"Meet the Press", hosted by David Gregory, is, as noted, a rather conventional news program. Yet, every once in a while, it results in a very clarifying set of exchanges.
One case in point was the following exchange between New York Times columnist David Brooks and Rep. Raul Labrador on the July 7 show:
David Gregory: And a long path to citizenship for those who are here illegally. It's a pretty arduous process.
David Brooks: They are here, you know, I've seen a lot of intellectually weak cases in this town. I've rarely seen as intellectually a weak case as the case against the Senate immigration bill. The Republicans say they want to reduce illegal immigration. The Congressional Budget Office says the Senate bill will reduce it by a third to a half. They said they want economic growth. All the top conservative economists say they'll produce economic growth. They say they want to reduce the debt. CBO says it will reduce the debt. All the big major objectives the Republican stand for, the Senate immigration bill will do. And so the — the other things they're talking about are secondary and tertiary issues whether we get 86 percent border protection or 90 percent, compared to the big things this bill does, they're minuscule. Mystified by what...
Gregory: Congressman, respond to David Brooks on that.
Rep. Labrador: I'm — I'm sorry, but what — what I just heard was totally ridiculous. If — if you listen to what the CBO said, they said that it's going to be between a third and 50 percent reduction in illegal immigration. That means that every five years, we're going to have to do another Reagan amnesty. What the American people want is a secure border. They understand that there is going to be economic growth. And I agree that there's going to be economic growth when you have immigration reform, that's why I'm a big proponent of immigration reform, but for somebody to sit here on national TV and say that that it is actually a weak argument for us to argue that we want something like 90 percent security, I think it's — it's actually beyond the pale. What we need to do — look — look at just one thing. There's two — two components of the law that we need to — that we need to change. For example, the — the ICE agents have told us that if they could work with the local communities, with the local law enforcement agents, they would be much more effective in securing our — our interior. The Democrats do not want any local enforcement of immigration laws. We do it with drug laws. We do it with all these other things where — where we have these task forces between the federal — federal and state and local agencies, and the Democrats do not want to do with immigration. We could do that and we could curtail a lot of the illegal immigration. There's a lot of other things that we can do to make this law stronger.
Gregory: David — David, respond to that.
Brooks: The CBO said that it would reduce it by a — a third to 50 percent, and what I hear the congressman saying is he won't support it unless it's a 100 percent because we'd have to go back and do a Reagan.
Labrador: That's — that's not what I say. Don't — don't put words in my mouth.
Brooks: Okay, well, let me say the current law produces this X much illegal immigration. This law cuts it significantly. It's better than the current law generally when something is better than we have got, generally you want to support that thing.
I don't agree with every immigration idea Rep. Labrador has expressed, but his example serves to underscore how important and related preparation and conviction are, because:
- When you know the immigration facts, you know exactly what the CBO report said and what it didn't. And you also know what it means.
- When you've thought more than superficially about the subject you can make apt comparisons that inform (like working with local authorities on drug laws, but not immigration).
- When you have confidence in your knowledge and the principles you stand on, you don't have to let people get away with misrepresentations or putting their words in your mouth so that they can try to ridicule arguments that aren't yours.
All it takes is gaining convictions the old fashion way, by thinking about the issue with more than sound-bite level understanding, refining what you think as you delve deeper — all of which helps develop confidence in your principles and perspectives and allows you to comfortably stand up, and out, for them.
Next: President Obama's Great Immigration Bluff