National media figures discuss immigration at Colgate event

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Ruben Navarrette Jr., columnist for the Washington Post Writer’s Group and frequent CNN commentator, and Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnist and Fox News Channel contributor, may not see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but they do agree that illegal immigration is a huge problem in the United States.

They also agree that border security in today’s post-Sept. 11 world is paramount, and that the American government and people are to blame for the immigration problem.

From there, well, their views on the subject of illegal immigration diverge.

The two national media figures traveled to Colgate’s campus to argue these points and many others during a debate Wednesday titled “Immigration, National Security, and American Citizenship.”

More than 200 members of the campus and local communities filled Love Auditorium for the discussion, which was sponsored by the Center for Freedom and Western Civilization and the sophomore-year experience.

Navarrette, the grandson of a legal Mexican immigrant, acknowledged from the start what he called some “good ideas” for combating illegal immigration: cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants, increasing border patrols, and providing more resources to enforcement officers.

But he also called for some sort of guest worker program and an increase in the number of legal immigrants allowed in the country.

Focusing on more than just border security, he said, and avoiding demonizing illegal immigrants who don’t assimilate fast enough — which only stokes racist sentiment — can help turn the tide.

“Doing it the right way, having the right discussion, is essential to preserving the country,” he told the audience.

More

• Center for Freedom and Western Civilization

• Political science department

Colgate News

• Get the latest stories sent by e-mail.

“By that I mean preserving the best traditions of our immigrant heritage, the whole part of our narrative, the story of this country — what makes this the most magnificent place on the face of the earth.”

Malkin saw things differently.

Illegal immigration is a serious national security issue, she said, and it should be treated as such.

“Enforcing immigration laws must be clear and consistent,” she asserted. “Lawbreakers must be punished, not rewarded; illegal immigrants must be deported, not naturalized; and the national interests, not special interests, should drive politics.”

As evidenced by the events of Sept. 11, she said, it is naïve to believe that every illegal immigrant in the country came to the United States to find a job and a better way of life.

“Our doors are wide open to [terrorists], to people who want to destroy our lives and to destroy all of the freedoms we enjoy today.”

She agreed with Navarrette’s contention that “casual” employers of illegal immigrants — doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and other professionals who hire illegal immigrants as cheap day laborers and turn a blind eye to their citizenship status — and the government are both responsible for the conundrum the country is in today.

In addition to implementing a targeted visa moratorium, reforming the deportation system, and increasing detention space and resources for law enforcement, she believes every American can make a difference in his or her own way.

“I think it is up to the individual to recommit to the oath of citizenship that binds us all to support and defend the laws of the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Members of the audience asked Navarrette and Malkin some tough questions on accommodating non-English speakers, enforcing the rule of law in a society where the rule of law itself is often corrupt, and responding to people who call them “sell-outs.”

Some of the debaters’ comments prompted strong reactions from attendees; a handful left early.

Louis Prisock, instructor of sociology, seemed to articulate the view of some in the audience who felt that the debate was mostly rhetoric that blended the issues of immigration and terrorism but didn’t fully address other topics, such as the impact of free trade and racism.

“But I do hope the students were able to see that this is a really complex issue,” he said. “It isn’t just about a threat of cultural annihilation, it isn’t just about terrorism, it isn’t just about undermining American jobs. It’s a combination of these things and many others.”

Others were struck by the polite tone of the debate.

“I was impressed by how the speakers were willing to agree on some things and disagree on others without being uncivilized,” said Liddy Kang ’08. “I’d like to see this happen in other conversations about the country and in other schools.”

Just giving the crowd a sense of the many facets of an argument at the forefront of American political debate was enough for Robert Kraynak, director of the Center for Freedom and Western Civilization and organizer of the event.

“The objective was to help our students leave with a better idea of what their own views are on this, and I think we accomplished that.”

Navarrette serves on the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and has published nearly 100 editorials for newspapers and magazines. In addition, he recently authored a weekly column at The Fresno Bee, where he was the first Latino columnist in that newspaper’s history.

He has appeared on CNN and CNBC to discuss various issues, and published a book titled A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano.

Malkin began her career in newspaper journalism more than a decade ago as an editorial writer and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News. Now based in Washington, D.C., she pens a column that appears in nearly 200 newspapers nationwide.

She has written two books, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores and In Defense of Internment.

Caroline Jenkins
Office of Public Relations and Communications
315.228.6637


http://www.colgate.edu/DesktopDefault1. ... &nwID=4898