Weekdays at 12noon on 770 AM: The Truth
 Michael Medved
Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

The Wrong Argument for Immigration Reform

January 31, 2013 @ 10:58 am (Updated: 11:02 am - 1/31/13 )

Republicans make a terrible mistake when they argue for immigration reform as a matter of GOP survival. First, it's questionable that support for a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants will automatically win support from Hispanic voters, though it's undeniably true that past anti-immigrant rhetoric from some conservatives has damaged the party with Latinos.

But it would damage the party even more if Republicans changed positions solely out of political expediency. The reason to back immigration reform is that it's right - and necessary - not that it's necessarily good politics.

As the party of Americanization - uniting people on values, not dividing them by race- Republicans should recognize that you can't expect undocumented residents to embrace American identity if they're blocked from ever gaining legal status. It should never be easy to earn citizenship, but it shouldn't be impossible either.

More Michael Medved

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (33)


  • Add A Comment

  • TheSymbolForBoron wrote...
    Republicans
    January 31, 2013 10:20 am
    It's really striking that Republicans have no problem simply instructing their people to say things that are in complete conflict with things they've said earlier.

    Why not get some new people who actually believe the things they say?

    A real moral, trustworthy bunch, these Republicans.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    SFB" Why not get some new people who actually believe the things they say"
    January 31, 2013 1:14 pm
    Because a candidate would be weeded out by special interest groups and unless they play the game they do not get in the game.Washington is no place for Crusaders
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Medved please make up your mind
    January 31, 2013 11:55 am
    First you think the GOP is wise when they advocate immigration reform, now you say it's "The wrong argument"? When you try to split hairs -you're liable to confuse conservatives. ;)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Michael, I am trying to figure out just what you're saying, but it does look like you are pandering to the irrational haters who oppose immigration.
    January 31, 2013 1:08 pm
    Ther is absolutely NO reason why the Republican party should not be in favor of expanding immigration and (eventually) providing a path to citizenship for Latinos - and others - who are pro family, religious and actually WANT to work. ... Such people are of the stock I believe should be the backbone of our party. ... Not turned away by pandering to a bloc of populists who - if they admit it or not - just don't want immigration of ANY type. The same populist sentiment that drove out Mexicans in the 30's (the populists were democrats, then) and back or oppose politicians not on logical or sound ideas, but whatever plays to emotions.

    Immigration reform and acceptance was endorsed by John McCain, G W Bush and, lest we forget, Ronald Reagan, as good for the GOP - and good for the country. ... And, personally, I'd rather welcome a people who come to our country already exposing views and beliefs that made America strong, that to burden out party with the bias of those who ultimately base their beliefs in hate.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Ron
    January 31, 2013 8:28 pm
    EXCELLENT POST!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    ron p
    January 31, 2013 11:26 pm
    I agree with much of what you stated however"pro family" and "religious" are not qualifications for ANYTHING to do with citizenship and I have no idea why you included them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Republicans make a terrible mistake when they argue for immigration reform as a matter of GOP survival.
    January 31, 2013 6:27 pm
    Correct. They will have to do a lot more than that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Medved is spot on with this one
    January 31, 2013 6:45 pm
    Republicon support for immigration reform is obviously a pandering stunt meant solely to generate votes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    SeattleD
    January 31, 2013 9:04 pm
    That is exactly what John McCain said. No shame there. It's not because it will help this country in the long run, it's only for votes.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    What RonP and Messiah said
    February 1, 2013 9:48 am

    I have stated before, Ron, you are at least fair in your responses even though you belong to the jackbooted neo-con movement, however, I agree with your post except as Messiah pointed out, the religious part should play no factor, there should be a separation of church and state and what if the immigrants and I say immigrants because there are more immigrants than just the latino culture that come into this country.

    Would you care if islamic, hindu, budhist cultures immigrate? Or are you saying this because latino tend to be christian?

    My point being is that religion should not play a factor in who is part of the equation, I would prefer that they are pro-family, but that shouldn't play a factor as well. We should just want good people who want to live by American standards and are law abiding and then everything else will work itself out as far as the family and religion goes and I know a lot of athiest that are just as caring, giving and extremely productive.

    I TRY not to descriminate on anybody and you shouldn't either.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Actually, Sports, I'm a religionist.
    February 1, 2013 11:50 am
    Any religion that furthers personal virtue ann cares about humanity should be welcome. But, in this case, the 'religious' part was mostly aimed as Mr. Medved, as to why HE (and the GOP) should welcome Latinos. .. In reality, though, a pro family culture is more important than and set religion. And Family IS important in that family is usually the medium by which all other cultural values are passed down.

    By the way, there is nothing 'neo' about my conservatism. Barry Goldwater converted me, confirmed by Ronald Reagan. ... Neo-cons are the wanta-be crowd who came in later - and never quite got the concept. .. or the heart.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Ron, religion is dying throughout the world as the internet grows and science replaces superstition.
    February 1, 2013 6:41 pm
    You just better hope the atheists don't treat you religious folks the way you treated them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Forrest, my personal faith aside, a religionist studies differences and similarities between all religions -
    February 2, 2013 4:34 am
    Regardless of perversions by humans from time to time for their own selfish motives, most religions profess an ethic and compassion for all of humanity.

    Science is a wonderful tool, but I know of no ethical or moral principles proclaimed or endorsed by science. ... And, while individual atheists may be fine, moral and decent people, there is no atheist 'ethic' that one might live by.

    Until there is, and there may never be, religion will continue to fill that gap in the minds and souls of the human animal.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Oh really Ron?
    February 2, 2013 7:03 am
    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/080210/full/news.2010.55.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kidspirit/where-does-morality-come-from_b_1982110.html

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/10/30/marc-hauser-where-do-morals-co/

    http://ramblingsofsheldon.blogspot.com/2012/11/does-morality-come-from-religion-or-are.html

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/where-does-morality-come-from-a-demonstration-with-monkeys/

    Man created God and religion, not the other way around. If all religion and scientific learning were to disappear from the earth, thousands of years from now all the religions would be different and all the science would be the same.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Forrest, even IF God was created by man, He was created for a reason.
    February 2, 2013 8:35 am
    And that reason was to further cooperation with others - and to justify devotion and sacrifice for the betterment of others (non-family). ... Perhaps civilization itself could not have arisen without religion. .. I can't think of ANY civilization throughout history devoid of religion. ...

    Then, if no civilizations, how could creative time - let alone true science - develop?

    .

    And don't be so sure that religions would be all that different. It is the similarities of the world's religions that amaze me - not their differences.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    "similarities of the world's religions that amaze me"
    February 2, 2013 8:56 am
    Just the Abrahamic religions are similar Ron. That's because they morphed out of the Judaism just as Mormons and Scientology are morphing out of Christianity. The rest of your response is just speculation. With science explaining the natural processes we really don't need stories from goat herders telling us why God is pissed off.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    If it make you feel any better - and I'm not sure what branch to call it - but the 'need for gods' theory IS a scientific concept that has been advanced many times over the years.
    February 2, 2013 9:14 am
    In short, even if God does NOT exist (and, of course, I believe He does), religion and a belief in gods was necessary for the start and development of civilization. ... In short, even if there is no god, man NEEDED to create gods. .... I challenge you, then, to name ANY civilization - at any time - that developed (and lasted) without religion.

    Again, no civilization - no science.

    Oh, and the Golden Rule (do unto others) appears common monotheism or otherwise. As does these commandments against killing and stealing.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    .... I challenge you, then, to name ANY civilization - at any time - that developed (and lasted) without religion.
    February 2, 2013 9:30 am
    There isn't any civilization that has lasted with or without god.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    ron prevost wrote...Again, no civilization - no science.
    February 2, 2013 9:58 am
    “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” Richard Dawkins

    Religion has been and always will be the greatest impediment to scientific advancement, just ask Galileo when he was convicted by your church of heresy. It's a lot like the Creationists versus the Evolutionists in our modern day discussions.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Can we all
    February 2, 2013 10:51 am
    Just get along?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Let's agree
    February 2, 2013 2:17 pm
    to disagree :-)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Sporty
    February 2, 2013 7:28 pm
    It's a civil discussion between two adults. It's not like AJ or Bill Law calling people names. It's OK to disagree and discuss a different point of view, that is how ideas are exchanged.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Forrest
    February 3, 2013 11:22 am
    Right, Right, when you put it that way. I see your point.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Not to worry - AJ and Cigarfan have taken over
    February 5, 2013 5:24 pm
    Now THAT could get vicious.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • irony wrote...
    liberals false claim republicans are against immigration..
    February 1, 2013 8:10 pm
    they're for immigration, just that it's legal like all past immigrants. the false claim that immigration is letting them become citizens because they're here is contrary to hitorical immigration where they were documented as they entered. republicans want documentation on entry. democrats what to use immigrants as cheap labor so they can get rich in their business or have cheap house labor.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @irony
    February 2, 2013 10:57 am
    You would do better to segregate terms because you're mixing political parties (ie democrats/republicans) with ideologies (ie liberals). The reality is BOTH Capitalist parties (ie democratic/republican) exist to serve business by exploiting workers. That is the reason they attack unions, increase prison labor and do wall street's bidding. Republicans claim they desire "legal immigration' but that's code for taking 18 years instead of 18 weeks. IF a 7 day background check for assault weapons is enough for Republicans, it should be enough to get a green card without any weapons. Republicans never highlight the unreasonable delaying tactics because they prefer to exploit workers -just as the democrats do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • anotherfencewalker wrote...
    Which Country?
    February 4, 2013 9:28 am
    I need to know this because I just read the "F" word again when referring to our federal government: As imperfect as ours is, what actual fascist country have you lived in (not visited) and how do you compare them with our red and blue government that you DO live in. Specifically.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }