"Comprehensivly Wrong" (reply to WSJ open borders letter)

In June, 41 prominent conservatives released an open letter calling for "enforcement first". A couple weeks ago, 33 "conservatives" published a reply in the WSJ. Now, here's the response:

...Unfortunately, the letter's principal argument rests on the false premise that the Senate bill strengthens enforcement. According to University of Missouri law professor Kris W. Kobach, former attorney general John Ashcroft's chief advisor on immigration law from 2001–03, the Senate bill would actually weaken the War on Terror...

...as the signers of the counter-letter well know, American national identity has been under assault for decades from an anti-assimilation agenda that includes bilingual ballots, bilingual education, group preferences for new immigrants, and dual-allegiance citizenship (e.g., a naturalized U.S. citizen was just elected to the Mexican Congress last week, for the first time) [????]. A truly "comprehensive" approach would fight to address these anti-assimilation measures - here and now - before endorsing a Senate bill that vastly increases immigration. To their credit, some of the signers of the counter-letter have fought for (not just talked about) assimilation (Clint Bolick, Linda Chavez), but many continue to prevaricate, and pander to the aptly named National Council of The Race ("La Raza")...

...The counter-letter touts the old Bracero program as a successful model for limiting illegal immigration. But, as U.C. Davis professor Phil Martin testified before the House on July 19, during the 22 year (1942–1964) Bracero program "some 4.6 million Mexicans were legally admitted, but over 5.3 million were apprehended demonstrating that even a large guest worker program can be accompanied by larger illegal migration." Thus, the counter-letter fails to note that illegal immigration actually increased during the Bracero program.

Surprisingly, the counter-letter begins by posing the question: "What side of history do conservatives want to be on?" We are told that the economy "demands" and "history teaches" that "the only way to control immigration" is a "comprehensive solution" (the Senate approach). Thus, the philosophical foundation of the counter-letter rests on the premise that there is an impersonal force called "history" to which Americans must submit and, apparently, scurry to get on the "right side" of. This represents a quasi-Marxist (and fatalist) mindset rather than a conservative (or liberal) one. How did the one or two Straussians, who signed the counter-letter, miss this historicist cant?

...No less surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal, in the same editorial that promotes the counter-letter, argues that the philosophy of "open immigration" and "flexible labor markets" is "at a fundamental level" a "matter of freedom and human dignity." Thus, the Wall Street Journal states: "These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right."

Well, there you have it. An influential voice in the conservative movement believes, apparently in all sincerity, that illegal immigrants have "a basic human right" to work in the United States, contrary to the laws and, hence, the wishes of the American people. So much for "government by consent of the governed." Apparently, as far as the Journal is concerned, a "flexible labor market" trumps democratic self-government. The signers of the counter-letter should come clean and tell us whether they agree. This is an issue conservatives should clarify now, before passing any immigration legislation or heading into the elections of 2006 and 2008. Do we stand for American self-government or not?

Immigration · Sat, 07/29/2006 - 02:32 · · Importance: 1