The Dissonant Feeling That You Might Not Speak Your Mother Tongue

Posted on | June 25, 2010 | 33 Comments

by Smitty (via Colmes)

DOOCY: The country is so gridlocked around this. What can business do that Washington, DC has not been effective in doing so far?
MURDOCH: Well you just gotta keep the pressure on the congressmen. You gotta do it on the press and on the television. It’s a political thing. They gotta fess up to it. […] You gotta recognize that there are millions of bright and intelligent people around the world — whether they are in China or in Hungary or in Germany or something — who want to come to America and live the American Dream.
DOOCY: Right, but they can’t. […] This is a political hot potato. How do get past the partisanship that is out there and is so biting for a while?
MURDOCH: I think we can show to the public the benefit of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.

Migrants? My wife came here from Germany several years ago, on a fiancée visa. We followed all the laws, paid all the fees, waited all the months, went through the steps, and now she’s an American citizen. While requiring archaic disciplines like patience, the system can be made to work. Furthermore, a non-instant gratification system allows time for the migrants to assimilate. To understand that ‘here’ is not ‘there’. To appreciate that these 50 States United really are a different approach to government, or at least were prior to the Progressive onslaught.
So I find myself wondering whether it’s me or Murdoch that doesn’t really understand English. Similar dissonance occurs when the word ‘illegal’ is used with respect to immigrants. It’s as though these modern, liberal, post-modernist, deconstructionist clowns think that the words ‘country’, ‘border’, and ‘American’ have somehow become profane.

Category: Immigration

Comments

33 Responses to “The Dissonant Feeling That You Might Not Speak Your Mother Tongue”

Bill S.
June 25th, 2010 @ 10:49 am

Judging from his accent alone, Murdoch wasn’t brought up in the US… Whatever, the “English” he’s speaking isn’t American English, and may therefore be considered another language…

I’m mostly kidding, but there are times I’m not so sure our own Congressmen understand the language.
Bill S.
June 25th, 2010 @ 6:49 am

Judging from his accent alone, Murdoch wasn’t brought up in the US… Whatever, the “English” he’s speaking isn’t American English, and may therefore be considered another language…

I’m mostly kidding, but there are times I’m not so sure our own Congressmen understand the language.
T.L. Davis
June 25th, 2010 @ 11:21 am

If you look at America and say: “I’d like this to be more like the Soviet Union” you can see how all the pieces fit: Capitalism is bad, the rule of law is an annoyance, the media fails to report on their political masters, the nationalism of the right is somehow racist and bad, employees of the state are given better pensions, better housing, more power, etc.
T.L. Davis
June 25th, 2010 @ 7:21 am

If you look at America and say: “I’d like this to be more like the Soviet Union” you can see how all the pieces fit: Capitalism is bad, the rule of law is an annoyance, the media fails to report on their political masters, the nationalism of the right is somehow racist and bad, employees of the state are given better pensions, better housing, more power, etc.
Red
June 25th, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

We don’t need any more people to immigrate to America! We have a bajillion-ty people and we can’t even take care of our homegrowns. Stay in your own country. If you must move to America, go through the appropriate legal channels and wait your turn like everyone else. Don’t be a South-of-the-Border line-cutter (no pun intended).
Red
June 25th, 2010 @ 8:21 am

We don’t need any more people to immigrate to America! We have a bajillion-ty people and we can’t even take care of our homegrowns. Stay in your own country. If you must move to America, go through the appropriate legal channels and wait your turn like everyone else. Don’t be a South-of-the-Border line-cutter (no pun intended).
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

“Similar dissonance occurs when the word ‘illegal’ is used with respect to immigrants.”

As well it should be, since there’s no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the United States to the states or the people, and the Constitution delegates no power to the United States whatsoever to regulate immigration.

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus. It ain’t there.

The anti-Federalists noticed it wasn’t there and bitched about it before the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists had no answer for them.

Congress operated for the first 89 years of the Republic on the assumption that since the framers hadn’t seen fit to write such a power into the Constitution, they didn’t intend for Congress to exercise that power.

They passed naturalization laws, which the Constitution provided for.

They passed a few laws which had the effect of making state immigration laws binding on ships entering federal ports in said states (and assessing fees/fines for enforcing them on behalf of those states).

It wasn’t until 1875 that an activist Reconstruction Supreme Court “discovered” a federal power to regulate immigration that Madison, Hamilton, Jay et al had somehow put in there without knowing or noticing or mentioning, and it wasn’t until 1882 that Congress exercised that newly discovered power with the Chinese Exclusion Act.

The subsequent 128 years of American history have been a living demonstration of why the framers left a federal power to regulate immigration out of the Constitution — because it was, and remains, one of the fucking stupidest ideas possible.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 8:23 am

“Similar dissonance occurs when the word ‘illegal’ is used with respect to immigrants.”

As well it should be, since there’s no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”

A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the United States to the states or the people, and the Constitution delegates no power to the United States whatsoever to regulate immigration.

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus. It ain’t there.

The anti-Federalists noticed it wasn’t there and bitched about it before the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists had no answer for them.

Congress operated for the first 89 years of the Republic on the assumption that since the framers hadn’t seen fit to write such a power into the Constitution, they didn’t intend for Congress to exercise that power.

They passed naturalization laws, which the Constitution provided for.

They passed a few laws which had the effect of making state immigration laws binding on ships entering federal ports in said states (and assessing fees/fines for enforcing them on behalf of those states).

It wasn’t until 1875 that an activist Reconstruction Supreme Court “discovered” a federal power to regulate immigration that Madison, Hamilton, Jay et al had somehow put in there without knowing or noticing or mentioning, and it wasn’t until 1882 that Congress exercised that newly discovered power with the Chinese Exclusion Act.

The subsequent 128 years of American history have been a living demonstration of why the framers left a federal power to regulate immigration out of the Constitution — because it was, and remains, one of the fucking stupidest ideas possible.
smitty
June 25th, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

@TLK,
That is an excellent cluebat, and I thank you for this reply.
Typically I take this sort of analytic approach to the Federal Reserve.
I submit that the time for a second Constitutional Convention, and have a right jolly bun fight over these points.
smitty
June 25th, 2010 @ 8:37 am

@TLK,
That is an excellent cluebat, and I thank you for this reply.
Typically I take this sort of analytic approach to the Federal Reserve.
I submit that the time for a second Constitutional Convention, and have a right jolly bun fight over these points.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

Smitty,

Glad you liked it 😉

I just posted it over at my blog with some minor additions/edits and sent the link love your way.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 8:44 am

Smitty,

Glad you liked it 😉

I just posted it over at my blog with some minor additions/edits and sent the link love your way.
Al Gore
June 25th, 2010 @ 1:51 pm

I am also for immigration restrictions being lifted, especially on massage therapists from Thailand and the Philippines. They have such tiny subtle hands.

They also appreciate a $540 payment and tip.
Al Gore
June 25th, 2010 @ 9:51 am

I am also for immigration restrictions being lifted, especially on massage therapists from Thailand and the Philippines. They have such tiny subtle hands.

They also appreciate a $540 payment and tip.
Richard McEnroe
June 25th, 2010 @ 1:59 pm

Why SHOULDN’T an Australian tell America what its immigration policy be? It’s not like Australia shoves its illegals in camps or something… oh,wait…
Richard McEnroe
June 25th, 2010 @ 9:59 am

Why SHOULDN’T an Australian tell America what its immigration policy be? It’s not like Australia shoves its illegals in camps or something… oh,wait…
Richard McEnroe
June 25th, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

…and as you can see,I myself am a recent arrival from Ebonia:”…should be?”
Richard McEnroe
June 25th, 2010 @ 10:00 am

…and as you can see,I myself am a recent arrival from Ebonia:”…should be?”
dad29
June 25th, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

Rupert Murdoch understands ONE thing:

Making More Money–no matter how.

Who needs language?
dad29
June 25th, 2010 @ 10:59 am

Rupert Murdoch understands ONE thing:

Making More Money–no matter how.

Who needs language?
The Monster
June 25th, 2010 @ 3:35 pm

TLK: Art. I, Sec. 9 of the constitution says:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person

Now, why would the Framers have felt the need to explicitly deny Congress the power to prohibit “Migration or Importation of … Persons” for a limited time if the Constitution already forbad it that power?

Curiously, that part I quoted was one of two provisions in the Constitution that could not be amended, which shows that the Framers gave that particular provision an awful lot of thought.
The Monster
June 25th, 2010 @ 11:35 am

TLK: Art. I, Sec. 9 of the constitution says:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person

Now, why would the Framers have felt the need to explicitly deny Congress the power to prohibit “Migration or Importation of … Persons” for a limited time if the Constitution already forbad it that power?

Curiously, that part I quoted was one of two provisions in the Constitution that could not be amended, which shows that the Framers gave that particular provision an awful lot of thought.
Count Vikula
June 25th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

Once we end the Welfare State, I am all for immigration.
Count Vikula
June 25th, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

Once we end the Welfare State, I am all for immigration.
No Such Thing As An "Illegal" Immigrant - INGunOwners
June 25th, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

[…] Smitty detects a "dissonance … when the word 'illegal' is used with respect to immigrants." As well he should, since there's no such thing as an "illegal immigrant." A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, the Constitution reserves powers not delegated to the United States to the states or to the people, and the Constitution delegates no power to the United States whatsoever to regulate immigration. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus. It ain't there. The anti-Federalists noticed it wasn't there and *****ed about it (citing the lax moral climate of immigration-unrestricted Pennsylvania — see the letters of "Agrippa," a/k/a John Winthrop) before the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists, favoring large-scale immigration from Europe, had no answer for them. Congress operated for the first 89 years of the Republic on the assumption that since the framers hadn't seen fit to write such a power into the Constitution, they hadn't intended for Congress to exercise that power. They passed naturalization laws, which the Constitution provided for. They also passed a few laws which had the effect of making state immigration laws binding on ships entering federal ports in said states (and assessing fees/fines for enforcing those laws on behalf of those states). But federal regulation of immigration as such was non-existent. It wasn't until 1875 that an activist Reconstruction-era Supreme Court utilized its magical powers to "discover" a federal power to regulate immigration (a power that Madison, Hamilton, Jay et al had apparently somehow put in there without knowing it or noticing it or ever even once mentioning it), and it wasn't until 1882 that Congress exercised that newly discovered power with the Chinese Exclusion Act. The subsequent 128 years of American history have been a living demonstration of why the framers left a federal power to regulate immigration out of the Constitution — because it was, and remains, one of the f***ing stupidest, most destructive ideas imaginable. __________________ uncivildefence.blogspot.com […]
smitty
June 25th, 2010 @ 5:05 pm

@The Monster,
You’re tap dancing on the slavery landmine, which was as unutterable then as “Islamic terrorism” is today.
That is a separate, complex, and generally historical topic.
smitty
June 25th, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

@The Monster,
You’re tap dancing on the slavery landmine, which was as unutterable then as “Islamic terrorism” is today.
That is a separate, complex, and generally historical topic.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 6:09 pm

The Monster,

You answer your own question.

The framers not only did not put a federal power to regulate immigration into the Constitution, but they set a date certain before which the Constitution could not even be amended to provide for such a power in the most likely area of such a power’s exercise.

They also set that same date certain for a prohibition against amendments which would allow a “Capitation, or other direct, Tax … in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration.”

If we accept your logic, then the income tax automatically, without further amendment, became constitutional as of 1808. After all, why would they have specifically alluded to a power that didn’t exist?

As you may recall, most presidents and congresses, and all Supreme Courts, thought otherwise and every attempt to levy such a tax prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment was ultimately overturned.

The date certain isn’t “curious” with respect to my historical claims, it’s confirmatory OF those claims.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

The Monster,

You answer your own question.

The framers not only did not put a federal power to regulate immigration into the Constitution, but they set a date certain before which the Constitution could not even be amended to provide for such a power in the most likely area of such a power’s exercise.

They also set that same date certain for a prohibition against amendments which would allow a “Capitation, or other direct, Tax … in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration.”

If we accept your logic, then the income tax automatically, without further amendment, became constitutional as of 1808. After all, why would they have specifically alluded to a power that didn’t exist?

As you may recall, most presidents and congresses, and all Supreme Courts, thought otherwise and every attempt to levy such a tax prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment was ultimately overturned.

The date certain isn’t “curious” with respect to my historical claims, it’s confirmatory OF those claims.
smitty
June 25th, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

@TKL,
Referring to slave importation as immigration is blowing by some fairly vast legal questions that, you know, precipitated the Civil War, and rightfully so.
smitty
June 25th, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

@TKL,
Referring to slave importation as immigration is blowing by some fairly vast legal questions that, you know, precipitated the Civil War, and rightfully so.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

Smitty,

Yes, it’s complicated.

My view is that slave importation constituted “migration” in the same way, and for the same reason, as a slave constituted 3/5ths of a person.

That reason being political expediency and the desire to get the southern states to buy into that there newfangled “Constitution” thing.

I can’t buy the claim that an explicit, specific prohibition on the exercise one sub-type of Power X is a clue that there’s an implicit operant delegation of a general Power X, though, for two reasons:

– The framers and their successors spent nearly a century operating on the premise that they had not in fact been delegated any general Power X, that premise being fairly well-established in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate by complaint on the Anti-Federalist part and silence on the Federalist part.

– There’s a similarly time-prohibited Power Y (direct taxation) in the Constitution. That prohibition was generally understood to require a constitutional amendment to lift, and as a result remained in force (excepting court-overturned initiatives) for 105 years after the expiration of the specific time-prohibition.

I suppose I could be accused of bias on this because I’m pro-immigration-freedom, but then again, look at it this way: Per my logic, the Arizona Know-Nothing Appeasement Act (SB 1070), which I loathe beyond description, is constitutional, and I admit that.
Thomas L. Knapp
June 25th, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

Smitty,

Yes, it’s complicated.

My view is that slave importation constituted “migration” in the same way, and for the same reason, as a slave constituted 3/5ths of a person.

That reason being political expediency and the desire to get the southern states to buy into that there newfangled “Constitution” thing.

I can’t buy the claim that an explicit, specific prohibition on the exercise one sub-type of Power X is a clue that there’s an implicit operant delegation of a general Power X, though, for two reasons:

– The framers and their successors spent nearly a century operating on the premise that they had not in fact been delegated any general Power X, that premise being fairly well-established in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate by complaint on the Anti-Federalist part and silence on the Federalist part.

– There’s a similarly time-prohibited Power Y (direct taxation) in the Constitution. That prohibition was generally understood to require a constitutional amendment to lift, and as a result remained in force (excepting court-overturned initiatives) for 105 years after the expiration of the specific time-prohibition.

I suppose I could be accused of bias on this because I’m pro-immigration-freedom, but then again, look at it this way: Per my logic, the Arizona Know-Nothing Appeasement Act (SB 1070), which I loathe beyond description, is constitutional, and I admit that.