THE MORNING after President Obamas State of the Union address Politico had a story on how Republicans had responded to one contentious issue. The headline: Priebus struggles to explain GOP immigration messages.
That would be Reince Priebus the Republican Party chairman. His struggle was to clarify why Iowas new senator Joni Ernst said nothing at all about immigration in her 10-minute reply to the president whereas Florida Representative Carlos Curbelo in a Spanish-language version of the GOP response urged Obama to work with Republicans to create permanent solutions for our immigration system to secure our borders and modernize legal immigration. Good thing Priebus wasnt asked about the formal Tea Party response to the presidents speech delivered by another Florida Republican Rep. Curt Clawson or hed have had still more reason to squirm. Speaking in English and Spanish Clawson called pointedly for embracing … legal immigrants and the millions waiting in line legally to begin their own American Dream.
Then there was Iowa Representative Steve Kings rude Twitter slam against Obama for inviting a deportable to sit in the House gallery as a guest of the First Lady. That was a reference to 20-year-old Ana Zamora a Texas student who was brought illegally to the United States as an infant and who benefited from Obamas 2012 executive order indefinitely extending legal status to thousands of similarly situated immigrants.
Though Kings tweet wasnt an official GOP statement it created some instant awkwardness for the Republican presidential hopefuls heading to Iowa for a Saturday freedom summit hosted by … King. When one of those hopefuls Senator Marco Rubio was asked about Kings nasty tone his answer was careful: We have to always remind ourselves that were talking about human beings with hopes and dreams and families.
Plainly the clearest element of the GOP message on immigration is that the GOP has no clear message on immigration. The subject was barely mentioned in the presidents address but that didnt stop the loyal opposition from once again getting into an intramural tangle over it.
But is that a bad thing?
For any large political party a boisterous battle over policy and principle is a sign of fitness not feebleness. While diversity is a sacred cow on the left it is on the right where real diversity diversity of ideas and viewpoints has most often been showcased. In the 1970s Ronald Reagan famously debated William F. Buckley Jr. on whether the United States should relinquish the Panama Canal. In the 1980s Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich fiercely clashed over supply-side tax cuts. More recently Republicans have gone at each other over war in Iraq education reform and enhanced interrogation.
However disconcerting in the short run the rights current rumble over immigration policy is heartening especially when the argument focuses on ideals and values and reflects a thoughtful interest in crafting wise not merely popular public policy. In a new monograph from Encounter Books Open Immigration: Yea & Nay Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute provide a brief yet splendid example of how uplifting the debate over immigration can be.
Each lays out his case in prose that is clear quick factual and respectful.
Krikorian a well-known immigration restrictionist argues that while mass immigration may have suited the United States in the 19th-century it is harmful in the 21st-century. It poses security and economic threats undermines assimilation and retards productivity gains by flooding the market with cheap labor. A modern society doesnt actually need any immigration he writes; his proposal would slash the annual influx from 1 million to about 400000 still higher than any other nation in the world.
Nowrasteh by contrast wants more legal immigration. America isnt being swamped with newcomers far from it. As a fraction of our population immigrant inflows are small compared to most developed countries. Every policy generates stresses and strains he notes but there is no question that immigration enlarges the US economic pie. A freer immigration system would not only be economically beneficial to the United States Nowrasteh argues. It would also be consistent with our principles of limited government free markets and individual liberty.
These dueling essays are a pleasure to read. Each advocate strengthens his case paradoxically by granting that the other side raises serious challenges and attempting to meet them. To be sure Krikorian and Nowrasteh arent politicians ravenous for votes and approval ratings. But their debate exemplifies what is possible even on such an incendiary issue.
Its true: Republicans and others on the right battling it out over immigration seem awfully fractious and confused these days. For those who take their ideas seriously thats often how the democratic process works.
Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe a radio political commentator and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
THE MORNING after President Obamas State of the Union address Politico had a story on how Republicans had responded to one contentious issue. The headline: Priebus struggles to explain GOP immigration messages.
That would be Reince Priebus the Republican Party chairman. His struggle was to clarify why Iowas new senator Joni Ernst said nothing at all about immigration in her 10-minute reply to the president whereas Florida Representative Carlos Curbelo in a Spanish-language version of the GOP response urged Obama to work with Republicans to create permanent solutions for our immigration system to secure our borders and modernize legal immigration. Good thing Priebus wasnt asked about the formal Tea Party response to the presidents speech delivered by another Florida Republican Rep. Curt Clawson or hed have had still more reason to squirm. Speaking in English and Spanish Clawson called pointedly for embracing … legal immigrants and the millions waiting in line legally to begin their own American Dream.
Then there was Iowa Representative Steve Kings rude Twitter slam against Obama for inviting a deportable to sit in the House gallery as a guest of the First Lady. That was a reference to 20-year-old Ana Zamora a Texas student who was brought illegally to the United States as an infant and who benefited from Obamas 2012 executive order indefinitely extending legal status to thousands of similarly situated immigrants.
Though Kings tweet wasnt an official GOP statement it created some instant awkwardness for the Republican presidential hopefuls heading to Iowa for a Saturday freedom summit hosted by … King. When one of those hopefuls Senator Marco Rubio was asked about Kings nasty tone his answer was careful: We have to always remind ourselves that were talking about human beings with hopes and dreams and families.
Plainly the clearest element of the GOP message on immigration is that the GOP has no clear message on immigration. The subject was barely mentioned in the presidents address but that didnt stop the loyal opposition from once again getting into an intramural tangle over it.
But is that a bad thing?
For any large political party a boisterous battle over policy and principle is a sign of fitness not feebleness. While diversity is a sacred cow on the left it is on the right where real diversity diversity of ideas and viewpoints has most often been showcased. In the 1970s Ronald Reagan famously debated William F. Buckley Jr. on whether the United States should relinquish the Panama Canal. In the 1980s Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich fiercely clashed over supply-side tax cuts. More recently Republicans have gone at each other over war in Iraq education reform and enhanced interrogation.
However disconcerting in the short run the rights current rumble over immigration policy is heartening especially when the argument focuses on ideals and values and reflects a thoughtful interest in crafting wise not merely popular public policy. In a new monograph from Encounter Books Open Immigration: Yea & Nay Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute provide a brief yet splendid example of how uplifting the debate over immigration can be.
Each lays out his case in prose that is clear quick factual and respectful.
Krikorian a well-known immigration restrictionist argues that while mass immigration may have suited the United States in the 19th-century it is harmful in the 21st-century. It poses security and economic threats undermines assimilation and retards productivity gains by flooding the market with cheap labor. A modern society doesnt actually need any immigration he writes; his proposal would slash the annual influx from 1 million to about 400000 still higher than any other nation in the world.
Nowrasteh by contrast wants more legal immigration. America isnt being swamped with newcomers far from it. As a fraction of our population immigrant inflows are small compared to most developed countries. Every policy generates stresses and strains he notes but there is no question that immigration enlarges the US economic pie. A freer immigration system would not only be economically beneficial to the United States Nowrasteh argues. It would also be consistent with our principles of limited government free markets and individual liberty.
These dueling essays are a pleasure to read. Each advocate strengthens his case paradoxically by granting that the other side raises serious challenges and attempting to meet them. To be sure Krikorian and Nowrasteh arent politicians ravenous for votes and approval ratings. But their debate exemplifies what is possible even on such an incendiary issue.
Its true: Republicans and others on the right battling it out over immigration seem awfully fractious and confused these days. For those who take their ideas seriously thats often how the democratic process works.
Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe a radio political commentator and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.
