In today’s world of technology, not only are our words remembered, they are frequently brought back to remind us of what we have said in the past in an effort to keep us honest in the present. When Sen. Barack Obama was campaigning in 2008, he promised to present “an immigration bill that I strongly support” in my first year. It is now five years later and such a bill is yet to be presented.
Give the President credit; he did mention the possibility of such a bill in his 2013 State of the Union address when he said,
“Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants.”
When taken at face value, the President’s comment draws political applause, but it is absent of substance. The Obama Administration has a shed full of political tools, but very few parts that can actually be used to repair a broken system. The sad commentary on such a debacle is many Americans just cannot see reality while others refuse to see it. It is the old adage, “if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into the ditch.”
Washington’s immigration lobby is a very powerful group influenced by unions, markets, labor, and social reformers. The fact is these groups are not out to protect and defend the rights of American citizens, rather they each have their own agenda – an agenda that often runs counterproductive to American values and principles.
Many of the Republicans who push hardest for Immigration Reform on a stricter scale are actually supported by people like FAIR board member Sarah G. Epstein who has worked for Planned Parenthood in the past. Epstein once called China’s one-child policy “compassionate and fair.” Some of these same Republicans who rail against the pubic funding of Planned Parenthood, support the same people on other “no less moral” issues.
Do conservatives find such a mixture to be a moral dilemma? Or are they more like Pro-life Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), currently a member of the House Immigration Reform caucus who said,
“If any group or organization supports the same thing that most of my constituents do, then to that extent we are in agreement.”
If there is a clarion call today – it is for consistency. It is impossible to have a consistent message without clear convictions. If our convictions can be maneuvered by power groups, ideologies, unions, and the like – our message will be all over the place, depending upon what message is most convenient in the moment.
We sorely need leaders who know where they stand, why they stand where they stand and who are not shaken by where they stand when opposing winds begin to blow. When this takes place, we will begin to see suspicions subside and trust restored.
Who will dare to be first in line with the conviction that will remain a consistent message? If you are that person, you might just garner some unexpected respect and attention.