October 02, 2005

Cynthia Tucker's illegal immigration strawman; a challenge

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist offers "Don't blame illegals; blast their bosses", which shall be mini-fisked as follows:

In every time, and in every place, there are demagogues who ride to power by whipping up the fears and resentments of an anxious populace.

Believe or don't, she's referring to Tom Tancredo. She is not referring to people like Gil Cedillo (see, for instance, "Gil Cedillo: using a horrible crime for political purposes" or "Pro-illegal immigration advocates seemingly have no shame"). Does she even know that name? Is she even aware of the constant demagoguery of those who support illegal immigration, even in her own state? And, if she is aware or were made aware, would she have the guts to call them on it? I highly doubt it.

Our current Joseph McCarthys are the contentious cranks and nativists who want to drive every illegal immigrant - especially Mexicans, Hondurans and Guatemalans - out of the country.

If it sounds like she's playing the race card, that's because she is. Just one small problem: the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and Central America. And, her "argument" is a variation on the standard "you can't deport all illegals so why bother" false choice. And, of course, there's that little matter of referring to those who want to enforce our laws as "cranks and nativists".

...But the demagogues who whip up the anti-immigrant frenzy rarely say a word about companies that hire illegally.

That's absolute BS. The problem, as Tucker points out, is that those companies have money and a corrupting influence. They are able to buy what they want, and what they want is opposed by the great majority of Americans who rightly perceive it as against America's best interests.

So, why is Cynthia Tucker effectively on their side by writing smear articles like this?

Perhaps instead of constructing the nativist strawman, she might consider doing something good and fighting against those corrupt businesses, corrupt politicians, and racial demagogues. After all, she seems to be somewhat against illegal immigration, right?

I look forward to her having the guts to take on the real enemies rather than strawmen. Let's keep a close eye on the AJC and eagerly await their exposes on the Open Borders Lobby. I'm sure such articles will be forthcoming any day now.

Posted to Immigration2005b at October 2, 2005 12:57 PM

Comments

I've always appreciated Cynthia Tucker. She most often takes a level-headed approach to issues.

Posted by: Ralph at October 3, 2005 04:59 AM

The Immigration and Refugee Control Act (IRCA) passed in 1986 and was touted as a “one-time-only “ amnesty to end illegal immigration, to provide a clear path for foreign workers to find legal jobs in the US, and to protect US workers from underground cheap labor. It promised to provide for tough employer sanctions that would shut off the lure of employment for illegal workers and therefore halt the invasion that was causing so many problems, especially in the states bordering on Mexico.

As true reform, it was a massive failure. The US employer organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Restaurant Association as well as the civil rights organizations such as the ACLU, MALDEF, and La Raza insured that employer sanctions would never be seriously enforced. The agricultural component expected 400,000 applicants but received a whopping 1.8 million along with indications of substantial fraud. The likely 3 to 4 million illegal immigrants in the US in 1986 have now grown into 9 to 20 million, depending on whose estimates you accept.

The same forces that sabotaged the strong employer sanctions in IRCA are still at work; and as long as employers continue to offer jobs, the flood of illegal workers will continue north to fill them. If the proposals now in Congress are passed without solving the enforcement dilemma, in 10 years or less we’ll be back inspecting yet another “last-time-only-we-promise” deal that again assures us that we have finally gotten this appalling situation under control.

Posted by: D Flinchum at October 3, 2005 07:55 AM

The anticipated smear campaign is rolling right along, in spite of being kneecapped by the leadership from the White House. Tancredo is popular, and his views on immigration restrictionism are even more popular; therefore he must be a demagogue. Popular opinion against mass parasitical immigration doesn't need to be whipped up by anyone, it is generally leaderless and reality based. Elite opinion, which needs to be whipped down on this subject, just to approach neutrality, uses the methods of demagoguery, on a rabble of scholars and officials. Ad hominem and other fallacies, to the complete exclusion of rational argument, are the methods that the mass immigrationists use. How is it they can never have a self criticism session or two on that?

Posted by: John S Bolton at October 4, 2005 01:03 AM