P.J. O’Rourke has an article in the Weekly Standard on how conservatives have screwed up. I like P.J. and find him smart and funny, but I’ve always been suspicious of him since when liberals say there are no funny conservatives, they always name him as an exception.
Anyway, his article is pretty good but then there is this part:
Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren’t after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care.
I don’t know what it is about illegal immigration that suddenly turns fine conservatives like the WSJ crowd into the worst liberals. And what I mean by the worst liberals is that they try to throw up a bunch of smoke and never tell you exactly what their goals are. This is why liberals don’t work on talk radio: If they clearly say what they mean, it scares even them.
P.J. does the usual dishonest thing of ignoring that the whole debate is about illegal immigration, makes an emotional appeal about how mean everyone is, and never says what he ultimately wants. He later implies some sort of amnesty-path to citizenship program, but what does that mean in the end? He doesn’t like fences, so does he want open borders? He doesn’t honestly think rewarding people who come here illegally will cause less people to come here illegally, so he’s either for doing away with the border or keeping a broken system. Both of those ideas sounds abhorrent, so he tap dances around ever saying them.
Also, what’s it with the conservative “elite” and yard care? Why do they always bring that up? I can just imagine them sitting around sipping martinis fretting about how if the flow of illegal immigrants is stopped they’ll never be able to get their lawn cut for below minimum wage. I know I had my suggestions the other day for the defining principles of conservatism, but maybe I should add another: If you can’t take care of your lawn without a complete breakdown of national sovereignty, maybe you’re not responsible enough to have one. Real conservatives know how to cut their own @#$%ing lawns. I’ve been mowing lawns since I was kid to get my below minimum wage allowance. I don’t need a permanent underclass of cheap labor to take care of my yard or home improvements… but maybe that’s just me and other responsible Americans.
Anyway, I had a new idea for a compromise to solve the illegal immigration crisis (maybe more workable than the obliterate Mexico one which too many people considered the same as amnesty). They keep saying it’s infeasible to deport twelve million people, and maybe they’re right. Perhaps we’ve been tolerating this for too long to just suddenly crack down on things like that. Plus, it’s probably really hard for Mexicans to follow a legal path here because they basically don’t have a functional government (What do they have down there? Like a bunch of tribal leaders or something?).
So here’s the compromise: If they register with the government, illegal immigrants can stay here legally. They get to share in American prosperity with no more worries of deportation.
But they can’t ever be citizens.
That’s the consequence for the action. They disenfranchised themselves. They showed they don’t care about the rule of law, so why should they ever get a say on what the rule of law is? Their children of course will get to be citizens, but not them. That’s the punishment that fits the crime. If you can’t follow our rules like the other immigrants, then you can’t ever fully be one of us.
Also, because I know there are some conservatives really worried about it, we can give illegal immigrants a special waiver so they can legally cut lawns for below minimum wage. Apparently, those people will never sign on to any plan that might leave them cutting their own lawns.