Posted on 10/07/2001 9:02:23 AM PDT by 2Trievers
Ann Coulter's latest column continues her irrational argument in favor of mass deportation, using what have become her staple rhetorical tricks to manufacture support for her plan to deport Muslim immigrants.
Coulter, whose syndicated column was dropped by the National Review after she suggested the US should invade and convert countries where people celebrated the events of September 11, begins with the suggestion that we deport "a million Muslim immigrants," expanding the target from the "Muslim visitors" and "aliens" she has previously advocated expelling. Coulter continues:
Any Senator (Teddy Kennedy) who is opposed to mass deportation of immigrants from suspect countries would be free to waive in as many potential terrorists as he could sign his name to. At least then we'd have true government accountability, rather than collective foot-dragging based on pristine tributes to civil rights.
The sentence utilizes one of Coulter's favorite tactics: injecting the name of a political opponent to rile up her readers. In this case the target is Kennedy who, since Coulter's idea has received no mainstream discussion, has yet to take a position on mass deportation. Nonetheless, hypothetically lining Kennedy up against her plan invokes an emotional reaction designed to convince readers to favor it.
Coulter justifies her position this way:
A mass deportation would ease the way for "ethnic profiling." If noncitizens from various suspect countries were under an order to leave, all security personnel would have grounds to look for potential violators of the law.
Everyone is profiling now anyway. . . . Ordinary Americans aren't going to die for political correctness.
Coulter is, of course, correct, in that criminalizing the presence of a good chunk of a single ethnicity automatically makes the rest of that ethnicity suspect. But her argument that "everyone" is already profiling based on race is not only insulting, it's a rhetorical trick which manufactures support for her argument out of thin air. Finally, suggesting that "political correctness" is standing in the way of American security is another emotional trope, designed to discredit civil rights protections without making an argument.
Coulter's appeal to emotion and fear intentionally inflames racial tensions and serves as a graphic illustration of how pundits use emotional incidents such as the tragedy of September 11 as an excuse for irresponsible rhetoric.
By the way, may I ask where the mandatory Ann Photo Montage is?
Rules, people. RULES!
"If we don't stop the coalition-building soon, Colin Powell could soon be announcing a "diplomatic initiative" to bring Osama bin Laden into the "coalition." "
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society."
Of course it did both. And more.
If foreign visitors, here on visas can NOT behave as guests - throw their sorry asses out.
Perhaps these bastards would prefer to be treated as a protestor against THEIR home government would be treated in THEIR country....
Ann has it right.... Sides HAVE been chosen up for the "times" to come... Folks have to decide which side they're on.
Semper Fi
We've come a long way since 1864, baby ...
INS
Mission
The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), an agency of the Department of Justice, is responsible for enforcing the laws regulating the admission of foreign-born persons (i.e., aliens) to the United States and for administering various immigration benefits, including the naturalization of qualified applicants for U.S. citizenship. INS also works with the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services and the United Nations in the admission and resettlement of refugees. INS is headed by a Commissioner who reports to the Attorney General.
INS Responsibilities Administer immigration-related services:
Enforce immigration laws and regulations:
Organization
The operational and management functions of INS are administered through INS Headquarters in Washington, D.C. that oversees approximately 29,000 employees through three Regional Offices and the headquarters-based Office of International Affairs. These offices are responsible for directing the activities of 33 districts and 21 Border Patrol sectors throughout the United States and three district offices and 39 area offices outside U.S. territory. INS field offices provide direct service to applicants for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act and implement INS policies to carry out statutory enforcement responsibilities in their respective geographical areas. Overseas offices, in addition, serve as important information channels between INS and U.S. Foreign Service officers and foreign government officials abroad.
A Brief History
The first immigration office in the federal government was created in 1864 by a law intended to encourage immigration. Under this law, the President appointed a Commissioner of Immigration within the State Department to regulate the transportation and settlement of "emigrants," but the law had no effect on the commissions, boards or other officers who were responsible for immigration in each of the states. The Commissioner’s office was abolished when the law was repealed four years later, leaving authority over immigration, including enforcement of federal statutes, at the state level.
Because of problems caused by the divided authority over immigration, the Immigration Act of 1891 was passed, establishing complete and definite federal control over immigration through a Superintendent of Immigration under the Secretary of the Treasury. The new Bureau of Immigration began with 24 inspection stations (including Ellis Island in January 1892) at ports of entry along both land borders and in major seaports. From this early structure, the immigration side of the present INS evolved. In 1903, the Bureau of Immigration was moved to the newly established Department of Commerce and Labor and was given broader responsibilities.
The naturalization role of INS began when Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1906, which shifted the function from the courts. The new law created the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization to administer and enforce U.S. immigration laws and supervise the naturalization of aliens. The combined functions lasted only seven years as naturalization became a separate bureau again in 1913 when the Department of Commerce and Labor was split into two departments. Immigration and naturalization functions remained separate until 1933 when an Executive Order consolidated both functions under the Immigration and Naturalization Service within the Labor Department.
INS moved to the Department of Justice in June 1940 in a reorganization meant to provide more effective control over aliens at a time of increasing international tensions.
Recent Legislation
The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 were seen as the most far-reaching revision of U.S. immigration policy since 1921. Nationality and ethnic considerations were replaced with a system based primarily on reunification of families, needed skills and recognition of refugees. Eastern Hemisphere immigration was granted a higher ceiling than that for the Western Hemisphere. In 1978 the two were combined into a single worldwide ceiling of 290,000. Two years later, refugees gained their own separate category exclusive of the immigrant ceiling. The major source of immigration to the United States has shifted since 1965 from Europe to Latin America and Asia, reversing a two-century trend.
By enacting the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Congress sought to eliminate the jobs magnet in the United States via employer sanctions or penalties for any employer who knowingly employed someone unauthorized to work in the United States. To deal humanely with those who had put down roots in the United States, a legalization program or nationwide amnesty allowed nearly 3 million people who had been in the United States illegally since 1982 to stay.
The major changes of the Immigration Act of 1990 involved an increase in total immigration under an overall flexible cap, an increase more than doubling annual employment-based immigration and a permanent provision for the admission of "diversity" immigrants from underrepresented countries. It also revised the grounds for exclusion and deportation.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 includes increases in criminal penalties for immigration-related offenses and measures designed to enhance INS presence and enforcement at the border. The 1996 Act comprehensively reorganized the process of removal for inadmissible and deportable aliens, including an expedited removal process for inadmissible aliens arriving at ports of entry. It includes restrictions on the eligibility of aliens for public benefits and imposes new requirements on sponsors of alien relatives for immigration.
Last Modified 06/25/2001
Wake up America....you need to clean house. The basement and attic are full of vermin. Clean them out, and change the rules to enter.
Semper Fi
There is no manufacturing involved. The case and the argument is very relevant and is one of the central issues surrounding terrorism. Liberals have this way of manufacturing beliefs about other's manufactures, you can call that Jungan projection, or the typical result of the insane mental liberals who want to be on peace time welfare at the expense of other American lives.
Well, far be it from me to defend Ann Coulter (she has enough balls for both of us), but this rhetorical device is just dishonest. She has never even intimated that we should "criminalize" these people. What we should do is send them to the countries of which they are citizens and to whom they are loyal.
One more point: Moslems routinely murder hostages. I understand that this is legally impossible in the United States, but maybe we could arrange something with the Russians, perhaps subsidise the re-opening of a few of their disused vacation/industrial facilities in Siberia. A source of cheap labour could help the Russian economy, and our extremely pious Moslem friends would be far away from the materialistic temptations of Western culture. It's a win/win situation. I wonder how well Moslems take to cold weather?
Rhetoric is verbal judo. So?
All effective arguementation focuses on the weekness of the opposition's arguements. In part. It also supports one's own.
But to accuse Ann Coulter of using rhetorical tricks is like Jerry Rice complaining to the referee, "No fair. He tackled me!" It's part of the game.
"Coulter is, of course, correct, in that criminalizing the presence of a good chunk of a single ethnicity automatically makes the rest of that ethnicity suspect. But her argument that "everyone" is already profiling based on race is not only insulting, it's a rhetorical trick which manufactures support for her argument out of thin air. Finally, suggesting that "political correctness" is standing in the way of American security is another emotional trope, designed to discredit civil rights protections without making an argument."
Oh, I see... "rhetorical trick" and "emotional trope." AND? Fine, her use of "everyone" is hyperbolic. How far off the mark is it? Keefer never says, but I don't think it's too far off. Look at the polls.
Keefer seems to start with the premise that all profiling is bad. What about gender profiling? If the police come across a bleeding, sexually mutilated corpse, are they going to think it's just as likely that a woman is responsible as a man? No. Because the simple fact of the matter is that almost all sexual predators are men.
And the simple fact of the matter is that all the evidence seems to point to the existence in this country of hundreds of immigrant Islamic sleeper terrorists, mostly Arab and all Middle Eastern, who are the initiates of a perverse and bloody death cult.
Thousands died on 9/11 as the result of the evil acts of 20 hijackers. If some number of immigrants, however innocent they are themselves, and however large the number, is inconvenienced or deported to save thousands more from dying, isn't that an acceptable trade-off?
"Coulter's appeal to emotion and fear intentionally inflames racial tensions and serves as a graphic illustration of how pundits use emotional incidents such as the tragedy of September 11 as an excuse for irresponsible rhetoric."
Doesn't seem to me that Keefer has done a very good job of demonstrating this. Clearly, we need a huge response to what happened on 9/11. We don't want that to happen again, correct? I'm going to take a leap and assume that Keefer thinks we do as well. So Ann Coulter is using her usual "no holds barred" approach to putting forth her arguement. So what?
If you don't like it, bleating "She's arguing unfairly" without refuting her is actually to do what she's being accused of....
Resorting to emotional tropes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.