December 14, 2005
Right vs. Wrong Approach on Immigration
By Ruben
Navarrette Jr.
SAN DIEGO
-- When battling terrorists, President Bush likes to talk in terms
of good versus evil.
What a coincidence.
That's the same choice that confronts Republicans as they confront
immigration reform.
In the ``good''
camp, you'll find those Republicans who aren't afraid to condemn
immigrant-bashing. While they acknowledge the right of the United
States to protect its borders and don't condone illegal immigration,
they aren't reluctant to praise immigrants (past and present)
for their work ethic, undying optimism, entrepreneurial spirit
and countless contributions to American society and the U.S. economy.
For them, America is a welcoming society that it is better off
because of the people who come here to build new lives.
One of the
good guys is Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman
who recently discussed immigration and other issues with a gathering
of Republican governors in Carlsbad, Calif.
``Throughout
our history,'' Mehlman told the governors, ``there have always
been Americans who believed that coming to these shores was a
right reserved only for them and their ancestors, but not for
others.'' He mentioned Republican Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge who,
in 1905, called for immigration restrictions in part because of
the effect that an influx of foreigners was having upon ``the
quality of our citizenship.''
Which brings
us to the evildoers. There are those who paint all immigrants
with the same broad brush. They flirt with nativism by insisting
that the foreign-born are inferior to the native-born. They define
immigrants in terms of the three D's: defiant, deficient and disloyal.
Like the Know-Nothings, who railed against immigrants in the 19th
Century (especially Irish or German Catholics), they foster hostility
toward those who are different. For this bunch, America is a private
club with a ``members only'' sign out front.
I know what
you're thinking. Legal immigration is one thing, but why is it
nativist to take a stand against illegal immigration?
It isn't.
It's how you go about taking that stand that matters. It's wrong
for some to insist that the immigration debate is all about nativism.
But it's just as wrong for others to insist that the debate is
totally free of it.
Face it.
Sometimes the slipper fits. And, to find examples, you don't have
to go back to the early 20th Century.
Not when
you have politicians such as Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. As chairman
of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, Tancredo recently sent
a letter to House leaders detailing his wish list for what he
wants to see in whatever bill the House cobbles together on immigration
reform. If his provisions aren't included, Tancredo threatened
to offer them as amendments.
I really
hope he does. A national discussion of the Tancredo amendments
would be quite helpful. For one thing, it would torpedo two central
claims of the anti-immigration lobby: that their only beef is
with illegal immigrants and that their actions aren't
motivated by nativism.
Tancredo
is cracking down on legal immigrants by trying to eliminate the
visa lottery, green cards for unskilled workers, and the H1-B
visa utilized by high-skilled tech workers from countries such
as India.
That made
me wonder: What do low-skilled Mexican farm workers have in common
with high-tech Indian workers? Not much, except the fact that
they're both foreign-born.
Further
pandering to xenophobes, Tancredo also wants to make English the
official language of the United States. That has nothing at all
to do with immigration reform, but it does have the potential
to divide Americans along ethnic lines.
Mehlman
wants no part of it. While he says that illegal immigration should
not be tolerated, it's obvious that he considers America's diversity
to be a priceless asset.
``We're
a better country because of the rich immigrant culture,'' he told
me before his speech to the governors. ``One of the things that
separates America from European countries is that we're an immigrant
nation and they're not.''
``You could
go to France and never be a French person. You could go to Germany
and never be a German. You come to America -- from France, from
Germany, from Mexico, from Chile and you're a proud American when
you come here. That's a good thing, because we always have fresh
blood.''
Right again.
Immigrants do bring fresh blood. And that's what this country
needs. It's what this debate needs -- fresh blood, and fresh perspectives.
The old arguments are stale.
Republicans
are in a tight spot on immigration reform. How do they get out?
It's obvious: Clone Mehlman. Deport Tancredo.
CLARIFICATION -- In a column on former Rep. Randy ``Duke"
Cunningham, I wrote that former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski had accepted
bribes. While Rostenkowski was indicted for, among other things,
pocketing federal funds and campaign money, he agreed to a plea
bargain in which he pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud.
©
2005, The San Diego Union-Tribune
