Posted on 06/28/2004 6:43:46 AM PDT by Columbine
One of the most contentious issues facing America's political leaders, office holders, and candidates is that of immigration reform. While those on the political left generally consider immigration reform to be synonymous with amnesty programs for illegal aliens, these same activists ignore the fact that real immigration reform involves a deeper, more comprehensive look at how immigration policies influence homeland security (or the lack thereof). Unfortunately, in a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal jumped into the immigration debate with a "hit piece" designed to paint opponents of President Bush's "guest worker" program as "anti-immigrant" while ignoring the true nature of the immigration problem and the larger homeland security debate.
In the Wall Street Journal's June 17 editorial titled "Borderline Republicans," Republican office-holders who support President Bush's "guest worker" program are praised, while opponents are ridiculed. In a specific example of the Utah Republican Primary in which incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon bested challenger Matt Throckmorton, Cannon is mentioned favorably throughout the article, while Throckmorton is tagged as "xenophobic" and being propped-up by "deep-pocketed restrictionists."
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
ping
The sad thing is that the Wall Street Journal will never print or put this on their web-site. This selling out of honest, hard-working American by both sides continues with only escalation in sight. At some point we are going to have to decied how best to take back our country from illegals and the politicians who are treating us as nothing more than pawns in their private little chess match.
There's an unholy alliance between the leftists, who never saw a criminal illegal alien they didn't like, and the capitalists, who want cheap farm labor. As you say, very little honest discussion goes on.
I agree that the fight against illegal immigration must avoid racism or unjust discrimination at all costs, because the media will predictably use that to demonize the proponents of immigration control. But immigration is clearly out of control and desperately needs to be overhauled and reformed. It's ludicrous that illegals cannot be expelled from the country without huge court costs, and in fact usually cannot be expelled at all, even if they commit felonies. It's also ridiculous that illegals should enjoy all the benefits of citizenship without assuming any of the responsibilities.
The left is hopeless, but we need to work on the forces in the GOP that support illegal or unlimited immigration for economic purposes. In the long run it's self-defeating.
Wall Street Journal Misses the Mark on Immigration Debate
By Bobby Eberle
June 28, 2004
One of the most contentious issues facing America's political leaders, office holders, and candidates is that of immigration reform. While those on the political left generally consider immigration reform to be synonymous with amnesty programs for illegal aliens, these same activists ignore the fact that real immigration reform involves a deeper, more comprehensive look at how immigration policies influence homeland security (or the lack thereof). Unfortunately, in a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal jumped into the immigration debate with a "hit piece" designed to paint opponents of President Bush's "guest worker" program as "anti-immigrant" while ignoring the true nature of the immigration problem and the larger homeland security issue.
In the Wall Street Journal's June 17 editorial titled "Borderline Republicans," Republican office-holders who support President Bush's "guest worker" program are praised, while opponents are ridiculed. In a specific example of the Utah Republican Primary in which incumbent Rep. Chris Cannon bested challenger Matt Throckmorton, Cannon is mentioned favorably throughout the article, while Throckmorton is tagged as "xenophobic" and being propped-up by "deep-pocketed restrictionists."
While trying to make its point that Republicans should jump on the "guest worker" bandwagon, the editorial focuses much of its energy on discrediting certain immigration reform groups based on their funding and activities of their founders. The idea behind this approach is that if the organizations are discredited, so is their message. The Journal also quotes Cannon as saying that most GOP members believe that the "vast majority of aliens, documented or not, are productive" and "our economy needs them." The editorial adds that Cannon is concerned about "a bunch of Members who are demagoging the issue -- some to raise money, some for attention."
It is most disappointing that the conservative Wall Street Journal in an overt effort to "carry the water" for President Bush's plan would resort to name-calling and focus only on economics. By labeling proponents of real immigration reform as "anti-immigrant" and saying that America needs illegal aliens for a healthy economy, the Journal mocks millions of Americans who are concerned about the immigration issue for what the Journal would likely consider insignificant reasons such as homeland security and the rule of law.
In writing earlier this year about President Bush's plan for the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, I received hundreds of messages from conservatives who believe that the immigration system needs a serious overhaul. These messages were not those of anti-immigrant demagogues or closet racists spewing hatred, but rather these messages came from ordinary Americans who are concerned about security for themselves and their families. The immigration reform debate is much more than the pros and cons of "kicking out the illegals." It is a serious debate on homeland security.
If America cannot protect its borders, how can it ensure the security of the homeland? Wouldn't it be easier to stop terrorists before they enter the country rather than trying to track them down once they are already here? Earlier this month, a man said to be a sleeper agent for al Qaeda was arrested in New York. According to an ABC News report, the man told authorities that al Qaeda is planning more attacks within the United States. The man also revealed a scheme "to smuggle terrorists across the Mexican border."
This is a serious situation, and it deserves serious discussion. How can conservatives such as myself stand up and discuss immigration reform in the context of border security when the Wall Street Journal is labeling us as "anti-immigrant?" Not once in the Journal's editorial was the topic of border security mentioned. Not once did the editorial mention that many conservatives rightfully believe that rewarding illegal behavior only encourages more illegal behavior. Shortly after President Bush's announcement of his guest worker program, illegal immigration shot up "dramatically" according to the National Border Patrol Council. However, if conservatives step forward and discuss this in a logical manner, the name-calling starts and the shouts of "I can't hear you" begin.
Publications such as the Wall Street Journal should recognize that the immigration issue is more than just an economic issue of cheap labor. They should also realize that a great many Americans, including myself, are deeply concerned about the security of our country, and we realize that an important battle in the war on terror is making sure our homeland is secure. We are taking the fight to the terrorists, and at the same time, we must make it as difficult as possible for the terrorists to take the fight to us. Squelching debate through hit pieces and name calling does nothing to address the real immigration and security problems facing America. Of all publications, the Wall Street Journal should know better than that.
---
Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.
ping
BushBots to the ramparts!!!
WSJ, water-carrier for the Fortune 50, desperately in need of cheap labor, now attacks rational citizens.
I'm shocked--just shocked!!
If they will employ the kinds of tactics Eberle describes on the issue of illegal immigration, how can they be trusted to be intellectually honest on any other issue?
It's not an issue of "cheap labor", it's an issue of tax subsidized labor. The people who hire illegals are happy about the rest of us picking up the tab for illegals' food, housing, medical care, transportation, ad nauseum.
Deport them all.
I exerpted this column and provided a link because I am under the impression that this site prefers it that way.
I think we should honor the first posting when an article is shared.
Demographics will weaken America’s militaristic approach to the world. Much of Bush’s support comes from white fundamentalist Christian men. This, in my opinion, is a social group that is fighting a rearguard battle against the growing social power of women, immigrants and other religions. It is also fighting against secularism, such as the teaching of modern biology and evolutionary theory.
The religious right’s backward – looking agenda – and the Manichaean worldview that underlies it – is doomed. The US Census Bureau recently found that by 2050, the non-Hispanic white population of the US is likely to be only half of the total US population, down from 69 per cent currently. By 2050, 24 per cent of the population will be Hispanic, 14 per cent will be African-American, and 8 per cent Asian.
The US will look more like the world, especially Latin America.
Don't think that because the WSJ (in that hotbed of America-hate, New York) calls itself conservative (or does it?) that it isn't chocked full of primary haters who gloat over the destruction of a people they loathe. That is part of reason for their support of unlimited immigration, but the main reason is fear of political incorrectness. The denizens of the WSJ are "Business Conservatives", the dominant type of conservative these days, they are only interested in making money for themselves, in living in upper-class or upper-middle class luxury, and in ensuring their children are members of the same pampered classes, and they don't really have any strong principles, certainly not conservative principles, beyond that. Opposing immigration would bring the wrath of the establishment and the charge of racism and if you just want to make money it's best to lay low and not antagonize the vicious beast.
What will happen in the future when America has, as Professor Sachs predicts above, a population and a government like, say, Argentina or Brazil? Will that be "good for the economy"? (And is "good for the economy" the only criterion for how a nation should by run?) The editors at the Wall Street Journal and other believers in "Economic Man" (a belief they share with Marxists) never answer that question because to insinuate that an America with a non-white majority will be any different than historical America, to imply that people are anything other than interchangeable economic units, will be called racism by the establishment. Immigration isn't contentious. There is hardly a major politician who is prominently against it. The leftists who run the medias are for it and they will crucify any politician who comes out against it as a "xenophobe" and racist, so none do. That is how "democracy" works in the modern age of television. Immigration and the shape of the society it will produce is a vital question that should be subjected to vigorous debate, but that debate has been declared to be forbidden by cultural dictators at the top.
The power of this oligarchy is evident when opponents of mass-immigration, like the author of this piece, are reduced to arguing that the main problems with the present immigration policy is that it might let in terrorists and is corrosive to the rule of law. Was immigration not an issue before the present terrorist alarms and will it cease to be an issue if those threats subside? No, the main issue with immigration is cultural, that a nation is its people on its land and when you replace the people on a land then the nation as it has been known ceases to exist. When you get to the point when no one will stand up and plead that the continuing historical existence of their culture is a good thing you are already dead as a nation. That the opponents of immigration have to fall back on trivial arguments about homeland security is indicative of their political impotence.
The Wall Street Journal believes that the population of the United States should be 1 billion people, not 300 million.
What would the House of Representatives look like if it had to represent 1 billion people? How would our government function?
If the WSJ was around 150 years ago I'm sure it would regularly publish passionate editorials arguing in favor of the south's antebellum economic system.
Economic concerns are important, but I look at the national security concerns as more important - if you create the conditions that lead to increased illegal immigration, you make it even easier for somebody to slip through the cracks undetected, who aren't there to make a few bucks to send back to their family.
I think a good policy would be to deport all illegal aliens except for those who have not committed any other crimes and who have close family living here legally. They will be given the possibility of amnesty. Also, since Mexico has been not only the chief exporter of illegal aliens but has also apparently ENCOURAGED illegal emigration to the U.S., we should put an indefinite suspension on all immigration from Mexico--except for family members of those already living here illegally--send Mexico a bill for the public services (at both state & local level) their illegals have cost us, and refuse to lift the suspension until they pay that bill in full.
Can you cite the Columbia professor?
It will be more like Zimbabwe than Brazil. The Left in this country frames the issues around race and that won't be a genie that will fit back in the bottle. And there will be no real conservative movement till the Left's trump card is neutralized.
bttt The combination of businessmen wanting cheap, undocumented labor and the leftys open border cartels is a deadly combination.
I'm sure the coPresident of America, Vicente Fox will be able to handle things.
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.