BigMediaBlog

The NYT gives us "Cheap Border Politics" today. Quoting the leader of the smugglocracy south of the border, they editorialize that a border fence is 'shameful'. Loyal Americans are proud of a strong national defense and repulsion of invaders. The waving in of hostiles is what is shameful and viciously treacherous. Having no rational arguments apparently, "anti-immigration' is smeared as xenophobic, low class, and inhumane- to the invaders.

(cont.) A false dilemna is also exploited, in which, we either oppose all immigration, or tolerate the present millions of illegals running loose, with more and worse to come. Hispanic voters will backlash against restrictionism, we're told; but we're not told that they're only 6% of the vote, and don't commonly appreciate mass immigration.

(cont.) There is a contradiction in championing the illegals as humble workers, while speaking of the lower class workers in general, as that which should be disfranchised on immigration policy. If the above be not the implication of speaking of the constituency for restriction of immigration as being in the cheap seats, what is the meaning of the emphasis on cheap this and cheap that? Those who are not so touchily susceptible to stimulation of class anxiety, will not be so easily intimidated into leaving foreign policy to their supposed betters.