Charles Davenport Jr.: True immigration debate has not taken place
Sunday, Sep. 30, 2007 3:00 am

The immigration "debate" that has taken place in recent months is a stark reminder of an unpleasant truth: The media and academia routinely exclude, marginalize and demonize those with whom they disagree. Consequently, rather than a frank discussion of immigration and its impact on our culture, we have heard a condescending monologue delivered by advocates of mass immigration.

Indeed, most of the views excluded from the "discussion" are the opinions held by a majority of Americans. A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that most of us believe the objective of immigration reform should be a reduction in illegal immigration. Only 28 percent support legalizing the status of illegal residents, and 78 percent believe the federal government is not doing enough to reduce illegal immigration.

The majority view is often omitted from public discussions of immigration policy. Later this week, for instance, Wake Forest University will host a conference, "Immigration: Recasting the Debate," a confab that will reportedly feature "keynote addresses by major public figures and forums with leading immigration policy experts and scholars." Sixteen speakers and panelists are scheduled, of which one would assume at least three or four would represent the view held by three-quarters of Americans. But one would be wrong. Only one speaker, the Heritage's Robert Rector, will even come close. Imagine a symposium on the Iraq war that featured Hillary Clinton and 15 hawks. Likewise, attendees of the Wake Forest gala will be deliberately misinformed.

One of the keynote addresses will be delivered by Sen. Mel Martinez, who presumably represents the "Republican Perspective." But on immigration Martinez represents neither conservatives nor most Republicans. He supported the amnesty bill that Congress recently defeated, legislation that was, as National Review reported, "at odds with a large majority of [Martinez's] party and its elected officials." If Wake Forest is interested in the authentic Republican perspective, it should invite either Fred Thompson or Rep. Tom Tancredo.

Two weeks ago on this page, Andres Oppenheimer, a correspondent for the Miami Herald, wrote that the leading Republican presidential candidates are "widely believed to fear facing a hostile [Spanish-speaking] audience because of their harsh anti-immigration rhetoric." Yet Oppenheimer provided no examples of the brash language. In the minds of many, mere opposition to mass, illegal immigration constitutes "harsh anti-immigration rhetoric." Oppenheimer also claimed Republicans are "committing political suicide by continuing to pander to the xenophobic wing of their party."

Consider the term "xenophobia," which is often used to demonize immigration restrictionists. Webster's defines it as "an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of anything foreign or strange." Restrictionists' fear of continued, massive, illegal immigration is perfectly reasonable; therefore, it's not xenophobic. Many reporters and academics, however, fit the bill of being xenophobes. They fear immigration restrictionists, who are, in the insular worlds of media and academia, foreign and strange. But if 78 percent of Americans believe the feds should do more to combat illegal immigration, does this mean 78 percent of Americans are "xenophobic"? I don't think so. Only a "journalist" or a "scholar" would believe such a ridiculous assertion.

Speaking of ridiculous arguments, the mayor of Kansas City, Mo., recently appointed 73-year-old Frances Semler to the city's park board, a body that handles party permits, leash laws and the like. But the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza want Semler removed because she belongs to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, citizens who patrol the border and report illegals. Never mind that border patrol has nothing to do with park management in Kansas City.

The inevitable, predictable quote from Janet Murguia of the NCLR reads as follows: "We see the Minutemen as an extremist group that espouses hate and vigilantism and some violence." In a rare display of spine from a public official, Kansas City's mayor, Mark Funkhouser, says he will support Simler, even if the city loses the business of civil rights groups. By the same logic, one could argue that the NAACP and the NCLR are extremist groups and could demand that every elected official affiliated with them resign at once. The only difference between the Minutemen and 78 percent of Americans is that the Minutemen act on, rather than merely complain about, their belief in secure borders. Would the NAACP and the NCLR argue that 78 percent of Americans are extremists? Well, yes, probably.

When Guilford County Sheriff BJ Barnes expressed interest in a federal program that would allow his department to detain illegal immigrants, he was harshly criticized by zealous civil libertarians and left-wing activists. Barnes responded with a deliciously mordant letter to the editor in which he pointed out that illegal immigrants are, by definition, illegal. Despite the efforts of many in the media and academia, immigration restrictionists will not be silenced.

Charles Davenport Jr. (www.cdavenportjr.com) (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist.

http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /709300335