Linda Chavez: If you’re against open borders, you might be a Nazi

posted at 8:17 pm on May 30, 2007 by Allahpundit

That’s a paraphrase, of course, but only a slight one. Dig it:

Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans — fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most — otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most prominently, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy “experts” at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.

I don’t have much to add to what See-Dub said, but if you don’t know who Chavez is, please note: she’s not a leftist, no matter how classically leftist this “argument” might be. Not only is she a conservative, she was Bush’s nominee to be Secretary of Labor in 2001 — before she withdrew due to suspicions that she had hired illegal aliens. Most of you know that, of course, but I want to make sure everyone understands where this rhetoric is coming from. First it was Chertoff, then Bush, now Chavez: three Republicans, one of them president, another a cabinet member, the third a would-be cabinet member, all not merely criticizing the base’s position on amnesty but impugning their character for taking that position.

If you’re following the headlines section you’ve already seen this from Rush Limbaugh’s show today, but it bears repeating:

The thing that is most troublesome to me is that the words that he spoke yesterday were a criticism of the people who have stood by him through thick and thin. When everybody’s been trying to destroy him, be it the National Guard story, take your pick, Rumsfeld, the entire war in Iraq, the whole weapons of mass destruction thing, people have stood by him, and because they trust him and believe him on those issues…

I’ve told you what I think the president’s motivations here are on the immigration bill, and I think they’re far loftier motivations than political, frankly. I think they have to do with his desire to help the less fortunate around the world to realize dreams, his belief in this country as a way to get it done. But this criticism of his base is going to be problematic for him because the left is going to keep up their incessant harping on Iraq, and he needs people to support him on this. He needs to have a base of support that will not waver…

I just wish he hadn’t done it because he’s not going to lose me on Iraq, and he’s not going to lose me on national security, he’s not going to lose me on the war on terror, but he might lose some of you, and that might mean losing some of your votes for other Republicans because the president’s not on any ballot anymore, but other Republicans are. The people who have hung with you, you don’t just cast them aside in an even casual sense. That’s the thing about this that troubles me, that’s what’s the saddest aspect of this, to me.

Exit question: How many of us has he already lost?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


It’s not the culture that causes the problem I don’t think, it’s the massive corruption that causes the poverty.


Respectfully, I think your logic breaks down. You are right to say that it is the corruption that causes the problem (along with lack of private property rights). This innate corruption is based upon certain classes being above the law or having undue control over the government. And although you can argue that they are trying to escape this environment, they are actually exporting that same corruption of lawlessness.

If immigrants come here and assimilate to successful Western values, that gives them hope of escaping poverty. More and more, they come here and form their own enclaves and fail to assimilate. They demand that we change our ways to welcome them: Anti-American Hispanic studies are rampant in our universities; many (probably most) of them do not pay taxes or have insurance; they have out-of-control illegitimacy and crime rates. Helping people escape poverty is one thing; adopting impoverishing ways is another.

Along the lines of immorality, it is wholly immoral for our lawmakers to ignore and flaunt the law (you rightly argue that corruption is the impoverishing agent in Mexico). It is immoral for them to bring in an underclass who are treated like indentured servants and paid well below a socially just wage. It is immoral that we trap our own citizens in poverty and welfare by establishing an underclass. And it is wrong that we are called a bunch of racists rather than debated on these issues.

cmay on May 31, 2007 at 9:36 PM

I think the bill being proposed is a reasonable compromise to tighen the border, increase allowed immigration, and treat the people who are already here humanely.


Let me pile on some more. But what makes any sane person think that this will tighten our borders? Bush has refused to enforce existing laws. Last year he was compelled by law to build a fence. He hasn’t. Regardless of what enforcement provisions are in the bill, he will use signing statements and executive authority to ensure that there is no enforcement.

Nobody I’ve read is against increasing legal immigration. So, your second point is irrelevant.

This bill will not treat the underclass here more humanely. This law is deja vu all over again: 1965 and 1986 redux. Same old argument we heard back then, but things are somehow much worse now. “But…but…but it’ll work this time. Really it will!” History and common sense prove you wrong.

cmay on May 31, 2007 at 9:45 PM

In case anyone can make the trip…

March for America Events June 14, 15, 16

March for America June 14, 15, 16 Washington D.C. and state capitols across the country. Be there or be without a country.

ProudPatriot on May 31, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Nobody I’ve read is against increasing legal immigration.

Now you have … immigration should be minimized, if not halted completely for anywhere from 5-10 years or longer. This nation needs to rebuild internally and importing the rest of the world here just doesn’t cut it.

darwin on May 31, 2007 at 11:31 PM

if I lived there the first I would do leave

Yup that’s just what the first Americans did, they just up and left and there never was a United States of America.

Tyrants are everywhere, defeat them or suffer tyranny, our founders didn’t need a classroom to figure that one out.
They paid the original price for freedom and now we’re being swindled out of the precious gift passed on to us to be preserved at all cost and passed on to our children for safe keeping at all cost.
I don’t think the Founders cared about being called nativist even a little bit.
The right to preserve foundations and culture was paid for in blood throughout our history, we don’t need to feel guilty in laying claim to our own nation.

Is it easy? Hell no tyranny dies hard and the sooner Mexicans won’t tolerate tyranny and pay the price like we have over and over the sooner Mexico with all her natural resources and great tourist destinations will be a first world country.
We can’t do it for them and taking the pressure off by accepting millions of people who would be freedom fighters in their own country isn’t working either.

Mexicans must decide for themselves not to be quasi slaves in their own nation any longer and take that matter into their own hands.

Speakup on June 1, 2007 at 12:36 AM

It’s not the culture that causes the problem I don’t think, it’s the massive corruption that causes the poverty. If someone could show me that it was the culture that was bringing the poverty, perhaps I would assign more personal responsibility to those escaping.

pedestrian on May 31, 2007 at 8:00 PM

OK… so… what makes it OK to be corrupt? The idea that everyone else is doing it? and I won’t get caught? Large scale coruption IS a sign of the moral decay of the CULTURE. Its the breakdown of right vs. wrong… and illegal vs. legal. If the culture does not have a way to shame or otherwise bring to heal those who are corrupt, then the society is doomed…

So, now, you bring in MILLIONS of people raised and indoctrinated in a corrupt society, and then wonder why it creates problems?

EVERY illegal immigrant who works in America not only broke the law to get here, but also breaks laws by working. Either they are NOT paying taxes, or are using identity theft to work…. further corruption. These people being here and Bush and Co not really enforcing the laws leads to employers using them (cause everyone else does), thus leading to MORE CORRUPTION!

So, we have a corrupt society, infecting our society, with further corruption…

Get it?

Romeo13 on June 1, 2007 at 1:27 AM

Question: Isn’t it statistically true that Mexicans have a higher crime rate than White Americans? (Heck, just the ID theft has to put it above whites)

That being said, Half my family is Mexican by birth and marriage and one was killed when in an altercation with police.

Finally, that isn’t the reason we don’t want them. We don’t want welfare/social service leeches to come to the US and use us. This means we don’t want uneducated failures to immigrate. One of by dearest friends is named Eduardo Z. He is here on a Student Visa. He has learned English and earned his education. He is about to get his degree in Civil Engineering. He offered to even work for the Military as an Engineer for 4 years just so he could get permanent status and the chance to become a US citizen.

Guess what, Linda?! He doesn’t qualify to stay in the US with this crappy bill. He will be forced to return. A guy who actually would pay more taxes than he uses, unlike 80%+ of the Mexicans who are presently here.

Tim Burton on June 1, 2007 at 12:53 PM


seejanemom on June 1, 2007 at 4:46 PM

My slash didn’t work….sorry…should read:


seejanemom on June 1, 2007 at 4:48 PM

George W Bush finally unites the NATION!

Some of you are incapable of a coherent debate on facts and go into mass panic, hysteria and partisanship BS like georgej & Lehosh spew; you are a NUT BAG’s, right wing-nuts. Calm down, take the meds or something. Clearly it becomes so appairent those who have nothing intelligent or honest to say, when discussing such a complicated issue.

Clearly MOST Americans want the boarder secured first and foremost, absolutly with out anything else, except enforcing existing rules of law. Why is the government doing something else?

Its not a Liberal, Dem, Conservative or GOP thing.

The real question is most Americans want to start a draw down from Iraq. Most Americans want a secured boarder first. WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT NOT IN SYNC? BUSH.

Its about time you right wingers see that Bush, a republican, is a terrible leader that is out of touch and not a competent leader. Let’s CUT the partisan crap and give Washington hell as a united voice.

For all you lock step republican worshiping loyalist, I hope you now realize no one party, politician or President is holier than thou and has a monopoly on all the good ideas. If we don’t work together and debate the facts verses talking points, rhetoric and propaganda, we as a nation are in trouble.

When you look at the economics the “cheap labor” is not cheap and is subsidized by you and me. The people that use this cheap labor want it. Mexico wants it. However most Americans don’t want up up to 30,000 million poor and uneducated people to come here and drain medicare and social security. Call me racist but America for Americans fist before immigrants, legal or not.

gmcjetpilot on June 3, 2007 at 12:04 AM

gmcjetpilot on June 3, 2007 at 12:04 AM

As if ANY of the participants here pay ANY attention to ANYTHING that you say, troll.

CyberCipher on June 3, 2007 at 10:39 AM

We had to endure the bleakness of the post Nixon era of Jimmah Cotter for the appearance of Ronnie Reagan and again in 1994 with Newt to defeat Clintonism.

I believe that we will see this history repeat itself – we will have to endure the daily depressive drumbeat of the Democrat Party in power for some time, before the return of common sense in the RNC…. or maybe the demise of the RNC and the return of the Whigs.

bloviator on June 3, 2007 at 1:30 PM