Thursday, June 19, 2008

WSJ for national sovereignty, against stealth legislation!

The WSJ op/ed board has made a startling about-face in its treatment of Congressional immigration legislation (free here):
Politicians need to sell their grand plans in the open, not via stealth, especially when those plans dilute national sovereignty.
They must be censuring Diane Feinstein for surreptitiously trying (she failed) to attach AgJOBS provisions to a war funding bill last month.

Oh, whoops, that's from the board's treatment of the Lisbon Treaty vote in Ireland. I guess consistency isn't really one of Gigot's strong points. His board doesn't take issue with Israel's border fence, nor claims it to be ineffective (which would be an absurd assertion to make), while a barrier along the US-Mexican border surely would be!

4 comments:

John S. Bolton said...

maybe they would try to reconcile that by saying prospective immigrants are self-selected for motivation, ingenuity, daring, persistence, etc. Relative to Palestinian terrorists though? The route of the Israeli fence is to be aroud 500 miles vs. 900 needed here. Gazans make rockets and keep firing them, they dig tunnels, and they persist over generations since 1947, trying to smash Israel. WSJ has to dissemble, since they can't use their real argument, which would be something like: It's good to have ambitious workers for bad jobs. Gigot also got invited to the Bilderbergers meeting in Chantilly, VA, so he has an image with bigtime foreigners to maintain. Truth is very likely to be a casualty of whatever concerns get you in there.

Audacious Epigone said...

JSB,

I don't expect any transparency on wanting a wall for Israel but not wanting one in the US. But the WSJ insinuates that a barrier wouldn't work in the US, even though it clearly has in Israel. Presumably the Palestinians, willingly dying for their cause, are slightly more motivated than Mexicans coming across are. So if a barrier keeps the former out, it'll work against the latter, too.

Also, for those unfamiliar with the MNC interest group, Wikipedia's entry on it.

Anonymous said...

I've seen the Israeli wall/fence *(and it is mostly fence) relatively close up. It looks to me like a highly effective barrier and apparently it is as there has been quite a drop in Palestinian terror attacks. I don't know how you'd cross it safely without being in a tank or APC and the Israeli army would sure as hell notice that anyway. It is nice work all around. I think they got many of their ideas from the Morice Line too which stopped the FLN cold in Algeria.
While expensive, the cost wasn't prohibitive. Of course, the ususal suspects protest or ignore that wall. Muslims hate it because it makes killing jews that much harder. The left hates it because they love muslim terrorists. The WSJ obfuscates and insists that barrier "won't work" (but they know damn well it would)because they love illegals. I am beginning to cosndier the WSJ a wing of the NY Times these days anyway, so I'm not surprised.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Well put, thanks.