BCT Editorial – 5/18/06

This page was last updated on May 18, 2006.

Return of the nativists; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 18, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“United States must be careful not to repeat its anti-immigrant past

“When the nativists are restless, they take it out on immigrants.

[RWC] According to the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of nativism is “a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants.” That’s not the definition used by this editorial. In this editorial, a nativist is someone who opposes all immigration, legal or illegal. The editorial takes the next steps and tries to convince us that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a nativist.

“That’s why nativist sentiments embodied in the bill passed by the House of Representatives must not be allowed to dominate the debate over reforming America’s immigration system.

“Those pushing for draconian measures against illegal immigrants trot out any number of reasons to get tough - national security, the impact illegal immigrants have on wages, they’re taking jobs away from Americans, their dual loyalties, their unwillingness to assimilate and become real Americans, etc.”

[RWC] You probably noticed the editorial didn’t tell us what those “draconian measures against illegal immigrants” are. There’s a good reason. When you take the time to read the bill (H.R. 4437), you find the “draconian measures” simply amount to enforcing current border security and internal immigration laws.

“In doing so, they are following the arguments that have been used against immigrants for more than 150 years.

“It would help matters immensely if we all understood that the concept of legal and illegal immigration is a fairly recent development.

“Prior to the 1890s, immigration was handled largely by the states and private charities, and immigrants were neither legal nor illegal as we use those terms today. They simply got off the boat and went about their business, and the federal government had no idea as to what they were doing or where they were.

“However, things changed in the 1890s. Or rather, the ethnic and religious composition of the immigrants did.

“Prior to then, the bulk of the immigrants who came to America were from northern Europe. They also were predominately Protestant. (The Irish, who poured in during the 1840s and 1850s, were the religious exception, but their presence here fueled the first wave of anti-immigrant sentiments on a national level, as evidenced by the popularity of the Know Nothing Party.)

“But the torrents of southern and eastern European immigrants - with their incomprehensible languages, their undecipherable alphabets, their strange religions, their odd customs and their smelly food - who started coming to the United States in the 1890s sent nativists off the deep end. (And as appalling as that discrimination was, it paled in comparison to the blind hatred that was aimed at Chinese and Japanese immigrants.)

“Suddenly, it was important for the United States to control its borders. Hence, the federal government started to assume control of immigration. The anti-immigrant movement culminated in the adoption of the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which was written in such a way as to be biased in favor of those nationalities that came to the United States prior to 1890. (However, it did not restrict immigration from countries in the Western Hemisphere.)”

[RWC] In the midst of this history of immigration, there was one huge omission. Nowhere did the editorial note that our so-called “social welfare safety net” didn’t exist. During that period, immigrants – whether legal or illegal – could not fall back on welfare, et cetera. That’s not true today. In fact, the impact of illegals on welfare, et cetera got so bad in California, that liberal bastion passed Proposition 187 in 1994 to stop the drain on its social welfare system. Unfortunately, a federal court issued an injunction against Prop. 187 and a subsequent governor who had opposed Prop. 187 dropped the appeal.

“This is an example of what President Bush referred to Monday when he said that we ‘cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain.’

“If you’re of southern or eastern European descent, if you’re Catholic, Jewish or Orthodox, please remember that the sentiments behind what the nativists are saying today are the same as those their predecessors were using against your relatives.

“And please remember that for all of the huffing and puffing the nativists did, your ancestors and their descendants turned out to be pretty good Americans - just as many of today’s immigrants, legal and illegal, will do if we give them the chance.”

[RWC] As I noted above, this editorial conflates being pro legal immigration and anti-immigration. Why would the Times do this? I believe it’s in the politics. Socialism requires “victims” to survive, and what’s a better victim group than one that’s poor, English illiterate, and undereducated? Liberals look at an open border policy as a way to import millions of people whom the liberals assume will vote Democrat because the Democrats will promise “free stuff.”