Hablar honestamente sobre inmigración

Bravo. Cuando el ex Presidente de la Cámara realizó esos comentarios durante un reciente debate presidencial del Partido Republicano, dio en el clavo precisamente sobre lo que no funciona en el debate de la inmigración.

No es que los estadounidenses sean demasiado indulgentes o demasiado duros. Es que se muestran demasiado renuentes a enfrentar el tema honestamente.

Hay numerosas mentiras en el debate de la inmigración -no se trata de racismo; los estadounidenses llevarían a cabo de buena gana los trabajos que realizan los inmigrantes, por el jornal correcto; todos los empleadores son codiciosos y explotan a los trabajadores; los estadounidenses no desean limitar la inmigración legal, etc.

Los republicanos hablan duro pero son suaves con los empleadores al crear escapatorias y conceder retrasos y exenciones cuando se intenta imponer la ley. Los demócratas hablan suave pero hacen demagogia con los estadounidenses de la clase obrera y los jefes sindicalistas, aumentando las deportaciones.

Gingrich dice: basta de eso. Para combatir la inmigración ilegal, debemos comenzar a ser sinceros con el pueblo estadounidense.

John King, de CNN, el moderador del debate, preguntó a Gingrich si deberíamos deportar a millones de inmigrantes ilegales o brindar "algún camino a la legalidad" para los indocumentados.

Gingrich -a quien es divertido observar porque tiene la habilidad de agarrarse a tortazos con los otros candidatos con una mano y arremeter contra el moderador con la otra- no aceptó nada de eso.

"Uno de los motivos por los que este país tiene tantos problemas es que estamos determinados, entre nuestras elites políticas, a establecer alternativas catastróficas", sermoneó. "Uno tiene que enviar 20 millones de personas fuera de los Estados Unidos o tiene que legalizarlas a todas".

Primero, controlar la frontera utilizando la Guardia Nacional o enviando a la frontera "a la actual burocracia del Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio de Washington". Pero, dijo, la cuestión mayor es que "ningún ciudadano serio, a quien le preocupe resolver este problema, debe quedar atrapado en una respuesta de sí o no, en la que o bien deba vender totalmente la protección de Estados Unidos o deba echar totalmente a 20 millones de personas despiadadamente".

Ese es un discurso de adultos, y francamente me pregunté cómo llegó a la campaña presidencial. Aún así, esa respuesta sólo le valió una B-menos a este ex profesor de Historia.

Contra este fondo de ignorancia, Gingrich sonó brillante. Aun así, pierde puntos porque su idea sobre la Guardia Nacional perpetúa el mito de que el cumplimiento de la ley es la poción mágica de este debate. Debería haber perseguido a los empleadores, y recalcado que los estadounidenses tienen la responsabilidad de no contratar inmigrantes ilegales ni hacerse los tontos cuando sus amigos, vecinos y parientes lo hacen. Gingrich podría haber señalado también que el problema real es que, en Estados Unidos, muchos padres miman a sus adolescentes e hijos de veinte y pico de años protegiéndolos del trabajo duro, aunque más no sea en el verano o un puesto después de la escuela, y que esto crea un vacío en el mercado laboral, que se llena con inmigrantes ilegales.

Estoy soñando. Eso nunca sucederá. Por supuesto, aunque los que no pueden ser honestos en el debate migratorio a menudo no se dan cuenta de que tampoco lo es insultar la inteligencia de los electores.

La dirección electrónica de Rubén Navarrette es ruben@rubennavarrette.com

Straight talk on immigration

SAN DIEGO -- Newt Gingrich believes that Americans could solve the problem of illegal immigration in a practical and humane way "if we can get the politicians and the news media to just deal with it honestly."

Bravo. When the former House speaker made those remarks during a recent GOP presidential debate, he zeroed in on precisely what is wrong with the immigration debate.

It's not that Americans -- and those who represent them in Washington -- are too lenient or too tough. It's that they're too reluctant to confront the issue honestly.

There are numerous lies in the immigration debate -- this isn't about racism; Americans would gladly do the jobs that immigrants do, for the right wage; all employers are greedy and exploit their workers; Americans don't want to limit legal immigration, etc.

The biggest lies come from politicians who pretend to be something they're not. Republicans talk tough but go soft on employers by creating loopholes and granting delays and exemptions to enforcement efforts. Democrats talk soft but pander to working-class Americans and union bosses by ratcheting up deportations, building walls, and launching border crackdowns as when Bill Clinton launched Operation Gatekeeper in October 1994.

Now Gingrich says: Enough of that. To combat illegal immigration, we have to start leveling with the American people.

CNN's John King, the debate moderator, asked Gingrich if we should deport millions of illegal immigrants or provide "some path to status" for the undocumented.

Gingrich -- who is fun to watch because he has the skills to slug it out with fellow candidates with one hand and lash out at the moderator with the other -- wasn't having any of it.

"One of the reasons this country is in so much trouble is that we are determined among our political elites to draw up catastrophic alternatives," he lectured. "You either have to ship 20 million people out of America or legalize all of them."

Nonsense, Gingrich asserted. First control the border by using the National Guard or reassigning to the border "the current Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy in Washington." But, he said, the larger point is that "no serious citizen who's concerned about solving this problem should get trapped into a yes/no answer in which you're either for totally selling out protecting America or you're for totally kicking out 20 million people in a heartless way."

That is grown-up talk, and I frankly have to wonder how it made its way into a presidential campaign. Still, that answer was only good enough to earn the former history professor a grade of B-minus.

That's much better than the "F" I'd give to Tim Pawlenty who, in addressing the topic, sounded as if he were reading from a copy of "GOP Immigration Policy for Dummies." The former Minnesota governor repeated the line about how the federal government "won't do its job" and said that states like Arizona have the right to police themselves. Had he been more honest, Pawlenty could have acknowledged that the Obama administration has deported nearly 1 million people and that Arizona brought this problem onto itself by all but recruiting illegal immigrants to build cities and suburbs in the 1990s.

He also suggested that the way to eliminate birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is to appoint "reliably conservative" judges. Oh, is that all? If he wants to override the 14th Amendment, what Pawlenty really needs are judges who were absent the day they taught "law" in law school.

Against this backdrop of ignorance, Gingrich sounded brilliant. Yet, he loses points because his line about the National Guard perpetuates the myth that enforcement is the magic elixir of this debate. He should have gone after employers, and stressed that Americans have a responsibility not to hire illegal immigrants or play dumb when their friends, neighbors and relatives do. Gingrich could have also noted that the real problem is that, in the United States, too many parents coddle their teenagers and 20-somethings by shielding them from hard work, even if it's only a summer or after-school job, and that this creates a vacuum in the labor market that is filled by illegal immigrants.

I'm dreaming. This would never happen. Insulting people's parenting is no way to win votes. Of course, although it is often missed by those who can't be honest about the immigration debate, neither is insulting their intelligence.

Ruben Navarrette's email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com