After Boston Bombing, Rightbloggers Turn on Immigration (Mexican or Whatever)

tomt200.jpgThere's a bill working its way through Congress that would offer a "path to citizenship" to the sort of immigrants currently known in some circles as illegal. Though its application is general, it's obviously aimed at U.S. guests of the Mexican persuasion, and it only has a chance of passing because Republicans, sick of losing Hispanic votes and fearful of fallout from the failure of the DREAM Act, are lining up behind it.

Many rightbloggers don't like it but, perhaps feeling overmatched by its popularity, haven't been too vocal about it -- until the Boston Marathon bombings gave them a new chance to explain to the world why foreigners from Mexico to the Caucasus are inherently dangerous.

There's long been a schism in the conservative movement on immigration, with supporters like the Wall Street Journal, Grover Norquist, and George W. Bush pushing for more of it -- mainly because heightened low-income immigration would add downward pressure on American wages, hastening the dawn of the new feudalism that is the Journal's dream -- and outlets like National Review and VDare pushing for less -- mainly because Mexicans.

Usually the pro-immigrant conservatives are pretty calm about the subject -- naturally, since they're allied with big business interests who can pay them handsomely and afford to wait. The antis tend to be a little wilder and weirder, not to say (oh let's go ahead and say) racist.

In 2006, for example, The New Criterion's Roger Scruton spoke glowingly of the famously racist "Rivers of Blood" speech by British whackjob Enoch Powell. During a 2007 amnesty push, National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez ran a New York Times photo of immigrant day-laborers waiting for a vote in Congress and, allegedly quoting an friend, observed of the dark-skinned working-class men pictured there, "these guys aren't living in the shadows -- they're walking around unabated in the United States Capitol. Why, if you're trying to make the case for amnesty, would you remind people of the local 7-11, where you sometimes can't get to your car for all the day laborers?"

As recently as 2011 Walter Russell Mead, who has a reputation as an intellectual for some reason, explained that American whites resented the idea that the "federal government and the (largely white) upper middle class establishment wants to marginalize the traditional white majority in the US through a combination of deliberate immigration policy aimed at reducing white preponderance in the population and by favoring immigrants and non-whites for education and employment."

The immigration bill has led to a full-court press among the wetter conservatives. It has also led to some humorous intra-wingnut propaganda. For example, last week Soren Dayton explained to readers of the Daily Caller that he'd met an anti-immigration zealot who "wanted to stop immigration reform because he believed that human beings were destroying the planet and that an increase in the U.S. population would exacerbate the environmental injustices he perceived to be occurring already." That's right -- "he, like many other immigration opponents, was not conservative. He was a union-promoting environmentalist..." You don't want to be like those people, do ya?

If readers weren't convinced yet, Dayton added that this stinking eco-hippie "viewed an increase in the population of humans as the greatest challenge to that dignity. This is something that he shared with Margaret Sanger and the founders of Planned Parenthood." Planned Parenthood! Maybe in a follow-up he'll link environmentalism and birth control to Hitler, as one does.

Also at the Daily Caller, media reporter Jeff Poor headlined that "NY Times editors make same arguments for immigration reform they did ahead of 1986 amnesty" -- in support of the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty bill, signed by that treacherous bastard Ronald Reagan. Strange are the ways of the liberal media.

But in recent days some of the more xenophobic brethren have adopted what they obviously think is a convincing new anti-immigration argument: That the immigration bill will fill America with terrorists like the Tsarnaevs of Boston. Yeah, the bill is clearly aimed at immigrants from Mexico, which does not have a large Muslim population, but one can never be too careful.

"Proponents say the bill will make us safer because we will know who is here," said PJ Media's J. Christian Adams. "But the Boston bombers were already living here legally and were operating in plain sight... The terrorists who committed the Boston bombings got permanent legal status in the United States from their parents being granted asylum after fleeing Dagestan, Russia..." In case readers missed the point, Adams' article was illustrated with pictures of a revolving door and a policeman in handcuffs. If you decriminalize immigration, only criminals will immigrate!

At the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan speculated (for it would be irresponsible not to) that due to Boston, "something tells me it's going to be back to the drawing board for immigration reform." "Exposure to our society and way of life for years did nothing to prevent [the Tsarnaevs] from falling under the spell of radical preachers at a terrorist-supporting mosque," reasoned Tim Dunkin at Renew America. "As a result, we should seriously consider, as a society, whether we should allow the immigration of Muslims into our nation."

It wasn't all anti-Muslim, though -- Stanley Kurtz at National Review thought Muslims were only the symptom, and anti-Americanism the disease. "The terror attack is an extreme symptom of a far broader problem," said Kurtz, which was "the breakdown of our system of patriotic assimilation." Once upon a time, kids knew who Thomas Jefferson and Horatio Alger were but, because of "the rise of multiculturalism and bilingualism," they no longer do, and if the bill passes "a massive new wave of only superficially assimilated citizens would undercut the shared civic beliefs that have long held America together," by which Kurtz presumably meant "Nickleback sucks" and "there's no wrong way to eat a Reese's." Till then, he sniffed, "I doubt I can support this new bill."

Some of the brethren explicitly included Mexicans, and others, in their universe of proscribed immigrants.

Victor Davis Hanson of National Review has long been against Mexican immigration, owing to his alleged difficulties with brown-skinned people in his California town. He claims, for example, that "cholos" frequently steal his power tools (he has not caught them doing so, but his neighbors agree it must have been them) and that Mexicans frequently drive drunk and plow into his fruit trees, for which he also offers only anecdotal evidence.

Last week Hanson complained that America was not deporting enough Mexicans. "If someone from Latin America is detained by authorities an hour after illegally crossing the border and sent back, does he count as 'apprehended' or 'deported'?" he riddled, then sighed: "Deportation is now politically incorrect, sort of like the T-word 'terrorism' which the administration also seeks to avoid."

Next stop, Tsarnaevs: "Why were the Tsarnaevs granted asylum in the United States and why were some of them not later deported?" asked Hanson. He noted that they had, "as ethnic Chechens and former residents of Kyrgyzstan, sought 'asylum' here from anti-Muslim persecution." As you may imagine, anti-Muslim persecution does not move Hanson, and he accused them of faking it -- much as had the "supposedly persecuted Somalis were generously granted asylum to immigrate to Minnesota communities, only to later fly back to Somalia to wage jihad." These he described as examples of "near-suicidal immigration policies" that, he hopefully predicted, would mean "little support for the current immigration bill." Won't catch Somalis stealing Hanson's chainsaw, by God!

At Chicago Boyz, Michael Kennedy said the pro-immigration Republicans' argument that the Party would reap electoral benefits from letting in more Mexicans had already been disproven, anyway, by Great Britain, where "the Labour Party flooded the country with Muslim immigrants as a plan to dominate the Conservatives. It worked and Britain has not had a Conservative government since Margaret Thatcher." Excepting John Major's and David Cameron's, we might have added, but Kennedy had a preemptive answer: the latter doesn't count because Cameron's coalition would not "be recognizable to Winston Churchill or Lady Thatcher," and the former doesn't count because oh look a bird. (Neither did Kennedy explain how the only other British administration since Thatcher's, Tony Blair's, endeared Labour to Muslim voters by joining the war on Iraq.)


My Voice Nation Help
12 comments
smandez
smandez

And after the Boston bombings, the Left Wing establishment jumps on the typical jihad apologist bandwagon. It would be funny if not so darn scary.

davej.francis
davej.francis

IS THIS GOING TO BE ANOTHER FINANCIALLY CHOKING IMMIGRATION REFORM, WHICH WASHED OVER US IN 1986?

I think it’s incredulous that under the 2013 Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, that illegal immigrant are unlikely to be held responsible for stealing people’s social security numbers or other ID. Even employers who knowingly hire illegal workers are hardly to be held accountable. How many years have employers either swallowed a lie about the person, knew the circumstances and still hired them, having no right to be in the country? But additionally the employers who have any number of foreigners, who can hardly put two English words together, must be seen in a suspicious light. The fact that when receiving a “NO MATCH” letter from the Social Security Administration should determine they are not who they say they are?

Of the 11 million foreign nationals plus that have entered this country without permission, how many jobs have been stolen by these people? Employers in large or small businesses, corporations are definitely not without blame. The special interest groups had so much influence in Washington; the 1986 amnesty was a financial coffin nail shutting off Americans? How many farms, agriculture, saw their workforce and the “Jobs Americans won’t do” a prominent quote of the Left wing vanish once they were given a legal free roving card to any job in America. How many black, Anglo, Hispanic or other nationalities, had to compete with cut price labor in the towns and cities or wherever they went? ONCE THIS IMMIGRATION LAW IS PASSED AND UNKNOWN NUMBERS OF ILLEGAL PERSONS GETTING “LEGAL STATUS” ARE GOING TO DESERT THE CROP FIELDS AND OTHER GUEST WORKER LOCATIONS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO THINK TWICE ABOUT PACKING THEIR BELONGINGS, KIDS AND FAMILY AND HEAD FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY?

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE 1986 IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA)? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LOW PAYING JOBS WILL BE TAKEN BY GUEST WORKERS, WHO GET A LEGAL IMMIGRATION PERMITS?

 

davej.francis
davej.francis

Washington Times -- April 29

Immigration bill grants amnesty to employers of illegal’s; no prosecution for bogus IDs

The debate is raging over whether the latest immigration bill is an amnesty for illegal immigrants, but one part is clear: The legislation would forgive businesses that have employed those immigrants illegally.

Employers who have allowed illegal immigrants to work off the books can come forward safely and provide their work history without fear of prosecution, and businesses that knowingly employed someone using a bogus or stolen Social Security number likewise would get a pass, according to an analysis of the bill by the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that wants a crackdown on immigration.

"The illegal workers at least have to pay a token fine. The employers of illegal immigrants who violated a whole list of laws themselves don't even have to pay," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the center. "It's the business side of the amnesty that doesn't get a lot of focus." [...]

Knowingly hiring illegal immigrants became illegal and is punishable by fines ranging from $250 per employee for a first offense up to $10,000 per employee for a third offense. If prosecutors can demonstrate a pattern, employers can face up to six months in jail.

Just look at the new laws that employers, more or less are not punished for and the complete disobedience to the laws published into the Federal Registry. Employers caused a great deal of harm in the last 27 years, gaining multitudes of cheap labor and workers with little or no education, pushing to the side so the companies could claim huge profits. Start with the mandatory E-Verify program and NOT SIX YEARS FROM NOW AS INDICATED IN THE Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act (Senate bill 744). It’s imperative that E-Verify become an immediate law. To even strengthen job security for all U.S. citizens and permanent green card holder, introduce a federal biometric picture ID card. Once this enforcement problem is solved, encompassing every person in the land, then nobody who doesn’t possess an official ID will not qualify for a job. Its second relevant advantage, it could be used to stop voter fraud. If any employer hires somebody without running an ID card, they should be fined and go to prison for at least 3 years. Without a tracking system at the border or airport entry, any immigration enforcement will fail, as supposedly visitors to the United States take up illegal residence.

Coming through the border or arriving undetected pregnant mothers spring upon the American taxpayer’s, babies both unborn and later conceiving between 3 and six infant. The children are the innocent, but the parent has intentionally slipped them past the borders or through Immigration and Customs Services (ICE). The outcome is the largest taxpayer cost of hundreds of billions annually in illegal immigration, as the offspring become instant citizens. Until the Supreme Court takes up this disingenuous part of the law, that was purposely beneficial to slaves after the Civil war, the babies of and other progeny of illegal alien parents are still entitled to citizenship. Reintroducing a simple footnote to the 14th amendment would from this action save $$$$ billions more in taxes and returned to our most venerable citizens.

Another obvious “corporate Welfare” issue, along with the billions in exceptions, waivers and laws, specifically to gain favors for politicians is the immigration law that is too indulgent for anybody who overstays their expired visa, or enters without America without legal documents. THE CONGRESS SHOULD MAKE IT A CLASS (A) FELONY, so it’s no longer simple civil infraction.

As for the border fence, other than heavy traffic security areas of population growth the fence is all but none existence. THE Congress must begin constructing the dual fence, as patterned over the Rep. Duncan Hunter 2006 fencing as seen in San Diego County. This double layer fence constructed of steel pilings on the Southern side and chain link fence prison style fence rising to a concertina barbed wire within the interior.

Now it’s up to the larger percentage of Americans to bombard their 2 U.S. Senators in Washington with their anxiety at the Capitol Terminal board toll-free t 1-888-978-3094. Learn more about this new impending Immigration Reform Bill, in relation to the huge fraudulent 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act at NumbersUSA.com as well in petitioning your wiles and standing on this new law. INSIST NO PATH TO CITIZENSHIP?A free petition is obtainable on NumbersUSA.com and read the huge amounts of daily information disclosed on American Patrol.com. This is the articles, blogs and media reports that are a must avidly read. Learn so much more about illegal immigration bills at Judicial Watch.org. As I have said many times before, I see no problem for an increase for extra visas for STEM workers, PhDs and cream of the crop—so to speak, as long as there is a serious effort, to locate the same highly skilled workers already here. But before anything as extra visas, AGjobs are available, we must have a tracking system, so they can be apprehended if they abscond from a farm or other labor that supposedly Americans will not do. However, none of these new complex reforms can happen, until we are assured that a real fence is constructed and the above mentioned subjects?

RogerAiles
RogerAiles

What, no mention of Mickey Kaus?  Apart from Tucker Carlson's laundry, immigration is all Kaus does these days.

glennisw250
glennisw250 topcommenter

"Once upon a time, kids knew who Thomas Jefferson and Horatio Alger were..." Yes, how is it possible these kids today aren't familiar with 19th century popular fiction? Why, I bet they don't even know who Krazy Kat is, or Evelyn Nesbit! And you don't hear anyone singing "Bicycle Built for Two" anymore!

wigglwagon
wigglwagon

An 800 page bill is ridiculous.

The penalty for employers of illegal workers should be mandatory $15,000 fine per illegal worker and mandatory 2 years in jail without parole per illegal worker. That and deportation of the illegal worker would put an immediate end to the problem.

That is ALL the reform we need.

People like the DREAMERS are not needed in America. The people in their home countries need the DREAMERS to help build free prosperous societies. It is America's responsibility to help all countries build a better world. We should not be stealing 'the best and the brightest' from other countries.

GeoX
GeoX topcommenter

@davej.francis Ya know, Davy, you'd think that if you were going to copy and paste bullshit into comments sections, you could at LEAST have the common decency to use LITERATE bullshit.  Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying you have to think for yourself, or not be a complete asshole, or ignore the voices in your head.  But this shocking laziness makes you look even more stupid than you already do.

(Or maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe it makes you look *exactly* as stupid as you are.  I may need to rethink this thesis.)

m.bouffant
m.bouffant

@wigglwagon

"It is America's responsibility to help all countries build a better world."

If you say so.  Right in the Constitution, innit? And it's worked so well in Iraq & Afghanistan.

One of the reasons for the DREAM Act is that most of those covered were so young when they were brought here that they are culturally American & usually speak & read English much better than they speak or read the language of their parents' country. 

So let's throw 'em all out & send them to a country they know little about where they're not even fluent & possibly illiterate in the language. They'll be real popular in their new country, & a big fucking help, I'm sure.

quickstriker
quickstriker

@wigglwagon If it was shorter, you'd be complaining about it giving too much power to bureaucrats. No statute will ever please the right.Of course, page count is an absurd argument anyway. It's not like they write bills in 12-point Times New Roman with 1-inch margins.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...