Best Of
Recent comments
- Ummm, no.
The rightness or
2 weeks 16 hours ago - I recently saw the re-trial
2 weeks 17 hours ago - I am a conservative who did
2 weeks 19 hours ago - Amen.
We're called to serve
2 weeks 3 days ago - I have to disagree with your
2 weeks 6 days ago - To break up the monotony of
3 weeks 3 days ago - Although I am a conservative
3 weeks 4 days ago - Been reading your blogs,
3 weeks 6 days ago - Excellent post, Will.
3 weeks 6 days ago - Thanks for the reminder,
3 weeks 6 days ago
Friends of GWH
Subscribe
Recent blog posts
- Evangelicals and the Future of Politics: Wise Words from Joel Hunter
- Election 2008: The Day After
- The 2008 Good Will Hinton Voting Guide
- Dumb Reasons To Not Vote For Barack Obama
- The Immorality of the Housing Bailout
- Random Non-Partisan Thought of the Day
- Good: Bad on the Election and Voting
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Eric Metaxas
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Bridget Kibbey
- More On Obama and the Ayers Non-Story
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
User login
About Joseph Knippenberg
Bio
I am a professor of politics at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, where I also direct the Rich Foundation Urban Leadership Program. Much of my scholarly work focuses on the relationship between religion and politics.
I am also an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University in Ohio. In addition to contributing occasional essays and columns to the Ashbrook website, I am one of the principal bloggers at No Left Turns.
My political (and other) commentary has appeared in The American Enterprise Online, The American Spectator Online, The Weekly Standard, the Claremont Review of Books, and Touchstone magazine, as well as in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Marietta Daily Journal.
I live in Dunwoody, Georgia with my wife, Lee, and our two children, Liam and Charlotte. We attend Smyrna Presbyterian Church (PCA).
Michael Gerson's bear-baiting
Michael Gerson invites attacks from the left and the right by sticking up for the legacies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. I think he’s right about Clinton, but needlessly provocative in his defense of Bush. These lines, for example, can’t be calculated to do anything other than annoy (immensely) his conservative readers:
Talk-radio conservatism assaults the most obviously Catholic elements of Bushism -- a role for government in compassion and a welcoming attitude toward immigrants. "Purity" is defined as the empathy of Tom DeLay and the racial sensitivity of Tom Tancredo.
The alternatives to "Bushism" are, he says, libertarianism and nativism.
This sort of provocative name-calling won’t persuade conservatives to consider whether there’s anything worth preserving in the rationale Gerson helped the President construct for his domestic policy. Indeed, Gerson would do well to get past his epithets on immigration (a reflex that cheapens him, by the way) and examine why so many well-meaning (former?) Bush supporters are opposed to comprehensive immigration reform. He’s smart enough to know that most of them don’t simply hate furriners; rather, they don’t trust a government that has given no indication of a willingness actually to gain control of our borders. And yes, they naturally care about national identity, but not in a racist or nativist way. They’re perfectly willing to welcome immigrants who are perfectly willing to learn English, obey our laws, work hard, and love our country. They recognize that cultivating citizenship takes time and effort, and that it can be done more easily with a manageable flow of legal immigrants. And that manageable flow begins with a border that isn’t unconscionably porous.
If Gerson took his conservative opponents seriously, and actually engaged with them, he might--as the keeper of the compassionate conservatism flame--contribute constructively to a conversation about the future of conservatism, persuading his interlocutors that points like this are worth taking seriously on theoretical, as well as practical political grounds:
The abandonment of Bushism and Clintonism is also leaving many Americans ideologically homeless: Catholics who regard themselves as pro-life, pro-immigrant and pro-poor; young evangelicals more exercised by millions dying of AIDS in Africa than by the continued existence of the Education Department; liberals who do not find their liberalism inconsistent with national strength or opposition to Islamic radicalism, the most illiberal force on Earth. All this alienation may, in a saner time, be the basis of a movement that mitigates polarization instead of glorying in it.
As it is, he’s rapidly writing himself into irrelevance.
Comments
Not to be a jerk, but...
I've always considered both "libertarianism and nativism" basic underpinnings of the conservative (or the Republican Party, at least...) movement.
There is certainly a political libertarian streak throughout the conservative philosophy and while nativism isn't crucial to the conservative philosophy, it is tough to find a right-of-center political group that doesn't have strong nationalistic/ethnic identities.
Bushism may have failed, but I think that is probably because Bush was in charge, not because his philosophies are soft or out of touch with America.
Re: nativism at least
Do you really want to equate love of country with nativism?
Joe Knippenberg
Maybe you'll need to tease that out...
I certainly don't think that loving one's country is equal to nativism. I love the USA, but don't really have a nativist bone in my body.
However, on the right side of the spectrum (what I would broadly define as the conservatives) the love of country is often tied to a "national/ethnic" identity. From soccer supporters in Europe that form the backbone of the conservative parties there to the recent public condemnation of Republican Senators that agreed to the compromised comprehensive immigration bill, the discussion is about "the others" who generally speak a different language or have darker skin or worship differently.
The complaints may be couched in language about law breaking, but below the surface lots of anti-Hispanic suggestions are made. Such as a border fence only on the Mexican border, when plenty of folks sneak in from Canada, English as the "official language" rather than just the "national language" and anger over Mexican flags at immigration rallies.
I may be wrong, but can you find any public figure for 21st century conservatism or the Republican party that is arguing for this?
It was easier to be for open
It was easier to be for open immigration when we felt that we had need for more people. Maybe, too, we felt more requirement for hospitality before so many governments were freely elected and had the potential for being just as safe a haven for huddled masses as the US has been. It was easier to pity those masses when they had less choice about breathing free. Most American citizens are still happy to accept the "tempest-tost".
While there are some who have a problem with the "other" and "the other" can prove themselves to be a problem, for most Republicans the opposition to that bill was that it seemed impossible to enforce. It seemed to encourage law-breaking, both by winking at those who had already broken our laws and by creating a complex and gameable bureaucratic process.
Kate Pitrone
Yup
I agree with Kate, but would also add that some of us documentably don't have problems with skin color or ethnicity. We have problems with national security, law-abidingness, and acculturation to citizenship.
And, while I'm at it, one more thing: I've noticed in recent years that the low skill entry level jobs that used to be filled by African-Americans are now almost exclusively the preserve of Hispanics. If this means that African-Americans have moved on to better-paying jobs, great. But I'm not convinced they have. One of the tasks required of those of us who make claims to compassion is to feel for and provide assistance to our neighbors who would otherwise be filling those entry-level jobs. If they can't compete now, what would it take to help them? If they'd rather be idle than work hard, how can we help them understand and appreciate the dignity of work?
Joe Knippenberg
This is why the argument comes back to enforcability...
Joseph and Kate-
To be sure, I'm not calling you nativist or racist, but I still think that both of those ideas are tied up in the conservative/right side of the spectrum thinking.
The concern over enforceability is what the immigration debate on the right side of the spectrum always comes back to because that is the only place with any support.
Kate mentioned not having room. Well, according to Wikipedia, America has 31 people/km² or 80 people/sq mi. That's is 172nd in the world. Now, I know that America is a big country with a lot of area that is inhospitable, but to say that we are out of room is a silly argument. Some places may be tight, but even in our most densely packed urban areas, our numbers just don't compare with some other locations in the world.
Joseph, you mentioned the economic concern. There are two problems with that. One philosophical and one practical. Conservative philosophy almost demands that government stay out of the economy, but you are making an argument from economics to justify keeping immigrants out. Restricting labor or requiring businesses to hire certain individuals doesn't jive very well with conservative philosophy. Would you also support government involvement in out-sourcing? Protectionist tariffs to save domestic industries? Do you believe that the government should be involved in business hiring practices? Most conservatives would answer a resounding NO! so I just don't see how your argument fits with standard conservative beliefs.
The second problem is that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 48 percent of all job openings, some 27 million positions, between 2002 and 2012 “are expected to be held by workers who have a high school diploma or less education.” Given that 12.5 percent of native-born adults age 25 and older lacked a high school diploma in 2003, compared to 32.8 percent of the foreign-born, it is clear that a large number of less-skilled jobs will be filled by immigrants. There is still room for low-skilled African-Americans AND low-skilled immigrants at the bottom of the economic ladder.
What ultimately needs to be recognized is that as long as a low-skilled worker in America makes $20,000/annually and in Mexico they make $2,000/annually there will be a constant flow of folks into America. Considering that only one of the five categories of visas for permanent immigration status is tailored to less-skilled workers, and it is capped at 5,000 visas per year, we will have a problem with illegal immigration.
The answer isn't a fence and keeping them out. The answer is opening up the process and allowing folks who want a better life a way into America that is both realistic and legal.
Most importantly, it is crucial that those currently here illegally and living in the shadows be brought out. As a nation we can't afford to have a shadowy underclass that has no ownership in the betterment of society. I've seen in the UK and it isn't pretty. America is better than that.
Changing immigration law is
Changing immigration law is fine with me. My inclination there is to let in people we need, who will contribute and not be a drain on America. We educate people from all over the world and then make them go back where they came from, instead of retaining them by giving them a priority towards citizenship. How is an educated populace not desirable? Who we let stay ought to be a focus, and I do NOT mean that in racial terms.
When my son completed basic training for the Navy, I took his girlfriend to the base north of Chicago to watch the ceremony and came prepared to take my son's friend, from Nigeria, out to dinner to celebrate with us. No one else was coming in celebration for this young man. He had been in the US for less than a year and a Navy recruiter had offered him enlistment as a short route to citizenship. He was training to be a corpsman, and if he was good at that further medical training would be available; he might become doctor. When I asked how he had come to be in the US, he said he had "won the lottery." I thought he was speaking metaphorically, but in fact, there is a lottery for the slots of those who may emigrate. He came, sponsored by a cousin in L.A.. Within three months he had earned enough to buy a car, within six months, he was sending $1000 a month back home. We got a good deal with this guy, but this seems a very inefficient way to manage immigration.
Expat, why do we want to make our urban areas comparable to other locations around the world? Don't we have enough problems in our major cities without looking to models like Mexico City? Maybe I am being too "green" but a fully packed America is not desirable to me.
Without border enforcement, the only way to make immigration legal on current terms is to make it all legal. It is foolish and dangerous to try to run a nation like that. What do you have in mind?
Kate Pitrone
The marketplace
I'm a fan of the rule of law, not the rule of lawless markets. Indeed, the successful functioning of the marketplace requires the rule of law.
Whatever personal virtues are displayed by those who have come here illegally (and I'm willing to concede that they display lots of them), fundamental respect for the rule of law isn't among them.
I agree that employers make "rational" decisions in hiring illegal immigrants as opposed to those who--despite their "privilege"--are only qualified to compete with them. I'd argue that one of our first tasks is to help our fellow citizens to be more competitive in those lower-level jobs, and then, second, to provide a legitimate path for immigrants to contribute to our economy.
The practical fact of life is that without effective border enforcement (the means of which might be different at different borders), there's no solid constituency for the immigration reform we all might support.
As for Canada (as opposed to Mexico), I doubt that those crossing illegally are white. I'd be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of those border-crossers are Francophone Africans and Caribbeans, Asians, and folks from the Middle East. So let's keep color out of it. It isn't about that.
Joe Knippenberg
Not one of the
Not one of the “suggestions,” lurking just beneath the surface, mentioned by Expat requires an anti-Hispanic bent.
Sure they do...
The items that conservatives push for are exactly in contrast to Latino desires and are a slap at Latinos.
What message does a "border fence only on the Mexican border, when plenty of folks sneak in from Canada" send? Well, if you are white and speak English, that's fine, but if you are brown and speak Spanish we want to wall you out.
The "English as the 'official language' rather than just the 'national language'" tells Latinos that we don't think that Spanish is equal to English for communication. Why Latinos? Because Spanish is the 2nd most spoken language in America and is often cited as the reason for why we must have an official langugage.
How is conservative "anger over Mexican flags at immigration rallies" send any message, but anti-Latino? Scottish folks can wear kilts and Italians can wave their flag, but if you wave a Mexican flag, that is somehow anti-American?
Northern immigration?
How we could control the Canadian border? It is huge. Are we having a problem with illegal immigration through that border? I am really asking, because I have no information on that. The probability or possibility of terrorists coming through has been the only complaint I have seen. I see the potential, but not the actuality.
Kate Pitrone
No Slapping
Latinos
Gee, Expat, I guess I failed to consider how homogeneous Latinos are, what with their uniform desires. I guess that must make polling easy, just survey the first Latino you bump into and you have a representative sample.
Border Fence
No. If you are trying to enter the country legally, you are welcome. If you are trying to enter the country illegally you are not. The southern border presents the biggest enforcement problem so it gets a lot of attention—no racism is required to motivate the policy.
English
Expat, Spanish is not equal to English for communication in the US. Failing to ensure that immigrants learn English is a great way to condemn many to poverty in this country. Obsessing over the meaning of “official” and “national” does nothing for those who need to learn English in order to improve their lives.
Anger
If a kilted Scot who had immigrated illegally showed up waving The Saltire at a rally demanding to be made a citizen in the US, I’d be angry at him too—and I am generally a fan of the Scottish!
Again, none of these “suggestions” requires an anti-Hispanic bent.
Flags and kilts
I don't object to hyphenated pride, at events intended to celebrate it. Apparently unhyphenated pride is an odd choice for an immigration rally, however.
Joe Knippenberg
Post new comment