Hmmm... The ANTI Leader Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center of Immigration Studies and author of the ANTI's "Rule of Law" argument said to the RNC, if they ever hope to gain leadership again, they must change their approach towards Immigration. He says the Current Approach (Hate Talk/Animosity) "is both incomplete and counterproductive."
While I agree the Hate Talk must end (meaning ANTIs MUST STOP using the terms: Anchor Babies, Mexifornia, 3rd World Country, Illeegal Aliens, etc.) and some softening on the judges' ability to allow Legal Immigrants with deportation orders to stay, I do not see changes from the current argument, including no change to Mass Deportation through attrition/enforcement which results in Racial Profiling and Hate Crimes.
The only changes I see he is making is using more politically correct language and significantly reducing overall (legal and illegal) immigration in the future. In addition, the changes he is recommending will be adamently opposed by the many extremist and angry ANTIs who I think will continue with their angry rhetoric.
Readers, what do you think of the changes Kirkorian is recommending?
Excerpts from Mark Kirkorian's article in the National Review: (click on link for complete article)
With Republicans shut out of power, now is the time to take a new look at their approach to immigration, to develop a new and distinctive alternative to the majority party on immigration, what is needed is not so much a reversal in specifics but a different framework within which to fit the specifics.
For too long the Republican story line has been “Too Much Lawbreaking,” when instead the real problem is “Too Much Immigration” — only one part of which involves lawbreaking. This exclusive focus on illegal immigration — opposing amnesty and pushing for more enforcement — is both incomplete and counterproductive.
1. Incomplete because the effects of illegal immigration aren’t that different from those of legal immigration — an illiterate Central American farmer with a green card is just as unsuited for a 21st-century economy as an illiterate Central American farmer without a green card.
2. Counterproductive because the focus on criminality can seem punitive and serve to polarize the debate, potentially alienating not just immigrant voters, who really aren’t that numerous, but the native-born, who want less immigration but don’t want to feel bad about themselves for holding such a view.
A new approach would retain the widely popular, and morally compelling, support for more consistent application of immigration laws and opposition to legalization — but make them part of a broader push for a more moderate level of future immigration overall.
If the debate focuses solely on legality, ultimately there’s no real argument against amnesty and open borders. You just legalize the whole thing and the issue goes away — no illegals, no problem. In the appropriately larger context, amnesty is bad not only because it rewards lawbreaking (which it does), but also for the same reason that the Visa lottery is bad: it leads to excessive immigration. A new GOP approach to immigration would also recognize that there are two components to the debate — immigration policy and immigrant policy, the first governing who and how many we take, the second how we treat people once they’re here...
The ..option .. most Americans (of whatever party) intuitively support — a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration, one that seeks a smaller number of future admissions but extends a warmer welcome to those admitted. Ironically, such reductions in immigration could actually drain away some of the venom from the immigration debate by allowing a more relaxed approach to those immigrants we do let in. For instance, something called “cancellation of removal” can be used by a judge to allow a legal immigrant to stay despite a deportation order, because of hardship to his family. Because of mass immigration, causing the system to be a sieve, Congress raised the bar in 1996, from “extreme hardship” to “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” A lower level of immigration, allowing us to reestablish control, would permit Congress to trim back a couple of adjectives, because the problem wouldn’t be as acute. The same could apply to other areas, such as welfare eligibility, where tough standards are required in the face of massive numbers, but more flexibility is possible when the tide ebbs. Thus a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration can serve two purposes — it puts the illegal immigration question into a larger context, providing more than simply a gut-level opposition to amnesty. And it can allow a more flexible and less punitive approach to management of immigrants already here, making a policy that will necessarily involve a certain degree of sternness be somewhat less severe.