Skip to comments.WSJ Attacks 'Blood-and-Soil' Republicans Over Opposition to Immigration Bill
Posted on 07/03/2013 6:36:09 PM PDT by drewh
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has attacked opposition to the immigration bill that passed in the Senate last week, urging the Republican-led House to "improve" the bill, "not kill it."
The bill's border security provisions, the Journal argued, were not weak, as conservatives had charged, but were "wretched excess," the result of "the Republican party letting its blood-and-soil wing trump its supposedly free-market principles." It might seem odd to attack "blood-and-soil" conservatives (a phrase of Nazi provenance, evidently) on the eve of July 4th. But one need not wave the American flag or protest the obviously offensive connotations of the insult to defeat the Journal's arguments for the Senate bill.
By arguing that economic growth should drive immigration reform, the Journal actually undermines the "Gang of Eight" legislation it attempts to defend.
The editorial states, up front, that its "preferred" option for immigration reform "would focus entirely on easing the way for more people to come legally."
Border security plays no role whatsoever in the Journal's considerations.
That is an astonishing position for a newspaper that has taken a strong stance in favor of the war on terror, including, recently, a strident defense of the National Security Agency's surveillance powers.
Furthermore, border security is not just about stopping terrorism. It is also about the rule of law. And the rule of law, in turn, is fundamental to economic growth. The Journal well understands that fact. It co-publishes an annual "Index of Economic Freedom" with the Heritage Foundation, in which "rule of law" is not just one of the criteria, but the first criterion for economic freedom, before limited government and open markets.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Kill the jobs/economy/sovereignty killing bill!!
A country without borders is a notion, not a nation
I feel like I’ve been stabbed in the back. Again. By another bunch of “conservatives”.
Looks like the cheap labor pimps are out today.
There are only 2 groups that will benefit from Amnesty
The Democrats and cheap labor pimps.
WSJ is calling conservatives against amnesty Nazis. It has officially jumped the shark.
As Mark Levin described the WSJ editors — “a-holes”.
So it’s the “Blood and Soil” bunch versus the “Lawn-Care and Housekeeping” faction.
Did all these stakeholders in amnesty threaten to cancel their subscriptions or something?
They know full well this is a sham and what the consequences to our nation will be. So it makes me wonder - if this is their position, can the reader trust what the WSJ says about money and markets?
Wall Street Journal is pro-cheap labor? Damn. What a shock.
Doubling the size of the Border Patrol won’t fix anything if the government enforces the new laws like they enforced the old ones. Illegal immigration is fueled by two factors; access to employment and low threat of deportation. Until we fix those two problems a 40,000 strong border patrol will have no effect.
Not really. The phrase "blood and soil" predates the Nazis, and I have on occasion over the years used it as a handy short-hand for the strain of American conservatism that sees American nationhood and American patriotism in terms more fitted to the nations of Old Europe in which ancestry and birth were the basis of nationhood, rather than fealty to the ideals of a constitutional order as is (or should be) the case for Americans. And, it is, indeed, that strain of conservatism which is most vocal against any amnesty for illegal immigrants -- though there are sound conservative arguments based on the rule of law for being against it as well.
Full disclosure: as FReepers with long memories know, I am dead set against any path to citizenship for willful violators of our immigration laws. As far as I'm concerned an amnesty into guest-worker status, or an amnesty into red card status (permanent residency with no way to attain citizenship) could be part of a grand reform including serious border enforcement, harsher penalties for knowingly or without due diligence employing illegal immigrants, a guest-worker program and adjustments to immigration quotas, but an amnesty onto track to citizenship is right out.
The WSJ nerds clearly haven’t had their kitty litter changed.
WSJ = Globalists.
Blood and Soil: Does that mean native folk who llove their land?
Well! WSJ you aren’t even free market. Any idiot knows that if you pump serf labor into a market that you’ve distorted that market.
at the July 4th GOP Picnic (Omaha, NE), I’ll be in attendance with a “NO AMNESTY” sign!!!! Might even take my Palin picture with me (2’ by 3’).
I was a regular subscriber to the WSJ until a few years ago. One of their contributing writer Thomas Frank extolled the virtues of Ayres and Dorhn. What crap. I have not read the paper nor purchased a copy since then
This bill would destroy working class Americans or at least cause serious issues with their living standards.I am not given to class warfare but this is going to benefit the wealthy who employ undocumented labor.
It is not going to stop the exploitation of migrants or even really give all but a few,a path to something resembling living standards.
Also we are in a recession,we can’t afford to shut the door to immigration(skilled or otherwise) but likewise we can’t allow people to stay and work illegally.
There will be no winners from this bill or any benefits for this country.It is just going to be a mess that people shouldn’t be dragged into.Anyway this country will survive and I hope and pray that the House does not pass this bill.
the WSJ has a long history of supporting Open Borders. This isn’t a shock.
I never thought the WSJ was a conservative paper. As a matter of fact its news pages are just as lefty as the big dailies.
Close they are Major Friggin A-Holes with no concept of country or reality. When these F-heads demand that mexico follows the practices they demand of America, maybe, just mabe their opinion will have some merit. Until then the all go burning and screaming to Hell.
Dont be short sighted. Illegal immirants do not care about citizenship . But they do want retention of any kind which will destroy us.
Ubama and Holder enforce the parts of current immigration law that please them, and ignore the parts of current immigration law that doesn't.
They'll do the same with a new law.
Just do whatever the Hell you please. Don't pretend that we still have the rule of law.
I believe that’s what our county is all about - a place of refuge for any and all.
LISTEN TO THIS BIRD....ON WHOSE DIME SONNY? ...THIS GUY NEEDS A GOOD DOSE OF ANN COULTER ON THE FOLLOW OF OPEN BORDERS...I HOPE HE FOLLOWS THIS LINK AND LEARNS FROM HER WHERE THE BEAR S##T IN THE BUCKWHEAT....AS SHE STRAIGHTENS OUT GROVER NORQUIST AND EVERYONE ELSE RE IMMIGRATION...
$$$$ wing of GOP. Those job creators, remember last year?
YEP...LETS SEE WHOSE LEFT WE CAN TRUST TO DEEP SIX THIS ATTEMPT TO CALIFORNIAIZE THE USA...? MICHELLE MALKIN, ANN COULTER, RUSH, SEN CRUZ AND LAURA INGRAHAM NEAR AS I CAN SEE...WHEW IT’S PATHETIC....HOW CAN THIS BE?
Sorry, but the WSJ is right.
We need fewer bad legal immigrants (for example, the huge numbers of Muslims Obama has brought here) and the legalization of more decent immigrants (for example, the Latin American groundskeepers who really only want to work here until they can go back to their home towns and start a tiny business there).
And we need to upgrade the US lower level workforce. Anybody who saw one of our great high school products, “Racheal,” making her illiterate and unintelligible statements in the Zimmerman case will realize why we’re not competitive against even low-skilled immigrants who arrive here without a word of English. They have motivation, and our people don’t.
And because of racial preference, we don’t even have any standard of excellence anymore.
Jane, the news is MUCH worse than that.
Since 2000, the number of working age native born Americans who have a job has gone DOWN 1.3 million.
Since 2000, the number of working age legal and illegal immigrants who have a job has gone UP 5.3 million.
Here's the link:
our government thinks those stats are good things I bet
I am in general in favor of more workers, via guest worker programs, if or when the economy or some sectors need them. However, you can not play people for fools. The American public were promised the fence years ago.
If you did not follow through, we’ll whose fault is it that the public wont go along with further changes now? Worse yet they insult the public by promising the fence again.
When you try to have a compromise, you should ask what each side is getting. So what are the people concerned about culture getting this time? A promise to maybe build a fence that won’t be built again? Give them something real. How about the dream act young adults in exchange for an end to anchor babies not severable? That is compromise. This is jamming something down the throat of people that they do not want and insulting them with a obvious promise of something already promised them.
WSJ, really is not conservative so, I am not surprised at this editorial. It looks like their position is one of favoring the illegal workers over our American workers and their jobs. There have been a lot of business trade off deals/cronyism taken place secretly to get certain groups to promote this amnesty. More clues that this reform bill is not about getting the hispanics to vote for the Republican party, is it.
National Hispanic polling goes all the way back to Kennedy versus Nixon in 1960.
No Republican presidential candidate has EVER received more than 40% of the Hispanic vote.
NEP claimed that GWBush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.
The Pew Hispanic Center and NBC News challenged that poll.
Independently, and using NEP’s data, both Pew and NBC concluded Bush got 40%.
Our CURRENT immigration policy creates 800,000 new Democrat voters EVERY year.
How can American Conservatives survive politically against numbers like that?
And your “non-citizen status” solution is not serious.
Before the ink is dry on your immigration bill, La Raza and the ACLU will be in Federal Court trying to overturn it.
Every Democrat in America will be chanting “Racist, Racist” before the 2014 election, even though they voted for your immigration bill just one year earlier.
Do you really not understand the political and cultural consequences of your idea?
Until about 1994, the WSJ Editorial Page was a Conservative masterpiece.
Only National Review was more important, and, believe it not, Commentary Magazine was almost as important as NR.
Around 1994, Paul Gigot and David Brooks were promoted to the editorial staff, and Robert L. Bartley, the legendary Conservative editor, began to give up his day to day supervision.
The WSJ has never been the same since.
WSJ has been “Open Borders” since the 1960’s, when I began reading it.
But that was a completely different time.
Maybe 5% of our population was foreign born.
Now, it's like 15%, plus 3% illegals!
Conservatives have no serious sustained national leadership.
Which is why our political existence is swirling around the toilet bowl.
Sorry to bring bad news, livius.
“Racheal” IS an immigrant!
Non-citizen permanent resident status exists in many countries world-wide (heck, in Japan, it exists multi-generationally, which wouldn’t happen here), was proposed quite seriously during the campaign by Newt Gingrich, and supported by the Heritage Foundation.
Congress having the power to regulate immigration and set requirements for citizenship would be perfectly within its rights to establish such a status. Make a challenge to it a poisoned pill by including a limited non-separability clause so that if a provision creating such a status is held unconstitutional, only the tightened enforcement provisions are separated, and other parts of the law desired by business constituencies, Hispanic rights groups and the left go down with it. The leftist professional Hispanics would howl, but surveys of ordinary citizens (not residents of the U.S., citizens) of Hispanic ancestry show they aren’t gung-ho for rewarding illegal immigrants from their homelands with citizenship.
The Wall Street Journal.... Aren’t they the same assclowns who are apologizing NOW for going soft on Mengelecare back in 2010? Yeah, the Wall Street Journal has credibility. I care what they say. Right.
Pew Surveys also show:
(1) First generation Hispanics vote 80% for the Democrat Party.
(2) Fourth generation Hispanics vote 60% for the Democrat Party.
Several million of your “non-citizens” will have citizen anchor babies, which will immediately cloud the status of their non-status parents.
Several million will marry US citizens, creating new status issues.
In 2014, all 11 million will be standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, hyped into a political frenzy by Obama and the Gang of Eight, shrieking for citizenship.
And you, Dave, will be back here at FR explaining why Conservatives must go along with that.
The market should be the determiner, not the command economy promotion of illegal alien job (and welfare) thievery.
I'm so tempted to drop the WSJ...
“and Robert L. Bartley, the legendary Conservative editor,”
That cretin? He wanted a Constitutional Amendment that read “There Shall Be Open Borders”
I don’t miss him one bit.
But not ANNIE COULTER....... She’s out there everywhere fighting tooth and nail..... Like the timeless patriot she is.
Which brings us to the "path to citizenship" for the estimated 11 million illegal residents already living in the U.S. Conservatives are again calling this "amnesty," though the bill requires that illegal residents pay fines of $2,000 and wait at least 13 years before they can become citizens, and bars them from welfare or ObamaCare as they wait. The question restrictionists don't like to answer is what is their alternative? As Florida Republican Marco Rubio says, current law is itself a form of amnesty because no one thinks those already here will leave or be deported.
The WSJ has always been ‘in the tank’ for undocumented democrats.
I agree. Here’s how to improve on the Senate’s bill: close the border and systematically find and kick out the burglars that have sneaked into our country.