MSNBC Guest Suddenly Gets Fiscally Responsible, but Only When it Comes to Protecting the Border

Here’s a new argument from an MSNBC contributor: Fiscal austerity. This petition to tighten the purse strings comes from MSNBC contributor and University of Texas adjunct professor Victoria DeFrancesco Soto who, on Friday, warned of America’s profligate spending habits.

You’d be correct to be skeptical of this change of heart. DeFrancesco Soto petitioned for austerity on MSNBC only while discussing immigration reform and it was about the only argument she could think of against strengthening the borders as part of an immigration reform plan. That’s right. DeFrancesco Soto says that the U.S. should not be “throwing money” at the border to ensure that it is protected against those who would seek to enter the country illegally as part of a deal to provide legal status to presently illegal immigrants.

“We can secure the border all we want but ultimately people are coming over because there’s a demand,” DeFrancesco Soto said on Friday. “Employers are hiring undocumented persons.”

“The real issue is about employer verification, E-Verify,” she says. “Why don’t we look at that?”

“Let’s stop throwing money at the border,” DeFrancesco Soto concludes. “Let’s not waste money that we don’t have.”

There’s plenty here to agree with. Employer verification has been a cornerstone Republican immigration policy since the Bush administration. In fact, when the GOP first took the House in 2011, they pursued a bill which would mandate employers use E-Verify while hiring to reduce the incentives to come to the United States illegally looking for work. At the time, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) called E-Verify an “existential threat” and a “death sentence” for America’s farms.

To demand fiscal austerity be applied to border protection while, at the same time, demanding an expansion of social welfare programs not mandated by the Constitution is simply not a credible argument and reduces the stature of the individual making it. Enforcement is a prerequisite for a pathway to citizenship or legal status for Republicans. Even if one believe that is unnecessary, it would be logical to support border protection as a concession to Republicans in order to convince them to support legal status for the nation’s undocumented immigrants.

That is, it would be logical if the ultimate goal was to reform the nation’s immigration system. If the goal is really to preserve an electoral cudgel with which to batter Republicans as uncaring and racially insensitive brutes ahead of the 2014 midterms, you just might argue against border enforcement with the aim of scuttling an immigration reform plan.

But why would anyone do such a thing?

Watch the clip below via MSNBC:

[Photo via screen grab ]

— —

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!