State representative Stephen Sandstrom (R., Utah) remembers former governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R.) less than fondly. “His record on illegal immigration is very poor as far as enforcement goes,” he tells National Review Online.
The offenses, in Sandstrom’s mind, are plentiful. In 2005, Huntsman signed a bill that granted driving privileges to illegal aliens. Instead of a driver’s license, an illegal alien could apply for a driving-privilege card, which the state distinguished from the former by stamping “not valid for identification” across its top. Four years later, Huntsman and the legislature revised the layout to make the two cards even more visually distinct. And the driving-privilege card was invalid for buying alcohol or guns, the pols insisted.
Advertisement
But Sandstrom still opposes it. “[The state] can’t control what private businesses do — if people are using it to open checking accounts in banks, for instance. We were legitimizing illegal immigrants. I think it was a very poor bill,” he says.
Huntsman’s defenders counter that illegal immigrants were getting driver’s licenses before the ex-governor had done anything. Because the Utah Department of Vehicles was lax in verifying applicants’ proofs of legal status, drivers’ licenses were effectively available to illegal aliens. This bill meant to stop that.
Sandstrom is unimpressed with this comeback. “What we should have done was just make them show proof of legal status to get drivers’ licenses.” And he’s similarly unpersuaded by another counterargument: That it’s best to dispense these cards so that illegal aliens — who will drive regardless of the public policy — will be able to get car insurance.
Sandstrom points out that it’s still possible to get insurance without a driving-privileges card — it’s just more expensive. Now, the state issues about 80,000 of these cards — renewals and new issues combined — per year. And Utah’s policy is affecting other states. “What’s happening is people are coming from other states and getting driving-privileges cards in Utah and using it as a legitimate ID card in other states. We’re facilitating illegal immigration in other states as well.”
But there’s more. In 2002, before Huntsman became governor, Utah began charging illegal aliens the in-state tuition at its state colleges and universities. Five years later, then–state representative Glenn Donnelson introduced legislation to repeal that privilege. In his way, however, stood the governor. “I’m going to fight it,” Huntsman said, adding that he would “very seriously consider vetoing” the bill.
On the campaign trail, Huntsman has spoken in similar tones. He recently told a crowd in New Hampshire that the idea of a border fence repels him. “For me, as an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me, because it is not consistent with . . . the image that we projected from the very beginning to the rest of the world,” Huntsman said.
“But the situation is such today that I don’t think we have a choice, and before we begin the conversation of processing 11 or 12 million undocumented workers, we’ve got to secure the border,” he said. And that included a fence.
On the subject of illegal aliens already here, however, Huntsman admitted, “There’s got to be an alternative rather than sending people back. That’s unrealistic.” Indeed, he’s supported a path to citizenship for that population for years.
In tone and substance, Huntsman is more forgiving of illegal immigration than many in his party would like. “I would it call it very liberal ideology,” Sandstrom says. Unfortunately for Huntsman, many Republican primary voters may well agree.
— Brian Bolduc is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.
"On the subject of illegal aliens already here, however, Huntsman admitted, “There’s got to be an alternative rather than sending people back. That’s unrealistic.” Indeed, he’s supported a path to citizenship for that population for years."
Is this just a lazy mind, or is it acquiescence for political or other purposes?
"Is this just a lazy mind, or is it acquiescence for political or other purposes?"
Well what was it when Ronald Reagan supported amnesty in 86? I think it was principled leadership - good for Huntsman for not bowing down to the immigration fearmongers.
Wrong on this fundamental issue. And if " we can't process the 11million illegals here already" the fight is already lost. If you don't have the will to deport those here illegally now, what are you going to do when 8million of them decide they don't want to pay some fine or take some class as part of a "path to citizenship"? How does Huntsman plan to deal with criminals? People who say screw you to the US and our law? If there's no consequence now because there's too many, you've got consequence later.
We need to secure the border 100% and deport every illegal alien.
Huntsman comes across as a Mormon Bush, a man of privilege who sees the state as a kind and benevolent aide to those less fortunate than himself. Not a bad trait in a person, and not likely to lead to massive state intervention when you're governor of Utah. But take that outlook to Washington and the Democrats, as they did with the Bushes, will turn that compassion into policy, and it will be their own.
Men like Huntsman have a hard time saying no to anyone. If there is one quality the next president must have, it's the ability to say no, over and over and over again until some discipline is restored to Washington. Next candidate, please.
OK, Mr. Huntsman, I'll say this in as plain a language as I can.
1 - Naturalize or mass-deport. False dilemma. Aggressively enforce current law against hiring illegals, and the main incentive stay or come in the first place will be gone. Most illegals will self-deport. The others we catch (especially the criminals) deport without too many ceremonies.
2 - Immediately stop the anchor-baby craziness: Let's stop pretending that's what the 14th amendment really means. An executive order would be enough, although we would need an adult in the White House for that. You could be that adult, Mr. Huntsman, and Americans would cheer you on by the millions.
3 - Build a fence--one that is tall, deep and double. Man the fence with the US military (now, there's a novel idea: the US military actually protecting the US). Boot out anyone caught crossing the fence; but also fingerprint him and permanently ban him from reentering US soil. Those caught crossing the fence armed and with belligerent intentions, shoot on sight. Tough? Tough.
4 - Institute a sensible immigration policy based on a) actual population needs, b) a point system that favors our national interest and c) on reason and sober consensus rather than hyperbole, mass hysteria, ethnic tribalism, vapid sentimentalism and base demagoguery.
There. Here's your new immigration policy. No need to credit me--just take it, run with it and see how your poll numbers respond. I'll take a case of wine (strictly domestic, of course) if you win the elections.
"Aggressively enforce current law against hiring illegals, and the main incentive stay or come in the first place will be gone. Most illegals will self-deport."
And this is not mass-deportation by other means?
"Immediately stop the anchor-baby craziness: Let's stop pretending that's what the 14th amendment really means."
I love people who actually use talking points as if they were making a real argument. What is an anchor baby? It is a child born in the United States- for the entire history of this country that has meant a Citizen. The language of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear too. " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Tea-Party folks cannot idolize the Constitution when it suits their needs and twist it when it doesn't.
" 4 - Institute a sensible immigration policy based on a) actual population needs, "
And what are our actual population needs - do you want to flesh that out? Are we China now - where the state will determine our population needs? How about we just let the market and individuals figure it out for themselves?
Voltaire, we think much the same, and I'd one little tweak to item 4. Any illegal immigrant seeking any type of legal status in this country must first return to the country of origin.
Huntsman is right: we probably need many of the undocumented immigrants now in the US, the problem is finding out who they are and sorting out the good from the bad. Encouraging some sort of registration, such as a driver ID card is one excellent starting point. Voltaire also makes some good points: the fence is a must.
And our immigration policy should be geared towards making our economy more vibrant and sustainable. That means that if you are young(under 40), have and keep a clean police record and can get and keep a job and pay your taxes, you can stay and get citizenship quickly and easily. What do we say no to? The elderly, the sick (yes, we need to test for and exclude those with HIV and other chronic, costly diseases who will strain our health care system). Babies are great -- as long as you can support them without recourse to food stamps, etc -- but leave grandma back in the old country.
Teaching new arrivals and their children English, citizenship, American history should of course be mandatory. A graded path to citizenship might include a 'three strikes' law with automatic deportation awaiting those who break the law.
Our country needs able-bodied, law-abiding young people with energy and the ability to work hard. Let's have a forward looking immigration policy that ensures that our population will continue to grow fast enough to offset the drag from all those ageing baby boomers.
An off-topic aside for either Mr. Bolduc or headline writer... most denizens of Utah (including myself) call themselves "Utahns" not "Utahans." Don't believe the squiggly underlines or what MS Word's spell check tells you. As evidence, browse the headlines and ledes at the /Salt Lake Tribune/ (sltrib.com) and the /Deseret News/ (desnews.com).
On topic, yes, Huntsman Junior is a squish -- a "Can't we all just get along?" kind of guy. His approach is pragmatic and nondisruptive where possible, which has its appeal, but that's not what this country needs right now. If he's on the ballot next November, I'll vote for him, but he's not my choice for the primary.
On paper, what you say makes sense. However, what offends the sense of justice of so many of us "immigration hawks" is the concept of usurpation via self-selection.
Say our immigration policy dictates that there are 100 slots for new citizens (multiply that as you see fit). Of these, should even ten be taken by people who chose to break the law, and whom fortune "blessed" by placing them next to the US-Mexico border?
How is this fair to the ten in China, India, Europe or Africa who were ready to stand in line and do things legally, but who now are told "sorry, your slot got taken by someone already in the US, who waltzed across the border illegally, but who Mary Ellen says should be rewarded with naturalization"?
This is patently unjust. Immigration is as close to a zero-sum game as it gets, since the right to relocate to the USA is (as I hope) a finite good. If there are two slots and you get chosen, I get to stay home. Perhaps not indefinitely, but you get my drift.
Another point from your post that I somewhat disagree with is that, yes, immigration should benefit the economy--but being a citizen means so much more than that. Humans (thank God) are not simply "homo economicus." Specifically, we Westerners have many common values, common ideas, a common history, even a common literature and common songs.
And I want America to remain a Western nation. After all, it's not just luck that made it into what it is. It is the coming together of Enlightenment ideas and Judeo-Christian values plus an optimism that can only come from a consciously self-reliant and politically mature people.
(And don't anybody say I mean anything racial by this--it's purely cultural.)
Of course, there is the process of assimilation that you talk about. But to dream that millions of people from wildly different cultures would, after a round of Citizenship and language tests (which are already mandatory, BTW--how's that working out?) turn into an all-American vignette from "The Rifleman" is just that--a dream.
In truth, mass importation of millions of uneducated individuals from corners of the world that share close to zero with our culture amounts to National self-immolation. It does not matter how able-bodied they are. And that is precisely what we are doing now.
It is short-termism of the worst kind, and we are already starting to see the changes. I came to this country exactly 21 years ago (yes, I'm an immigrant), when gas was 80 cents a gallon, jobs were plentiful, you could get service in perfect English pretty much anywhere and $150k bought a dream home for all but the most extravagant. The change is palpable.
This issue, more than any other, needs SOBER ANALYSIS and a SOBER DEBATE. Immigration equals the nature of the country we'll bequeath to our children and grandchildren. Let's not let scofflaws dictate it by default; and let's not sacrifice our culture on the altar of short-term economic or long-term political gain.
Tuppy, I'm glad you love me. I love you too, in spite of the non-arguments you advance. Make your posts a bit more cogent, and I may answer them. Sorry to be dismissive. BTW, cool handle--I'm a huge PG Wodehouse fan.
...well, the real Voltaire is someone whose shoes I'm not even fit to tie--or buckle, perhaps more accurately. (Besides real life calls.) :-)
Tuppy--if you want to hear the Conservative viewpoint articulated much better than I ever could, go to Radio Derb's archives, and listen to the July 2, 2010 issue.
I agree with pretty much everything Derb says there, and truth be told, my own ideas about immigration have come into much sharper focus after listening to that broadcast.
Have a good one--I'm sure we'll "argue" again some other time!
The only reason Huntsman is being taken seriously as a candidate is because the same media that foisted McCain on us in 2008 would love to see Huntsman as the GOP's 2012 nominee.
He has accomplished very little in life that wasn't the direct result of his being born into the Huntsman family.
He was a mediocre governor of Utah and most of the "conservative accomplishments" he now touts were the result of the our Republican legislature. We do not need another open borders apologist as President or as the GOP's nominee.
"The only reason Huntsman is being taken seriously as a candidate is because the same media that foisted McCain on us in 2008 would love to see Huntsman as the GOP's 2012 nominee."
Do you have any evidence to back up your conspiracy theory?
Huntsman is indeed VERY extreme on illegal immigration by supporting "path to citizenship" i.e., mass amnesty for illegal aliens.
This disqualifies him for the nomination, and for any other higher office for that matter.
Not only conservatives, but most Americans, support enforcement of our current immigration laws -- which will reduce the illegal population over time negating the need for another amnesty or mass deportations.
This is the reality that insensitive RINO elitists like Huntsman refuse to accept.
Now I hope Mitt Romney hasn't flip flopped and still firmly opposes "path to citizenship" amnesty like in 2008.
The public and the Supremes are in the enforcement camp, as evidenced by Rass, Quinnipiac etc. polling and the two recent 5-3 decisions.
Huntsman is on the wrong side of this issue. We have to finally and solely enforce our existing laws, which we have been waiting for since at least 1986.
RE: Huntsman, the CoC, La Raza, LULAC et al: cry, whine, and call us bad names all you want: but the American people still reject amnesty.
Follow
