Peggy Noonan on Imigration

[Rick Nebiolo]

Read this Peggy Noonan column (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007648) a minute ago. Curious as to the 2+2 "elites" opinion. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

~ Rick

[Chris Alger]

The non-sequitur queen at it again. Typically without a shred of evidence, Noonan contends that today's anti-immigrant zealots are a new breed concerned primarily with abstract rule-of-law issues instead of the fears and prejudices that have driven their movement for the last 150 years. Policy makers who fail to recognize this truism are therefore "unknowing and empty-headed."

Nearly every GOP pundit that opines on immigration fails to mention the obvious: illegal immigration is GOP policy. "Illegal" immigrants come here because they are aided and abetted by highly visible employers who give them jobs. If the U.S. didn't want the immigrants to come, they'd tax or punish the employers to the point where the jobs are no longer economical to provide. The GOP doesn't do this because immigrants help more than hurt and the GOP isn't in the business of screwing small employers. We could rationalize the policy with the sort of guest worker programs they have in other rich countries, but racism and xenophobia make it politically infeasible. The GOP trick is to capitalize on the hatred without having to hurt the employers. Peggy Noonan's insinuations that current immigrants are more often cynical lawbreakers now than at any time in the past is just another speech insert for GOP demagogues. After all, it's her job.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with our elites as they make our immigration policy is not that they have compassion and open-mindedness. It is that they are unknowing and empty-headed. They don't know, most of them, what others had to earn, and how much they, and their descendents, prize it and want to protect it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like Peggy Noonan, and I liked the article. The questions raised are good, and belong in the debate. Her conclusion, if what I quoted above is her conclusion, is poorly thought out. "The problem with our elites ..." is not compassion, open-mindedness, knowing or not knowing -- it's a system they've designed that they feel only applies to others (ergo, 'elite').

I'm reminded of Bill Clinton trying to find someone in Washington who didn't have a 'Zoe Baird' problem -- if all immigrants were legal, and the elite followed the rules they impose on others, there wouldn't have been a problem.

"The problem with our elites as they make our immigration policy is ... " -- that they feel they are elite.

[andyfox]

First, it troubles me that my good friend spends his morning reading Peggy Noonan. Be that as it may . . .

Another disgusting piece from Ms. Noonan. Two lines, in particular, struck me:

1) "There are groups that seek to restore border integrity. But they are denigrated by many, even the president, who has called them vigilantes."

-The President did not denigrate "groups" that seek to restore border integrity. He denigrated the Minutemen after some of their members' racist statements were publicized in the media. As you know, I am not exactly the president's biggest fan, but his characterization was accurate and apt.

"The problem with our elites as they make our immigration policy is not that they have compassion and open-mindedness. It is that they are unknowing and empty-headed. They don't know, most of them, what others had to earn, and how much they, and their descendents, prize it and want to protect it."

-Ms. Noonan wants it both ways. When the administration's policy is not to her liking, it's an unknowing and empty-headed policy. Yet somehow the administration is brilliant in, for example, fighting the war on terror. Ms. Noonan seems to think she knows better because one of her relatives slept on a park bench in 1920. How arrogant can one be?

[MMMMMM]

Noonan's article aside, there does seem to be something of a disconnect between Americans' views of illegal immigration and policy and enforcement of the same. I recall reading of polls that show most Americans are opposed to illegal immigration and want it to be stopped (or at least seriously curtailed). Our legislators and administrators however seem unwilling and/or unable to uphold the overall will of the people in this regard. Of course there are various reasons for this, and it's a very complex scenario--but I can also see a reason why some in government are referred to as "elites."

[andyfox]

Chris Alger's post got, I think, to the crux of the issue: while the Republicans have been in control of our government, and one would think that, ideologically, they would be tough on illegal immigration, they haven't dealt with it because their base relies on illegal immigrants for cheap labor.

Of course the government is comprised of "elites." That's who it's run by and for, that's who the laws are written for. But just to call them "elites" is not terribly useful. Noonan mentioned Yale in her article. Both of the presidential candidate in the last election went there. But are they the same commodity politically?

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I agree that calling "them" "elites" is not terribly useful.

I suspect there is some pandering by both Dem and Repub legislators in various forms on this issue.

[andyfox]

"I suspect there is some pandering by both Dem and Repub legislators in various forms on this issue."

Suspect? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree that calling "them" "elites" is not terribly useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not meant to be useful -- it's meant to be insightful. I suspect Repub legislators follow rules they disagree with better than Dems follow rules they write.

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect there is some pandering by both Dem and Repub legislators in various forms on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

While campaigning is often confused with pandering -- the New Media supported by Nexus/Lexus has done a great job of exposing duplicity. Unfortunately, exposure of duplicitous positions has not (yet) forced decision -- since the 'elite' haven't yet concluded if that information is reaching their voters.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris Alger's post got, I think, to the crux of the issue: while the Republicans have been in control of our government, and one would think that, ideologically, they would be tough on illegal immigration, they haven't dealt with it because their base relies on illegal immigrants for cheap labor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure that it's this and not the potential to win the Hispanic vote? I'd certainly say that this is the primary reason the GOP hasn't met expectations with regards to harder lines in immigration policy.

[andyfox]

Might be part of it too. Might also be why the Dems haven't hit harder on the issue, as they obviously can't afford to alienate any group of voters, their current fortunes being bad enough as it is. But I had heard that Hillary was going to try to run conservative on illegal immigration. Were Bush up for reelection, it might be poliltically smart to do so. But the next Republican candidate, one would think, will be more hardline on illegal immigration than Bush.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Might be part of it too. Might also be why the Dems haven't hit harder on the issue, as they obviously can't afford to alienate any group of voters, their current fortunes being bad enough as it is. But I had heard that Hillary was going to try to run conservative on illegal immigration. Were Bush up for reelection, it might be poliltically smart to do so. But the next Republican candidate, one would think, will be more hardline on illegal immigration than Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. If you are tough on illegal immigration, it is implied that you are driven by racism or xenophobia. I think this is more of a driving factor than the pressures from business interests.

I think this is one of those issues that the Democrats will have to deal with. It took Nixon to go to China, because if a Dem did it, Nixon would have called him red. It took a Dem to overhaul welfare, because if a Rep president signed that, it would have been said that he was starving the poor.
I think illegal immigration is one of these types of issues.

[ QUOTE ]
they'd tax or punish the employers to the point where the jobs are no longer economical to provide. The GOP doesn't do this because

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxing is meant to raise revenue, period. Not to control other peoples lives, businesses, who they hire, or what they spend their money on. The GOP doesn't target taxes like this because the basic belief in economic freedom doesn't escape them too often.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
First, it troubles me that my good friend spends his morning reading Peggy Noonan/

[/ QUOTE ]

12:56 am is morning? You must be a real early riser /images/graemlins/grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
Another disgusting piece from Ms. Noonan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although flawed in spots, I didn't see it as "disgusting". I'm in favor of reasonable imigration, but certainly it needs to be legal, as it was in the old days and as it is today with people from most other areas. I agree with Noonan that the border sieve increases a sense of lawlessness (BTW, I don't see her column implying this makes illegal immigrants "cynical lawbreakers" per Chris Alger). She doesn't even mention that this is increasingly becoming a national security problem - probably the biggest reason to start taking this issue seriously.

All my Grandparents came throuh Ellis Island. They all kept some attachment to the "old country". But they (and most that came with them) made sure their children assimilated. Were not losing all of that, but we certainly seem to be losing more than before.

Still, the best thing that could happen would be for lands to the south to build fair and prosperous societies. The fact that they haven't (along with the tremendous discrepency between rick and poor) is a tragedy.

~ Rick

PS I'm not sure where this is a Republican v Democtrat, liberal v conservative, left v right issue. I've seen both sides and the middle all over the place.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxing is meant to raise revenue, period. Not to control other peoples lives, businesses, who they hire, or what they spend their money on. The GOP doesn't target taxes like this because the basic belief in economic freedom doesn't escape them too often.

[/ QUOTE ]
No one with a passing familiarity with the tax code believes this. To note the most famous example:

"Affordable housing is in the national interest. That is why the mortgage interest deduction for primary residences was put into the federal tax code and why tax reform of
any kind should continue to encourage homeownership."

From the GOP's 2004 platform.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it. If you are tough on illegal immigration, it is implied that you are driven by racism or xenophobia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is of course a crock.

[andyfox]

But an unfortunate legacy of the history of racism and xenophobia which attended the treatment of immigrants in hte past. And there surely is an element of racism and xenophobia in the attitudes of some who favor a tougher policy, witness the comments of some of the Minutemen that prompted President Bush to charcaterize them as vigilantes.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Typically without a shred of evidence, Noonan contends that today's anti-immigrant zealots are a new breed concerned primarily with abstract rule-of-law issues instead of the fears and prejudices that have driven their movement for the last 150 years.

[/ QUOTE ]...

...[ QUOTE ]
We could rationalize the policy with the sort of guest worker programs they have in other rich countries, but racism and xenophobia make it politically infeasible.

[/ QUOTE ]...

Just wondering, Chris, if you, in light of the above, differentiate between those who oppose illegal immigration and those who oppose legal or all immigration?

Surely there can be those who oppose illegal immigration who are not motivated by racism or xenophobia--no? One simple reason might be the desire to keep out those with totally unknown backgrounds, especially criminal; another might be the long-standing preference for immigrants with advanced job skills, money or education--not wholly unreasonable preferences.

[Chris Alger]

Some people no doubt "oppose" illegal immigration for no other reason than its illegality, and to the same degree oppose illegal tax deductions, traffic violators and the like. But "illegaltiy" is obviously not what's driving this issue and the respect accorded "legal" immigration -- which largely involves highly educated, skilled workers -- is a smokescreen.

[ QUOTE ]
One simple reason might be the desire to keep out those with totally unknown backgrounds, especially criminal

[/ QUOTE ]
Americans live without a care in the world about the "totally unknown" backgrounds of their neighbors. The obsessive concern for background checks for immigrant laborers reflects the mentality I was referring to.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people no doubt "oppose" illegal immigration for no other reason than its illegality, and to the same degree oppose illegal tax deductions, traffic violators and the like. But "illegaltiy" is obviously not what's driving this issue and the respect accorded "legal" immigration -- which largely involves highly educated, skilled workers -- is a smokescreen.

[ QUOTE ]

One simple reason might be the desire to keep out those with totally unknown backgrounds, especially criminal

[/ QUOTE ]


Americans live without a care in the world about the "totally unknown" backgrounds of their neighbors. The obsessive concern for background checks for immigrant laborers reflects the mentality I was referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can fairly claim this, or fairly assert that most Americans oppose illegal immigration because they are racist xenophobes.

In your prior post, you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
We could rationalize the policy with the sort of guest worker programs they have in other rich countries, but racism and xenophobia make it politically infeasible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't we offer visas and work permits and green cards already?

There are myriad good and valid reasons to oppose unlimited illegal immigration. Racism and xenphobia are not among them, nor even at the forefront of most Americans' concerns: because if racism and xenophobia were at the forefront, then most Americans would oppose ALL immigration, legal immigration too--not just illegal immigration--but they don't.

I think you are viewing too much through a racism/non-racism lens, and are unfairly attributing negative characteristics to the average American. You are also making it sound like there are no good reasons to oppose illegal immigration; when in fact there are, and they are plentiful.