By Edgar B. Anderson
The media elites are really angry at you, the upstart American citizen. If it’s not outrageous enough that you forced the until recently forbidden subject of illegal immigration into the national dialogue, but last June you actually derailed the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill. Many in the media will simply never forgive you for these sins.
While expressing his disdain for concerns over illegal immigration, journalist Joe Klein, writing in the November 28, 2007, issue of Time, lets loose with a barrage of invective aimed at both you and the politicians who represent your views.
In a brief six paragraph column Klein manages to use the following language to describe those who disagree with him on immigration: “blatant racism,” “festering intolerance,” “demagogue,” “nativist revolt,” “pitchforks,” “set the slime flowing,” “expediency,” “cynically exploiting fears,” “ignorance,” and “plain old ‘European American’ racism.”
Had enough of Joe Klein already? Let’s move on. The Los Angeles Times printed a column on December 3, 2007, entitled “End the immigrant hysteria,” by one of the paper’s regulars, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Max Boot.
Boot claims that illegal immigrants are a net plus for the U.S. economy even as he grants, “There is no question that an influx of illegals puts pressure on public services, especially in the border states, and that issue needs to be addressed, perhaps with greater assistance from Washington.” In other words, federal instead of state taxpayers must ante up to pay for Boot’s vision for the country.
The critical point in Boot’s argument –- and that which deserves your particular attention –- comes near the end of his column where he lays all his cards out on the table:
“This isn’t meant to suggest that we shouldn’t do more to police our southern border. But the best way to do that would be to assure millions of Latin Americans and others who want to come here to work that they will be allowed in legally.”
“Millions of Latin Americans and others.…” That means that anyone and everyone in the world who wants to move to the U.S. should be invited to do so.
Boot joins the chorus for amnesty as well: “We also need a mechanism for legalizing the millions of undocumented immigrants who are already here, because there is no prospect of rounding them up and sending them home.”
As do so many others in the media, Boot effectively dismisses as inconsequential the violation of America’s borders. He thereby spits in the faces of the millions of legal immigrants who follow the rules and wait their turn in line.
One insightful Los Angeles Times reader in Massachusetts responded to Boot’s column with a letter to the editor on December 5, 2007, in which he poses the following question:
“Would Max Boot advocate opening Israel’s borders to Latinos and Africans? If such immigrants help the U.S., imagine how they could also aid Israel.” No answer yet from Boot.
Next up is Michael Kinsley, ex-CNN, ex-The New Republic, ex-L.A. Times, who takes the prize for putting you, the concerned citizen, in your place. In his column in the December 17, 2007, issue of Time, Kinsley concedes, “There is some number of immigrants that is too many. I don’t believe we’re past that point, but maybe we are.”
Then he issues this challenge: “Ask yourself, of these three groups –- today’s legal and illegal immigrants and the immigrants of generations ago –- which one has proven most dramatically its appreciation of our country?” Furthermore, “[W]ho loves the U.S. most? On average, probably the winners of this American-values contest would be the illegals, doing our dirty work under constant fear of eviction, getting thrown out and returning again and again.”
So, according to Michael Kinsley, it’s the illegal immigrants who are the true American patriots.
A photo of apparently a Hispanic woman and her young daughter accompanying Kinsley’s column is captioned: “Gumption and hard work That’s the tradition of all immigrants.”
Not some, not many, not most, but all immigrants. Ask the editors at Time whether these include the gang bangers, MS-13 criminals, Al-Qaeda terrorists, drug runners, drunk drivers, and assorted others who have violated U.S. immigration laws.
Finally, Gloria Borger, in her December 6, 2007, column in U.S. News and World Report, reveals her enlightened stance on immigration as she fills us in on her favorite candidates in the current Republican Presidential field:
“Will the party’s voters be led by their anger over illegal immigration, and punish a candidate who does not cater to it, like McCain?” And, of course, “At least McCain tried to get something done in Congress.”
She cites approvingly the words of Huckabee: “We’re a better country than to punish the children for what their parents did.” And again she quotes McCain: “I hope we can have a national discussion on this issue that is respectful. These people may have come to our country illegally....But they, too, are God’s children.”
Borger laments, “McCain and Huckabee could both suffer for their clarity....But straight talk -- as well as honest leadership -- is out there, just waiting for its day.”
Do you get the picture? If you disagree with the media consensus on immigration, it means you don’t want to get anything done, you seek to punish God’s children, and you oppose clarity, straight talk, and honest leadership. That just about wraps it up.
Comments