First, here’s John Podheretz, writing in NRO’s The Corner:
“Immigration Is Incompatible With a Modern Society”
So sayeth Mark Krikorian. Thank you, Mark. You have written honest words. And this is where I came in. Nearly four years ago, speaking out in modest support for the original Bush proposal on immigration, I was hammered by John Derbyshire and others for not understanding the profound difference between LEGAL IMMIGRATION (good) and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION (bad). Now it seems we are to view immigration  all immigration  as incompatible with a modern society. So why didn’t you immigration restrictionists just say so in the first place, instead of hiding behind the word “illegal”? Why didn’t you then acknowledge your problem wasn’t with law-breaking at all but rather with the fact that any people are coming in? Could it be that you knew then it was an extremist view that only had support on the fringe, but that there would be real strength behind using the illegality of illegal immigration to rally people to your cause? And that now, with real movement in your direction ideologically, you now feel freer to advocate openly what you have always hinted at but have never quite said so blatantly?
Again, I thank you for your honesty. America is no longer to admit immigrants. Period. I hope you will now drop the weasel adjective “illegal” from the rhetoric from here on in, because otherwise, you will just be trying to snow people.
And here’s Krikorian’s response:
Re: “Immigration Is Incompatible With a Modern Society”
Has it been four years? My, how time flies.
In any case, the legal vs. illegal issue is an important one. There are indeed people who subscribe to the “legal, good / illegal, bad” theory of immigration, though I’ve never pretended to be one of them; most of the problematic effects of large-scale immigration are the same regardless of legal status, which is one reason why simply legalizing all the illegal aliens wouldn’t solve much of anything. But regardless of any possible differences of opinion, until we have consistent enforcement of the immigration law, we’re all under the same tent  it doesn’t much matter what the specifics of policy are if the rules are systematically and intentionally unenforced. Once we have a tightly run enforcement regime with strong political backing, then I may part ways with the legal-good-illegal-bad crowd  but, as Ted Kennedy says, we’ll drive off that bridge when we come to it.
As for “hiding behind the word ‘illegal'”, well, I’ve been doing an awfully poor job of that. A few examples: I wrote a piece for the New York Post on the links between legal and illegal immigration back in 1997, which later appeared in abbreviated form in NR. Or here is an NRO piece from this summer. Or how about my response to Yuval Levin’s recent thoughtful article on immigration; you must have seen it  it was in Commentary.
Quickly: I think Podheretz makes a grave mistake — and risks alienating a lot of conservatives who are not “immigration restrictionists” “hiding” behind the legal/illegal distinction — when he suggests that use of that distinction is merely “code” for the kind of nativist anti-immigration stance adopted by those who embrace Krikorian’s kernel arguments.
Like the Wall Street Journal editorial board before him, Podheretz essentially adopts the rhetorical tactics of many on the left, who equate a philosophical and legal objection to, say, race-based affirmative action, with racism; or a desire to see same sex marriage decided upon by the electorate rather than judicial fiat as “homophobia.” And in so doing, he proves that he is willing to throw honest and good-faithed proponents of immigration reform (and, by extension, opponents of race-based affirmative action, or judicially-imposed changes to long-standing traditional social contracts by dint of semantic authoritarianism) under the rhetorical bus — casting them all as secret nativists whose concern over the distinction between entering the country legally (following the law), or entering illegally and drawing on limited resources (exploiting the system, and not honoring US sovereignty), is but a mask to hide the racism coursing through their veins like so much spoiled picante sauce.
True, he tries to mitigate the charge by leveling it against a few specific Corner contributors and their followers — but the net effect is to plant the seed that all those who are honestly concerned about the legal/illegal distinction are secret Buchananites or Derbyshires or Krikorians.
I suspect that very few outside the paleocon / Buchananite right agree with Krikorian’s central premise — though there is certainly no reason we shouldn’t consider arguments that posit that immigration, legal or otherwise, may be overburdening the social service systems of specific locales, and is therefore causing strain on the social fabric of the US “quilt” — particularly in light of the failure to promote assimilation.
I happen not to agree with that assessment — in fact, I’d be willing to look at increasing the number of legal immigrants in exchange for a commitment to enforcing immigration law and keeping out illegal immigrants and promoting assimilation and naturalization (this in addition to my support for a guest worker program) — but as Krikorian points out, Podheretz’s argument misses (intentionally, I’d argue) the obvious fact that those who disagree about the end game for immigration can nevertheless agree upon certain aspects of immigration reform that need to be addressed immediately.
After all, Krikorian doesn’t seem to be hiding his position — at least, not from a quick perusal of the writings linked in his response.
Or, to put it another way, the suggestion that all those who make the legal/illegal distinction have in mind as their end game a moratorium on immigration, is not only dishonest and disparaging to those who are committed to enforcing extant law, but it helps perpetuate a stereotype of conservatives as latent racists and nativists, providing ammunition to the progressive left, whose bright lights in the academy have already adopted such assumptions as truisms — leading to the kinds of debacles that we saw in the case of the Duke 3 and the torch-bearing mob calling for their heads, the Duke 88.
And make no mistake: these folks will be citing Podheretz — just as they’ve been citing the WSJ editorial board — to cast those who agitate for immigration reform as both nativists and racists.
But just as it is unfair to tie White Supremacists to the far left simply because both show an admiration for the pluck of the jihadi “freedom fighters” (the former for killing them some Jews, the latter for standing up to US hegemony and imperialism), it is equally unfair to suggest that those who make a distinction between legal/illegal immigration (with the goal being to curtail the latter) are tied, in their black, nativist hearts, to people like Krikorian, whose stance on immigration differs from theirs — though there is, at one point in the battle for reform, some necessary, though coincidental, overlap.
I generally admire Podheretz — and the WSJ editorial board, for that matter — but when they begin adopting the rhetorical strategies of the academic left, they need to be called on it.
And, when possible, chased into a corner and slapped with a bean burrito.
(h/t cj burch)
****
update: A bit of a walkback from Podheretz, here :
I hope all those who read the Corner and worry about illegal immigration but are not opposed to immigration in principle note that the leading exponents here of an anti-Bush line are unquestionably speaking in support of a no-immigration policy  and that the ideas undergirding their views have little to do with illegality and everything to do with a cultural idea about America that you might not agree with.
My emphasis.
Well, thanks for looking out for us, John. But many of us are not committed to movement “leaders” so much as we are committed to a specific set of outcomes with respect to enforcing current law.
When the time comes to separate ourselves from people like Derbyshire or Krikorian (and many of us already have, in other instances), we will do so — because at that point, their aims will be different from ours.
****
update: Interesting link, courtesy of Michelle Malkin, of “a debate on the subject of immigration and naturalization on the floor of the House of Representatives, from February of 1790.”
And, when possible, chased into a corner and slapped with a bean burrito.
Are you cleaning up your act??
Please don’t.
Is that what you’re calling “it”, now? A bean burrito?
What a waste of a good bean burrito.
I dunno. I’m inclined to yield to your POV, but those of us who have your back in the illegal/bad argument sometimes find ourselves saying “Yes! Exactly! Wait, what?”
Of course it isn’t universal or even close, but I guess I’d put it this way: The requisite care to distinguish legal and illegal immigration is sometimes missing and not because of any oversight. I’ll go back over JPod’s argument and see if I agree he’s “casting them all” this way or simply bitching about providing rhetorical cover for any of them, which I have done and am not pleased about.
Jeff,
Both the WSJ crowd and apparently you are ignoring the huge elephant in the room: the economic situation in 1850 in no way resembles the one that obtains today. Simply put, we no longer have a vast reservoir of open frontier to settle. We no longer have a vast need for agricultural and factory labor that can be filled by the unskilled. And we now do have a welfare state that guarantees a better standard of living for anyone who can walk across the border and sign up. The net result is that we need far fewer immigrants, legal or illegal, and the ones we need should be screened to make sure they are a net positive contributor.
Add to that fact the facts 1) that it is no longer acceptable to require the assimilation process by English education, 2) holding up America as something to admire and emulate, and 3) insisting on enforcing the law, and we have a recipe for disaster if any larger numbers of immigrants are admitted.
Okay, how did you get here:
…he is willing to throw honest and good-faithed proponents of immigration reform … casting them all as secret nativists…
from here:
Could it be that you knew then it was an extremist view that only had support on the fringe…
I think illegal immigration is not good and I also think that current levels of immigration, if they do not lead to assimilation are bad. Now, I haven’t seen really hard data about assimilation. But if that _is_ an issue, what’s the harm in slowing or stopping immigration for a period of time? BTW, I speak as someone whose children comprise about 20 different bloodlines in America, including Native American. This is NOT about racism. It’s about ensuring that, in America, our American identity stays strong and coheres. But, again, if assimilation is NOT an issue, fine.
I just don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about that.
He gets there by reading the three sentences in front of the one you quoted, spongeworthy:
That is where Podhoretz tries to conflate the views of anyone who is against illegal immigration with the views of Krikorian, who is against all immigration.
Krikorian makes it very clear in his response that he hasn’t argued the legal/illegal distinction because he doesn’t believe it matters.
Simply put, we no longer have a vast reservoir of open frontier to settle.
I’m sorry SDN but this sounds like the same John Erhlich, Population Bomb rhetoric from the ’70s. As Julian Simon proved with his bet with him, Erlich is completely wrong. America is strong and prosperous because of her ideals and principle’s. She always had little fiefdoms of ethnicity. Eventually, people assimilate.
It is unacceptable that English only education is ‘unacceptable’. This is something that must change, or we cannot assimilate immigrants.
I’m with the enforcement crowd, but I can honestly see that it will be impossible to expel the illegals. My idea is that we should actually enforce our law – for instance, expelling criminal illegals and not letting illegals back in (or in at all.) As for the remainder, it may be impossible to account for them. Assimilation of their children is the best we can hope for, perhaps. At which point we’re talking about citizens. In this way in a few generations the illegal problem should vanish.
But, that is in an ideal world.
I may be a Son of the American Revolution, but that doesn’t make me a nativist. What is it to be American? It is to hold to a set of values beneath our constitution. (And to live here.) Ancestry don’t mean a thing.
I’m curious – what motive would JPod ascribe to my better half? She’s a legal immigrant not in favor of illegal immigration.
I don’t remember voting for Krikorian or joining his club, so I’m going to object to him speaking for me. The law matters.
I’m in favor of legal immigration, subject to the ability of our society to absorb them. I’m not so interested in creating the next Quebec within the United States. We’d be like Belguim, but the beer would be worse.
By the way, this is one reason why I can’t dig Paleo-cons; they are ‘realists’ only in the sense that they think in terms of How It Is And It Will Never Change. It’s utter bullsh*t. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they’re tired of the crap and not that they are narrow-minded and envious and want to circle their own wagons (which by the way, is a good way to invite economic disaster in the long run.)
Progress is meaningful only insofar as it produces results. Its hard to imagine the mind of people like RP who pretense to be unable to conceive of this possibility – all the while standing on the results of mixed political processes that produced progress (as well as some regress.)
Still, we’ve got Laws that need enforcing.
Sorry, Shad, but that refers to Krikorian and “immigration restrictionists” like him who, as JPod plainly states, are “hiding behind the word ‘illegal'”. None of us who are truly enforcement first-ers would need to hide. JPod clearly refers to this as a fringe view.
Sad. Immigration romantics like Podhoretz and the cheap labor greedheads at the WSJ either can’t understand or won’t admit that, given the “multicultural” (multicommunist) poison that has infected the body politic, we just can’t deal with higher levels of immigration anymore.
They don’t like the warning messages from Krikorian and others, so they shoot the messengers.
I understand that the current movement for restricting immigration is largely driven by legitimate concerns. While racists and nativists are naturally rallying under the same banner, it is unfair and disengenuous to use them as a red herring to disract from those legitimate concerns that are motivating the mainstream of the movement.
That said, I think that too many in the restrictionist camp depend far too much on the legal/illegal distinction as the foundation of their policy arguments. Is there any other context in which we look exclusively at the current letter of the law to decide what should be?
Do we look at the way the 1978 FISA law is written to determine the practicality, Constitutionality, or morality of our current policy regarding electronic surveillance of foreign terrorists? Most of us on the right are demanding revisions in that law precisely because we believe that it enshrines bad policy for the current era, and the left is resisting us with the same cry of “But it’s the law!” that I hear from conservatives on immigration policy.
I say we deport all the illegals to California and then give it back to Mexico. It’s no prize but we don;t have to tell them that. They can have Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer too. The oil here will finally get drilled and really it’s a huge win-win for everybody involved.
Sorry, spongeworthy, but as Krikorian replied, he’s not one of the people who’s bothered with the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration – he’s against it all. He hasn’t been “hiding behind the word “illegal””, which he pointed out in his response by citing some of the pieces he’s written.
Since Krikorian isn’t one of the people who’s based his argument on the distinction between legal and illegal, Podhoretz is being deceptive in making the claims he does. Podhoretz rhetorically swept people who do make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants into the same category as Krikorian (who, again, does not make that distinction), and then used that sleight of hand as the launchpad for claiming that the people who speak out against illegal immigration are arguing in bad faith because they really just hate all foreigners.
“Just as it is unfair to tie White Supremacists to the far left simply because both show an admiration for the pluck of the jihadi “freedom fightersâ€Â,”
Well, I’m all for fairness, but I’m not so sure how you can give lefties a blanket absolution in those instances that they find common ground with the folks whose double wides shake to the sound of Storm Front. Hypothetically, if the people at ANSWER have a point of agreement with a racist organization then I agree it would definitely be inaccurate to suggest, on this single point of agreement that the ANSWER people must also think of non-whites as “mud people”. However, if a group of lefties happens to hold a repugnant opinion, such as, say, the desirability of killing American soldiers in Iraq or Israeli “settlers” in “Palestineâ€Â, and this position is also substantially shared by some on the white supremacist right, then what is wrong with pointing out this convergence of beliefs?
By way of example, it was recently reported that certain lefty secessionists in Vermont played host to a group of Southern Neo-Confederates. Now, I’m confident that few, if any, of these Northeastern lefties want to bring back slavery or create a revived Confederacy of all-white states in parts of our current nation, but, if they choose to crawl in bed with those who do, then there’s not a thing in the world wrong with calling them on their new found friends. I hope your assertion is not a sign of a new kinder and gentler PW that never hurts anyone’s feelings…because that might be a sign of the End Times!
Podheretz’s (and his fellow beltway- and mediacons’) self-image and social position demand that he periodically disdain you, voter, however dishonestly.
He’s not talking to you. He never is.
You’re his occasional rhetorical Other, and when you’re not, you’re a sucker.
(Generic “you,” of course.)
Sorry.
Spongeworthy,
You have a point…up to a point. The US unemployment rate is ridiculously low with something north of 15 million illegals in the country and armed forces around half of Cold War levels with 50 million more in population). Note: If anyone has a better number on illegals, please bring me up to date.
What we all grapple with is how to accommodate the positive aspects of the current “arrangement” while at the same time attenuating the negative aspects. We stabilize at least three economies in Latin America through remittances (Mexico, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic). Low labor costs for everything from poultry to construction hold inflation in check even with tripled oil prices over the past five years.
However, our social infrastructure in law enforcement, health care, and education is being overrun especially in the southern border states, but also in some locales more distant.
How do we fix it? Not with amnesty and not with laser weapons on the Rio Grande. McGehee is close above, but I believe an extra step must be included. The rest of the world recognizes that English IS the language of business and success. It’s not racist to insist that all our education systems stress English primacy. Otherwise, and here’s the really ironic part, the US places itself at a competitive disadvantage on linguistic grounds.
Absolutely nothing.
But I posited as an example a different impetus. Those lefties who have joined the neo-nazis in their anti-semitism should be called on it, and the equations made (I’ve done it myself). But the point was, that not all who converge do so for the same reasons.
And Krikorian returns the volley.
Actually, this isn’t true. FISA was never meant to be applied to NSA military surveillance. So, at least from my perspective, the problem is not that it’s bad law (it is), but rather that it’s being improperly applied.
So I have no problem placing myself firmly in the legal/illegal distinction camp, and doing so with a clear conscience.
Podhoretz rhetorically swept people who do make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants into the same category as Krikorian
You mean when Podhoretz referred to Krikorians position as fringe? I’m sorry, I do not see this at all. Agree to disagree.
I disagree (obviously, else I wouldn’t have written the post). Krikorian clearly doesn’t hide behind such a view, and as I mention in the post proper, Podheretz — by failing to make clear distinctions (he does in the update) — provides ammunition for those who would reduce all who care about the legal/illegal distinction to racists and nativists.
Note at the end of his post how he says “And that now, with real movement in your direction ideologically, you now feel freer to advocate openly what you have always hinted at but have never quite said so blatantly?”
Is it fringe? Or is it some movement that is growing because the masks are dropping?
Krikorian, as he makes clear, never wore a mask. So whose masks are dropping? Who is being impugned here? How is this “real movement” being effected.
I know what the suggestion is — at least practically. And I think Shad has done a good job of explaining why I reached the conclusion I did.
I think JPod is right in that the tenor of the discussion has changed rapidly, I think he’s just reacting to that. This did go from the backburner to a highly charged issue very quickly, and I think it’s his instinct to find that highly meaningful. I don’t like him either but that’s because I generally don’t find him to be particularly serious and I can do that for myself.
“That said, I think that too many in the restrictionist camp depend far too much on the legal/illegal distinction as the foundation of their policy arguments. Is there any other context in which we look exclusively at the current letter of the law to decide what should be?”
They do that because the “politically correct” and “multicultural” academic and media elites have forced them to make a distinction, rather than talk about the simple facts of quality (skill level and cultural compatibility) and quantity (raw numbers) of immigrants.
And it’s sad to see Podhoretz, who should know better, react in the same fashion as the cultural marxist studies departments in academia do. He knows better.
[…] last night, but now it seems unexpectedly timely as an immigration slapfight has broken out at NRO. Jeff Goldstein has links and great commentary of his own. Posted in: Open Borders Lobby, Immigration Send to a […]
Sorry guys, both Jeff and Shad, but Podhoretz is very plain in acknowledging that most people favor legal immigration. He refers to Krikorians “no immigration” position as an extremist view that only has support at the fringe.
He may have been incorrect about Krikorian’s supposed deception, but his criticisms on that count are aimed at Krikorian. I see no language that would lead me to believe he’s impugning anybody but Krikorian and the “no immigration” crowd at NR.
I keep waitng for a light to go on and then embrace your view, but I cannot overcome Podhoretz’s flat-out statement that Krikorian holds a fringe view.
Podheretz is obnoxious, he also isn’t half the thinker his father is.
His entire position in the ‘debate’ was disingenuous towards both Derbyshire and Krikorian’s positions. There is no “no immigration” crowd at the corner. There is a “slow immigration to allow assimilation” crowd, which I, and most of American history would agree with (see 1924-1965).
That someone like Spongeworthy is ignorant to the fact that even Krikorian’s is in favor of half a million legal immigrants a year is evidence of Podheretz’s disingenuousness.
That isn’t Krikorian’s position.
Reading The Corner makes me not particularly happy to be a Republican so I only click on links other people have already filtered.
Oh for crying out loud, both of you. I am well aware that Krikorian spelled out the conditions by which he would deign to allow 4-500,000 new legal immigrants. “No immigration” only serves to differentiate Krikorian’s position form that of the “no illegal immigration” advocates.
“And it’s sad to see Podhoretz, who should know better, react in the same fashion as the cultural marxist studies departments in academia do. He knows better.”
The entire “debate” started with the nauseating (for it to occur on the Corner) scene of Podheretz telling Derbyshire he shouldn’t hold a position cause he and his wife are immigrants themselves. I.e. identity politics.
I’m not sure that Podheretz does know better, considering both that, and his attempts to stress the importance of his Jewishness to open immigration (even blaming historical American immigration policy for millions of dead Jews). Pathetic. (I’m Jewish myself, so I can speak so bluntly. Fear the identity shield.)
It was the snotty Indian guy and the fat girl that got on my nerves mostly.
“Oh for crying out loud, both of you. I am well aware that Krikorian spelled out the conditions by which he would deign to allow 4-500,000 new legal immigrants. “No immigration†only serves to differentiate Krikorian’s position form that of the “no illegal immigration†advocates.”
Then find a new label.
“Oh for crying out loud, both of you. I am well aware that Krikorian spelled out the conditions by which he would deign to allow 4-500,000 new legal immigrants. “No immigration†only serves to differentiate Krikorian’s position form that of the “no illegal immigration†advocates.”
Your assertion “most Americans favor legal immigration” begged two questions:
1. How much? One major city a year, as is current law? I think Krikorian’s curtailment is closer to what the *overwhelming* number of Americans favor, and not just those of us in CA and the Southwest either, who have been raising this “brand new issue” for over two decades now.
2. What kind? Unskilled fruit pickers or former rocket scientists? The latter from the former Soviet Union are a better pick than the former from south of the border. That’s not a slam at any ethnic group, that’s just common sense.
I like fruit.
Then find a new label.
Okay, then the Slow to No Immigration Crowd and No Illegal Immigration Whatever As Opposed to the No Illegal Immigration Bunch. ‘Sat work for you?
Of course, Jeff endorsed Shad’s explanation to me when Shad claimed:
Sorry, spongeworthy, but as Krikorian replied, he’s not one of the people who’s bothered with the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration – he’s against it all.
So once again, logic and consistency take a back seat to slamming those whose opinions differ from the wisdom of the crowds here.
Dunno, Nick, and it’s immaterial to my argument. I think Jeff is unfairly slamming Podhoretz because he chose to ignore some pretty strong terms JPod used to describe Krikorian’s position but chose to read meaning into others in order to make his case.
I am not trying to make Podhoretz’s case, I am knocking Jeffs.
The problem with arguing for an increase in legal immigration, is that we have no idea whether we need it or can properly assimilate greater numbers of legal immigrants, because the influx of illegal immigrants is so incredibly huge.
In other words, the realistic approach to this would be:
1) start real enforcement of the borders and immigration laws;
2) allow some time for that to work and for some amount of the current illegal population to self deport;
3) then look and see what need we have for immigration as well as what capacity we have to handle and assimilate such immigrants.
I doubt very much that anyone (even Kirkorian) is absolutely against immigration of all kinds at all times. The point is, right here, right now, we don’t have a handle on it, our borders are not secure, and we are not properly assimilating the immigrants we have (legal or illegal).
Until we get control of this, it is impossible to make a rational decision on what the appropriate level of immigration is, because our data is so corrupted by the vast # of illegal immigrants.
Thus, while I am not against increasing immigration on any kind of principal, I don’t think we have any rational way to know whether we need it or can handle it. My guess is that Kirkorian’s thinking along similar lines.
“I like fruit.”
One could argue that unskilled Southeast Asians have more of a claim to fruit picking work than unskilled Mexicans, because when they were sadly left in the lurch, their villages truly WERE razed in a fashion reminiscient of Jen-Jiss Khan. (No comment from Uncle Walter there either).
It seems to have happened overnight, but in fact the food pantry we donated to over the years was being depleted at a rate we did not see until it became empty.
Now that the food pantry is empty we are being told that we must give up our own food to restock the shelves. It is no longer a donation. It is a requirement.
It is no longer good enough to be charitable in this country. We must accept the fact that we must refill the pantry from our own cupboards, even if it means our own children will go hungry.
That, my friends, is the making of a revolution.
OK, I withdraw the analogy. But I was not saying the legal/illegal argument is hypocritical or inconsistent. My point was that the way it is often made becomes a circular argument: “We must maintain the status quo…because it is the status quo.”
The people who use this logic often proceed to argue that immigration should be further restricted. To do this would, of course, be changing the status quo in one direction, by making a certain class of would-be immigrants who are currently elible for residency, ineligible in the future, so it seems to me that the possibility of changing it in the other direction, by making a certain class of people who are here, but currently ineligible for legal residency, eligible in the future (under certain conditions), should also be a legitimate subject of discussion, even though these people are “illegal” under the current law.
I’ve read a number of these back and forth arguments on The Corner blog over several years. Normally, the participants are airing long standing disagreements with their co-writers. They know each other well and even so sometimes go a little overboard. However, I don’t think Podhoretz was trying to call you a racist pinhead, Jeff.
Maybe he’ll provide an update to clarify that later.
JPod has been consistently pro open-borders for frickin’ years (I’ve read his stuff & corresponded with him several times since the late 90’s). He’s always had a depressing tendency to chuck rational discourse and simply blast away. Inserting his head up his butt. Like now. (Plus, he jusr “admitted” defeat.)
Regardless, he’s a good writer, and well worth following …just not in this …he’s just raging. Ignore it.
…by points: Game, Kirkorian.
jusr …frickin’ Ipaqs are not meant for posting
“I suspect that very few outside the paleocon / Buchananite right agree with Krikorian’s central premise ”
Polls show that the majority of Americans are in favor of cutting back on legal immigration, not just illegal immigration.
There are no good arguments for Americas peculiar immigration laws. JPod inadvertantly mentioned his real reason for his position in a subsequent comment; “Restrictive immigration laws were the first tariffs imposed by this country in the 1920s, and like all tariff policies, they had terrible unintended consequences for the American economy and for the world  in the form of millions who perished in gas chambers, some of whom might have been saved from them under a different immigration regime.”
This is dishonest hackery, but it does get to the core of the reason so many Jews support open borders. But America does not exist to be a haven for people around the world in danger from their own government.
“Podhoretz is very plain in acknowledging that most people favor legal immigration. He refers to Krikorians “no immigration†position as an extremist view that only has support at the fringe.”
Podhoretz is wrong in saying that most people favor large scale immigration, legal or not. And he is incorrect again in describing Krikorian as having a “no immigration” stance. There is a reasonable middle ground between our current open borders system and zero immigration. But Podhoretz is not in it.
I think it is worth noting that Krikorian semi-retracts his statement by saying that we would still have immigration under his ideal, it’s just that we would be very selective.
“I’m with the enforcement crowd, but I can honestly see that it will be impossible to expel the illegals. My idea is that we should actually enforce our law – for instance, expelling criminal illegals and not letting illegals back in (or in at all.)”
All of the illegals are criminals. That’s why we call them “illegals”.
And before you start in with speeding ticket analogies, giving a fake SSN is a felony which should get you five years in jail. Unless you are an illegal immigrant, in which case our government wants to give you amnesty.
“I think it is worth noting that Krikorian semi-retracts his statement by saying that we would still have immigration under his ideal, it’s just that we would be very selective.”
I don’t see that as a retraction.
I don’t see any discussion here of the idea – “Immigration Is Incompatible With a Modern Society”. What say you all?
I like immigrants and I go out of my way to be very kind to them.
If the immigrants went away I would be sad but I think I would adjust ok.
Cynn, is that you?
You really find this endemic? I mean, the “once again” suggests that there is a pattern of such behavior.
I tried to explain my thinking. You can think me wrong — I’m cool with that, and I don’t think I “slammed” Pod as much as noted how his rhetoric was providing cover for the Carics of the world — but I think it’s a bit much to suggest that this is some sort of echo chamber.
JPod has been consistently pro open-borders for frickin’ years (I’ve read his stuff & corresponded with him several times since the late 90’s). He’s always had a depressing tendency to chuck rational discourse and simply blast away. Inserting his head up his butt. Like now. (Plus, he jusr “admitted†defeat.)
Regardless, he’s a good writer, and well worth following …just not in this
Thats where I was for a while but then it occured to me that it was a huge contradiction. How can he be a good writer when he comes up with nonsense like he just did. And he does that sort of thing repeatedly.
It’s that toward the end he suggests the view is no longer quite so fringy — that it’s actually picking up steam — and the masks are dropping.
Having said that, I like JPod. And I haven’t followed the previous exchanges there, which may have loaded this exchange with intertextual baggage that I didn’t account for.
I wish he’d been more clear — and in the update he was. Which is why I included it. Unfortunately, it comes off a bit condescending.
Doesn’t mean I don’t like JPod. I do. Just found this a bit offputting, because I’ve seen how it’s used against folks who genuinely do care about the legal/illegal distinction.
If I’ve misrepresented JPod’s views, I apologize. And if he’s reading this and would like to clarify, I’d be happy to post his clarification.
Given what Derbs said earlier this week, he’s probably trying to afford cover.
I, on the other hand, expect immigrants to go out of their way to get along with me. I am not required to accommodate them. I like small amounts of LEGAL immigrants with values compatible with our society’s.
“Immigration Is Incompatible With a Modern Societyâ€Â
I can think of one or two counter examples but that’s not really discussion, is it? Sorry, I’m just not big on theory.
Half the people who are already citizens don’t have values compatible with our society’s, and they don’t have charming accents and interesting food and a general air of optimism.
Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.
I took an immigrant to prom. She’s a doctor now.
My mother is an immigrant, born in a refugee camp. We’re talking about national policy, not personal anecdotes.
Keep thinking that.
“Regardless, [JPod’s] a good writer, and well worth following …just not in this”
He is? I have to say, I have never seen him say anything interesting or intelligent. I get the feeling he owes his position to being his fathers son.
“I like immigrants and I go out of my way to be very kind to them.”
That does not seem like a useful guide for setting policy for a nation, however commendable it is on in individual level. Although I’d extend it beyond immigrants to people at large. Including plain old Americans.
Yes. But it’s a long story. My mom and dad sponsored a Vietnamese family is where it started. More to the point, I think our personal experiences with immigration are pretty inseparable from the policies that seem right and just. I grew up in south Texas, and that’s definitely not something I can just shake. That said, no sense inviting a bunch of immigrants if everyone is going to just treat them like a bunch of immigrants, so whatever you guys decide, I’ll work with it.
As usual, the definition of terms is crucial.
A person who arrives in a country with the intent of becoming a part of the cultural, social, and economic structure of that country is an immigrant. Such people may not be able to fully participate, but if they arrive with the intent they will make efforts to do so, especially as regards seeing to it that their children are as fully equipped as possible for the new life.
A person who arrives in a new country intending only to parasitize the economic forces of that country while maintaining the culture, society, and folkways of, and allegiance to, his former home is not an “immigrant” in any sense that means anything. Such a person may be a “guest worker”, a “refugee”, or any of several different categories, but calling them “immigrants” begs the question and confuses the issue.
I am 100% in favor of immigration under that definition and do not wish to distinguish between educated and uneducated immigrants — in general, if they are true immigrants their children will be contributors even where the parents are unable to do so because of language issues or any number of different forces, and the net result is a country that is stronger and wealthier. I am not quite 100% opposed to the importation of parasites, because there are humanitarian grounds upon which refugees and the like should be admitted, but I am strongly against the mass importation of parasites whilst pretending that they are “immigrants”.
Regards,
Ric
Such language. Point is, you look at a certain category of immigration you find problematic, and just like a liberal you want the government to fix it. What’s your company doing? Your church? You? Assimilation doesn’t just happen. It’s a process, and it can be encouraged even in the face of government policies and media that discourage it. What’s magical and fun is that assimilating a critical mass of the immigrant population you’re concerned about takes care of the rest. But if you want government schools and government social agencies to take the lead on this, you’re going to be disappointed. Myself, I’m resigned to conservatives just standing around bitching, but it’s not a particularly conservativey approach I think.
No, feets, I don’t want the Government to fix it.
I want the Government to stop preventing it from being fixed. There’s a small but fairly crucial distinction there.
Regards,
Ric
It’s like Shake-n-Bake though. Mom does most of the work but you can help.
Martinez Quits As RNC General Chairman
That seems related somehow.
“I think our personal experiences with immigration are pretty inseparable from the policies that seem right and just. ”
Sounds like you are saying that the personal is the political. Not the most conservativey oulook. The government is not an individual writ large.
“Martinez Quits As RNC General Chairman”
Wahoo! Now, lets see if a conservative replaces him.
That’s not exactly what I’m getting at, more from the other angle of what it is that dictates which pandering we’ll be vulnerable to, is more what I meant. This is why both parties want to do things comprehensively.
“which pandering we’ll be vulnerable to”
The country would be so much better off if everyone simply decided for themselves what it is they want, instead of constantly looking at other people to see what they want and adjusting their opinions accordingly.
“This is why both parties want to do things comprehensively.”
Both parties want to do things “comprehensively” for the most cynical and corrupt of motives. I don’t see why we should play along with our fleecing.
Jeff,
Good to see the quality of this blog has not degraded. I should really make this a regular read.
There is more anger over illegal immigration because the American people never consented to it. National sovereignty loses its meaning entirely when borders are not enforced, when a nation becomes merely a place. These distinctions are not to be glossed over. Even if illegal and legal immigration are equally harmful to social cohesion and economic well being, the harm to the rule of law and the integrity of national soveriegnty is much greater in the case of illegal immigration.
But let us not forget, though, that the American people were lied to about legal immigration, too. I’m sure you’ve read the Kennedy quotes saying the 1960s immigration act wouldn’t change America’s racial composition.
One more point: I’m perplexed why opposing the present immigration system is supposed to be the moral trump card JPOD thinks it is. I oppose illegal immigration and wish to greatly curb legal immigration, particularly among the uneducated and unskilled. So what? Deal with the arguments, people. Is massive unskilled immigration good for America? Are immigrants assimilating? Etc. JPOD is horribly misinformed on this topic, I’m afraid. He stated in that debate that 25% of Americans were foriegn born in the early 20th century. That is around double the actual number. We’re about at historic highs today, except our society is far less able to meaningful assimilate immigrants. Misinformed moral preeners like JPOD want even more.
I truly do not want international scofflaws in the US in any way, shape or form. I am against illegally coming to this Nation for not only the Constitutional grounds, but the Law of Nations grounds, Treaty breaching grounds, and most Nations have some regularization of folks leaving. Those are major things that folks are disdaining to follow when they decide to be international scofflaws: breaking our laws, treaties, the sovereignty of the our Nation and, most likely, the laws of the Nation they are exiting in an irregular fashion.
Legal immigration to the US is set by Congress and by regularized treaties. Only those in repressive regimes get any hearing on asylum. I do like the concept of legal immigration set by Congress, adhered to by treaty and regularized by the Nations involved. Anything else is throwing all of those systems out for ‘expediency’. When those things become ‘expedient’ then so do *your* liberty, rights and freedom.
Apparently such things are not taught much these days… very handy if you are seeking to erode the liberty and rights of individuals. You can’t forget it if you don’t know it.
[…] what the specifics of policy are if the rules are systematically and intentionally unenforced. (Further reading, here.) In other words, until our President, Congress, Judiciary, and others need to get on the same page […]