 |
May 21, 2006Immigration Battles: Why the Rancor?Unquestionably, imho, the most talented blogger to emerge on the scene of late has been Glenn Greenwald. Agree or disagree with him, Glenn writes with passionate conviction, in easy to understand prose, and more often than not marshalling facts and forsaking histrionics. Reading his recent post chronicling the, shall we say, heated reaction to the President's speech among "conservative" blogospheric eminences (those occupying the Malkin-wing), I clicked through one of Glenn's links intrigued by the barnyard irreverence of a commentator (one Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller, known as Misha), who wrote: "Take your “virtual” fence and your hi-tech vaporware coupled with your amnesty plan and shove them up your ass, Jorge." Somewhat morbidly fascinated by this Limbaugh-on-Steroids fare, I donned my seatbelt and began to wade into comments-land, always a risky proposition in mondo blogistan. About five or so comments into the thread (at which point I stopped reading), I stumbled across this choice item: You know what pisses me off about this is that we could end illegal immigration in 48 hours. And it would take less than 500 people. We have some of the most high tech munitions in the world. We could put smart mines along the entire border, signs in 30 languages along with pictographs warning not to cross into a minefield (plus triple strand razorwire on both sides), loud speakers blaring into mexico the consequences of attempting to cross illegally and after the first 5 or 6 thousand explosions we have 0 illegal entries. All you have to have are mine replacement teams and razorwire replacement teams. Well okay, and body part elimination teams. Don’t want to stink up the border. Who are these people? And why are they so angry? Look, I understand that there are limited educational, welfare, healthcare and other resources available, and it's harder to assimilate immigrants (whether legal or illegal) in places like Tulsa or Laredo or Peoria, as compared to massive metropolises like New York, Chicago and L.A, where there is something of an assimilationist infrastructure in place. From a recent Roger Cohen piece: "Large-scale immigration has spread to cities that don't have the experience or the infrastructure of a Miami or New York," said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute. "People see a strange presence, new competition at the low end of the labor market. They get uneasy, and local politicians see a good horse to ride." This said, Cohen is fair, and sees real issues at play here: Behind all the anger lie some serious issues. Concerted efforts over at least two decades have not brought the United States any closer to controlling its Mexican border. Illegal immigrants tend to keep out those waiting in line to get in legally. But Cohen thinks Bush is at least partly to blame for the impossibility of such a serious debate taking place: But in the fractious, polarized nation Bush has done much to create, debate is not really what America is getting on immigration. Yep. House primitives aside trying to salvage their seats by talk of erecting a thousand-mile long barrier on our southern border, or deporting large numbers of illegals, there is also a chickens coming home to roost quality in all this. Jorge, meet Misha. P.S. In 1987, Ronald Reagan stood in West Berlin and asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." Now, a couple decades on, large swaths of Reagan's party want to build a massive one in their own country. Historical analogizing is fraught with peril, and these situations are, of course, totally different, in a number of ways. Still, symbolism matters. And America is appearing more and more xenophobic, inward-looking, afraid of the 'other'. Things like sending in national guard units (a solution that won't really work anyway), or building a large security fence, have the effect of appearing to militarize the border, the better to, as Roger Cohen says, keep the 'Latino hordes' out. Rule of law and discouraging illegal immigration is important, but the measures being urged to counter illegals entering this country (especially the more excessive ones that Bush has rightly avoided) are not in keeping with an America meant to serve as beacon to those less advantaged than we, those hoping to become part of the so-called American dream. They are instead provincial reactions born of cheap fear-mongering and hysteria. Fostering immigration has always been part of America's DNA. Wall-building and mass deployment of national guardsmen to protect our borders against immigrants, even if we are talking of illegals in the main, have not. Or so I thought. Posted by Gregory at May 21, 2006 01:33 PM | TrackBack (0)Comments
Greg like Josh Marshall has to get out and about a bit. Josh has asked occasionally why the fact that Democratic candidate X would not have won without the black vote matters? Duh, is all I can say. If you don't understand why that or why the rancor over immigration then I suggest you go back to the post I made that was deleted, rightly so, when I used the words that are not used in polite society about various minorities. For out here those words flow like water among the GOP base. They flow like water too from some voters who will still vote for Democrats because they can overcome their prejudices a bit and see where their self interest lies. However given enough meat to feed their prejudices they will vote GOP. Here is the deal. Liberal and civil rights are universally used as pejorative terms by Rush et. al. That's all you have to know. For there is no more powerfull motivator of voting preference than group identity and there is no more powerfull group identity than race, followed by language and class. I suppose Greg has no clue why the South was solidly Democratic and is now solidly Republican. Duh. It would be best for Greg to turn a blind eye to the Rottweillians and the Freepers and the Little Green Footballers and the Malkians. It isn't going to be pretty how the GOP maintains and grows its power on the back of the eventual comming numerical minority status of whites. Like how sasuage is made it's best not to know the details. Just enjoy the fruits of their labors or suffer the hell of governance by lightweight bobble headed idiots.
Most of the illegal immigration and "infiltration" happens at the airports, not the border. I don't hear anything about setting up complex nets to enforce the immigration laws at our nation's airports. However hatred sells, better when it’s against poor dark people, especially on the Right (as tradition dictates). The 9-11 terrorists depended on our airport entries and Saudi embassies. One didn’t, however, he came by way of Canada. The darkies from Saudi Arabia get special treatment because of their “special” relationship with the American right.
"In 1987, Ronald Reagan stood in West Berlin and asked Gorbachev to "tear down this wall." Now, a couple decades on, large swaths of Reagan's party want to build a massive one in their own country. Historical analogizing is fraught with peril, and these situations are, of course, totally different, in a number of ways." Translation: The two situations have practically nothing in common but the physical fact of a wall, but I'll make the comparison anyway because it's good rhetoric. Posted by: Sage at May 21, 2006 05:01 PM | Permalink to this comment
I was kind of surprised the first time I went yachting that there was no passport control etc. People were sailing into US marinas from all over the world and nobody cared. The other thing I found really surprising were the icebox and cranky white-gas range in the galley. I asked about that. "Oh, we're used to it. We thought about remodeling but the way it is, nobody asks to borrow our boat twice."
Yea, I'm going to have to agree with the first commenter here. Either Greg is incredibly naive about his own party, or ... Well, who knows? I seem to remember a candidate in the 2000 presidential election who ran on an isolationist platform - I think his name was George Bush... And wasn't there just secret meeting regarding a gay marriage amendment? As they say, the coffee's been brewing. It's as good as a time to wake up and smell it, I suppose. Posted by: Hal at May 21, 2006 07:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
Why the rancor? Because people don't like having their country invaded! We've seen how the Iraqi resistance has responded to a hostile foreign invasion and now we're seeing belated American resistance of a kind to what is happening here. I don't expect the rich and deracinated to understand any kind of tribalism or even basic civic mindedness but that reference to the Berlin Wall was beneath contempt. Polls show most Mexicans want to "recover" the South West. By colonizing large sections of it they have a reasonably good chance of getting it. The Mexicans are a strong people and they won't fall for all this "nation of immigrants" melting pot nonsense. Americans are so fragmented by ethnicity, religion, etc. and brainwashed by the liberalism luxury with its universal values and rights that they can barely spot, never mind respond to, a threat that's right in front of their faces. The reaction against mass illegal and legal immigration should have begun in the early 90s when it first started to negatively impact the lives of millions of our poorer citizens (the rich just got cheaper help). In Latin America small numbers of rich light skinned people tend to live behind the gates to their mansions while the poor more numerous dark skinned people seethe with hatred for them while working like serfs. With one million white Californians, almost all middle and working class, leaving the state in the 90s and exodus continuing we're seeing a similar Latin American-style society emerging in California. (Bush probably thinks that's just swell) Most of the illegals come from poor Indian parts of Mexico. They are the types of people who throughout Latin America are smitten by Marcos, Chavez and Morales. They may work hard now but don't expect their children to do so. They will hate the greater white (and black) American society and no doubt in time will produce their own Hugo Chavez. Ethnic conflict is America's future. Gee, what's all the fuss and rancor about? Posted by: paleocon at May 21, 2006 07:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think what most Mexicans believe is that the U.S. took the territory in an unjustified war. That's what most American historians believe. Posted by: David Tomlin at May 21, 2006 08:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
I agree 100% with Hal. He fully explained in detail what all the justifiable rancor is all about. We are being invaded by another country. Yes, they are for the most part coming over quietly and without incidence. Yes, they do work hard at their jobs that they have acquired illegally. Yes, we have considered Mexico a "friend" all these years. So what's all the fuss? They have a different agenda than what most Americans realize. They eventually don't want these low paying jobs and will begin to undercut wages in other fields after they get their free education from us. They are purposely having many, many children as they know they'll need large numbers down the road to completely take us over politically, economically, and socially. They strategically move their people in certain cities and towns until they have conquerored the area. They have no intention of assimilating with Americans; they learn enough English only to survive. They have silently binged on all of our social programs (education, health care, WIC, Welfare, Unemployment, Housing Subsidies, etc.). When they don't get everything they want, they become militant (we'll see more of this in the future). I give them credit, this is a very creative way to bring down a country, but it's working. America needs to wake up now before it's too late. Posted by: Sharon at May 21, 2006 10:33 PM | Permalink to this comment
Why all the rancor about immigration now instead of 6 months ago or 2 years ago? Because Republican candidates need a new issue, one they haven't used up. All the old issues are things they've already had 2 years or 6 years to fail at. They can't very well run on abortion or gay marriage or iraq or iran or north korea. They can't run on keeping a strong military or cutting taxes or raising taxes or respecting the flag. They aren't ready to play the china card. They can't very well run on ending corruption. Every single campaign issue left over from 2 years ago is ready to bite them in the ass. They need something new to take people's minds off the past. A brand new issue that's moire important than any of the issues they've failed at over the last 2 or 6 years. This is it.
Evidently the drug war no longer works to get the masses stirred up. After all we have 40 million felons loose in the country and only one million in jail. And the druggies are subverting the children. Or at least that was the story. Posted by: M. Simon at May 22, 2006 09:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Sharon evidently has no faith in American culture which naturally dominates every where it goes. What works every where else in the world at a distance from America will not work in America. Because Mexican culture is so much stronger. Well Sharon, if you have no faith in America you deserve to lose, in fact nothing can stop it. Posted by: M. Simon at May 22, 2006 09:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
rapier, Mexicans work hard, they want well educated children, they are strongly Christian, and they are willing to risk death to have a chance. I mean, wouldn't it be great if the American underclass had such attitudes? How about we declare them honorary white men? Problem solved. Posted by: M. Simon at May 22, 2006 09:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
paleocon, Don't you just hate it seeing the invaders at our construction sites building our country? The Iraqis should be so lucky. Posted by: M. Simon at May 22, 2006 09:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
BTW I have some third generation Mexican friends. I speak better Spanish than they do and I can barely get beans and bus tickets in that language. Once they own homes the reconquesta idea fades. It lowers property values. Posted by: M. Simon at May 22, 2006 09:57 AM | Permalink to this comment
Why the rancor? 1. Brazen and unfair demands from the Mexican government and the parade marchers. 2. No acknowledgment that it's our country, after all, so we get to decide who lives here. Instead lots of claims that illegals "earned citizenship," 3. The hypocracy: what we're proposing and they're protesting are things they've been doing in Mexico for years! 4. The realization that the Mexican government and our own government have been mostly ignoring the law for years. The immigrants and their employers have benefitted, but not the taxpayer or the average American. 5. The fear that nothing will be done and things will continue on as they are. Posted by: jerseycityjoan at May 22, 2006 06:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
M. Simon, Once they own homes the reconquesta idea fades. It lowers property values. LOL! Latinos are ripe for right-wing gentrification, just like every other immigrant group. What this latest paranoia does is slows that right-wing gentrification down.....way down, thank God. The right-wing gentrification process, for Jews and Blacks, has been slowed to a snail's pace, thank God, because of similar paranoia against them. Hopefully, the same thing will happen to the Latino immigrants.
How strange. When I'm on his side, M. Simon seems amusing and harmless. I don't think the difference is in him, I think it's in me. I would have thought better of myself, but there it is.
About the rabid comments of Rush Limbaugh and his like minded friends, represented loudly here by palecon and Sharon, I can only say, as a Catholic friend & co-worker says when exasperated by stupidly: JESUS, MARY & JOSEPH!!!! Well, Greg, I hope these responds has enlightened as to the nasty underside invlolved in making and keeping Republicans as a majority party. J Thomas is right that demagouging on immigration is about the only issue the Congressional Republicans have left for this Fall's Elections, even if it puts them at odds with their President. Should not be too surprised at this last, after all Bush Jr. is not running for re-election, the Congressional Repulicans are! (though he may be running From impeachment if the Democrats regain control of Congress!) Posted by: David All at May 22, 2006 10:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, this was a pretty good post. No game-changing ideas, but I appreciate the sentiment. Some of you commenters are really incredibly deranged, folks. I'm going to go back to some basic English grammar, folks. "Invasion" is used to describe the movement of armed forces into an area for the purpose of destroying and seizing its government. That's what we did in Iraq. That's not what is currently happening in Texas. If it was, you'd know, because of all your dead friends blown up by bombs planted by Mexicans. So really, grow the **** up. Posted by: glasnost at May 23, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink to this comment
rapier, the Republican party has not a hope in hell of "maintains and grows its power on the back of the eventual comming numerical minority status of whites."
For hints on why, you might look to the words "numerical minority" in your own sentence. The pro-nativist bloc in the US will never be anything close to a majority. The GOP is charging onwards into utter downfall. I'm cheering. Posted by: glasnost at May 23, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
If the Republican party has its downfall I hope the Libertarians take up some of the slack. A one-party state run by Democrats would be better than what we have now, but not nearly good enough.
The reason for the rancor is this: I have to follow the rules (laws) and I expect everyone else to do so as well. I especially expect those who are guests in our country (illegally) to follow the rules. Legal emmigrants to Mexico must establish that they can support themselves, they do not have ANY path to citizenship and they are not allowed to participate in the political process. I do not think this is the way for us to proceed, but I do think that we should have a well defined process for immigration and the rules should be followed. I think the border should be sealed in the most expeditious manner possible. If we can do it cheaply then by all means do so. Mines and razor wire have long been established as a cheap method of funneling personnel into areas where you want them. Let's do it NOW! Having said that, I believe that America benefits from immigrants from all lands. I believe that immigration should continue. We should take the best and brightest we can get. BUT MAKE IT LEGAL! Posted by: Scott at May 23, 2006 03:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
Scott, the laws we aren't enforcing are the laws that forbid americans from hiring illegal immigrants. Enforce those laws and all of a sudden the USA turns into just an expensive place for illegals to visit. Work out a deal -- illegals can turn themselves into the local police and get wired up and go get their pay from US employers, and then they get half the heavy fine and the police get the other half. With heavy fines and jail sentence and big rewards for illegals to turn in the employers, the problem would fix itself pretty fast. No need to spend money on mines and razor wire. But somehow we're going after the illegal immigrants and letting their employers go scot free. It's like running the Drug War by going after the drug users and ignoring the pushers. Enforce the laws against hiring illegals and strengthen them. If a farmer hires illegals, put him in jail and confiscate the farm. If a construction company hires illegals, put the managers in jail and confiscate the company. If a mother hires an illegal maid, put her in jail and confiscate her house. Problem solved, quick and simple.
J Thomas, That would sure dry up any immigrantion from the South! Posted by: NeoDude at May 23, 2006 05:00 PM | Permalink to this comment
This comment thread illustrates why the Republican party as presently constituted is doomed, and deservedly so. This is not a sewer like LGF but the blog of a thoughtful writer who is a shining example of what conservatism at its best has to offer, and yet I find that the majority of these comments are, to put it simply, vile spews of fear-mongering racism. Men and women of good will may disagree about the degree to which illegal immigration is truly a problem, and what the appropriate solutions might be. But one thing is certain: if we approach this problem with minds clouded by fear and hatred, we can only make the problem, and ourselves, worse. Finally, since I suspect some of the commenters, at least, have some pretensions to being Christians, let me remind you of the Biblical prescription for the treatment of the aliens among us. As it happens, one of the many commandments regarding the equal treatment of aliens was in one of the readings from the Common Lectionary for this week: When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt... (Lev 19:33-34). And it's pretty hard to imagine Jesus stringing razor wire and planting land mines, isn't it? Posted by: Dave Trowbridge at May 24, 2006 05:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
Dave, this doesn't at all show that the Republican Party is doomed. It shows there's a big market for fear-mongering racism, a market the Republicans can cater to. Too soon to say how long that approach will win a majority for them.
Well, as rapier alluded in the top comment, I think Greg ought to read up on domestic affairs a bit more: the "rancor" exhibited in the current immigration-policy debate shouldn't really come as a surprise: especially as regards the venom spewed on President Bush by his erstwhile supporters on the Right (although citing "Emperor Misha" to any other end than scorn and derision is a useless exercise). The President's immigration proposals are indeed (a rarity for this Administration) a "rational middle ground" - except that rationality is the last thing the virulent anti-immigration "base" wants to hear - since their rancor (at the edges, anyway) is driven mostly by plain, old-fashioned cultural/nativist/racist prejudice. The purely economic aspects of the illegal-immigrant issue (which Bush, in a seldom-displayed flash of understanding, does seem to grasp) tend to get underplayed: even though a probably-even-larger percentage of the Republican "base" depends on a large "undocumented" workforce for a good deal of their profitability (as does the national economy as a whole). Not to mention the fact that our so-called Opposition (the Democrats) have their own partisan split on the issue - albeit on different grounds.
however, it seems to be Dubya's particular genius to have put himself in that position by, fundamentally, staking out a middle-way policy that no one else favors. What a genius. Maybe Rove has been hired to support someone else now. And Bush has been relegated to the one who prepares the way.
Like I make a distinction between an "Anti-Statist" (libertarian) and a Right-Wing Statist (Republican).
"Fostering immigration has always been part of America's DNA." er, no, it hasnt always been. You will note that the large scale conversion of the American Jewish community to support of Zionism coincided with immigration restrictions in the US. Nations, even the US, will let immigrants in when it suits them, and will exclude when it suits them. All nations. I sympathize with immigration, but then Im not a blue collar worker, and i dont live near the border. I dont see why wanting to secure the southwest border, while also increasing the number of legal immigrants who can be admitted, is such a right wing, oppressive thing. I also think that what we really need is a federal Dept of Absorption, much as Israel has, to make the settlement and assimilation of immigrants a national priority. But then that is probably too "liberal" for a Republican like Greg. Posted by: liberalhawk at May 26, 2006 07:57 PM | Permalink to this comment
The Berlin Wall comparison is just intellectually lazy, which is actually a rare affliction for BD. Remember: 83 Senators voted for 370 additional miles of Border fence/wall. Is John Kerry a nativist? Is 370 acceptable, but 1000 not? Does the fact that Andrew Sullivan has come tantalizingly close to endorsing a fence (and that Mickey Kaus already has) give BD the remotest pause in his sweeping statements? I've come around on fencing. I think it's the least bad option, the only option that will satisfy people that the border is secure. I think it does send a negative signal to the world, but I think the signal an unsecured border sends to our people is worse. Weighing all the costs and benefits, I'm in favor. Remember: so are 83 Senators. BD, you might be right. But please don't act like this view is the province (only) of Malkin-esque commentators and GOP panderers. Posted by: Tim Schultz at May 31, 2006 08:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
