Professor VDH is of course correct and I think we have all pretty well admitted to most of that around here.
Where his authority weakens for me is that he is the doyen of intellectual nativists on immigration. It is easy for me to break off with Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham or Sen. Jeff Sessions (Nat. - AL), but I must admit it gives me pause to think orthogonally from VDH.
Painful, but I do it. When you agree with Trump on immigration, a lot of his other positions are easy to accept or agree with When you start as I do opposite him on immigration only to hear a blanket 45% tariff on all Chinese goods would be swell, it becomes much harder to ignore his dangerous side.
I believe VDH would be an open borders guy if our current system of government didn't, for example, excuse lawlessness on the part of illegal immigrants simply because they are illegal immigrants. In the rush to grant "sanctuary" from prosecution for immigration lawlessness they gloss over all but the most serious of every other crime.
And VDH sees the effects of this in the Golden State every day.
Before we can "fix our broken immigration system" we must first fix our broken everything else.
I know it is informed by his experiences in Cali -- excuse me, "Mexifornia" -- but I'm going to push back.
Hansen attributes all the problems of progressivism in California to immigrants. His stories are heartbreaking, but California has a governance problem more than an immigration problem. Fix the other things what's busted in the Golden State and immigration will work itself out.
Hmm, I must have read a different article. I didn't see the estimable VDH say much about immigration here (in the past, his most memorable moment was mentioning at least two of his daughters have married into immigrant families from "el sur").
Here, he's mostly noting the power of the Donald, who - in one of his most shiny moments helped the GOP ticket more than all his billions ever could.
In about a day, Trump wrecked Hillary Clinton’s planned “war on women” talking points that had helped to win the election for Obama in 2012.
Agreed in general with JG's comment that "we must first fix our broken everything else" but feel compelled to pose this thought:
Does allowing a continued crush of illegals / faux-amnesters make this problem better or worse? For now, where the beltway is in a crush to route away our money from roads and defense to sensitivity classes for muslims and ESL for those from the south, I can think of no better time to slow down immigration to a trickle. We can always pick it up later.
For those genuinely interested in saving lives of those threatened by nefarious forces, then by any analysis ME Christians (and Yazidiz and Kurds), L.American indigenous types (e.g., Aztecs) and untouchables from the asian continent must be at the front of the line.
... and with the recent, high-profile shootings, it is a good time to stop firearm sales. We can always pick them up later.
.. with the recent terror attacks, we should allow unlimited, warrantless wiretaps. We can always restore the Fourth Amendment down the road.
I can continue if you'd like. Policy is good or bad -- fending off opposition with "it's temporary" got us the mohair subsidy in WWI and innumerable "temporary tax increases" ever since.
Professor Hansen wrote an entire book opposing immigration. I don't think I'm pulling a rabbit out a hat. I'm a fan of his and have read dozens of columns of his asking for greater border enforcement.
My comment described a natural alliance between Trump supporters and immigration restrictionists. If you're with him on that it is easier to forgive positions of his with which you disagree. If you're not with him on the beautiful Trump wall of our southern border, it is much harder.