Kemp/Bennett vs. the Right - Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett - On the Right - Column

National Review, Nov 21, 1994 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

The dispute on immigration policy within the Right had up until just now exercised itself in the theoretical playing grounds. It is a drastic truncation of the arguments, but fair enough to say that one side hailed the historical accomplishments of immigrants, one of whom married Pocahontas, while the second called attention to an exceeding of immigration speed limits, which has dried up the assimilative machinery by which traditionally an indigent newcomer became self-sustained and productive. But the two camps are now out in the open, moving toward one another with sabers drawn.

What happened was Proposition 187. It is a very hot ticket in California, where it is known as the "Save Our State" initiative. What it says, among other things, is that California should not contribute to the maintenance of illegal immigrants. P-187 is very hotly supported as a register of the frustration of Californians swamped by illegals.

The other side, Don't Raise Barriers, is taken by the usual ideological conglomerate, the ACLU/Amnesty/American Way types, alongside the pure libertarians. But the shock came on October 19 when Jack Kemp and William Bennett issued a joint statement urging Californians to vote No on 187. Here are two right-wing Republican presidential contenders who suddenly seemed to be saying that illegal immigrants should continue to be subsidized.

Actually, Messrs. Kemp and Bennett took some pains to say that this was not what they were saying. Under existing law, they stressed, illegals do not qualify for welfare, indeed neither do freshly inducted citizens (the technical ban on welfare for them is for five years). What the Supreme Court has held (1982) is that it is unconstitutional to deny any child access to public schooling. And that Court ruling would presumably be invoked the day after 187 was passed, in effect making the proposition a dead letter.

The Kemp-Bennett position says: Look, there shouldn't be illegal immigrants in California, but it is the business of the Federal Government to keep them away. To pass such a measure as 187 situates the GOP with a strain of xenophobia which will very quickly (California will be more than 50 per cent Asian/Hispanic at the turn of the century whatever happens to illegals) evolve into massive anti-GOP resentments by the majority of Californians. That could lead to such electoral catastrophes as pursued many GOP candidates who were slow in boarding the civil-rights crusade.

Now there are fascinating personal aspects to the controversy. One of them is that Bill Bennett began by endorsing 187. But, he now explains, what he meant by doing this was to stress his agreement with existing law, namely that illegals had no claim on federal bounties. And then Jack Kemp - who while opposing 187 heartily endorses existing bans against federal support of illegals - as recently as in 1990, when he served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, was writing letters defending federal bounties to illegals using the conventional language of Mother Welfare ("all persons residing within this country are entitled to the equal protection of the laws ... Our attomeys are now drafting a Departmental regulation which will bar discrimination on the basis of alienage . . .").

Forget it; sanity lies in respecting the long accreditation of Messrs. Kemp and Bennett as opponents of imperial welfarism. But they are making a point, namely that to back a proposition that will not in fact change anything (only the Federal Government can secure the frontiers; only the courts can modify constitutional welfarist asseverations), but that will encourage a vigilante mood to report on suspicious foreigners seeking welfare, is to discourage a solid body of potential Republican voters.

But supporters of 187 are anxious to back the government in Washington up against the wall. It is asking Californians not only to tolerate four million illegals but also to school them, look after their health, and pay them unemployment benefits - because that is what we are being forced to do not withstanding platonic restrictions against doing so. So: Get up off your bureaucratic arse and - do something.

A reasonable position, and the position likeliest to prevail among conservative analysts and Republican voters. Because the burden of immigration is greater than our resources to cope with it