Doing Right Is Nativist?
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Perhaps the most toxic aspect of the immigration debate is the double standard that exists ["Nativism's Toxic Cloud," editorial, July 22].
When illegal aliens act out of self-interest and break our immigration laws, apologists for illegal immigration portray that as being noble.
When employers act out of self-interest and illegally hire low-wage illegal aliens, that's just the free market at work. But if ordinary Americans, motivated by self-interest, demand that laws against illegal immigration be enforced, that's called "toxic nativism."
Local jurisdictions such as Prince William and Loudoun counties have a right and a responsibility to institute and enforce laws that protect the interests of law-abiding residents and property owners. The impact of illegal immigration on education, health care and law enforcement is felt at the local level. There is nothing toxic or nativist about local governments deciding not to provide nonessential benefits and services to people who have no right to be in the community in the first place, or to crack down on employers who hire them.
These counties, like a growing number of local governments, are doing what the federal government should be doing. They are removing the incentives for illegal immigration, which is the only realistic approach to dealing with the problem.
DAN STEIN
President
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Washington
