Sane writing on the insanity of open borders, etc
Tony Blankley has a particularly well written piece today on the insanity that is current US immigration non-policy:
It is almost inconceivable that an argument is taken seriously that we don’t have the right to secure our borders and determine who shall enter our country. Not only has such lunacy become respectable, but our mainstream media instantly, instinctively embraces such a position. Every radio headline newscast, almost every newspaper and television report willfully refuses to distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. Each report stamps the mark of evil on the forehead of all who would guard our borders.
Even the Republican president of the United States makes the nonest of non-sequiturs, when he justifies doing nothing to enforce the border laws by claiming that these are decent humans just looking for a chance in life.
Well, with the exception of the 29 percent of federal prisoners and similar numbers in state prisons, with the exception of those who seek our welfare, rather than a job — the rest of the wayfarers are indeed far from their native lands for the most decent and best of intentions.
I would guess that of the world’s 6 billion or so souls — probably about 75 percent are good and decent folks who only want the best for their children and the world. It’s the same all over — England, Mexico, America, Africa, throughout the world — about a quarter of the population are bums, the rest are pretty good.
And most of them would like to live in America. But why stop with 85 million Mexicans? For the open border crowd — which apparently includes virtually the entire American political, media, academic and business establishment — there is no reason to try to keep out anyone who wants to come in. (The Senate and the president have made it quite clear that they have no plans to actually secure the border. Their border security proposals are charades and calculated pretenses.)
There are still about 700 million Chinese peasants waiting impatiently for a decent job; probably about an equal number of Indians. And most of the African continent could surely live better in Phoenix than they do being butchered in genocidal wars or starving in man-induced famines.
What is the moral basis for discriminating against that part of suffering humanity unlucky enough to find itself not sharing a border with the good old U.S. of A.? Perhaps the Dubai Ports World company could start chartering ships to bring the rest of suffering humanity to our shores.
Somebody will ride to power on the back of issues like this, as we wrote a couple of months ago.
UPDATE
Speaking of insanity, nothing tops Sterling Professor of Terrorism Juan Cole’s going after the estimable Christopher Hitchens for exposing the effervescent charlatanism of the anti-American academic. Hitchens took Cole to task for whitewashing the various death threats to the US, Israel, etc by quoting accurately the terrorist sources in Iran:
Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. … Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. … For over fifty years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime, and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it.
Cole’s response was a tad more ad hominem:
I don’t think it is any secret that Hitchens has for some time had a very serious and debilitating drinking problem. He once showed up drunk to a talk I gave and heckled me. I can only imagine that he was deep in his cups when he wrote…
Nice. Harold Bloom, Jaroslav Pelikan, C. Vann Woodward, James Tobin and Vincent Scully all talked that way. Mamas, send your boys to Yale. (HTs: TigerHawk, Hugh Hewitt)

May 5th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Hmmm! Could Mr. Blankney have been in the audience for the speech by El Presidente in “Our First Mexican President”?