Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of Arizona’s anti-immigration legislation, and in today’s Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank, one of the Post’s house liberals who has the integrity to be up-front about it, presented us with a related column that reminded me how ideology can become indistinguishable from insanity.
Illegal immigration is perhaps the best (or worst) illustration of this phenomenon, a problem that requires essential and obvious measures to address, one of which—finding a route to allow current illegal immigrants to achieve legal status—is opposed “on principle” by the Right though there is no feasible alternative, and the other—taking effective measures to block entry by future illegals and to eliminate the benefits of breaking immigration laws through tougher enforcement—is opposed by the Left on humanitarian grounds, though it is irresponsible, expensive, and dangerous. In the middle of this absurd impasse is the government, which refuses to aggressively enforce the laws on the books, either because of unholy alliances with business interests that want cheap and exploitive labor (the Republicans) or because of a cynical strategy to court a large and growing demographic group to ensure future political power (the Democrats).
In short, Nuts, Nuts, Corrupt and Corrupt.
Milbank was in the nuts camp this morning, arguing that Justice Antonin Scalia’s questions and comments during oral argument proved that he was biased on the issue. “While other justices at least attempted a veneer of fair and impartial questioning in the highly charged case, Scalia left no doubt from the start that he was a champion of the Arizona crackdown and that he would verbally lacerate anybody who felt otherwise.” Milbank wrote.
I would submit that anyone who thinks Scalia’s comments quoted bt Milbank are anything but obvious statements of fact has allowed his ideological leanings to leach his brain of basic operating functions. The government was arguing that Arizona’s law was improperly impeding Federal immigration enforcement and policy, to which Scalia aimed these rhetorical questions:
- “The state has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there?”
- “What does ‘sovereignty’ mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?”
- “Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you’re not concerned about harassing them.”
- “We have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?”
Milbank cites these as self-evidently outrageous, as if no further explanation is necessary. Which of those statements, in connection with the refusal of the Federal government to discourage illegal immigration, show bias by Scalia? What is Milbank thinking? Whatever it is, he is so far gone that he thinks everyone else must be thinking it too. Milbank, not Scalia, is the one whose objectivity has been turned into mush by extreme ideological bias. He proves it with his grand finish, in which he apparently believes he is delivering a deft coup de grâce to the Supreme Court Justice by comparing his comments derisively with the wacko, extremist, wing-nut sentiments displayed on placards and being chanted by those demonstrating outside the Supreme Court. What are those sentiments that Milbank thinks are so self-evidently radical?
“We Are a Nation of USA Citizens”
“What part of the word ‘illegal’ don’t they understand?”
They’re the crazy ones.