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 ...
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?
Disgusting.
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:
http://cis.org/immigrant-gains-native-losses-in-the-job-market-2000-to-2013
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.
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.