The Corner

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….)

John Derbyshire — Mr. Derbyshire is a former contributing editor of National Review.
Exit mobile version