I was very disappointed by the panel discussion on immigration this Sunday. I suspect it was disappointing because Brit Hume was not there. He has a distinct skill for bringing structure to the discussion.
None of the panelists gave a clear and structured analysis of the issues. The discussion just devolved into the usual “some politicians are bad because they are against immigration and other politicians are courageous because they are standing up for immigration and immigrants” banter. None of the panelists explained that the issue here is controlled immigration v. uncontrolled immigration. After 9/11, is suspect most Americans are strongly in favor of controlling immigration more than we have in the past. It is reasonable to think that we should know who we are letting in this country.
That does not mean they are anti-immigration. We can erect a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and still allow the same number of immigrants. We would just have to change the immigration statute to raise the number of Mexicans allowed to immigrate into the U.S. That is a political debate that I think we should have.
It is actually absurd to create a program of amnesty for illegal immigrants before we control immigration. If we did, we would create an even greater incentive for immigrants to cross into the US illegally so that they can participate in the program thereby worsening uncontrolled immigration.
I challenge you to ask you panelists to defend uncontrolled immigration vs. controlled immigration. I suspect they cannot – because there is nothing we can get from uncontrolled immigration that we cannot get from controlled immigration - except perhaps a greater security threat.
Uncontrolled immigration also harms controlled immigration. We limit legal immigration too much because there is a perception by the public that there are already too many illegal immigrants in this country. As a result, we miss the opportunity to allow more of the best and brightest in the world to come here legally (from Mexico and other countries) so that we can allow “?” to sneak across the border and tarnish his/her first involvement in this country with a violation of this country’s laws.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Fox News Failure
Here is the body of e-mail I sent to Fox News Sunday regarding their March 26, 2006 panel discussion on Immigration Reform. I thought the discussion was disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There are no convincing statistics, for me, which prove that this vast supply of illegals is good for the US. Crime, dependencies of all kinds, health issues, education (40% of their kids leave the school systems before graduation) and even the economic potential of underpaid workers is overestimated when other factors are considered.
Even the "nation of immigrants" incantation is so much crap. The waves of immigrants who came to the US from the late 19th century to the first third of the 20th, came under different circumstances, under a different process to a nation with a much more dominating and conformist (or oppressive, depending upon one's politics) culture. Acculturation was either freely accepted, or coerced by economic and educational expectations. Immigrants became "Americans" because they had no other choice.
Be that as it may, the principle issue in contention is assimilation, which is quite unlikely due to the lunacies of multiculturalism and the broad decline in national identity in this country. The same, although worse, conditions apply across Europe.
Forming in the immigrants' collective consciousness is also the fiction generated by the chattering classes that this is an historical migration, both ineluctable, necessary and healthy. The administration is adding its weight to this point of view. I have no confidence that this or any other administration will rise to the occasion; feeble, mollifying plans and lies will substitute for real action.
Rhod
Good points Rhod. I think assimilation is key and it only happens properly with a confident culture. Multiculti ideals have weakened our confidence in our culture - they have destroyed Europe's.
I am not as dark on the assimilation of Mexicans and South Americans. The vast majority of assimilation occurs with the first generation born and raised here. So many have come here in the past 2 and 1/2 decades that jury is not in yet on whether it is happening as it did with immigrants years ago. The fact that they share the same religion as the majority of Americans and speak a romance language means there is nothing fundamental that will block their assimilation.
I suspect that because of our weakened culture that the assimilation process will not be as complete or as quick as it was with past groups of immigrants. There are some encouraging signs, however. For instance, Hispanic participation in our military is very high - it seems to me.
On the other hand, Europe's situation is scary. The Muslim immigrants to EU share neither the same language nor the dominant religion. Further, the EU's are moribund by political correctness and multiculturalism.
The most important point for me is that we must control our borders and uphold our laws. The current climate equates any desire to do those things with racism. no doubt this view is pushed because it is considered noble to disobey "racist" laws since the civil rights movement began. Of course, that equation is nonsense. But, it is seductive because it is simple and seemingly compelling.
BTW there a great Mark Steyn article on www.steynonline.com where he expresses many of your concerns regarding this administration's and other western government's postures regarding Islam and the "war on terror". Seems to me that Mark might be reading your comments on DC ;)
Hi Cruise:
I found Steyn's column at a link from Instapundit. Yeah, Steyn and I are THIS close (two fingers together); he consults with me all the time. Would that it were true. The man is brilliant.
He mentioned something else I agree with, and I must have no integrity at all if I bring it up...but there's a Carteresque quality to Bush's governance, and it might originate in the submissive end of Christianity, although Carter was utterly perverse and Bush's is sincere.
Carter rationalized evil in the world by claiming that it had a place, that it was a form of rationality in itself which should not be judged, but changed by example.
I'm convinced that Carter had pathological needs for doing this, where Bush does the same thing in more broad and indiscriminate ways that have more to do avoiding the corruption that accompanies the poison of anger.
It leads him to muddy moral dilemmas; causes him to praise his critics through the lightest of explanations for their bile (they have a right to their opinions, etc.), and still hasn't decided just who we're fighting in the WOT.
That's why he calls it a WOT.
This a very grave problem. Americans will grow tired and fatalistic about this war, I think, because of the thin and wattery gruel they've been fed by Bush, and this might be as dangerous as having a lefty in charge.
Post a Comment