It's Immigration Uber Alles at the Wall Street Journal


Immigration is the "climate change" of non-scientific political issues.

Proponents consider climate disruption — which I have for years preferred to call "globaloney" — to be "settled science." No contrary evidence, such as the inconvenient fact that the planet hasn't warmed and has perhaps even cooled for 19 years, can intrude on their computer model-driven fantasies. Some proponents, if they were to achieve the positions of power they covet, would jail so-called climate deniers faster than you can say "Climategate."

The press shields ordinary people who have been slowly brainwashed into becoming globaloney sympathizers by decades of journalistic malfeasance from the movement's virtual dominance by socialists and de facto Communists. Most of those in the polling pluralities who believe globaloney's garbage are among those who would suffer the most economically if these wannabe tyrants ever get what they want.

Similarly, immigration advocates are utterly convinced that the overall benefit of granting amnesty to all who have come to this country illegally — committing what is still quaintly known as a crime the minute they cross the border — is a matter of settled political science. Mountains of evidence of the irrevocable harm such a move would cause fail to dent their illogic.

Most of those advocating amnesty also believe that whoever wants to come here for jobs related to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) should be allowed to do so. That many STEM trainees going through federal jobs programs are hitting brick walls when trying to find employment, and that some currently employed Americans about to be laid off have been forced to train their shadily placed outsourced H-1B visa-holding replacements, is irrelevant.

No institution has been more persistently stubborn and utterly impervious to reality in its unfettered immigration advocacy, accurately characterized as immigration uber alles, than the Wall Street Journal.

In July 1984, the Journal advocated a new Constitutional amendment. It would simply read: “There shall be open borders.” It repeated its plea for such an amendment four additional times during the rest of the decade. Even though events during the 30 years since the first such editorial appeared have moved the Journal's position from barely defensible to astonishly stupid, the paper has never officially backed away from it.

As an illegal-immigrant amnesty effort orchestrated by President George W. Bush and a Democrat-dominated Congress was underway in the summer of 2007, the Journal voluntarily published a video showing its white-dominated editorial board bashing anyone who opposed the effort as presumptively nativist and racist. These people genuinely thought this incredibly counterproductive video would help their cause, which fortunately went down in flames after the American people vocally, intensely and overwhelmingly objected.