Chilton Home

Restrictionists Have the Political
Momentum — For Now

he defeat last June 28 of the U.S. Senate's "comprehensive" immigration "reform" bill, introduced by its authors and backers as a "Grand Bargain" ingeniously crafted to appeal, or at least be acceptable, to an array of fiercely opposed interests, has been hailed in some quarters as an almost unprecedented populist success in which the country at large succeeded in routing the regime that bestrides it boot and spur. Following the initial defeat of the bill, in which opponents voted successfully against closure, William Rusher predicted in his column that the anti-"reform" party would inevitably meet defeat in the end at the hands of a determined, omnipotent establishment. Whether that establishment's humiliating defeat is prophetic, or merely a fluke of good fortune, remains to be seen; indeed, the results will not be apparent for years to come.

Two things, however, are certain. The first is that the globalists and their allies, the immigrants' advocates and the ethnic lobbies, were repulsed only in the nick of time: Passage of the amnesty bill inevitably would have ensured the end of the United States as we know it over the coming decades. The second is that the American public, so excruciatingly slow, and for so long, to recognize the immigrant invasion for what it is, now is fully alert to the crisis. Immigration, which for so many decades was the Number Two or Number Three concern of nearly 90 percent of the nation, is at last understood by a large majority as a top priority issue; one that concerns them wholly, immediately, and directly. Immigration, the American people realize, is not a problem for New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles only. Rather it is a threat to every nook and cranny in the United States, each and every one of them liable to transformational changes wrought by the presence of as many as 20 million illegal immigrants--and tens of millions more recently arrived legal ones. The Great Awakening awaited by the restrictionists for a generation or more at last has come to pass. And almost overnight, too. Roy Beck, founder and operator of NumbersUSA, the grassroots organization that played so vital a part in the citizens' campaign to kill the Senate bill, reports an increase of 135,572 members since May 1, 2007, and 191,527 over the 13 or 14 months previous to that date. Tody, membership stands at more than 455,000, encouraging Mr. Beck to work toward a total of one million by year's end. Again: The Awakening came only just in time.

Henceforth the Awakened must understand that the regime never sleeps, never forgets, never cries "uncle." Already rumor has it that the Interests are scheming to attach riders to bills entirely unrelated to the immigration issue, amendments that would accomplish piecemeal much that "comprehensive reform" would have realized by a single stroke of the pen. Jefferson's warning that eternal vigilence is the price of liberty was never more pertinent than it is today, when a small but highly influential elite is plotting to merge the United States-institutionally, economically, culturally, and demographically-with Mexico and Canada. Immigration "reformists" we shall have with us all our lives, like the poor-whose ranks "reform" would increase exponentially in this country. It is a maxim of democracy-watchers that a democratic citizenry is incapable of sustaining attentive interest in issues of government of the most serious concern to it; a consideration indicating short-term decisions over long-term ones, time being of the essence when it comes to making hay from excited public opinion. In the case of the present immigration crisis, however, it seems that time is actually on the side of the restrictionists, if only they are determined to make the best possible use of it.

Nearly everyone agrees that immigration legislation, owing to its volatile nature, is unlikely to be introduced before a new Congress meets in 2009. In fact, I have read recently that, according to "experts," it could be 2010, or even 2014, before the politicians summon the courage and resolve to tackle the issue again. Since three to 14 years seems rather an unreasonable delay, let us assume 2009 to be the more likely date. From the restrictionists' point of view, however, even 18 months should be sufficient time to research their case, develop further their ideas, consolidate their forces, and further mobilize sentiment across the country, either for the purpose of devising frankly restrictionist legislation of its own (Rep. Tom Tancredo has already taken a step in this direction by suggesting the outlines of such a bill), or decisively defeating the next legislative push for amnesty and an increased quota for legal immigration. With luck, the phrase "legal immigrant" can be made an oxymoron.

Now that the country clearly perceives the peril and outrage of illegal immigration, keeping the issue alive and at the forefront of public concern and debate should not be hard to do. For one thing, the problem (as disingenuous and hypocritical supporters of the late bill argued over and again), is not going to diminish, much less go away. Immigrants will continue to arrive in this country, month in and month out, by the thousands across the Rio Grande, and their increased presence will be noted, resentfully, from San Diego to New Haven. Concurrently, those immigrants already here, spurred on and emboldened by ethnic leaders, rights advocates, and business interests, will assert themselves more stridently in the hope of countering the restrictionist message-a strategy that can is sure to heighten anger and resentment on the part of native-born Americans against them. Meanwhile, conservative radio and TV hosts, and that noisy but increasingly potent minority of the press that favors restriction, can be counted on not to let the issue die, or fade away. They are onto a hot populist issue, and they are not disposed to let go of it.

Similarly, "conservative" research and educational organizations and institutes, many or most of which, like the Heritage Foundation in Washington, enthusiastically touted the benefits of mass immigration for decades, have recently discovered a material as well as a political incentive to study the destructive effects of illegal immigration on American society across the board. (A devasting report detailing the expectable economic consequences of amnesty by Robert Rector of Heritage was widely alluded to, both in Congress and in the press, during the course of the Senate's deliberations last spring.)

Thus the momentum in the country is now-suddenly, unexpectedly, and against all odds-with the restrictionist cause. What a long way we have come, when pro-amnesty Senators switch their votes after being booed on the public stage, and when the editors of National Review, a publication that for decades either ignored the issue of immigration or actively honed pro-immigrant arguments, argue passionately against "reform"! A decade ago, advocating restriction was considered a firing offense at most "conservative" publications; today, only the most perfervid neoconservative journals stick to their guns in defense of immigration, legal or illegal. Whether or not the country has acquired the power and influence to buck the regime when and where it so pleases, it has certainly shown the capacity to do so in respect of immigration. And the months between now and Election Day 2008 will fortify that capacity, not lessen it, if only we use the time to our advantage. (And let the continuing flood of brazen, importunate immigrants do the rest.)

###