Patriot Action Network

Let’s Get Serious About Immigration, Conservatives

On March 31, 2010, in Congress, Corruption, Economy, by Warner Todd Huston

Immigration is a difficult issue for conservatives these days. It is fraught with emotions and passionate feelings. Whenever someone tries to discuss the issue dispassionately, the old canard of “no true Scotsman” is employed against them. But conservatives need to continue to have this discussion and get their ducks in a row on the issue because the other side has a successful call to arms that we need to prove wrong. It is too easy for the left to claim that it has “compassion” for immigrants and we don’t. We need to pull the debate away from faux “compassion” and toward the facts.

On the right we have at least two main ideas about immigration. Some want open borders and easy employment for immigrants so that business has a quick and constant source of low-priced labor. These business-oriented conservatives (some might call them country club Republicans) are less interested in social issues and more interested in money and economic growth. Opposing the open borders folks are those that might be called nativists, those that feel America should not have a wide open border and that America is for Americans. The extremes of these positions are on one hand not following our immigration laws and on the other making race-based, cultural-warfare arguments. But there is a path to reconcile the two extremes.

There is no reason why conservatives cannot be both a nativist and an economic expansionist that wants to employ some foreign-born workers where they are needed. There is no reason why we can’t be both strong border advocates and interested in making new Americans from immigrants. Our two sides do not necessarily have to be as diametrically opposed as they seem to be, but we need to reach a practical, pragmatic political position of solving problems create by immigration.

Of course, the passion erupts when we try to reconcile these two positions. Some conservatives all too often employ a sort of “no true Scotsman” theory against anyone that wants to make some sense of this situation. If you seem to waver from their view you aren’t a “real” conservative to too many of them. But nativists aren’t the only ones to blame as the open borders crowd dismisses everyone on the other side as yahoos and hatemongers when the truth is that Nativists only want to follow the Constitution and protect American culture. We need to get past the name calling and remember that we need to be on the same page of this matter or the left will win making things unsuitable for all of us on the right.

Some of the open borders crowd have come to realize that open borders are no longer a good idea. Not long ago, for instance, I spoke to Richard Nadler, president of Americas Majority Foundation, and he realized that after 9/11 open borders was suicide. Nadler’s group is a conservative pro immigrant-labor organization that specializes in minority outreach. Nadler feels that to be seen as the anti-Hispanic party will destroy the GOPs electoral future. He makes a good argument in many ways. Americans of Hispanic origin are a wildly growing part of the electorate. If we are seen as their enemy we are doomed to minority status. We need a logical and legitimate way to win them over.

To my personal experience, I have seen many sons and daughters of immigrants — both legal and illegal — and these kids don’t want to be Mexicans, or Guatemalans, or what have you. They might not mind visiting the country of their parent’s birth but they generally would rather stay here and they think of themselves as natural born Americans. But I will have to agree with Nadler that if these young people grow up thinking that the GOP is filled with people that hate them, then these new voters will reflexively vote Democrat in huge numbers. Folks like Nadler are right that we could be committing electoral suicide if we allow this perception to grow.

But this need to seem more friendly to Americans of Hispanic origin does not mean we have to throw away American principles, our culture or our laws. Nor do we need to open the border wide and let just anyone come here. We have every right to try to put breakers on the flow of foreign immigrants and a responsibility to think of America first.

I mention a viable guest worker program below, but here I need to explain what I mean. Some have pointedly reminded me that we have hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work in this bad economy. Of course I realize that. But a guest worker program properly administered is actually a way to assure that we bring in foreign workers when we need them and not when we don’t need them.

Many thousands of illegal immigrants have already returned home over the last two years because the economy is such that the easy jobs these people filled have dried up. But at some point our economy will pick up again and the influx of illegals will resume to fill the jobs a stronger economy creates. We need to try and solve this problem now, before our economy picks up and the influx resumes. So, at some point the left is right that now is an ideal time for comprehensive immigration reform. But let it be on our terms, not the lefts.

Here are some of the points we must consider:

  • Tougher border security measures
  • A logical path to citizenship for those here
  • A robust guest worker program
  • Broader enforcement of the laws already on the books
  • Implementation of the e-verify system to determine whether a worker is a legal resident

What ever we do, we as conservatives need to get together and agree amongst ourselves and present a united front to the left. Let’s get past the finger pointing and have this conversation and let’s do it quickly.

 

Mark Hemingway of the Washington Examiner had another piece on Obama’s appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, union hack Craig Becker. Hemingway wrote about Becker’s past articles ripping the worker’s rights group National Right to Work and wondered if Becker could be fair to them now that he’s in a position to adjudicate between them and big labor?

One does not hold out much hope for Becker to be fair, though.

Hemingway reminds us that the NRW is involved in a lot of worker’s disputes with labor and Becker has attacked them mercilessly in past opinion pieces and appearances. Apparently he’s called them the “anti-union fringe” and are “ideologically driven” (as if Becker isn’t??).

Becker has also written “at the urging of the [National] Right to Work Committee the Supreme Court has developed a virtual obsession [with cases where workers get legal aid from the National Right to Work].” And there are other examples of National Right to Work antipathy.

So, now Becker is in a position to make rules in which issues that the NRW are involved. Can a guy that has so excoriated the NRW judge them in a fair and balanced manner?

Me, I doubt it. Hemingway only says that “it will be telling to see how this gets handled.” That’s putting it mildly!

 

-By Peter List

Yesterday, President Obama recess-appointed SEIU and AFL-CIO attorney Craig Becker, along with union attorney Mark Pearce to the National Labor Relations Board, making the “bi-partisan” board a tool of union bosses.

[NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman is an attorney formerly employed by the Teamsters and Bricklayers' unions.]

With only one Republican Board member to three union-friendly Board members, even a modicum of “neutrality” on the Board is finished.

The following is a round-up from around the web [my emphasis added throughout]:

From the American Thinker:

I think it’s safe to say that the NLRB is now about as impartial a body as Robespierre’s Revolutionary Tribunal that condemned tens of thousands to the guillotine during the French Revolution.

Now that SEIU flunky Craig Becker has been added to the board via recess appointment, it will be as if Andy Stern woke up on Christmas morning with this heart’s desire in his stocking…

The Las Vegas Review Journal:

In past writings, Mr. Becker reveals himself as a radical collectivist who questions the sanctity of private property, rails against “individualism” and argues that unions are necessary in order to combat the evils of “competition and contract.”

At a time when the president should be bending over backward to reassure the nation’s employers that he’s not some Marxist out to further punish them, appointing a character of Mr. Becker’s background is like handing the NLRB a pistol and saying, “Put them out of their misery.”

The American Spectator:

Acting like a Latin American caudillo President Obama continues to thumb his nose at Congress, daring Republican members of the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against him.

Becker also believes that all Americans should be forced to join unions whether they want to or not.

The Washington Examiner:

There’s no compelling reason for such a radical advocate to be given such an important post. Aside from the problem of the fox guarding the hen house, it just reeks of political payback. Unions spent $400 million getting Democrats elected in 2008 and now Obama’s going to stack the deck in their favor, killing jobs and sticking it to the taxpayer in the process.

Katie Packer at Townhall.com:

Craig Becker’s nomination is a threat to the economy because he believes small businesses “should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practices case” meaning “employers have no standing to assert their employees’ right to fair representation.” These are Becker’s own words, which were published in the University of Minnesota Law Review in 1993.

This extreme nominee believes employers should have no “legal standing” in the unionization process of their own workplace. Really? So the AFL-CIO’s Rich Trumka and the SEIU’s Andy Stern should have a voice in the unionization process and the guy who started the business should not? It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

The Daily Caller:

President Obama on Saturday gave organized labor a big payback for its help in pushing his health-care reform across the finish line, unilaterally appointing a controversial pro-union attorney to the body that arbitrates the rules for union elections, after his nomination attracted bipartisan opposition in the Senate.

Coming just a few days after the president’s health-care plan was passed into law despite opposition from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and strong disapproval in most public opinion polls, the move promised to only heighten political tension in Washington.

The American Pundit:

Becker isn’t just a thug, he’s a labor radical. He believes in mandatory unionization. He also believes “employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.” This guy has union bosses everywhere smiling as he will use his position on the NLRB to further unionize the country and place it under the control of powerful organized labor.

The Washington Examiner [part deux]:

Expect Becker to come on like a man possessed once he is ensconced at the NLRB because nobody expects the next Congress to be any more receptive to his appointment than the current one. But nine months of Becker on the NLRB is better than nothing, especially because the Senate has been markedly unsympathetic to Card Check, despite it being the union bosses’ No. 1 legislative priority.

The Truth About EFCA blog: 

Card Check and NLRB: Raw Deal or New Deal?

“The NLRB is now 3 to 1. On August 27, it will be 3 to 0. Not since the New Deal and first six years of the NLRB, 1935-1941, has the Board been all Democrats or all from one party. Labor law reform followed in 1947 to balance the scales. Is the past to be prologue”


The Truth About EFCA (II):

“Becker is the first person ever to sit on the National Labor Relations Board that has worked directly for a labor organization. Those with business before the board have a right to face a fair and impartial panel, but it is highly doubtful that Becker will administer our nation’s labor laws in an unbiased manner.

“Radical partisanship has no place in a federal board designed as an independent agency to serve the public interest,” said Elmer. “Allowing Craig Becker a seat on the National Labor Relations Board will disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law,” Elmer said.

Check back for more additions to this round-up.

Sen. Demint: The President is ‘mocking Americans’…

Flashback: Senator Johnny Isakson [R-GA]:

(Cross posted at LaborUnionReport.blogspot.com)

 

This weekend President Obama implemented a recess appointment for Craig Becker to head the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

On January 8th, 2001, Becker told a radio audience that he was a supporter of American businesses hiring undocumented, illegal aliens.

The man that will be implementing rules to govern labor relations in America is a supporter of breaking America’s labor laws to hire illegal workers.

… and Barack Obama’s radical agenda rolls ever onward.

 

President Obama is determined to misuse his office to payoff unions and to that end he has given union goon Craig Becker a recess appointment as the head of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency tasked with implementing fair and responsible federal rules to govern labor and employers.

The U.S. Chamber of commerce has slammed Obama’s appointment of union hack Becker to such an important position. The Chamber was disgusted by Obama’s actions. According to The Hill the Chamber slammed the decision because it “‘disregards the Senate’s bipartisan rejection’ of Becker and ‘contradicts the president’s claim to change the tone in Washington,’ said Randel K. Johnson, the chamber’s senior vice president of Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits.”

“This is the first time since 1993 that the Chamber has opposed a nominee to the NLRB,” Johnson said. “The Chamber’s opposition is based on Mr. Becker’s prolific writings, which suggest a radical view of labor law that flies in the face of established precedent and case law and is far outside the mainstream.”

Now unions can likely expect Becker to re-write NLRB rules to allow the things that unions want to get implemented even though Congress has in a bi-partisan manner refused to do so thus far. Obama is, in other words, warping our process, subverting Congress, and using back doors to get his radical, left-wing agenda passed above the desires of the people’s representatives and the will of the voters.

Obama is a radical socialist that understands that this is the only way he can get his extremist agenda in place.

 

The Washington Times has a great editorial today speaking to the big payoff that unions are expecting from their man in the WH, Barack Obama. They expect not only the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) to pass, but they also want their handpicked, left-wing, lawyer placed in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a fellow named Craig L. Becker.

That’s who President Obama nominated for a seat overseeing federal labor laws on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Mr. Becker’s record as a top lawyer for both the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO is so troubling that even Democrats such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Louisiana and Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska thought someone else should be found for the job. Though the Senate has consistently refused to confirm Mr. Becker, the president has no intention of abandoning Big Labor’s champion.

The Times highlights several of the problems with Becker, but this one is particularly egregious:

Mark Mix of the National Right to Work organization reports that in 2007 alone, Mr. Becker’s lawyering forced 63,000 California workers to pay union dues even after rejecting union membership. He allowed repeated “home visits” for union backers, designed to pressure workers to sign public union-organizing petitions. Unions were “formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition. … Their actions necessarily involve coercion,” Mr. Becker once explained.

This union hack is responsible for stealing the food right out of these non-union workers in California. Even worse, a bevy of bought off politicians and judges assisted him in the caper. And this is the sort of in-the-pocket, union hack that Obama wants to put in an office that is responsible to make the official government rules that both labor and employers are to follow. It is supposed to be a non-partisan, even handed position, but can we expect a union lawyer to be fair? I don’t see how anyone could.

And this is the kind of corrupt bargain that Obama is trying to push through. It’s a disgrace for sure.