NR opens door to amnesty for illegals and for increase in legals

The editors of National Review opine on open immigration:

The wisest course for Republicans would be to say something like the following: “Immigration has made this country better. Immigration can continue to work for America if we make sure that it proceeds in an orderly, manageable, and rational way. We will enforce our laws at the border and the workplace. Once we have brought illegal immigration under control, we will consider increasing legal immigration levels and granting an amnesty to some illegal immigrants who are already here. Whatever we decide, we will at all times treat illegal immigrants humanely.”

One is glad, of course, that NR has been standing against any amnesty at the present time, but now it turns out that they are against it only at the present time. They should not be for amnesty under any circumstances, let alone calling an amnesty the “wisest course.” Even worse, part of their “wisest course” is the notion that once illegal immigration has been brought under control, an increase in legal immigration should also be considered.

A reader adds: “A recent Kate O’Beirne cover story suggested increasing legal immigration. So it’s not clear what NR’s editors think the problem is at all, if they are interested in increasing the immigration load.” Indeed.

However, what really gives the NR editors’ game away is their call for an “orderly, manageable, and rational” immigration procedure. The managerial language shows that they have no consciousness of any larger national ends by which we judge the value of immigration, what immigration is for, how it may relate to our national culture and identity. To these young men without chests, as C.S. Lewis might have called them, immigration, the phenomenon that, more than any other, determines our national destiny, is a meaningless, culturally-neutral process to be rationally conducted in such a way as to avoid any slip-ups. They are not approaching the issue as conservatives or as patriots, they are approaching it as liberal technocrats.

Yet another clue to where the boys of NR are really coming from is their silly assurance that all illegal aliens must “at all times” be treated “humanely.” Listen. In the real world, if we are to be serious about getting control of this vast problem of illegal immigration, which is nothing less than an invasion of our country that is being encouraged and orchestrated by the Mexican state, we must be consistent, stern, and tough. That will be impossible if the highest rule controlling the government’s conduct is that all illegals must be treated with humane consideration for their feelings in each and every circumstance. Let us also recall that by prevailing contemporary standards, which NR is never far out of step with, it is inhumane to make illegal aliens return to their country at all.

What a measely, pathetic performance.

- end of initial entry -

Gerald M. writes:

Good comments at VFR this morning about No Left Turn. What does that title mean, by the way? It has no honest connection to the text of the editorial. In fact, it is the opposite of the truth, if I have understood NR’s previous statements on immigration the past few weeks. They have executed a hard left turn from their earlier position.

Did you notice how badly written it is? A cooperative effort, I suppose, between Lowry, Goldberg and Ponnuru.

And the language, so carefully, so cravenly, PC. Even The Weekly Standard has more manly prose than this milquetoast.

Another thing which strikes me is its abruptness. I had been heartened by NR’s strong stand against the Bush proposals and the Senate bill, which, coming after a decade of gradually weakening opposition in its pages to mass immigration, came as a pleasant surprise.

Then, all of a sudden, the white flag.

Perhaps, contra Frum’s reply to you, they really were devastated by being called yahoos by Kristol and Brooks.

Or maybe the old man snapped his fingers. You referred to Sobran as a broken spirit; I think the same can be said of Buckley, judging from the multiple retreats and surrenders his magazine has executed over the past 20 or 30 years.

Good guess; I also was thinking Lowry, Ponnuru, and Goldberg.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 25, 2006 09:00 PM | Send