0 comment Saturday, July 12, 2014 | admin
Helle Dale, in a column in today's Washington Times, discusses 'Reforming immigration'
Dale starts out somewhat promisingly, stressing the need for enforcing our laws and demanding that the illegals respect the rules of our system. But then, as so often happens, Dale reverts to the usual platitudes and myths about the illegals, and ends with this weak rhetoric:
"In the heat of the debate, though, we need to recall that the situation could be worse. Hispanic communities certainly can fit into the American social and cultural landscape, with their strong Catholic values and family traditions. In fact, they are a far better fit than the predominant immigrant groups in Europe from the Middle East and North Africa, who are Muslims settling in very secular European societies." (Emphasis mine.)
So, in the end, Dale resorts to the already-stale 'arguments' which are the favorites of the open-borders, cheap labor Republicans. And this is what passes for 'conservative' thinking.
Far from being conservative, those who parrot these half-baked platitudes are starry-eyed pollyannas. Maybe they have seen too many Capra movies, but they seem to dwell in a parallel universe where every immigrant is a colorful cliche, and we are all one big happy family. Conservatism is generally thought to be grounded in reality, to be based in the world as it is and not in some utopian world as we wish it to be. Dale and others like her have more in common with the wishful-thinking liberals.
The idea expressed by 'conservatives' like Dale that the Hispanic illegals are at least preferable to Moslems is particularly soft-headed. I have heard a number of ostensible 'conservatives' saying that a Hispanic America is better than a Moslem America; there is a ring of defeatism and fatalism in their attitude. They seem to be saying America has to be surrendered to somebody, and they prefer conquest by Mexico to Islamization.
What would our forefathers say, I wonder, to this attitude of defeat and resignation?
Dale starts out somewhat promisingly, stressing the need for enforcing our laws and demanding that the illegals respect the rules of our system. But then, as so often happens, Dale reverts to the usual platitudes and myths about the illegals, and ends with this weak rhetoric:
"In the heat of the debate, though, we need to recall that the situation could be worse. Hispanic communities certainly can fit into the American social and cultural landscape, with their strong Catholic values and family traditions. In fact, they are a far better fit than the predominant immigrant groups in Europe from the Middle East and North Africa, who are Muslims settling in very secular European societies." (Emphasis mine.)
So, in the end, Dale resorts to the already-stale 'arguments' which are the favorites of the open-borders, cheap labor Republicans. And this is what passes for 'conservative' thinking.
Far from being conservative, those who parrot these half-baked platitudes are starry-eyed pollyannas. Maybe they have seen too many Capra movies, but they seem to dwell in a parallel universe where every immigrant is a colorful cliche, and we are all one big happy family. Conservatism is generally thought to be grounded in reality, to be based in the world as it is and not in some utopian world as we wish it to be. Dale and others like her have more in common with the wishful-thinking liberals.
The idea expressed by 'conservatives' like Dale that the Hispanic illegals are at least preferable to Moslems is particularly soft-headed. I have heard a number of ostensible 'conservatives' saying that a Hispanic America is better than a Moslem America; there is a ring of defeatism and fatalism in their attitude. They seem to be saying America has to be surrendered to somebody, and they prefer conquest by Mexico to Islamization.
What would our forefathers say, I wonder, to this attitude of defeat and resignation?
Labels: EuphemismsMyths