The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

“No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration,” gasps neoconservative David Frum in National Review’s Dec. 31 cover story. [Full article here].

Mr. Frum, the original “patriotic conservative” who tried to smear the entire anti-war right as “unpatriotic” back in 2003, has now defected from the ranks of the Open Border lobby, at least in a way.

Should those who were never part of that lobby welcome him?

Not especially. He still doesn’t quite get what the real problem with mass immigration is—in part because he’s not that much of a patriot himself.

Mr. Frum’s article pants that the Republican Party will actually be harmed by the mass immigration it has refused to control for the last two decades and that it’s high time the GOP did something about it.

Indeed, that seems to be the major thrust of his case against immigration—it’s bad for the Republicans.

That there are other reasons for being for tighter immigration control or even for a complete moratorium he only obliquely suggests.

There are some national security problems with letting millions of aliens ramble across your borders, and there are some economic problems with permitting “entry by an ever-expanding number of low-skilled workers, threatening the livelihoods of low-skilled Americans.”

But nowhere does our Patriot mention the major problem immigration causes—the creation of a massive subculture of unassimilated Third World aliens inside the country.

For Mr. Frum, the immigration problem is mainly political, and partisan politics at that. “GOP You Are Warned,” the article’s title rumbles.

Of course Mr. Frum is right about that, but it’s interesting that this is hardly the first time National Review has issued such a warning. Back in 1997, Peter Brimelow, then an NR senior editor, and Ed Rubenstein wrote an article warning the Republicans of the same thing—but for rather different reasons.

The Brimelow-Rubenstein article argued that immigration would hurt Republicans because immigrants would vote for the Democrats (and they do). Mr. Frum is arguing that Republican failure to deal with the immigration crisis could alienate the party’s base (and it will).

“There’s no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party’s leaders,” he writes. “Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP.”

But what he misses is just why the “party rank-and-file” is so upset about immigration.

It’s upset for precisely the cultural and national reasons I noted and which Mr. Frum rather manages to miss. National security and economics are significant parts of the case against immigration, but mainly Americans don’t like their nation being colonized by an alien, Third World mass that speaks a different language, imports different values and is often loyal to a different country.

The problem, as Mr., Frum sees it, is that sooner or later the Democrats will seize the immigration issue if Republicans don’t deal with it—as I argued also in a recent column, quoting none other than Hillary Clinton’s dim views of illegal immigration.

Mr. Frum quotes the same remarks, but if Hillary can’t walk off with the GOP base, he suggests, there may well be other Democrats who could use the immigration issue to do just that.

He thinks the way the party should deal with the issue is to “develop and practice a new way of speaking about immigration, one that makes clear that enforcement of the immigration laws is not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican: It is anti-bad employer,because employers hire illegals at the expense of Americans and legal immigrants.

Of course, the Open Borders people have an easy and perfectly logical answer to that: Legalize it all.

If the only problem with illegal immigration is that it’s illegal, if you’re not willing to say mass immigration by itself is a problem, then why should we have any laws against it at all?

The famous Wall Street Journal position—“there shall be open borders”—is the logical conclusion.

Mr. Frum’s only response to this, apparently, would be that there’s the security problem, but that’s flaccid enough.

His real problem is that he—like most of the rest of the neo-conservatives—will not affirm the reality and significance of the nation, the national identity.

Security, economy and party interests are all well and good, but the fundamental issue in the immigration debate is who we are and what sort of nation we want to be.

Mr. Frum, like a lot of his neo-con buddies, for all their ballyhoo about “patriotism,” doesn’t seem to offer a very clear answer.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Despite what the Republican leadership would like us to think, all is not harmony and light between the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House.

Emerging unpleasantness on the issues of Social Security and looming Supreme Court appointments are part of the problem, but a split on immigration reform looms larger still.

Last week the Washington Post detailed how

“President Bush’s plan to liberalize the nation’s immigration laws to allow millions of undocumented workers [libspeak for "illegal aliens"] the opportunity for legal status appears to be on a collision course with newly aroused sentiment among House Republicans pushing for a crackdown on illegal immigration.” [Bush Immigration Plan Meets GOP Opposition, By Michael A. Fletcher, January 2, 2005]

This is hardly news, since the collision actually already occurred last year, when congressional (including Republican) reception of the president’s amnesty plan for illegals was so tepid we heard nothing more about it until after the election.

What’s new now is that the ill-conceived plan is back and, as the Postnotes, the course is set for another collision.

Indeed, last year there was yet another collision over the issue when many House Republicans wanted immigration control measures in the intelligence reform bill the White House was badgering them to pass. Eventually, the bill did pass, but minus the immigration stuff, because the president swore he’d support separate legislation for it this year.

The reason for all these collisions of course is that the immigration issue, after decades of slumber, is now beginning to rouse itself, and even politicians have to notice that, sooner or later.

That makes many observers think Congress or the White House or both together will soon start “cracking down” on immigration.

Maybe, but don’t bet your green card on it.

Most of the specific measures the so-called “immigration control”members of Congress are talking about are in fact little more than eyewash—not bad in themselves but far from being enough to stop the massive invasion of the United States by aliens of profoundly different national and cultural identities.

They may, however, be enough to convince voters that their congressmen are doing something to stop it, and that’s what the congressmen will be interested in accomplishing.

Thus, the Post mentions several specific measures the immigration control guys want to pass—completion of a fence along the Mexican border to keep illegal aliens out; a law to set up tougher state standards for driver’s licenses for illegal aliens; and making it harder for immigrants to claim asylum. The plain truth is that most of this stuff is low-cal salad dressing.

There is every reason to have more effective border security, and in various places along the border, fences are fine—if they are watched by competent border guards, if they are maintained, and if those who try to cross them are sent back.

The point is that building fences won’t solve the immigration problem unless the nation—meaning in this context the Congress and the White House—has the will to solve it.

The same is true of driver’s licenses (illegal immigrants shouldn’t be getting licenses period, and no state should be granting them).

The very fact that we are now solemnly talking about “tougher standards” for licenses for illegals makes it clear we are not serious about the problem.

The danger is not only that congressmen will demand these and similar measures as their contributions to stopping the immigration invasion and will then exploit such measures to delude voters into thinking something serious has been done, but also that the same legislators will then support Mr. Bush’s amnesty package as the price of the “reforms” they’ve so valiantly hammered through Congress.

The net intended effect of such measures would be to put the immigration issue back to sleep. But that’s not the effect they may actually have.

The immigration issue is awakening for the simple reason that Americans in areas far removed from the Mexican border are now for the first time beginning to see their local communities transformed by the realities of mass immigration from the Third World—crime, disease,poverty, overcrowding, welfare, the wreckage of schools, and the obvious cultural disintegration that uncontrolled immigration brings.

Congress and the White House can collude to serve up whatever eyewash they can concoct to make voters now clearly alerted to and worried about immigration forget and ignore what’s happening.

But my bet is that the invasion has now gone too far and the awareness of it is now too deep for that tactic to work.

Sooner or later those in Congress and the White House are going to have to confront the immigration crisis seriously—which means a moratorium and probably troops on the border—or else find themselves facing political opponents in future elections who will be serious.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

It’s beginning to dawn, even on American politicians, that you cannot have something like 34 million immigrants in the country and not expect immigration to become a major political issue.

The latest politician in whose brain this insight has blossomed is the junior senator from New York and very possibly the next president of the United States: Mrs. William J. Clinton, popularly known as Hillary.”

The Washington Times reports that “Hillary goes conservative on immigration,” [by Charles Hurt, December 13, 2004] which means, in case you’re the kind of “conservative” who thinks mass immigration is a good thing, that she is opposed to immigration.

Or at least that is what the noises she is making about the issue would suggest.

Mrs. Clinton, widely suspected of being the next Democratic presidential nominee in a year when the incumbent Republican leaves office, has a pretty good chance of being the next president, and it’s interesting she’s making the noises on immigration she is.

In 2002, Mrs. Clinton won the New York Senate race with some 85 percent of the state’s Hispanic vote.

That by itself would suggest that Hispanics are a major constituency for her, at least in the state and probably nationally, and that she really doesn’t want to alienate them by being against more immigration.

Then again, maybe Mrs. Clinton is just a little smarter than a good many of the Republicans who adhere to the Open Borders lobby propaganda lines that

(a) all Hispanics are necessarily for immigration and

(b) being against immigration or some of it will lose you the Hispanic vote.

In short, Mrs. Clinton, unlike some Republicans, might actually have looked at this year’s election returns.

Maybe so, but even if she’s thinking about making immigration control a major part of her future political strategy, she seems to have a ways to go before she figures out how to do it. Consider, for example, some of what she’s been saying, as the Times reports it.

Almost everything Mrs. Clinton has said about the issue centers on illegal immigration. That’s fine as far as it goes, but most experts and political leaders who are serious about the issue understand that illegal immigration is only part of the problem. The even more massive legal immigration causes the same problems as the illegal kind.

In a recent interview on WABC radio, the Times reports Mrs. Clinton as saying, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Yes, but you see, no knowledgeable person who’s really against illegal immigration would say he’s “against illegal immigrants.” It’s immigration, not the immigrants, that’s objectionable. Being “anti-immigrant” is in fact a canard the Open Borders lobby uses to claim that supporters of immigration control just dislike the immigrants themselves.

In the same interview, she also said,

“Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country, and one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry-and-exit system so that if we’re going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let’s have a system that keeps track of them.”

Yes, well, that’s more or less what President Bush claims he’s proposing in his “guest worker” program that is really an amnesty for illegals. The problem with the kind of guest worker or “entry and exit” programs they’re proposing is that they’re all entry and no exit. Once the immigrants come in, no one will be able to make them go back.

Mrs. Clinton may or may not be serious about her new noises against immigration. Personally I hope she is and that she learns more about it and thinks it through a bit more than she seems to have done.

But what’s really significant about her immigration control posturing is that it’s happening at all.

“She’s not a dumb woman,” a spokesman for immigration control champion Tom Tancredo told the Times. “She’s got a great liberal base, and she realizes there’s no better way to draw in more conservative voters. She has really come out to the forefront on that.”

After years of trying to explain to the leadership of the Republican Party that mass immigration is not only a danger to our national security and identity, conservatives may now be on the eve of finding that the person who has really paid attention is someone whom most conservatives loathe.

In fact, that outcome was probably inevitable.

As libertarians and neo-cons badgered the Republicans into ignoring the immigration issue totally, it was probably only a matter of time before someone not at all a conservative perceived what the immigration issue could gain him (or her).

If Mrs. Clinton lights her path toward the White House with the issue of immigration control in a serious way, the Open Borders Republicans may find they merely dug their own political graves.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Hillary Clinton, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

On a recent Thanksgiving trip to Washington, relatives of mine had their car stopped near the Capitol and subjected to a bomb searchby—somebody or another, the local cops, the federal cops, the Homeland Security cops, the UN cops, who knows and who can tell anymore?

There was no bomb of course (not even my relatives carry them in their cars) and there is no “horror story,” except for the horror to which we have all become so habituated that nobody even notices it—that perfectly innocent, law-abiding Americans are stopped, their time consumed, and their property pawed over by government parasites who have no better way to justify their presence at the public trough.

For the real horror of the week you have to go to Long Island.

There, the New York Times reports, Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, after listening to a rising level of anger from voters about the impact of immigration on their community,

“floated a proposal to deputize some Suffolk County police officers, giving them the power to detain people found to be in the United States illegally after being taken into custody on other charges. Right now, Suffolk police and corrections officers say, they are prohibited from asking immigrants whether they are in the country legally.” [L.I. Clash on Immigrants Is Gaining Political Force, By PATRICK HEALY, November 29, 2004]

The plan went nowhere, mainly because local police unions objected to it (no reasons given), and of course the professional aliens lobby didn’t much care for it either.

“But advocacy groups and residents of Suffolk and Nassau Counties say the proposal is a sign of the times. They say the issue of illegal immigration is rapidly gathering political force in Long Island’s patchwork of historically white suburban hamlets, and as the complaints grow, politicians are responding with get-tough rhetoric, crackdowns and new laws.”

The issue of illegal immigration is rapidly gathering political force in places like Suffolk because such places have not enjoyed all the glories of mass immigration the Open Borders Lobby has promised them for so long. The issue will come to many, many more such places as those glories fail to arrive there either.

What has come to Suffolk, the Times reports, is “a commensurate strain on public services like schools, garbage collection and sewer systems in an area where residents pay some of the highest taxes in the country” and citizens’ complaints that “the influx of immigrants has brought noise violations, littering, people drinking and urinating in public and driveways crammed with cars.”

Suffolk is not alone. “Communities across the nation—from Mesa, Ariz., to Hoover, Ala., to Freehold, N.J.—have faced similar struggles. Day laborers have been shut out and demonstrated against, and have become the targets of political campaigns.”

But the emerging political issue is not what is really noteworthy in the story. What is noteworthy is the utter indifference of most of the governing authorities to the “day laborer problem” at all. Of course there is no “day laborer problem”—the people of whom President Bush smugly remarked a few days ago, “We’d much rather have security guards running down terrorists or drug runners or drug smugglers than people coming to work.”

The problem is immigration and the refusal of public authority at any level in the country—from the White House to the county cops—to deal with it.

As noted, local law enforcement is not permitted to ask if an immigrant is legally in the country, but the federals don’t ask at all. Ever since the Clinton administration, immigration authorities have abandoned “interior enforcement”—if you make it a few miles over the border, you need have no fear of being busted for violating federal immigration statutes because the authorities don’t even try to enforce them.

The horror is that despite the obvious harm of mass immigration on the daily life of American communities, authorities are not willing to take any even elementary steps to control or check it. Their reluctance obviously doesn’t extend to snooping around law-abiding Americans who have to put up with random “bomb searches.”

But the reason we have to have bomb searches at all is that the authorities for decades have refused to enforce existing immigration laws, so that we now have imported a massive potential fifth column able and willing to wage terrorism against us.

What President Bush doesn’t get (among much else) is that “coming to work” can be as much an act of warfare as setting bombs and is often a rather more effective weapon with which to destroy a nation.

The price of mass immigration is not only cultural disintegration but also the gradual construction of a police state that becomes the only force able to hold the country together once mass immigration has come to work.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Just exactly how many murders will it take to convince the Open Borders lobby, whose leader now seems to be President Bush, that mass Third World immigration is not such a good idea?

Up in Wisconsin, a gentleman named Chai Soua Vang, a 36-year-old Hmong immigrant, just blew away six people, apparently because they threw him out of their privately-owned deer stand he had decided to take over for his own use.

Ten years ago immigration expert Roy Beck wrote a path-breaking article in the Atlantic Monthly about the Hmong immigrants in Wausau, Wisconsin, a discussion he repeated in his later book, The Case against Immigration.

“The number of Southeast Asians burgeoned, and the city’s ability to welcome, nurture, accommodate, and assimilate the larger numbers shrank. Most immigrants were unable to enter the mainstream of the economy. Residents resented the social costs of caring for many more newcomers than anybody had been led to believe would arrive. Inter-ethnic violence and other tensions proliferated in the schools and in the parks and streets of a town that formerly had been virtually free of social tensions and violence.”

That’s only a selection, but what Mr. Beck described is the predictable result of the mass immigration of a radically different people into a homogeneous community.

Obviously, not all or even most immigrants turn out to be spree killers, and obviously there are plenty of home-grown ones—Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, et al.

But in recent years immigrants, and especially those from non-Western and non-white parts of the world, have contributed more than their fair share to the annals of atrocity crimes.

The most obvious is the World Trade Center in 2001, but well before that Jamaican immigrant Colin Ferguson murdered six passengers on a commuter train on Long Island in 1993.

Pakistani immigrant Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two people outside CIA headquarters in the same year, which was the year after aliens first tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

In 1997 immigrant Ali Abu Kamal shot up the tourists at the Empire State Building, and later two more immigrants were arrested for trying to blow up the New York subway system.

There are a number of other cases that made national news at the time.

Are they all just coincidences? Not exactly.

The link between immigration and violence is that the aliens lack roots in the society and civilization into which they import themselves. The people they see aren’t their people, and their moral and social norms aren’t theirs either. Being strangers in a strange land, they feel little obligation to it or its members.

For immigrants on the fringe, the resulting tensions can overflow, and it’s not easy even for those not so fringe.

Thus, the Washington Post, not exactly a hotbed of nativist bigotry, offers this editorializing in its news article about the Wisconsin killings.

“Rules and etiquette on American hunting passed from generation to generation have proved unfamiliar to many Hmong, who come from Laos, where hunting is a practiced skill. The Lao mountains are among the wildest and least populated areas of the world. There are no regulations about what, where or when to hunt. Conservation officers and property owners in several states have reported conflicts with the Hmong over their hunting practices, often because they did not understand American traditions. Four years ago, Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources hired a Hmong officer to teach the community about local hunting and fishing rules.” [In Deer Country, a Puzzling Shooting Spree, By Peter Slevin and Kari Lydersen, November 23, 2004]

Well, I guess maybe the Department of Natural Resources didn’t do such a bang-up job, and who can blame it?

Why should we need government bureaucracies to explain our traditions and values to masses of aliens who have no business coming here at all?

The “conflicts with the Hmong” the Post mentions so demurely are not just about hunting, and the conflicts are not confined to the Hmong.

The exact same kinds of conflicts are obvious to anyone who deals with Third Worlders on any large scale.

Will the Wisconsin mass murders of which Mr. Vang is accused lead the dominant culture to start rethinking immigration and its social consequences?

Not a bit. Here’s what ABC News found to worry about in the incident:

“Vang’s arrest left some Hmong citizens in his hometown fearful of a backlash. About 24,000 Hmong live in St. Paul, the highest concentration of any U.S. city. And the shooting has already provoked racial tension in an area of Wisconsin where deer hunting is steeped in tradition.” [Hunting Death Suspect's Relatives Shocked, ABC News, (AP) November 24, 2004]

That’s the real problem, you see, not immigration but the racial backlash” that may or may not come about from the white people whose friends and neighbors Mr. Vang slaughtered.

Maybe the Department of Natural Resources can send in a team to teach them about racism.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration, Race/Crime 
🔊 Listen RSS

Well, I guess you can’t expect a guy to know what’s going on inside this country just because he’s the President of the United States.

This week President Bush took a trip to Chile, where he more or less officially raised from the dead his defunct amnesty plan of last January.

I guess he missed what’s been going on about immigration politics in both the country and the Congress ever since the election.

What’s been going on is that major players in Congress have made it known that they don’t like the idea of amnesty that underlies the Bush immigration reform plan.

The most recent sign of displeasure was the refusal of House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner to support the intelligence reform bill the administration has been peddling because the White House won’t support its immigration control measures.

The main reason the bill is in trouble has to do with national security issues, but the opposition of Mr. Sensenbrenner and other lawmakers to what is a major administration and House leadership piece of legislation for reasons of immigration control ought to tell us how important the immigration issue now is.

Unfortunately, it has told the president nothing.

Even before the House conservative revolt over the intelligence bill, the White House should have gotten the message on immigration, from what its own party has been trying to explain to it ever since the election, if not from the election itself.

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who speaks for dozens of House GOP lawmakers on immigration, said bluntly when Secretary of State Colin Powell first revived the amnesty plan a couple of weeks ago that the plan was “dead on arrival.”

Even that was not enough to send the White House the message.

Then California Rep. Elton Gallegly, who chairs an important subcommittee on terrorism of the House International Relations Committee, urged the president not to re-introduce his immigration plan:

“It is our hope that in future discussions with the Mexican government, you will encourage Mexico to do its part to address illegal immigration rather than encourage their citizens to illegally enter the U.S.”

Mr. Gallegly, with at least 21 other members of Congress, wrote to Mr. Bush earlier this month.

Well, as I noted, Mr., Bush has been out of the country and I guess he didn’t get the message, or messages, because when he spoke to a press conference in Chile this week after the summit conference in Santiago, he ignored every one of these warning signs that his ill-advised amnesty plan is no more popular with his own party and its leaders now than it was when he first popped it on them last January.

Mr. Bush also claimed that he had “campaigned on this issue,”presumably meaning immigration, if not amnesty itself, during the election, which is simply not true.

If he mentioned it at all in the campaign it seems to have escaped notice, save during the third presidential debate when the moderator brought it up.

And Mr. Bush then emitted one of the inane remarks for which he has become famous:

“We’d much rather have security guards running down terrorists or drug runners or drug smugglers than people coming to work.”

No doubt, but to do any of the above, we have to have a lot more security on the border, which we don’t.

What we—the American people—would much rather have is a president who betrays some faint glimmer that the border is out of control and that mass immigration represents not only a major threat to our national security and sovereignty but also a major force threatening the disintegration of our identity as a nation and civilization.

Mr. Bush doesn’t have a clue, or if he does, he is indifferent to it.

What he is not indifferent to, apparently, is what Mexican President Vicente Fox tells him to do. Mr. Fox has been badgering Mr. Bush for years to institute amnesty for Mexican illegals, and that’s what the president’s plan does. Mr. Fox has revived his efforts to get amnesty through since the election, and Mr. Bush has complied.

Why Mr. Bush seems so eager to make his counterpart in Mexico happy over this issue remains unclear, especially given the obvious unhappiness of his own party and the vast majority of Americans with the plan.

But whatever his reasons, the president has been given fair warning by his own party, as well as by various results in this month’s election.

He still doesn’t get the message.

Americans who want to stop the amnesty he is planning to force on the country need to forget the man they just re-elected and make sure their own congressmen and senators know what to do about the disastrous measure he is sending them.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration, Republicans 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Bush administration has read the political tea leaves that this year’s election left at the bottom of the electoral cup and concluded that amnesty for illegal aliens is the message they send.

Since that was the message the administration wanted to see, it’s not surprising that’s the message it gets.

But its tea-leaf readers need to look again to understand the election’s real message on immigration politics.

The administration apparently has embraced the increasingly dubious exit polls that show President Bush winning 44 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally, an increase of some 9 percent for him since 2000. Mr. Bush pandered to Hispanics shamelessly and concocted a temporary workers visa program” that is tantamount to amnesty for illegal aliens; therefore, he won Hispanic votes.

Therefore again, he and his courtiers reason, the way to lock Hispanics into the Republican column is to keep on pandering, and that is why, no sooner was the election over, the administration announced it would revive the amnesty plan.

As political analyst Steve Sailer has argued on VDARE.COM, there are strong reasons to doubt that Mr. Bush really did win 44 percent of the Hispanic vote nationally, and as I have argued myself, even if he did win that much, there is absolutely no reason to think it was because of what the president said or did about immigration or amnesty.

But there’s no reason either to rehearse those arguments again. What’s important is to look at the election returns as they do relate to immigration and related issues.

In Arizona, Proposition 200 passed overwhelmingly with 56 percent of the vote. Prop 200, denounced by the Open Borders lobby, condemned by both Arizona’s senators (Republican), its governor (Democrat), its congressional delegation (mostly Republican but two Democrats), and its Chamber of Commerce (any party it can buy), requires proof of eligibility to receive state benefits or to vote.

The real purpose of Prop 200, of course, was to stop illegal aliens, who lack such proof, from getting welfare and from voting. What sounds like an oatmealish and meaningless ritual in fact contained a powerful message against illegal immigration: You (illegals) are not part of our nation and are not entitled to receive the benefits and privileges Americans are entitled to receive. Go home.

Prop 200 won the support of 47 percent of the state’s Hispanic citizens.

What that exit poll tells us is that pandering to Hispanics on immigration and related issues is not necessarily the way to win their support. Every opinion poll on immigration for the last generation or so has shown that Hispanics oppose mass immigration almost as strongly as non-Hispanics do. Why shouldn’t they? As the Third World ships sink, why should those who make it to the lifeboats welcome everybody else on board?

As for political figures closely associated with restricting immigration, nobody can beat Colorado’s Rep. Tom Tancredo, who has made immigration reform and restriction his signature issue. So hostile was the Bush White House to Mr. Tancredo that Karl Rove reportedly told him he was not welcome there.

This month Mr. Tancredo won re-election by a whopping 60 percent or more—against a heavily funded Democratic opponent.

Mr. Bush, it might be noted, won Colorado by a not-so-whopping 52 percent of the vote. It’s not Mr. Tancredo who shouldn’t be welcome in the White House. It’s Mr. Bush who shouldn’t be welcome in Mr. Tancredo’s district.

What these two sets of exit polls from Arizona and Colorado tell us is not what the tea leaves Mr. Bush is reading say. What these returns tell us is that supporting restrictions on mass immigration not only is not political suicide but in fact is a road to political resurrection.

That’s the same message California sent ten years ago in passing Proposition 187, a measure similar in concept to Prop 200, which passed with some 60 percent of the vote, won House seats for five Republican congressmen, and pulled Republican Gov. Pete Wilson from his political grave.

Nothing has changed since then, including the bottomless capacity of pro-immigration forces to delude themselves and many political leaders that supporting immigration control is politically harmful.

However many Hispanic votes Mr. Bush won this year, he would be well advised not to see in them a message that pro-immigration politics and pro-amnesty proposals are what American voters, including Hispanics, want.

The clear message from this year’s election, in so far as immigration and closely related matters were issues anywhere, is that they don’t want that. What they want is for their government to protect their borders and their nation from the immigration invasion it is experiencing.

Regardless of what the polls really tell us, there’s no reason the government cannot and should not deliver that.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

Barely a week has passed since 84 percent of the nation’s self-described conservatives cast their ballots for George W. Bush, and already the president and his administration have delivered at least two good, strong, swift kicks in the teeth to the voters who elected him. Speaking in Mexico this week Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that the administration will revive its amnesty plan for illegal aliens, and in Washington Hispanic White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was named as the next attorney general.

Mr. Gonzales, considered a liberal on social issues, will be the main official to pick the next Supreme Court justices, including the chief justice. Since one of the major reasons why conservatives voted for Mr. Bush at all was that he would supposedly select more conservative justices than John Kerry, Mr. Gonzales’ appointment is a nice wallop to the conservative face.

It’s also an obvious pander to Hispanics, since the White House has now bought into the claim that the president won some 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in the election due to his warm and toasty amnesty plan. The plan, unveiled last January as a “temporary workers visa program,” was so obviously an amnesty that the president had to drop it for the rest of the election year. Now it’s back, and the election is over.

Mr. Powell explicitly acknowledged the political machinations behind the amnesty.

“In light of the campaign and other things that were going on, we weren’t able to engage the Congress on it,” he said. “But now that the election is behind us and the president is looking to his second term, the president intends to engage Congress on it.” [Powell says Bush will engage Congress on temporary worker proposal, State Department, November 3, 2004]

How about engaging with the masses of Americans who oppose amnesty and who put Mr. Bush in the White House in the first place? Well, they’ve served their purpose and can now be ignored, just as the American ruling class has ignored public opinion on immigration control for decades. Why should this president be any different?

The Washington Times reports that while Mr. Powell was plotting amnesty in Mexico, the president himself was plotting it with Arizona’s Sen. John McCain.

“The president met privately in the Oval Office with Sen. John McCain to discuss jump-starting a stalled White House initiative that would grant legal status to millions of immigrants who broke the law to enter the United States,” the Times reported.

Mr. McCain, it may be recalled, is fresh from the slap in the puss his own state delivered to him and his congressional colleagues for opposing Arizona’s Proposition 200, a ballot measure that effectively denies welfare to illegal aliens and prevents them from fraudulent voting.

Mr. McCain, his colleague Sen. John Kyl and every member of the Arizona congressional delegation opposed Prop 200, as did the local Chamber of Commerce, the governor of the state, and of course the Open Borders lobby. Prop 200 passed by a substantial 56 percent anyway—and with 47 percent Hispanic support.

It’s not surprising the Bush White House is oblivious to the vote on Prop 200. Mr. Bush’s secret agenda since almost the day he entered office has been to enact an amnesty. He nearly did so in September 2001, when certain other business intervened.

He resurrected it early this year, and it went comatose. Now he’s trying to pull it from the grave.

The leader of immigration control forces in Congress, Colorado Rep.Tom Tancredo, who was re-elected by a similarly whopping 60 percent in his district (as opposed to President Bush’s slim 52 percent in Colorado), says the resurrected amnesty plan remains “dead on arrival.” It may well be, but then again, the situation is somewhat different now.

Congressmen now don’t have to worry about what their constituents think for a whole two years, and if they pass amnesty, as they have before, they can hope voters will forget about it. Moreover, with the 44 percent Hispanic Republican myth, many congressmen will simply be afraid to alienate Hispanics. That’s why the 47 percent who supported Prop 200 is important.

Contrary to another myth of the Open Borders lobby, voting for immigration control does not mean political suicide, or even serious political risk. As the votes for the Arizona measure and for Mr. Tancredo show, the reality is that immigration control wins elections.

Immigration was barely mentioned during the presidential campaign, and if Mr. Bush had really wanted to revive his defunct amnesty plan, he should have talked about it a good deal more than he did. He didn’t—because he knew bringing it up would be his own political suicide.

Now that he’s avoided that fate, he thinks he can sneak amnesty through. Conservatives who were fooled once need to let their congressmen know they won’t be fooled again.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: 2004 Election, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

After 30-something years of mass immigration, legal and illegal, the immigration issue finally tiptoed into the national political discussion in the third and final presidential debate this month, with moderator Bob Schieffer acknowledging that he had received more e-mail about that issue than any other.

Neither candidate, of course, had anything serious, intelligent or even true to say about the subject, but at least it was mentioned. Of course by now it may be too late to talk about it at all.

It may too late to talk about it because the immediate danger immigration presents to our national safety may already have materialized.

If pregnant Mexican women can sneak over the border, there’s every reason to think that terrorists can. But if they do, we may not know about it until they let us know themselves.

Speaking in Nogales, Arizona, last month, Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge proudly informed the state where 40 percent of illegal aliens enter the country that he had seen no sign of terrorist efforts to cross the border.

Mr. Ridge was in Nogales to “announce two high-tech lanes for cutting waiting times for commercial trucks at the port of entry,”according to local television reports. Not to worry about terrorism, you see, when high-tech trade with Mexico is on the platter.[U.S. won't militarize its borders, Ridge says AP, September 28, 2004]

That was just before the Washington Times reported, on Sept. 28, that law enforcement authorities say that “A top al Qaeda lieutenant has met with leaders of a violent Salvadoran criminal gang with roots in Mexico and the United States—including a stronghold in the Washington [DC] area—in an effort by the terrorist network to seek help infiltrating the U.S.-Mexico border.” [Al Qaeda seeks tie to local gangs, By Jerry Seper]

The distinguished visitor from the terrorist group that brought us the World Trade Center attacks is a gentleman named Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, who was observed in Canada last year and is said to have been seeking to obtain materials with which he could construct a “dirty bomb,” a conventional explosive with radioactive materials.

The gentleman is also, the Times reported again on Oct. 5, “believed by authorities to have met with alien smugglers in Mexico and Honduras, seeking help in bringing al Qaeda members illegally into the United States. This is what Mr. Ridge said he has “seen no sign” of.

The smugglers in question are members of the Salvadoran gang Mara Salvatrucha, a band of thugs and killers active in this country as well as Central America, thanks to the accomplishments of the Open Borders lobby over the years. Mr. Ridge really ought to read the newspapers some time.

Apparently, Mr. Ridge did, because a couple of weeks later, speaking in Canada, Mr. Ridge told an audience that “There isn’t a day that goes by, literally, where a couple of people aren’t turned away from our borders because they are associated in some manner, shape or form with terrorists or terror-related organizations. That, of course, is a blatant contradiction of what he said in Nogales earlier.

But maybe “turning people away from our borders” refers merely to aliens trying to cross legally. The more serious concern in national security is those who try to cross illegally—like the esteemed El Shukrijumah.

But then, not to worry about him, because the new chief of the federal police force in Mexico says there’s no danger from terrorists anyway.

“Up until now, we have not detected one terrorist in this country,” Adm. Jose Luis Figueroa told a news conference in Mexico City a week after his appointment. Later he added, “I don’t think the border is a place, a target, for fundamentalist Islam movements.”

As is the case with Mr. Ridge, of course, it really doesn’t matter what the new chief thinks about any of it, and we may all be better off not knowing what he thinks.

What matters is whether Al Qaeda or other terrorists really are entering the country and what either the Mexican or the U.S. government are doing to stop that.

As used to be said of spies, it’s not the ones you catch you need to worry about; it’s the ones you don’t that cause problems.

The fact that Mr. Schieffer—not either of the two candidates—finally decided to bring up the subject of illegal immigration in a presidential debate should not disguise the larger truth that this was the first time in this election—and indeed apparently the first time in any election in the last 30 years—that the immigration issue has been mentioned at all.

As what Mr. Ridge and Admiral Figueroa said suggests, there’s no reason to believe it will be mentioned again—until, perhaps, we hear more from Mr. El Shukrijumah and his friends in Mexico and Central America.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

While George Bush and John Kerry, Dick Cheney and John Edwards, debate democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, democracy may be taking a bit of a small lurch forward inside the United States—much to the dissatisfaction of the above-named global democrats.

In Arizona, citizens fed up with massive illegal immigration and the indifference of their own government to the invasion are trying to do something themselves.

The something is Proposition 200, a ballot measure directly descended from California’s Proposition 187, passed by an overwhelming margin in 1994 but struck down by the courts.

Prop 200 will also face the courts if it passes, as it seems about to do, but it’s important that Arizonans and all other Americans get behind it anyway.

Like Prop 187, Prop 200 requires that applicants for public benefits—meaning welfare—prove their eligibility for them in the form of verifiable identity or immigration documents. Unlike Prop 187, it requires proof of U.S. citizenship as a requirement for registering to vote, and one section requires voters to show a valid photo ID at the polling place.

Those are the measure’s main provisions. The truth is that they are largely bloodless.

Prop 200 does nothing (and could do nothing) to reduce illegal immigration into Arizona or the United States, nor does it deny welfare to anyone who already has a legal right to receive it.

But the importance of the ballot measure is not so much that it effectively reduces or controls either illegal immigration or welfare but that it mobilizes citizens on these issues.

Arizona in fact is already mobilized—by the presence of some 500,000 illegal aliens, estimated to cost the state more than $1 billion a year in welfare; and by the fact that some 40 percent of the illegal aliens who enter this country come over the state’s borders with Mexico; and by the absolute refusal of either the state or the federal government to do anything whatsoever to control illegal immigration.

In the case of Prop 200, neither of the state’s two Republican senators, John McCain and John Kyl, supports it. Neither do either of the two presidential nominees of the Republican and Democratic Parties or their running mates. Neither does Arizona’s Democratic governor. Nor does the state’s Chamber of Commerce. Nor the government of Mexico, which reportedly has vowed to join court challenges to the measure if it passes. As with Prop 187, for which some 60 percent of Californians voted a decade ago, the only support for Prop 200 comes from the people of Arizona themselves.

The most recent poll conducted by the Arizona Republic shows 57 percent of the state’s voters saying they will vote for it.

Critics of Prop 200 often argue that the costs of enforcing it would be prohibitive, but that’s not the real reason they’re against it. They know they have to stop Prop 200 and any similar measure because they know perfectly well what its victory would mean. Neo-conservative foes of Prop 200 like Tamar Jacoby, writing last month in the Wall Street Journal, the bible of the Open Borders lobby, made their real reasons clear. ["Flawed Proposition", September 14, 2004]

Immigration restrictionists, she wrote, would wave a Prop 200 victory

“around like a bloody shirt,” arguing “the outcome vindicated their claim that the American public doesn’t like immigrants and opposes immigration reform….

“Copycat ballot initiatives would follow in a half a dozen other states—indeed a similar measure is already circulating in California. And other elected officials, in both the White House and Congress, would start to find even more reasons than they already cite for avoiding all discussion of immigration issues.”

Miss Jacoby knows very well what happened in the wake of Prop 187′s victory in California.

“Within the year, the Clinton administration had launched a historic, all-out effort to fortify the southern frontier…. Anti-immigrant Republicans in Congress went into high gear, slashing federal benefits for newcomers, legal and illegal alike.”

Like the far left, Miss Jacoby confuses being against immigration (even the illegal kind) with being anti-immigrant,” but except for her loaded language, she’s right. Once politicians sniff the wind, they always sail in its direction.

In the wake of the Prop 187 victory in California, which significantly helped the Republican Party win a congressional majority in 1994, the courts and the Open Borders crowd managed to strangle an overwhelmingly popular immigration control measure in its cradle.

If the child of Prop 187 passes in Arizona this year, as it now seems certain to do, the same crowd will try the same tactic again.

The real importance of Arizona’s Prop 200 is that its victory will show both the people and the politicians which way the political winds are beginning to blow on the long-muzzled immigration issue.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Immigration 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”