Paradise Lost? (Victor Davis Hanson comments on Bush's immigration proposal)

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | January 10, 2004 | Bill Steigerwald with Victor Davis Hanson

[quidnunc]

We thought if we just allow people to have entitlements and we welcome everybody in, and we let each culture have their own political or cultural agenda, and we never judge anybody, and we never make hard choices, then everybody will get along.

The problem was, it turned out to be just the opposite.

Classics professor Victor David Hanson used to be known for his military histories and his social commentaries. But today the fifth-generation fruit farmer from California's Central Valley and National Review Online columnist is best known as the author of "Mexifornia," his personal account of how his state's economy, culture and social harmony have been battered and abused for 30 years by waves of illegal immigrants coming across the border from Mexico.

On Thursday, the day after President Bush announced a major overhaul of immigration policy that would grant legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, I talked to Hanson by telephone from his office at California State University in Fresno.

Q: What is your reaction to President Bush's plan for immigration reform?

A: Well, he's trying to split the difference between those who want amnesty and those who want deportation, those who want legal and those who want illegal immigration, those who want open and those who want closed borders. He's trying to defuse the situation 10 months before the election.

-snip-

[quidnunc]

Here is something else to help you make up your mind.

Victor Davis Hanson practically always makes sense.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
37	Alaska	170.00	4	42.50	79	2.15	150.00	3

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[SolutionsOnly]

Great article. VDH clearly has a better understanding of this than anyone in government.

[Squantos]

Thanks...........more an more evident now.

Stay Safe !

[billbears]

"Look, we're willing to give amnesty to people who've lived here 10 years. But this is not going to be an every-five-year amnesty. From now on, we're going to shut the border, we're going to deport people who are here illegally, and we're going to set a quota on the number of people who can come in from Mexico, as we do with Korea, Europe and everyone else. And you're not going to be privileged vis-à-vis any of these other groups. And this is what we're offering. And if it's 10 million people that can be citizens, that's going to be it."

Uh-huh. I imagine something to that order was said back in 1986 and where are we less than 20 years later? A Republican President offering the amnesty that shall not be called amnesty. Of course in 1986 it was around 3 million criminals (those who commit a crime), now it's 8-12 million. I can't wait until the next 'amnesty'. What will it be called then?

[spodefly]

We never would have had this conversation in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.

Courage is not Politically Correct.

[MoralSense]

b

[Sabertooth]

The employer in the United States wants a permanent class of people who come without education, without the English language and without legality. They can't form unions. They can't bargain collectively. They are a permanent menial force that can be exploited, and they like that.

And the Illegals that President Bush would Amnesty would no longer fit the bill, creating a new need for new Illegals.

Amnesty isn't the solution, it's the hope of Amnesty that's the problem.

Q: Do you think either California or the federal government has the brains or willpower to implement a sound, humane immigration policy?

A: I do, because we used to have one. We never would have had this conversation in 1950. There was no conversation about a wall or a fence. It was very simple: If you came across the border illegally, you were deported. The employer was not to hire people who were here illegally. It's very simple to do, but it just requires a degree of courage.

Can I see a show of hands of all of those who think that President Bush has exhibited this kind of courage?

[international american]

"Can I see a show of hands of all of those who think that President Bush has exhibited this kind of courage? "


No!! From what I have seen, California will be lost in 5-10 years. Other states will follow. When 70% of the polulation is ignored, we are living in dangerous times.

[Verginius Rufus]

California is not the state with the highest percentage of Hispanics--New Mexico is (42% vs. 32.4% for California, 32.0% for Texas, and 25.3% for Arizona). These figures are from the 2003 World Almanac, which doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens...but I doubt that New Mexico has a higher proportion of illegal aliens than California does, certainly not enough to put its proportion of Hispanic citizens below California's).

[BohDaThone]

Vast numbers of the "hispanics" in New Mexico are lineal descendants of people who were in the "US" territory, long before most of our ancestors -- many before Plymouth rock. The New Mexico constitutional convention of 1912 had both spanish and english as official languages. There are certainly illegal hispanics in New Mexico, but they are far outnumbered by the long-descended citizens. Remember, we had a "consulate" at Taos, Old Mexico, right up to 1847.