Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama and Grover Norquist joined at the immigration straw man hip

Obama and Grover Norquist joined at the immigration straw man hip

The Gang of 8 immigration bill has brought forth some clarifying moments.

Not the least of which is that there is bipartisan demagoguery in support of the bill using the straw man argument that the issue is hostility to immigration.

Obama and Grover Norquist both are suggesting that hostility to immigration is the issue.

Obama sent out this tweet (h/t Hot Air)

Grover Norquist penned a column at National Review along similar lines:

The arguments against immigration are as old as our founding and consistently wrong. Only this issue resurrects Malthusian economics, the consistently disproven predictions of Paul Ehrlich, and the “Limits to Growth” certainty that more people make us weaker and poorer.

The cycle continues.

“Immigration” is a false framing of the issue.

The issue is illegal immigration, the disrespect for our laws, and the right of every country — including the U.S. — to control its borders and to make choices as to who is allowed to enter and to become a citizen. 

Rationalizing our immigration policy as to who is allowed to enter and stay does not mean we have to reward law breakers and advantage them over law abiders through citizenship and other benefits.  One can be pro-immigration and against amnesty in its various forms.

In fact, I would argue that the most pro-immigration policy of all is to advantage the people who respected our immigration laws and who followed the legal procedures to get here. To try to turn that into being “anti-immigration” is just demagoguery, of the straw man variety.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Ragspierre | May 9, 2013 at 9:16 am

“Unless you’re a Native American, you came from someplace else.”

And, unless you are a liar or historical idiot, you know THEY came from somewhere else, too.

The U.S. admits the highest number of LEGAL immigrants each year of any nation.

TEA party people LOVE LEGAL immigrants, who often are some of the best, most gutsy, and most entrepreneurial people in the world.

So, bite me, Grover. This has NOTHING to do with “Malthusian economics”, you liar.

Juba Doobai! | May 9, 2013 at 9:26 am

Obama doesn’t know much history, does he? The so called ‘Native Americans’ came across the Bering Strait or came across the Rio Grande. All Americans are immigrants. We have a right to set laws about who enters our country. We have a right to expect that invaders be expelled for flouting our laws.

Why would I ever want to listen to someone who can’t even frame an argument correctly – and honestly? What does that tell you about their character if you give them the benefit of the doubt that they have the intellectual capacity to understand what people in the opposing camp are actually proposing. Resorting to straw man arguments shows you what their moral/ethical fiber is composed of: straw.

Quelle surprise!

Barry did NOT include the ‘of course, there WAS slavery’ shtick.

Guess he left that one for Al, one name only please, Toure, Clyburn, Jackson Lee, et al.

Gosh forgot, Grover Norquist.

Name sounds like a drink, you know, like Harvey Wallbanger..

Its worth noting that at one point in time immigrants could make very few claims on the resources of the government. In our modern era any immigrant legal, illegal, made-up can make claims of support rivaling and in some case surpassing those afforded to citizens.

For a lot of our history, it probably was beneficial to admit boatloads (literally!) of immigrants. The economy needed a lot laborers, farmhands, and factory workers to grow.

The problem is that a huge chunk of the modern class of immigrants aren’t going to be economically self-sufficient. Even if (for the sake of argument) the Heritage Foundation’s study overestimates the fiscal impact, we are still talking about at least several trillions of dollars in government benefits that will be spent on these people over the years.

Prof. J. is right in highlighting the civic importance of enforcing immigration laws, but that’s not the only big concern. This is an economic issue as well. Just because mass immigration was a good thing for the U.S. 150 years ago doesn’t mean it’s a good thing now.

You can have a welfare state. You can have open borders. But you can’t have both. Pick one.

Using that argument is like saying that being against shoplifting makes you an anti-capitalist.

Like I have said-

This government virtually destroyed a functional legal immigration system.

As a result, they tell us the only way to fix it is to legalize illegal immigration….

…almost as if that was the plan all along.

Aside: Immigration, legal or otherwise, has always been completely separate from citizenship. Now, they seemed to have convinced the public and themselves that they are the same, and cannot be separated.

I completely agree with Ted Cruz, a law that says anyone in this country illegally will NEVER be allowed citizenship. Period. Tell them to go home and reform their own countries.

Ted Kennedy got aminsty through with empty promises, now we have the dupe Rubio making the same empty promises.

Henry Hawkins | May 9, 2013 at 11:34 am

“Unless you’re a Native American, you came from someplace else. Share your family’s story:”

Sure.

My paternal grandfather immigrated from Scotland in 1931, an illiterate coal miner who had no idea there was a Depression in process. He picked up odd jobs where he could and was an underground bare knuckle fighter in the Detroit bar and club scene of the times. He taught himself to read and write and eventually became the Chief Electrical Engineer at Turnstedt, later known as Detroit Edison. He entered legally through Ellis Island. Worked, paid taxes, was never arrested, never took a dime in entitlements at any level.

My father, son of the above guy, came in 1935 at age 9 with his mother because my grandfather couldn’t afford to bring them over at the same time in 1931. My father lied about his age and enlisted in the USMC at age 17 in 1943, serving in the South Pacific island-hopping campaign, based from the USS Yorktown, both CV-5 and CV-10. Upon discharge he joined the Detroit Police Dept, served there for 24 years, and later took a position as Chief in a small Michigan town. Worked, paid taxes, was never arrested, never took a dime in entitlements at any level.

Ditto my paternal grandmother in terms of worked, paid taxes, was never arrested, never took a dime in entitlements at any level.

Ditto my maternal grandparents, legal immigrants from Ireland. Worked, paid taxes, was never arrested, never took a dime in entitlements at any level.

Ditto my mother, legal immigrant from Ireland. Worked, paid taxes, was never arrested, never took a dime in entitlements at any level.

Sure. I’m against this Gang of Eight immigration bill because I hate immigrants, you see.

Hey White House! Even them thar’ American natives came from somewhere else!

We are being governed by a cabal of dumb asses beyond compare and the continued whining is beginning to wear REAL thin.

Howz did we allow this to be inflicted on us, the providers?

One thing for sure, taking the high road no longer works…

The official dumbing down of America, straight from the Ass’s mouth. Is there a nation which is not populated by “immigrants” as defined by The White House? And if not nation, why does The White House not recognize and respect the diversity of “Native Americans”? How can it reasonably combine all of the tribes and nations under one label? This is an especially critical issue when we recall that some of those tribes and nations participated in commission of war, slavery, and even genocide against one another.

I wonder if The White House knows that there were multiple waves of immigration to the Americas. They came from Asia and Europe. What happened to the early European immigrants? Did a period of extreme local cooling destroy them, or did they fall prey to Asian immigrants?

As for “Native Americans,” they were not native to the United States of America. A nation is a legal construct. Its natives are defined by its laws. The only native Americans are of European descent and some others who were present at the founding of this nation. All others are naturalized Americans, unless they were born to a native father and mother, both of whom are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

Doesn’t The White House want to hear the stories of “Native American” immigrants and their Asian ancestors?

The issue is a selective rule of law, which is a sponsor of corruption; but, it is also overpopulation (exceeding the natural and societal carrying capacity), which is why it is necessary to exploit the full extent of the habitable Earth, and not provide incentive to converged migration and immigration.

The issue is the causes which provide a motive for millions of people annually to leave their homes, and nations, and invade another nation and disrupt its population. This is not a sustainable process.

Further–Let’s be perfectly clear.

Let’s stop with the PC liberal word games.

We’re not talking about Immigrants. We’re not talking about illegal immigrants.

What we’re talking about the flood–the invasion–of MEXICAN NATIONALS via the southern border.

It’s almost as if the left have planted in the psyche that if you say the word “Mexican”, it’s racist.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Browndog. | May 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm

    While I agree 100% with dropping PC liberal word games, ‘we’re’ not talking just about Mexican nationals. Those of us in southeast US see plenty of illegal Cubans, Dominicans, Haitians, Colombians, New Yorkers, etc.

Legal immigration is also a problem. Legal immigrants are also a welfare drain and end up as terrorists just like the Tsarnaev brothers, the Times Square Bomber, etc.

The real question is how many and what standards we use for immigrants.

Interestingly enough, illegal immigrants have a higher work place participation rate than legal immigrants. This shows us that welfare is one of the prime reasons legal immigrants come here.

BannedbytheGuardian | May 9, 2013 at 8:27 pm

South Africa patrols the borders as long & wild as they are & captures Zimbabweans etc.

They manage whilst dodging wild animals & poachers.

It is not something that only the USA has had but only the US has sanctuary cities.

I have not heard of anywhere else that has this concept. This is the fundamental problem .

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend