This time it isn't Ruben Navarrette, nor is it Miguel Perez. It's our old friend Andres Oppenheimer, who is Argentinian, handing down his wisdom on the '5 myths of anti-immigration talk.'
Most U.S. Republican presidential hopefuls -- with the exception of Sen. John McCain -- and cable television anti-immigration crusaders on CNN and Fox News are deceiving the public with their claim that they are only against "illegal" immigration.''
Unfortunately, this is false. Most of the candidates are pro-legal immigration and not truly opposed even to illegal immigration.
Myth No. 1: "We are only against illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants should get in line for visas." That's deceptive because you can't demand that people get into line when, for the most part, there is no line to get into. ''
No line to get into? Presumably the million and a half legal immigrants who enter each year are entering by getting into line. So what does Oppenheimer mean? Apparently he is saying that more unskilled immigrants are needed. He claims, without any kind of substantiation, that 1.5 million low-skilled immigrants are 'demanded' by employers. In other words, we need a million and a half low-skilled, menial laborers because (he says) employers want them, demand them. Well, people in Hades want ice water too.
So because some exploitative fly-by-night employer prefers cheap non-English speaking, low-maintenance, disposable labor, we are obliged to give them millions of immigrant laborers -- and in so doing give away our birthright, our country?
As I said, though, these candidates with their phony tough-talk are trying to dupe their Anglo constituencies, while showing by their past actions and statements that they are willing to either tolerate or abet continued illegal immigration and eventual amnesty.
Myth No. 2: "Anti-immigration advocates are not anti-Hispanic." Maybe many aren't but when was the last time you heard anti-immigration Republican hopefuls or cable television talk show hosts lashing out against illegal immigrants from Canada?
In addition, the escalating immigration hysteria has created an ugly environment that affects all Hispanics -- both legal and undocumented -- in many parts of the country, as recent studies by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have shown.
"We are seeing more discrimination and harassment," says Michele Waslin, of the Immigration Policy Center. "Anybody who is Hispanic-looking or has an Hispanic last name is being treated as an undocumented immigrant." '
Typically idiotic non-sequitur arguments and overblown drama from Oppenheimer et al. We aren't complaining about all those millions of illegal Canucks sneaking across our borders and marching in our streets and committing crimes and smuggling drugs and overloading our emergency rooms and schools and prisons -- because there aren't any. How hard is that to figure out?
There are no doubt a few who enter illegally via Canada; I have heard of Chinese and Korean illegals being smuggled in via Canada but they are a drop in the ocean compared to the Hispanic illegals. How many Chinese and Korean illegals do you see setting up colonies and enclaves in small heartland towns? I would bet you haven't seen many. And if they were entering by the millions, you can bet we would be complaining about them as well. Racism? Then I guess Mexico is racist, too, for its harsh treatment of illegal Latinos who sneak into Mexico, (most of them en route to our country by the way.)
But unfortunately, Oppenheimer has a point about the restrictionists who claim that their only problem with illegal Hispanic immigration is that it is, well illegal. I've said all along that this is a dead-end as an argument; the illegals are a problem not just because they are illegal, (which is a problem, but not the only issue). They are a problem because of their huge numbers and because they are not compatible with our country and culture. They do not assimilate nor do they want to assimilate. I argue further that they likely could not assimilate. I don't think people are interchangeable nor do I believe that people can change their basic natures; just living in America does not make one an American. You don't become American by geographic proximity to Americans. And we have many Hispanics who have lived here for generations, yet who are now siding with their illegal cousins from Mexico, despite the fact that they and several generations of their ancestors were born here. Blood is thicker than water.
And if we are going to talk about creating an 'ugly environment', how about the ugly environment created by the anti-gringo attitudes and rhetoric of the Mexican irredentists and their many American-born sympathizers? Who is to blame if there are conflicts: those of us who find our country being invaded by uninvited 'guests' with bad attitudes, or the people who barge in uninvited? The illegals exercised a choice to come here; we were given no say in the matter. The illegals, if they find us and our attitudes not to their liking, are under absolutely no compulsion to stay here among us. We, on the other hand, have only one homeland, while they have a homeland in Mexico.
Why are they entitled to claim two countries, whereas we, who made this country the object of envy by our success here, are apparently not even entitled to one country, if we are to accept their rhetoric. They seem to believe we are supposed to be supine victims while they claim our country. We are not permitted to object to their unwanted presence, but instead are expected to sit in passive silence while they move in and colonize us.
And these people, the so-called 'hate monitor' groups and the Hispanic groups they represent, have the gall to accuse us of creating an 'ugly environment.'
I'm not going to go down the list of Senor Oppenheimer's 'myths'; they are not of any great substance. I will only mention the last one.
Myth No. 5: Those of us who criticize anti-immigration groups are "amnesty" and "open borders" supporters. Baloney. Many support both border protection and an earned path to legalization for millions of undocumented workers who pay taxes and are willing to learn English.
So, let's call things by their names and agree that most opponents of a comprehensive immigration package are anti-immigration.
The only way to solve the current immigration crisis will be to legalize undocumented workers who have paid their dues and to increase economic integration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America in order to reduce poverty and emigration pressures south of the border.
The rest is, for the most part, populist demagoguery. ''
Oppenheimer, the Latino demagogue, calling us demagogues: that's rich.
His arguments are a pathetic rehash of the duplicitous and loaded rhetoric which is always used by the pro-illegal, pro-mass immigration apologists. He offers no supportive evidence, just a lot of accusations and assertions.
And he is echoing the 'earned legalization is not amnesty' absurdities employed by everybody on that side of the argument. How is it that anybody can continue to use these lines with a straight face? If giving a pathway to citizenship (what a euphemism) is not amnesty, then we may as well throw the word out of the lexicon. According to the people who push amnesty, people like Oppenheimer and his fellow Hispanic advocates, people like ALL the presidential candidates, except Ron Paul, I guess there is no such thing as amnesty, because nobody, but nobody, will own up to supporting it. They simply try to dupe the ignorant rubes out in the real world by telling us that 'a pathway to legalization' is not amnesty.
Anything which either removes penalties for illegal entry into our country and/or rewards the illegals with citizenship, whether instant citizenship via a law being passed, or gradual citizenship via 'getting in line' and/or paying some paltry, token fine, is amnesty. Call it what you will, it is amnesty all the same. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or obfuscating or playing word games, and is not to be trusted.
And as for the charge Oppenheimer makes that opponents of open borders are 'anti-immigrant', granted, many so-called conservatives will run from that label. They will twist and turn and deny it, rather unconvincingly. Maybe there are a few naive souls who say they object only to illegal immigration, not to immigration per se. Maybe there are quite a few, I don't know. Those who say it and mean it, however, are guilty of not thinking through their positions.
As for me, I won't deny being anti-immigration. I cannot see any justification at this point, based on the interests of the American people, for admitting immigrants perpetually into this country. 300 million and counting is quite crowded enough. We cannot absorb the unknown millions who are already here; we don't even know who or where they are, except that their presence here is putting a strain on our resources and on our communities and on our people. Anybody who says we need more of what we already have too much of had better justify that claim; prove why we need more immigrants, especially illiterate, non-English speaking, low-skilled, oftentimes hostile immigrants. And the cold hard reality is that this kind of immigrant is what comprises most of our immigration these days, the legal kind as well as the illegal.
No sane person could say 'more, please' to this kind of immigration.
I know there are the inevitable bleeding-hearts from both parties who will go into their hearts-and-flowers stories of poverty or oppression in third-world countries which require us to open our borders and rescue the downtrodden. Yet how much of the world are we obligated to take care of? Who made us the world's social service agency? Why are we to be in perpetual yoke, we and our descendants, to take care of everybody, everywhere? Do we have unlimited resources? Do we not owe it to our own to put them first? Why do we owe the rest of the world? How much guilt and responsibility are we to be required to bear, and for how long?
Mexico has resources aplenty; Mexico can look after its own. As for Oppenheimer's claim that we have to 'increase economic integration with Mexico' or the rest of Latin America, why? Who says? How will it benefit us? I know our scheming elites want to push this on us against our will, and they are doing so in violation of American principles, but if we Americans were given a choice, why on earth would we want to 'integrate' with the failed Latin American countries, which are mostly corrupt, backward, chaotic, and troubled?
I will just mention one myth of my own in regard to immigration: the persistent myth which is fostered mostly by Republican open borders pushers. The myth is that 'most Hispanics oppose illegal immigration', which is belied by this piece by Oppenheimer, as well as similar pro-illegal pieces by Navarrette, Linda Chavez, Geraldo Rivera, Miguel Perez and countless others.
Hispanics in general side with their own. Plain and simple.
And the fact that they do calls into question another false assertion: that they 'assimilate well' and that they are 'natural conservatives.' How much proof do the Republican kumbaya types need before they give up those childish myths?