Off again goes the Washington Post using a name calling, ad hominem attack mode on the immigration issue. Its December 13th lead editorial is headed, The Immigration Swamp–As the presidential campaign intensifies, so does the nativist ferocity.
In short, let's not have a discussion which makes sense for American citizens, let's just keep blustering away by calling US citizens "nativists" a word which has morphed into slightly less of a pejorative than the word "racists."
As a Democrat, I am proud of my citizenship and the immense privileges it confers and hope I have a right to a reasoned opinion without being called a racist.
This Post editorial represents the voices of those powerful forces who want to keep those borders open, the Mexican trucks rolling freely into the US, and border fence from being built. Those powerful open border forces are getting truly angry and desperate.
Of course, few people read the editorial pages of any paper. The comics, crossword puzzles, and the murders are so much more interesting. But this latest Post editorial really exposes that raw nerve of anger from these power players since the June 28 failure to enact that ugly "comprehensive immigration reform" bill (read "amnesty bill").
The bill, which it turned out many Congressional members neither had the time or inclination to read, was a massive call for another amnesty, repeating enactment of another 1986 amnesty law, which has proved a complete failure as evidenced by the arrival of millions more illegal aliens since–probably most of the 12 to 20 million now estimated to be living in the US.
That 1986 law could, if properly enforced, have possibly avoided the situation we now face. The Post editorial describes like this: "THE IDEA that 12 million illegal residents of the United States can be induced to quit the country en masse within four months is absurd on its face—a non-starter in logistical, humanitarian, political, diplomatic, commercial and economic terms that would leave an indelible stain on this country for years."
Hey, if the laws on illegals were enforced, we would at least find out who is here illegally, something our government is loath to do. Scream, Washington Post, but don't admit that your skewed definition of "absurd" cites the very words that those who truly debate the issue might use.
For example: 1. "logistical" (because our Federal government won't enforce its present laws), 2. "humanitarian" (illegal is ok even if it puts poor US citizens out of work), 3. "political" (because it doesn't match the greed of illegal employers who have paid these legislators big money to get their way), 4 "diplomatic" (because it makes the corrupt Mexican government mad that they couldn't keep offing their excess poor to the US and keep the immigrants US remittances, now nearly $30 billion a year flowing), 4. "commercial" (because the cheap labor crowd might have to pay more for US citizen workers), and 5. "economic" (because more cheap labor profits might be less for those poor CEO's earning over 300 times what their average employee makes) .
Yes, indeed, the Post is truly upset that some of the candidates such as Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, and Tancredo (no Johnny Come Lately to real reform) have begun to realize that the voters want real reform. The Post attacks Huckabee for his plan, while chiding him for being inconsistent in the past. Gee, no politicians ever change their views? All those candidates (i.e. except Tancredo, who got it right long ago) should at least get credit for being on a learning curve.
Not from the Post: "Mr. Huckabee was promptly rewarded for his reversal with an endorsement from Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, a group of xenophobes who spend their time videotaping and harassing day laborers wherever they find them."
You mean illegal border crossers? That's ok with you?
The Post then carries its anti-law enforcement rhetoric to the extreme when it comments, "It's a fair guess that this cruel campaign of immigrant-bashing will eventually turn toxic for the Republican Party itself, whose own strategists (Karl Rove among others) have long grasped the growing electoral clout of Hispanics."
Getting it right won't be easy, but it is the right thing to do. Breaking down further our Rule of Law is not a path to progress, folks.
Let's show more courage and less negative profiling of those who would fix the immigrant invasion. Would you like the program offered by the open border Democrat candidates? They all think more is better. It surely is not for the citizens of the US.
Folks, this is angry, desperate bashing of a reasoned approach not worthy of any editorial board, much less the Post. Further, the Post has the chutzpah to claim that that absurd Congressional cretin reform bill which failed in June "would have tightened security at the borders; cracked down on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers; established a legal mechanism for immigration for the hundreds of thousands of workers who enter the country each year to fill low-skill jobs; and provided a path to legal status for the illegal immigrants now living in America". Those claims, except for the path to legal status, are simply not true. That legislation had no teeth to do what was claimed by its supporters.
The language of this editorial is so purple it actually gets ludicrous. Try this Post paragraph:
"America has had its paroxysms of anti-immigrant fervor in the past, also accompanied by spasms of violence and persecution. Today, as in the past, the national atmosphere is subverting the discussion, drowning out reason. Look at the uproar that overwhelmed New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sensible, safety-minded proposal to make illegal immigrants eligible for driver's licenses, and you will see logic defeated by posturing, political cowardice and the poisonous diatribes of talk radio."
As if Spitzer was a statesman trying to fix a problem. Oh, please!
Yes, sadly ad hominem attacks have become the last resort of the major media and their paymasters, the big corporations, the cheap labor crowd and their ideological and ethnic lobbyist supporters They found in June that they couldn't steamroller us little citizens when we got fully aroused to the dangerous condition created by those very people who now want to blame as "nativists" those of us who propose real ideas for reform. Real reform is non-partisan.
OK, WP, you may rant and rave, and it may be that other factors will elect an open border minded President, but I suspect there will be many elected who will offer us little people—US citizens, many of us, like me, Democrats— a Square Deal instead of a Raw Deal.
Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.