There isn’t a lot of common sense when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. The two major camps on the issue fall into an isolationist policy vs. an amnesty policy. Neither one of those choices is intelligent. The Democratic party views illegal immigrants as a potential new voting bloc, though I’m not so sure that’s really the case in the long run. Senator Harry Ried of Nevada is still beating the “immigration reform” drum despite the fact it’s killing his reelection chances.
“We are going to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” Reid told the crowd. “We need to do this this year. We can’t let excuses like a Supreme Court nomination get in the way.”
Reid promised the legislation would include provisions to secure both the north and south borders, revisions to a guest worker program, and provisions to deal with illegal immigrants already in the country.
“There are no excuses. This is something America needs,” Reid said. “We’re going to do immigration reform just like we did health care reform.”
Yikes, just like health care reform? Is that a threat or a promise. I don’t even think the Democrats are crazy enough to push amnesty through Congress. I don’t understand why we can just crack down on illegal immigration and create a lawful way for Mexicans to become citizens. However, I don’t understand the isolationist position either.
The isolationist portion of the GOP don’t want anyone to move here. These people don’t understand free trade or basic economics. This is the more populist position at the current time, but it’s not one that should be encouraged. With the Democrats in power this is the best chance for immigration reform, but no one on the left is talking about creating a legal path to citizenship without amnesty.
If Harry Ried and company decide to push this over the summer the elections in November could be a bloodbath. I’m talking a Republican super majority. The Democrats decided to lose the majority by passing ObamaCare, but I don’t think that amnesty is worth the political fallout.
I don’t like Glen Beck. There, I said it. He’s an emotional, populist, conspiracy-believing talking head who’s not helping the debate in the United States. Beck isn’t a conservative and his on-air style isn’t good for Americans. I’m not the only conservative who shares this opinion. Peter Wehner has a great piece on Beck and he hits all the right points.
He [Beck] seems to be more of a populist and libertarian than a conservative, more of a Perotista than a Reaganite. His interest in conspiracy theories is disquieting, as is his admiration for Ron Paul and his charges of American “imperialism.” (He is now talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere.) Some of Beck’s statements–for example, that President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”-are quite unfair and not good for the country. His argument that there is very little difference between the two parties is silly, and his contempt for parties in general is anti-Burkean (Burke himself was a great champion of political parties). And then there is his sometimes bizarre behavior, from tearing up to screaming at his callers. Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment, and anger–the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.
I understand that a political movement is a mansion with many rooms; the people who occupy them are involved in intellectual and policy work, in politics, and in polemics. Different people take on different roles. And certainly some of the things Beck has done on his program are fine and appropriate. But the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.
I don’t share Wehner’s opinion about Beck as a libertarian, but everything else is correct. Simply labeling Beck a right wing fanatic is a dangerous tactic and it only feeds his rhetoric. The public is becoming more and more disenchanted with the Democrat and Republican parties, and the rise of Beck is partly because of this trend. I for one, don’t care what the babbling man has to say about any topic.
Recent Comments