances.” A practical example is on display in the European Union’s
Schengen zone: free movement between nations. (The Schengen zone is also
demonstrating the potential problems with such an arrangement.)
Alarmists aside, the United States does not resemble the
EU on this front. Our borders — one of which, recall, is the longest
international border in the world — are closed. That does not mean they are
impermeable. But movement across either border into the United States is not
legal without the express permission of the United States government. Cross
illegally, and you face the prospect of being deported. These are not open
borders.
And almost no Republicans want to change that. A few
examples suffice. Mitch McConnell, like Ryan, voted for the Secure Fence Act of
2006. A year later, he voted against John McCain and Ted Kennedy’s ill-fated
immigration-reform bill. In 2013, he said that the Gang of Eight immigration
bill was “deficient on the issue of border security,” which “we need to
seriously beef up.”
Jeb Bush, in his 2013 book Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution, suggested that
“comprehensive reform should be constructed upon two core, essential values:
first, that immigration is essential to our nation, and second, that
immigration policy must be governed by the rule of law.” Abiding by those
principles, he wrote, would help policymakers locate a “middle ground” between
two insupportable ideological extremes, one of which was advocacy for “open
borders.”
And Marco Rubio — despite helping to craft and promote a
woefully misguided immigration-reform bill — ran a campaign in which he emphasized,
often, the need to secure the country’s borders. When he was repeatedly
interrupted at January’s Kemp Forum by immigration activists, he responded
simply and pointedly: “We’re going to enforce our immigration laws.”
This is not open-borders advocacy.
You won’t find it in the governor’s mansions either. The
Republican governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, campaigned in 2010 on
securing the state’s border with Mexico, and early this year signed a law
prohibiting illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. Arizona
governor Doug Ducey recently signed a law ending early-release programs for
illegal immigrants convicted of crimes. As Texas’s attorney general, Greg
Abbott spearheaded the legal challenge to President Obama’s Deferred Action for
Parental Accountability, or DAPA — and was subsequently elected the state’s
governor, with 44 percent of the Hispanic vote.
None of this is to say that Republicans, especially
congressional Republicans, have a sterling record on the subject of immigration.
They don’t. Paul Ryan and many others are for increasing legal immigration.
Republicans have enthusiastically supported the H-1B visa program, despite
overwhelming evidence that it is being used, illegally, to undercut American
tech workers. Republicans refused to push back against President Obama’s
lawless executive amnesties, even going so far as to confirm a new attorney
general who promised to carry them out. The omnibus spending bill passed in
December included funding for the president’s Syrian refugee-resettlement
program, an extension of the corrupt EB-5 visa program, and increased levels of
H-2B visas — the last measure written in by Republicans themselves.
The GOP should be chided for repeatedly failing to take
Americans’ immigration concerns seriously. Needless to say, the party is
experiencing a backlash in the form of Donald Trump. Still, favoring increases
in legal immigration, or believing that we need more tech or agricultural
workers, while arguably bad policy, are not the same as pushing “open borders.”
There’s an all-important difference between wanting to secure the borders while
also letting more people in, and wanting to erase the border altogether.
That is a distinction that those who have taken to using
“open borders” as a slur often refuse to acknowledge. Instead, they repair to
arguing that Republican policymakers are “basically” or “essentially” for open
borders — which is not an argument at all.
There are, of course, genuine open-borders advocates on
the right. The Wall Street Journal
stands by its 1984 editorial, and supporters of the policy are active at the
Cato Institute and Reason magazine.
But it is a position far out of the mainstream of conservatism and of the
Republican party, even before its flirtation with Trumpism. The Republican
party can do better on immigration — it needs to do better. The first step is
dispensing with an intellectually lazy slander.
No comments:
Post a Comment