A Discussion, If That’s Possible, on Immigration

Ethan Millard of KSL Nightside Project fame has raised concerns of scapegoating and posturing being significant (even primary) drivers in the immigration debate.  Because you’re straight-forward, intelligent, and willing to engage, I’ll call you out on that, Ethan.  Whatever you post in the comments in response, if you choose to, I’ll move up to the main page of this post below what I write here.

First, I’d guess you’re responding to what you consider to be mean, shallow, knee-jerk commentary from the right on the immigration issue.  No doubt, there’s plenty of that to go around.  However, in doing that, I’d say you’re engaging in some of the same conduct – just from a different position.  And that clearly is not how you tend to approach issues.  Because you tend to see and flesh out the complexity in policy issues, I wonder if the sharpness of your commentary doesn’t simply reflect the passion that people bring to this issue.  Whatever side we’re on, we tend to think the other side is unthinking.  Because our position means so much to us, no one could reasonable disagree.

I solidly believe that you and just about everyone who is largely content with the way things currently are with immigration (if that’s a somewhat fair characterization) take that position in good faith.  Likewise, I believe that just about everyone who wants to see immigration reform also takes that position in good faith.  Are some on both sides motivated by baser concerns?  Of course.  But, most people are motivated by a desire to improve lives and communities.

Most of my constituents want to see immigration reform.  They tell me that they are concerned about crime, governmental budgets, and the rule of law.  One thing that I believe gets lost in the debate is that most immigration reform advocates are not in favor of closed borders, just orderly, secure borders – at least if my constituents are an accurate sample.  The key change that my constituents want is for us to pick who comes into the Nation, rather than anyone being able to sneak in for whatever purpose they want.

I believe that most illegal aliens come here to work and better their lives.  Some, however, do not.  A review of Washington County police reports establishes that some illegal aliens commit horrible crimes.  Our current system makes no distinction between good and bad, great or extremely bad.  My constituents want a system where good people can enter and bad people can be kept out.  That’s hardly racist.

A few years ago, I discussed immigration with Neil Cavuto on his show.  I said that a void of leadership existed on immigration issues.  The federal government – including both parties – was content to do nothing.  (The job of the federal show ponies, after all, is to get elected, not to govern).  Though states had been patient, people could expect states to increasingly step into that void, if the federal government continued to abdicate its responsibility.  It was hardly Nostradamus stuff.  People want Government to promote security; they don’t distinguish between levels of Government.  To the extent the feds do nothing, the states will be forced to do something.  The feds have done nothing, and the states have been forced to do something.

And the way Government is intended to work is through dialogue, draft legislation, hearings, formal action, elections, more dialogue, draft legislation, hearings,  formal action, elections, etc., etc.  If Ethan and others are impassioned about the issue, help build better dialogue and legislation, campaign for candidates who agree with you and against those who don’t.  Bring all the passion in the world.  But, let’s consider laying off the allegations of base motivations to some degree.  People of goodwill have build and preserved the greatest nation on earth.  Now is our turn to build and preserve.  I think we’re up to the task, even on an issue as important as immigration.