Doug Hoffman, the Hinge of Open Borders?

Stephen T. writes:

With regard to the enthusiasm over Douglas Hoffman as a health-care zapping conservative, I sound a warning: if Hoffman is the “Hinge of Fate,” that hinge is on a door that swings open wide at the Mexican border. He is a classic Cato Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Jobs Americans won’t do / Superior Mexican family values,” Bush-Rove, pro-amnesty Republican. Read his statements on illegal immigration and amnesty here and continued here. At the first link Hoffman is quoted at his site:

There is no question that our immigration policies are flawed. The answer, though, is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States—and to work here—while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

He is also a vigorous supporter of increased mass legal immigration (and don’t count on him looking to places like Sweden or New Zealand to source this human wave—it’s all Mexicans, all the time, folks.) As the writer notes, his positions don’t really differ much from those publicly expressed by the Mexican consul to the U.S.

I have been warning (to deaf ears) that a loss on health care will result in an inevitable victory for amnesty because (1) Democrats will be desperate and 100 percent united to hand Obama some major legislative victory at something, and (2) this newly empowered coalition of anti-health care Republicans like Hoffman are in the tank with the exact same interests that have amnesty/open borders as their highest priority.

You may be getting a vote against health care for American citizens with Hoffman, but you’re also electing a sure “Yes” vote on amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico. I’m sure Kristol et al are very aware of the indirect bargain that is being struck here … also sure they couldn’t be more delighted.

LA replies:

Thanks to Stephen for this information. Without having looked into Hoffman’s positions, I had vaguely had that sort of concern about him, based on the repeated statements in the conservative media that he is in favor of lower taxes, etc., but with never a reference to his views on cultural issues.

And of course the immigration position of Hoffman’s most prominent supporter, Sarah Palin, is, like Hoffman’s, indistinguishable from that of the neocons. Yet the configuration of American politics is set up so that such people are defined as “conservative,” even “far-right.”

So what are actual conservatives—people who believe in preserving/restoring our traditional culture and nation—to do? Since Owens is probably also an open immigration proponent, isn’t it still more helpful for Hoffman to be elected?

Also, I disagree with Stephen’s implication that it would be better for health care to pass, because if it is defeated, the Democrats will be absolutely determined to pass comprehensive immigration reform. First, I don’t think that’s a sound way to look at political issues. You’ve got to deal with each issue based on its merits, not try to game fate. Second, if the Democrats fail to pass health care, it won’t be for want of trying. So if they fail to pass health care no matter how hard they tried, why should we assume that their equally determined efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration bill must succeed?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2009 10:17 AM | Send