The Daily Beast’s immigration enthusiast editor John P. Avlon is an idiot, but he just usefully expressed Main Stream Media conventional wisdom in a propaganda piece for the GOP House Leadership Leadership’s attempted Amnesty/ Immigration Surge sellout when he smeared its opponents: “[T]he increasingly isolated conservative populist base is pre-occupied with resisting cultural change…[the Leadership]—and the country—cannot be held hostage by the impractical ideological fervor of 50 or so House radicals…” [Will Immigration Reform Be John Boehner’s Legacy, February 2, 2014. Emphases added.]
Another example: with the rise of Marine Le Pen in France, the mindless description “far-right” has been tossed with more recklessness than usual. Thus Reuters and the Guardian, evidently believe that Le Pen is “far-right” because she is “anti-immigrant” (and anti-European Union: France's National Front readies mass showing for local vote, by Mark John, January 9, 2014; French polls show surge in support for far-right National Front, by Kim Willsher, October 10, 2013]
BUT THE TRUTH IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Being what the MSM calls “far-right” and “anti-immigrant” puts you in the mainstream of sensible Western popular opinion.
Of course, to be what the MSM calls “anti-immigrant” simply means that you favor some form of restriction or control on immigration into your country.
Whatever—if restricting or controlling immigration is “far-right,” then being “anti-immigrant” is undeniably a mainstream opinion. In a massive Pew Research poll of 47 countries around the world, majorities in 45 of those countries favored further restricting or controlling immigration.
Here is how the Pew Center described the results of its poll:
In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed express the view that there should be greater restriction of immigration and tighter control of their country’s borders.[ World Publics Welcome Global Trade — But Not Immigration: 47-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey, Pew Research, October 4, 2007]
The bar chart represents not only attitudes about immigration, but also people’s longing for intact, healthy communities. Unrestricted immigration is a direct threat to that aspiration.
Sometimes the threat explodes in violence. The scenes of carnage and disunity are everywhere: Black and “Asian” immigrants rioting through Britain while on the dole; France’s suburbs coming to “the brink of a major social explosion because of the failure of Muslims to integrate into French society”; honor killings in Germany; and Somali refugees to Kenya creating torture and terror in the Westgate Mall, making Somali criminals in America seem relatively tame. In Norway, one therapist who works with rape victims says of non-citizen rapists, “These men they do not attack their own… They attack Norwegian women and a liberal culture they will not accept.”[Culture Crisis: Norway Tackles Muslim Immigration, By Dale Hurd, CBN News, August 20, 2011]
In any honest description of the impact of immigration worldwide, it should be pointed out that immigration has generally brought with it a mixed bag, at best. In most aspects of life, sensible people can understand that public policy brings with it pros and cons. However, our approach to immigration has been senseless. Even so-called conservatives, who are evidently the last remaining defenders of our sovereignty, will speak about immigration with complete piety.
Yet, those who favor open immigration policies are the outliers. They are on the fringe, supporting an approach that a majority of their fellow citizens vehemently oppose.
Consider the following opinion data (funded by liberal organizations) showing that more Americans believe that immigration is a “problem” rather than an “opportunity”:
Source: Transatlantic Trends: Immigration 2010 [PDF])
Chart 1
There is a similar majority who believe that immigrants take jobs from the native-born and drive down wages.
These figures show that there is a majority in support of immigration restrictions. Where, in a democratic society, are their leaders? Could it be that part of the reason for our outrageous state of affairs is a simple failure of politicians to listen to their constituents’ concerns?
The politicians’ refusal to listen is motivated to some degree by the corrupt, financial incentive that they have to favor amnesty. For instance, Republicans for Immigration Reform is a political action committee that takes money from the corporate interests who would benefit from lower wages. The founders of the group “enjoy close ties to corporate America, which generally favors looser immigration laws,” according to the Washington Post. [New super PAC hopes to give cover to pro-immigration Republicans, by Peter Wallsten, November 16, 2012]
One of the founders of the group is Carlos Gutierrez, head of Mitt Romney’s (manifestly failed) Hispanic outreach program. He has publicly stated: “I think we lost the election because the far right of this party has taken the party to a place that it doesn't belong.” [Romney’s Hispanic chairman to create new immigration reform super PAC, by Dana Davidsen, CNN, November 16, 2012. Emphasis added].
There it is again—the “far right,” that specter equally despised by both the European Leftists Guardian and the Republican Party’s chief Hispanic strategist.
Under the Open Borders approach, the Republicans will take the bizarre risk of courting voters who are extremely unlikely to be conservative, and whose only supposedly conservative characteristics pertain to intensely personal and controversial social issues. [When Labels Don’t Fit: Hispanics and Their Views of Identity, Pew Research, April 4, 2012; Hispanic Family Values?, By Heather Mac Donald, City Journal, Autumn 2006]
Thus the New York Times reported on 2012 exit polling:
Two-thirds of Hispanic voters said that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, compared with slightly more than half of white voters, according to exit poll results. Hispanics were also more liberal when it came to same-sex marriage, with 59 percent saying it should be legal in their state, compared with 51 percent of blacks and 47 percent of white voters.
[Assessing How Pivotal the Hispanic Vote was to Obama’s Victory, by Allison Kopicki and Will Irving, New York Times, November 20, 2012]
Courting the Hispanic vote with amnesty would alienate white working class people, who could have secured a win for Mitt Romney, in exchange for the futile prospect of a percentage of the Hispanic vote (the mythical 44%) that wouldn’t have resulted in a Romney victory anyway.
Perhaps sensing that what Samuel P. Huntington called “Dead Souls” —the post-national elite—are about to betray America again, the public has little faith that the federal government will secure the border.
Confidence—at the level of “somewhat likely—that the federal government would actually secure the border if a reform plan passed fell from 45% in January, to 28% in June, to 25% now. [5% Think Feds Very Likely to Seal Border if New Immigration Law Passes, Rasmussen Reports, October 22, 2013]
With so much opposition to Amnesty, it is the Open Borders Republicans who should be put on the defensive.
The label “far right” is an indefensible trick: an abuse of language meant to marginalize decent people who are in the majority worldwide and whose views demand respect.
Email Thomas Martel.
