Among WaPo conservative writers, a push for GOP, Dems to make a deal on immigration
By Gary Abernathy
It was rather striking in recent days that three conservative Washington Post columnists (including yours truly) produced columns in support of the lame duck Congress coming to a compromise agreement — or at least considering an agreement — on fixing the immigration issue, as some in Congress from both sides of the aisle are pushing to do.
It runs counter to conventional wisdom that conservatives are the impediment to a deal that legalizes millions of immigrants who entered the country illegally, whether they are so-called “Dreamers” who were brought here as children through no choice of their own, or, as I argue, others who it is impractical to think will ever be rounded up and expelled from the country.
For sure, many hardline Republicans — including some incoming GOP House members — are opposed to any deal that gives legal status to people who came here illegally, but I’m not sure that represents the majority of thinking anymore among Republicans across the country. I’m in complete agreement that any deal should also require greatly enhanced border security, but we can do both things at the same time.
First, excerpts from George and Henry…
George Will: How the Tillis-Sinema immigration bill would right two glaring wrongs
Dreamers, having known no home other than America, will remain hostages to other people’s agendas unless the Tillis-Sinema measure liberates them by rejecting the chimera of everything-at-once immigration reform. In a reasonable time and place, this bill could wait until January. But in the policy bazaar by which House Republicans are extorting promises from Rep. Kevin McCarthy in exchange for making him House speaker, he has said he will not bring up immigration legislation in the next two years. And never until the border is secure. …
… When seeking the Republicans’ 1988 presidential nomination, Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont, who is high on the list of splendid presidents the electorate chose not to have, spoke of “Damn right!” policies — commonsensical but neglected stances. Today, large majorities endorse two propositions: Secure borders, a core component of national sovereignty, require a substantial and immediate infusion of resources. And the treatment of the dreamers has been unworthy of the nation that is already benefiting from their unreciprocated loyalty. So, regarding the Tillis-Sinema measure, Congress should say: “Damn right!”
You can read his complete column here.
Henry Olsen: Republicans should be willing to make a deal on immigration
The proposed deal has elements each side wants and deplores. But that’s a feature, not a bug, of deals. Compromise involves discovering the most important elements of an issue to each side and then ensuring they both secure significant wins on those fronts. That’s true whether the setting is a negotiation between spouses or between warring nations. …
… This doesn’t mean conservatives should take the deal. It might be that the provisions on offer aren’t enough to solve the crisis. And the price — the potential addition of about 2 million dreamers as citizens — might be too high for many on the right. But they should look at the negotiations in those terms rather than the “all or nothing” approach too many advocate. …
… Cutting deals likely doesn’t satisfy anyone’s romantic notions of politics. Nevertheless, it is a necessary fact of politics, and conservatives should channel their inner Reagan as they decide how to approach healing our long-standing divide on immigration.
You can read his complete column here.
Yours truly: From Trump Country, an argument for welcoming immigrants
But among those Americans advocating for legalizing some migrants’ status is a constituency often associated with Trump Country’s “build that wall” crowd: Midwestern farmers. In October, the Ohio Capital Journal reported that Ohio farmers consider a deal for migrant farm laborers “a matter of national security.”
Why? Because the United States, historically the largest agricultural exporter in the world, is beginning to buy more food products than it sells. According to the Agriculture Department, U.S. agricultural imports are expected to exceed exports next year and every year until 2031. A major reason is the labor force: “Americans just simply are not interested in working in the field, in the greenhouse, or the packing house,” Bob Jones, a vegetable grower in northern Ohio, told the Capital Journal. “We are either going to import workers or we’re going to import food. The choice is really that simple.”
… The United States has a responsibility to vet people seeking to enter the country. Any deal should provide effective new tools to secure the border — including finishing walls already under construction and providing more border agents — but also recognize that even if people here illegally should, by all rights, be rounded up and shipped out, that’s unfeasible. …
… Finally, there’s this: Solving the immigration dilemma is the right thing to do. Despite a focus by the right on bad actors who enter the United States for nefarious reasons — and those concerns are sometimes valid — the overwhelming majority of migrants come here for a better life for themselves and their families. They risk their lives to escape hopeless futures and travel through perilous terrain. When people want to come here that badly — and are willing to work for us in jobs we desperately need to fill — can’t we find a way to let them?
You can read my complete column here.
Talking Twitter, Ukraine & more on ‘Beyond the Beltway’
I enjoyed guesting again on Chicago-based “Beyond the Beltway with Bruce DuMont” on Dec. 4. “Since June of 1980, Beyond the Beltway has provided a robust and free-spirited discussion of the major political issues of the day. The national radio program is produced every Sunday night from 6 to 8pm (CT) at the studios of WIND 560…” according to the program description. The program is syndicated on radio stations, various podcast platforms and on TV on the Total Living Network.
Jeanne Ives has been filling in as host while Bruce recovers from an illness. Other guests on Dec. 4 were: Charles Lipson, University of Chicago, professor emeritus in political science; Matt Crouch, Navy Academy grad, 24-year Marine Corps officer who spent time in China, and who is an Olmsted Scholar and Senior Military Fellow for the Atlantic Council, currently works for Heritage Foundation; and Pastor Chris Butler, Democratic Party congressional candidate in Illinois in the last cycle, who also runs a Christian school.
Topics were the Ukraine situation and the Chinese lockdowns and protests, along with America's military readiness. We also talked about Elon Musk and Twitter.
I was not part of the second hour of the program, which also featured Hong Kong scientist Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who '“believes the Chinese government knew about the novel coronavirus well before it claimed it did,” according to a 2020 Fox News story that indicated she had been in hiding in the U.S. out of fears of repercussions for her claims.
You can see the program here.
Talking Joe Manchin’s future with Hoppy Kercheval
Last week, Hoppy Kercheval invited me on his “Talkline” show on WVMetroNews to discuss Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) comments about his future. My thoughts were that for the first time, Manchin has made himself truly vulnerable with his vote for the misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act,” which Manchin thought he was getting something in return for, but didn’t, and was really nothing but a scaled-down version of the Green New Deal — disastrous for West Virginia.
Jonathan Turley nails it on Twitter ‘censorship apologists’
As usual, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley nails it in a new column about the revelations coming out about Twitter’s previous censorship practices. He writes:
Censorship apologists are running out of room for evasion. They first insisted that Twitter was not censoring disfavored views and then said that claims of secret throttling or shadow banning were “conspiracy theories.” They then insisted that there was no evidence of meetings with the FBI or other agencies.
These latest Twitter files shatter all of these past spins. This includes confirmation of “shadow banning” and other suppression techniques despite denials by former CEO Jack Dorsey under oath before Congress and public denials by top corporate executives. …
… In the new material released late Friday, journalist Matt Taibbi confirmed that Twitter executives met weekly with FBI, Homeland Security and national intelligence officials to discuss “disinformation” they felt should be removed from the site. Those discussions apparently included the Hunter Biden laptop story.
You don’t need a state ministry of information if the media voluntarily maintains official narratives and suppresses dissenting views. And what emerges from these files is the notion of an effective state media in America — an alliance of media, business and political figures who act, not out of government compulsion, but out of personal conviction.
The notion of a privately-run state media is reinforced by the response to these disturbing disclosures — a virtual news blackout, with most major media offering little coverage of the disclosures. Just as Twitter suppressed dissenting or opposing views in a myriad of ways, many in the media are minimizing coverage of this scandal.
Check out his full column here. It’s worth your time.
Words to avoid if you want to talk across the aisle
Finally, I did a second WaPo piece this week again taking on the subject of how to talk to each other across our political and ideological divides.
On issues including abortion, guns, gender topics and Donald Trump, I suggest words that do nothing but serve as conversation stoppers and should be avoided by both sides. I conclude:
To be sure, some of the claims in the above examples may well apply to segments of extremists on either side. But the vast majority of Americans holding different views on contentious issues do not deserve the accusations and insults routinely hurled their way. By resisting the tired, divisive rhetoric found in partisan playbooks or vitriolic social media, maybe we can start talking with each other instead of at each other — a worthy objective as we embark on a new year together.
You can read the whole piece here.
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you.