17 thoughts on “Mickey Kaus”

  1. Not surprising. The War on Immigrants has been a brilliant ploy by the left to get conservatives to alienate a large voting bloc (many with strong work ethics and conservative Catholic values). And mostly, it has worked. It must drive lefties like Kaus mad when some conservatives don’t fall for it.

    Especially when he still has to stand on line behind all those horrible Mexicans to get his gluten-free non-fat decaffeinated chai tea soy latte.

    1. What war on immigrants?

      Or are we talking illegal aliens?

      Lumping illegal aliens together with legal immigrants is downright insulting to the latter, and makes as much sense as lumping bank robberies together with legal withdrawals.

  2. That’s the column Tucker Carlson spiked? Its pretty weak tea. Memo to Carlson: grow thicker skin. It’s the Internet.

  3. Come on guys, Fox News is as different from the mainstream media as the GOP is different from the Democrats…virtually indistinguishable. Two factions of the same party of big government.

    You seriously expect an organization run by Rupert Murdoch to be genuinely conservative?

    1. You assume that “genuinely conservative” and anti-immigrant are synonyms. I don’t believe that’s true. Remember conservative values like free trade and individual liberty?

      The War on Immigrants didn’t begin with conservatives. It started in California, where conservatives are about as scarce as feathers on a trout. It only became a Republican cause célèbre when they found out that Obama was opposed to it. (No doubt the response Obama wanted.) Prior to that, Republicans like Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp often praised immigrants and invited them to join the GOP.

        1. If the US followed Kemp’s policies, it would not have queues of immigrants waiting years for government permission just to walk on US soil.

          Queues — and queue jumpers — are the result of prohibition. Along with smuggling, shootouts, etc. Somehow, prohibitionists never seem to understand that, preferring to believe the problems will go away if the government just spends more money on enforcement.

          1. Right there with ya on the effects of prohibition. And if the US was the only country to restrict immigration, it would be a stronger argument. As it is, though, every country in the world (except a few failed states) restricts immigration. Ironically, Mexican immigration laws are far more strict than American ones.

          2. As it is, though, every country in the world (except a few failed states) restricts immigration.

            That’s the same argument used for gun control, nationalized health care, etc. Is this high school? Must the United States always succumb to peer pressure?

          3. What aspect of life does not have restrictions?

            Millions of people immigrate legally every year. We could easily bump up the caps and reform the legal system to make it take less time but actually fixing the immigration system isn’t part of the deal because some people like to pit one race against another.

            Rather than wanting immigrants, legal or illegal, to assimilate into our culture and view other Americans as fellow countrymen, they want to use the color of skin to gin up hatred and keep people from viewing themselves as Americans.

            Open Borders isn’t going to happen. Calling everyone racist isn’t going to persuade them to change their minds. Calling people who are pro-legal immigration, anti-immigrant isn’t going to get them to change their opinions. Why don’t you try kicking people in the nuts for a while and see if that will get them to come round to your way of thinking?

            But if this is just an elaborate name calling exercise, you need to step it up and be more creative. Obama and the Democrats have raised the bar on insults and the word racist has no meaning anymore. You are competing with people who run commercials of Republicans throwing the elderly off cliffs and attack religious people as being the American Taliban.

        2. As it is, though, every country in the world (except a few failed states) restricts immigration.

          FWIW, Argentina has had close-to-open borders since 2003.

      2. Personally, I am for unlimited immigration subject to a few sensible restrictions…certain criminal convictions, certain medical conditions, etc. I doubt our elected representatives will ignore corporate money to make sensible changes to the law though. The whole primary process reduces the field to those that the corporations control, so elections really don’t matter

        1. Most people are for some form of screening. Even Obama claims to be, even though he releases all the criminals rather than deport them.

          It would be interesting to see someone actually try and use persuasion to get people to change their opinions on immigration rather than just name calling. I don’t think I have ever seen someone talk about Open Borders without A) Name calling B) Making moral arguments.

          I want to see people talk about securing funds to build schools, expanding health care facilities, training programs to teach immigrants English and the history of the USA ect. Drill down and take a look at the nuts and bolts or how things actually work. How many miles of new bike paths are we going to have to build? How many wastewater treatment facilities will need built?

          Immigration has costs and we don’t live in sod houses and crap in holes in the ground anymore unless you are some crypto-hippie. Ignoring the effects of immigration isn’t fair to Americans or people who want to be Americans. We shouldn’t expect immigrants to live in ghettos but rather insure they have access to the same standard of living as everyone else, and that doesn’t just magically happen.

  4. Yes, let us all act surprised that “don’t badmouth the person who signs your paychecks” applies to journalism no less than to any other business.

Comments are closed.