Nancy Pelosi recently treated us to an eight hour speech arguing that illegal immigrants who were brought to this county by their parents should be granted citizenship.
The length of her speech indicated that Democrats now view Illegal immigrants as an integral part of their newfound coalition for the 21st century.
The position of the Democrats on immigration is increasingly being viewed by most Americans as radical extremism. Furthermore, the more the Democratic Party lurches leftward towards the idea of open borders, the more it helps Trump.
Even a number of liberal commentators have called out the Democrats for their increasingly bizarre and indefensible policy on illegal immigrants.
Not only do the Democrats support open borders, they subscribe to the view that the immigration laws of the county can be subverted by declaring certain urban areas as “sanctuary cities.”
The most memorable part of her speech was when Pelosi stated that her grandson’s once wished that he had brown skin and brown eyes on his birthday. This idiotic virtue-signaling, identity politics and reverse racism comment is clearly indicative that the party has now embraced the idea that anyone who questions the legitimacy of their policy of open borders and sanctuary cities are racists and white nationalists. How well does Nancy Pelosi, who has worst approval ratings than Trump, think her comments are going to play in the Rust Belt in the upcoming midterm elections?
Victor Davis Hanson has repeatedly argued that the Democrats sanctuary city policy is no different than the nullification doctrine adopted by the Southern states prior to the Civil War.
Writing in The Week, liberal commentator Damon Linker notes that progressives are now arguing that questions about the wisdom of certain existing immigration provisions that heavily favor migration from Latin America are off limits,
But a surprisingly large number of liberals are taking a third, and very different, approach — not claiming that cuts to legal immigration shouldn’t be made, but that the very act of proposing and defending them in the first place is morally illegitimate. These liberals appear to believe that immigration restrictionists should be excluded on principle from participating in public debate and discussion about immigration policy in the United States.
This is absurd.
Roughly one-third of the country believes that rates of immigration should be cut. The immigrant share of the population is near historic highs. As the Pew Research Center put it last spring, “a record 43.2 million immigrants were living in the U.S. in 2015, making up 13.4 percent of the nation’s population. This represents a fourfold increase since 1960, when only 9.7 million immigrants lived in the U.S., accounting for just 5.4 percent of the total U.S. population.”
How immoderate is the Democrats immigration position? Linker addresses the reality that Mexican migration has dominated the immigrant population in the country whether Americans should be permitted to question the wisdom of this policy:
The liberal position appears to be that, even though these trends came about as a result of deliberate changes in immigration policy since 1965, American citizens cannot dislike or wish to alter them in any significant way because that would be racist. Americans may therefore either affirm the status quo or passively accept it, and perhaps be permitted to favor slight adjustments to the mix of considerations that go into the decision regarding who gets approved for work visas and green cards. But actually cutting the number immigrants admitted annually or making changes that could result in a drop in the number of Mexicans relative to those from other countries of origin? That is unacceptable — because, apparently, morality requires that immigration levels remain frozen at their current levels, even if it means that the cultural, linguistic, ethnic, and racial character of the country changes significantly as a result. About such issues, morally acceptable citizens can have no negative opinion.
The Democratic Party’s immigration stance will continue to be at odds with the preferences of most Americans. Whether hitching their wagon to illegal immigrants’ star is a smart move politically remains to be seen.