A Fundamental Misunderstanding of American Conservatism at the CBC

The past couple months have provided plenty of ammunition for critics of Canada's publicly funded state broadcaster -- the CBC. Accusations against Jian Ghomeshi, public spats between high-profile personalities at the Mother Corporation, junk science reporting on climate change issues, and on the list goes.

We can add to this pile of substandard journalism and commentary a recent piece by Neil Macdonald -- who purports to help Canadians understand the politics of our southern neighbor. But the real problem is that Macdonald, along with others at the CBC, repeatedly distorts the nature of American politics. The thesis being put forward by Macdonald is that there is a “necessary hypocrisy of America's migrant workers,” and that American conservatives are being hypocritical with regard to their positions on illegal immigrants. Alas, this oversimplification belies either Macdonald's political biases and/or his failure to appreciate the complexity of the political right in the United States. Take this quote:

“And without much question, Barack Obama's decision not to deport millions of illegal immigrants sends a message to other economic refugees contemplating an illegal border crossing that there might be a similar break for them somewhere down the road. Republicans are right: With the stroke of his executive pen, Obama effectively made chumps of anyone who's been following the rules, applying from abroad for a treasured American green card. And the conservative Republican solution -- deport all 11 million 'illegals,' as conservatives so charitably refer to them -- is actually the most moral-hazard-free approach, strictly speaking. But given the American reality, it's also political lunacy, and a perfect example of the far-right's cognitive dissonance with American capitalism.”

---

Note the language employed: “economic refugees”; “so charitably”; “far-right.” If Macdonald wishes to write this anti-intellectual slop, he is welcome to do so -- just not on the public dime. The fact of the matter is that these individuals are illegals. Using softer, more politically correct, language to describe the problem is simply inaccurate, and only encourages the law-breaking. Part of the deterrence factor against law-breaking as that we refer to the criminals as criminals. Only the far-right believes in deportation? Hardly. If one looked at the situation beyond a superficial smear, one may find the frustration at this situation is more broadly distributed across the political spectrum. Many Americans of all political persuasions have been watching middle-class incomes stagnate for decades while their children are still living -- often unemployed, or at the very least, underemployed -- in the same bedroom at middle age that they had when they were toddlers. Oh, it is much more than just the “far-right” that is concerned and sees deportation as the best option. But to see this, you would need to look objectively beyond the headlines and ask the right questions. If you want to see how deportation support crosses the spectrum, consider the results of a recent poll done in Canada -- of all places. Keep in mind that Canada is inherently much farther left on the political spectrum than the United States, and we are generally much more open to immigrants and refugees. For example, Canada has a refugee population of 164,000. The United States, with a population an order of magnitude larger, has a corresponding population of only 262,000. Canada's international migrant stock is at over 21 percent of our total population; the USA is at only 13.8 percent. Yet the poll revealed that “a majority of Canadians believe immigrants who are in the country illegally or after their visas expire should be deported, even if they have family ties in the country ... with nearly two-thirds of Canadians coming down hard on illegal immigrants because they did not follow the rules.” Take this quote by Professor Peter Showler, the director of the Refugee Forum at the University of Ottawa:

“it is a 'very high Canadian value' to oppose queue-jumping by anyone in the country, including immigrants. 'We are a very civil society and we like the idea that people should play by the rules, and we don’t like it when there are rule-breakers and I think that has been a fairly consistent view,' said Mr. Showler.”

So according to Macdonald's flawed assumptions and reasoning, the majority of Canadians would be “far-right”? One look at electoral results and the political views of the candidates would show this is ridiculous -- Canadians are almost exclusively left-wingers. Even President Obama would be on the right portion of the political spectrum up here. Thus, this suggestion that only the far-right supports deportation of illegal immigrants is pure nonsense. Another claim by Macdonald:

“Native-born American workers generally won't consider digging ditches or cleaning toilets or picking vegetables. It's actually something of a class issue here.”

This, too, is nonsense. The reason why “native-born American workers” will not take these jobs is because the pay is too low and the working conditions are unacceptable. What is the reason these types of jobs pay too low and have unacceptable working conditions? The illegal immigrants, whose very presence undermines both. Macdonald almost concedes this point, but then makes the core mistake of lumping together the corporatists and the real conservatives, along with incorrectly characterizing what the conservatives are advocating:

“Of course, the whole picture would change if American business were willing to pay better wages and benefits for unskilled labour. But any government effort to impose those conditions is met with angry accusations of socialism from conservatives -- the same people who want to begin the mass deportations. According to Republican dogma, if government would just get off the back of business and stop imposing ruinous payroll taxes, minimum wage and worker safety regulations, everything would be fine. And, of course, even cheaper for consumers.”

The point many conservatives have been making for years now is that if illegal immigrants were deported, wages for these low-skilled positions would rise naturally and fairly and there would be no need for government intervention. Consequently, Macdonald presents a classic logical fallacy all too typical from those in the public sector: the answer must only be from the government, and we must ignore the more realistic and practical private sector solutions being advocated. Let us be clear: “the same people who want to begin the mass deportations” are not, in fact, the same people. Various business interests that benefit from cheap illegal immigrant labor have never supported deportation. Actually, they fight deportation rather vigorously -- and that is the core divide between the corporatists and real conservatives in Republican circles today, and the divide which has existed now for many years. To complete the over-the-top hysteria all too common at the CBC when it comes to right-of-center politics, especially in the United States:

“The employment of illegal immigrants, people who will break their backs for poverty wages and won't complain to the authorities, is just a natural action of the unshackled market forces to which conservatives attribute almost magical abilities to solve any issue. And of course, many households here (including conservative households) are happy to overlook the lack of a green card or social security number when hiring a maid or nanny. But Tea-Party aligned Republicans and their champions are deliberately blind to that sort of law-breaking. Instead, they demonize the 'illegals,' and accuse Obama of ripping up the Constitution and behaving like a dictator for trying to alleviate the social pressure of keeping millions in the shadows.”

Demonize the illegals? Well, they are breaking the law. So it is now wrong to demonize those who do not obey the rule of law, and who -- by their very illegal activities -- harm others? It is false to claim that illegal immigration is “just a natural action of the unshackled market forces to which conservatives attribute almost magical abilities to solve any issue.” Conservatives believe first-and-foremost in the rule of law, which also governs how free markets behave. Had the US southern border been secured by the government itself, the problem of “illegals” wouldn't be relevant, and the free market ideology could operate successfully within the rule of law. But with regard to the former -- it wasn't, and as such, with respect to the latter -- it cannot. Those who oppose a free market system know this, and rigged the long-played game accordingly in order to further their political and economic interests. Do some conservatives advocate for deportation and yet still hire illegals? Probably, but the numbers may be very small (and we certainly do not have any solid data on this apparent hypocrisy). The reason for this is that the game is currently rigged, and sometimes you need to play within a rigged game while advocating for a return to playing by the rules. What is actually worse would be advocating against a return to the rules, which is exactly what all those opposed to deportation are doing. To broadly claim that “Tea-Party aligned Republicans ... are deliberately blind to that sort of law-breaking” is another falsehood. Just a couple days ago, the results of an Economist/YouGov Poll were released. Only 47 percent of Americans “now favor providing those here illegally having a path towards citizenship.” And there is substantial opposition to amnesty among Democrats and Independents -- although at much lower levels than among Republicans, giving more evidence that Macdonald's excessive generalizations are just plain wrong. As the Washington Examiner also reported, “overwhelming majorities [are] demanding that illegal children be barred from schools and illegal adults from jobs.” Doesn't look like Americans, particularly “Tea-Party aligned Republicans” are in fact “deliberately blind to that sort of law-breaking.” Is Obama violating the American Constitution by his actions? Yes. Have other politicians, including Reagan, undermined or outright violated the Constitution by supporting amnesty measures for illegals? Yes. And now you understand much of the Tea Party movement, with its rejection of the GOP establishment's current positions -- and historical ones -- on a range of important issues. Or at least you should understand these details if you are writing opinion pieces masquerading as journalism for Canada's public broadcaster.