July 12, 2006Sweet Land of Liberty - Please Take a Number
Here's a cartoon for JK. The Allen Forkum analysis that accompanies it on the coxandforkum.com site is also excellent. He cites the same WSJ editorial that JK did two days ago, and singles out the arbitrary legal immigrant quota as largely responsible for the ongoing crisis. Forkum also challenges the WSJ assertion that "the conservative silent majority is pro-immigration" by referencing a blog poll of right leaning bloggers who favored the House bill to the Senate's 44 to 6. I can't see the connection between "conservative silent majority" and bloggers, but the result is strikingly similar to the tone on right leaning talk radio. Personally I suspect that many conservatives would temper their opposition if given the conditions on legal immigrants that I offered in my comments yesterday: 1) That they learn English, some basic US history, and show personal initiative to assimilate themselves into "The American Way." [...] 2) Reverse America's drift toward democracy, i.e. "mob rule" and the "tyranny of the majority." America is a "Republic madam, if you can keep it." Forkum speculates that many of these right leaning bloggers are primarily concerned with American security in a post-9/11 world, but I suspect a general fear of negative unintended consequences of more and more immigration, legal and otherwise. Conservatives rightly distrust the government to prevent these consequences, given the track record of the last 20 or more years. The most threatening of these consequences is the one addressed by my condition number 2: As things stand today, there is a genuine risk that one day a majority of Americans will vote to make Spanish our official language, not to mention scores of other initiatives that would effectively make the US more like Mexico than the land of liberty we grew up in. The opposition is not, therefore, to immigration per se, but to the threat of statism that illegal immigrants are a visible component of. The less visible elements include John Dewey's postmodern educational system, the widespread acceptance of altruism as a moral code, and the mythical belief that America is governed by democracy. All of these elements are promoted to varying degrees by one or both of the two dominant political parties, so they have become mainstream beliefs. (Worse yet, one party promotes ALL of them, all by itself!) Unless Americans defend the ideas that American exceptionalism is real, that every man is entitled to his own property, and that the Constitution limits the powers of the government to infringe the rights of individuals, the forces of statism will destroy the beloved institutions that empower those ideas. The Americans who make up the so-called "conservative silent majority" understand this threat, though perhaps not its causes or champions. The simple fact that they're willing to fight against it in whatever way they can is encouraging. Immigration Internecine Posted by JohnGalt at July 12, 2006 1:53 AM |
Thanks for the cartoon and the thoughtful post. At the risk of seeming ungrateful, I must admit to being unpersuaded by your electoral dynamics argument.
It's worthy of consideration and I do share your concern that our brilliant Federalist Republic seems to be devolving into plebiscite-democracy (the polls say President Bush should leave Iraq...)
I also agree that Latin America, by nature and culture, has shown deep collectivist roots in politics and religion. I am startled by the incredible rescue free market economics does for them every couple of decades, yet they still fall for a Chavez or Morales -- and came a Gato's-whisker close to electing Obrador.
But in the end, I am not going to give up trillions of dollars of wealth creation because of suspected predilections in voting patterns. Let us first stop illegal aliens from voting. Period. Then, as you say, let us assimilate and teach civics to those seeking citizenship.
Lastly, the liberty and classical liberalism factions will just have to make their case and govern well to capture pluralities. No different capturing 3rd-generation Swedes in Wisconsin or newly minted Mexican-Americans in California.
Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 9:19 AMThe Forkum piece is good and I find no real argument. However, to consider right-wing bloggers and talk-radio representative of the party base (or electoral plurality) is an invitation to become the Kos Kids of the right.
Talk radio is by nature, populist. Looking at the 33 signatories of the letter in the WSJ the other day, I don't believe the "right-wing" appellation works. If William Kristol and Larry Kudlow and Paul Gigot aren't "right-wing" enough for you, I'll wish you good luck with your militia.
Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 9:33 AMI'm talking about Joe six-pack, Fred the UPS guy and Billy Bob with a gun rack in his pickup truck. These aren't militia members, but they are representative of the conservative silent majority. They are the reason talk radio and conservative blogs survive and thrive.
I'm not sure that 52 bloggers are representative of their views any more than 33 conservative elites, but I do stand by my analysis of what gives them the jitters on immigration.
Incidentally, if the Senate bill did what you proposed in your prior comment it would not be such a non-starter in the House. The US Senate, as with the Colorado legislature, is not about to allow any meaningful voter reform.
Posted by: johngalt at July 12, 2006 11:22 AMNormally I'm all for the philosophy but in this case I find myself compelled to point out the practical. Hormonally deranged no doubt.
I refuse to send my beautiful and genius daughter to the Fort Lupton public schools where her education would be sadly neglected in favor of the majority hispanic speaking population. Nevertheless, I am required to PAY for the Fort Lupton public schools.
I get furious just thinking about it. This is what illegal immigration means to me and many others I expect.
Posted by: dagny at July 12, 2006 11:32 AMI think the elites track closely to the shared philosophies you and I espouse.
The talk radio crowd joins us on patriotism and support for our troops and their mission. I thank them for that. (Hey, I'm the big tent guy.)
I know that the populists follow Bill O'Reilly into a price-gouging witch-hunt as soon as gas hits #3. They'll support limiting "outrageous" CEO pay. I think we need the principles of the elites.
Remember that I am not so much endorsing the Senate Bill as President Bush's idea of a compromise including the Senate's liberal immigration and the House's enhanced enforcement. Juntos podemos, President Bush said in his first inaugu4ration. Together we can.
Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 11:44 AMLikely the blogging equivalent of getting between a bear and her cub, but I'm going to proceed...
Dagny, you cannot claim that you would be happy sending your beautiful, genius daughter to the Fort Lupton Public Schools were it not for immigrants. I know for a fact that you could find ten things wrong with it, and I wonder whether Spanish-speaking immigrants would grace the top five.
No ThreeSourcer I know sends a child to traditional public school. I refuse to believe that you would be the first except for immigrants.
Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 11:54 AM10 things?, I could probably find 50, up to and including errors in the textbooks. Just because there are other things wrong with the public schools does not mean that illegal immigration is not a large problem to address. But, that is not my main issue. I clearly phrased it badly. My main issue is that I am expected to PAY for the FLPS. Money that I could spend to educate my child as I see fit is spent to teach philosophical nonsense (not even in English) to illegal immigrants.
Additionally, part of my point was the feelings engendered by the debate which do not change even if I would not send my child there. Furthermore, I try not to vote based on feelings but I am a rare individual in that regard.
I do claim that there are probably a few remaining public schools that I would consider sending my child to. However, I don’t want to move to Highlands Ranch. There is no room for the horses.
Finally, no ThreeSourcer? Silence, Lattesipper, no support for our wonderful public school system?
Posted by: dagny at July 12, 2006 12:28 PMI understand. And I sympathize. And I would fix it your way if I could. The pragmatist in me says that train left the station a long time ago, no sense worrying about the martini olives in the club car. At least a voucher would allow you to get some money back. I pay for the bi-lingual school across the field from me (Motto: educating tomorrow's Burger King workers today!) and I have no kids.
I think you are unfair to oppose liberalization and normalization of immigration (sounding like a good rap song) because you are frustrated with coerced public education. My point is that you'd be coerced either way, you might as well be wealthier.
I shouldn't speak for everybody but I know ThreeSourcers' kids' being in Catholic schools and public charter schools, and some others are too young. I could be wrong. My little Skylark was graduated from obedience training at the Humane Society. I received no public funds.
Posted by: jk at July 12, 2006 2:47 PM | What do you think? [8]