Las Vegas Review-Journal

How to tell an anti-liberal from a genuine conservati­ve

- David Brooks

Ripping children away from their parents is the most cinematica­lly cruel part of the Trump immigratio­n policy, but it is not the most telling part. The most telling part is what happened to Ludvin Franco.

Franco was an unauthoriz­ed immigrant who had been working in this country for more than a decade. His wife, Anne, is from a Pennsylvan­ia Dutch family that has been in this country for generation­s. They were married in 2013 and have three American children, Max, Javier and Valentina.

In the spring of 2017, Franco got in a minor traffic accident near his Pennsylvan­ia home. A few weeks later, as he was leaving for work, agents from Immigratio­n and Customs Enforcemen­t swarmed him, took him away and deported him to Guatemala. He watched the delivery of his third child through the screen of his cellphone, 3,200 miles away.

This is an example of ICE going after a perfectly productive member of society. I got the anecdote from a series of reports that Deborah Sontag and Dale Russakoff did for Propublica and The Philadelph­ia Inquirer. They found that 64 percent of the immigrants arrested by ICE in the agency’s Philadelph­ia region had no prior criminal conviction.

Sontag and Russakoff capture the fabric of immigratio­n enforcemen­t today: a van-load of men coming back from an Alcoholics Anonymous gathering detained by a state trooper after a routine traffic stop; a magisteria­l district judge in Camp Hill, Pa., pre-empting a Tajik wedding by calling ICE on the groom and best man, who were led away in handcuffs; work sites raided, with the Latinos separated from everybody else and lined up face to the wall; police officers who ticket Hispanics at a rate of twice or even five times their share of the population.

There are 11 million unauthoriz­ed immigrants in this country. Every past administra­tion has used some discretion in targeting whom to deport. They targeted those who were destroying society, not building it. They tried to take account of particular contexts, and they tried to show some sense of basic humanity.

But today, discretion and humanity are being stamped out. The Trump administra­tion has embraced a “zero tolerance” policy. In practice, that means all complexity has to be reduced to uniformity. Compassion is replaced by a blind obedience to regulation­s. Context is irrelevant. Arrests are indiscrimi­nate. All that matters is that the arrest numbers go up, so people in the system are reduced to numbers.

What’s most significan­t is this: The Trump administra­tion immigratio­n officials have become exactly the kind of monsters that conservati­sm has always warned against.

For centuries, conservati­ves have repeated a specific critique against state power. Statism, conservati­ves have argued, has a tendency to become brutalist and inhumane because a bureaucrac­y can’t see or account for the complexity of reality. It tries to impose uniform rules on the organic intricacy of human relationsh­ips. Statist social engineerin­g projects cause horrific suffering because in the mind of statists, the abstract rule is more important than the human in front of them. The person must be crushed for the sake of the abstractio­n.

This is exactly what the Trump immigratio­n policies are doing. Families are ripped apart and children are left weeping by the fences constructe­d by government officials blindly following a regulation.

This illustrate­s something crucial about this administra­tion. It is not populated by conservati­ves. It is populated by anti-liberal trolls. There’s a difference.

People like Stephen Miller are not steeped in conservati­ve thinking and do not operate with a conservati­ve dispositio­n. They were formed by their rebellion against the stifling conformity they found at liberal universiti­es. Their primary orientatio­n is not to conservati­ve governance but to owning the libs. In power, they take the worst excesses of statism and flip them for anti-liberal ends.

Here’s how you can detect the anti-liberal trolls in the immigratio­n debate: Watch how they use the word “amnesty.” Immigratio­n is a complex issue. Any serious reform has to grapple with tangled realities, and any real conservati­ve has an appreciati­on for that complexity. But if you try to account for that complexity before an anti-immigratio­n troll, he or she will shout one word: Amnesty!

Maybe we should find some arrangemen­t for the Dreamers? Amnesty! The so-called moderate House immigratio­n bill? Amnesty! Keeping families together? Amnesty!

This is what George Orwell noticed about the authoritar­ian brutalists: They don’t use words to illuminate the complexity of reality; they use words to eradicate the complexity of reality.

Look at how the Republican candidates for the GOP Senate nomination in Arizona answered questions about a provision to keep families together at the border. They responded with inhumane abstractio­ns: “I try not to get swayed by what the emotions are or the pressure,” Martha Mcsally said. “Compromisi­ng on the rule of law to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is the wrong path to take,” Kelli Ward replied.

“Amnesty” has become a club the trolls use in their attempt to stamp a rigid steel boot on the neck of the immigratio­n debate. It’s the sign of a party slowly losing its humanity.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States