Miers' Withdrawal/ Reconnecting With Conservatives

I am very pleased that Miers withdrew. I thought she was a mistake from the beginning. I did not post on it because I thought all of the problems with her nomination had been raised by others. She is a competent attorney but she was not of the quality that is required on the Supreme Court. As a result, I feared that she would be easily swayed by the dark side -- I mean the liberals -- on the Court. This risk was compounded by the fact that her positions were all over the map in the past and the fact that she tended to say whatever would please those around her. You cannot be a principled conservative and seek to be admired by everyone. Look at how Scalia, Thomas and Bork are reviled by liberals.

Now that Miers has withdrawn, I pray that Bush reconnects with his base by nominating a clearly conservative and articulate jurist.

If he does not, his presidency is effectively over and the benefits of his presidency to the country will be squandered.

If he does attempt to reconnect (and I think he is -- as I explain below) conservatives must rally to his side as never before. If his presidency founders the war will founder and conservative ideals will founder. The next president will, even if he is a Republican, flee from the President's policies (including the war) on the grounds that they are a proven political failure. But, they are not and should not be remembered that way. The next president will avoid doing any big things. The war on terror will devolve into a matter for the police, with the country responding with arrests only after each inevitable blow.

I think that the President is trying to reconnect with his base. Debkafile posted this week that Palestinian President Abbas left his meeting with the Bush with no assurances of help from the U.S. and with an admonishment from the President that he will not enable a Palestinian state during his the Bush administration because the Palestinians have done nothing to crack down on terrorism (this despite a seeming warm post meeting press conference by the leaders). While Debka credibility is very questionable - their accuracy tends to be much greater on matters related to Palestinians and Israel. If what they said is correct, the President has clearly abandoned the “peace process”, at least in private. That is a position that any conservative should support. The Palestinian’s are clearly one of our opponents in this war against militant Islamists. Israel (and the U.S.) should not seek peace until the Palestinians are forced to abandon militant Islam.

President Bush has also begun to take steps to woo back fiscal conservatives. This administration’s spending has been out of control and on all the wrong stuff (I suspect some increased spending would be acceptable to fiscal conservatives. For instance, I think they would happily support any expenditures required to enlarge the Army and Marines). This week he has made several public statements about getting spending under control. If he follows up on these with some real action by the administration his actions should be strongly supported by conservatives.

Immigration

Just the other day I read an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “California Race Highlights Split On Immigration”, WSJ, Tuesday Oct. 18, 2005 Section B, Page 9. In that article I read the most astonishing survey results. The Republican polling firm Tarrance Group polled 800 Republican voters nationwide and found that only 16% want to stop the flow of illegal immigrants entirely. This is a truly remarkable statistic that highlights something disturbing that I have noticed over the years. We have become so accustomed to illegal immigration that when the words “illegal immigration” are spoken or printed, the vast majority of people only hear or see “immigration”. That is the only way this polling of Republicans came to this result. Are we really to believe that only 16% Republicans believe that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced? No, the better bet is that only 16% of Republicans believe that immigration should be stopped entirely.

Some of the public confusion on this issue has been deliberately nurtured. There are strong forces supporting illegal immigration from businesses that need cheap labor to bleeding-heart liberals (who can’t think any further than that allowing people in seems nice) to Americans of Mexican decent who desire to see others from Mexico have an opportunity to live in the U.S. For years those groups have demonized anyone who was against illegal immigration as being anti immigrant or racist. Add to that the overwhelming fear of most people not to be deemed to be discriminating in any way and a lack of general understanding of when discrimination is prohibited and you have a public that does not feel free to think clearly on the subject. That suits those supporting illegal immigration just fine.

Well, its time for a bit of clarity on the subject.

Legal Immigration is generally good :-). Legal immigrants are people who are in this country with our permission. We get to choose which legal immigrants get to come here (fn. 1). We have an opportunity to know who they are and what they want to do. They provide a fresh supply of labor (for some of the jobs that generally more affluent Americans do not want to do). They add their vitality and character to the melting pot and pay taxes. In return, we grant them many of the rights we grant citizens.

Illegal immigration is bad :-(. There is no argument you can make in support of it if you are interested in the well-being of the United States. Illegal immigrants are people who have entered this country without our permission. We have no idea who they are, what they are doing or what they want to do. It only took 19 people, many of whom were illegals, to kill 3,000 Americans and topple the World Trade Center. It is estimated that there 11 million people in this country illegally. If even a tiny tiny fraction of the illegal immigrants have Al Qaeda-like ill intent that is the potential for a hell of a lot of dead Americans and leveled buildings.

Illegal Immigrants provide nothing that the U.S. could not obtain from legal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants can also be expensive. Illegal immigrants don’t pay income taxes but are entitled to many public services by the constitution (fn. 2).

Illegal immigration is bad for legal immigration. Rampant illegal immigration creates a stigma against legal immigration. Further, illegal immigrants take some of the jobs that legal immigrants would take – reducing the demand for legal immigration. In the end we lose the opportunity chose which immigrants enter this country.

What can we take away from this? Stop all illegal immigration entirely. Seal the borders the best we can. We obtain no benefit from open borders and expose ourselves to a great deal of risk. Then, lets engage in a public debate about legal immigration. Lets discuss who we want in and how many. In order to make the elimination of illegal immigration more palatable to those currently in favor of illegal immigration we should consider a very sizable increase in legal immigration (which is very limited compared to the number of people involved in illegal immigration).

This can be a win-win solution. Anyone in support of this approach is being pro immigration, pro security and pro business.

(fn. 1) Yes, we can choose who gets to immigrate to this country. We can discriminate based on race, religion, country of origin, sex… all we want. Why? We can discriminate against prospective immigrants because the protections of the constitution (including the prohibition on improper discrimination) do not apply to non-citizens who are not on U.S. soil. For instance, we could pass a federal immigration law that says that no more Muslims will be allowed to immigrate to (or even visit) this country (not something I am advocating - just an example of how targeted the law could be). Indeed, we do currently have quotas based on country of origin.

(fn. 2) Who gets the benefits of constitution protection? It protects the citizens of the United States and persons present in the United States. This explains why Camp Delta is located at Gitmo. If any of the battlefield detainees in the war were brought to the U.S. they would likely be entitled to constitutional protections. This also explains why Zacarias Moussaoui, who was arrested in the U.S., is getting the benefit of a federal trial (with all of the due process that entails) even though he is not a citizen. It also explains why John Walker Lindh was not kept at Gitmo. He is a citizen and is entitled to constitutional protections regardless of where he was captured.