Peggy Noonan on Imigration

[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? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[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.

[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.