Clarence Page - Defender of the Nation!
Print Friendly and PDF
Nationally syndicated columnist Clarence Page has always seemed to me to be a rather dim bulb—notwithstanding his Pulitzer Prize - failing even to defend the interests of his own race effectively. But, as has been remarked on here before, in connection with Victor Davis Hanson, there seems to be a demand for dim bulbs in nationally syndicated punditry. Possibly Clarence Page understands this.

Which means he deserves all the more praise for his column today: ['Fencing' in Bush on immigration “Clarence Page, The Chicago Tribune March 26, 2006]

Nor should we throw open the doors and say "Y'all come” without considering the impact that new job seekers will have on the job seekers—and jobholders—who already are here. Bush continues to say that his guest-worker program would match foreign workers with American employers, 'when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.' I continue to wonder how hard those employers are looking.

As I have written before, there's hardly any job that Americans won't fill if you offer decent pay. But why offer more pay when you're seeking someone to work your fields, baby-sit your kids, tend your garden, work your factory, bus your restaurant tables, lay your bricks or put up your drywall, when you can hire an illegal worker who will work longer hours for less money and with less complaint?

As a result, millions of the sort of people who used to fill those jobs, particularly undereducated black men, languish on street corners.

Page goes on to say:
"of all the people who have clout with President Bush on the volatile issue of immigration, low-income legal American workers don't seem to rank very high. Perhaps the 'spite-fence' fans will have better luck."
By "spite-fence" he means:
Rep. James Sensenbrenner's (R-Wis.) radical proposal for a 700-mile system of Berlin-style walls along the Mexican-U.S. border…widely ridiculed as "Patrick Buchanan’s spite fence" when the conservative columnist proposed it during his presidential campaigns in the 1990s. has always maintained that immigration reform requires a coalition. You don”t have to like American Blacks to appreciate that flooding the country with low-skill Hispanics is a violent attack on their standard of living. American Blacks don't have to like those who prefer pre-1965 America to see that defending the old ethnic balance works to their advantage.

It is certainly not clear that Clarence Page has arrived at this conclusion. But Google News produced no more intelligent comment by a Pundit when I searched just now (or indeed, any comment at all). readers should applaud him. He will probably need encouragement.


Print Friendly and PDF