No Debate Please, We're Jewish

Those who would "punish" Dr Steinlight for expressing his view are not committed to a free society. With friends like these.....

It's not a violation of the First Amendment for someone to organize against your message.  If they think you're a racist and your ideas are morally bankrupt, they're allowed to try and silence you by convincing others not to give you a platform from which to speak.  That's part of free speech, too. 

When the government starts prohibiting you from publicizing your viewpoint--whch would actually be a violation of the First Amendment--then you can come back to complain and I'll support you.

Didn't Joe McCarthy "organize" against "messages"? Steinlight's blacklisted.

Koopa: Your point is well taken, but only within a narrowly legal, ahistorical and non-sociological framework. Yes, First Amendment issues have to do with what government does. I know. Nor do I seek -- as HIAS and SPLC have tried "secretly " - to deny their right to say whatever they please, however scurrilous. I am responding to its slanderous content. Yet in a commensical, historical understanding of what violating the First Amendment entails, it is not incorrect to cite their actions as an effort to deny those who disagree with them the protections it affords; it was in that sense that I employed it, and historical precedent is, sadly, on my side.  I think you also miss an important piece of the puzzle by positing that Aronoff and the SPLC have honorable intentions. They do not. They know that neither my think tank nor I are "white supremacists." (I served on the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights!) Their allegations are transparent lies, so easily disproved at first it's baffling to understand why they make them -- except that lazy or uninformed people take things at face value, and if you throw enough mud at someone some of it will stick.  My think tank and I are tough policy opponents for them. Rather than debate us they seek to discredit us by lies, character assassination, alleged guilt by false association: the essence of McCarthyism.  Your thoughtful comment notwithstanding, the question, finally, is not necessarily what entity has agency in abolishing one's freedom so much as the fact that it takes place. Senator McCarthy stiffled freedom of expression in America for several years as effectively as if the government had done it.  Recognizing the potential tyranny of unscrupulous people as well as the vulnerability of institutions, like the press and associations, to informal political or social pressure, I hope you would support me now, and not wait until government alone acts to prohibit freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press. Unethical people and organizations with axes to grind can be just as effective in trampling upon our rights as the State -- especially when so many are apathetic, lack civic courage, or confuse means and ends.

Dr. Steinlight, in your letter to Reform Judaism (Immigration: A Complex Issue, Spring 2008) you comment that most Mexicans “are still loyal to Mexico , raising legitimate concerns about how their irredentist attitudes affect American’s social cohesion and sovereignty.” Isn’t this the same concern raised about American Jews – that most of them love Israel and they are not loyal to America ? 

The actions of HAIS and SPLC are despicable. To attribute bigotry to and attempt to stifle the opinions of someone who has devoted his entire professional life to social justice is morally contemptible. (See Dr. Steinlight's blog for his career history.) Such actions risk discrediting the Jewish professional community and pose dangers to our society as a whole. Since when is free speech subject to the whims of some organizations' political agendas?

I find it deeply disturbing that an organization purporting to speak for Jewish and/or American values would advocate censorship. Controversial ideas need to be debated openly. Stephen Steinlight does his research and comes to his positions after careful thought. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I respect his intellect and value his insights. Such a person should be encouraged to publish and speak out. Let those who disagree with him meet him in the marketplace of ideas.

I'm glad you saw my letter in Reform Judaism, and am pleased to rebut the charge you raise in the form of a rhetorical question.  The comparison alleged between the genuine dangers posed by mass Mexican immigration to US social cohesion and sovereignty and pernicious allegations of "Jewish dual loyalty" is wholly false. There is no parallel. First, one must consider the historically unprecedented scale of Mexican immigration, legal and illegal, which dwarfs all other immigration.  If we took the 10 next largest immigrant groups, their combined total would be less than that of Mexicans.  Mexico also shares a 2,000 mile border with the US, the longest on earth between a First World and a Third World economy.  The most worrying matter, irredentist sentiment, is a burning, powerful issue for Mexicans and totally inapplicable to Jews.  I was not aware that Jews harbor territorial claims against the US!  The very idea is Monty Python-like.  But polling by Zogby International reveals some 62% of Mexicans believe the American southwest is Mexican, not American.   If the goals of "Progress by Pesach" were met and we amnestied 11.5 million illegal aliens, by far the greatest part Mexican, and passed "comprehensive immigration reform," whose main goal is doubling legal immigration, not promoting amnesty (amnesty is what is known on Capitol Hill as a "weapon of mass distraction"), within a decade or so we'd see huge Mexican majorities in all the border states of the southwest, a majority that rejects American sovereignty there.  This is a recipe for social unrest, at the very least.  In addition, Mexican "immigrants" (I prefer the term "transnational population" because they are living in two societies simultaneously and haven't decided to which they belong) have naturalized at a shockingly infinitesimal rate.  Under 20% of this huge demographic has bothered to become US citizens, suggesting their sense of national belonging to the US is extremely tenuous, to put it mildly.   On top of which, the last three Presidents of Mexico have pushed a program for a "Greater Mexico" and have asserted the claim that they "represent" Mexicans living in the US.  Indeed, President Vincente Fox went so far as to assert he speaks on behalf of all Hispanics/Latinos in the US, regardless of national origin.  The Mexican government has also stated it is the "protector" of Mexicans within the US. Mexicans in this country legally require no protection (they might well in the brutally corrupt oligarchy that is Mexico), and the US in not the dying Ottoman Empire: we don't need to grant "concessions" to outside powers to safeguard minority populations. Such arrogant, outrageous intervention in US internal affairs is reflected in the conduct of the vast Mexican consular system within the US engaged in massive violation of the Geneva Protocols regarding the activities of consulates: they have inserted themselves into our domestic affairs in the context of labor relations, health care provision, law enforement, etc.  When the largest immigrant group in America, one that will increase by some 66-100 million within 20 years if "comprehensive immigration reform were to pass, fails to naturalize, regards US territory in which they reside as belonging to their country of origin, and are encouraged by the government of Mexico to regard Mexico as their home -- all Mexicans are dual citizens as a matter of Mexican law --we face a serious problem.  

The American-Jewish community, on the other hand, represents perhaps the single most successful example of patriotic assimilation of any group in the history of American immigration.  Unlike other immigrant groups in their early days in the US, Jews brought no loyalty to their countries of origin because they had been persecuted there.  If Jews were to come today under the same conditions that brought them here during the "Great Waves" they would be called refugees, not immigrants. Jews were also the only immigrant group that migrated in one direction only. They embraced Americanization fervently because it was the best thing that had ever happened to them.  They learned English within two years of arrival, not two generations (the norm for other groups), and because Jews were alone among immigrants in having virtually universal male literacy within only a year or two of arrival they were earning wages comprable to natives.  (Current immigrants make an astounding 23% less because of lack of education: some 60-63% of Mexican and Central American immigrants lack a high school diploma. Their poverty has nothing to do with legal status.)   The charge of "dual loyalty," suggesting American Jews are torn between allegiance to the US and to Israel, is an anti-Semitic canard.   The very small number of Jews who see themselves primarily as Zionists make aliyah.  Undoubtedly a tiny fraction of Jews living in the US may feel authentically torn, but even they seek to square those loyalties by arguing that American interests and values are congruent with those of Israel.  The great majority of American Jews, however, hardly feel as if they are living in the Diaspora.  They are fully at home in America.  The great majority of American Jews are patriots (it's a good way to define oneself when one lives in the freest society on earth: I'm appalled by those who see "patriotism" as somehow "fascist") who have achieved the ideal balance between their particularistic identity (which appropriately involves deep concern about the security and well-being of Israel) with a much stronger sense of national belonging. 

There is no "dual loyalty" within the American-Jewish community that is a cause of concern to any but paranoid anti-Semites. On the other hand, the fact that the fastest growing demograhic in the nation regards a huge expanse of US territory as belonging to its country of origin (to which we are geographically contiguous), has in essence refused to join the polity by failing to naturalize, has resisted learning the language of the dominant culture, and is strongly influenced by an interventionist Mexican government are causes of deep, legitimate concern.  

 

 

Immigration policy is an issue on which thoughtful people surely can and do disagree.  I don't necessarily share Steinlight's views on the subject, but I do believe that disagreement should be expressed in substantive public discourse rather than through secret memos containing dubious allegations.  HIAS is acting in bad faith here.  No question, they are entitled to advocate for Progress by Pesach as they see fit, but these ad hominem attacks and cloak-and-dagger methods are beyond the pale.  This sort of strategy usually backfires (recall the McCain/Palin campaign's desperate attempts to smear Obama by alleging guilt by association), and it does all of us a disservice.  Character assassination is a poor substitute for debate.  Such unfounded accusations and surreptitious efforts to police public opinion by circumventing dissent have no place in an open and honest dialogue.   

 

 I am more concerned by the fact that Steinlight works for a think tank in Washington DC. I think most of those spend most of their time thinking up ways for their international banker cronies to steal from the middle classes. Washington has become the new den of thieves. Perhaps Steinlight could tell us his roll in that as well.

Gary D Anderson

http://www.palinsuresucks.com

http://squidoo.com/palinsucks 

 http://squidoo.com/who_is_a_neocon

 

Of course you are right, there is no parallel and I admire your knowledge of the subject.  When you say that we should be deeply concerned about the rampant growth of Mexicans, whom 62% are said to believe that a huge expanse of the United States, is actually Mexican territory.  Are we talking about Mexico attempting to take over United States territory? 

 

I’d like to wish everyone a Happy Passover.  While reading in preparation for Pesach, I realize it is a story of a group of impoverished refugees, fleeing famine, who are welcomed into Egypt and who refuse to assimilate. They become a great nation and wreck havoc on Egypt.    What lessons do you draw from the Passover story?  Tonight I will open my door for Elijah, will you?

My reading is that that is exactly what he is talking about.  I don't think he (or anyone) believes that the Mexicans will be taking over America by armed force.  They wont have to.  It'll simply be Borg-like.  They'll move in, become citizens, outnumber the non-immigrants, and vote themselves to power.  Using America's laws for what they are.  I'm not totally convinced this is a bad thing, mind you, just stating what I think may happen.

I don't think that this applies to the Jewish Community, as there isn't much of a plan of overwhelming by numbers.  But I think I take your point, if it's okay for one (or bad for one) it's equal for the other.

No matter the point, debate is always healthy.  It would be sad to see it limited by anyone.

--

Tom Lord thinks you should eat healthier, and read his review of VistaPrint Business Cards before you buy them.

 

In response to Steinlight's absurd claims about Mexicans wanting to take over the Southwest,  I would guess that any Palestinian could make much more valid statements about Jews in fact immigrating into Palestinian lands in large numbers and making claims about their original claims to these lands.   Essentially one could substitute Israel for Mexico and Palestine for the American southwest and have a much more sensible article.   I have lived in the Southwest for 35 years now and have never been threatened by any Mexican person much less a Mexican Army soldier.    Compare this to my friends' experiences in Palestine.  Of course the Mexicans as far as I know are not claiming a Divinity being behind their claims to the Southwest, just some bad politics from the American Empire of a century and a half ago.

 

Stephen Steinlight suggests that the Mexicans are swarming across our border and that these immigrants have no intention of becoming Americans and learning English. In the end, we will lose Texas, New Mexico and California.

I have a modest proposal in regard to this possibility. It is never too late to give back what you have stolen. Let Mexico have Texas, New Mexico and California. The result would be a smaller United States and a larger Mexico. The world’s one great super-power would become more like other nations and we would have to work in concert with others. Mexico, by the way, is not a third world country. It is a wealthy nation and made larger, it will be, for the first time, a nation comparable to the United States. That has never existed.  The United States has always dominated this hemisphere. Europe has no such dominant power.  Every time they had one or one of the European nations thought it ought to be, the result was war and destruction until the offending party had been brought back within the balance of power system. Now, those who argue that the Mexicans now in the United States and those coming are a danger to the United States are white nationalists.  They identify the United States as a white man’s English speaking nation. The United States is no such thing. We live in a hemisphere of the earth that is predominantly Spanish speaking. The age in which European descended white men could rule the earth is over. California, Texas, Florida and New Mexico will become states with majority Spanish speaking populations and their sympathies will be different from those of English speaking white men. It’s always a new world. Get out of the doorway if you can’t understand. The Mexicans are coming and they have every right to be here. We need a national policy that is humane and rational. The status of undocumented workers make them a target for exploitation. The government needs to guarantee these people decent working conditions and a minimum wage. It can’t do that, if they are “undocumented.” Refusing to protect a human being within your borders because you claim she is “undocumented” is immoral. 

By the way, where is the evidence for a "blacklist" or an attempt to stifle debate? During the McCarthy era, thousands lost jobs and were threatened with supena before the HUAC. What exactly is HIAS and Progress by Pesach doing to stifle Dr. Steinlight?  I've seen exactly one example of one group that called to cancel a speech he was going to make.  That hardly counts as a conspiracy of silence his voice. 

I would also suggest that Dr. Steinlights past employment at AJC is not a defence against the accusations being made.  The contention is that Dr. Steinlight is a white nationalist and that CIS is part of what SPLC has called, "The Three Faces of Intolerance." Pointing to your past employment is not an answer to these charges.  It is a non-sequitor.

For those of you who haven't figured it out, no World Global Government is going to protect you. When will we learn, for heaven's sake. There is nothing wrong with insisting that people of vastly different cultures shall not be welcome here unless they are willing to become part of the original American project - that being the one invisioned by the wise and worldly founders. Even David Mamet realized their brilliance recently, and has seen the light. Mexico is for Mexicans, if their loyalty is to Mexico. They are just as selfish as we are if they want to come here 'for a better way of life'. What about MY better way of life, which is one that is without them. You say that that Mexican illegals have done nothing bad to this country? When my wife grew up in Phoenix her town of Maryvale was a lovely spot. Now it is gangland. Is it a superior culture who has taken over, or has our weakness and self-imolation to the god of Eastern European remorse still so with us that we are poisoned for life. Have we no self interest that is not tied into the supposed pursuit of 'justice' - when what we really are doing is providing the lawyers to make America-hating immigrants citizens at our own peril? When did we lose sight of justice being two sided - not only for those who want to be happy, but for those of us lucky enough to be here already. I for one have no moral obligation whatsoever to 'make the world happy', especially if it means making myself unhappy. Illegal immigrants have no rights here, and no right to be here at all. There is no univeral right to free immigration. It is a canard intented to keep the weak minded and guilt ridden on a constant journey of self deprication and deprivation so that a sick and sad society can assuage their own feelings of failure. Mexicans have no 'right' to the American West, only America haters think so, so who cares what they think anyway. I love my country just as it was. Where I came from no one discriminated against us for being Jews, we owned and still own the biggest and best apparel stores, furniture stores, hunting and sporting equipment stores, and we do not consider ourselves Askenazi first. We are Americans first. Our friends are white and black Americans who owe no allegiance whatsoever to any world 'justice' movement. Justice is right in front of you if you are just, and nowhere if you are not. I and other Jews like me will continue to support the sheriff in Phoenix who does his job to protect me and my family from those who think they deserve an American life because somebody like you says they have a right to it. You who would like to live in the socialist past of Eastern Europe. You who self-immolate and throw Western Civilization on the fire for your 'justice'. So that you can stand the guilt you allowed your parents to instill in you. A guilt that makes you miserable. My kids are happy. They are not poisoned with the shame of the past. Nor are they so arrogant that they think they can 'save the planet' for everyone but the horrible European white race that made Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Korngold, Wagner, Shakespeare, Somerset Maugham, Rembrandt, Bizet, Puccini and so much more that is detested by the tribal leftist, Caucasian-hating world, ancient and modern. I can't help you. You are amongst the miserable lost. But I can help stop you - for you will once again lead us into chaos and destruction by placing us at the hands of the murdering globalists who always have us in their crosshairs. I will stay an American, thank you very much. And so will my beloved Southwest.

 U.S.Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote,

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to
be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 (Whitney v. California, 1927).

Where did Aronoff go to college? Brandeis.  Ironic, eh?  And Aronoff is a Cornell-educated lawyer.  He probably read the case in law school, but it obviously didn't sink in.

I denounce what Aronoff did as not consistent with what makes the United States function as a political system, and contrary to the teachings of one of the great Jewish-Americans. 

 

I am going to put aside  your wrongheaded diatribe about immigration, because the issue here is whether our society will continue to have open debate.

You ask, "Where is the evidence for a "blacklist" or an attempt to stifle debate?  ....  What exactly is HIAS and Progress by Pesach doing to stifle Dr. Steinlight?" You may not be familiar with this post on Jewcy.com