"Wall Street Journal Misses the Mark on Immigration Debate"

Bobby Eberle of gopusa.com discusses the most recent WSJ smear attempt:

...How can conservatives such as myself stand up and discuss immigration reform in the context of border security when the Wall Street Journal is labeling us as "anti-immigrant?" Not once in the Journal's editorial was the topic of border security mentioned. Not once did the editorial mention that many conservatives rightfully believe that rewarding illegal behavior only encourages more illegal behavior. Shortly after President Bush's announcement of his guest worker program, illegal immigration shot up "dramatically" according to the National Border Patrol Council. However, if conservatives step forward and discuss this in a logical manner, the name-calling starts and the shouts of "I can't hear you" begin.

Publications such as the Wall Street Journal should recognize that the immigration issue is more than just an economic issue of cheap labor. They should also realize that a great many Americans, including myself, are deeply concerned about the security of our country, and we realize that an important battle in the war on terror is making sure our homeland is secure. We are taking the fight to the terrorists, and at the same time, we must make it as difficult as possible for the terrorists to take the fight to us. Squelching debate through hit pieces and name calling does nothing to address the real immigration and security problems facing America. Of all publications, the Wall Street Journal should know better than that.


It is true that you get called anti-immigrant, anti-nativist,anti-foreigner and more for saying that we have national interests involving our borders. Yet this resort to ad hominem approaches, indicates that the pro-immigrationists have no rational arguments available to them. Their only hope is to try to silence the patriots, or to smear them. That the WSJ cannot offer convincing arguments in favor of their position, is a shocking confession of intellectual bankruptcy. They tried to prove that they're not racist, but have only succeeded in proving that they are, if they have to indulge in anti-caucasian race-baiting.