Amnesty as a Moral Imperative
It is a moral imperative to reward crime by gutting enforcement of our immigration laws. Such is the essence of the argument put forward by Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and Russell Moore, a Southern Baptist convention official.
In an article titled, “Amnesty is a Moral Imperative,” the Reed and Moore propose a twisted, quasi-religious version of faith-based amnesty. To their immense discredit, they are copying Obama, who used the exact same sanctimonious phrase, “moral imperative,” when describing the need to pass amnesty in 2011.
Parroting Obama’s sound bites is bad enough, but the heap rises highest when Reed and Moore say that “laws for how immigrants will enter the U.S. in the future and how those already here are dealt with should acknowledge each person's God-given dignity.”
Are they saying that our current laws do not “acknowledge each person’s God-given dignity”? If not, then what do their lofty words mean?
Reed and Moore appear to be shaming those who support enforcement of our immigration laws. But have they deciphered the proper definition of God-given dignity, applied that metaphysical concept to immigration laws, and shown that our current law fails to acknowledge such dignity? Far from it.Instead, they simply wave the scepter of generic religiosity over their fatuous argument, and hope that someone will be mesmerized.
For wrapping their harmful policy preferences in religious garb, Reed and Moore should be ashamed.
Like most “conservative” calls for amnesty, theirs suffers from a neurotic self-deception that is evidently common among beltway Republicans. That is, they are willing to trust the very people who have repeatedly lied about enforcement.
The country has already been deceived, in epic fashion, by Ted Kennedy and the gullible Republicans who supported his 1986 amnesty. "We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this," said Kennedy in 1986. Now the Democrats and some Republicans are pushing a policy that repeats every mistake of the 1986 amnesty.
A few Republicans, like Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte, have even misled their voters by claiming -- when they were running for election -- to oppose amnesty. The “path to citizenship” charade is a testament to the deep disrespect that our elites have for the majority of people in this country, who depend on the stable rule of law for a semblance of order in society.
But who needs the rule of law, when you can have wretched platitudes instead? Amnesty is “the smart thing to do for our future and the moral thing to do for the soul of our nation,” Moore and Reed argue, in a stream of empty rhetoric.
They never bother to define what the “soul of our nation” is comprised of. Most people could agree that the soul of our nation includes at least two things. The first is our national identity. Second are our national institutions, foremost of which is a system of laws, and respect for the rule of those laws.
The late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington best described the impact of mass immigration on our national identity in his 2004 essay "The Hispanic Challenge."
In this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives.
Huntington’s essay, which is absolutely essential reading, provides volumes of evidence and thorough reasoning. Reed and Moore, on the other hand, offer a bizarre, theologically garbed recommendation that we pass amnesty.
As for the rule of law, it would become a hollow shellafter amnesty. Amnesty would demolish confidence in the rule of law, because it would turn citizenship into cheap pork that can be passed around to favored constituencies. Amnesty would teach generations of immigrants, and the rest of society, that the rule of law is a political ruse to be manipulated in favor of interest groups, including racial and ethnic interest groups. In the wake of ObamaCare, few things would do more to undermine respect for the rule of law than a cynical thousand-page fraud that panders to illegal aliens by shredding our immigration laws. The incentive for more illegal conduct is the most obvious terrible consequence that would follow amnesty.
Reed and Moore spell out the gist of their proposal, and it’s identical to what La Raza, Obama, and the pre-chastening Gang of Eight have proposed:
First, we need to maintain respect for the rule of law. That means no blanket amnesty or guarantee of citizenship. People who entered the country illegally should admit their wrongdoing, pay fines and back taxes, submit to background checks, learn English, and demonstrate their ability to support themselves.
The false premise of that proposal is that you can “maintain respect for the rule of law” by demonstrating that American citizenship is cheap pork.
Another, more sinister false premise, is that the government is not just giving “blanket amnesty” because there would be a few bureaucratic hoops to jump through on the path to amnesty. If all we’re going to do is making illegal aliens do some paperwork, then that is blanket amnesty. Besides, anyone who believes that Congress will actually require fines and back taxes, much less actually have them paid by low-income illegals, is fooling himself. A president of either party could simply waive any such requirement. Again, we’ve been repeatedly lied to about enforcement, and shown that all barriers to illegal entry will be pushed aside by the multicultural left and their handful of Republican enablers like Ralph Reed and Russell Moore.
John Bennett (MA, University of Chicago, Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences '07) is a writer whose work has appeared in The Daily Caller, Townhall.com, World Net Daily, Human Events, Accuracy in Media, and FrontPage Magazine, among others. He has been a featured guest on the Laura Ingraham, Jerry Doyle, and Lars Larson programs.