Trump Says Millions Of Illegal Immigrants To Be Deported Starting Next Week

link

Before the recent surge, I'd often incline toward the view that we should mostly bite the bullet on illegals here currently. I hoped for a compromise in which Dems would agree to beef up border security and mechanisms for preventing visa overstays, and Pubs would agree to some version of amnesty for those already here. Suboptimal, but perhaps the least-bad alternative. I thought that, if we could actually fix the system so that it operates properly in the future, it might be preferable to minimize deportations. Pubs have actually shown a willingness to accept amnesty (during Bush '43). But the contemporary Dems are, it seems, very unlikely to agree to fix the system, having accepted a covert open borders position.

   I think it's clear how this will go down. The administration will begin the deportations, including of some families. The progressive media will get pictures of crying children. That will basically be the end of that. (Though the Obama administration also deported families, without much of a peep from the media.) The implicit progressive argument is: if you manage to sneak in, you get to stay--especially if you have kids. Families that come in illegally always get to stay. This makes no sense, and I expect they'd never say it explicitly, but that seems to be the argument. 

   I'm not sure what to do about all this. I'm concerned about massive illegal immigration, and even more concerned about the progressive push to convince voters that any opposition to massive illegal immigration is racist/evil. This is the typical approach of contemporary progressivism: adopt a radical, nutty view and defend it rhetorically by insisting that it's so obviously right that any criticism of it must be racist. Non-racist concerns and objections are impossible. 

   I think everyone has compassion for illegal immigrants in general, especially those fleeing violence. But we can't accept them all. (Now, of course, people from Africa have begun crossing the border illegally as well. People from everywhere overstay visas and so forth...but there seems to be something particularly weird about people coming from Africa to sneak across the Rio Grande...) I've long argued that we should have cracked down on those here for economic reasons, in part because it would give us more flexibility with respect to those fleeing oppression and violence. But we didn't do that. And now our options are more limited than they might have been. Of course there are arguments for the view that we should accept many more people legally than we do. Those arguments ought to be taken very seriously. But they shouldn't be accepted automatically, and the left should be slapped down hard for its strategy of screaming "racism!" at anyone who disagrees with it about anything. 

   A huge percentage of the world sucks. Much of it is violent. Much of it is poor. If we allowed everyone into the U.S. who wants in, that'd be, basically, the end of the country as we know it. Even if we only let in all those fleeing violence, it would be a catastrophe. It just can't be done. So hard choices have to be made. That's consistent with helping a lot of people. But it's not possible for us to help all of them. If we continue to allow bogus accusations of racism to consistently win arguments, we're screwed. And if we let the crying children argument consistently win arguments, we're screwed. In fact, the crying children argument would win the day for anti-vaxxers. Furthermore, of course, there's no doubt that plenty of children cry when moved from their homes and brought north through Mexico. Crying kids are often a signal to pay attention; but their tears can't be the decisive consideration. 

   At any rate, I expect this initiative to be a disaster.