Vile: Washington Post turns on Mike Huckabee to support illegal immigration

Posted Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 9:31 am

The Washington Post offers a vile, spittle-flecked editorial called "The Immigration Swamp/As the presidential campaign intensifies, so does the nativist ferocity." They turn on Mike Huckabee for changing from a strong supporter of illegal immigration into someone who (supposedly) wants illegal aliens to return home within 120 days:

The idea that 12 million illegal residents of the United States can be induced to quit the country en masse within four months is absurd on its face -- a non-starter in logistical, humanitarian, political, diplomatic, commercial and economic terms that would leave an indelible stain on this country for years. Yet that is the wrathful centerpiece of Mike Huckabee's "Secure America Plan," which the Republican presidential candidate issued the other day in the course of his party's escalating enthusiasm for nastier-than-thou prescriptions to deal with illegal immigrants.

Then, they refer to the Minuteman Project as "a group of xenophobes who spend their time videotaping and harassing day laborers wherever they find them" and a group that engages in "vigilantism". They refer to Huck's (supposed) turn to the right side of things as a "cruel campaign of immigrant-bashing".

Then, it's off to selective reading land as they quote the Pew Hispanic Center study in which people claimed to have suffered discrimination. Then:

According to the latest FBI statistics, from 2006, hate crimes against Hispanics had increased by more than a third since 2003.

Unfortunately, the FBI doesn't seem to break out the race of the offender vs. the race of the victims, but they say there were a total of 853 "anti-Hispanic" crimes in 2006 (fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table7.html). Not only that, but when counting the offender's race they lump Hispanics as white; of known offenders, 3710 were white and 1026 were black (fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table3.html). But, some of those listed as white might in fact be Hispanic. And, from Earl Ofari Hutchison (link):

In fact, even though hate-crime laws were originally created to combat crimes by whites against minority groups, the majority of L.A. County's hate crimes against blacks in 2006 were suspected to have been committed by Latinos, and vice versa, according to the county Commission on Human Relations.

So, the WaPo appears to be stretching to smear. And, they make clear that their real reason for doing this is economic:

[Promotes "comprehensive immigration reform"; Huckabee's plan] suggests no realistic plan to address the economy's appetite for immigrant workers in the future, let alone those here now.

Someone should really follow the money on the WaPo; what do they or those to whom they're linked have to gain from the importation of cheap labor?

The editorial ends in as vile a manner as it began:

America has had its paroxysms of anti-immigrant fervor in the past, also accompanied by spasms of violence and persecution. Today, as in the past, the national atmosphere is subverting the discussion, drowning out reason. Look at the uproar that overwhelmed New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sensible, safety-minded proposal to make illegal immigrants eligible for driver's licenses, and you will see logic defeated by posturing, political cowardice and the poisonous diatribes of talk radio. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who championed comprehensive reform, is now chastened by the ferocity of the demagogues who mischaracterized it as an "amnesty"; he says he "got the message" and will now speak only of enforcement in the near term. In such an ugly environment, the best one can hope for is candidates who can appeal to the nation's self-interest as well as its better instincts; who can explain that resolving the immigration mess through a comprehensive approach is not only an economic imperative but also the only realistic way out of a political swamp.

Tags: 
comprehensive immigration reform
eliot spitzer
mike huckabee

Comments

Mary (not verified)

Thu, 12/13/2007 - 17:10

GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Edward (not verified)

Thu, 12/13/2007 - 21:23

George Orwell, welcome home. "Economic imperative" to grant amnesty. Or, what? We have to go back to the insufferable and squalid conditions of 1995? Heh. Spitzer, supported by barely 10 percent of those polled was 'sensible and safety minded'. Guess they forgot 'fluffy','cute', and 'flosses after every meal' too. And the 90 percent of America who disagrees...described as 'violent ugly, haters, cowardly, poisoned, demagogues'. Yep, WaPo left out how the tremendous majority of law abiding Americans are really Satan worshipers who kick puppies, and steal candy from children. Double that Grrr, Mary.

Jack (not verified)

Fri, 12/14/2007 - 09:11

I challenge any 'economic imperative' type to cite ONE recognized economic theory by which a prosperous national economy requires any of the following: a) a growing domestic population b) a growing population via immigration, either legal or illegal c) a substantial portion of the economy in the 'black market'/underground/not paying taxes d) a substantial portion of the economy employing illegal aliens, children, slaves, serfs, or anything less than first class adult citizens e) 'guest worker' program(s) f) labor that is paid less than the value of its marginal product or its contribution to output As for 'the economy's appetite for immigrant workers', 'The economy' makes no distinction between domestic or immigrant workers. The employer 'appetite' is for what's described in f), i.e., 'cheap labor'. Tough! We citizens have the right as a society to set the rules of the labor market game and tell these businesses, 'Sorry, Charlie, this country requires you pay the going rate, all above board, and you have to make do with who we have here.' In a nutshell, there is no economic imperative for cheap imported labor, illegal labor, guest workers, etc. Whoever thinks we really need any of that, the onus should be on them to give an irrefutable justification and not just scare tactics. Be honest--when you say 'our needs' you really mean 'YOUR needs' and it's more greed than need. Good luck making your pitch that driving down wages by distorting labor markets is good for US.

Tanstaafl (not verified)

Fri, 12/14/2007 - 17:03

Well said Jack, the economic arguments in favor of the invasion are BS. But rather than acknowledging this invasion supporters just move to the next level. You're just afraid of brown people. You're a raaaaaacist. This of course demonstrates that they are afraid of White people, and that they literally prefer brown people. Read that editorial again with this in mind. Doesn't it make more sense now? Why don't they ever argue with such ferocity in favor of native-born Americans? Are you ready to acknowledge this? Are you ready to see that what they seek is not sensible. It's genocidal.

Jeff (not verified)

Fri, 12/14/2007 - 18:43

Who could possibly choose an approach that was "wrathful, nastier-than-thou, xenophobes, vigilantism, immigrant-bashing, nativist zeal, venomous, pernicious, fierce, hate crimes, paroxysms of anti-immigrant fervor, spasms of violence and persecution, political cowardice and the poisonous diatribes, demagogues, and ugly" as opposed to the WAPO editor's "pragmatic policy, common sense or simple decency, logic, better instincts, comprehensive, realistic" policy prescriptions?

Jeff (not verified)

Fri, 12/14/2007 - 19:19

That most Latinos would fear deportation is a measure of just how much of the Latino population is the result of illegal immigration. That makes it inevitable and quite accurate that people associate Latinos with illegal immigration, something that a vast majority of citizens oppose. That is exacerbated by advocacy organizations, including newspapers, which continuously conflate opposing illegal immigration with being anti-Latino. Of course that valid generalization about illegality is going to affect how people think about Latinos, which is not a good prospect for those here legally. On the other hand, those legal Latinos who oppose the enforcement of our immigration laws bear some of the blame for not respecting the wishes of the majority. As far as fearing deportation, if people don't fear consequences for having broken the law, the law will most certainly be ignored.

Jeff (not verified)

Fri, 12/14/2007 - 19:20

Mistaken post, sorry.

george (not verified)

Sat, 12/15/2007 - 02:08

You people are pathetic.