Immigration wrap-up: blog schism edition
posted at 9:46 am on May 16, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
PoliPundit gets tough on enforcement and Lorie Byrd responds by revoking her own guest-worker status and deporting herself back to Byrd Droppings. Can we officially start worrying about a conservative crack-up? Sí se puede!
Thank goodness we have the hysterical stupidity and bad faith of the New York Times editorial board to bring us together:
President Bush’s speech from the Oval Office last night was not a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate…
Rather than standing up for truth, Mr. Bush swiveled last night in the direction of those who see immigration, with delusional clarity, as entirely a problem of barricades and bad guys. His plan to deploy “up to 6,000″ National Guard troops to free the Border Patrol to hunt illegal immigrants is a model of stark simplicity, one sure to hearten the Minuteman vigilantes, frightened conspiracy theorists, English-only Latinophobes, right-wing radio and TV personalities, and members of Congress who have no patience for sorting out the various and mixed blessings that surging immigration has given this country.
“Fear-stricken” is rhetoric borrowed from the debate over terrorism, where it’s deployed by leftists to dress up their own ignorance or indifference as “bravery.” Nice job by the Times adapting it to their purposes here. I think I speak for all of us when I say we appreciate the lessons in moral courage from people who soil themselves daily over NSA data-mining and the perpetually looming Christian fundamentalist takeover.
More speech reaction: Kaus was unimpressed, Lowry is using the C-word, and no one in NRO’s mini-roundup has much to say that’s complimentary except for politicians John Cornyn and Dan Lungren, who don’t have much choice.
Update: The Washington Post liked Bush’s speech, yet somehow they managed to convey that point without accusing conservatives of violent racism. Exhibit 4,835 why WaPo is a better newspaper than the New York Times.
Update: Blog schisms are the least of our worries, says Confederate Yankee, who points to the fruits of unassimilation in Europe.
Update: NRO: Amnesty Undeniable.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
The Minutemen are NOT vigilantes and they NEVER have been!
ARRGGHH!!
Why is English only equated with “Latinophobes”??
If environmentalists were sincere, they would see the slippery slope of allowing Spanish to be added to every government document. Soon there will also be Hmoob, Vietnamese, Japanese, French, German, heck, why not Pig-Latin! If we allow one change we have to allow all the others or someone will cry “minority victim”! Imagine all the trees chopped down to increase the length of every gov’t document, not to mention how big our streeet signs will need to be to accomodate all languages that could possibly be spoken in America.
I recently sent back a postage paid solicitation from the NYT with “you suck” written across the solicitation.
NTWR on May 16, 2006 at 10:06 AM
The NY Times is only useful if you’re interested in the football exploits of Fordham or Columbia, which 99.9% of the world isn’t.
clyde on May 16, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Minutemen are concerned American Citizens.
They are patriots working to secure our country.
Of course there are those that spew hate and dish out racist accusations aimed at these hard working Americans.
But they are little in number and we are many.
We need to stand together to protect our country from all those that wish to break our laws.
Kramer on May 16, 2006 at 10:35 AM
Well there you go.
Law Abiding = Fear Stricken
venmax on May 16, 2006 at 10:42 AM
On the one hand, I’d like to see our government begin a systematic enforcement of the laws that we have on the books. On the other hand, in light of our own longstanding negligence in enforcing our own laws, a sudden crackdown without notice seems hypocritical and unfair. And, on top of that, we lack the personnel and the training to suddenly start enforcement. Perhaps a phased-in renewal of enforcement is in order? Something that would allow us to give notice to illegal immigrants that the door will be closing soon, and that will give the government time to fund and train the personnel necessary to close the borders to illegal immigrants.
Laserlawyer on May 16, 2006 at 10:46 AM
Latinophobes????????? Hahahahahahahaha…..man, that’s good. I love it when they pull out the old “fear” and name calling stuff. Makes ‘em look stupider than they already are.
darwin on May 16, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Come to think of it, most mexicans seem to have a bad case of “Latinophobia”……….they’re running away from the spanish descended hombres as fast as they can. NY Times……..home of the buffoons
darwin on May 16, 2006 at 10:57 AM
What is unfair to someone that breaks the law in the first place?
We must remain humane, but fairness is not on the table.
Hypocritical and unfair may be what it is, but these people don’t deserve the same equality under the laws as Amwerican citizens do.
Kramer on May 16, 2006 at 10:59 AM
Was Byrd pro-immigration? I haven’t read any of her immigration posts.
msplitt on May 16, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Why does Bush think we can assimilate 12 to 20 million illegals already here who have no desire to assimilate? Why do the yahoos behind the Senate “compromise” think we can assimilate up to 163 million immigrants in the next twenty years? The stark truth is that we can’t even assimilate millions of liberals who were born here, but find it repugnant to think of themselves as Americans. Having met resistance in their efforts to effect a leftist/secularist transformation of American culture through the courts, the liberals are now pursuing the destruction of America by attempting to overrun the country with like-minded foreigners who will simply overwhelm America with vast numbers. It is time to make a stand.
secarr on May 16, 2006 at 11:25 AM
The NYT decries the speech as “not a blueprint for immigration reform.” Then they imply that having immigration laws and enforcing immigration laws is the work of irresponsible demagogues. Their prescription seems to be that we “sort[ing] out the various and mixed blessings that surging immigration has given this country” and enact immigration reform.
Was the speech supposed to be a blueprint for immigration reform? I don’t want immigration “reform.” What the hell would immigration reform be? I want our immigration laws enforced as I believe in our sovereignty as an independent nation.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the NYT would just come out in the open and write that they are against anything President Bush has to say about anything.
Kevin R on May 16, 2006 at 11:49 AM
I have a proposition: If a virtual fence is good enough for the rest of us, a virtual fence should be good enough for President Bush. I would expect any bill authorizing a virtual fence on the border to also authorize the destruction of the security fences around the White House and the “building” of a virtual fence there too.
secarr on May 16, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Ok, let me get this straight, since there is a lot of straightening out that needs to occur…
1) Send National Guard to “assist” the Border Patrol, while not acutally enforcing the border, and certainly not being armed – this reminds me of a Martin Lawrence movie in whihc he chastises a couple private security guards as “flashlight cops” who can only walk around with their flashlights and scream out “I see you, I see you..” Sounds liek a great start El Presidente.
2) We are going ot put 6000 new Border Patrol agents on the southern border – is this anything like the “thousands” of new cops promised by Clinton/Gore that failed to materialize?
3) We are going to require “tamperproof” ID cards for all temporary workers to carry – We already have some “tamperproof” cards called drivers licenses that seem anything but. How will an employer tell whether it is real or not? Hell, they cannot even tell if SS#’s are legit or not at present.
Obviously, I have more questions than space here…
SteveD on May 16, 2006 at 12:50 PM
ok, one more observation – anyone notice how the MSM and many politicians are talking down the number of illegals in an attempt to minimize the problem? First it was 12MM, now I heard last night it is 10-12MM, 11MM, etc. Bill Kristol used the 10MM figure.
I seem to think it is significantly higher than 12MM, but no one is using that number because they do not want to “scare” people with the truth.
Here’s to “the lies, damn lies and statistics crowd”…
SteveD on May 16, 2006 at 12:53 PM
“Survivor” guy Richard Hatch was just sentanced to 4 years 3 months for tax evasion. Should this set precedent for our Illegal Immigrants? Or do we just imprison American Citizens with money. I do not condone this fools actions, and cannot understand why he would avoid paying taxes, just as I cannot understand why we would forgive millions of Illegals of their crimes. Yes they broke many laws, tax eveasion is just one of them. Will any of them day a day in jail? Nope.
On to the future…when these illegals get to stay, get an “I.D. card” and feel more comfortable, the first thing they will do is scream and march for equal rights. AND more pay!
We would save billions by enforcing the existing laws, crack down on the employers (who are going to have to pay these illegals the same as anyone one else very soon), and keep the the jobs and $50 BILLION DOLLARS (annually) IN AMERICA.
.
THINK AHEAD SENATORS, WHAT ARE YOU GETTING US INTO?
shooter on May 16, 2006 at 12:59 PM
Gotta go- Tony Snow vs. Wingnut moonbats on now.
shooter on May 16, 2006 at 1:01 PM
>Was Byrd pro-immigration? I haven’t read any of her immigration posts.
>msplitt on May 16, 2006 at 11:15 AM
No. She’s not all that far away from PP’s position, she just doesn’t agree with the rhetoric he employs. God forbid someone might actually want to be reasonable! (Nevermind the fact that PP’s shrillness has probably turned more people AWAY from his position than anything.)
bamapachyderm on May 16, 2006 at 1:06 PM
bamapachyderm on May 16, 2006 at 1:06 PM
I know I am often accused of using “shrill” rhetoric. But sometimes to get a point across, to get people to notice the elephant in the room, you need to crank it up a notch.
I haven’t been reading PP lately. There’s only so much time in a day, and I need to make a living! I like some of Byrd’s stuff though.
msplitt on May 16, 2006 at 1:27 PM
What is PP?
Kramer on May 16, 2006 at 1:37 PM
PP = polipundit. (http://polipundit.com/)
Regardless of what happens there, and who is using overheated rhetoric, the bottom line is that a lot of conservatives will stay away from the polls in November because of this issue. You can go thru the Geraghty-like soul searching or scream about Speaker Pelosi, but the vasy majority of the electorate don’t read blogs or bother to write 5000 word posts on the pros and cons of “sending a message” by not voting. They simply won’t be motivated to go to the polls for a party they feel betrayed by on an important issue. You can consider that response stupid or short-sighted, but it certainly a reality.
Clark1 on May 16, 2006 at 2:05 PM
I’ve posted on this at length. People need to remember, when deciding whether or not to stay home in November, that in November we will be voting for the entire House – which is excellent on immigration issues. Senatorial elections in 33 states, and 36 states have gubernatorial elections. For example, in my case, staying home would deny my vote to Bobby Jindal, who is rated A+ on immigration issues. That would be stupid. Additionally, staying home is foolish because it doesn’t send a clear message. If people have good reason to vote against their Republican incumbent, they should still vote – just vote third party or write in. That sends a clear message, not just “low voter turnout.”
Now is the time for people to stop screaming and put their money where their mouth is. The idea that only the government can impact this situation is just as false as the choice of “amnesty or mass deportation.” We can still build the wall. We just need to do it with private donations, not taxpayer funds. IF this is the critically serious issue that people say it is – and I believe it is – then they need to make some lifestyle choices and give until it hurts.
Laura on May 16, 2006 at 2:25 PM
http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/
Please donate if you can, volunteer if you can. Apparently our fate has been left in our hands.
darwin on May 16, 2006 at 2:49 PM
The New York Times editorial board = Ameriphobes.
Pablo on May 16, 2006 at 4:11 PM
bush sr…has been president since 1984….
ex cia…….one worlder
notice the closeness with clinton now…
America is over….there is a reason why the Bushes move to Midland Tx…from Maine…….duh
Where is Ross Perot
LBJ from Texas……quits…….
Someone took over our gov…when Kennedy died.
Look at the Joke Senators on Cspan right now!!!!!!!!
LZVandy on May 16, 2006 at 5:06 PM
Your country is gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LZVandy on May 16, 2006 at 5:09 PM
Your country is gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LZVandy on May 16, 2006 at 5:09 PM
Our country is definitely not yours.
Kramer on May 17, 2006 at 8:05 AM
to get a better sense of the details of Bush’s plan, you can read the official White House transcript of the Press Briefing for the speech.
It is an eye-opener
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/print/20060515-9.html
entagor on May 17, 2006 at 12:49 PM
I was listening to one of the local groups that help illegals get houses. They seem resonable but my overall impression is that most of these groups will defend illegals over American Citizens any day of the week. Always stating the lies that illegals give more than they take. I love it when the left takes 20 years of unknown payments by illegals and claim that they provide 300+ Billion dollars to the tax revenue. But they will never explain how they get this number. It is a very bad deal when people through out numbers like that with no reference.
This is America it belongs to those who want to be Americans. Not Mexico North as the illegals demand immediate citizenship. I shake my head and say Keep on talking Each statement you make will not help your cause at all. But then Call a politician a racist and they will give you the shirt off their back. What the left has done to common sense.
danfinrud on May 17, 2006 at 11:28 PM
Comment pages: