May 16, 2006


Fortunately, even most nativists in America are just venting and needn't be taken seriously, but take a look at Jim Miller's post on the May 1st rallies and ask yourself if the wonks at NRO are really going to grab bayonettes and herd these folks back over the border.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 16, 2006 10:41 AM

There are a couple of guys over there that might. Mark Krikorian, who's the head of some anti-immigration outfit, probably would. The others I think just like to talk a tough game, like John Derbyshire. Or not so much talk a tough as complain loudly about how bad everything is.

Posted by: mc at May 16, 2006 11:10 AM

You don't need to herd anyone anywhere. You just need to take away the incentives for coming here, or staying here. Things like enforcing the laws against employers, who have much better reasons to be legal. If there's no incentive to be here, then those people will self-deport.

Which is why the whole "illegal cattle drive" is a strawman, and the people making that argument know it but are too dishonest to admit it because to do so undermines their cherished beliefs. (Like the one that everyone who doesn't agree with their strawman argument is a xenophobe.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 16, 2006 11:15 AM

While I have no great love for NRO, other than the occasional timewaster Jonah posts, in all fairness they could be reacting in part to this.

Which is closer to reality? I don't know but every picture tells some story.

Posted by: Rick T. at May 16, 2006 11:21 AM

Amen, Raoul.

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 11:38 AM


There will ALWAYS be an incentive to be here. Who do you think employs the vast, vast majority of illegals out there? Hint: It's not your local, faceless, BigFortune500Co.

And do you think that if the immigration police and Mark Krikorian made a big-enough stage show on enforcement, that people will "self-deport." Again, who's hiring the illegals?

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 11:45 AM

Former illegal immigrant Derbyshire is just venting racist bilge. Oh, he believes that whites and Asians are superior in intelligence to blacks and Hispanics - it's probably his core belief. But he also likes to shock people.

Krikorian is more serious. He probably would like to see mass deportations.

As for the "self-deportation" hilarity, come on. Nobody's going to self-deport (is that a word?) because the Derbyshires of the world blow hot air. If you despise illegal immigrants, have the courage of your convictions and argue for mass enforced deportation. Because that's the only way to get them out of the country.

And then get prepared for what Miller accurately predicts would follow, if your policy was adopted.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 11:55 AM

Krikorian? Sounds like a furrin name. Armenian? Who let that riff-raff into the country?!

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at May 16, 2006 11:57 AM

It is funny how that wackiest anti-immigration NROniks are all immigrants themselves. Derbyshire has even admitted to being an illegal immigrant. Like I said, he loves to shock people.

Of course, these guys have no problem with white immigration, legal or not. It's black and Hispanic immigrants they despise. I'm sure Podhoretz and Miller and the other sane people over there would love to point this out. But they can't because accusations of racism (except anti-white and perhaps anti-Asian racism) aren't welcome at NRO. Maybe that's inevitable to keep the site from splintering. But we can be more honest over here.

By the way, serious wonk Stanley Kurtz is trying to negotiate an immigration compromise on the NRO Corner. Lots of luck, Stanley.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 12:11 PM

So, we shouldn't control the borders because of ... bad publicity?!

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 12:11 PM

Yes, and do the Turks know about Krikorian being here? And would that be opening up another can of worms?

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 12:17 PM

Rick T - NRO and others have been talking like this long before the May 1 protests. Krikorian's anti-immigration rants go back at least a year.

Raoul - I'm not accusing NRO and others of being xenophobes. As I pointed out in another thread they say they don't want mass deportations but then say if Bush doesn't deport all 12MM its amnesty and they are against amnesty.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 12:24 PM

Brad, Casey

The house bill mandates that every employer in the United States use the federal Internet/phone verification system that quickly and easily determines if a new hire is legally eligible to work here. Currently called the Basic Pilot program, this system for verifying Social Security numbers would stop most illegal aliens from getting jobs with legitimate employers.

If an employer has a Fed Tax ID number then they will be part of the system. Over 90% of illegal aliens presently work for such employers.

I don't despise illegal aliens, nor do I want to eliminate immigration (I presently employed immigrants myself). So Raoul's point about strawmen is still valid.

There are laws governing immigration and presently they are enforced quite stringently against employers of legal immigrants. Unfortunately the Bush administration is not making a good faith effort to enforce the law against especially people coming from Mexico. That's the truth, you know it and apparently you support it. He took an oath to faithfully enforce such laws and he not doing it. Sorry.

Posted by: h-man at May 16, 2006 12:24 PM

Define "controlling the borders"? Does it mean mass deportations of millions of people who want to work for a living? Because if it does, then it's not just bad publicity, it insanity, brutality, idiocy, and a really really not so good idea.

And if you don't want mass deportations, just how does your position differ from Bush's? And please, no nonsense fantasies that these millions of people will suddenly decide to leave the country on their own.

Or do you want to throw hundreds of thousands of Americans in jail for the "crime" of giving legitimate employment to those willing to work? I guess we'd have to start with whoever gave Derbyshire a job when he was an illegal. (Oh, silly me. Derbyshire's white, so he's okay.)

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 12:33 PM

Recent, legal immigrants are among the most virulent anti-illegal immigrationists because they know that they've been played for suckers. They actually were gullible enought to wait in all those likes, pay all those fees, obey all those laws to get so they could stay here legally. (Or leave meekly when they lose that HiB job...) And now they're being told that Carlos gets to to to the head of the line because he did everything the exact opposite? You'd be angry too.

Not only that, but it makes the rest of the us look like chumps for playing by any rules, whether its our zoning laws, or the IRS, or even paying our bills on time.

As for self-deportation: you mean all those people who are here to do jobs Americans won't do, will hang around even after there are no jobs to do? The same people who already say they don't want to stay here, but want to go back to Mexico when they've made enough money? Okay, whatever.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 16, 2006 12:39 PM

As long as the pro-immigration types use Leftist tactics like accusing those who disagree with them of being racists and xenophobes, there's no point in debating them. They want to shut down debate, because like Leftists, they know that so many of their positions are not all that defensible without the name calling.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 16, 2006 12:43 PM


Do you think the next big ag donor (and there are a few here in CO) to Tom Tancredo's campaign is going to ensure that the onerous provision you describe stays in place? If you do, I know of some great condos off the foot of Keystone and Arapahoe Basin that I can sell to you, sight unseen, for just a buck:)

So, this really isn't about not "faithfully enforcing" immigration laws, is it?

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 12:44 PM

And how will you guarantee that there are no jobs for these millions of people? Face the logic of your position. The only way to enforce your policy is to impose heavy penalties (jail terms and large fines) on the hundreds of thousands - probably millions by now - of Americans who have employed illegals.

You want to start with Derbyshire's employers when he was an illegal? Or is there an exception for white immigrants? Come to think of it, why is Derbyshire still in the coutry, anyway? He broke the law, you know. Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to deport him? He shows no signs of self-deporting.

These are rhetorical questions, of course. The NROniks don't want to get Derbyshire and other white immigrants out of the country.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 12:48 PM


It'd be interesting to see you behind the wheel on the freeway when people cut you off, if you feel that passionate about what is, essentially, line-cutting on immigration.

Look, I can understand why the recent immigrants, including my direct supervisor, feel the way they do about people bypassing the process. Frankly, that should motivate them more to do away with the vast majority of the process itself. Not get into crypto-racist snits like Derb gets into.

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 12:50 PM

And yes, you're right, this is an accusation of racism. Because there's no other way to explain NRO's continued employment of Derbyshire, an illegal immigrant who doesn't mind admitting it.

And if you argue that Derbyshire's subsequent citizenship somehow forgives his law-breaking, then you're arguing for an amnesty. For a white immigrant, of course.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 12:52 PM

Nothing onerous about the law other than you can't hire someone who doesn't meet the requirements. Right now I can't hire someone who doesn't have a SSN. (or do you think it advisable to violate that law also) Tancredo seems better quality to me than McCain, but hey if that doesn't prove true, then to h*ll with Tancredo.

Posted by: h-man at May 16, 2006 12:59 PM

If it is too cumbersome to deport all the illegals here or retroactively enforce the fines, why not enforce the laws NOW? Bush isn't even really talking about enforcing the laws NOW. He's talking about finding a way to make the illegals legal and that is amnesty.

And someone up there talked about employers employing illegals "legally." Now there's the sort of twisted logic the pro-illegal immigration crowd has to employ.

BTW, nice racism touch. Frankly, I don't care what color you are or what country you come from. If you're here illegally, then get out. But anytime someone says, "Let's enforce the immigration laws," it has to be because they are racist xenophobes, etc. The rhetoric is as ridiculous as it is nonsensical.

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 1:01 PM

You're right. It is a nice racism touch, because it's not-so-nice racism that says it's okay for the Derbyshires of the world to break the immigration laws while it's just terrible for darker-skinned people to do the same. Which is what NRO is doing every day they keep Derbyshire on the payroll. They're giving amnesty to a white illegal while screaming about amnesty for darker-skinned illegals.

Not that I want Derbyshire to get fired and shipped back to the UK. But I don't want Hipsanic illegals getting fired and shipped back to Mexico, either.

Again, face the logic of your position. If you don't want amnesty, what do you want? The self-deportation dream could only work if you are willing to punish severely, and I mean severely, hundreds of thousand of Americans whose only crime iss giving legitimate jobs to people willing to work. Even then, I don't think there would be large self-deportation, because too many people would find ways around the law.

So what exactly do you want to do?

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 1:10 PM


Because no one wants to spend what it would cost to enforce racist quotas nor do the work the illegals do for us. Laws are not enforced when we don't want them to be.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:10 PM


Why not? Tancredo hires them.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:11 PM


The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can make arguments against immigration that aren't racist. People don't.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:13 PM


No, because they got theirs.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:13 PM


They are xenophobes, check their Dubai hysteria. In fact, they're just East Coast elites, check their opposition to Miers and W.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:15 PM


No, because of what it would do to our society.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:15 PM

Should have spell-checked that last post. Anyway, we're arguing past each other at this point. I'll just sum up my views, which really aren't far from Stanley Kurtz's at NRO. I've been so hard on NRO, I want to give tham a little love.

I have no problem with much tougher border security, though it will be expensive. As for illegals already in the country, I would offer a path to citizenship with significant but not draconian fines and payment of any back taxes. A temporary guest worker program with, again, expensive enforcement would also be okay with me.

Illegals who have already achieved citizenship or legal residence would be given full amnesty. Derbyshire can rest easy, though I doubt he was all that worried. He probably checked that the statute of limitations had run before he admitted to breaking the immigration laws.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 1:19 PM


Reacting to someone who says FDR was right to lock up loyal Americans during WWII because of their race?

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:20 PM


Exactly. The white middle class isn't going to enforce an unjust law against itself.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:21 PM

It has been sort of fun, (well, only sort of) to watch the administration haulling and backing, almost in best John Kerry fashion, on the immigration issue. Of course, they are doing this because someone, at least Karl Rove, if no one else is bright enough, understands the our side is done for if we do not get this right, and quickly.

They still don't have it right, but, they're closer.

The economics of the situation is going to have to be changed. Creative manipulation of taxes on the one side, and benefits, on the other, can make employing illegals so expensive that they are priced out of the market, both as to employers, and to state governments.

The idea is to make the real cost of employing
illegals, or allowing employers to do so, or conferring state benefits, such as education and health care on illegals, so expensive that that the market solves the problem fot us.

No round-ups, no black helicopters, no "racism"--just economic pressure, backed up by vigorous prosecution for things like fraud and forgery.

It won't happen, I'm afraid, because the powers that be have no intention of solving the problem. Bad, bad, bad. Stand the eff by for electoral disaster. The gun-grabbing baby-killers are the ones who are going to gain on this issue.

Posted by: Lou Gots at May 16, 2006 1:37 PM

"Economic pressure"? Sounds so antiseptic. Come on, you're going to have to jail and very heavily fine hundreds of thousands of Americans who have employed illegals. And even then you won't do much "pricing out" because the rewards of law-breaking would be too great. Why do you think Derbyshire came here?

Posted by: casey Abell at May 16, 2006 1:42 PM

Pricing unskilled employees out of the market? There's a recipe for the future. france's.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 1:42 PM

It'd be nice, Lou, but I know of no market, free, regulated, or otherwise, in this world that has not relied on cheap labor, from any source derived.

Hearing that US-based businesses are reliant on illegal, cheap labor can sound very unpleasant to modern NRO-types, but it's the way the world works.

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 1:47 PM

Rick T. - In answer to your question: Yes, I did see some scenes like those Malkin published. (And took pictures that I hope to publish in the next week or two.) In fact, if you scroll down, you will find a picture of a young man waving a large Revolutionary Communist flag.

But if I had to choose a single picture to show what the Hispanic demonstrators were like in Seattle's May 1st demonstration, I would choose the one with the strollers. (The Seattle leftists, who were a significant minority of the crowd, deserve a whole set of pictures -- and I hope to provide some.)

And I spent hours covering the demonstration, so I don't say that lightly.

Posted by: Jim Miller at May 16, 2006 2:11 PM


You should know better than to confuse the message with the messenger. As an aside, I think I recall reading that some Germans and Italians were locked up as well but I don't have time to link and that discussion can be for another day.


I don't doubt your conclusion. I was just making a point about drawing sweeping conclusions with a single picture. I have the same criticism with the MSM - in spades.

Posted by: Rick T. at May 16, 2006 2:28 PM


The messenger is the message. The folks carrying the banner for nativism do so because they're driven by hatred. No mentally balanced person cares as much as they.

We prosecuted lots of Germans for sedition during WWI, they were the hated others then.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 2:34 PM

Am I the only one who remembers the Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act, 1996, the last time we solved this problem? It was a miserable failure, not because INS agents are big softies, but because there are some things that Americans won't do. INS couldn't even deport criminals without sob stories in the papers about poor immigrants who had lived exemplary lives since one little brush with the law years before.

It's just magical thinking to think that we're going to take any action that will disrupt the lives of 12 million people.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 16, 2006 2:44 PM

About two months ago, we discussed the issue of deporting 11-12 million people.


If law enforcement TODAY can deport at best 80,000 a month, that's 12.5 years to get them all.


To increase that rate, who will pay for 4 or 5 (or 10) times the number of enforcers? Will all other law enforcement suffer, from policing all the way to court processing to prison overcrowding? Who will pay for the physical equipment needed (radios, trucks, temporary housing, port-o-lets, showers, barbed wire, razor wire, dogs, weapons, uniforms, vests, boots, diapers, food, water, medicine, legal advice [for the children, who are US citizens], buses, construction equipment, helicopters, aircraft, sewage equipment, and so forth)?

Who will run this effort - DHS? FBI? ICE? The National Guard? The various States Police? NSA?And what of locales like San Francisco and Los Angeles, which won't go along? What if a governor like Bill Richardson refuses? Should he be arrested?

Who will ajudicate the nettlesome cases? Federal judges? If just one in five hundred cases is difficult, that's 24,000 decisions to render.

And what of the hundreds of thousands of non-Hispanic illegals? Are they targets, too? Who will pay to fly them back to Eastern Europe or Asia? Will they fly commercial? Will they use the CIA's 737s?

Tancredo and his supporters are the ones who are being childish here - not Bush. The WSJ (and our host) may be too free and easy on immigration, but the nativists are empty cans. And in their hatred (like Polipundit, who sounds like the inverse of Mary Frances Berry or Cindy Sheehan), they are getting dumber and dumber every day.

Build the fence, deploy the Guard, use the technology. But don't lose your heart or your brain - it's a terrible thing to see.

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 16, 2006 2:45 PM

Do not underestimate the overwhelming, brutal power of the federalized economy.

Where are the conservatives here? One of the main points of Buckley's Up from Liberalism,had been that every dollar that goes to Washington diminishes individual freedom.

Just so. Let states try to run their schools, health care and highways without one red cent of so-called "federal" money. Let businesses pay the true cost of employing illegals who are now partially floated by all the benefits available to citizens and legal residents.

The power to tax, conservatives are supposed to have known all along, is the power to coerce and destroy. The government takes the people's wealth and "provides" all kinds of largess, from hospitals to libraries. Let the cynical, underground, illegal alien economy try to get along without these things--we'll see how fast the matter straightens out. Is that "third way" enough for you?

Technology makes this possible. The will is not there. We are not even close.

Posted by: Lou Gots at May 16, 2006 3:19 PM

Unfortunately, Lou is right. There is simply no will to enforce the law. How about federalizing this problem so people who live in New Hampshire and think it's a great idea can subsidize hospitals and schools in border areas? Or allow citizens to sue to recover the loss to their property caused by illegals crossing the border, killing their livestock, and trashing their land?

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 3:31 PM

Buckley is a libertarian, not a conservative.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 3:31 PM


The interesting thing is that NH has no legal immigrants.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 3:36 PM

So you guys would be Buckley's Bastards, then? Or was the conservative movement a virgin birth. Not buying it, boss.

Posted by: joe shropshire at May 16, 2006 3:49 PM

BTW Buckley is a pothead. That's not synonymous though.

Posted by: joe shropshire at May 16, 2006 3:51 PM

Buckley gave America his ideal candidate in '64. Conservatism finally won in 1980 with a Christian fundamentalist.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 3:52 PM

You've brought up Derbyshire quite abit. I think he's a funny guy, but his personal issues with immigration don't change anything nor are they relevant. No one that I know of is attacking the immigrants as doing anything that would involve moral turpitude.

Tancredo was unintentionally violating the law, but if he wasn't then fine the son of b*tch. Right now he seems to earnest.

The WWII example of the Japanese being isolated for a limited time is a perfect example of the attitude that would let America go up in flames because of some wussy's fear that someone might call him a racist. Roosevelt didn't get to look at the situation 60 years after the fact, he had to decide then. (although I'm sure there was a CYA bureaucrat writing memo's about the poor little Japs)

Jim Hamlin
It's hopeless. No border, no country

Posted by: h-man at May 16, 2006 3:57 PM

The reason I bring up Derbyshire is that he broke the immigration laws, and he's admitted it. He was in this country illegally. So why does he get a pass? If we're supposed to expel all illegals with no amnesty, why shouldn't we start with Derbyshire? And if you give him amnesty because he eventually got citizenship, why don't darker-skinned Hispanics get the same offer?

It's easy to talk about kicking out "illegals." But it seems to get a lot dicier when it comes to kicking out one illegal. Then all of a sudden, he's "irrelevant."

You just don't want to face up to the reality of a mass expulsion of everybody who's broken the immigration laws.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 4:04 PM


In fact the only memos told him the Japaqnese were loyal and internment a bad idea, but he acted on his own race hatred anyway.

Of course, there was no internment in Hawaii precisely because they were a higher portion of the population and wielded more political power.

"Jap" does nicely capture the racist flavor of your thought though.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 4:05 PM

The law applies to Derbyshire like it would to anyone. No one has argued differently.

No one is suggesting enforcement is easy. Although it is easier than some people pretend.


I abbreviate alot. Henceforth you want to be called Orrin Judd?

We won the war, that was what was important. I'm sure Roosevelt could care less about your second guessing. Just like Sherman is probably giggling at my accusations that he was a terrorist

Posted by: h-man at May 16, 2006 4:15 PM

I want first to control immigration. We can look to deal on the present illegals, after we have taken control of future immigration.

Posted by: h-man at May 16, 2006 4:20 PM


Who argued that any individual shouldn't have to obey the immigration laws? Oh, I forget. YOU did.

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 4:21 PM


Why? Who do you want to keep out?

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 4:25 PM

My Abenaki ancestors were First People. There rest of you get the hell off my land! (Kennewick Man excepted.)

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 4:28 PM

Yes, for instance, the "h" is an obvious abbreviation.

The notion that the internment helped win the war is asinine.

Sherman was a terrorist--terrorism works.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 4:28 PM

Nuff said.

Posted by: h-man at May 16, 2006 4:36 PM

Lakota channeling Arlo Guthrie:

"This land is my land; This land ain't your land."
"Get the hell of my land; Go find your own land."
"This land is my land; This land ain't your land."
"This land was made for Sioux, not you!"

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 4:46 PM

After all, it was the original illegal immigrants who created the immigration laws. Ergo, those laws are morally invalid. But if y'all wanna stay, we've got some sotweed, coke and one-armed bandits to sell ye.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 5:08 PM

This is America. Not East Germany trying to keep it's slaves in. Nor even Israel, trying to keep murderers out. We cannot put an airtight wall up, we cannot deport millions of people. America doesn't do that, won't do that.

Enforce laws, yes. Try to stop employers from hiring, sure. Just do not expect it to stop more than a small percentage of it.

Where have NRO, Malkin and the rest of the hysterical right bloggers, Sharon and others here, been? Why the hatred for the President? He has had exactly the same views on immigration since he entered politics.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the ancestors of the anti-immigrant people today kept hundreds of thousands of Jews out of the US. Those people were killed when they could have been saved. The echos of the arguments then live on today.

I stand with President Bush on this. He is right and the Derbyshires of the world are so terribly wrong.

Posted by: Bob at May 16, 2006 5:13 PM

Bob: We can build a wall and it will have some effect. It's a cheap sop to those who are emotionally invested in keeping out brown Catholics. Of course, it will not keep out a single terrorist or anyone with more crime on their mind than crossing the desert looking for work.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 16, 2006 5:49 PM

After reading some of the comments in these threads, my sympathies for moderate old-time Dems stuck in a Kos and Dean dominated party has increased. Because as someone who has no objections to legal, regulated immigration to this country, the sheer nastiness of the "open-borders, don't hurt yourself in the stampede, the likes of which are rarely seen outside a soccer stadium or a Who concert, in getting over the fence because this country needs a peasant class to replace those slaves who'd do the work cheaper if we still had them (won't make that mistake again)" crowd does generate an emotional reaction. Which, as with the Leftists use of terms like "racist", is why they toss around so easily, to get that reaction. Of course, whenI resort to name calling, slander and innuendo, it's justified because it'sin a good cause...

(As for the border wall, what other parts of life (other than with gasoline and driving) do increase costs not lead to changes in behavior? Or what exactly is the point of "sin taxes" if they don't work?)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 16, 2006 9:11 PM


If you support legal unlimited immigration then you're not the one we're talking to. If you support quotas based on national origin you are, by definition, racist, no?

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 9:19 PM

What about quotas based on cultural origin?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 17, 2006 12:01 AM

The would be inappropriate too--David Duke originated in a decent culture, Elian Gonzalez in an indecent one.

The culture you adopt matters.

Posted by: oj at May 17, 2006 12:05 AM

How the heck would you check for that AOG? And what about Americans who travel? will they be tested too? Whole categories of people guilty of thought crime. The mind boggles.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 17, 2006 12:21 AM

Mr. Mitchell;

I don't know, it was OJ's plan. Ask him about that and about the "whole categories of people guilty of thought crime" he lists, if you think that's a bad thing.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 17, 2006 3:10 PM