The German theologian Martin Niemöller famously summed up how dangerous social pathologies begin incrementally before snowballing into full-blown assaults on the core of civilized societies. Recounting how Nazi doctrine tightened its grip on Germany, he observed, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.” The trade unionists and the Jews were next until finally they came for him, “and there was no on left to speak for me,” he lamented.
The subversion of laws that exist to serve the welfare of society, by those who want to undermine that society, always begins slowly. People have to become inured to the erosion of the society’s foundational principles through relentless campaigns that make the perfect the enemy of the good.
The idea of a merit-based immigration policy originated on the political left. It was first proposed by a blue ribbon panel, chaired by a civil rights movement icon, Barbara Jordan, in the 1990s. The commission’s recommendations for an immigration overhaul were immediately endorsed by President Bill Clinton and other leading Democrats and Republicans of the day and then, just as quickly, mothballed due to objections from ethnic interest advocacy groups and powerful cheap labor business interests.
Immigration policy, which was a defining issue in the 2016 campaign, finally got a mention in the final 2020 presidential debate. In that debate, much of the time devoted to discussion of immigration centered on the 545 minors who remain separated from their parents as a result of a 2018 policy intended to discourage people from using their kids to gain entry to the United States.
Joe Biden was elected to be the steady, competent hand to guide the nation through COVID-19 health and economic crises, and perhaps heal social divisions. The president-elect has yet to reveal his plan for getting the pandemic under control, but sources close to him have indicated that it could entail a lengthy national lockdown in addition to other stringent measures.
The Biden administration clearly has no enthusiasm for deterring abuse of our asylum system by requiring migrants with specious claims to wait on the other side of the border until an initial hearing can be held, rather than releasing them into the United States, where they join the burgeoning illegal alien population. The other partner at the altar – the government of Mexico – is equally unenthusiastic about the prospect of having large numbers of migrants waiting on their side of the border for a date before a U.S. magistrate.
Earlier this century, conventional political wisdom posited that Republicans would never be able to win a national election unless the party out-pandered the Democrats on the issue of amnesty for illegal aliens. Republican political “experts,” who spent too much time listening to other “experts” instead of actual voters, insisted that supporting massive amnesties for illegal aliens was the key to unlocking the Hispanic vote for the party.