A frost-bitten edition of GPB's "Political Rewind" today focused on U.S. Sen. David Perdue and his remarks in defense of President Donald Trump during that immigration meeting last week.
Yours truly is in the neighborhood of a roaring fire in far-off Kennesaw, and thus no part of the discussion, but the shout out regarding a recent column on the topic was much appreciated.
If you couldn’t catch it live, click below to listen now:
Today’s panelists: Host Bill Nigut; Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, a Democrat; Republican consultant Eric Tanenblatt; and your fellow AJC Insider, Greg Bluestein.
And if you're interested, here's the relevant nut of Monday's column on David Perdue:
Perdue and Cotton want a merit-based immigration system. Entry would be granted to those who, according to some government standard, fit a particular national need.You can disagree with Perdue and Cotton, but the approach is legitimate and has its precedent many other countries.
But we do not permit immigration quotas by race. Congress has passed laws forbidding it. And that is precisely what a desire to restrict African immigration in favor of northern European immigration would be.This is likely why Perdue's memory of that White House meeting, at first foggy, later hardened into denial.
Because he has the president as an ally, acknowledging Trump's remarks, even with an accompanying condemnation, could call into question the underlying purpose of Perdue's own bill.
Presidents have gotten away with being racist. It's harder, at least in the current climate, for acts of Congress to do so. Court challenges of federal actions often hinge on legislative intent. Motivation – i.e., remarks made during debate and formulation — is important.
About the Author
