GOP Nativists Tarnish Reagan's 'Shining City'

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, March 15, 2004 | JASON L. RILEY

[presidio9]

Just what is it about immigration that makes so many conservatives lose their bearings?

Broach the subject, as President Bush did in January with his guest-worker initiative for illegal aliens, and free-market advocates start forgetting principles. (Flexible labor markets? What use are those?) Self-styled realists start fantasizing. (Let's just deport all 10 million of 'em, Elian-style!) And colorblind sensibilities are suspended. (White hegemony, where have you gone?) Suggest that immigration, legal or otherwise, not only is in the American tradition but a net benefit to our economy besides, and watch the editors at National Review and the pseudo-populists at Fox News come unhinged.

[hchutch]

I, for one, do consider who folks associate with and take money from when I decide whose agenda to support.

And this connection fromt he Pioneer Fund is one reason that has led me to believe that FAIR and their ilk TOLERATE bigots, and it's a BIG reason why I'm with the President on this issue. I won't be the only one who will change over this.

If folks lie down with dogs, they have no business complaining about other people pointing out the fleas they end up with once they get up. And those folks have pretty nasty ones, quite frankly.

Flat-out, maybe I'm some squish, but I'm staying pretty far off from their method of dealing with the problem on the borders for very good reasons. And they're going to have to be dealt with.

[Pelham]

chootch, what's fun about you is that you consistently use fallacies. Guilt by Association is one of the classics. Just because you apparently slept through logic, or never studied it, doesn't mean it's not there.

Before resorting to that fallacy you ought to consider that your favorite politicians likely get money from questionable sources. That doesn't invalidate them or their positions, unless their vote is for sale. The same is true of Tanton.

If you want to learn how to make your case you will need to improve your ability to use logic. You either don't know how, or perhaps it's that you resort to fallacies when you haven't got a good case. Copi's Logic is a good basic text, you could start there.

[Mudboy Slim]

"I decide whose agenda to support..."

That's my point, I'm not supporting some activist group, I'm supporting the idea that ILLEGAL Immigration is a bad thing that can be ended if dealt with responsibly and assiduously!! I have no idea if FAIR and/or the Pioneer Fund agrees or not, so what they do does not bother me. If I was to contibute money to their cause, I reckon I'd try to find out a lot more info on them...but I'm not, so I won't.

FReegards...MUD

[Pelham]

BTW, the Nazgul didn't die in the flood, only their horses did.

[rmlew]

You are making common cause with the anti-white, anti-western left.
Don't through stones from a glass house.

[4CJ]

I would sure assume that if they've become naturalized I would think they could at least support themselves. I wouldn't even mind supporting them for a period of time if need be but I think the $ spent on them is outrageous.

Local paper had some articles stating the death rate was higher among Latinos (illegal or otherwise) because they received less training, took cheaper riskier jobs, poor education etc.

Get rid of farm subsidies, allow farmers to earn a decent profit (not a guaranteed one). Fine HEAVILY any individual/company for employing illegals. Deport existing illegals. DEFEND the borders.

[azhenfud]

Proof is in the numbers, Luis.

Do you have any substantiating your claim? Because without them your side of the debate is based purely upon emotion and no substance.

There are reasons EVERY state which is inundated with Illegaliens are having serious budget problems. There are reasons hospitals that are forced to "serve" Illegaliens are having to declare bankruptcy.

Argue your point with facts and figures, then we'll have a serious exchange. Okay?

And, BTW, $40 billion annually divided by the low estimate of 8 million equals a whopping $5000 EACH. So your $8/hr Illegalien worker "saving the economy" actually costs abt $10.50/hr. if EVERY ONE of the 8 million work. IF THEY WORK.

[american spirit]

Those are excellent ideas and isn't it incredible that the fedgov shows more concern over defending the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan while leaving ours so porous. It's becoming pretty obvious that open borders and re-allocation of the this nations wealth throughout this hemisphere is leading us to some sort of "American Union" (much like the EU) that will have severe repercussions for our system of laws and Constitutional rights.

[4CJ]

Those are excellent ideas and isn't it incredible that the fedgov shows more concern over defending the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan while leaving ours so porous.

Two points, Dims are ok with it hoping they become dim voters, 'pubbies are ok because of lower wages - not the true economic cost to Americans.

Personally, I think we're being invaded, and illegals should be treated as such. Defend the borders!

It's becoming pretty obvious that open borders and re-allocation of the this nations wealth throughout this hemisphere is leading us to some sort of "American Union" (much like the EU) that will have severe repercussions for our system of laws and Constitutional rights.

Estados Unidos de Norte América.

[american spirit]

Isn't it interesting that when it's your ox being gored, (in this case your cheerleading for illegals) all of a sudden the hue and cry is for a "balanced" viewpoint on this issue when other posts you've made that wax so eloquently about their plight HAVE NEVER ONCE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF WHAT THESE ILLEGALS ARE COSTING THIS COUNTRY!.....not just in the billions of dollars expended but the human toll due to robberies, murders, etc. being committed by these people. Since the new code words for this ongoing debate are now "transparency and balance", I suggest you practice what you preach.

Sorry, some of your other observations don't have much credibility either.....namely the nonsense about all the "savings" we consumers get from the low wages paid to these people. I'm in area inumdated with illegal workers and I know for fact that home prices have not decreased, food prices in restaurants have not decreased as well as other services that utilize illegal labor. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all the savings created by deleting American workers and hiring illegals is going RIGHT INTO THE POCKETS OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS and most assuredly not being passed on to the consumers....how much more elemental to I have be to get this point made?

Also, as far as the question of "bringing attention to my cause" is concerned, I feel more and more confident all the time when I see vain attempts such as yours to put a positive spin on this absurd notion that this unrestrained invasion is somehow beneficial for our country. I'm totally convinced that if my side prevails we'll have at least some chance of retaining our constitutional republic.....should you and your ilk triumph then no doubt we'll be living in a banana republic and I'll be seeing you in the bread lines.

[Aetius]

hchutch: In playing the game of Guilt by Association with regards to immigration, I hope you realize that you are condemning the vast majority of Americans.

Every poll I've ever seen where the question is directly asked shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose increasing immigration levels into the United States. Most of the same polls show that a majority also want legal immigration levels decreased. Notice the preference for a recduction, not ending immigration and not letting anyone in as the left/WSJright often accuses restrictionists of favoring.

And if people like Tarton make you more sympathetic to the WSJ position of increasing already mass levels of legal immigration (forever apparently), then you should look into some of the groups and individuals who favor unending mass immigration. Look at their motives. You'll see for many it is nothing but a racial agenda of importing more of their people so as to increase their political power. The only difference is that their racial motives rarely get discussed, whereas any hint of so-called white supremacy will be brought to light and severely criticized.

Has it come to the point where the majority, mainstream position of Americans on immigration is verboten in public discourse? Must majority sentiment be silenced because some racists also hold the same view? Must the message (which is not racist) be tainted by the tiny minority of messengers who are bigots? Do you think the majority of Americans who want immigration reduced are all 'white-supremacists' or racists or xenophobes? I expect the Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, and La Raza types to hold that view, but

And as far as your belief that the non-racists restrictionists must speak out more firmly against the racist restrictionists: Actually, they do whenever the subject is brought up. And besides, one could argue that for a restrictionist to go out of one's way to distance himself from the tiny group of racist gives more awareness and credence than those few deserve. It also gives credibility to the bogus charges of racism and xenophobia that those in favor of mass immigration will recklessly and reflexively cast at anyone who dares disagree with them.

Mudboy Slim: You're right about the blurring of legal and illegal immigration. It is a deliberate tactic to try and get the public to view them as inseparable. I respect your honesty, in that you are at least willing to admit that you're solution for the illegal immigration problem is to increase legal immigration to the point where there is no need for people to come or stay illegally. This is the solution of the WSJ wing of the GOP, but I've noticed the talking heads who go on tv etc will rarely admit this, and of course that is because Americans oppose increasing legal immigration.

But my question to you is what is a 'sensible' amount of legal immigration? We already admit about one million legals per year. Should it be doubled? Tripled? Just how far from what the public wants are you suggesting we go? As to their being plenty of room here for more people; you're probably right. But again, where does it stop? Will that be the case when our population hits nearly half a billion by 2050? What about if we hit one billion around the turn of the next century? And both of these are quite possible, even likely if immigration is not reduced.

And it should also be noted, that if one is concerned about the effects of immigration on the nation, you can't just look at illegal immigration. As I said, legals outnumber illegals, so you must look at the whole picture.

And of course it should go w/o saying to anyone with sense that to support reduction does not make one 'anti-immigrant' or even 'anti-immigration.' Remember, most in favor of reduction think that levels should be set between 200,000 and 300,000 per year. That would still be, on an absolute level, the most generous immigration policy in the world.

4ConservativeJustices: I'm sure you are aware that most in favor of less immigration have no problem with immigrants individually, but rather the effects of unending mass immigration.

Luis Gonzalez: Of course there are benefits from immigration, but they are often referenced in the press. It is the costs that get short-changed in the discussion. And the benefits by means of lower consumer prices are exaggerated. Its been proven, for example, that the percentage of consumer prices for produce due to labor costs is small. And any lower prices must be offset by the burden placed on taxpayers to provide education, healthcare, and welfare benefits to immigrants. The world would not come to an end if the supply of cheap labor were reduced. Businesses, employers, the entire economy would respond.

american spirit: The prospect of ending entitlements will be made more difficult by the mass importation of those more likely to rely on them.

Sloth: Mass immigration-yes, entitlements-no; is a common libertarian view of immigration. But have you ever stopped to consider that importing more and more people who will disproportionately use some form of welfare, will only increase the political power of those promising more benefits, thus making it almost impossible to get rid of the entitlements. That's why its so hard to get rid of govt programs, because you can be sure someone benefits, and the more that benefit the harder it is to get rid of the program(s). The same thing goes for multiculturalism. No, immigrants didn't create either, but many are natural customers of both.


To sum up, the desire for less immigration is not a racist, or even xenophobic position. It is the majority, mainstream postion of most Americans. Some racist also hold this view, but so what? Does anyone doubt that some of the enthusiasm for mass immigration comes from an equally racially driven motive from the left?

Also; for those who point to the last great wave as proof of the glories of mass immigration: That wave was ended by Congress in the early 1920s. For the next forty years we had moderate levels of immigration of about 210,000 per year. I have yet to hear one proponent of current mass immigration address this inconvenient fact when they try and shame their opponents by looking to the past. Why is that?

And one more thing hchutch: On an unrelated topic; where were the Ring Raiths and Nazgul when Theoden showed up in Return of the King? And did the Witch King go down in such a lame manner in the book?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Isn't it funny that anyone who brings up the fact that your information is either incomplete, or just wrong is immediately called a cheerleader for illegals, anapologist, or sundry other names.

Why is it, I wonder, that you all can't stand someone asking for both sides on an issue, and when someone does, you enter into Clintonesque attacks on the individual?

If your numbers hold up to the light of day. then why are you so perturbed when they are brought into question?

Could it be because you are afraid of the truth?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Myth:

"Immigration must be reduced because Americans say so in polls. When polled within the appropriate context, Every poll I've ever seen where the question is directly asked shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose increasing immigration levels into the United States. Most of the same polls show that a majority also want legal immigration levels decreased."

Truth:

"Americans favor immigration. Republican pollster Vince Breglio found that by a two-to-one margin, voters support allowing U.S. citizens to continue sponsoring their adult children and brothers and sisters. And a national poll just released by the independent Grass Roots Research firm found that 61 percent of Americans agree with the statement that, "Anyone, from any country in the world, should be free to come to America if they are financially able to provide for themselves and their family." -- Source

[4CJ]

I'm sure you are aware that most in favor of less immigration have no problem with immigrants individually, but rather the effects of unending mass immigration.

You are correct. I try to make it known it my posts that I'm speaking about ILLEGAL aliens - we need to be able to accomodate those legally immigrating to our shores, and not burden the American citizens with the costs of their presence. My families migrated here back in the 17th century (some were already here) - they paid their own way. Same for legal immigrants.

IIRC, some legislators are attempting to allows illegals to attend colleges at in-state rates, which is a slap in the face to our citizens. Two years ago I was getting my license renewed, and the English speaking friend of a women of Spanish descent DEMANDED that the State Patrol give her the test in Espanol. The officer, and the hundred or so of us in line, laughed at the request. Why should she be able to take the test in Spanish when the street signs are in English?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But my question to you is what is a 'sensible' amount of legal immigration?"

Here's what the Feds are looking at: we can admit the entire working age population of Mexico into the US in the year 2030, and that would not maintain the worker to retiree ratio needed to maintain the Social Security system afloat that we had in the year 2000.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The difference between illegal alien and immigrant are constantly blurred in this forum.

There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Proof is in the numbers, Luis."

In this case, the proof is in the absolute lack of numbers that show anything other than a liability.

If you had the slightest understanding of business, you'd know just how wrong those numbers are.

You hurt yourselves, because until you figure out what economic benefits are being received from illegal immigration, you'll never make an impact in influencing the minds of intelligent people.

[american spirit]

Since when does pointing out obvious inconsistencies in another person's stance and having spirited debate on a subject like illegal immigration somehow amount to some type of "attack"?......maybe in your world it is, although it's difficult to believe that someone who doesn't mind calling others names and who writes with such an ascerbic tone can also be so thin-skinned.....interesting.

Be that as it may, all the eloquence and propaganda surrounding the pro-illegal stance cannot ever offset the negative realities of what this disastrous, ill-conceived policy is doing to this country and the vast majority of clear thinking, TAXPAYING Americans agree with me on that position.....and that is the truth!

[Mudboy Slim]

"I respect your honesty, in that you are at least willing to admit that you're solution for the illegal immigration problem is to increase legal immigration to the point where there is no need for people to come or stay illegally."

Where the HECK did I say that?! I simply believe that a lot of the antagonism against immigrants today is a result of the claim-jumpers who are spitting at our laws. I also believe LEGAL Immigration is a very good thing, as long as the immigrant groups are able to assimilate into their neighborhood, region and State.

FReegards...MUD

[Luis Gonzalez]

Since you lied about my "cheerleading for illegal immigrants", and since you took issue with my pointing out your obvious inconsistencies. You continue to mislabel a defense of truth in this issue as a "pro-illegal" stance...how absolutely ridiculous.