Here’s an interesting take on the British immigration debate from Jeff Randall, writing in the Daily Telegraph. Some of the issues are different to the US, but the way that the open borders crowd in the UK have attempted to frame that debate by quashing it sound very familiar:
Given the scale of new arrivals here and the extent to which they are changing our society, the quality of debate over the desirability of this upheaval is miserable. And we all know why. Those who favour open borders have in effect gagged opponents by accusing them of “racism”. You don’t have to be against welcoming newcomers to be smeared as a Nazi sympathiser. You just have to argue that it’s an important matter, with some serious downsides, that deserves proper analysis…Cowed by human-rights campaigners, refugee groups and duplicitous politicians (mainly Labour and Lib Dem), seeking electoral advantage by demonising rivals who propose controlled immigration, we have created a monstrous democratic deficit.
And a similar democratic deficit is visible here in the US where George W. Bush is attempting to ram through a piece of legislation cooked up in a back room, and trying to do so on the back of insults, demonization and obfuscation. I’m delighted that the WSJ is going to be debating NR on this topic. Good for them. I’m sure they will make the best case that they can. What I really want to know, however, is when the President is going to engage with his critics in serious, detailed discussion of the provisions of what is, everyone on all sides can agree, very important legislation. Surely, he can’t be afraid to do. Surely he has read the details. So what’s his problem? Come on, Dubya, cat got your tongue?