"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth—anonymously and posthumously."Thomas Sowell

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Michelle Malkin: Moron

I see that Mizz Malkin, who does not look as if she had any ancestors on the Mayflower, has continued her jihad against illegal immigrants by arguing that Senators opposed to replacing the Statue of Liberty with barbed wire as the enduring symbol of America are in favor of "open borders." Well, not quite. There is a serious argument to be made that those who come to America to work make the U.S. better off in the aggregate, although some groups lose; that is true for the importation of, say, inexpensive shoes as well. Clearly we cannot have unlimited immigration ("open borders"), and no one advocates it; this is just one of many of Malkin's dishonesties. But just as Malkin clearly wants to expel the estimated twelve million illegals---should we use cattle cars, Michelle?---without telling us precisely how that is to be done in ways both humane and consistent with the preservation of political support in the U.S., so has she failed to tell us how, politically, border security can be separated from a gradual legalization process for those here without discarding the latter. And so the approach of some House Republicans---"secure the border," whatever that means, and we'll worry about the other details later---is just as much a nonstarter as an open border proposal.

Apart from the potential terrorism problem, which conceptually is distinct from the immigration problem, the real issue is assimilation. We cannot have a welfare state, bilingual education, bilingual ballots, and all the other disincentives for assimilation in the context of massive migration from Mexico; it really is that simple, because multicultural societies do not work. The leftist approach---identity politics and multicultural separatism---yields ethnic strife and civil wars. (The bigotry of La Raza and similar groups is no accident.) Immigrants are and always have been hard-working, productive, and largely law-abiding; those are conditions necessary but not sufficient to allow large amounts of immigration. And so reform must begin with measures designed to force assimilation, an approach promoted in part by El Presidente W last evening.

For all the talk about how the immigration issue has split Republicans, it seems to me that the Democrats have their own fault lines on this issue: neither black workers nor the unions can be very happy about a large influx of lower-skilled workers. Since both parties are split, for different reasons, it is hard for me to see a bill emerging from Congress before the election this fall. More generally, it never hurts to ask "What would Reagan say?" And I am sure that he would refer yet again to that shining city on a hill, the view of which remains unobscured by a wall. More sensible policies---such as requiring work permits, allowing those holding them to go back and forth across the border, eliminating automatic citizenship for the children of illegals born here, etc.---would work wonders. More later as time permits.


Hunter Baker said...

I think the Democrats have given up on governing altogether. They have become full-time critics without ever really making substantive proposals. It's the privilege of the opposition to criticize, but the GOP made the leap to majority status when it presented a vision for governing. The Dems are nowhere close to being able to do that, not least on the immigration issue.

Tlaloc said...

"The Dems are nowhere close to being able to do that, not least on the immigration issue."

True, but again the immigration issue doesn't seem to be nearly the hot button for the left and middle that it is for the hard right.

Devang said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Devang said...

I managed to see "The line in the sand", which is the documentary made by the minutemen (I um... get random documentaries to watch off the net, wonderful place isn't it, the net).

The minutemen aren't vigilantes --(their weapons were just cellphones and binoculars), and in the documentary, they blame the immigration problem on the "we got robbed during a US land grab and therefore must take it back by populating it" theory and the Jews (not kidding, quite a history lesson as well), --they're a bit crazier.

I'm still waiting for NAFTA to come into this debate, but I won't hold my breath. It's more than disingenuous to mention the amnesty program in 1986-87, but then not mention NAFTA, and jump, leap, nay vault to the current problem. Especially now, considering the headline on Fox and Friends was Mexico may sue US.

The answer everybody is looking for, is... wait for it...

There's a provision in NAFTA which says the US may not militarize the border. Neither MSNBC, nor Fox bothered to find out about, or ask about, or mention that fact. It was mentioned in the line in the sand. If I can find some searchable NAFTA text, I'll link to it.

Intellectual Pariah said...

The minutemen blame immigration problems on the Jews? It would be nice to have a cite for that.

Tlaloc said...

"The minutemen blame immigration problems on the Jews?"

Don't know. They do however march with nazi flags held high, as there is the photographic evidence.

Evanston said...

Dr. Zycher, if you have the time, it would be interesting if you explained why "secure the border...and we'll worry about the other details later" is a "nonstarter."

Do you mean such an approach is a nonstarter politically, or practically, or both?

James Elliott said...

"I see that Mizz Malkin, who does not look as if she had any ancestors on the Mayflower, has continued her jihad against illegal immigrants by arguing that Senators opposed to replacing the Statue of Liberty with barbed wire as the enduring symbol of America are in favor of 'open borders.'"

This is a brilliant opening line.

Pastorius said...


Could you provide me with a link to the photographic evidence that the Minutemen march with Nazi flags?

James Elliott said...

Et voila. (Yes, that's French.)


Alan Reynolds said...

"Eliminating automatic citizenship for the children of illegals born here," requires a Constitutional Amendment, but nonetheless merits serious consideration. At 21, citizen kids can sponsor their illicit parents.

Anything valuable must be rationed, and U.S. residency is valuable (they don't all covet citizenship as much as a carte verde).

In this case we ration by using the queu (up to 22 years), a diversity lottery and political priorities (parents outrank siblings in the queu).

We ought to make more use of the price system -- a $1000+ immigration fee is not as pure as an auction, but it would help separate the sincere from the uncomitted.

Hunter Baker said...

Love it, Professor Reynolds. Sell it up at the Hill.

Evanston said...

Thomas Sowell just posted an article questioning a necessary link between border security (e.g., putting up a "fence") and amnesty-related issues. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/
With due respect to Dr. Zycher, I'm still not sure why he asserts that "secure the border...and we'll worry about the other details later" is a "nonstarter." You can disagree with Michelle Malkin, even call her a moron (and for the record I rarely read her opinions), but folks like Dr. Zycher may wish to further justify their opinions with some sort of fact-based argumentation.
Or just call Dr. Sowell a moron, if you wish.

Devang said...

Here's the link to download the film from the flimmaker's website (It's free, if you feel like wasting the time). It's not listed on IMDB or the like, but is well made, atleast as far as the cinematography goes. Here is the professor they interviewed, who offered the history lesson on the Jewish lobby being radically pro-immigration (I linked to the book he's written on the subject).

As far, as NAFTA goes (I managed to read parts of it, and wow, it's amazing how investor friendly that agreement really is. I'd only heard so in the past, but actually reading it, wow...), It allows for a lot of cross-border activity, and prohibits anything that may restrict cross-border activity, primarily economic, but also other kinds. I couldn't find, and gave up on finding searchable text and the exact phrase refered to in the movie, but I have little doubt Mexico could sue if they really wanted to that certain acts are illegal according to NAFTA.

It's amazing how we could hand over sovereignty for economic reasons, but not humanitarian ones.