The WSJ used to editorialize regularly for open borders, literally using that phrase. Recently they’ve merely been specific that they of course favor security measures along with the limitless immigration. The late editorial editor Robert Bartley, whose position is inherited by Gigot and his staff, once said that the nation-state was on its way out.

There have been numerous proposals from congress, and captains of industry such as Bill Gates, to have limitless visas, and most such proposals have included an option for permanent residency or citizenship. The recent Senate bill originally had no caps on immigration (visas with options for citizenship), 47 Senators voted to keep it that way, and John McCain literally called attempts to add caps “against family…against everything America stands for.”

Again: John McCain said that anything but open borders is against everything America stands for.

Anyway, without abolishing birthright citizenship, all travel into this country is a potential form of immigration.

And a lot of people are certainly in favor of abolishing the U.S.’s borders, if not North America’s, including President Bush.

Careful that you don’t similarly mischaracterize those who would make our borders more open.

the open borders position endangers us all

Very few people fit either of the extremes. That is, only the most anarchistic of people would want unlimited undocumented immigration, and only the most unrealistic of people would suggest that deportation of all illegal immigrants is remotely feasible. Just as someone who favors enforcement of current laws isn’t necessarily anti-immigration, someone who favors more open borders isn’t necessarily cheering for anarchy.

I find myself pushing for both: bigger wall, wider gate. Picking out the terrorists from the workers will be much easier if the time and monetary advantage is gained by legal immigration as opposed to illegal immigration. As long as it is substantially faster and cheaper to hire a coyote, that’s what people will do. The only way we’re going to reduce illegal border crossing to the point where we have a decent chance at catching our enemies is to make legal immigration more attractive for workers. The easier it is for law-abiding workers to cross legally, the fewer illegal crossers we’ll have, and the greater the chance will be that those who do cross illegally are terrorists or other criminals.

So while I favor enforcement, I am not a nativist, and while I favor more open immigration, I recognize that we need to know who is coming in.

In the specific case of Tom Tancredo, the word “Nativist” isn’t a smear. Tancredo wrote legislation restricting legal immigration, which I excerpt here:

As used in this Act, the term “immigration moratorium” means the period beginning on October 1, 2003, and ending on September 30 of the first fiscal year after fiscal year 2008 during which the President submits a report to Congress, which is approved by a joint resolution of Congress, that the flow of illegal immigration has been reduced to less than 10,000 aliens per year and that any increase in legal immigration resulting from termination of the immigration moratorium would have no adverse impact on the wages and working conditions of United States citizens, the achievement or maintenance of Federal environmental quality standards, or the capacity of public schools, public hospitals, and other public facilities to serve the resident population in those localities where immigrants are likely to settle.

That’s unabashed nativism, and clear anti-immigration policy.

Nativism — A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.

So while designation of all pro-enforcement Republicans as nativist is an unfair generalization, it is entirely appropriate in Mr. Tancredo’s case.

Not long after Gov. Pete Wilson pushed through an initiative in 1994 to deny illegal aliens government benefits, the GOP lost control of the state legislature and the governor’s mansion.

This is an “only cause” fallacy of the highest order. Wilson lost for all sorts of reasons, mostly having to do with the state’s voters themselves moving left.

Wait. You’re a little mixed up here and Miniter was being extremely misleading.

1) The GOP had only the CA Assembly at the time of Prop 187, not the Senate, and their lead in the Assembly was tiny. Miniter is being deceptive by saying they ever had the entire legislature.

2) The GOP lost their weak hold on the Assembly in 1996, not 1994, the year of 187 and Wilson’s reelection bid.

3) Wilson never lost. Miniter makes it sound like he did by the way he says the GOP lost the governor’s mansion, but they lost it in 1998, when their candidate was Dan Lungren.

So when Miniter says “Not long after” he is trying to link the 1996 and 1998 losses to 1994, the year of 187. But why didn’t the GOP lose their weak hold on the assembly in 1994 then? And why didn’t Wilson lose then?

On the contrary, Wilson was trailing badly in 94 and when he endorsed 187 he rocketed ahead, winning big. And 187 itself of course passed in a landslide. Whereas Lungren ran away from it, as well as the anti-bilingual education prop that passed big in 1998. Likewise, Simon, the GOP loser in 2002, ran away from Wilson and 187. Only Schwarzenegger in 2003 endorsed Wilson and 187 and of course his opponent signed the drivers licence bill. Arnold and the even more anti-illegal-immigration Tom McClintock together won a landslide in 2003.

On top of all this, the GOP had never been doing well with Hispanic vote, long before 1994, just as they had not had much representation in the state legislature at any point in recent history.

The point is, there’s actually a vivid connection between the GOP being tough on immigration and winning, like 1994 and 2003, and being qusling on it and losing, like 1996, 1998, 2002, and 2005, when Arnold ignored the big issue to go after the nurses unions. Not the other way around.

The other big factor in the GOP’s California decline was the way immigration drove out the middle class, the GOP constituency. Increasingly, CA is Latin America: rich white people who can afford enough socialism to keep the political machines happy, and poor brown people who empower the political machines. That’s the Democrats’ constituency.

Clearly, we have need for laborers in this country beyond what we’re producing domestically.

That’s the problem no one seems to be willing to solve. If it’s a problem. Historically the resort worker, ski bums in my neck of the woods, want to work only to support their skiing. Work during the summer, ski during the winter. It’s unrealistic to expect low skilled workers to make decent money. Those with higher skills won’t or can’t take those sorts of jobs if they have dependents. Allowing vast numbers of unskilled, foreign language speaking, illegal aliens to come in will forever keep the jobs they do underpaid.

Open borders won’t solve anything, but will cause something bad to happen.

Count me in that same group as well. My wife came here legally, got her green card legally, and waited in line for 10 years, legally before finally getting her citizenship

Clearly, something is wrong with the policy in addition to the failure to enforce the border. Clearly, we have need for laborers in this country beyond what we’re producing domestically. But why the heck should it take so long to immigrate? Why are we restricting H1B visas to such a small number? Here in Maine, resorts can’t get enough workers to run their hotels. I’m no open borders guy, but it seems to me we need to make it easier to get the workers we need here legally AND enforce the border. If the pressure at the southern border is thereby reduced, enforcement should be easier and cheaper.

Taranto is on vacation, back on the 17th.

OK maybe a slight exaggeration. But not much.

RH

I’ve noticed lately the open borders crowd has really stepped up the offensive, and I think it’s because they are becoming desperate and know they are losing the battle now, particularly with grassroots voters.

Does it do any good to point out that some of the “nativists” like…well, me, for instance…are not only not against legal immigration but are married to legal immigrants and do not take kindly to people who lump in the law-abiding immigrants with the brazen, reconquista law-breaking ones?

Count me in that same group as well. My wife came here legally, got her green card legally, and waited in line for 10 years, legally before finally getting her citizenship. It really chaps my ass that illegals (with full support from the open borders crowd) think they just be able to jump to the head of the line because they were more successful in breaking the law in the first place while others who followed the rules had to wait.

Funny how the Wall Street Journal editorial writers have no problem smearing immigration enforcement advocates as “nativists” while Karl Rove holds hands with the National Council of The Race. I promise you much more on this subject tomorrow. *** Hum…

Add in the weird movement of the Bay area which went WAYYYYY left, and conservative voters lost power, saw the way things were headed, and moved out.

When I retired from the Navy 10 years ago, I tried to move back to my hometown in California, but the schools were horrible, and crime had risen to the point I did not want to raise my children in that climate. I left… just like a lot of other traditional conservative Americans…

Thus… increasing minority and radical left votes… conservatives leaving because they don’t like what the Liberals in power are doing…. California is a lost cause at this point.