Fools on all sides
Over a number of years, as it relates to political debates (between the elites, not between the common folk), I've subscribed to perhaps an unreasonable and even irrational view that people on the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more intellectually honest and more rational than their counterparts on the left side of the political debate.
My view in this respect has been lessened (though not eliminated) recently, especially after observing recent debates in America concerning immigration and national security in general.
I've already expressed my disgust over the reaction to the Dubai Ports deal (a deal that was unreasonably attacked by all sides) last month, so I'll just move on to the topic of immigration.
There's been some major uproar about a bill that passed the Senate judiciary committee yesterday. The bill itself is completely reasonable.
A friend just sent me a link to a post which details how reasonable the plan actually is.
Unlike what many of the critics have suggested, this plans offers no "amnesty" and it puts forth a number of reasonable proposals.
Social security benefits would not go to illegals, employees would be required to only hire legals, those who wish to stay after a six-year period would be required to pay their back taxes, learn English, undergo a health exam and educate themselves about American civic and history.
And yet, the reaction to this bill, a bill that would improve America's problem with illegal immigration, has been greeted with hostility by most conservative institutions and publications. It boggles the mind.
The National Review, the American conservative magazine that I most closely associate with common-sense, practical, level-headed conservative thought has come out as opposed to the bill, calling it "reckless". They build up such a pathetic straw man and then routinely attack it. They keep referring to amnesty, but the bill does no such thing. The editorial is completely blind to America's need for workers (unemployment already being below 5%) and does not appreciate that the bill tries to provide a legal framework that requires the integration of Mexican immigrants if they do indeed intend to stay. So what exactly are their concerns then? If the Mexicans are integrated and have jobs and contribute to society more than they take away (as nearly all people with jobs do)? They didn't list any of those concerns or arguments, probably because they didn't have any good ones.
My view in this respect has been lessened (though not eliminated) recently, especially after observing recent debates in America concerning immigration and national security in general.
I've already expressed my disgust over the reaction to the Dubai Ports deal (a deal that was unreasonably attacked by all sides) last month, so I'll just move on to the topic of immigration.
There's been some major uproar about a bill that passed the Senate judiciary committee yesterday. The bill itself is completely reasonable.
A friend just sent me a link to a post which details how reasonable the plan actually is.
Unlike what many of the critics have suggested, this plans offers no "amnesty" and it puts forth a number of reasonable proposals.
Social security benefits would not go to illegals, employees would be required to only hire legals, those who wish to stay after a six-year period would be required to pay their back taxes, learn English, undergo a health exam and educate themselves about American civic and history.
And yet, the reaction to this bill, a bill that would improve America's problem with illegal immigration, has been greeted with hostility by most conservative institutions and publications. It boggles the mind.
The National Review, the American conservative magazine that I most closely associate with common-sense, practical, level-headed conservative thought has come out as opposed to the bill, calling it "reckless". They build up such a pathetic straw man and then routinely attack it. They keep referring to amnesty, but the bill does no such thing. The editorial is completely blind to America's need for workers (unemployment already being below 5%) and does not appreciate that the bill tries to provide a legal framework that requires the integration of Mexican immigrants if they do indeed intend to stay. So what exactly are their concerns then? If the Mexicans are integrated and have jobs and contribute to society more than they take away (as nearly all people with jobs do)? They didn't list any of those concerns or arguments, probably because they didn't have any good ones.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
8:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home