Derbyshire on Giuliani and immigration

Alex K. writes:

John Derbyshire is useless. He is pro-Giuliani, and in response to a readers’ challenge he attempts to reconcile that with his ostensibly righteous views on immigration (VDARE is always singling him out as a hero fighting the good fight deep in neocon territory). He fails utterly.

The only point he arguably has here is that “We’re not going to get President Tom, or anyone like him.” On several points that he makes about Giuliani he is flat out wrong:

- He says that Giuliani “has never, in his extensive chief-executive experience, had to put immigration issues at the front of his mind, and so has a “position” on immigration like I have a position on the blocking rule in ice hockey.”

In fact, Giuliani supported sanctuary policy for illegals in New York, this despite being such a crimefighter!

- He says that Giuliani “will be properly contemptuous of any scheme or legislation that calls for a tripling of the workload of the federal immigration bureaucracy.”

In fact, Giuliani has endorsed amnesty and a “guest” worker program—that’s drastically increasing the workload.

- He says that Giuliani “shows no signs of a deep ideological commitment to unrestricted immigration.”

Sanctuary, amnesty and “guest” programs—some pretty broad signs right there!

And Derbyshire’s remaining points are baseless. Basically they come down to: that Rudy is too cool and tough to really go along with this sappy pro-immigrant jazz; that’s an astoundingly naive thought from someone who has supposedly followed the immigration debate.

I suppose there is a chance that Derbyshire just doesn’t realize that Rudy has taken positions on immigration and they’re quite bad. But it’s more likely that he knows the above facts I cited and simply doesn’t take them very seriously.

LA replies:

I will let Alex’s excellent and insightful analysis stand on its own, and not add my oft-expressed thoughts concerning Derbyshire’s lack of seriousness about any issue (other than his new-found faith in Darwinian atheism), and about why his frivolousness has gained even greater control over him in recent months.

But I will add this on Giuliani and immigration. I’ve recently been told—I have no memory of this myself—that in his weekly radio program as mayor he responded with utter contempt to any caller who expressed concerns about immigration.

Alan Roebuck writes:

And I would add this: Since at least de facto support for mass immigration is the default position in the Republican party, and since mainstream Republicans express scorn for any suggestion of taking effective action against mass immigration, we are entitled to assume that Giuliani will go along with the Republican status quo until we see strong evidence to the contrary.

It’s just like the more general issue of liberalism: since liberalism is the default position, we are entitled to assume that any public figure is liberal until we see strong evidence to the contrary.

I suppose Derb is trying to reconcile himself to having to vote for another “immigration RINO.”

LA replies:

I agree. Good point.

Howard Sutherland writes:

Derbyshire could not be more wrong in his point (d) in the linked comment. Sappy and sentimental about immigration is exactly what Giuliani IS, and having an immigrant hoodlum or two as relatives has no effect on G’s emotional attachment to it.

Howard Sutherland writes:

Giuliani is an ethnic NYC grandson of Italian immigrants, with all the Ellis Island/Statue of Liberty emotionalism about immigration that implies. He is about as likely to oppose immigration as Abe Foxman or Morris Dees.

LA replies:

But many Italian-Americans are immigration restrictonists and are not sentimental about immigration. (This is something that is true today about Italians and was true 55 years ago, when Oscar Handlin in a famous article in Commentary complained that white ethnics other than Jews, particularly Italians, were not sufficiently exercised by the injustice of restricted immigration.) Giuliani, however, has never been among the non-sentimental types.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 26, 2007 09:39 PM | Send