Four Immigration Myths and the Credulous Media
By  Steve Sailer
Having written 292 VDARE.com  columns over the last six years, I'm inundated by feelings of both  satisfaction and frustration when reviewing this year's Congressional and media  debates over illegal immigration.
To their credit, House Republicans and much of the blogosphere get it.  (See, for example, postings by Untethered,  Udolpho,  Parapundit, Mickey  Kaus, Glaivester,  Your  Lying Eyes, Pytheas, Chris  Roach, Face  Right, 2Blowhards,  and Mean  Mr. Mustard.)
And yet in the more insulated institutions, the Senate and the legacy media,  ludicrous falsehoods long ago exploded on VDARE.com and elsewhere are still  proffered as if they were indisputable fact.
The lack of accountability and integrity in the mainstream  press is striking. A pundit, once established, can apparently propagate nonsense  catastrophic to America for years without paying any career price for his  incompetence or bad faith.
The appalling legislation approved in the Senate Judiciary Committee with the  support of four foolish Republicans (and of all  the Democrats, of course) is the unsurprising outcome of the risks I've long  pointed out in the Bush-Rove strategy.
A Bush victory in 2004 was always going to hinge on turning out the non-Hispanic  white majority in vast numbers. But that was too politically incorrect to  explain to the media, so, it appears, the White House concocted a smokescreen  operation bamboozling  innumerate reporters into believing that the small  Hispanic vote would, somehow, be the key  to the GOP victory.
When the Administration finally revealed its open  borders immigration plan in January  2004, it pointedly excluded previously illegal aliens and new guest workers  from becoming citizens (i.e., voters), precisely because a majority were sure to  vote Democratic.
Hilariously, Bush announced he was dead-set against "amnesty." He  redefined the word "amnesty"  so it no longer meant forgiving  lawbreakers for their crimes and allowing them to continue to reap the benefits  of their lawbreaking. Indeed, doing exactly that was an essential part of  the Bush plan. In a special Humpty-Dumptian  sense aimed solely at Republican  Congressmen who don't want Democratic-leaning  illegal immigrants to get the right  to vote, Bush redefined "amnesty" to mean only "giving  citizenship to illegals." ...
But as I wrote in February 2004 about the  cynicism of Bush's plan to institutionalized a new class of disenfranchised  helots:
"But Bush's new Machiavellianism automatically cedes the rhetorical high ground to the Democrats, who are already pushing for 'earned legalization' (i.e., giving illegals the vote). Bush is left contradictorily sputtering about how wonderful immigrants are and how we don't want them to become our fellow citizens."
One notorious problem with lying is that you start to believe your own lies. So, for the benefit of GOP Senators, let's review some of the most common myths about the political impact of immigration that are constantly retailed in the prestige press, even thought they were shot down years ago on VDARE.com: [More]
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
 
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment