The pro-Amnesty crowd has taken a break from claiming that legalizing 11 million illegal aliens in the only hope for the Republican Party to target their critics, not with facts and arguments, but with a smear campaign.
Another testy moment occurred recently at the weekly conservative strategy session hosted by Norquist when Lopez stood to present his arguments. Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who now works at the conservative Heritage Foundation, spoke up to defend the credibility of the Center for Immigration Studies.
“I haven’t heard folks take on the substantive arguments CIS is making and saying why they’re wrong,” said von Spakovsky, who declined to discuss details of what happened in the off-the-record meeting. “Instead you just get these scurrilous attacks.”
The very fact that the pro-Amnesty gang is not dealing with the facts put out there by the Center for Immigration Studies, FAIR and Numbers USA, but is instead trying to smear them, is already ample evidence of which side in this argument is correct.
If one side is putting information out there about the consequences of the Obama/Gang of 8 amnesty for illegal aliens, while the other side is accusing them of being eugenicists, then it’s clear that the pro-Amnesty side knows it’s wrong and has to resort to smear campaigns rather than debating the issues.
At the heart of the attack is the accusation that the leading members of some groups critical of immigration policy were or still are environmentalists and liberals. This attack piggybacks on earlier work by the Southern Poverty Law Center that used some of the same information to accuse those groups of being tied to Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist groups.
There’s something rather strange when “conservative sites” not only begin advocating for illegal alien amnesty, but begin repeating the claims that the Center for American Progress, Mother Jones and the Southern Poverty Law Center were making about anti-immigration groups 5-10 years ago.
The irony of “conservative” groups accusing other conservative groups of compromising their purity by using arguments from the left, while using arguments from the left to make that accusation is obvious. It was the Southern Poverty Law Center that used the eugenics angle in attacking groups critical of immigration policy and tried to tie that in to Nazism. Now the pro-Amnesty crowd is using the eugenics smear to call them radical environmentalists.
Grover Norquist, whose own Islamist alliances have been widely documented, is a particularly unfit figure for conducting such an attack. Norquist was the vehicle for Islamist infiltration of the Republican Party is pushing for immigration as part of that agenda.
Some groups critical of immigration policy have drawn support from environmentalists. Limiting immigration used to be an environmentalist platform, until the environmentalist movement, like the feminist movement and every other wing of the left, became drawn into a rigid multicultural orthodoxy. And some of these groups continue to make environmentalist arguments in the hopes of reaching out to the other side. Some of their board members are even pro-choice. The question is whether that disqualifies their research on immigration policy, their facts and figures, from being heard.
CIS and FAIR aren’t airlifting birth control products to Mexico. They are not calling for immigrants to be equipped with mandatory IUDs at the border. They are urging that we take a serious look at immigration policy. Calling that eugenics is a tactic of the left.
I have never accepted the idea that there is no room for working together with liberals on major threats to our country. In Europe, it has sometimes been the liberals who have emerged as the strongest opponents of Islamic terrorism. The same Norquist tactics being used to attack the anti-immigration movement can and will be used to attack the Counterjihadist camp.
The real question that we should be discussing is whether the United States and the conservative movement will benefit from the mass legalizing of illegal aliens.
The pro-Amnesty camp is attempting to equate anti-amnesty with pro-abortion and urging pro-life groups to avoid challenging illegal immigration amnesty. But if 11 million illegal aliens are legalized, will this help or harm the legislative agenda of the pro-life movement? The math on the added Democratic legislative power is easy enough to do.
How can anyone who supports turning red states blue really claim to be the true voice of conservatism?