.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Friday, May 26, 2006

Day of shame

I am sorry to report that yesterday the U.S. Senate voted in favor of S. 2611, one of the most disgraceful, and potentially one of the most destructive, pieces of legislation in American history. Unless the House Republicans stand firm, we are in for a stepped-up invasion of illegals, increased crime and burdens on the social welfare system, further displacement of lower-class Americans, and the continuing erosion of national culture, sovereignty, and identity--not to mention a huge upsurge in Democratic voters as millions of Mexicans and others become legal voters.

It is astonishing how out of touch the Senate is with the American people. Michael Savage thinks the Democratic senators, at least, are all on Prozac and don't know what they're doing. I think it more likely that senators in general have to spend so much time fundraising with the very wealthy that they absorb the pride the wealthy sometimes show of knowing nothing about the hardships of ordinary people. Probably the liberal ideology of equality in all things has metastasized to the point where the sense of shared nationhood, of us vs. them, is no longer felt to be a legitimate sentiment. Patriotism is now only legitimate if it is synonymous with liberal universalism. America is only legitimate to the extent it sponsors liberal universalism. Unfortunately our President has swallowed liberal universalism hook, line, and sinker. Some of you knew that before he was elected.

Here are links to comments on the Day of Shame by Lawrence Auster, host of the traditionalist View From The Right: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005735.html http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005734.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005733.html http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005732.html

Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Hail King Oliver. We hope to see you post far more in the future.

I dont take as dim a view. I think that there are liberal forces out there that, unfortunately, we need to compromise with to avoid the disaster you speak of. If nothing happens, we will just get more illegal immigration and could run the risk of getting total amnesty if we lose the House, which we will if no bill is passed.

The Senate bill does represent the more liberal view. But, it is a bill; a bill that will now go to conference; a bill that must be negotiated with the much tougher House bill. In the end we should get a strong border enforcment bill, with more restrictive caps on any worker program with some path towards citizenship that recognizes the reality of the situation (that some may call amnesty). I think it is possible to get a bill that will not "End our Civilization" as Auster claims.

Michael Savage states over and over again that he would rather lose than compromise and argues that being ruled by a leftist government would be good for us and maybe provide a wake-up call.

We should reject this apocolyptic view. I would rather not go through the pain of leftist rulership for a chance at Savage's utopia. If Savage wants to go to the guillotine, he is welcome to slash his own throat.

1:59 PM, May 26, 2006  
Blogger King Oliver said...

Realistically, in legislation, we need to make the best deal we can. However, we can get a much better deal than the Senate bill. It is not significantly better than the amnesty without border enforcement that Sloanasaurus presents as the worst case. Republicans who stand firm on immigration will win in November, especially if they effectively sell to the voters (against the media bias, to be sure) the destructive consequences of excessive, unprecedented immigration.

Where a compromise is not marginally better than losing, you can afford to refuse to compromise. Moreover, the administration is so committed to lax immigration enforcement that anything less than an irresistible mandate for across the board enforcement will fail to change the status quo. I don't agree with Savage that a leftist government will result in a wake-up call. But there are many issues with respect to which we would be better off with a Republican Congress blocking a Democratic president than a Republican Conggress lying down for a Republican President. This is certainly one of them.

The Heritage Foundation's reporting on S. 2611 is worth looking at. Here is an address: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm.

One thing that can be gleaned from Lawrence Auster's writing is that the immigration debate is a superb laboratory for identifying what conservatism is and who is a conservative. For example, the debate exposes many who consider themselves to be conservatives--because they oppose the expansion of the welfare state, the suppression of religion, and the expansion of international jurisdictions--to be liberals when it comes to immigration, i.e., they value the pursuit of egalitarian and universalist or libertarian) ideals (over the welfare and survival of a concrete historical people, the American people. Right-liberals tend to prize economic freedom over the well-being of the people, or measure the well-being of the people solely in terms of economic freedom, while left-liberals prize freedom from material want and sexual freedom over the overall well-being of the people. Both left- and right-liberals tend to define the functionality of a society in terms of its formal political processes (or economic measures), not in the degree of conformity of its social and political relationships to a standard provided by our on-going discovery of natural law. It is left to conservatives to try to figure out who the real people are and what is really best for them.

Given the difficulty of assimilating immigrants at current levels, especially in an intellectual culture that fosters ethnic balkanization to support grievance lobbies, it is close to self-evident that massive increases in immigration are deleterious to the welfare of the nation. It is also self-evident that legalizing 12 million Mexican will result in creating at most 4 million new Republican voters and at least 8 million new Democratic voters, for an massive influx of support to expand the welfare state. Of course, the newly legalized Mexicans would be eligible for a host of benefits, including those under the label of affirmative action.

How can anyone with a concrete sense of the the nation and a wish for its well-being accept a massive addition of foreigners who will further the most destructive political trends in our society is beyond me. Thus I think the judgment of many is based on their commitment to right- and left-liberal universalist ideals rather than the interests of the American people.

1:13 PM, May 30, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:56 PM, May 30, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

If the Congress can pass a bill that is enforcement only and that stops the flow of immigrants - that would be the best result. I agree with the argument that eventually, the illegals would diminsh through attrition if the flow is stopped. One would think that is the logical result considering both houses agree on the enforcement part.

However, there is also the risk that we will get no legislation and I think having no legislation could ultimately result in total amnesty and more open borders. I think that is far worse than no bill especially because it appears that a considerable number of Democrats oppose the guest worker program because of Union support and also support restrictions on the number of immigrants coming in. You could actually get a much more restrictive bill if it is negotiated properly.

I agree with Auster that preserving the traditional American people is the desired outcome. I am just not as sure as Auster that such a preservation is at risk necessarily because of the current Senate Bill.

Preventing immigration does not always result in preserving traditional society. Consider for example, Japan, a country which has allowed virtually no immigration and is one of the most ethnically pure societies in the world. Japan totally destroyed its traditional society in only a few generations. Today Japan is basically a western country.

I am not going to bite at Auster's claim about fake conservatives. All Auster is doing is restating the Jefferson-Hamilton debate that began 225 years ago. Its obvious that Auster is much more "Jeffersonian" in his views. Unfortunately for Auster, Hamilton appears to have won the debate...for the time being at least.

10:00 PM, May 30, 2006  

Post a Comment