Washington pundits and Beltway politicians are furious at various critics of the bill, from radio- talk-show hosts and writers for conservative magazines to frontline congressional representatives and Republican presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.
These critics are dubbed cynical nativists — or racists — who have demagogued the issue and scapegoated hardworking illegal aliens. Even President Bush got into the fray when he alleged that conservative obstructionists were somehow not working in America’s best interests.
But who’s really being cynical when it comes to illegal immigration?
Most cynical of all, however, are the moralistic pundits, academics, and journalists who deplore the “nativism” of Americans they consider to be less-educated yokels. Yet their own jobs of writing, commenting, reporting, and teaching are rarely threatened by cheaper illegal workers.
Few of these well-paid and highly educated people live in communities altered by huge influxes of illegal aliens. Their professed liberality about illegal immigration usually derives from seeing hardworking waiters, maids, nannies, and gardeners commute to their upscale cities and suburbs to serve them well — and cheaply.
In general, such elites don’t use emergency rooms in the inner cities and rural counties overcrowded by illegal aliens. They don’t drive on country roads frequented by those without licenses, registration and insurance. And their children don’t struggle with school curricula altered to the needs of students who speak only Spanish.
For many professors, politicians, and columnists, the gangs, increased crime, and crowded jails that often result from massive illegal immigration and open borders are not daily concerns, but rather stereotypes hysterically evoked by paranoid and unenlightened others in places like Bakersfield and Laredo. So, what is the truth on illegal immigration?
Simple. Millions of fair-minded white, African-, Mexican- and Asian-Americans fear that we are not assimilating millions of aliens from south of the border as fast as they are crossing illegally from Mexico.
In the frontline American southwest, entire apartheid communities and enclaves within cities have sprung up whose distinct language, culture and routines are beginning to resemble more the tense divides in the Balkans or Middle East than the traditional melting pot of multiracial America.
Concern over this inevitable slowdown in integration and assimilation is neither racist nor nativist. It grows out of real worry that when millions of impoverished arrive in mass without legality, education, and the ability to speak English, costly social problems follow that will not be offset by the transitory economic benefits cheap wages may provide.
Those fretting about delays in sealing the border along with proposed fast-track visas, millions of new guest workers, and neglect of existing immigration law are neither illiberal nor cynical.
But their self-righteous critics may well be both.
Dear Mr. Tiger and Other Observanda Commentators: What is your view of annexation of Mexico and Canada as a "solution" to immigration? I heard this on my car radio yesterday morning.
Lady Hawk, I can't speak for friend Doug, but as for me; this sort of thing has never worked well throughout history.
Look at Germany, Japan, and the history before; most "peoples" will not willingly give up their way of life and culture for a new one unless there is overwhelming evidence that the "new" system works better. Eastern Europe has some former Soviet nations that have willingly changed and are in the process of changing; look at Poland, for instance.
These examples are the exception, though, not the rule. Look at the illegal immigration issue; Bush basically wants America to become MUCH more "hispanic", in the South American, Central American, and Mexican model. We are fighting it tooth and nail. Why? Because we believe the Norte Americano way is better! Bush wants to literally give up North America - capitulate to what he sees as a better culture, IMO. (while making tons of money for American companies - good for the economy, you know)
To annex Mexico I would suggest we would have to "take it over" militarily or the Mexican people would have to accept Norte America and its culture as its own, in the example of Poland. Look at the problems a military action would create. It would be Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. Folks smarter than me would have prove somehow that the Mexican people would be accepting of the North American culture but the illegal immigration has proved to me that's NOT the case. Now, look at Canada. GOD forbid we would allow more Socialist Liberal crap like that into our country. Our own northeast, northwest, north (along Canada's border), and "Kalifornia" should prove to you and everyone that MORE LIBERALISM is NOT needed!
No, we need to build a huge fence and legally immigrate cultures of our own kind so we may rebuild America from within, while correcting our internal problems!
I was not going to support a piece of legislation that was not going to work. There's not going to be a 1986 for me that I voted for a bill that promised amnesty today and law enforcement in the future, and the amnesty occurs and the law enforcement doesn't!
10 comments:
Iliberal on Immigration
Don’t look at me.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Washington pundits and Beltway politicians are furious at various critics of the bill, from radio- talk-show hosts and writers for conservative magazines to frontline congressional representatives and Republican presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.
These critics are dubbed cynical nativists — or racists — who have demagogued the issue and scapegoated hardworking illegal aliens. Even President Bush got into the fray when he alleged that conservative obstructionists were somehow not working in America’s best interests.
But who’s really being cynical when it comes to illegal immigration?
The government?
Of course.
Most cynical of all, however, are the moralistic pundits, academics, and journalists who deplore the “nativism” of Americans they consider to be less-educated yokels. Yet their own jobs of writing, commenting, reporting, and teaching are rarely threatened by cheaper illegal workers.
Few of these well-paid and highly educated people live in communities altered by huge influxes of illegal aliens. Their professed liberality about illegal immigration usually derives from seeing hardworking waiters, maids, nannies, and gardeners commute to their upscale cities and suburbs to serve them well — and cheaply.
In general, such elites don’t use emergency rooms in the inner cities and rural counties overcrowded by illegal aliens. They don’t drive on country roads frequented by those without licenses, registration and insurance. And their children don’t struggle with school curricula altered to the needs of students who speak only Spanish.
For many professors, politicians, and columnists, the gangs, increased crime, and crowded jails that often result from massive illegal immigration and open borders are not daily concerns, but rather stereotypes hysterically evoked by paranoid and unenlightened others in places like Bakersfield and Laredo.
So, what is the truth on illegal immigration?
Simple. Millions of fair-minded white, African-, Mexican- and Asian-Americans fear that we are not assimilating millions of aliens from south of the border as fast as they are crossing illegally from Mexico.
In the frontline American southwest, entire apartheid communities and enclaves within cities have sprung up whose distinct language, culture and routines are beginning to resemble more the tense divides in the Balkans or Middle East than the traditional melting pot of multiracial America.
Concern over this inevitable slowdown in integration and assimilation is neither racist nor nativist. It grows out of real worry that when millions of impoverished arrive in mass without legality, education, and the ability to speak English, costly social problems follow that will not be offset by the transitory economic benefits cheap wages may provide.
Those fretting about delays in sealing the border along with proposed fast-track visas, millions of new guest workers, and neglect of existing immigration law are neither illiberal nor cynical.
But their self-righteous critics may well be both.
Keep up the good work, Doug!
It's time for the daily emails to my "representatives of cynicism", those idiots from Florida, I'm ashamed to say.
I always include links and quotes from these and other articles in my emails to them. I don't for a minute believe they read them.
Dear Mr. Tiger and Other Observanda Commentators:
What is your view of annexation of Mexico and Canada as a "solution" to immigration? I heard this on my car radio yesterday morning.
Lady Hawk, I can't speak for friend Doug, but as for me; this sort of thing has never worked well throughout history.
Look at Germany, Japan, and the history before; most "peoples" will not willingly give up their way of life and culture for a new one unless there is overwhelming evidence that the "new" system works better. Eastern Europe has some former Soviet nations that have willingly changed and are in the process of changing; look at Poland, for instance.
These examples are the exception, though, not the rule. Look at the illegal immigration issue; Bush basically wants America to become MUCH more "hispanic", in the South American, Central American, and Mexican model. We are fighting it tooth and nail. Why? Because we believe the Norte Americano way is better! Bush wants to literally give up North America - capitulate to what he sees as a better culture, IMO. (while making tons of money for American companies - good for the economy, you know)
To annex Mexico I would suggest we would have to "take it over" militarily or the Mexican people would have to accept Norte America and its culture as its own, in the example of Poland. Look at the problems a military action would create. It would be Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. Folks smarter than me would have prove somehow that the Mexican people would be accepting of the North American culture but the illegal immigration has proved to me that's NOT the case. Now, look at Canada. GOD forbid we would allow more Socialist Liberal crap like that into our country. Our own northeast, northwest, north (along Canada's border), and "Kalifornia" should prove to you and everyone that MORE LIBERALISM is NOT needed!
No, we need to build a huge fence and legally immigrate cultures of our own kind so we may rebuild America from within, while correcting our internal problems!
Agreed:
Enforce the law!
Stop this monster and elect a President who takes laws and border security seriously.
Below is the list of 15 GOP senators that the amnesty pushers want to flip to their side (asterisked senators are up for re-election in 2008)
* Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
* Cochran (R-MS)
* Coleman (R-MN)
* Collins (R-ME)
* Cornyn (R-TX)
* Craig (R-ID)
* Domenici (R-NM)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
* McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
* Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
* Warner (R-VA)
I was not going to support a piece of legislation that was not going to work.
There's not going to be a 1986 for me that I voted for a bill that promised amnesty today and law enforcement in the future, and the amnesty occurs and the law enforcement doesn't!
-- Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL
Thanks for the list, Doug.
Emails will go out today!
Post a Comment