In addition to trying to stake out space as the sure social conservative, Mitt Romney is apparently trying to move far to the right on the issue of immigration. Check out this story in today’s Miami Herald. And this op-ed, also in today’s Miami Herald. (Romney is traveling to Miami this weekend and is getting a lot of attention because of that).
For many reasons, I am distressed that Romney is becoming the anti-immigrant candidate. But I also think we need to be clear why.
Romney is apparently in favor of some kind of employer ID card to weed out illegal immigrants. He wants to “secure the borders” and make sure kids learn in English. He opposes amnesty. Romney is clearly more anti-immigrant on these issues than McCain and Giuliani, who are much less willing to bash illegals.
Let me make this very clear: it is not a “conservative” position to oppose immigration. Conservatives (of which I am one) are: 1)pro-business, free-trade, economic liberty, low taxes 2)support a strong national defense program and 3)support traditional values on social issues. Think Ronald Reagan. If the illegal immigrant debate were to concentrate on number 2, which has to do with keeping out terrorists, it would be a conservative position and would approach it with conservative solutions. But of course the debate is not about that, it’s about preventing mostly Mexican immigrants from “Hispanizing” the United States. And there is nothing at all conservative about that.
In fact, President Bush and his brother Jeb Bush (the current leaders of the conservative movement in the U.S.) are famously pro-immigrant. And so is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, another long-term source of conservative thought. Ronald Reagan was pro-immigrant and signed one of the biggest “amnesty” bills in history in the 1980s. The reason is that it is good for business, economic growth and the country in general to welcome immigrants.
Personally, if I were running for president, I would solve the immigration problem by setting up border processing stations along the Mexican border and in major entry stations (Miami, NY, LA) and announcing to the world that any immigrant who wants to come to the United States can come. Of course this program would involve background checks, fingerprinting and other means to prevent terrorists. And it would pay for itself because we would charge, say, $2,000 per immigrant. (Keep in mind immigrants pay that and more to Coyotes today to find their way across the border).
Given Mitt’s famous problem-solving abilities, I’m somewhat surprised he is not looking for more innovative solutions than basically adopting the nativist Tom Tancredo position.
But, then again, I’m not all that surprised.
The reason Mitt is doing this is pure politics. The Republican party desperately needs to avoid a third party candidate from the Right. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, the two anti-immigrant candidates, are itching to be the right-wing third party candidates to help their national profiles. So, it appears to me that Mitt is triangulating. I don’t buy that he will be the anti-immigrant president if he is elected. I don’t think his heart would be in it, and it would be bad for business and the economy. But he needs to appear anti-immigrant to stave off Tancredo and Hunter but capture some of their votes in the primaries.
Do I like this? No way. I would prefer Mitt to take the high road and the Bush brother approach, which is to state openly that immigrants are good for the United States. But I also understand why he’s doing it, and so I’ll hold my nose and continue to support him — for now.