I got this in my e-mail today, it’s a release from the Maryland Republican Party and Chair Dr. James Pelura:
Immigration Bill Takes Us In The Wrong Direction
ANNAPOLIS—Members of the United States Senate return today from Memorial Day recess and will be debating the “Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.” Chairman James Pelura of the Maryland Republican Party made the following statement:
We all agree that our current immigration system is broken and needs to be reformed. However, the immigration proposal currently being considered would be a move in the wrong direction. Our nation needs an immigration bill that respects the rule of law, makes border security a priority, and does not grant amnesty. The immigration bill being considered by the Senate would grant benefits to those who have willfully broken the law, and in some cases, provides illegal immigrants rights not even afforded to U.S. citizens. Plain and simple – that is wrong. This wonderful land of opportunity is the envy of the world and people risk their lives to come here. We, as a nation, should encourage those seeking the American dream to follow the rules to citizenship and then fully participate in all this land has to offer.”
It’s proof to me that, at least on the state level, the party is listening to its grassroots. Either that or they know where the money and volunteers come from.
But a big cheer tonight to the Maryland GOP for having the courage to stand up for what’s right and not toeing the White House line.
How is this a good thing? It’s bad for both policy reasons as well as long-term political reasons.
First, the policy: the immigration bill, while not perfect, is pretty good. The GOP should be doing all it can to educate the public about the good instead of demagoguing the issue. As the release acknowledges, the immigration system is broken. It is broken because it forces people who want to work to enter the country illegally. Yes, illegal immigrants broke the law. However, they only broke the law because the law does not recognize economic reality. The vast majority are here working, contributing to our economy, and committing no real crimes. They are “illegal” in name only. These folks come here to work. Why should they be punished for responding to an economic need? We need to find a way to allow enough immigrants into this country to meet our economic needs. The Maryland GOP is fighting against economic reality when it opposes this bill.
Second, the politics: the GOP needs to recognize that if it is going to have electoral success it needs to reach out to a much wider demographic than disgruntled white guys. Ehrlich and Steele recognized this and tried to expand the reach of the GOP in Maryland. Unfortunately, with them out of the scene, the GOP seems to be reverting to its traditional focus and appealing to the “throw the brown people across the Rio Grande” crowd. I am not saying anyone in the Maryland GOP is racist, but I can see how some may have that perception. And as you well know, perception is reality in politics. The constant immigration-bashing comes across as Latino-bashing, and that destroys the ability of the GOP to appeal not only to Latinos, but to a whole host of minority groups. Look at what happened in California in the wake of Prop 187. A state that was reliably Republican is now Democratic. Why? Prop 187 mobilized the Latino community into voting solidly Democratic. If the GOP becomes perceived as the anti-immigrant party, then its future is bleak.
Marc,
This is a good thing because it shows that our party leaders reflect our values.
“These folks come here to work. Why should they be punished for responding to an economic need? We need to find a way to allow enough immigrants into this country to meet our economic needs.”
Because there is a law. Not just any law. There is a U.S. law. U.S. Law is supposed to be waaaaay different than, say, Mexican law. We expect laws in this U.S. to be enforced. It is, after all, why the illegals come here. Forget about working, let’s just focus on The Law. The law in the U.S. is what allows people like you and me to hand over 30 percent of what we earn to the government without thinking too hard about what’s done with it. Why? because we know the LAW will be enforced equally and fairly on everyone.
Now the LAW also gives us comfort in knowing that if we disagree with how much and taken and how it’s spent we can change it. So the LAW in this country is very attractive. People from all over the world know this. Even the poor folks in Mexico know this. Yet they are actively, if unwittingly undermining that very same rule of law that comforts them. The world is watching us once again, to see whether we will uphold the sanctity of the rule of law. If we don’t enforce immigration law, which laws will we enforce? Suddenly all laws suspect. Laws protecting private property, patents, contracts, life…
Mike,
Party leaders certainly aren’t reflecting my values in this instance. And if they champion these values they are going to be relegating the Maryland GOP to even fewer elected seats than it holds today.
The concept of “Law” in and of itself is pretty meaningless. A law, after all, is just something that is promulgated by the government that we must follow. Laws can be either good or bad, moral or immoral. So to say we must blindly follow a law or refuse to question it because of “the rule of law” is simply a way to avoid discussion of the issues present here. Yes, there is an immigration law. But we are discussing a change to that law. Let’s talk about whether or not it should be changed.
Did these folks break the law? Sure. But that doesn’t really bother me. They aren’t hurting me. In fact, their contributions to the economy is helping all of us. I view the current immigration law as immoral. Immoral laws need to be changed. And if we change our laws to let these people in, or even to give those who came here illegally a path to stay here, then that is a much better system than we have today.
Marc,
The concept of the Rule of Law is central to this many-faceted issue. Addressing it is not a means of avoiding the questions. If one cannot adequately address the impact on rule of law, then one hasn’t a leg to stand on.
“Did these folks break the law? Sure. But that doesn’t really bother me. They aren’t hurting me.”
So we should take it that if they were, in fact, hurting you, we should then enforce the law. Yes? Do you not see how rapidly this argument leads to anarchy?