Ellington

David Hampton has a decent column today about all the ugly immigrant-bashing in our state and in the nation of late, as immigration becomes the new wedge issue. We've certainly seen our share of hateful immigration rhetoric right here on the JFP site (click here and here for those JFP threads). I especially appreciate this part near the end of his column:

It is easy to read between the lines. It is not immigration policy; it is immigrants. It is classic "us" vs. "them" politics. There is a xenophobic smell to the immigration debate that Mississippi does not need to allow to spread. If we are going to talk about immigration reform, there are things to talk about, but candidates should beware of the temptation to appeal to the worst nature of people's fears and prejudices. We've seen where that leads before in Mississippi and we don't want to go there again.

However, when Hampton writes of (and, bizarrely, rather excuses away) Mike Lott's xenophobic comments, he mentions other candidates for secretary of state who picked up the meme, saying we need to keep "illegal" immigrants off the voter rolls, why doesn't he call out that Delbert Hosemann, who is still in the race, did exactly that?

The most ridiculous, however, was its injection into the secretary of state's race.

It was understandable that Rep. Mike Lott, R-Petal, would bring it up since he has made that a focus of his legislative work. But other candidates soon picked it up because it was apparent the issue is highly volatile with a certain segment of voters. Candidates were saying they would protect our voter rolls from illegal immigrants. Huh? Think about it. The idea of illegal immigrants lining up to try and sneak in and vote is ludicrous.

Why isn't Hampton holding Hosemann directly accountable for climbing on such an ugly bandwagon—and why didn't he do it before the primaries (as we did when we refused to endorse Hosemann for such Old Mississippi-style rhetoric, as Hampton himself calls this xenophobia)? And if he means what he wrote in his column, hasn't Hampton learned anything from our past—that we have to call this stuff out every time we see it, and not wait until the damage is done? To be part of the solution, you have to be willing to go against the crowds and call it when you see it. The crowds will join you someday, but let's try to lessen the damage done between now and then. I just don't understand this kind of timid journalism. Why not go be a corporate lawyer instead?

(See: Jackpedia: Wedge Issue)

Previous Comments

ID

114067

Comment

Look, the idea that illegal immigrants are lining up to vote is silly. But more broadly, so is equating the people's legitimate concerns about national identity with racism. We've worked hard to build infrastructure and political culture that is objectively better than Mexico's. And to produce citizens that are more productive, more law abiding, and better educated. These aren't opinions, they're objective facts. If you believe in collective responsibility on a global level, as I do, give to the Christian Children's Fund or Oxfam. Don't insist that every country that has found a better way open its borders and surrender to the lowest common denominator of poverty wages and re-educating entire generations of people neglected by third world governments. (To paraphrase Milton Friedman, if we all must go forward together, we can never go forward at all.) If you want a more diverse population, then by all means recruit the best and brightest black, brown, and yellow-skinned people from around the world. Indeed, in a society where production and information move effortlessly across borders, this is the only to preserve our advantage. But don't insist on taking the least able, just because they happen to look different and assuage your guilty white conscience. (USC doesn't stay number 1 by taking the first 25 people who ask to play football for them each year.)

Author

laughter

Date

2007-08-19T20:02:34-06:00

ID

114068

Comment

LTG, your argument sounds darn close to the old "protecting our way of life" meme, and we all know what that was about. Oddly, it sounds like you're advocating a kind of business-driven eugenics, using college football for guidance on how to reject the "least able." It's downright creepy. Remember me not to invite you to a dinner party anytime soon with talk like this. After your post, you're the one who might ought to have a guilty white conscience. I'm been doing a pretty good job assuaging my own for years, I'm happy to say. And you do know that your logic doesn't work, right? Even if one could justify such an approach, there would be a lot of American jobs that all these "best and brightest" from beyond the borders wouldn't want, either.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-08-19T21:40:22-06:00

ID

114069

Comment

Hampton blogged about this post, sort of, yesterday, trying to use my comments as the "other side," it seems, from rabid talk radio that blasted him for being too pro-immigrant. He is so trapped in that he-said-she-said paradigm—call it his "Ivins v. Coulter" false premise—that he can't see past it. Anyway, he still didn't answer the question of why he didn't name Hosemann by name, who joined the immigration hysteria in his own paper. So, he added nothing new to the conversation. Go figure. There sure is a lot of tapdancing going on in the Ledge blogs the last few days, between him and Salter trying to convince us that the Bloomberg story about Barbour was "old news" and Jim Hood's fault.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-08-21T06:22:44-06:00

ID

114070

Comment

Donna, did you see this comment on there? Of course the local weekly wasn't, and isn't, really that interested that you call out the names as much as they needed the daily fix of self-validation their editor receives from bashing y'all and anyone else with whom she disagrees. What do you think?

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-08-21T08:01:50-06:00

ID

114071

Comment

I exchanged an email with Hosemann once about things that are said on WJNT concerning the confederate flag etc. and how the black community views it. He said the Old South represented a genteel way of life that was much better than how things are today. I can imagine what Hosemann thinks of immigrants, legal or illegal.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-08-21T10:11:29-06:00

ID

114072

Comment

He did not. Do you happen to still have that e-mail lying around?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-08-21T10:29:08-06:00

ID

114073

Comment

I will check the hard drive on my other computer. It should be archived somewhere.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-08-21T10:38:54-06:00

ID

114074

Comment

Donna, there's nothing creepy about wanting smart, well-educated people as citizens. If you use merit as a pretext to keep out black and brown people, that's wrong. But that's extremely unlikely, as nearly all the really smart people who have sufficient economic incentives to pick up everything and come here ARE black or brown. Merit based immigration ensures more diversity, not less. And I don't give a whit about "our way of life" except insofar as that term means a strong economy, low crime, and excellent education. As for the "jobs Americans won't do" argument, I'm happy to see that you and Trent Lott see eye to eye on something. Actually, there's no such thing as a "job Americans won't do." There are, however, an infinite number of "jobs Americans won't do at a given price." The hard fact is that we have to choose between paying more for gardeners and factory goods, or accepting the lowest common denominator of third world wages for our blue collar workers. Seems like we're in bizarro world here. Aren't you supposed to be the one arguing for higher wages for the working class, while I argue for unfettered free market capitalism?

Author

laughter

Date

2007-08-21T11:56:52-06:00

ID

114075

Comment

And I don't give a whit about "our way of life" except insofar as that term means a strong economy, low crime, and excellent education. You should study our history, and our old memes, closer, LTG. Those are three of the main reasons giving for maintaining Jim Crow. Just sayin'. Study up on eugenics while you're at it. It might help to have a common language and some historic grounding if we're going to have such a discussion. Aren't you supposed to be the one arguing for higher wages for the working class, while I argue for unfettered free market capitalism? Who decided that? One of the trolls who like to call me a "librul"? Who have no idea what I actually believe? Who want to label everyone as left or right? Who think about everything in binary fer-em-agin-em terms? No one is more about actual free enterprise than I am; some of y'all take some liberties with the definition, however.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-08-21T12:06:02-06:00

ID

114076

Comment

Law Talking Guy, you have a complex position. I do not really think conservatives/Republicans can argue the point about Americans not doing certain jobs because of the pay. That is a phoney argument because Repubs fight tooth and nail to keep wages low. The most recent was against a minimum wage hike. The other is that if there are millions of illegals here doing any kind of work for any amount of money and our unemployment rate is at extremely low levels, there would be a gap between jobs and workers. You can not just remove 10 plus million workers and not expect some type of backlash. If we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, what does merit based immigration have to do with anything? Is it God bless America and nobody else?

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-08-21T12:12:15-06:00

ID

114077

Comment

Amen, Goldenae. You were simply golden in that reply. Everybody needs merit but...

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-08-21T12:30:42-06:00

ID

114078

Comment

BTW, all, I haven't seen a single person on this site arguing for completely open borders without any kind of immigration policy. I sure don't believe that should be the case. The problem is, our current policy doesn't work, and there is a lot of mythology and ugly politics in the way of fixing it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-08-22T11:02:23-06:00

ID

114079

Comment

Delbert is a nice guy, one of the few people talked about in this forum that I know personally, so he'll get my vote. I can't help but think he'll be fair in office, and while "fairness" can be debated, at least from my perspective, Delbert's fairness wouldn't be from a malevolent standpoint. As to immigration, both the dems and repubs are trying to get the hispanic vote, and it seems to me that both sides are trying to go about it in a way to attract the most votes, not from any sense of "fairness".

Author

GLewis

Date

2007-08-22T11:55:48-06:00

ID

114080

Comment

Goldenae -- You have hit on an important question. I.e., the question whether a government's legitimate function is to advance the welfare of its citizens only, or humanity as a whole. Ultimately, I think it's a question we can avoid here, since I believe that there are better ways to help people in poor countries than throwing open the gates of rich countries. In brief, it's more effective for rich countries to use the advantages they've built to transform the rest of the world, rather than try to let everyone come here. I realize it's debatable, but think of it this way: Can a top tier university do more good for more people by (a) attracting the smartest folks and giving them the tools to go out and make the world better; or (b) letting everyone who wants to attend do so?

Author

laughter

Date

2007-08-22T13:43:50-06:00

ID

114081

Comment

Goldenae -- You have hit on an important question. I.e., the question whether a government's legitimate function is to advance the welfare of its citizens only, or humanity as a whole. Ultimately, I think it's a question we can avoid here, since I believe that there are better ways to help people in poor countries than throwing open the gates of rich countries. In brief, it's more effective for rich countries to use the advantages they've built to transform the rest of the world, rather than try to let everyone come here. I realize it's debatable, but think of it this way: Can a top tier university do more good for more people by (a) attracting the smartest folks and giving them the tools to go out and make the world better; or (b) letting everyone who wants to attend do so? Ladd -- I understand some people have ulterior motives for making arguments like the ones I'm making. I don't. I really want to help people in poor countries, and I view them as equals. But as an objective matter, the desperate people who cross our border (NOT, e.g., all Mexicans) are uneducated, and they are more likely to commit crimes, and they do impose major social costs. If paying those costs would end poverty in the third world, I'd gladly pay them. But that's just not the case.

Author

laughter

Date

2007-08-22T14:07:47-06:00

ID

114082

Comment

Sorry for the quasi-duplicate posts. Not sure how that happened.

Author

laughter

Date

2007-08-22T14:08:49-06:00

ID

114083

Comment

The problem with many rich capitalistic countries (including us) is that they don't care about any poor people, including their own, unless there is a capitalistic, economic, security or military benefit for them, or force and threats of loss are applied in some real and meaningful way. Any help to the poor is called handouts, socialism or welfare. But it's called something different in corporate bailouts or other forms of favortism to the rich and non-poor and so on. In other word, we're careless and dishonest people. Not all of us, but many, and likely most of us. The truth is the light. The United States of America clearly doesn't care about world hunger or suffering. We'd throw away the food or attach soo many abusive strings that it doesn't make sense for many country to deal with us. When they deal with other countries instead with less strings or none at all we get mad, angry, complain and put them on out hate list. We didn't get into the position of power we're in today by fairness, good will and caring about the less fortunate. We got here mostly by nefarious methods of taking, killing, oppressing, tricking and out-smarting our competition and enemies. We call ourselves a Christian nation, to boot, but we had better hope like heaven what is written in the bible isn't true. Otherwise, we will have hell to pay someday. I know the blind and anti-intellectual won't believe me. But you don't need much sense to figure this out.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2007-08-22T14:21:36-06:00

ID

114084

Comment

Law Talking Guy, you asserted something that conservatives often do. I do not recall suggesting that anyone that was not qualified be given anything. My point about immigrants is that this is a nation of immigrants, people have different skills and talents. Intelligence is not the only good quality. What about hard work, loyalty, good citizenship?If we found a way tomorrow to expediate the immigration process and correct the problem of illegals, conservatives would still be against it. The dirty little secret is that majority is afraid of the demographics changing and the possibility of them being in the minority at some point. Just as many uneducated, gangstas, and people loyal to their homeland came through Ellis Island as come across that border. Specifically speaking of education, yes, it would be in everyone's best interest for as many people as possible to be as educated as possible. My perception of conservatives are that they are generally selfish. That being the case, it is hard to consider that they have the answers for problems that require giving of oneself and making sacrifices for others. Conservatives complain about education, but do not want to be teachers. Conservatives complain that people are living off of the government, but do not want to pay people decent wages. Nothing stops conservatives from fixing all of the things they complain about. Government would not have so much to do if people did all that they could do.

Author

Goldenae

Date

2007-08-22T15:46:29-06:00