The Right Opinion
Stop Racial Pandering
Harry Reid has stuck his foot in his mouth once again, this time suggesting he doesn't know "how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." Really? You can't be both Hispanic and Republican? I guess Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, John Sanchez, and Brian Sandoval -- to name just the top tier of Republican Hispanics who have won their party's nomination for statewide office this year -- had either better quit the GOP or change their names. This kind of racial stereotyping is offensive. Liberals have engaged in it for years, but conservatives aren't immune either.
This week, I wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the case for birthright citizenship. I won't rehash the arguments -- based on the history of the 14th Amendment and legal precedent -- but what was germane here was the response it engendered from those who disagree with me on the issue. It's something I run into every time I discuss immigration. My critics nearly universally assume I take a position favoring more generous legal immigration and a temporary worker program -- which I think would drastically reduce illegal immigration -- because I am supposedly Mexican.
Anyone who knows me, or my political history, knows that I've been fighting identity politics since I was in my early 20s, 40 years and counting. I favor assimilation and English as the official language. And I oppose bilingual education, bilingual ballots, race-based affirmative action, and racial gerrymandering -- and have incurred considerable wrath from liberals and Hispanic interest groups for my conservative positions on these issues.
I don't favor immigration reform because of my ethnic heritage but because I think it's good for the American economy and will benefit all of us. I'd be just as enthusiastic if most of the immigrants were from Europe, Asia, or Africa. In fact, I think one of the most important reforms we could enact would be making immigration skills-based, which would actually shift the demographic flow of immigrants away from Latin America.
I hate to disappoint those critics who've suggested I go back to Mexico -- or am on the Mexican payroll -- but I have no great love for Mexico. I've been there only a couple of times in my life and don't speak Spanish. Half of my ancestors came from the British Isles -- the family Bible has entries dating back to 1801, by which time some were already here. Other ancestors arrived in the 19th century when the potato famine drove them out of Ireland. The Chavez side of my family came from Spain in 1601 and settled in New Mexico (a few years before Jamestown). They were Mexican citizens for exactly 27 years. From 1601 to 1821, they were subjects of the Spanish crown. And from 1848 onward, they became Americans when my ancestor, New Mexico Gov. Manuel Armijo, ceded the territory to the United States without much of a fight in the Mexican War.
My love, loyalty, and service have always been dedicated to the United States. I am an American, period. But I am also a conservative. I believe in strong national defense, free enterprise, smaller government, colorblind equal opportunity, and American Exceptionalism. The Republican Party best represents those values, in my view, which is why I switched parties in 1985. Part of what led me to leave the Democratic Party was its obsession with racial, ethnic and gender politics.
Harry Reid should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that skin color or ancestry should determine how a person votes. But Republicans must likewise be careful not to play to racial stereotypes and fear.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, for example, suggested that "people come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It's called 'drop and leave.'"
Humans don't "drop" babies; it's a disgusting way to describe human birth that should embarrass Graham; and I doubt he would have used this word in other contexts.
What's more, there is no evidence that large numbers of pregnant Mexican women are sneaking across the border to have their babies. A new Pew study shows that half of the illegal immigrant mothers who give birth here have been here five or more years and more than 80 percent have been here more than a year.
Racial and ethnic stereotyping is ugly, no matter who engages in it. And it behooves politicians of both parties to stop racial pandering, elevate their tone, and stick to the facts.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
6 Comments
Jimmy D
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 10:23 AM
That you should need to detail your family history, to establish a base line of credibility on these questions, is a shame. That it gave me pause from my own habitual assumptions, about your positions on these issues, even more so.At the end of the day, though, I still think our first priority must be to lay down a sytem of onerous fines on those employing "illegals" and then to close the border effectively.As to "anchor babies", there remains no other country so confused by this question.
Imp
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 11:24 AM
You go lady!!! I am sick of politicians turning everything racial so they can divide and conquer. Who are they to tell me that I am discriminated against because I am a woman, a Jew, a Mexican, a whatever. It is only a ploy to divide and conquer. Something they have gotten very adept at over the last 50 years in the country. So I am all for National defense, immigration reforms, employement of illegal reforms, and hiring for competency, not filling a quota, less government hand outs. Let's face it. Not all people are equal but this has nothing to do with their race, but everything to do with their ability to want to suceed.
Billy
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Racial and ethnic stereotyping is ugly, no matter who engages in it. And it behooves politicians of both parties to stop racial pandering, elevate their tone, and stick to the facts.AMEN!
Tom
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Granting amnesty to illegal aliens, WHO BY DEFINITION ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS, is like trying to assimilate cancer and expecting to stay healthy when in fact the ONLY road to health is to EXERCISE IT OUT OF THE BODY. But your arguments, in line with those of the obamanation, will only result in one thing: demoncrats building their voting block.
Dave
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 3:48 PM
I agree that immigration can be good for us, but only if, as you suggest, it is skills based. As it is today we are letting in more than enough future gardeners, housekeepers, and nannies. This is not the basis for a strong economy in the future.As of 2006 we allowed more legal immigrants than the rest of the countries in the world combined. While this is no doubt a testimony to the attraction that our country has to people the world over, one must ask in light of that statistic how much reform do we really need?We stand with just 16% of the world's countries that allow unrestricted birthright citizenship. Most on the list are smaller, second and even third world countries. Canada and the U.S. are the only two first world countries that follow this policy.
Linda
Monday, August 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Linda,While I agree with the premise of your argument, I cannot agree with the details. The problem with immigration reform that allows illegal immigrants to become legal immediately is that by its very nature, it encourages criminality. Since these people have entered the country illegally, that makes the illegal immigrant a criminal to begin with. Why do we want to allow more and more criminals into our country? More and more we are seeing people enter our borders, then demand the same rights that citizens and legal immigrants are entitled.Moreover, there is a very large group of Mexicans that don't want to assimilate at all, but want to take over the places they inhabit. They want to fly their flags, while taking down ours, and they want to speak their language without learning ours. Why do we want these people allowed to do that, then reward them for it? You may call it "immigration". I call it "invasion".