A Failure of Leadership… Whose Leadership?
The New York Times has an editorial up, blasting Republicans for bad leadership on the immigration bill. While reading it, the reader gets the impression that those who oppose the bill, and worked actively against it, are all racists, xenophobes, people who simply hate immigrants:
The anti-immigrant hard-core — no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever — must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage. Like nativists of generations past, they think the country is being Latinized, and they fear it…
Inaction on immigration carries a brutally high price, but those on the phobic right are willing to mortgage their country’s future to pay it.
Mark Finkelstein read the editorial as well, and noticed a pattern, or comparison:
“Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” – George Wallace, from his 1963 inaugural speech as Governor of Alabama.
“No amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever.” – New York Times editorial, June 9th, 2007, describing opponents of the proposed immigration law.
He goes on to write:
In the eyes of the New York Times, you’re a knuckle-dragging nativist, no better than hard-core segregationists of the Jim Crow era.
Now, I know enough people who oppose this immigration bill, and, although I am sure that quite some who oppose the bill are borderline racists, the people I know, are definitely not racists. To them, it is not a matter of race, but of the rule of law.
The Times editorial is incredibly dishonest. It is a very complicated matter; different people have different motives to oppose this bill. Ed Morrissey, for instance, opposes the bill. Everybody who knows Ed, knows that Ed certainly is no racist.
21 Responses to “A Failure of Leadership… Whose Leadership?”
It’s typical for the Times. It’s not only that it is yet another childish left-wing tantrum. It’s not just that so many people like that don’t want to hear the word “no” expressed toward so many things that they want! they want! To them the bill also represents a threat to multiculturalism, “birthright citizenship,” and everything else related that they cherish and defend. “The ends justify the means,” including disgustingly scummy editorials.
The strategy of calling anyone who opposes amnesty a racist or a xenophobe is a widely used one. Not just in the US, in the EU the same thing happens.
DLS though we agree in many ways about immigration, me thinks you are not one to condemn broad generalizations, since they are something you indulge in almost daily with those you call “the Left”.
You should be able to determine from the context whom I am identifying when I use the words “the Left” or “the Usual Suspects.”
The immigration bill actually died a couple of weeks ago when the rhetoric from supporters in the Senate AND the White House changed to “if you don’t support this bill you’re a bigot.”
All that was EVER going to do is harden opposition against it.
Didn’t the Wall Street Journal have almost the exact same editorial? That really highlighted the split in the conservative movement.
This bill was doomed from day one by ignorant outrage created in media
campaigns by both sides.It is an issue that most voters didn’t care about this time last year, but now, thanks to demagogery has become as controversial as the Iraq War.
The bill as you say is complicated but coverage of it was more emotional than informative-as many hot button issues have become today. This makes finding any kind of solution impossible.
Yes, it’s definitely a grossly oversimplified take on opposition to the bill. I disagree with the bill for its guest worker program, which is going to be largely unenforceable, but disagree with “nativists” since I believe the proper response is for the guest workers to have a possible road towards citizenship. In other words, all sorts of people have various reasons to disagree with the bill.
That said, xenophobia and fear of being “Latinized” are a significant portion of opposition to this bill, more than many wish to admit. There have been comments even on our little “moderate” board which worry about the U.S. becoming a 3rd world nation, that the English language will die, etc.
One real problem is that major provisions of the 1986 bill were never enforced. We have no real assurance that the same would not happen with this one as well.
i was a believer in the last amensty thing from 1986. So I’m not a fan of this one. What’s really needed in an investment in Mexico to make a nice place to live, work and visit. it’s a beautiful country. Ruined by poverty and corrupt government.
Guest workers: I went to Germany to visit my son in 1992. They have 2 and 3 generation Turks who aren’t German citizens and never will be. The live isolated; don’t feel part of the country; don’t feel vested in Germany’s success as a natin; they are just there to work. That’s why I don’t believe in Guest workers.
Michael,
Racist may be a little harsh but it’s the first word that comes to mind. (“Status-quoist†would probably be a more accurate word if such a word exists.) And, IMO, the ‘rule of law’ argument is just a convenient excuse.
But whether it’s ‘racist’ or ‘status-quoist’ is not the point… The point is that throughout U.S. history it’s been proven to be non-productive, wrongheaded thinking.
Every time a new ‘different people’ arrives in the United States the reaction has been what we’re seeing now… time passes, things got better and ‘those people’ became part of ‘us’. Africans, Chinese, Italians, Irish… Michael you’d just love the ‘Dutch Jokes’ that circulated in Michigan (in the ‘50s) because there was a large, productive Dutch community there.
The volume of the ’anti-immigration movement’ is increasingly loud and frantic because those involved in it that pay attention to history know that their position is wrong while wanting so desperately to be right.
Off the point but vexing,
Yesterday afternoon, Shaun made the post and I quote, “Commerce Department Inspector General Johnnie Frazier has become the latest Bush administration official to decide to spend more time with his family.â€
I simply pointed out to Shaun, in a comment, that Frazier was appointed on July 20, 1999.
Now, that entire post has been magically erased.
One can follow this link to see that said post existed:
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=Johnnie%20Frazier
It is second on the Google news listing on the subject.
I have to wonder why this post was deleted.
Lynx,
> > broad generalizations
> should be able to
> determine from the context
I was out for a while taking care of other matters but it also gave me time to rethink things. You are not the first to accuse me of over-generalizing. Now in the past I’ve been touchy about this because the other person has been wrong, detached from much of the real world — attacking common figures of speech or references about 85-99+ per cent of certain groups of individuals on an almost ridiculously legalistic basis because at least one (1) individual possibly may not be so characterized.
But there is also the problem of inability to grasp what is being stated from the context, if the context itself is unclear. I apologize if you have faced readin’ writin’ that’s written rotten.
The Wall Street Journal, a conservative Northeast establishmentarian newspaper of high quality, is in love with the business community. For ages it has advocated a Constitutional amendment:
“There shall be open borders”
Their editorials are written by the biggest neocons- like the ones who though Libby and Gonzo were the target of a national witchhunt, and who thought that Wolfie was the target of an international witchhunt.8)
Michael,
I find it a little ironic that you’re complaining about the NY Times implying that everyone on the right that opposed this bill is racist, given that you did much the same thing in your defense of Israel.
Listening to some here talk about immigration you’d think the Immigration Laws were written by the founding fathers and a part of the U. S. Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth… The Immigration Quota System that so many refer to has been law for less than 90 years.
Laws concerning immigration and naturalization
Prior to 1790 – If you were here (but not native) and said you were an American… you were an American.
1790 to 1882 – Immigration required getting to the United States… period. Naturalization required you be a “free white person” of “good moral character” who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year.
1882 – Congress passed the “Chinese Exclusion Act”. This act was the first significant restriction on free immigration in U.S. history, and it excluded Chinese laborers from the country under penalty of imprisonment and deportation. It also – a) levied a 50 cents tax on all aliens landing at United States ports; and, b) gave authorities the power to deny entry to “convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges”.
1921 Congress passed the “Emergency Quota Act” it was the first law to set quotas on the number of immigrants permitted to enter the country. It provided – a) Immigration from a specific nation was limited to three percent of that nation’s population living in the United States, as reported in the 1910 Federal Census; and, b) An overall maximum annual quota of 357,000 immigrants.
Life’s easier when you look at the facts.
Chris: want to fight that out again?
1888 cartoon in Puck attacks businessmen for welcoming large numbers of low paid immigrants, leaving the American workingman unemployed.
Michael,
I’m in no mood for a flame war today.
No… I just thought it was interesting
As for the debate on immigration, I do think there is a lot of inherent racism (or at the very least, an elite country-club mentality).
As someone who supports freedom, democracy, liberty and all that good stuff, it’s hard to deny people the right to move.
In a world where corporations can easily move their busineses from country to country seeking the cheapest labor, why is labor not afforded the same right?
Michael,
What do you think of your hero now?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTJmNWMxZGMyNDI1Y2YzODE2ZTRiMjhiZTk2N2E0OGQ=