Last Saturday I wrote about former White House speechwriter Michael Gerson charging that those who oppose the immigration bill are "nativists."
This argument has also been repeatedly charged by certain pundits such as Fred Barnes.
Heather MacDonald replies to Gerson's position at National Review Online: "It is not nativism, but facts and principle that lie behind opposition to the Senate’s latest amnesty proposal. Playing the nativist (read: racism) card allows propagandists like Gerson to ignore both."
Her article is timely, given the additional "piling on" today by the President himself, who charged that those who oppose the bill "don't want to do what's right for America." This followed reprehensible rhetoric by DHS head Michael Chertoff, that those who oppose the bill believe in "execution" and "capital punishment" for illegal aliens.
A side note: something that continues to baffle me is if, as Gerson claims, Hispanic illegal aliens are focused on "education and social mobility," and if, as the White House claims, illegal immigrants are "doing the jobs Americans won't do/aren't doing," then who is going to do those jobs once the borders are supposedly closed and Hispanics move up into the middle class?
It seems to me that the current illegal immigrants are either being condemned to serve as a ghettoized permanent "underclass," or we need an endless supply of future illegal aliens if Americans really won't do certain jobs. Which is it?