At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


Amnesty Debunked: A Response to Michael Medved

posted by Jack Kerwick

In the May 21st edition of Investor’s Business Daily self-avowed “conservative” talk radio host Michael Medved writes that “it’s a healthy development if people toiling in this country want to become full participants in our national life and express their willingness to go through considerable effort and expense to legalize their status as Americans” (emphasis mine).

Immediately, there are a couple of things to note here.

First, of all of the millions of illegal aliens for whom Medved wants amnesty, some indeed spend much of their time “toiling.”  Many others, however, do not.  In fact, many illegal immigrants receive all manner of welfare and social services courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Second, saying that illegal immigrants will have to do this or that in order to achieve legal status doesn’t make it so.  Resistance to amnesty stems precisely from the fact that there persists pervasive distrust of the government’s word on pretty much everything.  This is particularly the case among conservative-minded voters.  After all, this is why they are conservative.

More specifically, though, many opponents of amnesty have heard this tune before, some 27 years ago, when the country’s then 3 million “toiling” illegal immigrants were supplied with “a pathway to citizenship.”  The amnesty of 1986 only exacerbated the immigration issue.  The amnesty of 2013, opponents know, promises to do the same.

Next, through a disingenuous act of sheer sophistry, Medved contends that opposition to amnesty is one and the same as opposition to all legal immigration.  Obliterating the distinction between the lawful and the lawless, he states: “No one who truly supports legal immigration would stand in the way of millions who seek nothing more than to become legal immigrants” by paying penalties, “avoiding” welfare benefits, enduring background checks, and satisfying a number of other conditions contained in the Gang of Eight’s bill.

With all due respect to the author, this argument is silly to the point of being offensive. It is akin to the argument that no one who truly supports traditional marriage would stand in the way of millions of homosexuals who seek nothing more than to become married, or no one who truly supports medicine would stand in the way of millions who want the right to self-medicate with heroin and cocaine.

Furthermore, on Medved’s own terms, that illegal immigrants will supposedly have to satisfy a variety of conditions in order to become legal is logically irrelevant.  If one “who truly supports legal immigration” has no option but to endorse amnesty, then it shouldn’t matter whether this “pathway to citizenship” consists of a thousand qualifications or none at all.  According to Medved’s logic, all that matters is that there exists a “pathway to citizenship.”

Medved admits that “the biggest challenge to implementing” amnesty is “sorting through” the millions and millions of “human beings to distinguish those who deserve to stay from those who ought to go home.”

Reread this slowly and then reread it again.  For decades the federal government has been either unwilling or unable to adhere to its complex of immigration laws.  This amnesty bill takes a relatively complex set of laws and renders it vastly more complex.  So, the government either won’t or can’t do its job when its yoke is lighter.  When, however, it is more burdensome, then—then!—it will act efficiently and dutifully.

This is preposterous.

No less preposterous is Medved’s claim that “stubborn opposition to a path to legal status ruins the best argument that conservatives could otherwise employ in efforts to win support from Latino, Asian, and African-American voters.”

Pace Medved, amnesty is not a priority for voters of any racial background.  And it is most certainly not a priority for black voters! If anything, poll after poll shows that the majority of the country, irrespective of race or ethnicity, rejects Medved’s and Rubio’s “pathway to citizenship.”

But even if the members of these non-white groups did want amnesty, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to think that by granting it Republicans would win them over.  And there is every reason—namely, voting patterns from the years immediately preceding the amnesty of ’86 to the present—for judging the amnesty of 2013 to be the death knell of GOP dominance.

 



  • paladinpaladin

    Mr. Kerwick is correct that the latest amnesty proposals won’t work any better than the ones mistakenly adopted by Reagan in 1986. Since – as should be self-evident- “undocumented” aliens lack documents, there is no practical way to prove when they entered the country. This means that people who are at this moment still in Mexico will, if Obama has his way, soon be claiming to qualify for amnesty based on 5 years’ physical presence in the US. This will increase the numbers exponentially. As in 1986, a cottage industry will quickly arise to meet the need for phony “proofs” of physical presence. In ’86, a farmer, I believe named Marvel, produced hundreds of letters claiming that this or that illegal alien was working on his farm 5 years earlier. Indeed these letters were Mr. Marvel’s primary “cash crop”. The 1986 amnesty soon degenerated into a humiliating fiasco and so will this one. The only accomplishments of amnesty are: (1) to stimulate another flood of illegals, who will soon be demanding another amnesty, and (2) in the long run, to produce millions of new voters who will slavishly support every imaginable expansion of the welfare state. Do this enough times and the USA will turn into another version of Brazil, if not Kampuchea. It never ceases to amaze me that someone as smart as Michael Medved does not understand this.

Previous Posts

Muslim-on-Christian Persecution Around the World
Since at least the time of the outset of the Iraq War—and quite possibly well before then—there has been much debate among those to the right over why Islamic militants have set their sights upon America and the West. George W. Bush expressed the consensus among most Republican politicians an

posted 9:29:57pm Jan. 23, 2015 | read full post »

The American Sniper: A Symbol for All Ideologues
With all of the talk of Chris Kyle, the subject of Clint Eastwood’s latest blockbuster film, American Sniper, a politically naïve spectator could be forgiven for thinking that it really is Chris Kyle of whom people are talking. But he would be mistaken all of the same. The person Chris Kyle

posted 10:43:02am Jan. 23, 2015 | read full post »

The Charlie Hebdo Attack and American Political Correctness
The attack on Charlie Hebdo has had the predictable effect of uniting Western politicians and media personalities from across the political spectrum in an orgy of self-aggrandizement—which is to say an orgy of self-delusion. First, Charlie Hebdo is hardly the beacon of liberty that it is being

posted 9:35:39am Jan. 12, 2015 | read full post »

More American, and "Conservative," Hypocrisy on France
“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Mt. 7:5). Listening to the American media coverage—particularly the coverage of those in the “alternative media”—of the latest outburst of Islamic mas

posted 10:59:33am Jan. 09, 2015 | read full post »

A Challenge to the Partisan Consensus: Charlie Hebdo Attack NOT Terrorism
The latest event in France has elicited an array of responses from politicians and commentators here in America.  For now, I’d like to focus on the single judgment that everyone from across the political spectrum seems to share: Whether “conservatives” or “liberals,” Republicans or Dem

posted 4:01:33pm Jan. 08, 2015 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.