Thread: Poisoning the well: demagoging Illegal immigration

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2753

Poisoning the well: demagoging Illegal immigration
Posted by: McQ on Monday, October 17, 2005

Phil Kerpen (policy director of the Free Enterprise Fund) provides us with a piece of demagogary disguised as an op/ed piece about immigration in the San Diego Union Tribune. He uses half-truths, mischaracterizations, inflammatory and emotional rhetoric to brand those who are championing immigration reform and law enforcement as xenephobes. Note the language:

The results of the recent special election in California's 48th Congressional District are a sober wakeup call to economic conservatives who believe in the free movement of goods, capital and labor. Self-appointed, vigilante immigration restrictionist Jim Gilchrist received a sizable 14.4 percent of the vote for Congress on a single-issue, immigrant bashing platform. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, who endorsed Gilchrist, is trying, with some success, to raise immigrant-bashing to a top-tier issue in the 2008 elections.

Anti-immigration sentiment is one symptom of a larger neo-Mercantilist disease that is also threatening the globalization of trade and capital flows. Unless true free-market conservatives tame these emotional arguments with the force of logic, much of the economic progress of the past century could be reversed.

"Immigrant bashing?" "Anti-immigration sentiment?" Talk about emotional arguments, how else does one characterize a screed which ignores the primary problem with illegal immigration in favor of inflamed rhetoric designed to build emotional barriers to considered opposing arguments?

After reading Gilchrist's website I came away with the impression that he's not at all "anti-immigration" or does he indulge in "immigrant bashing" so much as he's concerned with the security and economic consequenes of unregulated and uncontolled immigration and is rather tired of the lip service it receives from the administration and Congress:
Each week, thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border. Although some presumably have good intentions, at least twenty percent (20%) of southern border-crossers are known criminals, drug dealers, sex traffickers, and gang lords. Most frightening of all, mingled with those menaces are potential terrorists from countries hostile to the United States.

America does not need another reminder, as we had on 9/11, that lax immigration law enforcement opens the door to our enemies. Of the 19 hijackers who attacked us that day, 3 were here illegally, and 15 were on visas that should have been revoked under immigration law. Many of the hijackers obtained fake ID's from illegal aliens. [1]

Terrorists have exploited our immigration weaknesses. We continue to leave our borders open to impending catastrophe. The majority of U.S. citizens understand this threat, and know that national security cannot be achieved without border security, strict adherence to existing immigration law, appropriate use of the deportation system, and close monitoring of such privileges as visas.

It isn't that Gilchrist is against immigrants at all. Instead he, like most Americans, is against uncontrolled illegal immigration. I find it striking that he feels he has to remind people what our lax immigration policies brought us on 9/11 and remind us that in essence we've done little but a bit of window-dressing to address the problem since.

Back to Kerpen:
Anti-immigrant groups and demagogues like Gilchrist and Tancredo have capitalized on this discomfort in newly emerging immigrant communities. They have falsely attempted to blame immigrants for everything from suburban sprawl to environmental degradation and most recently have taken advantage of the fears of the American public to blame immigrants for terrorism.

I find nothing which indicates that Gilchrist is blaming "immigrants" for terrorism. In fact he's quite specific about calling them terrorists, not immigrants, and noting that they're exploiting our lax immigration laws as well as our inability to control our borders and thus illegal immigration. And just for the record, terrorists aren't immigrants ... they're terrorists. They don't come here to live or to work. They come here to kill people.

Instead Gilchrist is blaming the federal government for not taking the steps necessary in the wake of 9/11 to seriously address the security threat presented by uncontrolled illegal immigration. What Gilchrist is asking is existing law be enforced. What he's noting is the law is not being enforced and he finds that to be wrong. Color me dumb, naive or whatever else you'd like too, but that seems a both a reasonable request and position.

Tancredo was one of 80 House members which signed a letter to the Bush administration (on Oct. 7th) saying, its is past time to do something about illegal immigration and the threat posed to our security (Tancredo also talks about immigration on his web site):
In the letter, the large coalition of House Members state that while guestworker and amnesty provisions have a history of being implemented, enforcement provisions have been consistently ignored and underfunded by the government. The Members believe that this has resulted in large increases in illegal immigration, and has decreased faith in the government’s ability to secure the nation’s borders.

“The American people need to see that the current laws against illegal immigration are being enforced before any guestworker program can be considered,� the Members state in the letter.

The letter cites several examples of the government’s reluctance to enforce immigration laws, including the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act in which amnesties for farm workers and other illegal aliens were carried out, but employer sanctions and other enforcement provisions were not.

The point here, despite the claim by Kerpen, this isn't an "anti-immigration" position. No one of those he cites as anti-immigrant champions closing down immigration. They instead want existing immigration laws enforced. That's actually a pro-immigration stance in that it rewards those who play the game by the rules and come here legally.

Additionally, it addresses a serious and significant security threat which, as has been pointed out here innumerable times, is simply being ignored. We can speculate forever as to why that is the case, but the bottom line remains that illegals are pouring over the border with little or no attempt to stop them. And anyone with the IQ of a bananna is able to understand how easily a situation like that can and will be exploited by those who wish us no good.

But in Kerpen's world, anyone who doesn't want the unregulated flow of immigrants, to include those who wish us harm, is a xenophobe:
The recent approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by an extremely narrow margin in the House of Representatives shows that there is a very real danger of xenophobic political pandering triumphing over reasonable economic policy. The ascendancy of the anti-immigration right is an ominous development that must be countered forcefully and publicly by Republican Party leadership. Our future prosperity is at stake.
Actually our future properity is more at stake if terrorists succeed in finding a way to smuggle WMDs into the country through the wide open borders Kerpen would love to see stay that way permanently. This isn't about an "anti-immigration right". It's about right, and left, who are concerned with the security threat uncontolled borders bring and the utter unwillingness of our elected officials to do what is necessary to stop the threat the pose.

If that's xenophobia, then count me in.

Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog /'de-m&-"gäg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
- dem·a·gogu·ery /-"gä-g(&-)rE/ noun
- dem·a·gogy /-"gä-gE, -"gä-jE, -"gO-jE/ noun