Strange Bedfellows
Left and right on immigration.
     By Mark Krikorian
National Review Online, March 31, 2004
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krikorian200403310836.asp

The high-immigration Right is on the warpath, trying to delegitimize all
conservatives who stand between them and the illegal-alien amnesties they
crave. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal ran an outrageous piece
­ slamming National Review, Fox News, various Republican congressmen, and
my own organization as being part of a restrictionist cabal of
baby-killing, white-supremacist, Chi-Com lovers. Of my Center for
Immigration Studies, the Journal's Jason Reilly wrote, among other things,
that despite the fact that CIS "may strike right-wing poses in the press,"
we nonetheless "support big government, mock federalism, deride free
markets and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social
conservative." The fact that none of this is even remotely true didn't stop
the flood of adjectives from continuing, with CIS described as "repugnant"
and a "big fan of China's one-child policy," and by implication
"neo-Malthusian," eugenicist, and an opponent of free trade, to boot!

Not to be outdone, Rep. Chris Cannon, the White House point-man on
immigration, last week picked up the ball with a "Dear Colleague" letter to
members of Congress informing them that "It has come to my attention that
many of the anti-immigration groups also have an anti-life agenda." This
came on the heels of a congressional hearing last Wednesday which Rep.
Cannon turned into an inquisition about which immigration restrictionists
had lunch with which other immigration restrictionists (I am not making
this up ­ watch the whole here).

This kind of venomous lying and guilt by association are par for the course
in the fever swamps of the web, but are startling in the halls of the U.S.
Congress and the pages of the nation's largest-circulation newspaper.

Nevertheless, in the midst of all this hyperventilating nonsense there is
actually an issue worth discussing. Because the immigration issue cuts
across conventional political boundaries, can conservatives critical of
today's immigration mess make common cause with like-minded liberals? And
how have conservative supporters of high immigration worked with the
liberals who agree with them?

Believe it or not, there are numerous liberals (though few members of their
elites) who are concerned about admitting a million-plus immigrants a year.
The divide is between the patriotic and the non-patriotic Left. Liberals
who worry about America's poor oppose mass immigration; liberals whose
advocacy for the poor stems from their loathing for America want more
immigration. Liberals who love America's environment and quality of life
are concerned about immigration; liberals who express their hatred for
America through environmentalism support more immigration.

It's true that patriotic liberals often hold what I consider to be mistaken
opinions on other matters ­ that, after all, is why they're liberals and
I'm not. But my Center for Immigration Studies reflects a variety of
perspectives on immigration, conservative and liberal, all convinced that
today's policies are inconsistent with our country's best interests. But
immigration is all we do ­ not abortion, not tax policy, not gun control ­
so a diversity of opinion on those other matters is not an issue.

Let me insert here the unfortunately necessary disclaimer: The Center for
Immigration Studies is not now, nor has it ever been, a supporter of
China's one-child policy. The Center for Immigration Studies is not now,
nor has it ever been, a supporter of RU-486. CIS is not now, nor has it
ever been, a recipi