by Nathan P. Origer, executive editor
From the 27 February 2009 Diamondback, idiotic, knee-jerk liberalism as its finest.
We’re a bastion of Christianity, holding the line after centuries of battle against the raging masses of Islam. White, black and brown immigrants are sneaking across our borders in a determined attempt to erase the last waning vestiges of the European culture that our civilization was founded on. If we don’t line our borders with marines and military robots, we’ll never stop the hordes from sneaking in and sullying our country. And while we’re at it, we should probably stop all of that legal immigration too. We’ve got to stop buying into this “cult of multiculturalism;” it’s a sham.
It isn’t hard to recognize spouts of racist bile as hateful blather when they’re this blatant. The ideas above are held and promoted by former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.). When he came to speak at American University earlier this week, students from throughout the region came to protest Tancredo’s bigoted ideas, and we’re happy they did.
In many ways, Tancredo is useful as a rallying point – it’s clear he stands for what’s wrong.
We believe there are strong arguments for both broadening access to higher education and maintaining access to licensing. But that isn’t the point. The point is that it’s difficult but imperative to define the boundaries of citizenship. It’s easy to argue we aren’t a bastion of Christianity, but it’s harder to define what makes us true Americans or true Marylanders.
Responding to such a daft editorial is a bit like trying to reply to Billy Madison’s “rambling, incoherent response”. You know that it’s horribly wrong, but offering anything more than, “Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it” proves to be stupendously difficult. Deigning to such a low level of intellect hurts.
The wise editors of our venerable campus daily are well within their right to disagree with the solutions proffered by Mr. Tancredo; they’re even permitted to think that Tancredo is a “bigot.” They are not, however, as members of the Fourth Estate, to be making such ludicrously false allegations as they do in this piece.
To deny that the United States is a “bastion of Christianity” is to ignore the entire history of this nation. Every single president, devout or not, has been at least nominally Christian. Seventy-six percent of all Americans still identify as Christians, and the entire history of Western Civilization, beginning in the Fourth Century, is inseparable from Christianity. The Enlightenment, for all of its rejection of Christianity, nonetheless happened only because of Christianity; it could not have arisen in an equally “backward” culture. Particularly amusing is that the editors attempt to distance our nation from Christianity in a state that was established as a safe-haven colony for Catholic Christians.
Most disturbing about this silly rant is that the editors never bother to show how Mr. Tancredo is wrong. They disingenuously conflate a sincere, wholly sensible concern for the distinctly Anglo, Christian heritage of our nation, without bothering even to consider the results when this culture is submerged into a heretofore praised, but never materialized “melting pot”, with “racism” and “bigotry.” To rally against illegal immigration is to preserve a necessary definition of citizenship, imperative for the defense of what remains of our republic. There is nothing racist about suggesting that non-citizens should be prevented from entering our nation; there’s nothing racist about saying that we should limit even legal immigration, at least for a time, if even legal immigration threatens the cultural foundation upon which contemporary society so very precariously sits.
Most offensive to me, an out-of-state student who works as a teaching assistant to avoid the pains of paying tuition, the editors defend permitting immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates, regardless of immigration status, defending this asinine position with the equally imbecilic contention that “there are strong arguments for … broadening access to higher education.” If we wish for a university education to retain any real value — that is, something more meaningful than the opportunity for a bigger paycheck —, then we need to be restricting access and cutting down admissions, not compelling the taxpayers of Maryland to subsidize the education of student who don’t legally belong here as it is.
Update One: Jim Antle has a solid piece on the immigration debate, and the disturbing tactics of the pro-amnesty/immigration crowd in the most recent issue of The American Conservative. (Subscription required.) A lovely excerpt:
Janet Murguia of the National Council of La Raza also desires a “middle ground” between the First Amendment and censoring commentators like CNN’s Lou Dobbs with whom she disagrees about immigration policy. “Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech,” she told the New York Times last year. “And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we’ve got to draw that line.”
Apparently, suggesting that illegal immigrants should be deported to their home nations is now the equivalent of falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Update Two: The basic point about immigration policy is this: Although we should be welcoming, we must be wary. The presence of foreign elements in our communities threatens the very nature of our communities as we need to perceive them: that is, as people who share roots in place and culture. It’s analgous to planting invasive species in an ecosystem where they do not belong. You might have the most beautiful flower to add to your garden, but not being part of the environment naturally, it disrupts the natural cycles of the place, perhaps poisoning an unwitting animal that happens to nibble, growing sufficiently large to prevent other plants from receiving enough sunlight, or requiring more nutrients than the soil can provide for it and the native plants. If and when outside elements can be integrated smoothly, organically, and over an appropriately long period of time into the community, all the better for the sustainability thereof. But “facilitating democratic participation,” which coerces integration in much the same way that busing did during the slow, agonizing end of segregation — which is to say in a manner wholly destructive of community in the name of a sense of equality that is risible —, is both unsustainable and a political anathema.
“America is a nations of immigrants” is little more than a deceitful canard when we start to talk about Hispanic immigrants, illegal or legal — or any non-Europeans. Why? No, dear offended, politically correct reader, not because Europeans are better, but because American culture(s) developed out of European cultures, whereas Hispanic culture, although in part rooted in Spanish culture, has followed an significantly different trajectory. Eastern Europeans were still from the Continent, and, strange as they may have been, still came from similar cultures, particularly in the age of the great empires. Comparing a Ruthenian from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to a Salvadorian just ignores all too much.