Andres Oppenheimer's five "myths" of the "anti-immigration movement"

Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald - previously featured here for warning about a "Latino Intifada" unless we give millions of illegal aliens an amnesty - now offers "Five myths of anti-immigration talk", such as:

Myth No. 1: ''We are only against illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants should get in line for visas.'' That's deceptive because you can't demand that people get into line when, for the most part, there is no line to get into... While the U.S. labor market is demanding 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants a year -- and will demand many more in coming years, as the U.S. population becomes increasingly educated -- the current immigration system allows into the U.S. an average of one million legal immigrants a year, and most of them are already here... ''There is a huge mismatch between what the U.S. labor market needs and the supply of immigration visas,'' says Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates both secure borders and a path to legal residence for many of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Perhaps there's a reason why there isn't a line for massive numbers of low-skilled workers and/or massive immigration from Mexico, yet AO doesn't go into that. And the "market" demands are based on a crooked market, where employers have been able to obtain labor thanks to corrupt politicians who refuse to enforce our laws or try to subvert them. Perhaps it's bad public policy to import massive amounts of low-skilled workers while the rest of us sit on our verandas watching them toil in the fields. And, Sharry isn't exactly as moderate a voice as AO tries to portray him. In another "myth", AO references "studies" from the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both "studies" are riddled with holes and the second group has an indirect link to the Mexican government.

He also quotes Michelle Waslin, previously with the National Council of La Raza and now with the Immigration Policy Center.

"Anybody who is Hispanic-looking or has an Hispanic last name is being treated as an undocumented immigrant."

To the extent that that's true, those groups and pundits who support illegal immigration are partially responsible. They've helped to racialize illegal immigration, turning it from an issue of law into an issue of ethnic identity. And, they've continally tried to blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration.

The other "myths" could be taken apart, but it's not really worth it.


I'll do my share and save you the trouble of shredding the entirety of his list. I'll take No. 3. 'Myth No. 3: ''We are a nation of laws, and the law says you have to enter the country legally.'' Yes, but we are also a nation of immigrants. And, by the way, nearly half of all undocumented immigrants enter the country legally, and overstay their visas.' 'Yes, but...' 'We must enforce our immigration laws, but...' When it comes to the anti-immigration law enforcement gang, there's always a big BUT and it totally contradicts the 'yes' lip service. 'we are also a nation of immigrants.' Never heard that one before. These types act like that slogan is some kind of defense to violating specific rules of law. 'And, by the way, nearly half of all undocumented immigrants enter the country legally, and overstay their visas.' News flash! At that point the 'rule of law crowd' you disparage is just as against their presence as someone who enters illegally. After all, there's no legal distinction at that point but nice try making it sound like all anyone cares about is how someone comes to be illegally present. It's that they ARE illegally present. Yeah, citing Frank Sharry as some kind of neutral source is like citing Grover Norquist as a neutral voice on tax cuts. And for the umpteenth time, being for less of something does not make you anti-something. Of course, these people know that but can't resist that sleazy and illogical argument/smear tactic. Same goes for the 'some people for lower immigration are racists so any call for lower immigration is inherently racist' fallacy. Of the multitude of compelling reasons to be for lower immigration, they can't hear them. It must always and only be about race, they say. They know you can't discuss race in this country so the more they can make it a race issue, the more effectively they can intimidate and silence their policy opposition. Only a tiny % of Americans want higher immigration but good luck suggesting that in the public sphere without getting attacked. They are killing our side in that regard. At least blacks can get away with saying more and thus are less intimidated about speaking up.

_My conclusion: Let's call things by their names, and agree that most opponents of a comprehensive immigration package are anti-immigration. The only way to solve the current immigration crisis will be to legalize undocumented workers who have paid their dues, and to increase economic integration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America in order to reduce poverty and emigration pressures south of the border. The rest is, for the most part, populist demagoguery._ Yes, let's call it what it is: treason, invasion, conquest, colonization, genocide. None of the invaders have "paid their dues". No White American wants to integrate with Mexico, and whether it helps Latin America or not it will, and is intended to, extinct us. Oppenheimer is a fifth column propagandist. What he calls "populist demagoguery" he will call "democracy" once latinos are a majority.