Rick Santorum and the Messy Truth About Immigration

Former US Senator Rick Santorum was a blip on the radar for me as a presidential contender. A blue-collar spokesman for the needs of industrial America, and particularly in Pennsylvania, he touched on key issues which Trump grabbed and ran with—all the way to his election win November 8^th. His consistency on immigration and trade received more scrutiny on CNN’s “The Messy Truth with Van Jones.” The program has an interesting title, since the truth often gets messed with or messed up on the Clinton News Network, and especially with Jones.

Rick Santorum (Credit: Gage Skidmore)

But no one was messing with Santorum two nights ago.

Why welcome the former two-time US Senator from Pennsylvania, who had lost by double-digits in 2006, not to resurface until 2012—and then 2016—for abortive Presidential bids? After all, it was not must of a surprise that he won Iowa, even if by the slimmest of margins (announced one month after the caucuses). In 2016, I thought it was an unserious decision of his to run for President a second time. He was the last chance for the “NeverRomney” troop in 2012, of which I was one. This election season, we had so many great choices, so Santorum did not register for me.

I gave him a second look during the first under-card debate he had participated in. There it became clear why he is a force to be reckoned with today. Then and now, Santorum focused on two issues during his two campaigns, which he had outlined in his book Blue Collar Conservatives:

1. Help Americans without college degrees to compete and win in the United States. Rebuild the industrial and manufacturing base of this country.

2. Stop illegal immigration, which has particularly harmed poor, working, and middle-class Americans.

The Rust Belt, the industrial core of this country has been eaten out, and much of it do to unscrupulous business practices combined with government mismanagement and micromanaging, all of which made this country far less competitive. Santorum implicitly understands how illegal immigration is hurting working Americans, while the majority of the Republican (and Democratic) Parties have been ignoring these issues.

Granted, blue-collar hero Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens living in the country. They had broken the law, either though illegal entry or unlawful presence. Yes, the “rule of law” still matters and is facing unprecedented attack.

Without the rule of law, without enforcement, we have:

• ·         Corruption
• ·         Anarchy
• ·         Apartheid, in which there is one set of laws for those in power, another for those who are not

We simply cannot have that.

Donald Trump explained it well: a country without borders is not a country.

Ted Cruz asked a young illegal alien in this country: “Mexico, Honduras, and China are allowed to secure their borders. Why not the United States?”

Incidentally enough the best statements I heard about immigration enforcement, and a full-on rejection of amnesty, whether for “DREAMers” or anyone else—came from Rick Santorum.

Santorum stumped hard on these dynamics, as did Trump. And the former Presidential contender was not afraid to share this point. So, no one should be surprised that on CNN, an audience member encapsulated the Republican Party’s sore spot on these issues and tried to corner him.

The question was as loaded and misleading as they come, the “split up the family” question.

Instead of dodging or caving on this issue, Santorum emphasized enforcement as our country’s pre-eminent need, relying on the account of his immigrant family. His grandfather came to the United States first, but left his children behind to bring them later. That was the law at the time. For the first seven years of his life, Rick’s father waited, living under the hostile Mussolini regime.  When he found out, Rick asked his father how he felt about having to wait.

The father answered: “America was worth the wait.”

Yes, this country is worth they wait. The whole tenor of this answer, which is what makes it so gratifying, is that We the People of the United States are not at fault, nor are we to feel a sense of shame that we do not relax our laws and abandon our borders to cater to every person straining to enter this country.

Santorum didn’t play defense. Santorum did not apologize.

The same held true when he confronted Elizabeth Vilchis, the young illegal who feared losing everything she had worked for because of her current immigration legal status.

While The Huffington Post, the Young Turks (if anyone still watches them), and other liberal website rags demeaned the former US Senator’s accurate response, I actually found it brave and refreshing, one worthy of emulation: “[Y]ou have the ability to go to any other country right now and apply those wares, and be successful, and reapply to come back to America,” Santorum added. “Go and make the world a better place.”

In summary: we are still a nation of laws. It’s not the fault of the United States or any American citizen that you are in this country illegally.

Compassion is a worthy trait, but our government exists as a matter of force to protect our rights and secure our borders. Sob stories can no longer be the final debating point for resolving our nation’s problems, particular the acute concerns associated with the messy truth of immigration. If you notice at the end of the CNN discussion, Santorum was prepared to answer the more serious aspect of Vilichis’ status situation … but Van Jones wouldn’t allow him to.

How unfortunate.

If Rick Santorum had more money and better TV personality, he could have been the next President of the United States. For now, I hope that more Americans, particularly Trump supporters and pro-enforcement activists recognize the courage and clarity of Santorum’s immigration arguments—on CNN! And particularly on a program as slanted and biased as ‘The Messy Truth with Van Jones.’

How Donald Trump Won: The Lunch Counter Vote

One of my favorite TV sitcoms is “Frasier.”

Kelsey Grammer (himself a well-respected conservative in Hollywood) played the nerve-racking Frasier Crane. This character gained compelling notoriety in “Cheers”, then headlined the award-winning spin-off sitcom for eleven more years.

Grammer’s well-educated shrink demonstrated erudition and flair, but still ran into the roadblocks of lives. He also bore a pompous air about him. For all of his education and elite nonchalance, he ended up failing, making mistakes, and just plain messing up—just like the rest of us humans.

There was one particular scene from the sitcom which struck me the most, and still makes me laugh when I think about it.

Frasier, a clumsy guy when it came to the rough-a-day activities like fishing and connecting with regular people, was visiting a coffee shop in a rural town. He reminisced out loud, like a self-absorbed Shakespearean actor, how he wanted to meet with “the locals” and take in the rustic air of the town coffee shop.

Straightaway, he turned to a rough-looking man sitting next to him at the lunch counter: “So tell me, my good man, how is it today? How are things with you?”

The response from this “country bumpkin” was fantastic and spot-on (and I am paraphrasing):

“So you want to learn more about ‘people like me’, do you? Well, guess what? I have thoughts and feelings, and struggles just like other people. I am a complicated, complex person with depth and determination. And I am very offended by your condescending remarks and attitude.”

Frasier Crane

The gruff man then huffed off from the lunch counter. Frasier backs away, blinking at the sudden, articulate rebuke from an “Average Joe.”

This scene encapsulates why Trump defeated his GOP rivals and the Democrats in the latest election.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Establishment have identified with the limited concerns of a few special interests. As a result, they are completely removed from the fears, needs, and challenges of “Average Joes.” They look down on “We the People”, the ones who actually form this more perfect union called America. They are convinced they know better, and their plans for themselves are better, regardless of the consequences waged against the rest of us.

This conflict surpasses the 99% rhetoric of the Occupy Movement. This conflict is about more than money, but about an arrogant vision of the politically connected chattering classes which everyone else is supposed to pay for.

Recall this plea of the black woman during the second debate from Election 2012. She had voted for “hope and change” for middle class families such as herself. She plainly explained her plight to Obama: “I am exhausted of defending you.” Her family worked hard to achieve a comfortable level of living. The economic downturn, much of which resulted from Obama’s disastrous domestic policies, were forcing her family back to eating beans and hot dogs.

He pushed off her down-home concerns. He tried the same platitudes of most politicians: “I understand your frustration.”

No he didn’t! He helped create it, though. His rambling answer conveyed what many of us figured out sooner: Obama did not care. His proto-socialist utopia was more important. His plans on how the world should work were more important than the upsets of a middle-income mother who was helping veterans for her day job.

Romney was not much better. He talked about “binders full of women,” then remained stiff and unrelatable. The country later learned why when his true sentiments floated out from a private event. He mocked and derided the “47% who will never vote for me” because they get something from the government or blame someone else for their troubles.

Sorry, Mittens, but that’s not me, and that does not describe the widowed mother, the veteran returning from his third tour in Afghanistan, or the minority parents of our broken inner cities. Those remarks exposed the latent arrogance of a political class that blames the peons of Lunch Counter America and ignores the poor national security, a bad economy, and a declining social order.

The men and women who have built—and continue to build—this country are not flat, static characters in a TV sitcom. They are men and women of diverse backgrounds, different skills, and deep concerns. They are not “victims of globalization” or bitter clingers who run to their Bibles and clutch their guns.

We are Americans, and we should be treated with respect, not disdain.

Even the conservative intelligentsia have missed how deep their disconnect has grown with the discontented millions upon millions of American voters. Consider George Will’s off-hand remarks about the illegal alien minors swarming our borders: “We ought to say to these children, ‘Welcome to America, you’re going to go to school and get a job and become Americans.’”

A friend of mine reacted to Will’s arrogance about this wave of illegal immigration: “What an a—hole! He does not have to pay the taxes to provide an education for those illegals!”

My sentiments exactly!

I would further add: “What would you like to tell the parents, and the friends and family members who lost loved ones to illegal aliens, Mr. Will? What would you like to tell them?”

Unlike the GOP-e and the Democrats, Donald Trump connected at a heart-level with the angry and forlorn, vast anti-Establishment conspiracy in this country. His charm connected with working people of Middle America. A solid resume, a convincing grasp of conservative principles, and flashy rhetoric were not enough. Trump responded to the concerns of us “lunch counter Average Joes” and respected us.

And Trump won.

Indeed, Election 2016 was truly a historic election.

A real estate mogul, then reality TV show host connected better with Americans than the most experienced—and even the most conservative—presidential candidates.

And how? Trump did not treat them like second-class oddities whose concerns did not matter.

And yes, he could probably sit at the lunch counter next to them and say “Hi” to show he really cared.