The Corner

The one and only.

Re: Paleocons On Immigration


Jonah: No argument from me on that. In fact, since NR’s line** on
immigration is moderate-restrictionist, and we have done a number of pieces
exposing the idiocies of the current haphazard system (e.g. John J. Miller
in the 3/24 NRODT), it’s arguable to what degree immigration reform is a
paleo issue. Still, topics–especially touchy, “diversity”-related topics
like immigration reform–get pushed into the broad mainstream agenda only
with a lot of energy and persistence on the part of the pushers, and most of
the energy & persistence on this one have come from paleos. That was my
point. I read paleo websites and magazines, and I can recall at least 3 or
4 times I have read a new posting or article, then, days or even just hours
later, heard some of its arguments word for word in a mainstream context
like a Fox News show. That’s how stuff gets mainstream.

** (Just reading back over this, I mildly regret having said “NR’s line on
immigration.” NR is really not a “line” sort of place. There are lots of
issues–capital punishment comes to mind–on which we have quite passionate
pros and cons sitting together round the editorial table. The disagreement
between Jonah & myself on immigration illustrates the point. On all but the
most bedrock conservative issues–low taxes, strong defense, restraint in
interpreting the Constitution, and the like–NR has no “party line.” Or if
we have, somebody better tell me real quick….)


Sign up for free NR e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review