WSJ editor: Straighten up, nativists — we’ve got an election to win
posted at 7:22 pm on August 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The best part is that after building an elaborate thesis about how we’re going to lose the Latino vote forever unless we clean up some of the toxic, radioactive, “nativist” rhetoric we’ve been tossing out like so many molotov cocktails, all she can come up with by way of examples is this:
[F]or every base Republican who is gratified by talk of ID cards and border patrols, there’s an entire family of Hispanic immigrants who are absorbing the mean language of “sanctuary cities,” “lawbreakers” and “deportation.” Many of these folks are religious, entrepreneurial, and true believers in the American dream; as such, they’re the biggest new voting potential the Republican Party has seen in ages. But a growing number, just like those Catholics of yore, are angered by the recent rhetoric and wondering why they should pull a lever for any party that would go out of its way to tag their community as the source of America’s problems.
Yeah, only the N-word can rival “sanctuary city” for sheer viciousness. I do admire the balls it takes, though, to complain about the rhetoric of amnesty opponents given the Journal’s own celebrated nastiness towards its opponents (so nasty, in fact, that they removed the evidence) and Strassel’s sneer at “nativism” just two paragraphs before this one. 95% of amnesty opponents support generous legal immigration policies, I’d guess, but for the Journal anything that stands to stop the flow of quasi-slave labor or, heaven forbid, address the systemic breakdown in deporting dangerous illegal-alien felons is, in its own Orwellian calculus, evidence of “meanness.” The straw man at the end about being scapegoated for all of America’s problems is simply the coup de grace.
Exit question: Is this actually an argument about the war? Strassel’s all about maintaining Republican electoral viability by competing for the Latino vote, but why do that if you’re only going to govern like Democrats? We already have one Democratic Party; elect them if you dig what they’re selling. The Republican base should only be willing to take the extreme measure of abandoning one of its core principles if it has to do so to preserve one of its other, even more essential principles — i.e. the war on terror, where there still is a key distinction with the Dems and where the GOP has a very good reason not to want to lose control. Until, of course, Strassel tells us five years from now that we’re alienating the Arab vote by following the GOP platform on that issue, so we’d better tack left on that too.
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
WSJ-
Wondrously Suicidal Jackasses.
profitsbeard on August 24, 2007 at 7:25 PM
This just proves that without conservative talk radio and the blogs shamnesty would have passed. The Republican establishment is addicted to the cheap labor that props up many corporations’ profit margins. Sometimes we are too pro-business. I also have a problem with financing China’s military buildup, espionage programs, and wholesale reverse engineering of American intellectual property.
RW Wacko on August 24, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Their argument assumes that most Latino Americans readily identify with illegal aliens, which I am not convinced they do. Those that do, however, will never vote Republican — so it is pointless trying to win their favor with a move like this.
Nosferightu on August 24, 2007 at 7:30 PM
.•:*¨˚¨*:•..•:*¨˚¨*:•..•:*¨˚¨*:•..•:*¨˚¨*:•..•:*¨˚¨*:•..•:*¨˚¨*:•.
RushBaby on August 24, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Yeah - that’s more like it.
Editor on August 24, 2007 at 7:32 PM
My nearby “watering hole” if infested with Democrats. I’ve been in more than a few arguments while having a drink there. Almost every one of them do not want amnesty and do want the current laws enforced.
Paul the American on August 24, 2007 at 7:37 PM
One, they can’t pull a lever, they won’t get the vote.
Two, its the left and its inability to actualy call a problem what it is, which is making it impossible to fix those same problems…
We are at war with Islamic Militants… Jihadists… call em what they are… they are NOT terrorists.
Illegal immigrants create a strain on our society, both in the amount of resources they use, and the FACT that the perpetuate a disdain for the law which is stagering. The serious breakdown of law and order will swamp us in a generation unless we really get ahold of it now. We are raising an entire generation who are given the idea that you only have to obey SOME laws… THAT is a problem folks… call it what it is.
Romeo13 on August 24, 2007 at 7:40 PM
I’ve seen the same. Far-out lefties, the illegals themselves, businesses (I know I am generalizing), pro-business Republicans (damn I sounds like a lib) and some unions support this piece of crap. None of their reasons has anything to do with the betterment of this country. They don’t even try to argue that.
RW Wacko on August 24, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I mean pro-business Republican insiders, not ordinary folks.
RW Wacko on August 24, 2007 at 7:46 PM
Here’s a grassroots Latino Group that says differently. I think if they got more exposure they could become a factor in the immigration debate.
sonnyspats1 on August 24, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Look, folks, this argument is not about immigration, it is about criminal behavior. The WSJ, and the liberal left engages in shameless demagoguery by skewing the argument into something it is not, so they can then smear their opponents as racists and bigots.
This debate is not about immigration, it is about choosing to ignore the law for your personal convenience; whether it is the person crossing the border in violation of immigration regulations, or the employer who hires them.
Citizenship status has nothing to do with it. This applies to US Citizens who violate the speed limits on the freeway, as much as it applies to the person crossing the border, or overstaying a visa.
Ask yourself, or your liberal friends this question, “Why do we have government? Why do we, the good citizens of this great nation institute a government? What is the purpose of this government? ”
You have probably noticed that the liberal democrat believes the purpose of government is for him, and his cronies to fill their pockets with government handouts, determine who gets those hand outs, and use the power of government to punish their enemies. Notice I did not say ‘enemies of the US’, because the liberal believes the purpose of government is for ’someone else’ to punish the personal enemies of the liberal, for some slight, real or imagined, done against said liberal.
Meanwhile, most conservatives believe the purpose of government is to restrain those among us who otherwise would have no self restraint, and to punish enemies OF THE COUNTRY, whether those enemies are foreign, or DOMESTIC.
This explains the hatred from those liberals, toward conservatives, because the liberal doesn’t want any limits to their behavior, nor do they want to be punished for doing things that ultimately bring harm to this country.
If we give in to those who reserve the ‘right’ to ignore any law they do not approve of, then we no longer have a civil society, we have anarchy where you can do what every you want as long as you demand the ‘right’ to do it, and can rationalize the behavior.
rockhauler on August 24, 2007 at 7:57 PM
I mentioned this in the comments before. Open borders types are going to attempt to paint this as evil, white, racist nativist, Rethuglicans beating down the poor brown man.
I’m black and completely in favor of the l;aw being enforced.
Conservatives must defeat this narrative before the Presidential race begins in earnest. Not doing so is a mistake. Did anybody ever wonder why Black people all of a sudden started voting Democrat post Civil Rights era when Frederick Douglass said this?
The South jumped ship and started voting for the Republican party, painting the Republican party as the escape for segregationists from the Democratic party. When the very few Republicans that did vote against the Civil Rights Act did so because they thought it would grant preferences to Blacks over other citizens. Barry Goldwater: “You can’t legislate morality.” How right they were and how easily was the narrative cast upon them.
Lets not make the same mistake.
Theworldisnotenough on August 24, 2007 at 8:10 PM
Did Kim know that most legal Mexican’s are sick of these illegal ones and will vote GOP. Did Kim realize there are people like myself who rarly voted GOP who will now be voting for anyone who is going to defend our nation against the invasion. Also if you explain to the blackamericans that they are the ones being sold out and explain it well you will gain there also. If we lose this one the GOP is gone forever does Kimmy realize this. How can you write like your so smart yet be so DUMB..!!!!
Legions on August 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM
That means you Gregor! We will have the NAU, you can’t stop us! Mwahahahahah!
RightWinged on August 24, 2007 at 8:38 PM
The money grubbing W$J wants to institutaionalize serfdome (aka, slavery light) in America for the plantation owning serf masters.
William Tecumseh Sherman needs to come back from the dead as he has unfinished burning to the ground to do.
MB4 on August 24, 2007 at 8:44 PM
Having lived in a neighborhood that had a large Latino population in the 90’s. I can say that the Latinos do not walk hand in hand with the illeagals. The anger voiced by them as the illeagals poured into our califonia city was quite apparant. There have been several city wide riots between the two groups over the last few years that has shut down the local high school. The events were never reported by the local media. They want everyone to believe all Latinos vote and think the same way. Until it becomes truth through peer pressure via the media. See look at the Black vote. We did not always vote 90% Dem. It’s just the opposing voice was never heard or if heard shouted down immediatly with emotional babble. We are doing the right thing here and we must not give in to their lies.
Zaire67 on August 24, 2007 at 8:45 PM
The Wall Street Journal is calling people like me a nativist because they want cheap slave labor for their base constituency, not because they want Republicans to win an election.
The more I see the WSJ make statements like this, the dimmer my view of American business gets. You hear the left constantly talk about corporate greed and corporate power. The WSJ is the business mouthpiece. I’m starting to believe the left on this issue.
But I have a solution. A tax revolt. If 20 million people would refuse to pay their taxes, (or whatever taxes they could keep out of the government’s hands) nothing could be done because the problem would be too big. You can’t just force 20 million people to pay their taxes.
I admit, it’s easier for people who derive more of their income through 1099 than W2. But W2 people can claim more exemptions at their employer, more charitable contributions, more deductions, and so on.
A tax revolt would show the government a good example of what lawlessness is all about - right where it hurts them the most.
jaime on August 24, 2007 at 9:03 PM
We’re waking up and deciding we don’t want to be the water boys for international plutocracy, and they don’t like it. Good.
dhimwit on August 24, 2007 at 9:06 PM
Hey WSJ: F*ck off.
infidel4life on August 24, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I am getting more than a little tired of the sleazy chuck-and-jive amnesty politicians and their cheer leaders at the WSJ calling us names.
The reason that amnesty Republicans want this is so that they and/or their campaign contributors can have serf labor. They would probably prefer actual out-and-out slaves but that is illegal.
The reason that amnesty Democrats want this is so that those who are now illegal can become legal and vote for them. Many of them probably also want to do this for the same reason that amnesty Republicans do too.
Does anyone think that many of these amnesty politicians really care one wit otherwise for the illegals.
Does anyone think that any of the amnesty politicians are going to invite these Mexican Indios and Mezclados to join their elite/exclusive golf clubs?
Come to live in their gated communities, other than as servants?
Invite them to their yachts, other than as low paid deck hands and/or servants?
Invite them to their cocktail parties?
Introduce them to their daughters?
The big majority of the Mexicans who have come here/will come here are Indios and Mezclados, not the Spanish descendant light-skinned ruling class of Mexico. This is a form of ethnic cleansing by Mexico’s ruling class.
So the amnesty WSJ and the amnesty politicians Jorge Arbusto, McCain, Graham, Chertoff, Kennedy, etc., more etc, still more etc. are aiding and abetting and facilitating ethnic cleansing.
If the U.N. were not such a joke, they would all be standing trial for trying to reintroduce a form of latter-day-slavery in the United States and for the mass ethnic cleansing of Mexico.
MB4 on August 24, 2007 at 9:25 PM
I’m a nativist, oh no, I am infected with keeping our borders secure. I am a patriot, oh no, I’m a nativist…oooooh a nativist…just in time for halloween.
we can’t win securing our borders, why?…because we are…nativists.
Damn, I hate being a nativist, I was hoping to live out my life without anyone finding out.
right2bright on August 24, 2007 at 9:32 PM
No , open borders has been going on since the ’60s. This is an argument about cheap labor.
By the way, AP, you usually leave the illegal immigration matters to Bryan. Have you developed a new interest?
jaime on August 24, 2007 at 9:35 PM
The Republican base should only be willing to take the extreme measure of abandoning one of its core principles if it has to do so to preserve one of its other, even more essential principles — i.e. the war on terror, where there still is a key distinction with the Dems and where the GOP has a very good reason not to want to lose control.
70% of Americans are against the war on terror if it means on and on “nation building” in Iraq.
70-80% are against shamnesty.
Why give up your winning hand to try to save a losing one?
MB4 on August 24, 2007 at 9:47 PM
I do?
Allahpundit on August 24, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Of Americans also.
PRCalDude on August 24, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Yeah. If we had trackbacks, I’d go to the last 20 Illegal Immigration posts and I bet Bryan would have 17 of them.
jaime on August 24, 2007 at 10:10 PM
As a WSJ subscriber, I must admit that this depresses me, although not quite so much as seeing Henninger, who consistently puts out some of the best and most poignant writing on the WSJ editorial page, sneering dismissively on video like some New Republic editor.
I’d not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The WSJ editorial page is still one of the best there is, and I generally overlook their immigration foible, much as I overlooked The Economist’s inability to write rationally about the gun issue, until their blind spot seemed to grow this year, and bleed over into creeping BDS in about 40 % of their articles, leading me to the point where my subscription will lapse when renewal time comes.
The WSJ is not at that point. And there is a certain integrity in what they do: represent the viewpoint of business. And at the base, they almost have a point: American business can and does productively employ more people than our legal immigration system brings in. Can that be accommodated within a legal framework?
Which is where it gets even more depressing. I don’t like illegal immigration. A nation has a right and an obligation to defend and preserve its borders, and the govt is failing to do its job. I’d be fine with plenty of legal immigration, though. Where I start to get depressed is wondering if the govt is capable of doing a better job of screening for the right legal immigrants, as the status quo is doing, simply by leaving illegals under the radar, and screening by circumstances so that, at least in my area, the illegals often tend to be highly motivated, hard working, entrepeneurial people. Are they really a worse group than what would come in if Chuck Schumer were setting the rules for who’s allowed?
I wonder. So no answers from me, only a lot of internal conflict.
Splunge on August 24, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Of Americans also.
PRCalDude on August 24, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Yup, that’s stage two.
MB4 on August 24, 2007 at 10:57 PM
If cheap, mostly low skilled, labor were so important to a country’s economy, then Mexico should be an economic miracle power house leaving us in the dust.
MB4 on August 24, 2007 at 11:02 PM
How can you tell the pro-amnesty position is that of children afraid to engage the real world?
They’re still calling their opponents meanies.
BKennedy on August 24, 2007 at 11:33 PM
There you go, that is the dilemma we face. Immigration regulations are, and have to be, restrictive. You can not just open the doors and invite everyone in.
Yet, most of us really are kind hearted people who want everyone else to enjoy freedom, and prosperity, as we do, and there are people who will take advantage of that generosity.
So the real debate is over how restrictive, or how much to relax, our immigration policy, and how vigorously to enforce those regulations.
On top of that, I just had a conversation with my neighbor, who was complaining about all the overtime he had to work, because, he said, his employer couldn’t find qualified applicants because most of the people applying for open positions couldn’t pass the pre-employment drug test, and this state has the highest unemployment rate in the country.
rockhauler on August 25, 2007 at 2:42 AM
I wonder if any of these WSJ dorks even know any LEGAL ‘green carded’ Hispanic aliens, or Naturalized Citizen Hispanics that jumped through all the hoops and did things right.
I know MANY of them myself…. And NONE of them (that I’ve talked to about it) are for ‘amnesty’ for their illegal cousins etc. I do know one very nice ‘green carded’ lady (who I would trust with my wallet and my life) who has been trying to get her citizenship for 18 years but they keep ‘losing’ her paperwork at INS/ICE, who kind of would like to have amnesty and ‘open borders’ go through because she would like her son who is a multiple felon on both sides of the border to be able to come and visit her without sneaking in, but even she admits that she doesn’t like the idea of amnesty in general, when she has tried so hard to do everything properly.
LegendHasIt on August 25, 2007 at 5:05 AM
I think it’s been going on quite some time in certain parts of the country. The next amnesty will complete it.
PRCalDude on August 25, 2007 at 10:27 AM
One question that has never been addressed or answered in this whole immigration debate is what happens when the illegals become Americans and the anchor babies grow up? They will then too be among those who are not candidates to do the jobs that Americans won’t do!
There would, of course, be more Americans and the need for proportionately more unskilled labor. Like any Ponzi scheme we know how that would play out.
Solutions:
-Build the fence
-Let the market dictate the salaries to pay to get farm workers
-Do the research necessary to build robots to do these repetitive tasks.
The Democrats used to attack Bush for not asking the people to sacrifice in war time so here it is; we’ll pay higher prices for our veggies.
Annar on August 25, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Beautimous!
HA is addicting isn’t it?
Mcguyver on August 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Hey, at least they’re learning the language.
aero on August 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM
The right needs to learn to control the terms of the discussion, for once, and this issue screams to be the one on which we take that lead.
It isn’t about immigration, it’s about crime. It isn’t America’s fault that Mexico’s government is even more corrupt and diseased than our own, so it isn’t our responsibility to suffer the consequences for their corruption.
It’s understandable that foreign citizens want a better life. I want tomorrow to be better than today as well. But that also isn’t our responsibility, UNLESS and UNTIL they become LEGAL residents of the U.S.
When the argument is on, allowing the left to claim we are anti-immigrant is suicidal to our side of the debate. We MUST keep the context focused, that the law must be encforced, that crimes not be ignored, and that this issue is about criminal behavior.
Fortunately, some politicians out there are smelling the blood in the water, and realizing it’s their own, if they don’t change their direction on this. But every time we let up, they settle back into full-pander mode. The illegal alien lobby won’t back off, neither can we.
Freelancer on August 25, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I did a search on “immigration” and looked at the first 20 posts returned. It supports my theory that only 40% were written by Bryan. Heh. Of course that’s if you include Spencer Responds to Derbyshire, New Hot Air Headlines Page, etc. by you.
I imagine the reason I got the idea that Bryan was writing most of the immigration posts is that, well, I don’t want to say… but this current post is an exception, so it caught my eye.
jaime on August 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM