Tamar Jacoby's "Immigration Realism"
America's favorite amnestibot, Tamar Jacoby, has joined with Cesar V. Conda to pen "Immigration Realism". It's their reply to John Fonte's reply to the WSJ's reply to the original National Review open letter demanding enforcement first.
And, as you might assume, Jacoby is wrong. Here's just one way:
None of those who signed our letter believe that immigrants have a "human right" to come to work in the U.S., as Fonte claims.
From the way that's worded, you might think that Fonte claimed that the WSJ letter that they signed said that. In fact, he was refering to a WSJ editorial in the same issue, and he wanted to know whether they agreed. Needless to say, her statement is highly misleading.
She goes on to pimp the Pence amnesty (that's the one that would allow "unlimited immigrants"). Rather than discussing the rest, I'm going to outsource an evisceration of her thoughts to this comment.
Comments
John S Bolton (not verified)
Wed, 08/02/2006 - 21:54
Permalink
What also is the 'immigration realism' of saying, but, they're the workers, like the fiction of pretending that all of some class, whether workers or not, are still 'the workers' like sacred monkeys, who can do no wrong?
John S Bolton (not verified)
Wed, 08/02/2006 - 21:47
Permalink
It would mean the whole world were US citizens, if anyone who shows up has a right to work here.
Americans don't have a right to employment either, so how would illegals have one?
Presenting this issue as one of workers is deceptive; what is at issue is residency, for workers, dependents, criminals, hostiles and others without discrimination.
A group of foreign criminals can't just be defined as workers, and contrary to the facts, and the provisions of any official proposal regarding prospective immigrants, including 2 year old "workers".
There is no right to hostile immigration.
The citizen, such as the net taxpayer, or the other victims of immigrant aggresion, have the right to freedom from aggression, though.