View Single Post
      08-27-2006, 02:09 PM   #1


The Intellectual Dishonesty of the Open Borders Crowd



I’ve had it with the smug, self-righteous group of immigration “reform” advocates who are calling those of us who support the rule of law over rule of politics “racists” and even (irony of ironies) “UN-American.” It reflects a towering intellectual dishonesty about the issue when your opponents feel free to distort the true nature of the opposition to illegal immigration by setting up so many strawmen that one would think the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz was on a self-replication binge, dotting the political landscape with enough copies of himself to populate a medium sized city.

The truth of the matter is that the Open Borders argument is political poison unless it is wrapped in the flag, buttressed by the politically correct buzzwords “tolerance” and “fairness” with a final appeal to pity by raising the specter of legal children being torn from illegal mothers by cruel, heartless, pro-enforcement monsters. This would all be bad enough. It is the attempt by this crowd to connect pro-enforcement advocates with neo-Nazis, skinheads, radical militiamen and the like that stinks of demagoguery and proves how truly mendacious the Open Borders groups can be.

The demonstration on May 1 is a case in point. Dubbed a “Rally for Immigrant Rights,” one would have to be brain dead not to have figured out that in fact, the “Rally” was about no such thing. Instead, as every 5 year old in America who has been following this movement knows, the May Day protests were about “rights” for illegal immigrants, a fact brought out in this article in today’s Washington Post:

While a series of marches focused much of the nation’s attention on the plight of illegal immigrants, scores of other Americans quietly seethed. Now, with the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, they are shouting back.

Congressional leaders in Washington have gotten bricks in the mail from a group that advocates building a border fence, states in the West and South have drawn up tough anti-immigrant laws, and ordinary citizens, such as Janis McDonald of Pennsylvania, who considers herself a liberal, are not mincing words in expressing their displeasure.

“Send them back,” McDonald said. “Build a damn wall and be done with it.”

The anger evoked a word that immigrant organizers who opposed Monday’s boycott feared: backlash. McDonald and other Americans were particularly disturbed by Monday’s boycott and civil action, attended in large part by people who entered the country illegally and are now demanding rights enjoyed by U.S.-born citizens and immigrants who entered the country legally.

Of course, the Post reveals where they stand on the issue by referring to the “plight” of illegal immigrants as if sneaking across the border, purchasing forged social security and/or green cards, and trying to stay one step ahead of Homeland Security represents a hardship brought upon the illegals by anyone other than themselves.

That said, the article points out a difference that the Open Borders crew refuses to acknowledge and, in fact, obfuscates in order to tag their opponents as heartless gorgons. It is the difference between those who endure the bureaucratic rigmarole and long waiting periods to legally enter this country and those who take the sometimes perilous but nevertheless easier way by sneaking across the border in defiance of the law.

In truth, this is the club used by the pro-illegal lobby to beat enforcement advocates over the head. By successfully blurring the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, they can portray those who support a rational immigration policy as ideological soul mates of the “Know Nothing” anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic party of the early 1850’s.

The anti-immigrant movement of that period was a direct response to the first mass migration of Irish to the United States. It is estimated that more than 1.5 million starving Irish left their home country between 1848-50 as a result of the almost total failure of the potato crop and the confused, heartless response of the British government to the starving millions on that unfortunate isle. So many foreigners (and Catholics to boot) overwhelmed some cities in the northeast which frightened many native born protestants into forming their own party. The official name of the movement was the American Party. The origin of the “Know Nothing” moniker came about as a result of the semi-secret nature of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply “I know nothing.”

It is a convenient whipping boy for pro-illegal advocates because many of the “Know Nothings” were absorbed into the new Republican party. Not knowing quite what to do with these nativists (Democrats of that period pandered shamelessly to the new arrivals), they were successfully marginalized in the election of 1860 by Lincoln’s “Free Labor, Free Soil, Free Men” platform.

But that doesn’t stop the Open Borders crowd from using the specter of the Know Nothings to skewer their opponents and tar them with the nativist label. The fact is, there are many in the pro-enforcement lobby who seek to dramatically increase legal immigration as well as make the path to citizenship for those who abide by the law less of a burden both bureaucratically and legally.

Almost 1 million people enter this country as legal immigrants every year. This number includes people whose temporary visas have expired and wish to stay on to work or to achieve citizenship. There are very, very few enforcement advocates who begrudge these potential citizens their rights under the law. And while there is a loud minority in the anti-illegal movement who seek to reduce or even eliminate legal immigration to the United States – the stated reason being homeland security – most pro-enforcement advocates actually support increased legal immigration.

But you would never know this if the only information you received was from the pro-illegal groups. They have successfully portrayed the anti-illegal lobby as anti-immigration – both legal and illegal – as well as proponents of a draconian “round-up” of illegals that would tear families apart and turn the United States into a police state. And while this may be the extremists view of the matter, such thinking is hardly in the mainstream.

On the other hand, how often do you read about International ANSWER and how they have expropriated the reform movement for their own nefarious ends? Those May Day protests were largely organized by the communists in ANSWER while being opposed by more mainstream immigration groups. In fact, few pro-reform websites bothered to inform their readers of this very salient point.

We will not have meaningful immigration reform until we all agree that the United States is a sovereign country with recognizable borders that must be defended. That defense includes shutting the door on people who would break the law to come here. It is such a basic concept that it is mystifying why the pro-illegal lobby deliberately ignores it. At times, they seem almost embarrassed by the fact that the United States has a right to determine who comes here and who doesn’t as well as determining its own requirements for citizenship.

In the end, this is what “sovereignty” is all about; the belief that being born an American is a privilege beyond words and that becoming an American should also be a privilege, earned by a legal immigrant’s hard work, obedience of the law, and desire to be a part of this grand experiment in self-government.

Anything less and you cheapen the idea of citizenship for everyone.


Michelle Malkin has an article about the Reconquista as well as much more information in her Vent segment at Hot Air.

I have read much on both right and left sites about whether or not the reconquista is a serious part of this pro-illegal movement or just a strawman set up by oppnents to scare people into opposing immigration from Mexico. I find it interesting that those who subscribe to the latter view always start out by saying that the reconquista is not the goal of illegal immigrant groups and end up by saying that, in effect, it is. I don’t buy the proposition that this notion of taking back the southwest is some holdover from the radical 1960’s, not when through their rhetoric and actions, these groups show that reconquista is alive and well and is a not so subtle goal of the Mexican government as well.

Reconquista is not a strawman. And the fact that pro-illegal groups either support it or fail to oppose it says much about the ideological makeup of their movement.

Another good read on this as well as some excellent commentary about the state of the left can be found Alexandra’s All Things Beautiful.

Makes sure you wish her “Happy Birthday!”





By: Rick Moran

Embedded Links Contained in Above Article:

pro-enforcement advocates

Washington Post

communists in ANSWER

Michelle Malkin

an article

Hot Air

All Things Beautiful