A few weeks ago I talked with a federal prosecutor, a former Democrat turned Republican because of this issue. Without getting into too many details, things are worse than I thought.
Still, what occurred to me is that there is no long term solution to illegal immigration, in part because there is no long term solution to most anything in politics. This is why I care about Supreme Court justice appointments more than most issues. A court packed with conservatives does offer longer term solutions. Those for whom immigration is the number one issue and think Trump building a wall offers a long term solution are misguided.
Why? Because any future president can opt to apply a "catch and release" mandate to border control officials just as Obama has done. According to the federal prosecutor with whom I talked, most of the illegals now simply walk up to the border entrance, claim amnesty (which, in order to thoroughly vet takes months of investigation and plenty of money) and walk right in. Most, that is, walk through the open door. What is a wall going to do if one can walk in simply by claiming amnesty?
So any longer term solution will take Supreme Court action or a large groundswell of ideological change. In that case, if a long term solution to immigration is what you are hankering for, Cruz and not Trump is your man.
More on Trump's wall
![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
Your argument would have carried more weight had the
ReplyDeletetrack record of SC appointees by previous Republican presidents been inspiring.
The days are gone when social conservatives could be easily persuaded with this appeal to SC judges.
Gyan,
ReplyDeleteCompared with what Democrats have given us, the Republicans have been outstanding. Reagan promised a female in his campaign and appointed O'Conner, a moderate compared to Sotomayor et alia; next was Scalia; next was Kennedy (another moderate). But Kennedy came after Bork got Borked.
Bush Sr. had a win with Thomas and a loss with Souter--but then we knew Bush Sr. was a moderate anyhow and not a conservative when he ran against Reagan. Still, I'd take a split over two leftwing activists which is exactly what Hillary would give us and maybe Trump. Though if Cruz is the man, we'll be looking at probably two more Scalias.
Bush Jr. hit two winners. Roberts is a conservative in spite of what people thought of his Obamacare ruling. It was not what people wanted but it seemed to fit his conservative judicial philosophy of deferring to legislators. I wasn't happy with it, but I'd take 9 Robertses over the 8 we have now any day of the week.