Calls for ‘self-deportation’ of illegal immigrants win applause at conservative conference
Immigration is the hottest of hot-button issues, if a panel today at the Conservative Political Action Conference is any indication.
At a CPAC panel discussion, speakers who called for massive “self-deportation” of immigrants living illegally in the U.S., English as the only language of government and stepped-up enforcement received loud applause. Any praise for immigrants’ contributions to the U.S. economy or comprehensive immigration reform was met with silence or boos from the audience at the largest annual gathering of conservative activists.
Alex Nowrasteh, a policy analyst at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute and an occasional Texas on the Potomac guest blogger, argued that the answer is better immigration laws. He argued that immigration brings new ideas and prosperity to America, receiving hesitant applause mixed with boos from the audience. The enemy isn’t immigration — it’s the welfare state, he said.
He denounced the idea of a using a federal database like e-verify, which requires people to “ask permission” before applying for a job, arguing that true free-market conservatives should be disgusted. Nowrasteh said the true problem is the complexity of legal immigration, and he challenged the audience to attempt the process of hiring a temporary worker.
“Let’s bring back the Ellis Island mode of immigration,” he said. “Not because it is good for them, but because it is good for us.”
Kris Kobach, Secretary of State of Kansas, strongly disagreed, citing 13 million Americans looking for jobs and 5 million people waiting to lawfully immigrate as reasons for databases like e-verify. He argued for “attrition through enforcement,” contending that through better enforcement of the law, illegal immigrants would self-deport.
Kobach highlighted the benefits of verification systems like those used in Arizona and Alabama, stating that they have already produced results. He attributed the drop in illegal immigrants in these southern states to these programs (and not the deep economic recession). “If you want to create a job for a us citizen tomorrow, deport an illegal alien today,” he said, receiving loud applause.
Robert Vandervoot, executive director of ProEnglish, didn’t address federal identification databases, but instead argued that English should be the official language of the United States. With 52 other countries that have already made it the official language, he said, America should be next.
Freshman Rep. David Rivera, R- Fla., offered a unique perspective, as he represents a state with many industries that rely on illegal immigrants for labor. He argued that an improved guest worker program would dramatically help the situation, as many citizens do not want to take the jobs these industries offer.
Rivera pointed out that these workers don’t want to become citizens, and that visa reform would make it easier for them to go back to their home countries. Ultimately, he said, a better guest-worker program would be the foundation for better a immigration policy. “It demonstrates and puts the focus on the value of work,” he said.
SOURCE
Leftists abuse outspoken immigration opponent
No argument. Just abuse. In their usual way
Controversy over an immigration opponent who spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) blind-sided conference organizers who say they didn't know who he was before this week.
Al Cardenas, director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which organizes CPAC, said he had never heard of Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com, who has been labeled a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center. [An organization of professional hysterics. They find racists under every bed]
"I don't really know what his values are," Cardenas said. "I have asked my staff to delve into that." "I want to personally see what he precisely said or written before forming judgement," he said.
The liberal group People for the American Way released a statement condemning CPAC organizers for giving Brimelow a platform. Liberal websites have also attacked CPAC over his inclusion.
"It's shocking that the CPAC would provide a platform for someone like Brimelow," said Michael Keegan, president of People For the American Way. "Responsible GOP leaders should speak out against the bigotry and hatred that Brimelow and VDARE push on a regular basis."
Brimelow participated on a panel discussion called "The failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening American Identity" at CPAC on Thursday. During the panel discussion, Brimelow and other panelists said immigration is polluting America.
In an interview with Hotsheet, Brimelow, an immigrant from Great Britain, said he's opposed to not only illegal immigration, but legal immigration too. He said it is creating a "Spanish speaking underclass parallel to the African American underclass."
"These are people who are completely dysfunctional. They're on welfare; they're not doing any kind of work - at least not legal work - and their children are having a terrible time. They're dropping out of school; there's an increase in teenage pregnancy," Brimelow said.
Brimelow told Hotsheet California is "rapidly turning into hispanic slum." He said California used to be "paradise" but is now "totally overrun by barrios of illegal immigrants."
Cardenas deflected responsibility for Brimelow's presence at CPAC. He noted that Brimelow spoke at a side panel discussion an not in the main ballroom and that he "was not invited to participate in any of the events that ACU takes responsibility for."
The sponsor of the panel that hosted Brimelow was Robert Vandervoort, executive director of ProEnglish, an organization advocating English as the official language.
Vandervoort did speak at an ACU-sponsored panel in the main ballroom of CPAC, where he also spoke out against immigration. "Now our nation is balkanizing through mass immigration," he said. "America's always been a Judeo-Christian nation."
Cardenas promised to look into the controversy surrounding Brimelow. "If we find... grounds offensive to what American ideals stand for, I will talk to the sponsor and take it from there," he said.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
During the week that vilified critic of multiculturalism Ray Honeyford died, and the question of immigrant "integration" was once again aired owing to the shocking disclosure that more than half of London's schoolchildren no longer speak English as a first language, you may be interested in the following discussion of these topics together with an accompanying blackly humorous video: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2012/02/nation-in-search-of-state.html
ReplyDelete