The pro-amnesty movement has moved away from the basic American ideas of liberty and freedom to utopian demands for American benefits without American responsibilities.

It’s growing increasingly clear that the debate over illegal immigration is having a ripple effect through the American public — and not one that favors the merchants of amnesty, faux law enforcement, and illusory promises of border security. Large numbers of Americans are disappointed that their elected leaders have failed to enforce the nation’s immigration laws and secure the southern border. A Rasmussen poll released in April found that two-thirds of Americans want to secure the southern border and enforce existing immigration laws before any new immigration laws are enacted. But many politicians seem more inclined to curry favor with Spanish-speaking voting blocs than to ensure border integrity (a misguided and condescending instinct, as though all Americans of Hispanic descent somehow love illegal immigration).

Americans want their elected representatives to recognize a fundamental truth about the nation-state: a country’s ability to control its own borders is a prerequisite for national sovereignty, and sovereignty is a prerequisite for self-government by the people. The population wants some assurance of relative social order, and that is hard to attain when thousands of immigrants come into the country illegally and with impunity. It is one thing to say that Americans want to welcome many new people to our country to become fellow citizens, which is true. It is quite another thing, however, to suggest that Americans should placidly accept the overt breaking of laws by people who choose not to enter this country through proper channels.

It is this sense of entitlement that riles many citizens. Why should we have to tolerate continued behavior that communicates the idea that illegal immigrants are entitled to the benefits of our society without taking up its responsibilities? Why should immigrants who choose to enter the country legally have to wait in line for naturalization when so many have come here illegally and suffered no penalty?

This same entitlement mentality was on display in many of the pro-amnesty demonstrations by illegal immigrants and their supporters. They demanded the right to remain in the country, to enjoy the perks of the national economy, and to encourage yet more illegal migrants to settle here in the future. Many of them communicated a sense of entitlement to their original nationality by brandishing Mexican flags, forgetting that to live in America obliges one to seek to become American.

The sight of these intemperate displays must cause many Americans to say, “What right do they have to make demands of us when they are the ones who are in our country illegally? They live here at our sufferance, and they should be petitioning us for acceptance, not demanding entitlements from us.”

Now that the pro-illegal movement has become identified with utopian demands for American benefits without American responsibilities, it will likely lose its power to persuade. Why did the movement’s support dissipate this way? To illustrate the answer from a historical perspective, I would recommend a book by David Hackett Fischer entitled Liberty and Freedom: A Visual History of America’s Founding Ideas. In this superb book, Fischer, a University Professor at Brandeis University, examines the American ideas of liberty and freedom through the prism of the nation’s history, from the Founding to the present. Fischer discusses liberty and freedom not as abstract political notions, but as social and cultural concepts deeply rooted in the American way of life. This expansive book covers much historical ground, and it is largely fair and unibiased.

The part of Liberty and Freedom that is especially relevant to the current immigration debate is Fischer’s discussion of the political and social movements in the 1960s and 1970s. These causes included the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the New Left movement, and the Goldwaterite conservative movement, among many others. As Fischer notes, the movements of that era mustered public support most successfully when they couched their arguments in terms of liberty and freedom. When Americans saw these political movements as dedicated to the central ideals and propositions of the nation’s founding, the movements prospered. The causes’ proponents had to demonstrate that they sought to fulfill America’s most fundamental principles if they hoped to command popular support.

As one of many examples, Fischer describes the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights movement and how King utilized themes of freedom in his crusade against racial segregation. Providing a sample political poster for the reader to view, Fischer writes, “Martin Luther King’s vision of freedom as dignity and universal rights appeared in this poster, which summarized his movement in a single sentence: ‘No man is free until all men are free’” (p. 604).

Adopting the language and the symbols of freedom and liberty was part of the genius of King and other leaders who rallied many fellow countrymen to their cause. For Americans, freedom and liberty are virtues of resplendent value in a civil society. Their appeal is fundamentally woven in the cultural tapestry of the nation’s heritage. Thus, Americans are highly receptive to admonitions to extend the gift of freedom to others.

But American political movements cannot forget this essential theme if they want to succeed. As Fischer records in his book, many of the movements of the ‘60s and ‘70s, particularly those of liberal or leftist color, fell out of favor when they missed the basics. When the activists no longer spoke of expanding liberty and freedom but instead proposed creating radical equality, their causes often floundered. Equality in itself is also an elemental American virtue, but Americans are more often divided on how much equality is desirable than on the question of freedom. When activists advocated a radical restructuring of society to contrive perfect equality, they lost much of their audience.

A textbook illustration was the failed effort by the radical feminists to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA demanded complete “equal representation” of women in “all decision-making structures of American society.” It was ultimately defeated when it fell short by three states for ratification.

Fischer writes, “Feminist leaders made the fatal error of shifting their movement from appeals to liberty and freedom to arguments for radical equality. As Martin Luther King, Jr. clearly understood, centrist appeals to liberty and freedom tend to unite Americans, even in support of sweeping change. Arguments to radical equality always divide them, even when the substantive reforms are very limited” (p. 663).

Today the pro-amnesty movement is making the same mistakes as the pro-ERA movement and others. Amnesty proponents are trying to elevate illegal aliens to an equal status with legal citizens despite that they have broken the law, and the Senate bill outlining their proposal does not provide significant penalty for illegals or for any serious border enforcement. At the same time, many of the pro-amnesty demonstrators displayed too much avarice for entitlement and/or too much fealty to Mexico.

This combination of elements in the pro-amnesty movement sends the message that the movement has moved away from basic American ideas of liberty and freedom. The proponents are coming to be seen as more concerned with vote-getting and radical equality than with addressing Americans’ wishes to defend their country’s borders. This is why the pro-amnesty movement is losing support and why its agenda is not getting through the House of Representatives, the house of Congress where the public majority opinion holds the most influence.

What should conservatives do to win the debate over illegal immigration? Part of their strategy should be to follow Fischer’s guidance and couch their arguments in terms of liberty and freedom. This is the theme most likely to attract a majority of Americans. Conservatives who want to secure the borders should argue that they are preserving the nation’s liberty of sovereignty — that a free nation must be able to defend its borders if it wants to survive.

Looking again at Fisher’s book, it is interesting to note that Barry Goldwater’s conservative movement, not the many liberal movements, had the most success after the 1960s. Goldwater may have lost the 1964 presidential election, but he and his followers successfully appropriated the themes of liberty and freedom from the liberals, an achievement that would later bring Ronald Reagan to the White House. Fischer writes, “The Republicans were happy to claim liberty and freedom (mostly liberty) as their own. Democrats allowed them to do so by default, a disastrous error of political judgment from which the Democratic Party would be very slow to recover” (p. 628).

Conservatives should remember this history as they continue to wage the battle for secure American borders.