Neocon cheerfully confirms that she would like “half the world” to come to America
Here’s a podcast called “Left Coast/Right Coast” with Mickey Kaus and Jennifer Rubin, an amusing pair considering the one is only nominally a liberal and the other only nominally a conservative. I send it for their immigration discussion. Skip to about the 33 minute mark to hear Rubin cheerfully explain why it would not be a bad thing if half the world came to the U.S.
(When you click the link, the mp3 file will automatically start to be downloaded to your computer.)
Here is my transcription of the key exchange:
- end of initial entry -
Rubin: My own view is not unlike Charles Krauthammer … I want pre-1924 rules, which is that basically anyone who wants to come as long as he is not a criminal or a cretin can come in….
Rubin then goes on to argue that America should follow Israel in this regard. She says that Israel would have “stultified” without the Russian immigrants who came in the ’70s and ’80s, and the same is true of America.
Kaus: Don’t you think that if we had your rules, half the world would want to come to the United States?
Rubin: Well, I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea if half the world came.
Of course she doesn’t notice that the immigrants to Israel were all Jews. She uses the fact that the Israelis have had open immigration only of their fellow Jews, to argue that America should have open immigration of half the people in the world, of every race, religion, and culture.
Such is the fantastic ethnocentric blindness of Jewish neocons and liberals. They make their own experience a model for others, not seeing the important differences between themselves and others. Thus liberal Jews think that because they are doctors and lawyers and top journalists, blacks can, in the same proportion, be doctors and lawyers and top journalists—and that if that doesn’t happen, there is something wrong with America. Thus they think that because their ancestors immigrated to America and were successful here, all possible immigrants, from every possible background, can also come here and be equally successful. Everything is about themselves. Everything is seen through the filter of themselves.
And speaking of narcissism, note Rubin’s breezy energy and “full-of-herself” quality as she is saying these things. She seems to absolutely no notion that America as a country might have some legitimate concerns about half the world coming here. The Jewish thing—the Jewish religion of open immigration for America—overrides all.
As I have written, when Jews, as Jews, evincing typically Jewish characteristics and beliefs, hold positions that are harmful to America, they can and should be criticized as Jews for holding those positions, just as people of any group ought to be criticized for negative behaviors or attitudes which they adhere to as a group.
Now I’ll grant that Rubin under pressure would probably admit that she doesn’t mean that literally half the world should come here. In response to Kaus’s point that there must be some limit, she agrees, vaguely, that there must be some limit. But neither she nor Kaus suggest what that limit should be. Maybe the limit is half the world? Nor does she back away from her support for the pre-1924 (actually pre-1921) policy in which anyone who wasn’t a criminal or a cretin could immigrate. So the rhetorical and logical thrust of her “half the world” comment remains intact. “I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea if half the world came.to America” is her default position.
JC from Houston writes:
Comments like these never cease to astound me, especially coming from Jews (albeit the liberal type). These are supposed to be intelligent people?? There are an estimated 1.1 to 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Does that mean we should welcome 750 million Muslims to America? How’s that going to work out for Jews? The Muslim population in France is now about five million or so and they are responsible almost entirely for the anti-Semitic attacks and incidents in France. The headlines always read something to the effect that “anti-Semitism on the rise in Europe, or France,” or whatever without ever mentioning the cause. These same pundits are committed to environmentalism yet urge making us an overcrowded third world slum. I’m having a major attack of “what the hell ever happened to common sense”?
E. Hunter writes:
LA’s comment on the intensely egocentric nature of liberal mass immigration enthusiasts is well made. Another way of talking about this is to point out how abstract such beliefs always are. “Ideally” America should welcome everyone according to these people. The cost always goes to that abstract entity “the taxpayer. But if you make it real and put immigration on a truly charitable, caring basis i.e. sponsorship and the whole thing falls apart.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 06, 2011 04:41 PM | Send
Ask the liberal if he admires people who sacrifice for their ideals, and believe in love and charity. He will simply gush with enthusiasm. Then ask him to sponsor one immigrant family, and put up a bond against any criminal behavior, or medical costs or welfare applications, the same liberal will flee from reality. Forced even once to write a check for say an $8,500 emergency room baby delivery, let alone one case of resistant tuberculosis (which recently cost Dade County $750,000), the liberal will never, ever bring up the subject again. Guaranteed. The moment you walk out of the liberal’s door check in hand, and he realizes he won’t be buying that new Volvo, and will not be going on that eco-vacation, and may not even be able to pay for his double lattes, the game will be over. And the word will spread fast. The case of Catholic Charities’ participation in U.S. State Dept. “refugee relocation” into the USA is a useful one.
Asked to contribute as little as 10 percent to the cost of maintaining a refugee for one year, the Catholic Church refused. When asked if they were forced to contribute, in order to stay in this otherwise lucrative racket, they said they would drop out of the program.