Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Today at the Journal
The open-borders race-baiters at the Wall Street Journal are back.
As I pointed out here, the Journal's position comes down to this: "Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders. ..."
What drives the editorial writers at the Journal is their insatiable demand, on behalf of their advertisers, for sweat-shop conditions and slave wages. For they know that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, and the INS before them, are incapable of enforcing the vast array of new provisions in the proposed comprehensive amnesty bill. Indeed, they’re counting on it. Since 1965, the government has promised the public border security in exchange for amnesty.
Today’s Journal writers aren’t as honest as their predecessors. They deny this bill provides for amnesty. In the past, they would have proudly proclaimed it. Today’s Journal writers take refuge in the anonymity of the editorial page as they assassinate the character of those with whom they disagree. Apparently, those who insist on enforcing the law are racists. Those who insist that the government fulfill its obligation to secure the border and punish businesses that hire illegal aliens are anti-Hispanic.
What causes a usually intelligent collection of writers to become so emotionally untethered? They refuse to debate National Review editors. They reject the late Dr. Milton Friedman’s opposition to open-borders in an entitlement society. Friedman was our nation’s foremost libertarian economist. They denigrate the positions held by William F. Buckley, a founder of modern conservatism, and Ed Meese, one of conservatism’s leading constitutional scholars and originalists. They distort statistics in a vain attempt to counter the Heritage Foundation’s research — the premiere conservative think tank.
Moreover, the Journal writers are beset with delusion. They pretend that those opposing the comprehensive amnesty bill are a vocal minority within the Republican party. Well, most reputable polls show that Americans, regardless of party, overwhelmingly oppose amnesty and insist on border security. They don’t favor open borders, as the Journal editorial page does.
And while the Journal writers wrap themselves in the propaganda of La Raza and LULAC, claiming to represent the best interests and majority viewpoints of downtrodden Hispanics both here and abroad, I think that would come as a surprise to the folks they claim to represent. Maybe in their next editorial these champions of social justice can provide a list of their bona fides.
The Journal writers are prodding Republicans to play ethnic politics. They argue that if the Republicans are viewed as anti-Hispanic, they will lose elections. Of course, the Journal writers are perpetuating that smear by assigning racist motives to opponents of the bill. But Republicans do best when they run on principle and act on principle. Unlike the Journal writers, I happen to believe that Hispanic Americans are motivated by the same principles as other Americans, including — liberty, security, the rule of law, capitalism, and faith.
The Journal assigns recent losses in Hispanic support for the Republican party to opposition by the “vocal minority” within the party to amnesty. Where’s the evidence for this? For all we know, a majority in the Hispanic community is opposed to the war, profligate spending, or any of a dozen other issues. In the last election, support for the Republican party declined across the ethnic spectrum, including among whites.
The Journal writers have contributed little useful to this debate and have only succeeded in badly wounding their own reputations.
06/27 11:30 AM
