The death of the so-called Gang of Eight bill in the House\nof Representatives in 2014 marks the point at which the Democratic\nestablishment dropped any pretense of support for immigration enforcement. The\nlast week in June 2019 will almost certainly mark the point at which the\nparty\u2019s leaders declared not only their unconcealed hostility to immigration\nenforcement, but their rejection of the very notion that the United States\nshould even have immigration laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The week began with Speaker Nancy Pelosi<\/a>, the party\u2019s highest ranking elected federal official, declaring \u201cA violation of status is not a reason for deportation. That\u2019s just not so.\u201d 8 U.S. Code Section 1325<\/a> says otherwise, but why let a little thing like a federal statute stand in the way of a political agenda? Pelosi went on to tout a House supplemental appropriation to deal with the humanitarian fallout from the border crisis, \u201cWe have legislation to go forward to address those needs,\u201d and also stated clearly her view that anyone who makes it into the country, however they got here, should be allowed to remain. \u201c[I]n terms of interior enforcement, what is \u2013 what\u2019s the point?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Pelosi\u2019s musings were just the Democratic locomotive\napproaching the sharp curve at high speed. Just a few days later, the two dozen\nor so presidential contenders who hope to supplant her as the nation\u2019s highest\nranking elected Democrat held their first debate over two nights. That\u2019s where\ntheir positions on immigration really went off the rails in the opinion of some\nhigh profile opinion columnists whose opinions tend to lean toward the\nDemocrats\u2019 world view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Andrew Sullivan, writing in New York Magazine, and Jeff Greenfield in Politico, were both left wondering whether the Democrats had lost all touch, not just with reality, but with voters outside of the bubble of the party\u2019s increasingly radical base. \u201cI suspect that the Democrats\u2019 new position \u2014 everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime \u2014 is political suicide,\u201d wrote Sullivan<\/a>. Similarly, Greenfield noted<\/a>, \u201cThese candidates aren\u2019t explicitly advocating open borders, but taken together, the policies advocated amount to almost the same thing.\u201d And not just advocating for open borders, observed Greenfield, but also all manner of \u201c\u2019free stuff\u2019 to millions of people who broke the law to get here in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Julian Castro, who apparently is familiar with Section 1325 openly called for its repeal. He also conceded that many of the people who are now violating Section 1325 are really economic migrants.<\/a> \u201cA lot of folks that are coming are not seeking asylum \u2014 a lot of them are undocumented immigrants,\u201d who should be allowed to remain here anyway, Castro said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While there was some disagreement among the presidential\nwannabes about whether we should care if people cross our borders without\npermission, there was none when it came to the question about what expensive\nbenefit programs illegal aliens should be entitled to. All. When the debate\nmoderator asked the candidates on stage if they agreed with South Bend,\nIndiana, Mayor Pete Buttitieg\u2019s suggestion that illegal aliens be made eligible\nfor federal health insurance benefits, every hand went up. The cost of such a\nplan? Apparently it would be crass to even calculate the cost of allowing\neveryone who shows up here to exercise their \u201cright\u201d to health care at the\nAmerican taxpayer\u2019s expense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether last week\u2019s assertions by the Democratic leadership\namount to \u201cpolitical suicide,\u201d as Sullivan suggests, will be determined by the\nvoters in 16 months. What is clear is that the week was a definitive turning\npoint. As Greenfield conclude, \u201cRight now, it seems clear that if either of the\npast two Democratic presidents had shown up Thursday and advocated their\npositions from five or 20 years ago\u2014the ones that helped them win a general\nelection\u2014they would have been booed off their own party\u2019s stage.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The death of the so-called Gang of Eight bill in the House of Representatives in 2014 marks the point at which the Democratic establishment dropped any pretense of support for immigration enforcement. The last week in June 2019 will almost certainly mark the point at which the party\u2019s leaders declared not only their unconcealed hostility<\/p>\n