Perhaps the most ridiculous sentence ever written on immigration from the right:
Were Americans once again to take citizenship seriously, to dismantle the welfare state’s bureaucratic and psychological culture of entitlement, to dismiss the image of themselves as white-gloved administrators, and to banish America’s drug culture, then Americans could safely stop worrying about our southern border.
Yeah, and if there were less gravity we’d all run faster.
What’s more amazing is that this wasn’t written by a two-bit conservative bloviator (there’s lot of us!) but by Angelo Codevilla, a professor of international relations who’s written quite sensibly about things he actually knows something about. And most amazing, this appeared in the Claremont Review of Books (the article isn’t online yet, I’m afraid), which usually has higher standards.
The article is too full of errors, clichés, and gauzy nostalgia to examine in detail here, but it’s enough to address the fundamental misconception of the piece, as summarized above. Of course we all as conservatives want citizenship to be taken seriously again, the mentality of dependency on government to be ended, manual labor to again be valued, and narcotics to stop being abused. Any ideas on when all that’s going to happen? To posit that we must allow our nation to be crucified on the cross of unlimited immigration until such time as it regains a lost state of perfection is utopianism of the most risible kind.
It’s also a mark of contempt for the actual people living in the actual United States of America who, whatever our manifold sins, would like to preserve whatever’s left of our country. Codevilla, who wrote a book (and long American Spectator article) condemning the behavior of our ruling classes, is unwittingly serving as a useful idiot of those very ruling classes by attempting to undermine opposition to one of their most important tools — mass immigration.
The cult of Harry Jaffa (somebody from Claremont once told me that Jaffa was the greatest thinker since Socrates!) has always been dedicated to America the proposition nation rather than to the actual country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFlenser... isn't Peter Robinson one of Jaffa's former students? Or am I getting that wrong?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's so utopian about saying welfare nanny states with guaranteed wages will always have immigration "woes" until they choke on them or correct course? I cannot afford to read the article, but it sounds more like common sense than lofty theoretical writhing to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that it may be an obvious point (policy decisions have unforeseen, intractable side effects), but one that for some reason seems necessary to make once in a while, since so many seem to think simple enforcement or reform would actually satisfactorily "fix" what is simply a necessary consequence of how Americans have chosen to set things up for themselves, as is their right.
Sometimes common sense can be both obvious and offensive to the powers/voters that be, but remain nonetheless true.
Seems like a lot of vitriol from Mr. Krikorian over a rather bland statement. Does he not think easy entitlements draw illegal aliens? Perhaps there's a liberal out there somewhere more deserving of such roasting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"What's so utopian about saying welfare nanny states with guaranteed wages will always have immigration "woes" until they choke on them or correct course?"
That's not utopian, it's just dishonest. Our immigration woes are not really caused by having a welfare nanny state with guaranteed wages. They are caused by our simultaneous desire to have open borders. It's the combination of the two which equals bankruptcy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you are reading this backwards. He is saying that IF all these things happened we could stop worrying about the border, but since they haven't we can't. That seems unobjectionable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMilton Friedman would have agreed with it, when he observed that we view immigration prior to the establishment of the welfare state as positive, but following that as negative and needing to be controlled.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust looking at the excerpt, it is hard to discern what the quoted author is trying to imply. Is it that the "southern border" (not people, just border) is responsible for all those other things? Or, does the other mean to suggest that if only those of us who are actually citizens had more pride in citizenship, for what little it would be worth under the circumstances, then we could be flooded by non-citizens?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Mark Krikorian is misunderstanding the excerpt. It is not calling for open immigration or ignoring immigration until other problems are dealt with. I assumed after reading the excerpt, and even a few sentences in, that Mark Krikorian would be explaining why immigration needs to be restricted on its own terms, even if the other problems were solved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCodevilla is absolutely correct about our Ruling Elite, and I 'd have to read his entire comments to see if this somewhat vague statement hasn't been taken out of context. We don't have time to parse a single sentence of Professor Codevilla's writing--we're too busy fighting more important battles here in TX.
Though Codevilla's statement is too subtle and could be twisted by progressives, I believe he means that if we tighten up citizenship rights for those in America as far as e-verify for employment, free education and entitlements (until we can help reestablish Americans as independent citizens by shrinking a government run amok and restoring our lost freedoms and the absolute right to the fruits of our labors), [by cutting gov't spending and confiscation of Americans wealth] he is absolutely right.
We are trying to get e-verify or an equivalent program passed in Texas. More than 85% of Texans want it, but we are having problems because most of us ordinary citizens work while TX employers send paid lobbyists to testify in Austin against the the implementation of e-verify.
Meanwhile, it's TOO EXPENSIVE to get our TX legislators to mandate an official count of illegals in our schools, using our healthcare, committing crimes, in our prisons, and establishing citizenship for anchor babies and the rest of their families they hope the anchors will eventually be able to bring in AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
In Texas, we sent a majority of new conservatives to the House last November, many of whom are having their distrists gerrymandered in an attempt to keep them out of the legislature next term. The sword of Damocles tying conservative hands? Gettingt he DOI's (Dept. of INjustice's blessing--b/c however they draw our districts would be worse).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe statement looks like it's saying illegal immigration is fueled by other American pathologies. I don't believe that is an endorsement of open borders; it's simply saying if we were a healthier nation, wer would attract fewer illegals. A debatable point, but hardly the stuff of useful idiocy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse