SooperMexican says I am misrepresenting his position when I say that he has come out for amnesty (and benefitted mightily from it). The benefit I’m talking about is that now (I say) that he has come out for amnesty, he gets guests like Dana Perino, famous Bushie and fairly RINO TV personality.
But it’s my characterization of the position itself he objects to, so I will just briefly describe why I say he’s now pro-amnesty. All of my evidence comes from his podcast, episode #21, after which I stopped listening. He made his case clearly, repeatedly, bluntly, and at times by stepping all over his co-hosts by pulling racial expertise as some sort of trump to plain facts and an ideological basis for positions.
He says that the situation as it is is a huge problem sapping America’s economic vitality, that we need to do something about it, that any decision is preferable to no decision, and that we need not make perfect the enemy of good, yet that if we can’t have “absolute assurance that we can lock down the border” then he won’t support whatever amnesty bill comes along. Then he mentions that the thing that makes him angry is that “so many conservatives who will *never* accept anyone saying anything about any immigration bill about amnesty and roads to citizenship.” Then he says that we are simply going to have to compromise.
My problem with this is that it pre-supposes that Congress needs to act. Congress has acted, has repeatedly passed enforcement laws which go unenforced, and granted boons and amnesty which of course are in full force.
If Congress needs to “decide” anything, it is not what new amnesty laws should be emplaced and in return for what, but what penalties should be levied for circumventing existing law.
He seems to accept that “absolute assurance” of locking down the border would be sufficient grounds to allow amnesty, despite the fact that we have literally had “acts of Congress” promise us just such security and yet all we ever get is the benefits extended to illegals, with enforcement and security falling by the wayside.
Notice it’s conservatives he’s angry with, and whose position he must paint with a big old generalized brush. He defends the idea of amnesty and “roads to citizenship” against those unreasonable conservatives who are in no mood to discuss this awful trap yet again, and this time quite possibly for all the marbles. If we do amnesty again, we KNOW that there will be no enforcement, as we will have lost all bargaining power, which by the way we should not need at all, if Democrats didn’t hate America.
America is faced with several mortal threats, and unopposed (in effect subsidized) illegal immigration is one of the larger ones. With what should conservatives compromise? Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, and I am still waiting for the Democrats to make good the promises they made then. Until that happens, why should I accept any “absolute assurances” they may give now?
Sooooo, this is all just in reaction to about three minutes of the show. His co-hosts proceed to grill him on some of the ludicrous assertions and unfounded complaints he issues, and El Soop begins combating with non sequiturs (“you propose to punish citizens for the actions of non-citizens”) and yes, the dreaded perfect as the enemy of good (Ah, but how can you GUARANTEE that your enforcement scheme will work?). He grows more agitated, and throughout the middle of the show is fairly hollering down his co-hosts, who after all are not in charge, do not command the El Soop audience, and ultimately know they are passengers.
My summary is that Soop presumes the need to achieve some sort of bill, but this conclusion assumes that a new bill would be treated with a greater amount of respect for the law than the previous similar amnesty projects were. Yet the evidence we have from this administration is that laws be damned, they will do whatever they want. Add to that the fact that amnesty takes effect in a day and is irrevocable, whereas enforcement must be carried out every day for the infinite future, and any lapses are permanent.
You have to work pretty hard to ignore these issues, and Soop is not having any of them; in fact he will shout you down for bringing them up on his podcast. When one of the co-hosts, @DefendWallStreet, mentioned bringing enforcement to bear on business owners who hire from crowds of people who don’t speak English hanging about in front of HomeBase, Soop cut him off repeatedly, saying “All you are doing is re-affirming your biases on what an illegal looks like. You don’t know. I can tell you that I do know, because I’ve been in that society, and I’ve talked to these people, and I know. So don’t tell me about your confirmation bias.” And so forth. Even allowing for the vagaries of extemporaneous speech, this is a hostile and dismissive line of argument, and not one which reflects well upon any intelligent person, regardless of ideology. He defends the nebulous amnesty bill against reasonable alternatives such as enforcement mechanisms which do no rely upon new legislation, but upon existing law. Why? Because the only new thing the Amnesty bill can bring is a new wave of amnesty.
And this is why he is now popular with the Bushies like Dana Perino. He is toeing the company line, and it will cost us our country.
Unless he has recanted some of his more egregious remarks from his podcast, episode #21, SooperMexican is most definitely pro-Amnesty. He just doesn’t want to admit it, even to himself. So I don’t think he’s evil, but he is dreadfully wrong, and is compromising his claimed values in order to maintain the illusion of conservatism. I like Soop a lot and I hope he changes his mind. Publicly and swiftly. Yet I cannot accept, I cannot overlook, this fatally flawed and dishonestly defended position.
Sorry, Soop. You’re wrong, and you’re just doubling down on wrong with your wishy-washy evaluation of the bill. It’s easy: reject this piece of crap amnesty bill. Your Jersey City co-host is right. Enforce this problem into submission. Don’t appease it.