Open borders at the WSJ: Another day, another dishonest editorial
posted at 11:13 am on July 11, 2006 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Brendan Miniter has outdone himself, recycling the Pete Wilson myth, smearing law-supporting Republicans as “nativists” and making hash of why Gray Davis finally fell. It’s a sight to behold and you really ought to savor the whole thing. It made the boss pop a vein. In the interests of fair use, I’ll just pull out and destroy a few highlights.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, the Colorado Republican who did so much to bring this issue to a boil in the U.S. Congress, may yet see his nativist ideas enacted into law, albeit piecemeal and state by state.
“Nativist.” And with that, the first smearbomb is deployed. Does it do any good to point out that it’s not the pro-enforcement people, but the open borders people, who are puposely confusing legal and illegal immigration–which ends up hurting all immigrants? 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? Does it do any good to point out that “nativist” is a smear reflective of 9-10 thinking, and that the border is first and foremost a national security issue, and that the open borders position endangers us all?
No, it won’t do a bit of good. But I’ll point it all out anyway, in the interests of accuracy. It’s the open borders people who are, at the end of the day, hurting legal immigrants and smearing their political opponents on this issue, all the while leaving the door open to those who wish us harm. Childish name-calling doesn’t change any of that.
Moving on. Miniter gets in a couple more “nativist” digs against GOP pols who support enforcing immigration law, then shoehorns immigration into a couple of races where the plain facts stand in opposition to Miniter’s opinions.
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. By the end of the 1990s, not a single state-wide elected office was held by a Republican. The party’s fortunes turned around only when Democrat Gov. Gray Davis steered the state into near fiscal ruin and was recalled from office.
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. Davis lost for two primary reasons: the state’s fiscal health and his last-gasp gambit to grant illegals drivers licences. Remember that, Mr. Miniter? The Governator picked up steam against Davis when he promised that if he won, he would undo Davis’ gift to lawbreakers. And we all know how that turned out, don’t we.
In Virginia, Jerry Kilgore, who stepped down to run for governor last year, wasn’t even fortunate enough to win a Pyrrhic victory. The Republican ran on an anti-illegal immigrant platform and was trounced by a liberal Democrat in a state that George W. Bush won by eight points in 2004.
Again, the WSJ goes simple-minded where immigration is concerned. If running against illegal immigration is such a loser in Virginia, then please explain what happened in Herndon, VA:
Herndon voters yesterday unseated the mayor and two Town Council members who supported a bitterly debated day-labor center for immigrant workers in a contest that emerged as a mini-referendum on the turbulent national issue of illegal immigration.
Residents replaced the incumbents with challengers who immediately called for significant changes at the center. Some want to bar public funds from being spent on the facility or restrict it to workers living in the country legally. Others want it moved to an industrial site away from the residential neighborhood where it is located.
The Post does its usual number, confusing illegals with legal immigrants or just refusing to label one from another, but you get the idea: Pols lost on a single issue, and that issue was illegal immigration, and they lost for supporting a day labor center for illegal immigrants. Miniter would do well to spend a few lines spinning out of that.
As for Kilgore, Mr. Miniter should really do a bit of research. Kilgore didn’t lose because he was clearly against illegal immigration. He lost because he muddled so many other issues dear to conservatives and therefore didn’t motivate them to vote for him. Human Events captured some of the conservative discontent at the time:
While Kilgore repeatedly said he opposed any new taxes, he refused to sign the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform that puts in writing a vow never to raise present taxes or support new ones. According to ATR chief of staff Chris Butler, “Grover and the rest of us repeatedly urged Mr. Kilgore to sign the pledge, but he wouldn’t do it.
—
Similarly, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America said: “Kilgore’s attitude toward gunowners is typical of a lot of Republicansthey like having us at the dance, but feel we’re too ugly to dance with.” While voicing support for the 2nd Amendment and for measures favored by gun owners such as conceal-andcarry legislation, Kilgore, according to Pratt, “refused to fill out our questionnaire.”
Tellingly, Republicans won two of the three statewide races in Virginia that year. Kilgore, the only Republican of the three to mix up his messages and repeatedly dis the base, lost.
Over to you, WSJ.
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
As someone who grew up in California in the 60s and 70s, the reason the Republicans lost power is the racial makeup of the state has changed dramaticaly in the last 40 years.
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.
Romeo13 on July 11, 2006 at 11:30 AM
The WSJ must be having some campaign, as Taranto’s Opinion Journal email was replaced by another disingenuous open borders rant.
Clark1 on July 11, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Hey Romeo - Same thing here. We left SoCal because the situation had become intollerable. Schooling down the tubes, violence way up, funds being taken from libraries and parks/beaches to pay for social services. We bought our way out and, sometimes I feel guilty for that. Until I get together with my friends that still live in SoCal…
Babs on July 11, 2006 at 12:00 PM
The WSJ’s exasperating disingenuousness on this issue is making their editorial page completely unreadable. I would respect them more if they just came out and said “we are for cheap, off-the-books labor for which benefits, social security taxes, and other expenses need not be paid.” It’s really pathetic that they think they are fooling anybody.
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.
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.
thirteen28 on July 11, 2006 at 12:29 PM
My aunt out there homeschools her kids. At least in part because the skkkools out there couldn’t teach addition and subtraction to a genius. And partly because sending them to the public schools is nearly the equivalent of hogtying them and laying them on the guillotine.
OK maybe a slight exaggeration. But not much.
RH
RobertHuntingdon on July 11, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Re: Clark1 on July 11, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Taranto is on vacation, back on the 17th.
MattSkosh on July 11, 2006 at 1:25 PM
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.
kmcguire on July 11, 2006 at 3:00 PM
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.
ScottG on July 11, 2006 at 4:01 PM
What is most insulting about the open-borders gang is their refusal to take either the persons arguing for controling our borders or their arguments seriously, instead choosing to dismiss them as dim-witted bigots. The patronizing attitude of the California Hispanic politicians such as Torres is especially insulting, but is almost matched by the smug pronouncements of those in the WSJ and pro-open borders conservatives such as Fred Barnes. More than in any other cultural struggle, this is a conflict between an arrogant know-it-best cultural elite and almost everyone else.
ptolemy on July 11, 2006 at 5:43 PM
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.
Alex K on July 11, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Alex, you should gather all of that up and send it to Miniter.
Bryan on July 11, 2006 at 6:55 PM
Thanks, Bryan. I will.
Alex K on July 11, 2006 at 9:16 PM
Bryan, you seem to be mostly irked that people who support immigration law enforcement are being bundled together as “nativist” (when not all are).
Careful that you don’t similarly mischaracterize those who would make our borders more open.
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:
That’s unabashed nativism, and clear anti-immigration policy.
So while designation of all pro-enforcement Republicans as nativist is an unfair generalization, it is entirely appropriate in Mr. Tancredo’s case.
Mark Jaquith on July 12, 2006 at 8:32 AM
Mark Jaquith– Perhaps very few people are for “open borders” if by that you mean “undocumented immigration”, but “open borders” fairly means “limitless immigration.” There is a large, powerful constituency for this position. It’s the majority position of the governing class.
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.
Alex K on July 12, 2006 at 4:04 PM
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Mexico’s battle plan.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 12, 2006 at 8:30 PM