John Zmirak has
a provocative post on the President's new amnesty bill. You may remember from the Bush years that I favor a closed border but a very generous legal immigration policy, and generally hate the way Conservatives argue the issue of immigration (anti-Mexican jokes offend me). Zmirak has a different take entirely: he compares the President's amnesty bill to the antebellum South's perpetual lobbying for more slave states. It's a pro-life argument, and also a yes, you have to think about the consequences of your vote and not rest content with feeling "pure" argument. So I like it.
if President Obama’s amnesty is granted, it is easy to predict how this will affect the next election — which is, of course, the reason Obama is pushing his amnesty now: He is desperate to recruit new liberal voters for the 2012 and subsequent elections, to reverse the pro-life gains of the 2010 elections and guarantee a pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage majority for the foreseeable future. There is ample historical precedent for this: Whenever the Southern, pro-slavery forces gained the upper hand in antebellum America, their focus was always foremost on their single issue: admitting new slave states to the Union, to lock in proslavery votes and keep the peculiar institution legal. Civil war erupted in Kansas and several other states, whose residents (on both sides of the issue) knew the stakes: demography is destiny. The safest way to gain solid votes is to import them — as the Democrats now hope to import millions of safe, pro-abortion votes by admitting them to the Union, via amnesty. If we were to grant amnesty — the full rights of citizenship, including the right to vote, collect government benefits, and use affirmative action at the expense of (for instance) impoverished white male war veterans — to the estimated 10-12 million illegal immigrants in America, we would be adding at the very least 6.3-8 million liberal, pro-abortion voters. No, these recent illegals need not, by the laws of physics, vote for liberal, pro-abortion Democrats. But that is how they will vote, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Anyone who claims to value unborn life, who favors padding the voter rolls with those who will vote to leave the unborn unprotected, is also either lying or simply and doggedly refusing to consider the consequences of his actions.
Not to put too fine a point on it:
I do not wish to imply that those who know how amnestied illegals are almost certain to vote and who still favor amnesty are not, in cold fact, pro-life. I would never leave such a statement to mere implication. I wish to say it outright: Those who favor amnesty for illegal immigrants are not, in cold fact, pro-life.
