The Wall Street Journal's tenuous grasp on reality
Posted Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 7:47 am
The WSJ has yet another open borders screed. This one's about the fight between the Sierra Club and the Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization entitled "Low Sierra". It appears to be subscriber only, but the first part is here.
See also "The WSJ gets desperate(r)" for an editorial in which they supported Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT). That's the same Rep. featured in "Aide to U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) solicits campaign contributions from illegal aliens", and from this post:
See "WND and the WSJ on Rush, Bush, and illegal immigration", "The WSJ's libertarian fantasy world", "The WSJ is getting desperate", and "I can't believe it's not a free weekly" for more on America's premier national newspaper.
...It's an irony of the anti-immigration movement that its most prominent voices, on the right and left, are often immigrants who want to pull up the drawbridge now that they've arrived...Thanks for that info on the "anti-immigration movement." Now perhaps you could discuss the 75% of U.S. citizens who are opposed to illegal immigration, or the smaller number who want reduced legal immigration as well.
While the Sierra Club insurgents probably lack the votes to prevail, their effort is notable for revealing the zero-population-growth roots of the anti-immigration movement. Their argument isn't about the "rule of law" or "securing our borders"; their main problem is other human beings... [...snarky comment deleted...]Once again, thanks for revealing that about the "anti-immigration movement." Now perhaps you could discuss the groups that actually have some members.
...Meanwhile, Republicans tempted to embrace the anti-immigration cause should understand the political and ideological company they are keeping...Unfortunately, that's where the excerpt ends, but I can only imagine what comes next. It's probably a rehash of the same smears they've printed in the past. See "The high-immigration Right is on the warpath" for a roundup.
See also "The WSJ gets desperate(r)" for an editorial in which they supported Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT). That's the same Rep. featured in "Aide to U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) solicits campaign contributions from illegal aliens", and from this post:
...a survey of Cannon's financial disclosures since 1996 shows Washington, D.C., and out-of-state interests steadily replacing his Utah support. Eight years ago, 85 percent of the individuals backing Cannon hailed from Utah; today locals comprise just 16 percent of his donor base... A close look at who is giving also shows a sudden jump in contributions from immigration attorneys - 23 of whom have poured $20,900 into Cannon's war chest... At least five of the attorneys serve on the executive committee of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which helped Cannon draft the "AgJobs" bill...I'd say the WSJ "should understand the political and ideological company they are keeping". Thankfully, Cannon's now gone from the immigration subcommittee.
See "WND and the WSJ on Rush, Bush, and illegal immigration", "The WSJ's libertarian fantasy world", "The WSJ is getting desperate", and "I can't believe it's not a free weekly" for more on America's premier national newspaper.
Comments
eh (not verified)
Fri, 04/22/2005 - 09:26
Permalink
Note the "Wall Street" part of "The Wall Street Journal".
Zhang Fei (not verified)
Thu, 04/21/2005 - 19:09
Permalink
I think the WSJ misses the point. Everyone in just about every country in the world is an immigrant or is descended from an immigrant at some point in time. That doesn't mean that they are obligated to let all comers in. More to the point, it doesn't mean that they are obligated to let one particular neighboring nationality to swamp their population. If we're going to let people in, let's do it in a way that doesn't let Mexico carve out a colony in these United States, and not just let tens of millions of Mexicans in.
John S Bolton (not verified)
Thu, 04/21/2005 - 14:54
Permalink
The WSJ sets up a false dilemna between being for zero immigration, or for all possible immigration, since they say anti immigration without qualification, and pretend that no immigrant can consistently be against any other immigration. This shows a radical lack of respect for reason and human intelligence; which may explain the next false dilemna. This one would leave us with no alternatives but to love and accept all of humanity, including subhuman aggressors from anywhere, or have hatred against the entirety of the species. Republicans are exhorted not to take up any anti immigration cause, since it might be smearable by association with some ecofanatics, who have hatred against humanity; or such would be the innuendo. Apparently the WSJ's hatred and contempt for humanity is not yet so extreme that they would dare to express their associative linkage as an explicit syllogism. Some environmentalists have hatred against humanity, some are against immigration, or even all immigration; therefore to be against immigration is to have hatred against humanity? How does that follow, and who could it fool, and how did opposition to some immigration magically switch to being against any possible immigration? Then they imply that growth in population is growth in prosperity. Presumably they mean that total production will be larger. Should this be called hatred; a contempt for humanity so profound, as to assume that no one will notice the equivocation between an addition to total output, and one to per capita production? Living with domestic help has been said to be capable of changing people's entire attitude towards others.