Tuesday, October 8, 2013

How Immigration Reform Exposes Rift Among Republicans

Derrick Morgan, who worked for Dick Cheney in the past, is part of a loud segment of the Republican base that claims illegal immigrants are law breakers and giving them 'amnesty' is unfair to those 'standing in line'.

What's interesting about these folks is the fact that they ignore history, as Alexander Norwasteh explains in an excelent article:
Because so many could come legally, unauthorized immigration was rare.
That ended in the early twentieth century with the Progressive Era’s emphasis on protecting labor unions. Beginning temporarily in 1921, and then permanently in 1924, new national origin quotas limited immigration to countries from Northern and Western Europe, whose immigrants were more skilled and less likely to join unions.

Worse, those laws were also inspired by the Progressive eugenics movement at the time.
Derrick Morgan sounds more like a progressive democrat then a principled Republican who knows the history of the party when he writes:
'Congress should pass only immigration reform measures that are good for American workers.'
Similar argument is offcourse made by the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute:
'those hurt by higher immigration may be low-skilled workers who already are having a hard time economically.'
Completely irrelevant to the problem you are trying to solve, if you ask me.

 The anti-immigration segment of the Republican party offcourse ignores history, just like it does concerning the Princeton's thoughtleadership at the founding of our Republic.

Both are signs of a fundamental shift away from neoconservative and communitarian politics to a more traditional Whig approach to Republican politics. The Republican party will either go back to it's radical roots, or it will seize to exist.

People are beginning to see that the David Barton wing of the party (Glenn Beck etc etc) has no idea what it's talking about and has nothing to offer but unpleasant obstructionism and shallow ahistoric nationalism, as illustrated in the piece by Derrick Morgan. It party explains why this segment is ganging up against Mitch McConnel.

Both Club for Growth and FreedomWorks have said:
'they intend to be active either supporting or opposing the legislation that is expected to emerge.'
Amazing. Apparently the fate of millions of immigrants isn't important enough to discuss. It's clear CATO is doing a much better job and much closer to the current center of gravity of the emerging Republican consensus on immigration.

Evangelical Republicans can easily go back to their traditional Whig roots and still stay Republican. Modern day libertarians will end up in about that same place.

No comments: