David Brooks: What happened to the open-borders Rudy I used to know and love?
posted at 9:39 am on November 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
The NYT’s resident “conservative” mourns his loss.
Just last year, I saw him passionately deliver remarks at the Manhattan Institute Hamilton Award Dinner in which he condemned the “punitive approach” to immigration, “which is reflected in the House legislation that was passed, which is to make it a crime to be an illegal or undocumented immigrant.”
To “deal with it in a punitive way,” he said then, “is actually going to make us considerably less secure than we already are.” The better approach, he continued, is to embrace the Senate’s comprehensive reform and to separate the criminal illegals from the hard-working ones…
At the moment, Giuliani and fellow moderate Mitt Romney are attacking each other for being insufficiently Tancredo-esque. They are not renouncing the policies they championed as city and state officials, but the emphasis as they run for federal office is all in the other direction. In effect, they are competing to drive away Hispanic votes and make the party unelectable in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Florida and the nation at large.
In this way, they are participating in the greatest blown opportunity in recent political history. At its current nadir, the G.O.P. had been blessed with five heterodox presidential candidates who had the potential to modernize the party on a variety of fronts. They could be competing to do that, but instead they are competing to appeal to the narrowest slice of the old guard and flatter the most rigid orthodoxies of the Beltway interest groups. Giuliani could have opened the party to the armies of dynamism — the sort of hard-working strivers who live in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx; instead he has shelved one of his core convictions.
Evidently “the narrowest slice of the old guard” and “Beltway interest groups” are now synonyms for “most of the Republican base.” And maybe for more than that: it takes more than just conservative voters to reach 77% opposition to Spitzer’s illegal licenses plan. As for his smug equation of amnesty with modernization, a rhetorical flourish usually reserved for liberals or other “enlightened” print-media conservative journalists, how far left would Brooks tack on other issues in the interests of expanding the party’s base? Should we abandon the war, too? Take a more “nuanced” approach on abortion? Open-borders conservatives constantly push this line of softening the party’s position in the interests of electability — a fear which may be overblown — but they never offer any limiting principle. Perhaps the geniuses who almost blew the lid off Hot Air’s attack ads might be willing to draw up a list. Simply identify each major policy issue, propose how much more liberal of an approach the GOP should take, and then guesstimate the number of new voters we’d gain from it. I bet if we adopt the entire Democratic platform we can make a real race of it before next year.
Meanwhile, Joel Stein shares a taco with Tom Tancredo and proclaims the man free of racism, but brimming with nationalism and xenophobia. Exit quotation: “I never liked someone I disagreed with so strongly.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Well said. I love how these ‘journalists’ point to polls to emphasize any point they want to make. Hey, if a Republican takes both D and R positions, they should be able to get 100% of the vote.
If there isn’t a conservative alternative to the Democrats, there’s no reason for a conservative to vote.
ThackerAgency on November 23, 2007 at 9:53 AM
David Brooks has a pretty nice gig on the Newshour and at the Times. He’s gotta keep his customers happy. What do you expect from the lib’s favorite conservative? Rudy will have to answer for himself.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Oh I have little doubt that candidate Rudy isn’t the same old sanctuary city Rudy of old. He’s just playing conservative for the votes and if elected he’ll transform back in record time. Sadly, I’m afraid he isn’t the only one doing that either.
Buzzy on November 23, 2007 at 9:58 AM
I think it was in his farewell speech that George Washington said something like never elect a politician to be president, only elect a statesmen. We have a wide selection of politicians on both sides running. They will say anything to get elected. There is not a statesman in sight.
Zorro on November 23, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Rudy and Mitt aren’t stupid. They will campaign on amnesty as if they are with 80-90 percent of Americans.
If one of these liberals in Tancredo’s clothing gets in, the United States will become a sanctuary country so Mr. Brooks needn’t worry.
Valiant on November 23, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Awww…, give him a week as the Repub nominee, running against her. He’ll be back to the left of her in no time.
Texas Nick 77 on November 23, 2007 at 10:11 AM
I don’t trust any of the Republican front-runners on the issue of US sovereignty. This issue is so integral to ones view of the United States that I find it impossible to believe that anyone could actually change their views on any aspect of it without having had a true epiphany of some sort – and running for office does not trigger such.
I like Rudy a lot and trust him on external security, but I don’t trust him one little bit on defending US sovereignty and the rights of US citizens.
The only solution to this problem seems to be to bring the issue of sovereignty straight to the people and to let them know the value of US citizenship that our elected officials (most of them) think they are free to just give away to anyone who might earn them a vote or two, which degrades the value of citizenship for the rest of us.
I am in favor of impeaching amnesty supporters in the White House, myself, and would certainly never vote for anyone I thought was leaning that way. If someone doesn’t understand the notion of national sovereignty, then they have no business in the US government. None.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2007 at 10:15 AM
It’s interesting that immigration issue is pretty much like the abortion issue. Neither are going to be changed. No wall is ever going to be built and the laws are never going to be enforced, just as abortion (so I am told) will never be outlawed. This issue has biparstisan support, based on economic needs and lobby groups’ donations to the parties. While the abortion issue gets lobby groups’ donations to each party based on their interests.
Plain and simply, the politicians are playing us all for fools.
So, maybe the immigration people should take the same advice that I am given about my views on abortion: immigration is never going to change, a wall is never going to be built and the laws are never going to be enforced, so get over it.
And Valiant, you are exactly right. Some politicians will talk tough on immigration issues in their campaign, but when they get in office, nothing will change. We will continue to get “immigration reform” bills that just grant more amnesty, because they help big business and they get the Democrats more dependants and give the unions more people as well.
This is never going to change, so we may as well face facts now.
Zorro – I keep getting told to stop being idealistic and just vote Republican, because we have to keep Hillary out. With that attitude, we will never have any statesmen and will only get politicians.
Michael in MI on November 23, 2007 at 10:21 AM
if Rudy wants to be president, he better wise up and not follow in Bush’s steps on this issue… EVER!
madmonkphotog on November 23, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Hmmm… brings up a couple of points I hadn’t considered.
Whats Rudi’s view on the World Court?
How about the Law of the Sea Treaty?
Or the NAFTA Super Highway?
Romeo13 on November 23, 2007 at 10:31 AM
“Modernize?”
That sounds like liberal think.
Gregor on November 23, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Vote for Duncan Hunter and Tancredo. Give Rudy the black eye he needs for a wake up call.
Oh and for the record, deportation is NOT punishment. I am tired of liberals referring to illegals being sent home as “Punishment”. It ISN’T. We are merely sending them home so they have to swim the river again.
dogsoldier on November 23, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Perhaps a national referendum is in order? Should we import all of the thirdworld into the United States?
PierreLegrand on November 23, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Even more effective, though much more unlikely, would be to give US citizens full ownership of their citizenship, which would include the right to sell it (subject to the normal security checks for the buyer). The value of US citizenship is probably upwards of $400,000 (seeing how much people spend to get fake papers and just to get INTO the US without papers). There would be two major problems solved by this:
1) Americans would understand that none of us are “poor”.
2) People would understand the actual implications of open borders policies and change their attitudes very quickly if they saw the US government doling out citizenships at such a rate that the value of US citizenship (the greatest asset of many Americans) sunk like a rock. The reactions would be swift and strong.
That is how I would bring the notion of sovereignty to the individual.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Maybe so. That’s why we might just have to annex all of Mexico, put most everyone on the dole, and exploit their natural resources. That will tend to keep people in place.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM
The US continues to attract immigrants because of the job-creation engine. Since the Reagan years US businesses have generated 44 million new jobs. Building a fence without increasing visas won’t change the incentives for workers and employers.
Immigration reform needs to be comprehensive, or at least multi-dimensional. Otherwise, enforcement-only will become this generation’s Drug War, which has served to increase the size of government, eat up tax dollars, fill prisons, and allow drugs to be cheaper than when enforcement went into high-gear.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Then what would you do about the new illegals coming from further south, and overstaying visas from all over (of which there will be so many more)?
As long as we have a better country and a stronger economy, there will be great pressure on our borders and through overstays. And no amount of wealth can ever satisfy the flood of people that want to come in.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM
If Rudy’s the nominee, say hello to 4 – 8 years of Hillary and, potentially, 45-50 years of liberal judges on the supreme court.
It won’t be so bad. In fact, it might be kind of fun to see how the iPod generation deals with the Misery Index (higher taxes, high unemployment, high inflation, getting to compete for minimum wage jobs with all the nice, non-english people from south of the border, etc. etc.).
BowHuntingTexas on November 23, 2007 at 11:42 AM
My position isn’t fully fleshed out. When I announce my candidacy, you can see my position papers over at my not-yet-created website.
Maybe they would just stay home if there’s a SS office in every Mexican town. Why leave if they get a weekly check?
We’d slowly, but surely, modernize their economy, improve their infrastructure, develop their natural resources, and create millions of jobs. If we put it to a vote in Mexico, whether to exchange Mex. citizenship for American, think we’d probably win.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I have no disagreement with this. I am all for visas (and citizenship) for those who can contribute to our nation. The US is in the enviable position of being able to choose from the whole world, since everyone wants to come here, basically. It is our right to exercise that option while we can to build the US. Illegals steal our right to grow the US as we see fit. They are stealing a great amount of wealth (our ability to have, instead, a higher quality person here) from all of us, in addition to the individual problems. We might have preferred to have extended invitations to 5,000,000 educated people who LOVED the United States, but that is limited because of the mass of illegals here. It is theft from us all, and from the world.
Also, I’m not big on “the fence” since a physical barrier does nothing about visa overstays. I am very harsh on border policy (which I won’t restate) but think that the bulk of enforcement must be in the interior, anyway.
I disagree. Drugs are totally different from illegals, in all ways. It is not easy to enforce sovereignty, but that is the most basic function of government, really. And I do not believe that enforcement is 1/1000th as tough as people are claiming. We’ve done it before and we have more technology available to us now.
“Comprehensive Reform” (in its conventional meaning) is something that I can never support – because no illegal can ever be handed even the right to stay in the US (excepting the most extreme circumstances) without destroying all notion of a nation of laws.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Negotiating reforms in Mexico is an important part of the immigration puzzle. The Mexican economy is growing at less than 2% a year, which makes sneaking into the US more attractive.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Why stop at just Mexico? There is a perfectly good moat that we could use and it would make the entire fence only 50 miles long.
opusrex on November 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Sorry, misread your question. Further south, and from countries other than Mexico. Sorry, just not as big a problem. Could be some day, but not yet.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Maybe. What do they offer in return? Mexico is rich. The others maybe not so much. How many people you talking about? We could make them Mexican.
JiangxiDad on November 23, 2007 at 12:03 PM
:)
But what about the Guatamalens and Hondurans who decided that they want to go pick up a check at the Mexican SS offices? What about the Guatamalens who will work in Mexico for less than the new minimum wage in Mexico (just raised, thanks to the Dems)? What about the Chinese who come to Mexico for a trip and decide to stay and collect?
Expansion doesn’t work, but only leads to further unraveling.
I don’t know about that. Mexico is HUGE and its population is growing much more rapidly than ours. One can never be wealthy enough to cover exponentially growing expenses.
Sure. Because Mexican citizenship is worth nothing (a little because of Mexico’s proximity to the US) and US citizenship is of great value. If I had a company worth $100, I’d vote to merge, share for share, with General Electric. That’s my point.
It’s a tough problem. Expansion will exacerbate the problem. Internal absorption will cause the US to implode, in my mind. I think only a market for citizenship will solve it. Many US citizens no longer appreciate the advantages of being a US citizen and don’t realize how those advantages disappear as we print up US citizenship (and the right to stay and work in the US) like it’s going out of style – which it will, eventually. That’s how I see it, at least.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2007 at 12:03 PM
We agree on several points. I probably think border enforcement is going to be more difficult than you do; I don’t disagree that it is more important than stopping drugs. My point on “comprehensive” reform doesn’t assume “amnesty”, though I agree that most politicians mean “amnesty” when they say “comprehensive”. What I’m saying is that “enforcement-only” without changing the economic dynamics will hurt the US economy and, I think, not fix the problem of illegal aliens or end illegal immigration.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Yes. But the problem is that we don’t have to fix our economy, they have to fix theirs. That is their responsibility, not ours. If they ask us for help, I am very happy for the US to help Mexico (and other nations) to get them on a track to a growing, vibrant economy, but none of them are asking for any help and they reject most of our ideas. So, this leaves us with just the pressure on our territory. That’s why I don’t see anything other than enforcement, really. The economic problems are all on the exterior, so there is nothing I can see in US policy about the US economy to solve that issue. That’s why I can’t accept the “Comprehensive” label, even short of amnesty.
progressoverpeace on November 23, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Fred Barnes, David Brooks, Bush. Big business sellouts. Would rather see America destroyed rather than American corporations have to hire American workers.
pat on November 23, 2007 at 12:33 PM
You are right. It will be difficult to speed the pace of reform and privatization in Mexico. Maybe there is something we could do to help modernize their oil industry that would help them avert their projected production decline and help lessen our dependence on the Middle East.
The increase in H1-B and H2-B visas to a level consistent with growth forecasts would do a lot to decrease the incentives for US businesses to hire illegals.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 12:35 PM
100% agreement with that. But here’s the problem. If we don’t secure the borders with ZERO tolerance for illegal border crossing through a fence, any ‘immigration reform’ is worthless.
Why would an illegal alien care that they are illegal and in the USA after ANOTHER amnesty issue? When Reagan made all the illegals legal, that just opened the flood gates to more illegal immigration. If we do the same thing again, we’ll have another 20 million illegal aliens demanding citizenship in another 15 years.
We can’t do anything to reform immigration until we make it impossible to cross our borders illegally. If it is easy to cross our borders, our laws mean nothing – no matter how ‘comprehensive’ they may be.
Sure it needs to be all encompassing. But all encompassing is meaningless if people can just continue to get here illegally. This is why a fence is necessary along with more border security.
THEN we can discuss what immigrants and what type of immigrants we want here. Why not hard working Indians? Why not hard working Chinese? Why not hard working Thais? Why does the immigration ‘reform’ have to include the Mexicans who have already broken the law and shown contempt for our rule of law?
ThackerAgency on November 23, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Brilliant. :-)
Limbaugh’s sense of humor would be proud.
Hawkins1701 on November 23, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Every year we need immigrants to support the growth of the economy–either that or Americans need to have more sex, make more babies, and then in 20 or so years we’ll be set.
I agree with you that we should recruit immigrants from parts of the world that are most likely to fit best with the country’s growth. To just get them all from Mexico is dumb. I think immigration should be like the NFL draft–we pick the best people based on their ability and our needs.
I don’t agree that we should do things in a serial fashion (i.e., first enforcement then reform) since the cost of enforcement itself will be made more expensive by the lack of reform.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Now that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
I would like to see any one top that with a better example.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:05 PM
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:07 PM
David Brooks is the sort of northeastern country club Republican that the NY Times and the PBS set loves. He can pal around with Mark Shields at PBS and get rave reviews when he castigates other “Conservatives”.
Larraby on November 23, 2007 at 1:14 PM
This beautiful, intelligent, classy woman is in the enviable position of being able to choose from pretty much any man she wants, since everyone wants her, basically , but since her “father” just lets anyone sneak into her bedroom at night, well, she’s scroomed.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Always go for the snakes head.
If the employers (of illegals) don’t swing, it’s got no ring.
If the employers (of illegals) don’t hang, it’s got no bang.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:30 PM
H1-B’s are just a way for employers to get cheaper labor, not to solve any “labor shortage crisis”.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:31 PM
That is a myth perpetrated by the W$J, the Chamber of Commerce and other money grubbing serf master plantation owner supporters.
Look at China and India’s growth rates.
How many immigrants do they have?
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM
China is just now dealing with some labor shortages. They had over a billion people available who would work cheaper than the Mexicans.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 1:46 PM
They can create downward pressure on salaries, but the IT unemployment rate is somewhere near 2.2%. If projects are delayed because positions can’t be filled or if the cost of software developers is so high that it hampers start-ups then opportunities are lost–maybe lost to India or China.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM
If cheap labor were the key, Mexico’s economy should be booming, big time.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:52 PM
2.2% may be “the official” IT unemployment rate, but it is not even close to accurate. It is all about the money, not any “IT shortage”. “IT shortage” is a myth.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Unfortunately for them they have cheap and unskilled labor.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM
I’ve heard that number challenged as convenient stat for employers–could be. I don’t have another study or another number. My personal experience, for what it’s worth, in working with companies is that over the past 5 years it has become much harder to hire high-caliber software developers, and the people doing the recruiting have been paying higher salaries for candidates with more modest skills.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 2:04 PM
A lot, not most true, but a lot, of Mexico’s labor is skilled. Lots of Mexicans working in construction in the U.S. They aren’t all working picking lettuce or at McDonald’s.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I have been in IT for decades. Programmer, Systems Analyst, DB2 DBA, DB2 systems programmer, etc. US Bank, CNF, NIKE, etc. I have seen the shenanigans that goes on up close. It’s all about the money. The rest is smoke and mirrors and campaign contributions.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Hmmm… funny… I know of at least 10 guys here in Denver… long time IT folks who have been looking for work for so long that they are OFF the unemployment rolls…and so no longer count in the unemployment figures…
Interesting…
And I might add that IT SALARIES have NOT gone up (except for programers) for the last 10 years…. AVG MCSE’s and CNAs salaries have been stagnant…
So… just where is that shortage agian?
Romeo13 on November 23, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Yes, individual companies and their investors are always going to fight to keep labor costs down through lower salaries or attrition. The question for immigration levels is do whether we have enough lettuce pickers, software developers, network analysts, or medical professionals to keep the economy growing. It would seem highly coincidental that the optimal number of workers in each field happens to coincide with the number American kids graduating from school every year.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 2:22 PM
NYC, SF, Seattle.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM
It would also seem “highly coincidental” that business seems to always say that it is only on the one side of that,where they need to increase,rather than decrease employment visas. Plus kids graduating from school every year is only part of the picture. Nope, it’s about the money alright. They could at least be honest about it.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Don’t know about NYC and SF, but Seattle, I really doubt it. I’m only 3 hours from there. It’s all about the $$$$$$$$$.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Agreed. Retraining is an area where the government could provide more support for adult workers who need to move from one field to another. I’m always skeptical about government, but do believe that keeping marketplaces efficient is a vital role.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 2:34 PM
IT is really no different than construction or McDonalds or lettuce.
$$$$$$$$$.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 2:34 PM
I agree that it is all about $$$, but the software developers I know in Seattle get more attention than Jessica Alba in a slinky dress–OK, almost as much attention, well not really almost but still a lot.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 2:38 PM
But efficient for whom?
Right now the deck is being stacked in favor of whomever makes the biggest campaign contributions or comes crying to the government the most.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 2:38 PM
They need to start recruiting in Portland then, it’s only 3 hours away. Really hard though to believe that Seattle is that different from Portland as they are so close.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Much is similar. The difference for some IT jobs is the lack of commoditization of the skills. Engineers have the ability to invent and dramatically change their value to a company. I’ll assume that some farm work, and the productivity of a worker, hasn’t changed much for thousands of years.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 2:42 PM
I’ll ask around. Again, I’m speaking from my own personal experience which might be skewed. And by personal experience I mean software development not Jessica Alba.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Maybe you could develope Jessica Alba as your own personal hardware engineer.
MB4 on November 23, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Is there anyone who believes that “enforcement” of our immigration laws will not change the “economic dynamics”?
The active effort to ignore our immigration laws is, in itself, a subsidy which promotes illegal behavior.
To see how this works, talk your neighborhood into leaving all doors unlocked 24/7. Then publicize what you are doing and track the robbery/burglary rate. Let all of us HotAir readers know how this works out for you.
landlines on November 23, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Guiliani may be opportunistic, but at least he is realistic. I also believe him when he says he is committed to elimiting the illegal flow before measures to deal with those illegals now here can even be considered.
It is amazing that Brooks and other “Country Club Conservatives” have not been able to grasp what even Spitzer learned: the American people are totally fed up with the surrender of our sovereigntry to those who would destroy us and are not going to take the betrayal of our country by the open borders advocates any more.
ptolemy on November 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM
It will change the economics of sneaking in. The more we spend on enforcement, the more resourceful the illegal aliens will need to become. The drug war demonstrates something like this. We can take away employment opportunities for those already here, but they won’t rush back to Mexico rather more of our economy will move underground.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Ha ha. I can always dream.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 3:47 PM
My parents grew up in New York City in the 30’s and 40’s and frequently left their doors unlocked. Regrettably, things changed between the time of their youth and mine. Today my relatives outside the city and their neighbors keep their doors unlocked. I won’t publicize the location but can tell you that it is nice to be in a community where everyone trusts one another.
dedalus on November 23, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Comment pages: