Neocons admit they were wrong on immigration

Neocons admit they were wrong on immigration

First, read this passage by James Ceaser (italics have been added by me):

[Samuel] Huntington paints a picture of a growing bifurcation in which America is at risk of becoming a permanent two-culture nation like Canada. Worse, America did not inherit this situation, but allowed it to happen. American elites fiddled while the Southwest began to burn. Either elites delighted in the development of a full second culture, or they subordinated long-term political considerations to immediate economic gains—or they buried their heads in the sand and assumed that assimilation must occur automatically, ignoring the special difficulties posed by the geographic closeness of the Hispanic homeland to American territory and by the sentiments of a people who consider the Southwest to have been stolen from them. For some Hispanic intellectuals, what is occurring is nothing less than the reconquista of territories stolen from Mexico in the 1830s and 1840s. There is no interest in Americanization: “Uncle Sam no es mi tío.” Although many Americans who only a decade ago were blithely urging unlimited immigration and open borders have finally woken up to the difficulties of assimilation, they often continue today to advocate the same policy on the grounds that it is now too late to do anything about it. Thus do they try to excuse their own errors in judgment by citing the magnitude of the problems they have created.

Now, guess where this article was published. The Weekly Standard. Yes, the very mouthpiece of complacent, superficial neocon/minicon cultural opinion over the last decade where if immigration was discussed at all, it was only to deride the very notion that it might be a problem, just as Ceaser himself points out in his article. (I recall a Standard editorial from the mid-1990s that touched on the subject of Californians who were concerned about the legal and illegal Mexican influx, and the editorial in effect said: what planet are these people on? As though immigration critics were in the same intellectual category as black helicopter conspiracy theorists.) Yes, The Weekly Standard, the same magazine that dismissed Huntington’s previous book as “multiculturalist” because Huntington had said that Western civilization is distinct from other civilizations and that the world is not one homogenous lump. The publication of Ceaser’s article may be as close as the neocons/minicons ever get to admitting they were wrong.

I’ve been waiting for this day for 15 years.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 29, 2004 02:16 AM | Send

Comments

Thank you, Mr. Auster, for relaying Mr. Ceasar’s fine essay/book review. I admit to never having heard either his or Mr. Huntington’s name before. The Creedalists and the Culturalists. Is Ceasar/Huntington referring to the likes of Gary Bauer vs Bill Kristol? Where do traditionalist conservatives fall—between the two?

Posted by: David Levin on April 29, 2004 3:59 AM

Immigration. The issue that turns a flamboyantly gay Dutch politician into a martyr for the far right.
Seriously, this new admission by the Weekly Standard is a good thing.

Posted by: Michael Jose on April 29, 2004 6:26 AM

Thanks for the good news.

Posted by: P Murgos on April 29, 2004 8:54 AM

It is good news, but wait and see if they take a reformist stand. It was just a couple of months ago that congressional immigration reformers were referred to in the Weekly Standard as “the nativist claque.”

Posted by: Bill on April 29, 2004 3:06 PM

The new world of terrorism is killing multiculturalism. The cover article in the Spectator (England) shows that the British Labour Party, i.e., the former socialist party, is now well to the right on the issue. http://www.spectator.co.uk/frontpage.php

Posted by: thucydides on April 29, 2004 5:22 PM

I think The Spectator is putting too happy a face on what are actually very slight changes - and entirely rhetorical at that. The Labour Party is no more about to fight for true Britishness or Englishness than it would to restore white rule to South Africa. These are nuanced public statements designed to assuage public annoyance and avoid actually doing anything about the problem. When any major British political party starts to speak openly of the United Kingdom as a Christian nation and of the need to leave the EU, we’ll know there is a mainstream strain in British politics that wants to keep Great Britain British and, indeed, Western. That time is not yet.

As a comparison, President Bush and Secretario Ridge speak often of the need for secure borders. I doubt VFR regulars are taken in by that! HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on April 29, 2004 5:55 PM

By OLGA R. RODRIGUEZ
Associated Press Writer

Illegal Entry From Mexico to U.S. Rises >http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MEXICO_RUSH_TO_AMERICA SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT<

“SASABE, Mexico (AP) — After a four-year decline, illegal immigration from Mexico is spiking as several thousand migrants a day rush across the border in hopes of getting work visas under a program President Bush proposed. Many also are trying to beat tighter security to come in June.” What can one say? The Neocons have worked their magic as only they know how. Are we to believe they are now repentant? Excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical it.

Posted by: American Man on April 29, 2004 6:50 PM

This is wonderful news, though perhaps not totally unexpected. Over the last two or three years I have noticed a subtle change in tone even in organs like Commentary; still unable to admit the existence of the problemm much less discuss it seriously, many neocons have seemed — oh so slowly — to become less enthusiastic about immigration. Now some, at least, have finally become scared. It’s a bit late, but welcome. Now, of they would only become terrified….

Posted by: Alan Levine on April 30, 2004 4:02 PM

For several years, say from 1990 to ‘95, I pursued the White Whale of converting the neocons on immigration, seeing that as the key to turning the issue around. Then, unlike Ahab, I gave up my pursuit, having come to the conclusion that the neocons would never change. If they do start to show signs of change now, that’s good, but we should not place any hopes on it. More likely, we’ll see a couple of articles striking a different tone, followed by a reversion to their default mode.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on April 30, 2004 4:09 PM

Mr. Auster,

If Bush loses in 2004 because once Republican states like New Mexico and Arizona go for Kerry, we might see a change in discussion.

Posted by: Steve Jackson on May 3, 2004 6:29 AM

A perfect solution to border-jumping: Make Mexico the 51st State.Then they would have no need to cross.

Posted by: joan vail on May 3, 2004 8:53 AM

Ms. Vail’s suggestion is roughly equivalent to suggesting that we nuke New York City so we won’t need to worry about radical Muslims attacking it. (Of course, I think she was being facetious).

Posted by: Michael Jose on May 3, 2004 2:13 PM

You see this as a permanent shift?

Posted by: Chesterfied on May 6, 2004 12:42 PM

The Republican Weanies in Congress are so fearful of the dreaded “R” word they can’t bring themselves to support sensible immigration reform bills such as Deal (GA) redefining U.S. citizenship so foreigners can no longer produce instant U.S. citizens (anchor babies - some folks call them “jackpot” babies)and Rohrabacher (CA) that hospitals must report to DHS when they treat illegal aliens. several other such bills.

And many states (including mine - California) grant in-state tuition for illegal alien students and grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. We are three-quarters of the way behind the looking-glass.

Posted by: Ev on May 30, 2004 8:16 PM