Unfettered immigration to any western democracy would inevitably transform that nation into a third-world cesspool. This phenomenon is already occurring in western Europe. Is the author of this libertarian lunacy also advocating that the homeless are welcome to camp in his front yard? Count me out.

Unfettered immigration to any western democracy would inevitably transform that nation into a third-world cesspool. This phenomenon is already occurring in western Europe. Is the author of this libertarian lunacy also advocating that the homeless are welcome to camp in his front yard? Count me out.

Unfettered immigration isn't what he's advocating. I deduce from your ability to type that you also posess the ability to read.

I suggest you use it.

And immigration isn't what's killing Europe. They have more than enough home-grown stupidity.

What exactly is he arguing for? The article is just one platitude stretched to fill a page. To save reading time, he could have just shortened it to "immigration good," and it would have had the same amount of actual content.

Unfortunately, in the real world, people have to make real decisions, like, how many and what type of legal immigrants should we let in, what should we do about illegal immigrants, what effect are various types of immigrants having, etc. etc.

If you want to know what's really going on, and you want details, I beg you to read this. If you have specific questions not related to a discussion of platitudes, I'll try to answer them for you.

I used to see things as Brendan Miniter and Garrett do. In recent years, and especially since 9/11/2001, I'm seeing things more like Kirk and Lonewacko do.

Garrett, I went back and re-read Miniter's piece. While he does agree with Malkin that those who arrive on our shores intent on killing us should not be let in, he does not anywhere in the essay come out and state that immigration should be done legally, that immigrants should be encouraged to assimilate, and that welfare benefits to non-citizens should be sharply limited.

This makes me suspect that, at best, he's quite innocent of the dark side of the issue; and, at worst, he is indeed advocating unfettered immigration for the sake of cheap labor, but cynically employing politically correct imagery to make his case.

And while yes, Europe has plenty of "home-grown stupidity," their social problems have worsened exponentially since they started admitting large numbers of immigrants who aren't forced to -- indeed, aren't allowed to -- assimilate. They overwhelmingly go on the dole, and are encouraged in their anti-democratic (and often anti-American and antisemitic) beliefs and actions by Europe's native idiotarian class.

The WSJ's comments page about this article is quite interesting. Nearly every comment on that page is in favor of some form of immigration control (whether of legal or illegal immigration).

Also, I wonder if Rick Swartz is behind this editorial. He's an immigration lobbyist discussed here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.08/netizen_pr.html and http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html and http://reason.com/9810/fe.miller.shtml

According to the book "Huddled Masses, Muddled Laws" by Kenneth K. Lee (pg. 103): "Swartz, for example, set up a meeting with the editorial writers of the WSJ to convince them to provide favorable coverage for the [1990 Immigration Act] The influential and widely circulated newspaper complied, devoting a positive editorial to the immgration bill..."

Nothing wrong with that, just something to keep in mind.

Also, since I posted the message above, I ran across this article. It contains this rather disturbing statement from a CA Senator:

"Since we stole [the Southwest U.S.] from [Mexico], why do you say it’s unfair to steal it back from us?"

Post all the misty-eyed pro-immigration articles you want, but if you just ignore sentiments like that above, you're part of the problem.