The Wall Street Journal editorial page published another of its periodic eructations on immigration last week. This one was essentially a campaign ad for Utah Congressman Chris Cannon, the administration point-man on immigration in the House of Representatives, who was forced into a primary (being held today) because of his avid support for illegal-alien amnesties...My discussion of the pro-Cannon smear is here.
So why all the ink, why the lead editorial with 25 column-inches of smears, innuendo, and half-truths? (Full disclosure � some of it's about me personally.) Why the belabored efforts to paint pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-tax traditionalist conservatives like congressmen Tom Tancredo and John Hostettler as part of a cabal of ChiCom-loving, baby-killing white supremacists?
Because for post-Americans, there can be no legitimate opposition to their open-borders views. To the degree that Cannon is facing political trouble, it must be because his opponent is "running hard on xenophobia," as the Journal writes, "courtesy of deep-pocketed restrictionists." (Attention any "deep-pocketed restrictionists." Call me!) To concede that supporters of more moderate immigration levels and tighter enforcement might be anything other than racists or "humanity-is-a-virus" leftists would be to acknowledge the legitimacy of a nationalist, as opposed to a post-nationalist, worldview; in other words, to admit that borders have value, rather than being awkward anachronisms that interfere with business...
Immigration2003 · Tue, 06/22/2004 - 08:10 · Importance: 1