Biden vows ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform’ despite Sowell’s earlier warning.
Few figures in conservativism are more revered than Thomas Sowell
A free-market economist, social theorist and philosopher, Sowell’s work has spanned decades and influenced generations.
Sowell wrote a nationally syndicated column, authored dozens of books and dazzled television audiences time and time again with his common sense, anti-intellectual approach to political and cultural issues.
The following story is part of The Western Journal’s exclusive series, “The Sowell Digest.” Each issue will break down and summarize one of Sowell’s many influential works.
Political buzzwords always conceal truth
In fact, they often carry the precise opposite meaning of the impression they convey. Thus, defending “democracy” nearly always entails something authoritarian.
The same holds true for the word “comprehensive” when applied to immigration reform. In May, for instance, the White House released a statement on “House Democrats Reintroducing President Biden’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill.”
Eight years ago, Thomas Sowell delivered what amounts to a standing rebuke of such “comprehensive” plans.
In a 2015 opinion piece that appeared in newspapers across the country, including the Palm Springs (California) Desert Sun, Sowell exposed the problem with calls for “comprehensive” immigration reform.
The fatal flaw of “comprehensive” immigration reform
First, he noted that the guilt for failing to secure the border rests with the entire political establishment.
“Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for failing to take control of the borders,” Sowell wrote.
Furthermore, border security involves practical problems with immediate solutions. Thus, it amounts to a matter of will.
“In all the years that have been spent talking back and forth about every conceivable immigration policy — and some that are inconceivable — we could have built the biggest fence of all time, backed up by electronics, boots on the ground and whatever else it takes,” Sowell wrote.
The political establishment, however, has delayed securing the border until it can find answers to every immigration-related question.
“Instead, many have been pursuing the will-o’-the-wisp called ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform,” Sowell wrote. “In other words, we are supposed to do everything all at once, like Obamacare. How well did that turn out?”
Therein lies “comprehensive” immigration reform’s fatal flaw. We cannot do anything, its proponents say, unless we can do everything.
Sowell then rightly observed that border security need not wait on “comprehensive” reform. On the other hand, “comprehensive” reform cannot occur without border security.
“There are very serious and complex questions to be confronted before immigration issues are laid to rest by new laws” Sowell acknowledged. “But none of that stops us from taking control of the borders now.”
Indeed, “if the border is not secured, it does not matter what kind of immigration policy we have — or think we have — because people will cross the borders when they want to, regardless of what the policy turns out to be.”
Eight years later, Sowell’s “comprehensive” buzzword translation still rings true. In practice, attempting to do everything means accomplishing nothing.
Worse yet, decades of inaction on this front have raised plausible suspicions. It appears that those who argue for all-encompassing immigration reform as a precondition to border security in fact have deliberately inverted the meaning of the word “comprehensive.” They tell us that they plan to do everything because they plan to do nothing.
Political buzzwords have that truth-inverting quality
“Comprehensive” means “nothing at all.” “Democracy” means “surrender your rights and freedoms.”
Small wonder that professional liars love their buzzwords.
The post Biden Promises ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform’: Sowell Warned Against This Buzzword Years Ago appeared first on The Western Journal.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
