Hello, Pols? Opening on the Right!

Mickey Kaus, Daily Caller, March 20, 2013

{snip} The current immigration debate always reminds me of the “guaranteed income” debate of the late 1960s. Here  was a pressing national problem (immigration poverty) that had been festering unsolved for too long. But a clear bipartisan consensus had emerged to break the gridlock! Instead of insisting on increasingly archaic distinctions (between legal and illegal working and not working), the government should adopt a comprehensive approach and just give everyone amnesty the cash they’d need to get by–a guaranteed income. Democrats were for it, Republicans were for it (President Nixon embraced it), libertarians were for it. (Milton Friedman was one of its originators). Journalists were for it.  Scholars were for it. Pat Moynihan was for it. A bill–the “Family Assistance Plan”–was drafted and seemed ready to slide through Congress. Sure, some of the facile assumptions of supporters seemed questionable, like the idea that amnesty wouldn’t act as a “beacon” for more illegal entries a cash guarantee wouldn’t encourage dependence or subsidize family breakup, but who was going to call BS on that?

Then an ambitious Republican gearing up to run for President dissented. Governor Ronald Reagan denounced Nixon’s plan as a “megadole.” The plan failed. Nixon pulled back. You know the rest.

Now that GOP presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and even Rand Paul have embraced some form of legalization for illegal immigrants, doesn’t that create a rather gaping hole for an ambitious Republican pol to run for President oppoing it? Even if you didn’t give a fig about the (to my mind) persuasive arguments against current amnesty proposals, the opportunity would be almost too juicy to pass up:  You could be the sole candidate championing the party’s substantial anti-amnesty wing against a vote-splitting array of candidates falling in line behind the elite consensus … Pointy-headed, Washington candidates, you might call them, who’ve never tried to find a good paying job in today’s economy competing against cheaper and hungrier undocumented workers from abroad …

Suppose you only got 25% of the primary vote–you might win, but in any case you’d have a big impact, make a big name for yourself and (unless you flaked out) give yourself a semi-permanent role in the debate.  It’s almost a lock. A “special pathway” to prominence. You get to jump the queue.

Any takers? Gov. Walker? Sen. Cruz? Sen. Sessions? {snip}

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Or Kris Kobach?

    Speaking of, he has not yet returned my call. I fear I don’t have the steam anymore to get him to call me back. That means we should all hope and pray he has thought of the idea of running for President in 2016 directly from KS SoS rather than waiting around on the “protocol” of having to be Senator or Governor.

    Scott Walker is for “comprehensive immigration reform,” for the record, so he’s out. I like Jeff Sessions, but he’ll be 70 in 2016. Ted Cruz…no to a non-white to be President, even a decent one.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Correct. Friedman was a good man but some of his ideas were surprisingly statist.

      School vouchers are an awful idea opposed by real libertarians (Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul) but supported by the staff at Reason Magazine, who are also for open borders.

      • It seems like that pseudo-libertarian outfits funded by Koch money (Reason Mag, Cato Institute, et al) support school vouchers, real libertarians don’t. Ron Paul was mostly opposed, but watch Rand Paul come out in favor of them.

        Milton Friedman was actually for open borders. He wanted a Constitutional amendment prohibiting immigration restriction. Yes, he did coin the famous axiom that you can’t have open borders and a welfare state, but his intent in saying that is that he wanted open borders and no welfare state. I’ll take a mild moderate welfare state and closed borders to enforce and guarantee an ethnostate.

        • The__Bobster

          Vouchers mean that inner city golliwogs can now attend the schools your kids go to, schools supported by your high school taxes.

          • This is why Obama got rid of the D.C. voucher program, one of his very first acts as President. He’s paying $70k/year to send the two daughters to Sidwell Enemies, and he by no means wants some spaghetti headed D.C. ghetto thug “yoofs” getting vouchers sitting next to his daughters and ogling them (if not worse).

    • mobilebay

      Kris Kobach has been my choice for President for some time now. Hopefully, he’ll toss his hat in the ring and turn this country around. I can think of no one else who can “deliver us from evil.” Many names occur to me that would make for a good cabinet, but let’s hope Mr. Kobach will step up for the White House spot.

  • Egbert, King of Wessex

    While his mom was an American Citizen, Ted Cruz was born in Canada so is ineligible to be president. Everybody will contort about it to justify an exception and say, aw, we never really defined “naturalized” in the Constitution, but that’s the deal.

    • The__Bobster

      Cruz is also a big-time neocon.

      • Tucker

        Yes, and this neo-con made a couple of trips directly over to Israel within weeks of winning his seat. To receive his marching orders, no doubt.

        And we can be assured that they included a warning that he would not interfere with the White Genocide agenda, or else.

  • Bull Connor

    I would like to see what a White candidate could do if he promised to halt immigration, round up the illegals and kick them out, defund the NEA, EEOC, route the libs from the Justice Dept., bring home ALL the troops, completely end arbitrary foreign aid, and make a valliant attempt to honor our Founding Fathers and our once-predominant White culture and heroes. Just to mention a few.

    • The__Bobster

      He would win in a landslide. Of course the MSM would call him every nasty name in the book.

      • MBlanc46

        If a candidate with those views would win in a landslide, they’d be lined up for miles with their petitions to get on the ballot. Remember Mitt Romney with “self-deportation”?

        • Whatcha talkin’ about, Willis?

          Seriously, I don’t know your angle in saying what you said. Are you saying that Romney lost because he maybe said once that it would be a good thing that illegal aliens willingly obey immigration law, which is what “self-deportation” means? Incidentally, Romney did borrow that phrase from Kris Kobach.

          This only means you haven’t been paying attention to my recent posts here on AR. Otherwise, you would know that Romney only pretended to be for immigration enforcement and pretended to care about Kris Kobach’s opinion on immigration as long as he needed to con enough people like us into voting for him in the primaries. Once he had the nomination locked up, he ditched Kobach like a used sock. I know for certain that Kobach and Romney didn’t have anything close to anything longer than a momentary conversation about immigration or any other issue, and I know that because Kobach called me personally and told me so. How I was able to get him to call me directly, I’ve already said here, so I won’t go into that story again.

          After he won the nomination, Romney became amnesty and open borders all the way, which is what he always was in his heart of hearts. The moral of this story is that Romney losing doesn’t prove that immigration patriotism is a political loser, it proves that amnesty and open borders for Republicans is a political loser.

          BTW, if you’re trying to say that supporting immigration restriction isn’t a political winner, then all I need to do is point you directly to Kris Kobach himself — In 2010, he toppled and turned out a popular Democrat incumbent for Kansas Secretary of State by a wide margin, and did so openly as one of the co-authors of Arizona SB 1070, and while the media were raking him over the coals for that. That’s just one example; I could cite many more.

          • MBlanc46

            What I said is that if pres candidates thought that a hard-line anti-immigration stance was a sure winner (or even a probable winner), some of them would be taking it. Of course, it’s early days, but none of the Repub candidates that I see (Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Jindal) are doing so. So far as Romney goes, however soft on the issue you might think he was, he was clearly the anti-immigrant candidate compared to Obama, and he lost.

        • Greg Thomas

          Romney didn’t go nearly far enough! Besides, he was just another open borders, pro-illegal invader RINO. He didn’t fool anyone, at least those paying attention.

      • This is not a comment in favour of either argument, honest, just a question. You think the candidate described would win in a landslide?, win what?, which county in which state?

    • mobilebay

      That person would get my vote, but sadly, he/she would never win an election. I’m afraid all the patriots have breathed their last and anyone who feels this way is too cowardly to speak up. We have no more statesmen, nor anyone who would buck the diversity tide that began several administration ago and has now become a tsunami.

    • Room101

      If your hypothetical candidate were the Republican nominee, he would sheepishly defer to the media and apologize why so many White people, the “racists”, are still voting GOP and promise to cut the number of White voters in their demographic..
      The GOP’s political analysts and poll readers can ascertain that they are becoming more diverse! No White people that want to be protected from the fury and vengeance of Government can count on a gutless Repuke to defend White citizens from Democrats.

      We’re on our own.

  • bigone4u

    Intestinal fortitude. Guts. That’s what it takes to stand up to the pro-amnesty crowd. You’ll be demonized and targeted for mockery by comedians and possibly targeted for death by the nut cases. But isn’t Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona anti the one with guts? What’s wrong with her? Jeez, she actually has to face hoards of illegals as she drives around her state. Courage is what the lady has that so many lack.

    • The__Bobster

      Brewer was ambivalent on the issue until she was backed into a corner. Then she discovered it was a winning issue and has been on our side ever since.

      • Greg Thomas

        I’m not so sure that’s true. Here are comments she made on Face the Nation:

        “I think that it’s wonderful that everybody is coming together in cooperation to find a solution,” Brewer said on CBS’s Face The Nation on Sunday when asked about the Senate bill. “And I’m very, very appreciative of Senator Rubio in stating and encouraging that before anything is done that we have border security established. And then I think we can move forward.”

        Anyone who is truly on our side would not be “appreciative” of anything reconquista
        Rubio is doing on this issue. Jan should also know better than to fall for that
        “secure the border” first mantra. That’s a condition precedent to amensty.Moreover, secure the border first is simply a carrot the open border traitors dangle before the American people when they are attempting to ram another amnesty down our throats.

        They still owe us a “secure border” from the 1986 amnesty.

  • IKantunderstand

    Mr. Taylor, what are you doing in 2016? I’d work for you for free.

    • IstvanIN

      Neither party would ever let an immigration restrictionist run for president. Not even Barbara Jordon (if alive), and no one had better liberal Democratic credentials than her.

  • Diesel Mechanic

    why is being anti-immigration considered rightwing? Stopping mass immigration would raise wages and better unite the populace because a diverse populace is divided by race and nationality etc. A more homogeneous populace is better able to unite and control the government. That means that the people could then get what they want. Polls show that the american majority want 1) less immigration 2) universal healthcare and 3) more taxes on the upper class.

    Stopping mass immigration would unite the people and raise wages. A more united citizenry would be better to get that universal healthcare and progressive taxation.

    So being against mass immigration is not rightwing, but instead about leftwing as you can get.

    • IstvanIN

      There are even a number of non-racial reasons for a moratorium such as the environment, economy, and energy independence. The politicians, however, are hell bent on destroying this country.

      • Diesel Mechanic

        the politicians are not ‘hell bent on destroying this country.” They are hell bent on getting richer and more powerful. And if you want money, you do what the people with money want. And one thing the people with money want is more immigration, more racial diversity, more acceptance among americans of nonwhites and people from other nations. If these goals are achieved the people with lots of money make more money. The politicians want more money, so the politicians facilitate mass immigation. it has nothing to do with wanting to destroy the nation.

        • IstvanIN

          And where will their children and grandchildren live? Remember, money is only a medium of exchange that can easily be demonetized when the third world hordes take over. Stacks of debased currency while surrounded by savages is small comfort. One can only spend so much money in one lifetime, but when on your death bed can you really take comfort in knowing that you drove a Lamborghini but doomed your grandchildren to a horrible fate? The only thing we have that is immortal are our children, nothing else. Our elites are suicidal.

    • That’s because you’re still analyzing the left-right spectrum in terms of an economic-populist paradigm. In reality, if you analyze it in terms of a nationalist/particularist vs internationalist/universalist paradigm, allowing for “nationalism” to be both racial/ethnic and aracial/structural, that “anti-immigrationists” are on the right and open borders types on the left makes perfect sense.

      • Diesel Mechanic

        you wrote:
        “nationalist/particularist vs internationalist/universalist paradigm,
        allowing for “nationalism” to be both racial/ethnic and
        aracial/structural, that “anti-immigrationists” are on the right and
        open borders types on the left makes perfect sense. ”

        Please explain how “nationalist/particularist” is on the right and how “internationalist/universalist” is on the left.

        You wrote: “That’s because immigration is today a universalizing mechanism.”

        :Please explain how this occurs. Explain the dynamics of this as you see it. Identify the forces involves and how they play out.

        • Bull Connor

          How in the world would the US ever evict 11 million plus illegals? The most we could hope for is to stop it dead in its’ tracks! And how do these politicians who talk tough suddenly get compromised? Are the Mexican drug cartels slipping these traitors cash, threatening their families?

          • Easy. You actually enforce immigration law, and enforce it diligently. Once you do that, then most people in violation of it will obey it willingly (“self-deportation”). Do you think that tax laws are enforced against everyone who violates them? No…governments string up every violator they can, practically parade them around in public like they were axe murderers, and this scares everyone else into obeying.

      • Diesel Mechanic

        you wrote:

        “That’s because you’re still analyzing the left-right spectrum in terms of an economic-populist paradigm.”

        And what is wrong with doing that?

    • Room101

      You’re over-thinking.
      Anti-immigration of millions more freeloaders from foreign countries makes you a “racist”.
      Just asking the question will probably get you suspended, brought up on charges, then kicked out of school for being “divisive” or somesuch.
      It’s all fairly typical.
      Oh well.