0 comment Friday, August 15, 2014 | admin
Whew, I guess we can all rest easy now, and just stop worrying our heads about millions (tens of millions, actually) of illegals being a problem. Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has just informed us that there is no crisis involving illegals. And how does he know that? Because no less an authority than Tony Snow has said so, in the latest Reason Magazine.
Now apparently Reason Magazine is the last word in human wisdom, although a perusal of said publication impresses me otherwise.
For an example, please see this rant by the Editor-in-Chief, on the subject of immigration. And notice the writer's obligatory reference to his 'immigrant grandfather', an ethnic non-English speaker, too; am I impressed!
But judging by Steigerwald's citing of this Snow job -- I mean, Snow article, he clearly thinks Reason is authoritative. Snow's article is apparently part of an immigration issue, or more accurately, a pro-open-borders issue, packed chock full of statistics showing that all those immigration alarmists and xenophobic meanies like Tom Tancredo are all wrong.
But are we? Steigerwald mentions that the stats at Reason are disputed by Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies. I prefer to put my faith in Camarota and CIS rather than those pipe-dreaming ideologues at Reason Magazine. I've found libertarians to be people who, like leftists, are attached to their abstractions and ideologies more than anchored in reality. If the facts don't fit their ideologies and pet theories, then 'so much the worse for the facts', as philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was supposed to have said. His reality-denying heirs are mostly in the leftist and libertarian camp these days.
I don't think much of Bill Steigerwald's sneering dismissal of our concerns about mass immigration:
You can rail about the fact that illegal immigrants broke the law to get into the USA or about the horror of having to hear those Spanish phone messages. You can lose sleep worrying that 32 Latino radicals somewhere in California aim to re-conquer the Southwest for Mexico or that illegals are costing taxpayers $10 billion a year -- in a $2.57 trillion federal budget.
And then his 'answer' to these concerns, which he treats so belittlingly, is that the economy is growing, crime at a 20-year low [by what measure, Bill?] and 'unemployment is almost nonexistent', so 'just don't call our immigration problem a national crisis.'
Steigerwald does not offer any solid back-up for his blanket assertions about this new golden age in America, and even if he did, his 'happy days are here again' refrain is no refutation to all the arguments raised by the immigration restrictionists. He does not even acknowledge the enormous social disruption caused by mass immigration, the loss of open space, the shortage of affordable housing, the conflicts (Mexican vs. black in California jails and schools), the crimes committed by the immigrants, (including terrorism) the environmental stresses, and the increased energy demands resulting in rolling blackouts in many areas, and on and on. How typical of the libertarians and the country club Republican types, to reduce everything to the economic nexus. As long as immigration profits certain special interests, it's a good thing, according to these people. There is no concern for the larger picture, or for American culture, and standard of living.
But these apologists for mass immigration can convince themselves that their smug position makes them more enlightened than the 'Tancredos, Dobbses and Buchanans' of the world, in Steigerwald's words.
Tony Snow, from his moral perch on high, calls us 'neo-Know-Nothings.' His words have a 'take that!' tone about them, as if they are supposed to sting, and to chasten and to cause their targets to slink off in shame.
Far from it, Tony. Words which you intend as insults or slaps won't discourage me. In fact, if these names are going to be hurled at us, I've decided to educate myself as to precisely what they mean. The word 'nativist' which they consider an insult is simply a descriptive term for anyone who puts the interests of Americans or one's own above those of other countries. So where is the 'sting' in that word?
And the word 'Know-Nothing' seems to carry the extra connotation of an ignoramus who 'knows nothing', but simply meant a member of the American Party. Members of the party were taught to reply 'I know nothing' when asked about the party.
Most of the provisions of the party platform were not extreme, and in any case, 'the past is another country'; it's all too often a flaw of our own time that we are judgmental about previous generations and their standards. They lived in very different times, and had a drastically different mindset, growing up in a very different culture than our own. Our modern dogmas were not in force back in the mid-19th century, back in the B.P.C. era, before Political Correctness came along and showed us the error of our ways.
In some later post, I may write more about the Know-Nothings.
In the meantime, Tony Snow, and William Kristol, (who calls himself a 'liberal on immigration,' BTW) will not win any points by calling immigration skeptics 'neo-Know-Nothings.' So bring it on, as the saying goes.
Better a 'neo-Know-Nothing' than a neo-Con who knows nothing.
Now apparently Reason Magazine is the last word in human wisdom, although a perusal of said publication impresses me otherwise.
For an example, please see this rant by the Editor-in-Chief, on the subject of immigration. And notice the writer's obligatory reference to his 'immigrant grandfather', an ethnic non-English speaker, too; am I impressed!
But judging by Steigerwald's citing of this Snow job -- I mean, Snow article, he clearly thinks Reason is authoritative. Snow's article is apparently part of an immigration issue, or more accurately, a pro-open-borders issue, packed chock full of statistics showing that all those immigration alarmists and xenophobic meanies like Tom Tancredo are all wrong.
But are we? Steigerwald mentions that the stats at Reason are disputed by Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies. I prefer to put my faith in Camarota and CIS rather than those pipe-dreaming ideologues at Reason Magazine. I've found libertarians to be people who, like leftists, are attached to their abstractions and ideologies more than anchored in reality. If the facts don't fit their ideologies and pet theories, then 'so much the worse for the facts', as philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was supposed to have said. His reality-denying heirs are mostly in the leftist and libertarian camp these days.
I don't think much of Bill Steigerwald's sneering dismissal of our concerns about mass immigration:
You can rail about the fact that illegal immigrants broke the law to get into the USA or about the horror of having to hear those Spanish phone messages. You can lose sleep worrying that 32 Latino radicals somewhere in California aim to re-conquer the Southwest for Mexico or that illegals are costing taxpayers $10 billion a year -- in a $2.57 trillion federal budget.
And then his 'answer' to these concerns, which he treats so belittlingly, is that the economy is growing, crime at a 20-year low [by what measure, Bill?] and 'unemployment is almost nonexistent', so 'just don't call our immigration problem a national crisis.'
Steigerwald does not offer any solid back-up for his blanket assertions about this new golden age in America, and even if he did, his 'happy days are here again' refrain is no refutation to all the arguments raised by the immigration restrictionists. He does not even acknowledge the enormous social disruption caused by mass immigration, the loss of open space, the shortage of affordable housing, the conflicts (Mexican vs. black in California jails and schools), the crimes committed by the immigrants, (including terrorism) the environmental stresses, and the increased energy demands resulting in rolling blackouts in many areas, and on and on. How typical of the libertarians and the country club Republican types, to reduce everything to the economic nexus. As long as immigration profits certain special interests, it's a good thing, according to these people. There is no concern for the larger picture, or for American culture, and standard of living.
But these apologists for mass immigration can convince themselves that their smug position makes them more enlightened than the 'Tancredos, Dobbses and Buchanans' of the world, in Steigerwald's words.
Tony Snow, from his moral perch on high, calls us 'neo-Know-Nothings.' His words have a 'take that!' tone about them, as if they are supposed to sting, and to chasten and to cause their targets to slink off in shame.
Far from it, Tony. Words which you intend as insults or slaps won't discourage me. In fact, if these names are going to be hurled at us, I've decided to educate myself as to precisely what they mean. The word 'nativist' which they consider an insult is simply a descriptive term for anyone who puts the interests of Americans or one's own above those of other countries. So where is the 'sting' in that word?
And the word 'Know-Nothing' seems to carry the extra connotation of an ignoramus who 'knows nothing', but simply meant a member of the American Party. Members of the party were taught to reply 'I know nothing' when asked about the party.
Most of the provisions of the party platform were not extreme, and in any case, 'the past is another country'; it's all too often a flaw of our own time that we are judgmental about previous generations and their standards. They lived in very different times, and had a drastically different mindset, growing up in a very different culture than our own. Our modern dogmas were not in force back in the mid-19th century, back in the B.P.C. era, before Political Correctness came along and showed us the error of our ways.
In some later post, I may write more about the Know-Nothings.
In the meantime, Tony Snow, and William Kristol, (who calls himself a 'liberal on immigration,' BTW) will not win any points by calling immigration skeptics 'neo-Know-Nothings.' So bring it on, as the saying goes.
Better a 'neo-Know-Nothing' than a neo-Con who knows nothing.
Labels: Crisis