A Nation of Widgets: The Wall Street Journal and Open Borders

By Mac Johnson, Human Events Online

December 12, 2005

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10796

...just occasionally, a piece appears that is so poorly argued, so broad, and so internally flawed that it does seem to encapsulate every possible weakness in an opponent’s logic. The Wall Street Journal published such an editorial last Friday, trumpeting the Editorial Page’s long-held belief in the economic wisdom of America entirely abandoning her borders.

More than anything else, in my opinion, it shows that the central failing of the right-wing of the open borders lobby is viewing human beings as interchangeable parts -- to be self-traded like commodities across any frontier according to the simple dictate of supply and demand.... Men and women are what nations are made of. They carry in their hearts and minds the culture and beliefs and common experiences that make one nation rich and free and another poor and corrupt.

When you discuss the idea of unrestricted human migration across national borders, you have to recall this. Immigration has economic consequences, but it is not exclusively an economic issue. It is not even primarily an economic issue. It is primarily a social or political issue. And when the immigration in question is illegal, then it becomes an issue of the rule of law as well.

That is the second great failing of the WSJ editorial. It seamlessly confuses the disparate issues of legal and illegal immigration, complaining about enforcement of law as if such were merely a costly inconvenience, not one of the foundations of America’s success. The editorial ended up as nothing less than a snotty, aristocratic assault on the rule of law. Current immigration law harms the business class for which the WSJ speaks, they claim, so it should be ignored until it can be done away with entirely....

Apparently, anyone who supports any restriction on immigration is a dangerous “restrictionist.” From this, we can gather that the WSJ supports a world in which there are no restrictions upon immigration into the United States whatsoever....

Perhaps the editors at the Journal should henceforth be known as “Anti-nationalists,” for what they are really proposing is the end of nations, or at least the end of the one nation in which they have influence, the United States. As I have said, a nation is nothing more than its people and their beliefs. When you propose immigration in excess of the ability of a nation to assimilate immigrants (and the only alternative would be to “restrict” immigration) you are proposing to end the current nation and its culture....

The election laws and customs of the United States are set up to explicitly discourage the success of any third party. By traditional standards, “successful” third party candidates are those who can garner more than 4 or 5% of the vote. Ross Perot, the most successful third party candidate of modern times, garnered 19% of the vote for President in 1992. [Minuteman co-founder] Jim Gilchrist won 25% of the votes in last Tuesday’s [southern California] special election.

Without an established party, without corporate funding, without any real skills as a candidate, and with the system stacked squarely against him, Mr. Gilchrist equaled the performance of the entire Democratic Party in this district (28%) -- all while having only one issue in his platform: enforcement of immigration laws....

This is a pattern that continues, as the Journal argues that supporting open borders (i.e. anti-nationalism) is politically wise for the Republican Party.... as the Journal puts it:

A Republican in California will soon be able to win 70% of the white vote and still lose statewide if he can't pick up more Hispanic votes.”

So you see, 20 years of unrestricted illegal immigration has led to a situation in which Republicans will soon be able to win 70% of the white vote and still lose the election, and that’s why Republicans should support more unrestricted immigration. The logic is astounding....

The Journal editors then go on to complain that the “restrictionists” have somehow successfully labeled them as part of an out-of-touch “elite” -- a conceited thing to do....

Finally, the editorial finished with the most corrupt message I have ever seen in a major newspaper:

"Republicans seem intent not merely on increasing border patrols but also on further harassing law-abiding businesses that happen to hire illegals, as if anyone can tell the difference between real and fake immigration documents. Only Republicans would think it's smart politics to punish their supporters for hiring willing workers."

And only those who see the world through the soda straw of economic self-interest could editorialize against law enforcement and in favor of the right of a self-denied elite to be able to openly disobey whatever laws they find too “restrictive”.

It’s as if a local paper were to have the gall to complain that an overzealous vice squad were making it hard for friends to profit from prostitution....

And that sort of elitist conceit on the part of the anti-nationalists is why the immigration issue is creating enough frustration among American voters that they are even willing to experiment with unknown and handicapped third parties to try to make their voice heard by the same politicians and executives to which the editors of the Wall Street Journal have such easy access....

Read the complete article.