Oh! ye'll take the
high road and
I'll take the low road,
And I'll be in Scotland afore ye;
The words from this old Scots ballad remind me of the strategy used by the Open Borders Lobby to defend its indefensible position of unchecked immigration.
The low road it travels consists of dozens of lies about America being a "nation of immigrants," and how our economy would collapse without " migrant" labor blah blah.
But difficult as it is to admit it, their deceptions have been—at least in some quarters—persuasive. Witness the behind-the-scenes, full-court press for amnesty at the White House.
Unfortunately, this hard sell for more immigration is not limited to amnesty for illegal aliens. It also extends to legal immigration.
Counting on the "compassion" angle, the U.S. Department of State is laying the groundwork for admitting hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees who have worked as translators for the U.S. Army.
Claiming that insurgents have targeted them for death because of their association with the U.S. Army, they are fleeing to Syria and Jordan.
But the United States is their destination of choice.
The State Department thinking goes like this: Iraqi translators provided an invaluable service to the American war effort. We must repay them.
General Paul Eaton, the officer in charge of training the Iraqi Army, told CBS correspondent Scott Pelley during his ""60 Minutes" segment "Left Behind": "I have no doubt that the translators have saved a great number of lives."
And, according to those who support refugee status for the Iraqis, why shouldn't we give them their just reward?
At first blush, granting refugee status to translators might seem like an appropriate gesture in exchanged for the service they provided…especially if they are under an immediate death threat.
But, as with all things immigration related, the long term isn't considered.
While Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey promises to work towards a "no cap" policy regarding the Iraqis, she is ignoring the fact that if the U.S. admits 100,000 refugees—a number similar to the Vietnamese refugees accepted in from May to December 1975—the total number of Iraqis including immediate family members would mushroom to nearly 500,000.
(For an in-depth look at the consequences of U.S. refugee policy, read Thomas Allen's VDARE.COM archive here.)
Those who favor granting refugee status to Iraqis like to draw parallels to the Vietnamese in 1975. But the two situations are very different.
The Vietnamese, mostly peasant farmers with Christian roots, did not have a well-established record of terrorism against Western nations and the U.S. specifically.
As long as the U.S. policy of family-based chain migration remains intact, anti-American elements from Iraq and other terrorist nations will be eventually be able to enter the country. Why should we take the risk?
But the biggest unanswered question about our unfolding Iraqi refugee policy is this: assuming the translators are educated, English-speaking American allies dedicated to bringing democracy to Iraq, shouldn't they remain behind to fight for their vision?
What good does it do either Iraq or America if the best and the brightest from Iraq come to the U.S.?
Where they are needed is at home rebuilding their country into President George Bush's vision of Iraq as a "free and democratic society."
Joe Guzzardi [ e-mail him] is the Editor of VDARE.COM Letters to the Editor. In addition, he is an English teacher at the Lodi Adult School and has been writing a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive to VDARE.COM.
