"Know-Nothings" know you can bribe politicians to get an advantage over other citizens. Is their another lesson in your post that I have missed?

They are American citizens, aren't they? Oh wait -- conservatives like OJ are not interested in conserving the idea of the Citizen.

Idea, yes. Blood, no.

You can count the Founding Fathers among those "know nothings." They were deeply concerned about our republican government being corrupted by foreign interests and money, which is exactly what is happening here.

What on earth is the problem here?

These are American citizens. They are diversifying their voice/incluence away from the victimization Party in an effort to better mainstream their community. And -- from all I know about this community -- the issues they are likely to want pushed are traditional pro-business issues, not how to give Delhi control over American foreign policy. (And the latter, by the way, has been quite US friendly.)

Yes, Hamilton was very anti-immigration.

Derek:

And when China gave Clinton millions for re-election, was that a "good-will" gesture ?

Michael,

Hell, no. I won't defend the Democrats either. Just because I don't approve of the Republicans, doesn't mean I endorse the other party's shenanigans. I don't like either party taking money from foreign sources, even through the medium of recent arrivals.

Quite frankly, we should be doing everything possible to restrict the lobbying activities of all foreign countries: the Chinese, the Indians, the Saudis and, yes, the Israelis, too. The best step towards doing this is cutting off excess immigration and banning pernicious dual-citizenships.

MG,

If you think their demands will end at our shores, you're deluding yourself. Inevitably, these ethnic lobbying groups will demand modifications in U.S. foreign policy to suit their needs, regardless of what the U.S. interest may be. We've seen it again and again and again, from the Irish to the Greeks to the Jews to the Poles to the Albanians. The last thing we need is yet another group of foreigners coming over here and dragging us into their squalid conflicts.

George Washington and Ben Franklin had a few things to say about the issue as well.

Yes, Franklin said Germans were unassimilable. Is that really an example you want to cite? Or don't you mind seeming foolish?

But Franklin had a point which your clever sophistry fails to address. It isn't a good idea to flood your area with people who don't speak the language and share in the customs, because eventually they'll take the country in directions never intended. Thus the states had strict, dare we say racist, requirements for naturalization.

A few Indians are fine, and with time they'll assimilate. Let them in en masse and you don't get new citizens, you get New New Delhi, with all its bad habits.

Derek,

Having to deal with foreigners is the price we have to pay for co-habiting the planet. It does not mean we need to acquiesce to their endless wishes. Dealing with them from within (if this is their agenda) by co-option may as well work better than not. Countries without a hyphenated American lobbying effort (France, Germany, China PRC, Belgium, e.g.) are bigger thorns in our side than some of the popular hyphenated ones.

Finally, as an aside, (and listening to your concerns) I would hope that you have enough integrity to agree that President Bush -- with whom you have a hate-hate relation -- has had more than enough cojones to assert US rights and prerogatives. You name another American politician inhabiting a class M world -- not some Buchanite higher plane -- that has done more to stand firm on the pro-American autonomy/rights side. Would Kerry and Nader do better?

Derek:

And germs...

Hmmm! I had the impression the article was about American citzens contributing to an American party. Will they eventually try to influence legislation, to their benefit, as other ethnic immigrants have? I hope so.

Altruists have managed to reap untold unintended consequences by voting interests other than their own. Voting in your own interest, which some may consider selfish, is really just being honest and probably result in a more realistic application of Democracy in our Republic. Voting for what you think someone else would want implies an elitist attitude of superiority. We know where that takes us.

Derek:

Indian immigrants are likely to be highly-skilled professionals not illiterate peasants who'll mooch off the state and bring forth Nueva Delhi.

As far as them influencing US policy it'll go as far as it coincides with US interests.

Yes, OJ, as a matter of fact, we're seeing diseases like tuberculosis pop up over here again.

MG,

Spare me the peacetrain bullcrap. I know we have to deal with foreigners. The problem is we have our cloying ethnic constituencies letting their native loyalties obscure our national interest.

Bush has screwed us worse than Kerry or Nader. First, in his shameless pursuit of Jewish money and influence, he's outsource our foreign policy in the Mideast to the Likud government, which is notoriously unstable. (Oh, I know, I've spoken the unspeakable, but there it is.) Second, he's pursued unilateralism without understanding the goal of unilaterialism. The idea is disentangle ourselves from foreign conflicts as much as possible. He's done the opposite and made the country less safe in the process.

Finally, you can sneer all you want at Buchananites, but for their flaws, they've been more accurate in their predictions and analyses than your people. So one has to wonder exactly who is it who's living in the real world and who's living in a fantasy world.

Ali,

I understand Indian immigrants are better educated on average than Mexican immigrants, which is an implicit admission on your part that we need to control entries. However, my point still stands that we should not let in mass numbers of people who still have an emotional attachment to their homeland. They still bring their cultural and political habits, while being used as H-1B serfs to undercut the salaries of native engineers.

Ali,

I understand Indian immigrants are better educated on average than Mexican immigrants, which is an implicit admission on your part that we need to control entries. However, my point still stands that we should not let in mass numbers of people who still have an emotional attachment to their homeland. They still bring their cultural and political habits, while being used as H-1B serfs to undercut the salaries of native engineers.

Genecis,

I don't dispute the rights of citizens to contribute to the process, but we better look at who let become citizens, but their interests are not necessarily going to coincide with American interests.

And the proof of detachment from the homeland is that they accept English traditions, dangit!

Derek:

We have a Jewish and interventionist administration, unlimited illegal immigration, massive trade deficits, and no more manufacturing jobs but growth of 4-5%, a revitalization of Judeo-Christian values, and a rapidly changing Middle East. Have the Buchananites gotten anything right?

Derek,

Address the issues not the hype. I see little evidence (or claim, from you) that aside from the "Jewish" money, American foreign policy has had to accommodate "non-American" interests. (I have gradually begun to see that Israeli interests are indeed American interests, with 9/11 crystalizing all of this, if the pre-emptive bombing of Saddam's nuclear reactor had not been enough. But I suppose you would disagree with this line of thinking.) Also, I see numerous instances where foreign countries wihout hyphenated Americans doing ther dirty work pose serious obstacles/challenges to American interests. So the whole issue that immigration creates foreign problems is hog-wash. I see it, still, as inhabit a world with other people and you will have to deal with them. Is not peace train. It is reality. (I have also assumed that you are against ALL immigration, not unassimilated immigration. With the first I can't agree; the second, I would agree is a problem. But once again, I see Bush and the GOP as part of the solution not the problem.)

Your assessment of Bush vs Kerry and Nader is not supported by any real analysis, flies in the face of the Left's stated objectives, but does reveal your kinship to them -- a common hate of Bush. I would suggest you pick all the issues for which Bush gets pilloried by the Left for being a unilateralist and see where the other two stand. Also, it seems to me it is you who misunderstand what unilateralism is. It is not disengagement, which is what you want.

What usefulness having listened to Buchanan on a whole list of issues would range from useful to useless. (I am not 100% anti-Buchanites.) But frankly, they share with the Left a wrong reading of the crucial issue of our times, that we were cowardly attacked and continue to be threatened because we were bad boys. Historical cause and effect shows little reason to believe that; reading the terrorists list of grievances aganist America leaves us little room but to cowardly crawl into a cave (ourselves) if we want peace; and at the very end of the day it should go aganist any American's grain to believe that.

Derek:

Jews...hygeine theory..are we out of Lebensraum yet?

Derek:

"They still bring their cultural and political habits"

You mean like democracy, politeness, patriotism, hard work, success, family cohesion and lawfulness? Or are you worrying about cows meandering down main street?

Peter
Cows in the street, maybe not, but the Giant Buddha next to the Washington monument could look odd.

OJ
The US government says that there are 8 million Mexicans in the US illegally. (8% of total Mexican citizenry) Are you saying if Indians become the flavor of the next 2 decades, that we can expect 80 million Indians here illegally and if not then why pick on Indians. Won't their bribe.. excuse me their lobby efforts say different.

H-man

We've had two generations of large-scale East Indian immigration and I've yet to see a Buddha. That might be because they are largely Hindu, but I haven't seen Kali or her Associates either.

That's it OJ. Resort to lazy sneers instead of dealing with the issue.

Peter
Excuse my faux pas (french for fart at funeral), I never could keep all those foreign religions straight.

When I saw 27 comments, I knew Derek was somehow involved.

Derek, none of the "H1-B serfs" that I have had the benefit of working with were undercutting the wages of locals. They don't need to. They can command the market price based on their skills, which tend to be excellent.

In most cases the newly immigrated are more patriotic and representative of American values than many of the long time residents. Why would anyone coming from the squalor of New Delhi want to recreate that world here? We are getting the adventurous and ambitious rough diamonds from these third world countries, the risk takers who want a change. India gets to keep the rest.

Wouldn't want to clutter up an Egyptian obelisk...

MG,

Jewish money and lobbying groups are very powerful and influential. They'll tell you so themselves. You can pretend it doesn't exist, but that hardly makes you a saint, nor is someone an anti-Semite for pointing this out. Whether our interests are coincident with Israel is a separate issue. The point is, ethnic loyalties (as well as religious interests, which encompasses Christian zionists, too) are driving our policy, not strategic necessity.

The problem with Bush is that he yells loudly about unilateralism but doesn't follow up on it, or worse often surrenders and gives it a conservative imprimatur. He's backed down time and again with the GTO. He's expanded our NATO commitment well beyond any American interest. Even in his attempts to dis the UN, he's wound up legitimating them, as in Iraq, where he now finds himself depending on Lahkdar Brahimi to bail him out. We wind up with the worst of both worlds: hated and alone and further bound up in international bodies. With Kerry or Nader, at you have some consistency and reciprocation.

You've also misread Buchanan's take on 9/11. He supported the Afghan war, not hiding. That, however, does not obviate the reality that our clumsy policies in the Middle East often acted (unintentionally) in the best interests of Al Qaeda, and that having destroyed the Taliban, we'd have been better advised to re-evaluate our interests in the Middle East.

Derek:

Issue? It's in your head. You don't care for Indians, Mexicans, Arabs and Jews and want to return to an ethnically pure, exquisitely sealed arcadia that we never had here. That's going to be a problem since the future of the country and the world does not lie with European whites, who're breeding themselves off a cliff.

They also bring caste preferences, female infanticide and ethnic inclusiveness, Peter. Yes, I know, other groups have done this, but that hardly means we need more.

The belief that Jewish money secretly pulls the levers of government is a classic anti-Semitic theme, as is concern over hygeine a persistent thread in all racism.

They also bring caste preferences, female infanticide and ethnic inclusiveness, Peter. Yes, I know, other groups have done this, but that hardly means we need more.

Oh, the Judeo-Christian ethic has been revitalized, has it? I must have missed that, what with all the gay days at the Justice Department and the expansion of the NEA, not to mention gay marriage in Massachussets. And, of course, abortion has now been outlawed and there are bible readings in the public square.

OJ,

Who said it was secret? I didn't. It's very open, and it's legal. It's a fact of life, and I wouldn't deny any Jewish citizen the right to give his input. However, pointing to this fact and questioning its good does not make an anti-Semite. In fact, trying to hush up all discussion of the issue with imprecation only works to feed anti-Semitism.

Once again, the Democrats reveal themselves as the party of categorical judgments based on skin color, and as the party who will demonize successful members of a visible ethnic minority to advance their political agenda.

Robert,

I can stack lots of anecdotal and statistical evidence against your claim. Just hop on over to VDARE.com, and you can see it there. I'm sure the H-1B's are nice guys. I work with some here, too. I have nothing against them personally, just the American companies who betray their fellow countrymen for the sake of a quick buck.

OJ,

You're erecting a strawman, and a palpably false one at that. My father's Jewish, my brother-in-law is Mexican and my wife is an Arabic Christian, so spare me the lazy slurs. I don't want to return to any past utopia, nor do I wish to deport any citizen, naturalized or native.

However, I don't want the country to be ruined by multicultural dogmas either. I think we have more than enough people from abroad in the country right now. There's only so much carrying capacity and it's time to hang out the "No Vacancy" sign for a while as we assimilate those who are here.

Mike,

I hope you're not referring to me as a Democrat. I'm not. I'm a right-winger, closer to Buchanan's point of view than Bush's, however.

I don't begrudge Indian immigrants their success. However, I do have a problem with ethnic groups forming lobbies because they tend drive our foreign policy away from the national interest.

Derek: Our "national interest" defined how? Are you saying that there is some objective national interest we're not pursuing, or simply that we're not doing what you would like us to do?

Derek:

Some of my best friends....

David
That's the point isn't it. Our "National Interest" changes with the changes in our population.

Derek:

Is this what you mean by the national interest?

Well, Peter, needlessly alienating European allies hasn't been a real good idea.

Hey, OJ, how about presenting an argument instead of mouthing tired, liberal anathemas?

Derek,
There is no betrayal, the fact is that fewer and fewer American students are opting for careers in engineering and computer science, while the market is demanding more of these skills. Any American who wants to work in these fields can. Better that we import foreign workers who will work and pay taxes and support the local economy within the US than outsorce that job overseas.

The post below asks "what is the last significant idea for governing America to be proposed by the Left?"

It has proposed, and achieved, the debasement of civilized discourse into mere name-calling. Exhibit A: after nearly fifty comments, and OJ has responded to his only disgreeing correspondent with nothing but a complacent litany of personal abuse: racist, anti-Semite, nativist, etc.

The Left has triumphed here.

Peter
You have lamented on this blog, the separating of Canada's "interests", "desires", "ethos" etc from America and then you say Canada has allowed waves of new immigrants in recent decades. Benefited your ecomony? Sure. No effect on Canadian foreign relations with America? Duh

Robert,

Fewer and fewer students are opting for these careers because it doesn't pay to study for them. Why bust your ass in engineering or software courses if you're going to be outsourced or replaced by an H-1B earning far less? I've seen it myself: Americans forced to train their own replacements. It has a chilling effect all the way through.

David,

Part of the problem is, as h-man pointed out, our national interest is determined by the people, and if we let in different people, it skews our interests. It's easy to say, well, we like the Israelis, so what's the harm? But what happens when the Muslim population starts overtaking the Jewish population in numbers and organization? I don't think that'll be too swell either.

Ideally, we should be concerned soley with securing our borders, which means we need to dominate the Western hemisphere and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The rest is of no direct consequence to us and should be treated as such. That's as close to an "objective" national interest as I can conceive.

Well spoken, Paul.

Derek,
That sounds like a copout to me. I've been in the IT field for 20 years, and I make a very good salary comparative to other fields. I didn't even have a Computer Science degree when I started. You have to continually apply yourself to learn new skills, but if you have the right talents and attitude you can make it. You are peddling defeatism and excuse-making, which have never been values that our national interest was built upon.

Derek:

We're not going to solve 6,000 years of racism and self-loathing on a blog. Everybody hates somebody.

The Europeans aren't our allies, they're secular statists.

Paul:

Racism is part of our tradition too.

If you want to take yourself to the confessional, OJ, be my guest, but keep the finger pointed at yourself.

The Europeans aren't our allies, they're secular statists.

What about the Poles, Italians, Brits?

Wait, wait: let me guess: they are actually Americans because they believe in Democracy! Anyone who believes in this god Democracy, is really just an American!

Place has no substance in postmodern Juddian conservatism. Indeed, you are wicked if you fancy that human attachments to place, to home and hearth, matter. It is the platitude that makes the man!

It is impossible to reason or argue with a man from the Extreme Left to Right. 99% of the alienation our so-called European allies have resulted or would have resulted from practices that your (Extreme Right) alter-ego wants: protectionism, sumitting US citizens to foreign courts, capitulating to junk science and transfering American GDP to Kyoto-protected third world countries, putting the UN in its place far more frequently than is "prudent" in polite company.

I am not sure how you would characterize the threat that global terrorism poses to America, where and how (whether?) we should fight it, etc. I certainly do know what you were saying back in the wake of 9/11, but I certainly remember that Buchanan's message was a confused mixture of being pissed, but not knowing at what: at a US govt. that had made us hated in the Middle East, at Al Qaeda's killing of Christians, at Israel for being the root cause, at Clinton for being a jerk, at Bush for also being a jerk, at our Customs Dept. for allowing Arabs in the country, at our law enforcement/intellifence practices being to lax, and their being too intrusive...All this anger could not be translated into any coherent strategy that would have had a chance of working, let alone garnering the world and ACLU sympathy that your Left alter ego appears to long for.

Please refer to the second to last issue of Technology Review for a dissenting view of the threats "outsourcing" poses to engineers and the desirability of an engineering education. Also, consider whether the supply of engineers in this country is being restricted more by (a) inadecuate high school math and science training or (b) the fear that many years down the road the bottom 10% will lose their jobs to foreigners? (How many 18 year olds do you know that think they are in the bottom, 90%, let alone 10%.)

Please channel the animosity you (appear to) have against Jews, to fighting Islamofascits; the anger you have at multiculturalism, to confronting the NEA; the agony over job insecurity, to defeating growth destroying economic and environmental policies; the pessimism about the direction of our Judeo-Christian culture, at Hoolywood and academia; and for the loss of what being an American to the anti-American wing of the Left. Then vote for Kerry if you want.

Derek --

Let's seperate out a couple of things:

1. Our objective national interest. Well, how objective do we want to be? It is in our narrow self-interest to dominate a passive world; to appropriate all economic benefits, to have the only military and to have our way, regardless. This is the self-interest that would have us take the oil and kill anyone who protested. This is not, I think we would agree, in our long-term self-interest, although the short-term could last well past our lifetimes.

We could build a Fortress America. Close off the borders, forbid anyone or anything from coming inside. America is for us, the rest of the world is for you. Good luck but we don't want to here from you. This is, of course, a caricature, but closer, I take it, to where you want to be. It is no more likely to be stable than the first scenario. It is no more feasible than walling off Massachusetts (as attractive as that may be), from the point of view of those behind the wall.

The point is that the President speaks to that repeatedly, including in the speech to AIPAC that OJ quotes above. After 9/11, it is crystal clear that the walls of the fortress can't be high enough, if we are not willing to lose 3000 Americans, four airplanes and a couple of buildings. We can take the position that America's objective self-interest requires that we suffer a 9/11 every once in a while, but we might have a hard time selling that. The objective lesson that the President and I draw from 9/11 is that we have no choice but to be involved in the world.

Now, this argument will never end because it is infinately regressive. Our mistake, as OJ argues, was made in 1948, when we voted in the UN to establish Israel, or perhaps in 1973, when our policy first tilted firmly towards Israel as against the Arabs. There are two problems with this, though. The first is that there were good American reasons for both actions, some having to do with soft power (our desire to promote and live up to American values) and some having to do with hard power (the Cold War and attempting to avoid stoking Arab nationalism). It is not clear that an objective national-interest foreign policy wasn't in play (Kissinger being the most powerful realpolitik player in American history), or would have resulted in any other path being taken.

The second problem is that it can't be in our national interest to be spooked of our shadow. Can we really not act in the world because of the chance of pissing someone off who, 20 years later, is going to come into possession of some jumbo jets? That will always be a counsel of fear and inaction. We will not be an island in a sea of foreign troubles, we will be sea-tossed flotsom.

2. Immigration is bad because, inter alia, immigrants warp US policy to favor their nations of origin. Obviously, you're right that Jews and the Irish and Arabs, like the Germans, WASPS, Celts, etc., before them use their votes and money to try to influence the government. Of course, so do Republicans and Democrats, the oil companies and Microsoft, Lockheed Martin and the Sierra Club. So what?

People do this because they care about what the government does. They do it because their position and life-experience (to use a horrible lefty construction) has brought them specialized knowledge. They do it because they are citizens and have, not only the right, but the obligation to try to have the government act as they believe to be right. As you concede, there is nothing surprising or unAmerican about that, though your concession did come out souding uncharacteristically communitarian (i.e., this is disastrous for the country, but freedom requires that we allow it).

So, let's look at two specifics: H-1B visas and Israel. On the H-1B visa, you're just wrong. Companies should always pay the least possible price for any input, including employees. Not only is this an obligation to the shareholders, whose money was taken in return for that undertaking, but it is better for the country as a whole. The cost to the unfortunate worker, whose pain I do understand, is overwhelmed by the benefit to the country from less expensive products and from the proper allocation of resources.

If you disagree, go back to the USSR, you commie, and while you're there, consider the fact that the alternative to H-1B visas is not employing Americans at artificially high prices, but having foreign software companies write our software or American companies outsourcing the jobs to the actual New Dehli (actually, more likely Bombay), costing us the tax revenue, gdp points, etc. If you want to keep out foreign products because foreigners aren't paid American wages, then, a, you really are a man of the left and, b, we're back to Fortress America.

Israel. First, you need not accept my testimony, but I wish that Jews were single-issue voters caring only about the fate of Israel. The result would be lots of money and votes in key areas for the President. They're not and it won't be. Jews are not one-issue voters or contributers.

But, as I noted, presidents are approached by many different interests offering support and money. This is no surprise. At least when it comes to foreign policy, it is on a subject that is the legitimate concern of the federal government, unlike most seekers of benign economic regulation. We expect the administration, nonetheless, to only back those policies it believes to be in our best interest. It is obvious that this is the case with W and Israel.

You say that the administration has become a Likud yoyo, but I see it as the reverse. Likud will do what the administration will let them do, and no more. Obviously, the Israelis are glad to see Saddam go, but that seems less suspicious than the French regret at his leaving. In any event, Iraq, far from proving your point, proves how wrong you are. The first Bush administration was the least Isreali-friendly administration since, well, ever, and the most Saudiphilic. Nonetheless, they went to war with Iraq, sat on Israel not to respond to missile attacks (to which Likud acquiesced, very much against its political interest), and protected the Saudis. This is much more likely an effective cause of 9/11 than American policy on Israel.

Robert, I'm sure you're a wonderful IT guy, but I've got your story, and I've got the story countless other people. Usually, it's cheaper for companies to simply bring in new graduates rather retrain their existing employees (who can't go to school, work and take care of their families). Word of this filters down and it discourages American students. But the companies don't mind because they can higher cheaper employees who'll put in nineteenth-century hours.

Paul:

The Poles are different. Italy and Britain are toast.

Derek:

dark mutterings about Likudniks and other races....it's simple racism. That's not meant in a pejorative sense. Racism is a perfectly reasonable organizing principle for a society. It just isn't the American way. We're universalists.

David,

Your post is so full of strawmen and fallacies, it would take too long to disentangle point-by-point, but I'll deal with a few.

First, I never claimed we could hermetically seal ourselves off. Obviously, that's impossible, however we can do a hell of a lot better than what we've done. We could remove ourselves from a lot of these internecine conflicts that have nothing to do with us. That alone would reduce our vulnerability to terrorism immensely. We certainly shouldn't be importing masses of people from the countries where these problems loom large, not only does that Muslim countries, but Latin American countries with their narco-terrorists. That's just common sense.

Second, on the H-1B's, it's isn't subsidizing anyone to demand that American companies who enjoy all the benefits of American protection and laws employ Americans. The subsidizing actually comes from the open immigration which brings in cheap workers who use the institutions and services here at the expense of American taxpayers (and no they do no make up for their consumption).

To Israel, again, the question of what we should do is not the point. It's the fact that we are affected by ethnic interests, as can be said of other groups. I agree that Jews are not monolithic, and they are not the only input. That said, however, the point remains, is it really in our interest to import yet more groups who bring their own native grudges and interests. Are you ready to be outnumbered by Muslims, and perhaps even out-lobbied by them?

The problem with our identification with the Likud and our covering their backside is that we wind up getting dragged into their conflict, which really has no bearing on us at all. From an American perspective, it doesn't matter a whit whose flag flies on the Temple Mount, yet here we are becoming a target because we're identified with one side in a struggle that not ours.

As for the snide comment about the French, the answer is obvious. What will take shape in Iraq is not necessarily better than Hussein. As things now look, we're either faced with a Lebanon on steroids or a Shi'ite theocracy closely allied with Iran, bringing the mullahs several hundred miles closer to Tel Aviv. Indeed, the day may soon come when Israel comes to appreciate the French position.

Dark mutterings about Jews qua Jews is racism. Dark mutterings about the unchangeable inferiority of some group is racism. Dark mutterings about cultural differences is commonsense. Dark mutterings about Likudniks is political. Once again, you're showing yourself to be operating under leftist assumptions, where the political is personal.

So I say once more, wear the hair shirt all you want, but keep your finger pointed at yourself.

MG,

Is there an argument in that rant?

Even the current Iranian Republic is vastly preferable to Saddam's Ba'athist state and it's evolving as rapidly as one would predict towards genuine liberal democracy. It has a future where France has none.

Of course the political is personal, or do you think yourself a purely rational being unencumbered by normal human prejudices?

I don't believe political views, even ones I disagree with, necessarily portend dark motives or evidence in themselves personal flaws. In other words, I believe men of good will can disagree, even on issues like immigration and ethnic differences.

As for your view on Iraq, it is, to put it mildly, unjustifiably optimistic, if not downright panglossian.

Men of good will without personal flaws? You are a rationalist, eh?

Derek, there are arguments, questions, and exhortations (which you can call rants if you so chose).

I think your view on Iraq is more balanced than oj's:

Your view on pre-War Iraq (its' current state and long-term threat) is Polyannish; your view on post-Hussein's (the broad picture of the facts on the ground, and it's long-term potential), Cassandraish. On average, balanced, indeed.

You're being obtuse, OJ, and what's worse, having the lost the arguments, you're now reduced to trying to hang labels on me to comfort yourself.

MG
Your last post, I generally agree with. But you have to admit, even if Derek is an anti-semite, commie, etc, he's one helleva typist.

MG,

The facts have borne out both points of view. I stand by them.

What argument? You've said a bunch of groups you don't like but offered no reason that they can't believe in American ideals, which, by referring to supposed European "allies", you don't much believe in either. Europeans are white, but they don't believe in our Founding principles

Still being obtuse. As you should very well know, I never said any group is unable to "believe" in American ideals, whatever those are. Of course, any human being can believe in any ideal system. The question is, will he let go of his previous loyalties and assimilate. It's a tough thing to do, as we've seen with European groups themselves, such as the Irish, the Germans, the Jews, the Italians and others. When you point up a group of Indians forming an ethnic lobby, as an American I'm not going to start cheering. It means we have yet another group coalescing around their "own" to the exclusion of other Americans. You've never answered this argument beyond mouthing pieties and then trying to play a pathetic game of "gotcha."

Derek:

We've intervened twice to save my people--the Brits--when they got themselves embroiled in wars. Neither served the American national interest. It would be silly for me to make a big deal out of the possibility that Indians would retain a tender spot for their homeland. Besides, I'd think we're morally obligated to help that democracy when the shooting starts with China or Pakistan.

OJ
The problem with your last post is that it doesn't precisely match our most recent invasion of Iraq and the interest groups operating in this country. As I recall there were pro-saddam Arabs in Detroit, supporting the former Arms Inspector Soott Ridder??. (as well as Arab groups that were supporting our invasion) What if the numbers had been different or as Derek mentioned earlier that there was so significant an Arab population, that no action could politically be taken.

So tough decisions will always have to be made as which and how many of various ethnic groups are allowed into this country. I think it would be foolish to turn our brains off and have faith that it will all work out.

By God, Derek, I think you've done it! The man is finally making arguments!

You're right, OJ. We intervened to save the Brits twice, though I think there was a national interest in the Second World War (the Atlantic Ocean). And you're also right that Indians will have an affinity for their homeland. I don't begrudge them that. However, the point is, the more groups we have in this country, the more likely we are to be pulled in different directions that have little to no bearing on our national interest. Yeah, it's bad enough having one group pushing for their homeland, but how does having dozens more make things any better?

It makes us more likely to do the right thing and intervene against evil.

h:

It wouldn't have mattered. We wanted a war with Saddam and were going to have one.

But, Derek, we all see that card you're palming. You speak of the national interest as if it were an obvious objective fact, which you are clear-sighted and American enough to see, but which the rest of us, beholden as we are to our tribal heritage, either can't see or, worse, see but ignore. The President says that it is in our national interest to take the fight to our enemies on their turf. I agree. Feel free to disagree, but don't expect me to care very much for the suggestion that our disagreement means that I am insufficiently American.

David
You have a right as a citizen to decide that Hmong tribesmen who fought with Americans should be allowed to immigrate to this country. You have a right to say that Khymer Rouge partisans should not be allowed in this country because they slaughtered innocent people.

How can you take the position that either decision is of equal merit?

H-man: You've lost me. I have no idea what you're asking.

David
Also you are contradicting OJ who said even if pro-saddam Arabs could effect an election that we would go in anyway. Hence OJ is the one arguing that their is an "objective" national interest that will not abide contradictary public demands.

You say that on the "front-end" we are not "allowed" to pick one immigrant group over another and hence our foreign policy will only reflect the largest, or richest, or (what most murderous?) immigrant group. Therefore out of necessity our national interest is not within our control.

h:

If the Ba'athists win democratic elections in Iraq they'll get to govern. Ditto the Nazis in Germany.

David
Hopefully my second post clarified my muddled question. You, I assume, think our national interest is a collective judgement of all Americans. When it comes to the makeup of that collective, you say the pre-existing population cannot exclude any group because of that groups language, religion, race, national origin.

Hence the national interest in foreign affairs (domestic affairs also) is going to be determined by who gets here first, and exerts the most pressure on the political system. I (and I guess Derek) want to be able to exclude those people who we determine would undermine the "interest" that we feel make for a better society.

Sorta like when you complimented the wiseness of the indigenous Hawaiians for allowing white Europeans and Japanese to immigrate to their islands and the economic benefits that accrued to them. Of course you didn't actually ever say that because you know they never had a choice. You seem to say Americans don't have a choice now.

OJ
The specifics of that policy decision (to invade Iraq) are irrelevant to the implication of your original post, which was that it is hunky-dory that a distinct ethnic group support a particular policy (foreign policy) regarding their homeland.

It is hunky-dory, fine, excellent citizenship, for any citizen to express their opinion verbally or with brib.. uh contributions. However you made reference to know-nothings (presumably those people want to choose who to let into the country and in what numbers). I suggest that Americans should shape the country they live in and the foreign policy of the US by NOT letting in those ethnic groups they don't feel would support the foreign policy they want.

If for no other reason than the fact that it can be a life and death decision. I would prefer Khymer Rouge immigrants not send my son to slaughter Cambodians. You and David offer no mechanism for making these type of decisions, hence my assumption we are supposed to just wait and see what our national interest is when the time comes. (the decision I'm talking about is who and how much immigration we allow)

H-man: I see. Thanks for clarifying. I don't believe either of those things, although I can see why you might think I believe that our national interest is the entirely subjective result of domestic policies.

I do not favor unlimited immigration or believe that foreigners have a right to immigrate. I don't believe that foreigners outside the borders of the country have any rights under our constitution. Although in an absolute sense, all humans are of equal value, I believe that the US government is required to value American lives ahead of all other lives. I believe absolutely that we have the right to shape our future.

Consistent with all those beliefs, I favor a policy of well-regulated liberal immigration. Just as it always has, immigration will end up buttressing the things that make America exceptional. I agree with you that we might want to limit immigration from the middle east for a little bit. I probably disagree with you in believing that foreigners aren't particularly obliged to respect our laws, and thus I am not outraged when they sneak into the country. I have no objection to catching them and sending them back, but I certainly understand why they try to come.

I do not believe that the national interest is wholly the result of contending factions, though I understand how you got that impression. Rather, my position is that citizens have the right to lobby for any nutso policy that attracts their attention, and that it is up to the government to choose only those policies that make sense.

Derek's argument is that our policy with regard to the middle east and Israel is so contrary to our obvious national interest that it can only be the result of corruption (bought by the non-monolithic Jews who vote for and contribute to the other party and use their natural slyness to insinuate their American Likudniks at the highest levels of government). I say, I agree with the president that those policies are in our best national interest, and so I'm not suspicious.

h:

Yes, and my point is that the Indians make better Americans than nativists do.

David
I like your answer. Unfortuanately you granted me all the premises I consider important, even though you will probably disagree with my conclusions on many matters of immigration.

My emphasis on Illegal immigration, is not because of the criminality of the immigrant, but the (for the lack of a better word) criminality of our government, which I think is intentionally avoiding good faith enforcement.

h:

What size force would it take to seal the borders and check the entire workforce to make sure they're legal day after day after day? What kind of America would you have left?

OJ
Here's the rule. We should not have a Secretary of State who speaks with a Polish accent. German accent is OK. Zbig--no Kissinger--yes.

Why? Just about any Pole off the street would be our best Sec of State ever.

Best ever?? Hmm.. When you put it that way, I agree with you.

Derek/h-man:

There are serious and quite fair questions to be asked about the pace, timing and concentration of immigration. But when you reach the point when you harbour dark and treasonous thoughts about Jewish cabals, East Indian immigrants practicing female infanticide or Canadian immigrants maliciously tearing native born Canadians away from their American brothers, it is hard to know whether to respond or simply prescribe some aspirin.

Derek:

Special interests and factions who want to pull American domestic and foreign policy in one direction or the other are nothing new to American politics. Madison predicted as such over two centuries ago.

Arguably this is pernicious but given the disparity in power between America and the rest of the world I don't know if much can be done about this given how open the American political system is.

Certainly even if immigration was stopped tomorrow there'd still be plenty of ethnic groups hoping to tilt foreign policy one way or the other.

As for Canada it is the natives who have turned leftist and anti-American, not the immigrants.

Peter
I respect your opinion, and I really wasn't suggesting that immigration to Canada was resulting in specific attitude changes in Canadian-American relations or the world view of Canadians in general. I was suggesting "hypothetically" that on the margin such a dynamic does occur (or will occur).
America's relations with Mexico have changed because of the large contingent of Mexican immigrants. Vicente Fox "campaigns" in America because there are up to 8 million voters residing here. That campaign entails his lecturing state and local officials as to how they should respond to concerns of Mexican citizens.
As to your other references to "cabals", talk to Derek, but it wasn't my view that he was implying anything as ominous as you suggest.

M. Ali Choudhury
Your last sentence is a reflection of my view, but in the heat of argueing immigration/"national interest" and typing fast one occasionally uses "hypotheticals" that don't match actual facts.

However, one could speculate that Canadian Natives are practicing "cheap shot" leftism in order to play to what they think is the immigrant mindset. But this speculation does fall into the category of paranoid thinking, which I try to avoid (not always successfully).

h:

American relations with Mexico changed because it elected a conservative reformist president.

h-man:

If you mean that multiculturalism is more sacred to native born elites than to immigrants, I think there is something to that, although the overlap between discrimination concerns (not all misplaced) and multiculturalism can make it hard to tell.

Canadian-American relations have waxed and waned since you guys committed mass treason in 1776. You could argue that there was a golden age in the 40's and 50's (promoted largely by the Roosevelt-admiring, Empire-hating progressives with the pro-British Canadian conservatives left sniffing about Yankee manners), but there have been lots of both sore points and good times otherwise.

The current strains stem from a Vietnam-era, native born, Boomer elite running the show and signing onto a gooey version of the Euro-secular/UN/internationalist/anti-Texan mentality (they adore Mass.), with much disorganized grumbling underneath. To be frank, the influence of European thought is almost nil here, but the influence of the American left is huge. I find it very difficult to find many of the terrific books Orrin recommends, but the bookshelves groan under Chomsky, Moore and Franken. After 9/11 we did well for about a year, but then we intellectualized isolationism and self-righteousness (the two go hand in hand) and became proud members of the axis of weasel. The only bright spot is that we are much more confused than the Euros as to why.

However, the two countries(and more importantly their citizens) are too close in interests and often personally for this to last forever, and the Boomers will die off. I'll work on it from this end, you hide David and Raoul somewhere, and maybe our kids will be thick as thieves, ok?

My last post on this thread.
I was focussing on the "dynamic" of immigrant groups skewing previously recognized "national interests". (Presumably "interests" that I was comfortable with). I accept the corrections of M. Ali, and Peter, and OJ (for now anyway). The point of my argument was the "potential" for bizarre reflections of "national interest", that are not in MY interests. That "potential" remains and each of you will at one time or another use the same argument to further YOUR interest (OJ for example freely mentions the religiousity of or lack thereof of immigrant groups, in Europe).

I would be more confident if immigration policy was discussed with more concern about future cultural and foreign policy changes than merely economic benefits. I've said enough.

h:

Yes, that's the point. We care about what people believe. You guys care about their ethnicity.

A few points:

* Immigrants prefer America over their home country, by definition. This is a powerful affirmative vote for America, and a "no-confidence" vote in the home country. I trust their commitment to America's interests more than most native Americans.

* If the ethnic connection is an operative factor, than we need to have as diverse an ethnic base in America as possible, to prevent any one ethnic group from wielding its influence over foreign policy. It's an ethnic form of checks and balances.

As OJ and others have pointed out, America is a nation of ideas, not ethnicity.

From the National Review.

(Though we know just what kind of publication, the National Review is.)