Amnesty and the Tea Party's Libertarian Friends
By Tina
Trent
After Eric Cantor’s defeat by
newcomer Dave Brat, the New York Times ran a dozen articles and blog
posts about the election. This flood of words tried to conceal the
primary concern of voters in Cantor’s district: amnesty for illegal
immigrants. One story did address amnesty and the election, but Times
reporters mused at far greater length about anything and everything else.
Such papering-over is to be expected
of the Times, which does not wish to draw attention to the fact that
most American citizens disagree with open-borders politics. Amnesty’s
other cheerleaders also prioritize suppressing the public’s real views on legal
and illegal immigration: this motley crew includes the Chamber of Commerce, La
Raza, Grover Norquist, Barack Obama, the RNC, the DNC, and even powerful
elements within the American Conservative Union. The Tea Party stands virtually
alone in loudly opposing amnesty, and for doing so they are targeted with slurs
like “nativist” and “racist.” While their views represent those of many,
if not most Americans, the toxic label “racist” intimidates their potential
allies from speaking out. This is why election results like the defeat of
Cantor come as a surprise to the political establishment. It is also why
silencing the Tea Party on immigration is a key ambition of pro-amnesty forces.
Unfortunately, it is not the Chamber
of Commerce or even RINOs that threaten to undermine the Tea Party’s courageous
stance on immigration. That danger lies closer to home, in national
libertarian groups. In particular, Americans for Prosperity and
Freedomworks have been misleading the grassroots on amnesty. With a vote
on immigration a strong possibility in coming weeks, as Erick Erickson warns in
RedState, it is time to
confront this deception, however unpleasant the confrontation may prove to be.
The official line offered by AFP and
Freedomworks is that they are “sitting out” the immigration debate. But
there is no such thing as sitting out such a crucial issue. Worse, they
aren’t really sitting it out. Behind the scenes and through other
organizations, the primary donors to AFP and the primary thinkers at
Freedomworks actually advocate for increased immigration and amnesty.
When they say they are “sitting immigration out,” they are being dishonest.
The Kochs, for example, are not just
the founders of AFP: they are the founders of the most prominent
right-of-center pro-amnesty think tank, CATO Institute. Through CATO,
they subsidize the work of Alex Nowrasteh and others who argue that “unauthorized
immigrants” do not strain the welfare system, social safety nets, or the job
market. By speaking from the right, CATO plays a vital role in
legitimating the bipartisan nature of the elitists’ push for ever-increasing
immigration and amnesty.
Within the beltway, the Kochs are
not shy about using their money to support mass amnesty and open borders, not
only by subsidizing CATO but also the open borders, pro-amnesty, libertarian
magazine Reason. So why do they refuse to be consistent with AFP
or at least make their real opinion clear to the hundreds of thousands of Tea
Party activists who have volunteered with or donated money to AFP?
The answer is obvious: many citizen
activists would hesitate to work with AFP if they knew that the organization’s
leaders are delivering one set of marching orders to the grassroots outside the
beltway while underwriting pro-amnesty campaigns inside the beltway. And
we wouldn’t work with AFP at all if it endorsed CATO’s immigration
stance. So AFP plays us for fools and hopes we swallow the duplicitous
claim that they’re just “sitting out” amnesty. But the duplicity goes
deeper that that.
I worked as an independent
contractor with AFP in Florida during the 2012 election (I received
approximately $1550 for honorariums and donated many more volunteer hours to
AFP). AFP’s Florida key staff included several figures tied to Jeb
Bush. Away from microphones, their attitude towards grassroots Tea Party
activists, especially social conservatives, reflected the attitude of Bush and
other RINOs, particularly on amnesty.
Tea Party activists felt pressured
to sit down and shut up about amnesty lest they be seen as racists. And
at the crucial moment when Marco Rubio betrayed his promise to voters to oppose
amnesty, AFP gave Rubio a prominent platform at their Defending the American
Dream Summit. It was a slap in the face to every Florida activist who
had volunteered his or her time for Rubio’s election based on his tape-recorded
promise to not back amnesty.
I know many Florida Tea Party
activists who are deeply fed up with AFP’s immigration deception (not to
mention their incessant fundraising and their insistence that they speak for
grassroots groups who have no reciprocal voice in AFP’s platform – but those
are issues for another day). But with jobs and families to support, few
citizen activists feel they can stand up to AFP. Some also feel pressure
to stay quiet lest they attract attention from AFP’s belligerent legal
team.
The consequence of AFP’s meddling is
a weakened Tea Party voice against illegal immigration. Freedomworks is
more responsive and respectful towards the grassroots, but they too are using
the excuse of “sitting amnesty out.”
Why do we put up with this?
With few friends and many enemies, it is understandable that Tea Party
activists wish to trust their political allies. But amnesty and border
control aren’t like other political issues. They represent an existential
crisis that threatens to overwhelm every other cause, from repealing Obamacare
to protecting gun rights to returning local control to the school curriculum
and reducing national debt.
It will take years of legislative
negotiation to end Obamacare and rein in the federal Departments of Education
and Justice. But if we don’t secure the border first and prevent amnesty,
Florida will soon become a permanent blue state with Georgia close behind.
Even Texas will follow in fewer years than anyone wants to
contemplate. After that, there is zero demographic chance of Republicans
ever gaining the House, Senate, or Presidency again.
If we don’t put all our current
energy into closing the border and defeating amnesty legislation, none of our
other fights will matter. We cannot allow even our best political friends
to exert control over our position on immigration and amnesty. We can’t
let them whisper “racism,” for their sake as much as ours: the border crisis is
only emboldening radicals’ demands that Americans censor any opposition to
untrammelled illegal immigration. Soon, even voicing any desire for
border control will be unacceptable political speech.
What to do? We need to
confront AFP and Freedomworks about their stance on immigration. We need
to talk about the ways their “neutrality” claim undermines our anti-amnesty
message and honestly address their collaboration with open-borders
agitators.
Essentially, we need to hold the
libertarian nationals to the same standard to which we would hold any elected
official. If a friend back home goes to Washington and double-crosses our
platform, we impose consequences. The same must go for any national
organization that partner with us. They are powerful groups, but we gave
them that power. We can also take it away. The future of America
literally depends on it.
Tina Trent
is a writer and coalition-building consultant. She lives in the north
Georgia mountains and blogs about crime, politics, and academia at
tinatrent.com.
Source:http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/amnesty_and_the_tea_partys_libertarian_friends.html June 20, 2014
Comments
Tina, who made you the boss ? Here’s the rub. We have 5000 independent Tea
Party groups and hundreds of other conservative groups in the U.S.. Many of the other conservative groups are niched
to a single issue and more are being created every day. The strength of the Tea Party is that each of
the 5000 Tea Parties in the U.S. are sovereign entities. If they merged, they would be less effective.
We do call other Tea Party Leaders
when we think they are wrong on an issue of a candidate or an approach and try
to provide our evidence. But we do recognize
that these folks are sovereign.
We have, so far, formed coalitions
with other groups to oppose specific issues like the Georgia 2012
Transportation SPLOST. This was successful and was a sound rejection of “regional”
transportation crony overcharges and sloppiness. However, after 2012, we
partnered closer with the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty groups, but wanted them
to continue to thrive as a group. The common denominator between the Tea Party,
9/12 and Liberty groups is the U.S. Constitution (as written) and the 10th
Amendment. There are also Constitution
and 10th Amendment groups and a Constitution Party with websites.
The Libertarians are divided on some
issues like marijuana and personal rights issues and are a registered national
political party. We agree with Libertarians that laws that protect us from
ourselves are inappropriate. We
encourage them to maintain their “small government, big freedom” stance. Even among Tea Parties, individuals differ in
their support of the U.S. military as the world’s policeman. It should be clear
to all of us that we cannot afford to be the world’s nation builder.
I say, if AFP or Freedomworks want
to “sit out” on amnesty, that’s ok. I
think “open borders” Libertarians are actually Liberals, but I’m sure there are
some.
The thing we need to avoid is infiltration
of these groups by those who want to dull their impact or sabotage their
original purpose. We are all trying to
be careful in how we form our coalitions and define our relationships with
other groups.
These conservative groups are
essentially pro-individual and populist. We believe in individual sovereignty
as does anyone who has spent any time conversing with a 5 year old. Many conservative groups were neutral on gay
marriage because of their support for free will and individual sovereignty,
though none I’ve met thinks that government imposed “protected minority” status
is appropriate or necessary. We also cite families as being the “safety net”
for those in need, but neighbors, charities and churches should provide the
final defense, not the government.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party
Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment