Rick Santorum had never been especially distinctive on immigration. He was pretty good on enforcement issues, but his constant invocation of his immigrant father and grandfather suggested to me that he might be one of those people who needs to compensate for the grievous sin of supporting immigration enforcement by calling for increased legal immigration.
I was wrong. On Friday at a campaign event in South Carolina he called for an end to the Visa Lottery and to chain migration of “extended family.” He wasn’t specific about the meaning of “extended family,” but even if he means only the brother-sister category, that would be a combined reduction of more than 100,000 new legal immigrants per year. What’s more, those two categories are the ones that cause what in the arms-control business they call “lateral proliferation” — the establishment of new migration streams that give rise to future illegal immigration pressures and political demands for increased legal immigration. Even though he also called for an increase in temporary farmworker visas (they’re already unlimited, but farmers don’t like the requirements), it’s still the first time in this campaign — or any other recent presidential one, I think — that any major candidate has called for curbs on legal immigration. As a result, Numbers USA has upgraded him to an A-minus. I still think Romney’s the least-bad overall, but I hope this will be a precedent for the Romney-Martinez campaign in the fall.
I've been backing Romney almost solely because of his best-among-the-GOP-candidates stance on immigration -- and opposing Santorum because of his perceived "softness" on the issue as a "compassionate conservative" (shudder).
Like Mark, I still think Romney is the one with the best understanding of the dangers that our illegal-immigration and low-skill chain immigration policies are creating, and that he is the candidate most likely to finally address these problems. I also think that the nomination is pretty much Romney's at this point.
However, there is speculation that Santorum is sticking in the race in an attempt to angle for Attorney General or another position. His stronger stance on immigration voiced today makes me much more happy with the prospect of an Attorney General Santorum than did his previous perceived stance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh yes, that's brilliant. Let's decrease legal immigration. As Wile E. Coyote said, "sheer, unadulterated brilliance."
It's not like immigration has been key to this nation, right?
What would you have, Mr. Krikorian? Everyone who is not a full-blooded Indian has to leave?
It's not like we're a nation suffering from upside down demographics, right? It's not like we need productive individuals in the tax base, right?
And finally, why on earth would we want to DISCOURAGE immigrants who are appropriately skilled and who have family in the country already? The more support they have, the less likely they are to end up on the rocks (and the dole). So exactly why would we want to have an immigration policy that specifically EXCLUDES people who already have some support in the country?
Good grief.
Mr. Krikorian's post is an excellent illustration of how our immigration policy is so perverse. We allow the (illegal) migration of unskilled workers, but draw the line at the legal migration of skilled workers. We want to discourage the migration of workers who have support networks.
The interesting thing about Mr. Krikorian's post was neither the content nor the policy proposals (those were at best, misguided and silly). It was the fact that he "outed" himself as a nativist -- he's now openly cheering for the reduction of legal migration. That in an age where we desperately need productive, skilled workers who share core American values.
Fascinatiing stuff -- outing yourself for wanting to end legal migration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does this correspond with Santorum's views that society starts with family? Reducing the legal immigration of families of legal immigrants doesn't seem to be very consistent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll start believing Santorum when he calls for a 2,000 mile, triple-barrier, physical fence.
Liars favor alternatives because these programs can be installed but deliberately defeated administratively and operationally. That's why open-borders/amnesty squishes back a virtual fence and Guardsmen on the borders.
By the way, one of the advantages of the physical fence is that it frees up manpower for increased searches and deportations inland. That, I assume, is one reason opponents hate it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey may also hate it because it makes virtually no sense unless you fence the other side too. And it's ridiculously expensive to maintain and patrol. Costs and such are things people care about these days.
But the title of the original post makes little sense. "Gets Better"? Better at what? Losing elections? As if he hadn't already done a great job losing elections this will certainly put him over the top.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse