Says Mr. Ronald Walters, director of the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, quoted in today's New York Times. He's referring to the conflict he sees between championing immigrant rights and the issue that half the population of young black males are unemployed in some cities.
This echoes something I said some time ago. There is a fundamental problem with supporting massive illegal immigration at the expense of citizens in this country. We need to look after our own first. A flood of cheap labor undercuts the ability of our own people to get meaningful work at reasonable wages. Some blacks rightfully fear that their issues will be pushed to a back burner as focus shifts to the illegal immigrants.
But despite some sympathy for the nation's illegal immigrants, many black professionals, academics and blue-collar workers feel increasingly uneasy as they watch Hispanics flex their political muscle while assuming the mantle of a seminal black struggle for justice.
Some blacks bristle at the comparison between the civil rights movement and the immigrant demonstrations, pointing out that black protesters in the 1960's were American citizens and had endured centuries of enslavement, rapes, lynchings and discrimination before they started marching.
Others worry about the plight of low-skilled black workers, who sometimes compete with immigrants for entry-level jobs.
I am in favor of legal immigration, I am in favor of giving every citizen of this country equal opportunity on a level playing field. I'm also in favor of closing the border and stopping the flood of illegal immigrants.
I think there are a lot of people who think like I do on this issue. I think it's time for Washington to listen.
Juan Cole has likely crossed a line here. This is not a defense, it is nothing but character assassination. Might it even be actionable? I'm not a lawyer, but if I was sitting on a jury, I know this wouldn't look good for Cole.
(I was going to link it, but thought better of it. I can't in good conscience link to something like that. Go look for it yourself.)
Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, today takes aim at Colbert's performance. Basically, he takes pretty much the same position I did; Colbert wasn't funny. I've taken exception to Cohen in the past, but I think he's hit it right this time. He does take a swipe at the blogosphere, though. Dismissing it as pretty much an echo chamber. Which can be true to varying degrees. On thing he wrote stands out to me:
Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders — and they are all over the blogosphere — will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences — maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or — if you're at work — take away your office.
But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.
I think that's about right.
UPDATE: Scott Ott has an apology and correction from Comedy Central.
Immigration Reform | Gaius Thursday, 4 May , 2006 | 
Comments Off 
