The President belongs to the "Admit Nothings" party:
Cheers!
Posted on 06/04/2007 4:44:14 PM PDT by bd476
Againt Know-Nothingism
By Rich Lowry
Monday, June 4, 2007
Supporters of a lax immigration policy love to hurl the charge of "Know-Nothingism" against their critics. But, oddly enough, it is the Senate immigration bill that duplicates a key element of the 19th-century Know-Nothing platform. Those long-ago nativists wanted to make immigrants wait 21 years to become citizens. The Senate bill effectively creates a comparable waiting period.
In Sunday's Democratic presidential debate, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said it would take about 13 years under the bill to become a citizen -- as a kind of point of pride. President Bush, the compassionate conservative, brags about "the hurdles to citizenship" in the bill. They evidently want the "pathway to citizenship" to be as strewn with as many obstacles as possible.
They aren't motivated by animus toward immigrants, of course, but instead by fear and hatred of one word: amnesty. The Senate bill is piled with fines, fees and other requirements so its supporters can argue it's not really an amnesty. Amnesty, however, always has been considered any process whereby illegals immigrants become legal. The bill's drafters merely have created a conditional amnesty rather than an unconditional one.
The bill's supporters simply should say, "The vast majority of these illegal immigrants are people here to work, and they aren't going to be forced to go home; therefore there is no humane and moral option besides giving them an amnesty." That would be admirably straightforward and obviate the need for complex, obfuscatory lawmaking.
The bill gives pretty much every illegal alien here immediate legal status in the form of a probationary Z visa. That's the amnesty. Then come all the things meant to make the amnesty deniable: a $1,000 fine and $1,500 processing fee for an actual Z visa, which lasts four years; then, it has to be renewed for a $500 fee for another four years; after which, a green card is available with another $4,000 fine; and five years after that -- the possibility of applying for citizenship!
Some of the obstacles are clearly for show. Once someone has a Z visa, he has to go back to his home country to apply for a green card. This is pointless. The original purpose of this kind of "touch-back" provision was to make sure an illegal alien was home -- not here in this country -- when applying for legal status. Then, if his application was denied, he'd already be deported. But these green-card applicants will already have been legal for years and presumably back in the U.S. while their application is processed.
Cynical politics and economics play a role here. Republicans don't want formerly illegal immigrants voting anytime soon, since poor, low-skilled households aren't going to produce many GOP voters for a generation or so. And business doesn't care about citizenship one way or the other, as long as it gets its cheap labor. That's why employers support the indentured-servitude-style guest-worker program in the bill.
It is corrosive of American civic ideals to have widespread violation of the law and a class of people who aren't fully a part of American society. This bill -- which is neither soft nor tough enough -- will quickly return us to exactly that position. People who have absconded from deportation orders and aren't automatically eligible for the Z visas (some 600,000 people), illegals who have come here since January 2007 and are ineligible, and illegals who won't bother with the rigmarole of getting a real Z visa will form the basis of another large illegal population.
This is why a rational approach to immigration must start with enforcement. Only when enforcement is real would it be possible to give an amnesty to those illegals still here without repeating the experience of the past 20 years -- an ever-growing illegal population after an amnesty -- all over again. With a viable enforcement regime in place, illegals still here could get a path to citizenship more generous than the Know-Nothing version in the deeply flawed Senate bill.
Know-Nothing movement
Know-Nothing movement, in U.S. history. The increasing rate of immigration in the 1840s encouraged nativism. In Eastern cities where Roman Catholic immigrants especially had concentrated and were welcomed by the Democrats, local nativistic societies were formed to combat “foreign” influences and to uphold the “American” view.
The American Republican party, formed (1843) in New York, spread into neighboring states as the Native American party, which became a national party at its Philadelphia convention in 1845.
The movement was temporarily eclipsed by the Mexican War and the debates over slavery. When the slavery issue was temporarily quieted by the Compromise of 1850 nativism again came to the fore. Many secret orders grew up, of which the Order of United Americans and the Order of the Star-spangled Banner came to be the most important.
These organizations baffled political managers of the older parties, since efforts to learn something of the leaders or designs of the movement were futile; all their inquiries of supposed members were met with a statement to the effect that they knew nothing.
Hence members were called Know-Nothings, although there was never a political organization bearing the name. Efforts were concentrated on electing only native-born Americans to office and on agitating for a 25-year residence qualification for citizenship.
Growing rapidly, the Know-Nothings allied themselves with the group of Whigs who followed Millard Fillmore and almost captured New York state in the 1854 election, while they did sweep the polls in Massachusetts and Delaware and had local successes in other states.
The disintegration of the Whig party aided them in their strides toward national influence. In 1854 they looked toward extension into the South, and in the following year they openly assumed the name American party and cast aside much of their characteristic secrecy.
In June, 1855, a crisis developed; at a meeting of the national council in Philadelphia, Southerners seized control and adopted a resolution calling for the maintenance of slavery. The slavery issue, after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, again came to the front, and this time the slavery issue split apart the Know-Nothing movement as it had the Whigs.
The antislavery men went into the newly organized Republican party. Millard Fillmore, the American party candidate for President in 1856, polled a small vote and won only the state of Maryland. The national strength of the Know-Nothing movement thus was broken.See R. A. Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800–1860 (1938, repr. 1964); W. D. Overdyke, The Know-Nothing Party in the South (1950, repr. 1968); C. Beals, Brass-Knuckle Crusade (1960).
Know-Nothing Movement
KNOW-NOTHING MOVEMENT:
A popular movement which had considerable influence in the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century, partly political, partly inspired by a not unnatural nervousness in view of the experience of all European countries with the meddling of the Roman Catholic Church in national politics and the fact that there was no official deliverance to show that it would not do the same in the United States.
It was based on the theory that the republic would be in danger unless the Roman Catholic Church were held in check and foreign-born citizens, especially Roman Catholics, excluded from all share in the government.
As the successor of various "native American" movements which had nursed similar beliefs even in colonial times, the Know-Nothing party (so called from the injunction laid upon its members to profess utter ignorance of even the existence of any such organization) was formally organized in 1852, when political condi tions favored the launching of a new party which should attract the dissatisfied elements of the older ones.
It was begun as a local organization in New York City, and at first aimed at local and municipal victories. As stated in its ritual after a national council had been formed, its objects were among other things "to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence against our republican institutions in all law ful ways" and "to place in all offices of honor, trust, or profit in the gift of the people or by appointment none but native-born Protestant citizens."
These and other uncompromising declarations were for the initiated; a statement of principles was drawn up for the general public which professed to aim at "no interference with religious faith or worship and no test or oaths for office."
After several successes in municipal elections, in 1854 the party sent forty representatives to Congress and elected a governor and legislature in Massachusetts. In the following year they carried the elections in nine States, and elected the governors of New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, while in the next Congress there were seventy-five Know-Nothing members elected as such.
The inflammatory talk of the promoters of the movement produced its natural results. Riotous mobs assembled in various New England cities, and Roman Catholic churches were set on fire there and in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio.
At least twenty persons were killed in Know-Nothing riots in Louisville, and attempts were made to assassinate Archbishop Bedini, nuncio in Brazil, who had been commissioned to examine various ecclesiastical matters on his passage through the United States.
In 1856 the party held a national convention and nominated Millard Fillmore for president. The northern delegates, however, seceded from the convention on failing to secure a definite anti-slavery declaration, and Fillmore secured only the eight electoral votes of Maryland. From this time Know-Nothingism as a political movement may be said to have collapsed, although in 1860 Bell and Everett, candidates of the "Constitutional Union," received thirty-nine electoral votes largely through the support of Know-Nothing elements which had refused to merge in either of the two great parties.
With the outbreak of the Civil War an opportunity was afforded to American citizens of foreign birth and Roman Catholic religion to demonstrate their loyalty to the land of their adoption; and the fact that no less than 150,000 men of Irish birth enlisted in the Union army proved that the laity of that church were not scheming against the government.
The general decay of religious intolerance tended in the same direction--although in comparatively recent years, especially from 1891 to 1897, the "American Protective Association" has attracted some attention as representing substantially the same principles.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: T. B. Whitney, Defence of American Policy, New York, 1856 (by an advocate); J. Kehoe, Life and Writings of Archbishop Hughes, ib. 1865; J. L. Spalding, Life of Archbishop Spalding, Baltimore, 1872; T. V. Cooper and H. T. Fenton, American Policies, Chicago, 1884 (containing the ritual); J. B. McMaster, The Riotous Career of the Know-Nothings, in With the Fathers, New York, 1896; L. F. Schmeckebier, Hist. of Ae Know-Nothing Party in Maryland, Baltimore, 1899; J. A. Woodburn, Political Parties, New York, 1903; T. J. Jenkins, in Catholic World, Ivii (1893), 511-522; and the works on the history of the period
Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College
Bring back O’Sullivan. Lowry is a weasel.
Given the overt meddling the various dioces in supporting Amnesty and in giving sanctuary to criminals, the leftists and universalists at the Roman Catholic Church seem hell bent on proving that the members of the American Party and the Society of the Star Spangled Banner knew something.
Hmm. Yet Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran (good Catholics both) seem to think it is the "Zionists" who are responsible for all these illegal Catholic Mexicans.
The term is “projection”.
Actually, I have another theory based on the inherent weakness of incarnationism.
Where would we be without good analysis and history from the NRO guys? They’ve been so good the last few years!
Your own choice of material to further describe the Know-Nothings was excellent.
Thank you kindly, GWB! :-)
Continuing here with another current tie-in to the Know Nothings:
Can we talk? Lynchburg's dialogue on race and racism
Nope, no zionists in this conspiracy, it’s our own bishops eager for the filled pews who are the aiders and abetters of amnesty. It’s a papist plot! (and I say that as a Catholic, albeit an annoyed one!)
Tell that to Buchanan, Sobran, and company!
it’s our own bishops eager for the filled pews who are the aiders and abetters of amnesty. It’s a papist plot! (and I say that as a Catholic, albeit an annoyed one!)
LOL!
Actually, I can understand this position from a Catholic perspective. The nation-state is a relatively recent phenomenon. During the Middle Ages the nation-state as we know it today did not exist. Everyone in chr*stendom was simply a chr*stian, or a citizen of the Empire (tell that to Buchanan again!) or of his local villge or manor, or identified with his trade. Theologically, I'm not sure that the nation-state even exists in chr*stianity, and that raises an interesting question with regard to whether chr*stians' primary loyalty should be to the nation (a common ethno-culture with multiple religions) or to their religion (ethno-culturally diverse).
Of course, if you you simply have Israel and the Nations of the World then this problem is not as acute (not that it isn't there).
No, there are no deep roots in the Catholic church for abiding lawbreaking in this way, and the Catholic church (viz. its role in Latin America, Spain, etc.) understands its role as separate and in some ways independent yet related to the state’s ‘temporal power’.
“Theologically, I’m not sure that the nation-state even exists in chr*stianity” ... Not really “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars”...
The Catholic church is more than happy to tell its members to obey the law and be patriotic, when it aligns with their values. Any idea that Catholics cant be such is uninformed (and sometimes based on bigotry).
So why the softness on immigration? “Good samaritan” thinking? partly, but there is something else.
It does have to do with American Catholic church tradition, in that it has been immigrant-based and on the other side of issues from the ‘nativists’. Some freepers shared the history of the “Know Nothing” party of the 1850s, which was really an anti-Catholic party. In 1876, some Republican pol called the Democrats the party of “Rum, Romanism, and rebellion” and sealed the connection between catholic ethnic whites and the Democrat party.
The Catholic church now is bought into the ‘ennobled immigrant’ myth (myth as per Heather MacDonald, see George Will and other columns on the pathologies we are bringing in along with 12 million very poor and mostly non-literate illegal immigrants). The bishops are also seeing *their members* in this situation. So in effect, the Catholic church is in the same position as La Raza, they are advocating for their own constituency. Hence you get
to “no person is illegal” and you have a ‘solution’ that solves the ‘problem’ that exists for illegal aliens,
as opposed to the problem USA has, which is ‘how to get control back in this system’.
1. The situation in the 1840s, when we had huge unsettled frontiers, and seemingly unlimited resources, is totally non-comparable to that in 2007.
2. The Irish and German immigrants, in the 1840s, were ethnic cousins to the original Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Dutch etc., settlers. Whereas the Mexican Mestizos represent a very different stock, completely different culture, with no comparable common history. The Germans and Irish soon adjusted to what had become American norms, except in areas where they settled only among their own, and took a pride, even a passion, in being more "American" than many native sons. There is no evidence of a comparable tendency among the Mexicans.
3. The various waves of post-Revolutionary European settlers were legal; seeking to become part of a kindred, but freer culture. They generally embraced the values--limited government, local control over local institutions, and the sacredness of property rights--which had distinguished the Founding Fathers. There is little evidence that the waves from South of the border, or from Third World countries, have these concepts. (Indeed, considering that the average tested IQs among these peoples falls somewhere from 90 on down, this picture is not likely to change.)
But, to be fair, neither it appears do some of those supporting Amnesty and a continued flood of immigrants, show much understanding of our traditions. And that is perhaps the most compelling reason of all. We already have more than enough folk who will not bother to even try to understand the genius of what the Founding Fathers wrought.
The President belongs to the "Admit Nothings" party:
Cheers!
“The bill’s supporters simply should say, “The vast majority of these illegal immigrants are people here to work, and they aren’t going to be forced to go home; therefore there is no humane and moral option besides giving them an amnesty.” That would be admirably straightforward and obviate the need for complex, obfuscatory lawmaking.”
Sounds like the reasoning behind banning DDT.
My statement that the nation-state as we know it now did not exist in the Catholic Middle Ages was not meant to be derogatory. Catholicism, is, after all, supposed to be universal (the racialist divide between the Buchananites and their Mexican co-religionists is something I don't completely understand). Certainly the state is not absolute, and certainly every single human being who has ever lived is related through Adam and Eve, however disparate cultures have become (some "palaeo" anti-immigrant rhetoric smacks of polygenism and maybe henotheism--especially when it completely ignores common religion altogether and dwells exclusively on racial identity).
My position on immigration is very pragmatic. I don't want to lose part of my country to another. Of course, the Mexicans didn't like losing part of their country to this one (though it had only been part of Mexico for a very short while and they didn't do anything with it when they had it). I'm also extremely hostile to Leftist hypocrisy that expects Americans to be wimpy flower children but Third World and "indigenous" people to be militant, jingoistic hyper-patriotic chauvinists whose mystical nationalism differs little from fascism. (Here is a "vanity" I posted on this topic shortly after the '04 election.)
As a typical old-time Anglo-Saxon from the rural upper Southeast (and an heir of the Federalist, Anti-Masonic, Whig, Know-Nothing, Republican political tradition) I am well aware of the divide between my particular American political culture and that of communities descended from urban immigrants. My theory is that one reason Jews and Catholics get along as well as they do in the US is a shared urban immigrant experience and a perceived common enemy in the allegedly "bigoted" American Protestant. And while I am sure there are Protestants who are bigoted, I am also sure that there are Catholics and Jews who are clinging to an outdated worldview that has long since ceased to hold any legitimacy. In other words, just as Blacks need to stop blaming whitey, Catholics need to stop seeing Oliver Cromwell in every Southern Baptist.
Thank you again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.