After Donald Trump’s recent speech on immigration, I am shocked that anyone who claims to be a conservative could oppose him. He is the first candidate in a long time to make the obvious point that our immigration policy ought to be first and foremost about what benefits current Americans, and that the United States has a right to determine whom it will and will not let into the country, instead of merely asking that everyone use proper channels and promising to open them wide enough so that no one will ever be turned away.

Hillary Clinton believes that we have a moral duty not only to let everyone in who wants to come, but also to ignore whether they came here or stayed here through official channels or illegally. She does not even pretend to care about whether or not this is good for current residents, largely because she believes that the new arrivals will vote Democratic, and her strategy for maintaining political power is, to paraphrase Bertholt Brecht, to elect a new people.

Big business and media elites all agree with Clinton, of course, as smashing cultures and borders helps their bottom line at the expense of the little guy.

Trump sees the United States as a country, united by a shared history and culture, with a duty to protect and nurture her citizens. Clinton believes it is merely a location, a district in the larger world bureaucracy, and that our government has no particular obligations toward its people.

Given the incredibly high stakes, the statements by some Republican politicians that they will not support Trump must not be seen as courageously putting country before party, but as selfishly putting the adulation of the media and of the elites ahead of the national interest.

Michael Jose


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.