Coulter advocates profiling of Arab "aliens," deportation (BIG BARF ALERT)

spincity ^ | 9/21/2001 | Bryan Keefer

[TLBSHOW]

Coulter advocates profiling of Arab "aliens," deportation

The last time we heard from Ann Coulter she was arguing that the US should invade countries in which people cheered the recent terrorist attacks and convert them to Christianity, leading to widespread criticism and a public semi-apology from National Review editor Rich Lowry. Now, her latest column advocates disparate treatment of people at airports based on their complexions.

Coulter begins with a legitimate criticism of new security restrictions on air travel, arguing that they will not prevent future hijackings. About two-thirds of the way through, though, she tells us sarcastically that "the rash of hijackings by Connecticut WASP girls surely explains the time-consuming -- but still somehow completely useless -- examination of my personal effects." This begins a racial theme she carries into the column's conclusion, where she makes this suggestion:

We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males. It will be a minor hassle, but it's better than national ID cards.

Of course, not all terrorists are "swarthy-looking males" - Timothy McVeigh is an obvious counter-example - nor are all swarthy-looking men terrorists. But this doesn't stop Coulter:

All 19 hijackers in last week's attack appear to have been aliens. As far as the Constitution is concerned, visitors to this country are here at the nation's pleasure. Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave. (More on that next week.) Congress could certainly pass a law requiring all aliens to get approval from the INS before boarding an airplane in the United States.

While she attempts to deflect responsibility by framing her policy prescriptions with the slippery construction "Congress could . . ." the implication is clear. Coulter is rhetorically implicating "all aliens from Arabic countries" in the recent tragedies, and suggesting that the same group is likely to strike again, even though the vast majority are peaceful and have no connection to terrorism. Moreover, Coulter's use of the term "aliens" implies an incredibly broad set of people, ranging from legal immigrants to resident aliens to tourists.

Coulter continues to fan the flames of racial animosity, making sweeping statements implicating all Arabs and Arab Americans for the actions of a lunatic few. This sort of attack is not only irresponsible, it is unconscionable.

[cajungirl]

I like Ann. She is very smart. And it is obvious that middle eastern types are going to get greater attention at airport security situations. But Ann is going over a line here and she has done so recently. I suggest it is her terrible grief over the Olsen murder. Her comments on converting the muslims to christianity were way over a line. Everyone is thinking something along the lines of what she is saying but the way she is doing it arrouses animosity even of those who may agree with her. Sort of like Cooksey talking about diapers and fanbelts,,way, way over the line.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"the vast majority of terrorists that have attacked the US in the last 10 years have been Moslem middle-easterners." Except for Oklahoma. And the Olympic games in Atlanta. And the bombings of the abortion clinics. How should we apply your "If people abhor terrorism, they should be willing to let the State target them if anyone like them has committed a terrorist act" principle to those cases?

[HENRYADAMS]

"What is going on?" First, money e.g. contributions. Second, money. Third, money. Fourth, money. Fifth,a bloc of votes..... 1,000,000,000th, the welfare of the United States.

No politician at the present time in our history is probably capable, either physically or spiritually,of organizing or executing an effective response. However, based upon the memory of and respect for our great past I'll follow along.

"In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action."-A Great Historian 1880.(See also Edward Gibbon.)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I like Ann. She is very smart." I don't know Ann. And I'm just asking, but how do you know she's very smart? I haven't seen any case where she's advanced an argument as opposed to announcing a conclusion.

[_Jim]

I think you took L'enn the wrong way. Maybe you're just the overly sensitive type - who knows. One of L'enn's statements was: "We are in no position to do the PC Tippytoe.".

I think this gets to the 'core' of what some of us, like you, may be afraid to openly address on this issue. I don't know at this point - so I'm open to discussion ...

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Ann is going over a line here and she has done so recently. I suggest it is her terrible grief over the Olsen murder." Maybe she just doesn't think well when she's mad? Does she often sound mad when she writes a column? What other topics seem to get her riled up? I ask because, if she can't think when she's mad, it would be important to know what topics make her mad so we can discount completely what she says about them.

[TLBSHOW]

What struck me about her "convert them all to Christianity"

She always touches the nerves of the Liberals in her stories, this was one of those times.

[_Jim]

Oklahoma. And the Olympic games in Atlanta. And the bombings of the abortion clinics.

Cases of isolated, disgruntled (mostly) individuals.

UNLESS you can find evidence of state-sponsorship, identify training camps, show a THREAD of continuity over a period of years, etc ...

What ARE the groups again that have declared war on us (US) and our way of life?

[cajungirl]

You got a poiint. I started to like her during the impeachment when she was able to cut thru the fog of the clintonistas with an incisiveness and a clarity that made them hate her. She sees obfuscation and some of the "lets not treat our arabs mean" rhetoric is made by those who were the same types that gutted the CIA and left us vulnerable. Last nite I read about CIA employees all working on a diversity quilt while their ability to function doing what they do to protect us was gutted by the Clinton administration. Now ann could comment on that ridiculous abomination quite well. The truth is that these are attacks on us by arabs, not all arabs are terrorists, but clearly the focus now on security is going to be on arabs and some will call that racial profiling. Correct it is and correctly used. Treating a connecticut wasp girl with the same degree of scrutiny as one would accord an arabic speaking man from Saudi Arabia is stupidity.

[lightning]

Hey Dude, you probably ought to find yourself another forum where you won't have to be so miserable engaging in all of the FR dialogue.

[cajungirl]

I never said if ann wrote in anger about a subject that she should be discounted. Anger joined with an argument or a position on something like this does not call for discounting. In this case, on this topic, she has gone to a place I have not seen her go to and that is the place where she loses those who usually agree with her. In this case her anger has made her say things that are offensive in ways,,that is not to say heer anger doesn't often result in a well thought out utterly true position. Can't be black or white here with her,,it is not a case of agreeing or disagreeing with her contingent on her state of rage or whatever. It is not for or against her,,sometimes, most times I agree with her. Here in some respects I don't.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

So she's pretty, and she makes people who favor policies we don't favor mad, and it's fun to make them mad? OK, now I understand. I thought people took the _content_ of her remarks seriously. But if we're supposed to ignore the content of what she says and just enjoy the reacton she gets, that simplifies my life. There's already too much to read. Thanks. I was confused.

[RckyRaCoCo]

bump

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Maybe we read differently. I try not to skip ahead to the conclusion and ask "Do I agree or disagree with the conclusion?" I try to look for an argument. If it's an argument for a conclusion I favor, I try extra hard to read critically. If it's an argument for a conclusion I don't favor, I try extra hard to read charitably. That's the only way I reliably manage to learn something new when I read. So whether I agree with what Ann says or not is for me beside the point. If she can't think when she's mad, and she's mad all the time, there's no point paying attention to anything she says. I already know what I think, so what's the point in reading if all anyone is going to do is simply announce a conclusion I already accept? YMMV.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

PS. See post #57 for a different take on what makes something worth reading.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP