Fellow NextGenGOP contributor Abel S. Delgado, in his post entitled “Draft Ridge and Castle for 2010 Senate Races,” is right to encourage the Republican Party to maintain a strong center, particularly in the Northeast, where GOP fortunes have diminished substantially since the 1990′s. Mike Castle should be supported in the Delaware Senate race in 2010, and Ridge should be encouraged to take on Toomey in the GOP primary next year () for Arlen Specter’s seat. Another possibility would be for Congressman to seek the seat. Similarly, Mark Kirk the Senate race in Illinois for the seat now held by Roland Burris, though the governorship in Illinois presents an alluring possibility for him too.
Nonetheless, Delgado got it wrong in his post entitled “How the Minutemen can destroy the Republicans” when discussing a key aspect of the expected 2010 GOP primary in Arizona. The incumbent, 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, has a strong track record serving the people of his state. McCain is certainly worthy of another term in the U.S. Senate as Delgado suggests. This, however, is in spite of rather than because of the elder statesman’s views on immigration policy.
While few likely would dispute that U.S. immigration rules could use an overhaul, amnesty does nothing to address the fundamental issues at stake in Mexico and elsewhere. As long as there are no real consequences for entering the United States illegally, there is no incentive for the situation in Mexico to be improved. Americans of Mexican and other Latin American background are, and should be regarded as, an integral part of U.S. society, just as Americans of other backgrounds should be. Part of what makes the United States the great country that it is is its sheer diversity of, and harmony among, peoples of various origins from all corners of the globe. Even with this reality, bigotry does exist and should be redressed.
That said, change occurs in a society when no other options for improving one’s situation are tenable. The failure to have a stable, enforced border not only undermines the security of the United States, but the potential for real stability and prosperity in Mexico and beyond. Indeed, the United States of America would not be the country that it is today had its underclass been able to escape discrimination and discontent rather than remain and address these issues directly. Abel Delgado is right in his concerns, but wrong in his approach to addressing them. A failure to have an effective and intelligent border defense and equally effective, consistent, and enforceable immigration laws serves the very forces doing the most harm in Mexico today.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
- On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
- Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
- A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
- Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010
Well said. Just to clarify, I am not against strong border defense. I wouldn’t even mind if the National Guard gets called to the border in times of danger such as spikes in the Mexican Drug Wars. I am not against immigration laws either. Of course we need those laws and people should follow them. My problem is that the Minutemen’s version of border defense a are irrational, damaging, and will only make the problems worse. As I’ve said, walls do not work either. And I also think McCain’s efforts to to work for immigration reform were not “amnesty.” Amnesty, like what Reagan pushed through in the 1980s, does not require there to be any penalty for breaking immigration laws. McCain’s bill did. Nevertheless, I am glad you wrote this piece and think we agree more than we disagree.
You are probably right that we agree more than we disagree. That goes for these issues, but probably others as well more broadly. Indeed, it seems to be in the minutiae that we disagreeing, concurring on the positive aspects of having new Americans and on the over-the-top aspects of the Minutemen movement.