I will be honest, one of the reasons I supported the bill was that I was so disgusted by the opponents and their rhetoric, I simply did not want to be associated with them.

When I saw a link to a post over at Instapundit about McCain having oral sex with HoChiMinh, I thought to myself These people have lost their reason. Glenn said something to the effect that this was just about frustration, but that was not frustration, that was vile. Say what you will about McCain, he was not having sex with HoChiMinh during his years of captivity as a POW and nothing the loony left ever said was any more disgusting than a lot of what I was reading on some of the rightie sites and hearing on talk radio. So I stopped listening.

I also heard people tell Linda Chavez, former Reagan administration official to go back to Mexico, oblivious to the fact that her family has been here for centuries. Martinez got death threats. Bush was called a traitor and God only knows what else.

I was told that I was an open borders supporter because there was only two possibilities: I either had to oppose the bill or be for open borders. Nothing else was possible.

I was told that the bill would give all illegals the right to vote, which was a lie and it seemed to me in fact that many of the bill's opponents made all sorts of stuff up.

Sister Toldjah ran a post about FactCheck.org calling Newt Gingrich on several mistatements about the bill and she made the point that if the bill was bad as its critics made it out to be, why did they need to make stuff up?

In fact it seems to me they went way off the deep end, and needlessly alienated people. The other day Fred Thompson made some remark about Cubans being terrorists and Hillary Clinton was all over it. Why do that? Not a decade ago the right was upset about a Cuban boy being sent back to his father.

I know I have been called a lot of names myself and I have lost a lot of respect for the hardliners on this issue. And what have they got to show for all this? Did they come up with an alternative bill to send to the president?

No, they just say that all we need to do is build a wall and enforce the law and at no point do they deal with the realities of what that really means.

In other words, exactly what it is it they are going to do differently to see to it those laws or just magically enforced? And what about the rest of the border and coastline where there is no wall?

But the larger point is that there was something happening here that reminded me of mass hysteria. I read some of the hateful things people said and I thought this is how mobs operate.

Ask them those sorts of questions and they might call you an open borders traitor. I know I heard that more than once and it pissed me off.

I should make it plain that Glenn Reynolds was not the one making the offensive comment, he simply linked to a post concerning the comment.

But I have heard many other such comments and it is not right to question someone's patriotism or their integrity because of a political difference like this. In fact most Americans supported different parts of the bill such as a guest worker program or regularization, etc, that does not make us a nation of traitors. In fact only a small minority even supports something as drastic as mass deportations. But that does not mean the majority do not believe in the rule of law.

Pondering the last twenty years, and the next twenty years:

From:
The Economic Truths of Immigration Reform: What are we so afraid of?
by Larry Kudlow
National Review Online, April 04, 2006
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200604041505.asp

excerpt:

A U-Cal Davis study also shows that more immigrant workers leads to more economic growth. This is standard economics. Multiply an enlarged workforce times existing productivity and you get more economic growth. But for some reason, immigration opponents can’t make this connection. They are blinded by fear-mongering, defeatism, and pessimism. Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo calls illegal immigration “a scourge that threatens the very future of our nation.” Huh? That’s xenophobic nonsense. In economic terms the U.S. has never had it so good. Statistic after statistic says we’re booming, with 175,000 net new jobs created each month and record levels of Americans working. In fact, since the early Reagan 1980s, the U.S. economy has been booming almost uninterrupted, creating 44 million new jobs even during the takeoff of high immigration.

From:
Michael Medved Show Blog: Losing the Future
by Michael Medved
Townhall.com, June 15, 2007
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/3577aed3-789d-4805-b676-22c613571df3

excerpt:

In recent years, Republicans have managed to remain a competitive party in most states of the union in part because they have successfully competed for Latino support. If, on the other hand, we ever reached the situation where 80% of Hispanics automatically, unthinkingly, voted for Democrats (in addition to the more than 80% of African-Americans who automatically, unthinkingly vote for Democrats), then we will never again see a GOP president, or a Republican majority in either House of Congress.

Dafydd,

This is tangentially connected to your post, so I hope you don't mind me posting this:

Here's an example of everything wrong with the immigration opponents, summed up in one little blog post:

After the Immigration Debate, Excuse Me for Not Trusting This Man's Gut [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From the Chicago Trib:

In an unusually blunt and frank assessment of America's terror threat level, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Chicago this morning that his "gut feeling" is the nation faces a heightened chance of an attack this summer.

07/10 08:00 PM

Why can't they just leave the immigration issue behind, and take seriously a serious and dedicated public servant who says that he fears an attack by al Qaeda this summer?

Why are we so suddenly shocked when "our side" suddenly starts using the deplorable, vicious language and tactics that "their side" has perfected over many years? Considering the "success" thereof, I fear that this will become even more commonplace in the future.

Colin:

And why would Chertoff say something like that if he did not mean it? How many attacks has the US faced since 9/11? None.... and that has something to do with the people working in the federal government. The same people these morons say have sold us out to the Mexican roofers, nannies, landscapers and fruit pickers.

Presentation, History (previous legislation), and Trust.

As a salesman in the 80's representing several major beverage brands including Budwieser, Gallo, and Almaden wines, I learned very quickly that nearly 80% of the sale was contingent upon these three principals. The fact that my customers needed these products to remain competitive in their markets was the easy part.

The fact that this nation needs immigration reform is a given, but I would submit that (for many unanswered reasons) the "presentation" put forth by our legislators did not resonate with the major ground-swell of those who turned their noses up. Why? The very size of the bill (which few admittedly ever read) was more than many of the electorate cared to swallow. The "history" of previous legislation that did little to slow the influx of illegal immigrents crossing over from our southern borders was the basis for the lack of "trust" in the credibility of the current bill as presented.

To question someone's patriotism, or call their difference of opinions "treasonous" is without merit or foundation on this subject. Passionate people on both sides of this issue went overboard, which only contributed to the hysteria and confusion. The fear that 80% of the Latino vote would suddenly become a democrat majority also fed into this as a misconception.

My advice to our representatives who bring this "reform" back up is to NOT attempt to sell the whole line of products at one time. Pass a reasonable border inforcement bill that may regain the trust of many who rejected it the first time around. Then reform the registration and identification of those here already and (at least) make it appear to be fair to those who are waiting in line to come in legally. (In fact, reward them with a fast-track to show that respect for the rule of law is preferable to any alternative.)

I know Dafydd has said that we don't need this distraction going into a critical election process, and I totally agree. I wouldn't profess to have all the answers, but I still submit that the "presentation" was poor at best, and there in lies the lack of trust. NO SALE should not have been an option.

Ask them those sorts of questions and they might call you an open borders traitor. I know I heard that more than once and it pissed me off.

Terrye,

You have never heard (and never will hear) this kind of talk from me. Respect for other's opinions should be the fabric of our integrity to have a civil debate in our society. It's what puts this nation above others who stifle opinions with the threat of death or imprisionment. Has the level of this "respect" been dilluted in our daily debates? Most likely.

Respectfully, Rovin

Rovin:

I am sure it is true as well. And I think the internet has helped make it worse. I am sad to say.

People will always disagree, that is only natural, but I have to say that during the whole Dubai episode I began to hear a sort of intolerance and narrow mindedness from certain people on the right that gave me the willies. Still does in fact.

My advice to the bill's oppenents is that the next time a bill like this comes up, do not call the other guys traitors and if they want the bill to come in pieces do not start out telling the other guy that his piece is dead on arrival.

I think most people wanted a bill to pass, but they were so freaked out by the spectacle that they just wanted everyone to shut the hell up too.

In fact I would say that the fact that certain people have made it plain that they will not compromise is one reason the bill did not come in parts or pieces.

One good reason to dislike the bill was because it was packaged as a "compromise" and touted as a "grand bargain." Unfortunately for the bill, there are still some people in this country who do not believe that you can compromise on principle or make bargains with the devil (aka Ted Kennedy). I tire of the whole idea of compromise as the best means of governance. For example, if al Qaeda wants all of us dead, and some Senator (believe me many of them would try) negotiates a deal so they only kill half of us, would that be a good compromise? Some legislation can be compromised, like agreeing to limit health-care savings accounts to 300,000 people instead of either 600,000 or zero. Other things clearly cannot and should not be compromised.

And if a little "harsh language" is what it takes to get our Senators awake and thinking clearly (or giving the appearance thereof), so be it. Unfortunate but seemingly necessary.

Snochasr:

Oh, I get it. So now, everyone who supported that bill is basically like al-Qaeda. And if you call me a traitor to my country because I disagree with you about how to reform immigration, that's "unfortunate but seemingly necessary."

Say hello to President Hillary, Snochasr: You're her biggest cheerleader.

Dafydd

Today I had a conversation with an older lady, a life long Republican. She did not consider the failure to pass a bill to be something to be proud of. In fact she said that she believed it was the job of members of Congress to work out their differences and work toward a solution to the country's problems. She said that is why they are there. If not finding a solution is a success she said, then why bother even having a Congress?

I have principles too and I really resent people acting as if even attempting to compromise with your fellow Americans is akin to dealing with terrorists or something. That is insulting on so many levels and it might be necessary for me to vote against the Republican next time just to get a solution to this problem, because people like snochasr here find compromise beneath their dignity. Well, if they become a bigger minority than they already are that will not matter much will it?

[Terrye]: [I]t might be necessary for me to vote against the Republican next time just to get a solution to this problem, because people like snochasr here find compromise beneath their dignity.

1) Terrye, would you really vote against the preferable candidate because of what a third person, with no connection to the candidate beyond party affiliation, wrote? By all means, spite face: cut off nose. Not what I'd call the rational response of a thoughtful conservative, but that's just me. I could be wrong.

2)

[snochasr ]: Some legislation can be compromised, like agreeing to limit health-care savings accounts to 300,000 people instead of either 600,000 or zero. Other things clearly cannot and should not be compromised.

People who "find compromise beneath their dignity" would never say that "[s]ome legislation can be compromised," Terrye. It's definitely nye kulturny to complain, however justly, about the mischaracterizing motes in the eyes of others while {blink} ignoring the one {blink, blink} in your own. {Blink.}

[Today I] was unable to have [a conversation with an older lady, a life long Republican], because my mom's been dead for some years. But I know that she would have thought "the failure to pass a [bad] bill to be something to be proud of." Passing a bad bill is almost never better than passing no bill. (Say, is malpractice "better" than no treatment at all? "First, do no harm.")

Dafydd, I've read your complaints elsewhere about the current immigration structure, and I find myself in general agreement with (what I remember of) your approach. But as I recall, this "better than no" bill didn't change anything there. Strike one.

And whether it would have "allowed" [gang bangers...convicted felons...terrorists] to "stay here" depended not on its intent (I doubt such a result was desired by any of its proponents), but its enforceability. 12 million cases to review? Due process? Carter and Clinton appointees on the bench? (Sure, members of MS-13 tend to stand out -- but some of them are natives. And besides, aren't "Ch*nga los gringos y muerte a todos ellos" tattoos just another lifestyle choice?) Do you really like those odds? Sorry, strike two.

The fatal third strike is one on which I hope we can agree, regardless of the previous two. The shiny steel rails on which this bill rested were unmistakable from the outset, and the departure time had obviously been set to deny anyone not already on the platform the opportunity to board, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of shareholders wanted a different destination entirely. This rose well above the level of "exigent circumstances": such an attempt to impose the will of the legislature upon the people (the saps. What do they know?) was by definition tyrannical in fact, any intent to the contrary notwithstanding. I don't doubt for a moment that it was done from the best of motives, with the perceived good of the country in mind. Truly. ["Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes." --Lazarus Long] So what? (Worst of all, and despite my pre-existing contempt for BCRA, I cannot tell you how much it pained me to see a man of such undoubted heroism and love of country as John McCain participate so intimately in the attempt.)

[snochasr ]: For example, if al Qaeda wants all of us dead, and some Senator (believe me many of them would try) negotiates a deal so they only kill half of us, would that be a good compromise?

[Dafydd]: Oh, I get it. So now, everyone who supported that bill is basically like al-Qaeda.

Well, Dafydd, if by "that bill" you mean the hypothetical compromise that gives al-Qaeda permission to kill half our fellow citizens with impunity, then yes, such supporters would be basically like al-Qaeda (not that it would matter which precise under-rock dweller such supporters were like). If, on the other hand, you mean the "Grand Compromise" immigration reform bill, my take is that snochasr was only deploying an (admittedly) extreme hypothetical to demonstrate that the phrase "bad compromise" is not an oxymoron -- with no intent of impugning your motives, but rather to force engagement on the question of whether this particular immigration bill compromise might be a bad one. But again, I could be wrong.

As to the original underlying question of the post -- yes, I think "nativist" is viler than "traitor" in the given context. Many people, of all political stripes, have been denounced as traitors in the heat of the moment by people of a contrasting stripe. We know better. We do it anyway. And having been caught, we find it hard to back down. But slowly, in small steps, and with as much avoidance of further embarrassment as possible, we usually do. Because we know we were wrong. Despite much evidence to the contrary, I try to believe that any given elected official is intelligent enough to understand that treason is a volitional act, and that a legislative bill, being without volition, cannot be treasonous. Thus "What I talked about and have no regrets for is the bill that was run through Congress was treasonous," sounds to me like the first small step in such a weaselly, post-deer-in-the-headlights climbdown. And, heck, I ought to know. I've had to do it myself often enough (though rarely after an allegation of treason, it's true).

As I said above, I like your views on entry reform. They make a lot more sense than the current structure. But if I'm a "nativist," that statement is necessarily a lie. Nativists "hate immigrants," making no distinction between legal and illegal, so I must only be pretending to support legal immigration. (Huh. Learn something new every day.) Theoretically, one could oppose the immigration bill for (at least) two reasons: because one is such a bigot, or because one thought, on due consideration, the bill could not make things better and would almost certainly make things worse. According to the left, of course, no honest analyst could reach the latter conclusion. Given how often such "denial of any legitimate dissent" tropes have been deployed against us both in the past, though, we were more than a little shocked to be on the receiving end of such an insouciant allegation of racism from the friends with whom we currently found ourselves at odds -- and I have to say, I think the subsequent testiness was warranted. Not to the point of reflexively calling our accusers "traitors," I'll grant you. But still...

I am 75% ethnic German, and I mean the following sentence quite literally. I wish that every illegal who has come to this country in search of the "American Dream" would instantly and miraculously have their ethnicity converted from whatever it is now to German. I grew up in Cincinnati, and I know its history. Here and elsewhere, World War I forced the many naturalized or native-born Americans of German descent who still thought of themselves as "Germans living in America" to renounce that ethnic focus and live as unhyphenated Americans. Perhaps this is bigotry on my part, though I hope not, but I distrust LULAC and its ilk precisely because there were once similar German-"American" institutions who similarly urged the rejection of assimilation and the retention of authenticity (ethnicity über alles, so to speak). The worst (and thank God, last) of these was the German-American Bund. In its day, it argued that "real" Americanism was a matter of being true to one's inherent "Germanness". I think a fair paraphrase of its actual agenda, though, would be, "For the Aryan, everything; for the rest, nothing." Sound vaguely familiar? Try a few all too real words in Spanish: "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." Or, rather more colloquially, "If you're not One Of Us, who cares? F*ck off and die!"

I care, because I have this quaint notion that every American, native born or naturalized, is "One Of Us" -- though I confess a special love of and respect for the newcomers who think so highly of us that they yearn to become what we (often without the slightest reflection on such a precious gift) already are. No one is less of an American because of where they came from. But neither is anyone "more." And I despise the ethnic/identity politics that, had circumstances been otherwise, might well have have left me believing that a phrase like "Für den Arier, alles..." was only an expression of solidarity, rather than the ranting of a smug bigot who thinks others are less because he is more.

I grew up in Cincinnati. I'm 75% ethnic German. And I wish the ethnicity of every illegal was also German, because then I might not have had to to put up with so many of my "friends" accusing me of being a racist simply because I opposed the passage of an immigration bill they believed, against much evidence and every precedent, would resolve a situation that again and again has not been resolved when we failed to treat illegality as if it were actually illegality.

I was being facetious, my point is I do not like being called a traitor. And so far as I can tell the only thing the hardliners got out of this was the status quo. They did not come up with a viable alternative or anything close to it. They just obstructed the legislation, lied about it, called people names, made racist comments about hispanics, damaged a war time president and went their merry way.

And to say a compromise gives AlQaida permission to kill our citizens is exactly the kind of lies I am talking about. It is a lie, a vicious and stupid lie and if I honestly believed that voting Republican means I have to believe slop like that I would not be pulling that R lever. With enemies like you Hillary does not need friends.

And before WW2 Republicans in the Congress passed quotas designed to keep ethnic Germans, and Poles out of the United States. They also tried to keep Jews out. They said that Europeans could not assimilate. Same crap, different generation.

Porkopolitan:

Dafydd, I've read your complaints elsewhere about the current immigration structure, and I find myself in general agreement with (what I remember of) your approach. But as I recall, this "better than no" bill didn't change anything there. Strike one.

Eh? It certainly did change the legal immigration policy, which is my main beef with the current scheme: Currently, the system is arbitrary, unjust, and unpredictable... nobody has any idea why Jose got in but Mario didn't.

But the proposed new law created a point system, where both Jose and Mario could see how they ranked -- and what they needed to do to make themselves better candidates for assimilation... thus better candidates for getting residency.

That is precisely why I supported it: I love the fence and other security measures; I hate guest worker programs; and I couldn't care less about the 12 million. It was the change to the legal immigration policy that tipped the scales for me.

And whether it would have "allowed" [gang bangers...convicted felons...terrorists] to "stay here" depended not on its intent (I doubt such a result was desired by any of its proponents), but its enforceability.

No. The term "allowed" clearly implies intent. If Snochasr meant "unintentionally allowed," he should have said as much.

[S]uch an attempt to impose the will of the legislature upon the people (the saps. What do they know?) was by definition tyrannical in fact, any intent to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is a fake charge. The bill was negotiated for months, not "in secret" but among a small group of senators, including several who opposed the bill, such as John Cornyn. This is completely normal for any controversial bill with many moving parts.

For example, a complex tax bill is typically negotiated that way, as was the Social-Security reform legislation. The reason is obvious: Out of 100 senators and 435 representatives, every piece of a controversial bill will have at least some congressmen who hate it... and will stall the entire bill to stop it, if they lose a vote on that one piece. It's a power play members simply cannot resist.

But if they're presented with a fait accompli which has some stuff they love and some stuff they hate, they will be forced to weigh both sides and decide, rather than grimly hang tough on their one, tiny issue.

Generally, it works better to move legislation through Congress; this time it failed miserably.

Yes, the public was against "the bill"... because they were systematically lied to by bill opponents on both sides the aisle: Liberal opponents told liberals that the bill did absolutely nothing to help the 12 million illegals, and that the guest-worker program would allow newcomers to take all their jobs away; while conservative opponents screamed "amnesty!" at the top of their lungs, and claimed that the bill would allow convicted felons, terrorists, and child rapers to stay, get on welfare, and steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from real Americans.

Strangely, while Americans were against this bill, they supported every major component of it. But when asked what was in it, the huge majority had completely erroneous (and contradictory) impressions.

So all we proved is that "you can fool all of the people some of the time." But we already knew that.

[S]nochasr was only deploying an (admittedly) extreme hypothetical to demonstrate that the phrase "bad compromise" is not an oxymoron...

Let's break that defense down into pieces:

1. Your defense is a straw man: Nobody ever claimed that a "bad compromise" was a contradiction in terms. Duh.
2. Employing an "extreme hypothetical" is never a valid argument unless you're proving a mathematical theorem. In normal arguments, ludicrous hypos just piss everyone off.
3. And in particular, Snochasr's hypo clearly violates Godwin's Corollary: "The first person to make comparisons to Nazis loses the argument." In this case, al-Qaeda takes the place of the Nazis, but it's the same point.

On nativist vs. traitor:

As I said above, I like your views on entry reform. They make a lot more sense than the current structure. But if I'm a "nativist," that statement is necessarily a lie. Nativists "hate immigrants," making no distinction between legal and illegal, so I must only be pretending to support legal immigration.

A nativist could still like the bill, because he might believe that the changes to the legal immigration policy will attract more "American-like" immigrants than the current system. If the nativist recognizes the reality that immigration will continue, it's obviously better for those already here that the new Americans be as much like the old Americans as possible.

I myself am a cultural nativist: I absolutely love American Borg culture... you will be assimilated; resistance is futile. And one reason I like the point system is that it filters for immigrants who are, as my wife says about herself, Americans who had the misfortune to be born in other countries.

Second, some bill opponents, such as Tom Tancredo, are nakedly nativist: Anyone who proposes a multi-year moratorium on legal immigration cannot be anything else.

Finally, individually targeted nativism is not inherently bad or evil... it's just foolish, because it always presupposes that today's Americans are the best there will ever be.

(A cultural nativist such as myself prefers capitalist immigrants from Bangalore to native-born socialists like Nancy Pelosi: The former are much more "American" than the latter.)

And I wish the ethnicity of every illegal was also German, because then I might not have had to to put up with so many of my "friends" accusing me of being a racist simply because I opposed the passage of an immigration bill they believed, against much evidence and every precedent, would resolve a situation that again and again has not been resolved when we failed to treat illegality as if it were actually illegality.

You confuse nativism with racism; they are completely different... and I don't recall anybody on this blog calling anyone else a "racist." (A racist white prefers illegal white immigrants to native-born blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Orientals, even in the absence of individual acculturation of the immigrants.)

Nativism is very, very distinct from racism; judging character on the basis of skin color is the lowest form of tribalism. Individually targeted nativism is still mildly tribalist, but it's the highest and most respectable form: The nativist says "our culture is the greatest, so I don't want people from other, lesser cultures coming in an polluting our previous societal bodily fluids."

Tancredo might feel positively jovial towards Chicanos and still be a nativist; a racist or antisemite would prefer a white Christian militiaman from Russia or Serbia to a Japanese-American aerospace engineer or a Jewish doctor from Akron.

But a traitor is the lowest of the low. Because America is defined by the ideology of freedom, liberty, and individualism, a traitor necessarily works towards tyranny, totalitarianism, and collectivism.

Bill proponents could have lost me very quickly on the bill... for example, by voting to switch the point system to completely favor extended family over assimilability, or by stripping out the fence and other security measures. So I certainly understand that people can oppose the bill in good faith.

But many opponents argued against the bill in bad faith: By lying about what was in it (or, to be charitable, by being very ignorant about what was in it) and by hurling vile epithets at anyone who supported it. And many proponents fell into the same trap.

But other proponents constantly berated those on our side who went over the line -- while I don't recall ever seeing a bill opponent chastising another opponent for saying unforgivable things about bill supporters. It seemed as if opponents hated the bill so much, they tolerated its defeat by any means necessary... even a lie, a verbal assault, or the threat of violence.

That's worse than despicable; it is Democratic.

And that is why I fear the rift may take a long time to heal. The impression left is that, when Russell Pearce calls me a traitor -- you and other bill opponents merely smile and say nothing, silence signifying assent... or at least passive tolerance.

Dafydd

Terrye, Porkopolitan:

So right after I write something, I read the next comment, and Terrye proves me wrong about one point:

They just obstructed the legislation, lied about it, called people names, made racist comments about hispanics, damaged a war time president and went their merry way.

This crosses the line, Terrye. The great majority of hardliners did not "make racist comments about Hispanics." That's as collectivist as Pearce saying that the bill was treason.

Please retract it, and don't make such comments in the future.

Thanks,

The Mgt.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)