Victor Davis Hanson Discusses Arizona Controversy

[AuH20]

Bullseye! Sums up how I feel:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/how-could-they-do-that-in-arizona/?singlepage=true


Do conservatives have the winning argument? For now yes — simply close the border , fine employers of illegal aliens, and allow the pool of aliens to become static. Fining employers both stops illegal immigration and is sometimes cheered on by the Left, as if the worker has no culpability for breaking the law (e.g., a liberal can damn unscrupulous employers and thereby oppose illegal immigration without confronting the La Raza bloc). Some will marry citizens. Some will voluntarily return to Mexico. Some will be picked up through the normal government vigilance we all face — traffic infractions, necessary court appearances, interaction with state agencies. And while we argue over the policy concerning the remaining majority of illegal aliens and such contentious issues as green-cards, guest workers, and so-called earned citizenship, the pool at least in theory shrinks.

Yet if I were a Republican policy-maker I would be very wary of mass deportations. A gradualist approach, clearly delineated, is preferable, in which those who have been here five years (to pick an arbitrary number), are gainfully employed, and are free of a criminal record should have some avenue for applying for citizenship (one can fight it out whether they should pay a fine, stay or return to Mexico in the process, and get/not get preference over new applicants.)

Again, one should avoid immediate, mass deportations (it would resemble something catastrophic like the Pakistani-Indian exchanges of the late 1940s), and yet not reward the breaking of federal law. Good luck with that.

Finally, legal immigration should be reformed and reflect new realities. Millions of highly educated and skilled foreigners from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe are dying to enter the U.S. Rather than base immigration criteria on anchor children, accidental birth in the U.S. without concern for legality, and family ties, we need at least in part to start giving preference to those of all races and nationalities who will come with critical skills, and in turn rely less on the social service entitlement industry. They should come from as many diverse places as possible to prevent the sort of focused ethnic tribalism and chauvinism we have seen in the case of Mexico’s cynicism.

Why do Mexicans can preferential treatment over other ethnic groups? F them I say!!

[Todd]

I used to read VDH. He's a neocon.

[AuH20]

I used to read VDH. He's a neocon.

But most Neos love open borders. Take the Wall Street crowd and the Bush Republicans. VDH's foreign policy views aren't my cup of tea, but he's right. Why do the people of this country walk on egg-shells when confronting the Mexican mob? We have a backlog of a couple million patiently who've been waiting for citizenship for years and we let Mexicans flout the quota system like they actually run the government!!!!

[Todd]

But most Neos love open borders. Take the Wall Street crowd and the Bush Republicans. His foreign policy views aren't my cup of tea, but he's right. Why do the people of this country walk on egg-shells when confronting the Mexican mob? We have a backlog of a couple million patiently who've been waiting for citizenship for years and we let Mexicans flout the quota system like they actually run the government!!!!

I agree, he's a bit different in the FP area from what he thinks domestically.

[AuH20]

A pulled this gem from the comment section. Must read:


Thanks for this one, Victor.

I rub elbows with lefty academics all the time in Flagstaff, and the other night, between Tequila shots and fits of dancing to Santana’s latest disc, the issue of Mexicans’ immigration flows into the SW came up.

I asked a liberal acquaintance (she used to work for Jerry Torricelli’s campaigns in NJ) what the hang up was. Why, I asked, shouldn’t Mexico’s citizens line up to apply just like Polish, Indian, Russian and Chilean citizens have historically done. She said I was racist for asking. (THEY REALLY THINK IT'S THEIR LAND AND THE GRINGO SHOULD ACCOMODATE THEM. THEY ARE ENTITLED OR SO THEY THINK)

But I wouldn’t drop it…I replied that the hang-up is Mexico’s citizens have never adopted the American Bill of Rights, and that if they did I’d be the first to push for El Norte’s unification with the Mexican South and to add one more star to our flag. My liberal friend turned pale, her mouth hung open, and she gasped for air like a landed lung-fish. She had never entertained the idea that there may something special about America, and something lacking in Mexicans’ traditional jurusprudence that might argue against permitting their un-documented immigration.

After blustering and waving her hands in the air, finally she blurted out, “Mexico would NEVER want to join America!” Of course, every Mexican national who crosses into Arizona, California or Texas is refuting her, and she knows it, but still she could not relinquish her liberal anti-American talking point. The seconds passed uninterrupted, and I let silence slowly make my point for me: my “liberal” fellow-citizen neither relishes the Bill of Rights that her political party claims to champion, nor does she thinks that any other person in the world should.

But there is one more juicy contradiction to note. When I floated the topic of unification with Mexico my interlocuter got flabbergasted: any extension of America’s Constitutional order, even if it is sanctioned by a public referendum in a neighboring state like Mexico, is to be opposed. This, she says, is “extending American Imperialism,” and, furthermore, nations are oppressive, patriarchal constructs that should be dissolved in order to achieve “global harmony.” Problem is, this registered Democrat (an American political party) cloaks her defense of illegal immigration in racialist terms that invoke “Hispanics,” and “Latinos” as facile proxies for the Mexican nation and its government policies – which she has no problem whatsoever defending and extending.

So which is it? Is all nationalism bad, or is just American nationalism bad? Is Mexico’s socio-political tradition compatible with ours, or not? And, do Democrats revere our bill of rights, or is it just a Monopoly card for them – something to get them out of jail free, a property on Boardwalk, or a win in the next election?

From my liberal Democratic friend’s responses, I gather that so long as the target is America, so-called nationalism, immigrants’ cultures, and even our beloved “human rights” are ready pawns in the Left’s electoral games. But, turn the light onto other nations, other cultures, and other, non-American modes of jurisprudence, and suddenly all are sacrosanct, immune to scrutiny, and taboo.

Perhaps it’s her London School of Economics degree, or her Princeton education, or her tenure inside “the Torch’s” New Jersey political schemes, or her failed marriage to a black panther in the sixties, I’ll never know. But, with every shot of Tequilla, my arguer began to sound more and more like Edward Said, only she bandied about her version of his “Orientalism” to defend illegal immigration from scrutiny and not suicide bombings. Small difference, I know…but she is an East Coast Democrat. And there’s time a plenty to man the ramparts for Islamist terror later on.

That my friends is an ass-whipping. I love when you start to deconstruct these liberals and finally see what they're all about.

[angelatc]

A gradualist approach, clearly delineated, is preferable, in which those who have been here five years (to pick an arbitrary number), are gainfully employed, and are free of a criminal record should have some avenue for applying for citizenship (one can fight it out whether they should pay a fine, stay or return to Mexico in the process, and get/not get preference over new applicants.)


See, I'm of the opposite mindset. If you get caught working here illegally, you should go to the very back of the line to get in legally. Being rewarded for jumping ahead of the people who actually held out for a legal opportunity is bullshit.

[AuH20]

See, I'm of the opposite mindset. If you get caught working here illegally, you should go to the very back of the line to get in legally. Being rewarded for jumping ahead of the people who actually held out for a legal opportunity is bullshit.

The mexicans who abide by the rules over a duration and prove themselves to be assets to this country should be allowed to stay & obtain citizenship. The drunks who plow into ice cream shops along with the other dregs need to shipped out of the country ASAP. We need to separate the wheat from the chaffe so to speak. Not all mexicans are liabilities. You need to get that notion out of your head.

[Brian4Liberty]

But most Neos love open borders. Take the Wall Street crowd and the Bush Republicans. VDH's foreign policy views aren't my cup of tea, but he's right. Why do the people of this country walk on egg-shells when confronting the Mexican mob? We have a backlog of a couple million patiently who've been waiting for citizenship for years and we let Mexicans flout the quota system like they actually run the government!!!!

VDH is still a neo-con. Notice he is calling for reforming immigration policy to allow more "legal" immigration. That is typical neo-conservative. They pay some lip-service to border control. All he left out was "comprehensive".

[angelatc]

The mexicans who abide by the rules over a duration and prove themselves to be assets to this country should be allowed to stay & obtain citizenship. The drunks who plow into ice cream shops along with the other dregs need to shipped out of the country ASAP. We need to separate the wheat from the chaffe so to speak. Not all mexicans are liabilities. You need to get that notion out of your head.

And you should stop pulling words out of your head and putting them into my mouth.

We just disagree. I don't believe that people who cut in line should be rewarded for that. There are millions of people who enter the lottery every single year, which isn't cheap to do. When their number isn't pulled, they stay home and start saving up pennies for the next drawing.

The people you're talking about are here illegally. THey're indicating they're willing to pick and choose which laws they're going to follow, and that is not my idea of a good citizen.

Rewarding the people who jumped the queue last time is why so many people are here now. They know if they can get here, we'll eventually allow them to be citizens and collect our benefits.

You're advocating rewarding the corrupt with amnesty. I'd take away their right to live here forever.

It's like giving Roman Polanski a pass.