… of the Institute of Public Affairs refers to “Brat’s attack on immigration” and writes:
… what could be more respectful of the tenets of individual liberty than allowing individuals and families to travel across national borders to make a better life for themselves?
I haven’t seen anything from David Brat that opposes this.
What David Brat states on his campaign website is:
When addressing the issue of immigration, we must start by securing our border. An open border is both a national security threat and an economic threat that our country cannot ignore. I reject any proposal that grants amnesty and undermines the fundamental rule of law.
… I support proposals that will secure our border, enforce our current laws, and restore an orderly and fair process to allow law abiding individuals to work towards becoming citizens of this great nation.
Repeat: “… to allow law abiding individuals to work towards becoming citizens …”
… in his article on David Brat’s defeat of Eric Cantor explains the importance of “law abiding”:
A key issue in this campaign was amnesty for illegal immigrants.
… Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed almost entirely in terms of what can be done to help those who have broken the law. Some want to help a little and some want to help a lot. But amnesty lite is still amnesty.
… Amnesty is not some esoteric concept. It means that you are not going to be punished for breaking the law — and that simply brings laws into contempt. Denying citizenship is not a punishment because crossing the border illegally does not entitle you to citizenship. Providing a legal status short of citizenship is not punishment either.
… If you are serious about controlling the borders, then you pass laws to control the borders first.
Some years later, after you can see whether the border has been controlled or not — you can start discussing what our national immigration laws should be.
The free movement of people
Chris Berg says it’s time for …
… politicians who proclaim the virtues of liberty to discover its connection with the free movement of people
I support the “free movement of people” and the “virtues of liberty”.
That’s why I think it’s great that:
Over a million people a year are granted permanent residence (green card) status in the USA (link to PDF)
Between 600,000 and 750,000 people are granted citizenship each year in the USA (link to PDF)
Between 5,000,000 and 9,000,000 non-immigrant visas are granted each year in the USA (link to PDF)
That’s a lot of people following the law, isn’t it?
That’s a lot of people who have made the effort, paid the fees, passed the tests — in order to be in the USA.
The USA has a lot of legal immigrants and visitors. To me, this represents a lot of “free movement of people”.
And demonstrates that America is quite “respectful of the tenets of individual liberty … allowing individuals and families to travel across national borders to make a better life for themselves”.
And it’s nice to meet people who get visas or green cards or citizenship by means of respecting the laws of a country which is so much in favour of the “free movement of people”.
So, Dr Brat?
I haven’t heard David Brat complain about any of the above, wonderful people. Have you?
If he was “anti-immigration” you’d think he’d be quite annoyed about all or most or some of those millions of people, wouldn’t you?
But he doesn’t seem to be bothered.
I have been unable to confirm Chris Berg’s claim about David Brat “attacking” immigration.
Get acquainted with David Brat ….
Mark Levin talks about Brat, Conservative principles, and unleashing the American economy …