I stumped Tamar Jacoby

Earlier tonight, I attended the appearance at the Los Angeles Public Library of immigration "reform" maven Tamar Jacoby. I managed to ask a stumper of a question; more on that after an overview of her remarks.

What she said was basically a live performance of one of her columns. My summary is very long, so feel free to skip ahead.

She started out discussing a focus group that she watched through two-way glass. It consisted of 12 women and 12 men from Dallas discussing immigration matters. She couldn't belive her ears and eyes! These yahoos wanted to send them all back, install machine gun nests on the border, etc. etc.

Then, she went into a standard bit about facing the reality that we have 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S. In fact, we wouldn't be rebuilding New Orleans if not for those "immigrants." Yes, that's right, she supports illegal aliens ("IAs") taking rebuilding jobs from U.S. citizens.

Then, she said that IAs don't get welfare. I'm sure that they do indeed get various forms of welfare in many states. And, of course, there's also all of the other spending that could be considered under the welfare banner: increased schooling and medical costs and on and on.

Then, she actually said it was a good thing that IAs have now displaced American workers in meatpacking plants. The IAs do the dirty jobs that keep the rest of us employed; she actually referred to "anglo teenage kids working in the summer" who are kept employed by the cheaper laborers below them.

Then, she urged the audience to face the "reality of existence" in our modern world. And, she accused Americans of "closing our eyes" to illegal immigration and "sticking our heads in the sand": enjoying the benefits while denying it exists.

Then, she said there was "no dent" in illegal immigration despite increased border enforcement.

Then, she discussed the building consensus in Washington in favor of immigration "reform". Politicians "from Bush to Kennedy" support it. (Are they really that far apart?)

Then, "most employers would rather use legal workers". She said that Tyson would rather use legal workers than face prosecution. (As if!)

Then, she discused how all these IAs live "in the shadows" and we don't know who they are.

Then, guess what: she described how the Dallas yahoos started to come around after discussing this matter amongst themselves.

Then, she claimed we're pretending all those illegal alien children aren't here. (The $11 billion school bond for California - which, even after that's spent won't have built enough seats - tends to contradict that).

Then, another call to face reality, and a statement that "enforcement only" systems don't work.

Then, finally, guess what again: after discussing this amongst themselves for almost an hour, the yahoos in Dallas came around! They realized that we can't deport them all. They realized that "making them miserable so they'll leave" wouldn't work. They realized how dependent they were on their smiling foreign workers. The yahoos came around!

After the speech, only a few people got to ask questions and I was not among those. While a couple people had OK questions, a couple were mostly coherent far-lefties.

I thought the session was going to be two hours, but it was only an hour and I thought I was out of luck. However, we all adjourned to a buffet outside and I was able to ask a couple questions before a much smaller audience.

So, here's the stumper: I stated that all those "guest" workers will have U.S. citizen children and because of the sympathetic (euphemistically speaking) media and Democratic politicians, we won't be able to force them to go home. I'll give her this: rather than trying to duck the question she flat out stated that she didn't know what to do about that. Then she, I and another attendee briefly discussed the 14th Amendment, but this is clear: this is one of those questions that you have to ask those who promote "guest" worker programs. If our "guests" end up staying, it's not a "guest worker" program at all. That, when asked enough and publicly enough, will tend to erode whatever credibility the promoters might have had to begin with.

I also asked if she knew of a guest worker program that had worked, and she said no. She says that whatever new program we'll come up with will be better than the Bracero program and those in France, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, et al.

Then, I stated that Bush does almost no interior and workplace enforcement now, and we shouldn't trust him to do it in the future under a new program. Once again, she goes on faith and says that with the right program that won't be a problem. Ditto when I pointed out that the 1986 amnesty's enforcement provisions were gutted by the Dems.

Then, finally, I brought up the matter of Illinois state Senator Martin Sandoval. She believes that the "fifth column" effect (her words) is of no real consequence, and we don't need to worry about it.

Needless to say, the hundreds of entries here and all those on other sites pointing out Mexico's continual attempts - and successes - at interfering in our internal politics tends to cast a great deal of doubt on her rosy scenario.

So, let me suggest that every chance you get, you yourself go out to such events and start asking tough questions. And, make sure they're questions that can't be answered with just a "trust Bush", such as the stumper above.


Why not be even bolder and, rather than focusing mostly on economic aspects, ask her about the demographic heritage of America as a majority white nation -- does this have value? Is it worth preserving? I'd like to see if she would squirm when asked so bluntly about that. If so, i.e. if it does have value (who would say it has not or does not?) and is worth preserving (this might be tougher to pin her down on), how can she reconcile that view with current immigration patterns, which, as Census Bureau projections clearly show (has she seen them?), will result in whites being less than half the US population around 2050. And wouldn't a cheap labor scam like immigration 'reform' and/or a 'guest worker' program just accelerate that? Of course it would, as you rightly point out. Oh and by the way, Ms Jacoby: Where do you live? How much 'diversity' surrounds you?

I guess this tack is not yet ready for prime time.

There's a term for those who say:'get real, we're never going to stop murder, rape, robbery, so why not just more or less legalize most of it'. Such people are cynical amoralists. You don't just stop trying because evil has ways of concealing itself.