Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch has an important post reporting on the 12 Annual Immigration and Law Conference in D.C. It's worth reading but brace yourselves for the speakers' remarks, full of the obligatory name-calling rhetoric decrying immigration skeptics or opponents.
But Ann Corcoran deserves kudos for her observation in the intro to her report on the conference. She comments about the distinction between legal immigration (supposedly good, according to the official narrative anyway) and illegal (which is less good, and is the only kind of immigration which people are allowed to criticize). The pro-immigration activists may be supporting only legal immigration while the frank open borders crowd want even illegal immigration regularized. But ultimately both factions are working towards more immigration, regardless of legal status or lack thereof. More immigration is the point, by any means necessary it appears.
It is unrestrained MASS MIGRATION (and wide open borders)
that they all want and they are all working together toward that end
while those of us concerned with the numbers assiduously kept the two
issues separate. NO more!
Don’t let the pundits and the politicians (and the likes of Fox News)
make the distinction either—Legal immigration is pure as the driven
snow and Illegal is bad—call them out whenever they do it. Again, this
is about MASS MIGRATION straight-up"
Some of you know, if you've read my blog over the years, that I've been belaboring that issue, to the point of probably wearying my patient readers, ever since the inception of the old blog. And before that I was bending people's ears in the 'real world' or on Republican forums, where I was often 'flamed' for my trouble -- by the usual Party Faithful types, of course, or the Wall Street Journal-reading open borders fans -- and all to no avail, it seems, as the Free Republic crowd still parrots the old line "as long as they come here legally..." -- you know how it goes. Ad nauseum. Will it ever change? Will the average 'respectable conservative' ever get a clue, and think about what he is saying when he parrots this nonsense? I have doubts. Even with Donald Trump going where no 'respectable conservative' has ever gone before, in criticizing immigration, the old 'legal is good' mantra lives on, stubbornly.
So if an amnesty is declared tomorrow (probably by presidential fiat, if it were to happen) would that then make all the illegals ''welcome'', and ideal new citizens? Apparently so.
The Refugee Resettlement Watch Blog has gained a lot of readers in recent times, from what I gather, and I'm happy to see that well-deserved success. Ann Corcoran, as I said some years ago, does sterling work and she has merited the attention her efforts have brought. I hope that her words will be heeded by the milquetoasts on the ''right'' who haven't dared to question the cliche about 'legal vs. illegal' when it comes to immigration.
It's mass migration, which in our day amounts to ethnic cleansing, and population replacement, that is the problem. We have to pinpoint and name the problem to address it properly.