Jeb Bush must have known the flak he would take when he said illegal immigrants who come to America to support their families were guilty of an “act of love.”
Sure enough, critics pounced. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said it “isn’t positive and beneficial” to break the law in search of a better life. Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho, who has a big say over immigration policy in the House, called it “pandering.” And in tweets and Facebook posts, the conservative former governor was denounced as a RINO — Republican in Name Only.
Before we get into what Bush was trying to say, it’s worth looking at the fuller quotation, which came during an interview at his father’s presidential library a week ago:
“Someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony.”
And he added this: “I honestly think that’s a different kind of crime that should be, there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t be, it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.”
In short, Bush wasn’t making the legal point. He was making the larger point. And he didn’t deny that crossing the border illegally was a crime. What he said is that this is a different kind of crime.
That strikes us as a simple common sense. Of all the things the New York Post has been accused of over the years, no one has ever accused us of being soft on crime. We just think that the distinction Bush makes is a reasonable one: that the person who steals, rapes or kills is fundamentally different from someone who comes here to provide for his or her family. We’ll be the first to send back anyone who comes here to rob or murder.
Far from saying the law should be ignored, Bush was arguing that we should reform it to accommodate reality and serve our interests. It’s simply a false choice to say we have to choose between immigration and law. The purpose of genuine immigration reform is to make the two work together.