Sunday, May 27, 2007

America and France — dusk and dawn

(Since I wrote this, it has spurred quite some discussion at VFR and even the NRO Corner. Follow my discussion with Lawrence Auster here, and read my answer to John Derbyshire here, and yet more here)

By the time of the Iraq invasion I believed that Bush and Frum had a plan, and I was furious about France and the behaviour of Chirac. I loved the site of Dissident Frogman, even so much that I considered calling myself the Dissident Meatball. But the scenery has changed, and the image of America as a strong defender of the West was merely an illusion. What I didn't expect, though, was for France to become the front troop in the defense of the West. But here we go:

In the United States President Bush and the Senate are pushing for the immigration bill S.1348, which amounts to instant legal permanent residency to all illegal aliens in the U.S. A.k.a. amnesty. Lawrence Auster correctly describes it as the Comprehensive National Suicide bill.

In the meantime, in France, newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy, has appointed his new government, including the new Immigration, Integration and National Identity Minister, Brice Hortefeux. Sarkozy's closest friend and ally for more than 30 years.

In the U.S., the proponents of the immigration bill seek to rush it, as quickly as possible, through the Senate without any real debate. There is no opposition to it among top politicians, neither among Republican ones. And presidential candidates McCain and Giuliani are entirely supporting the bill. The only opposition to bill S.1348 among the elite comes from a handful of talking heads, such as Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham. But as Dunnyveg pointed out at VFR: "[T]he only real difference between their positions on amnesty and Ted Kennedy's position is that they want the illegals sent home first." So everybody with a voice in the media in the U.S. is in favour of amnesty (one way or the other) for 12 million illegals, and then permanent residency for all their relatives too (a total of ?? millions). Any other opinion is considered xenophobic, i.e. taboo.

In the meantime in France, Sarkozy's new minister of immigration, Brice Hortefeux, has ruled out legalizing undocumented immigrants en masse. Just like that! Already official policy. What looks virtually impossible in the U.S. is already accomplished in France.

The reason why anything except for amnesty is considered taboo and undiscussible in the U.S. is because the politicians constantly say that they cannot have overnight deportation of the 12 million illegals, which in the U.S. media landscape is considered as the only imaginable alternative.

In the meantime in France, Brice Hortefeux, the new minister of immigration, said "he planned to adhere to the policy of deporting illegal immigrants from France. The number of deportees was expected to reach some 25,000 this year, and Hortefeux said he would ensure that figure is reached." Once again, what is not only considered as impossible in the U.S., but also as bad and evil, is already underway in France. While an American politician panics when hearing of deportation, denying that it is at all possible, the French minster is careful to make the promise to his people, not to deport to few. And this in the face of the governmental election coming up already in June. I cannot imagine two political climates so different as America and France. Like two different planets.

In the U.S., the shallow conservative poseur John Derbyshire disingenuously links the term Separationism to the main page of Jihad Watch, with the intention of shaming Robert Spencer; a tactic worthy of a leftist commissar. Derbyshire explains part of the Separationism agenda as "bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A." Once again Derbyshire shows his preference for leftist smearing tactics in his choice of the word "bribing". Spencer calls the idea of "bribing" absurd, and writes "I have never heard of anyone advocating it, though someone may." Even Hugh Fitzgerald crumbles in the face of leftist commissar Derbyshire's shaming tactics, denying that he ever offered any "solution" to a "problem", or ever suggested "bribing". Such is the political climate in the U.S. today. Read about the whole thing here.

In the meantime, France is "bribing" their Muslims to leave: France to Pay Immigrants to Return Home. What is considered so unthinkable in the U.S., that even Hugh Fitzgerald backs off in fear, is already being done in France.

The development in both America and France will be highly interesting to follow from here on. Sarkozy is not so easy to get a grip on--so I'll need to get back to that--but from what I can see, the important features of Sarkozy are the ones I have mentioned here. Furthermore, in America, it is possible that the elites have pushed things too far this time, and that a real counter-reaction would happen. Either way, the times are a-changing.

And those freedom fries are inedible political junk, make sure you get real French fries. But don't buy any French wine, those guys are too smart to export any good wine outside of their country. Get some cheese though.


xlbrl said...

Swede, new handle (Wilson), I'll try it here.
We cycle like we breath. America is not tired of the war, it is tired of the ingratitude.
France is still France until they serve notice they can sustain anything longer than a high opinion of themselves. Common sense would dictate that they would be among the first in line to take hold of their future, but they have spent decades marginalizing common sense, and extolling nonsense. We'll see.
I believe it was you who suggested this civilizational contest would play itself out differently in the many countries of Europe. To me, that would be a welcolme form of federalism: independant experiments to similar problems, offering us a choice through differing processes and results. The one-world and EU types will hate it, because the solution lies without them, and against them.
One of the tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency. Since leadership by any useful definition had been squeezed out of Europe, this process will offer the only useful alternative.

Tanstaafl said...

I don't know the exact numbers but 25K doesn't seem like it would amount to more than a tiny percent of the new births to French illegals, much less compensate for the inflow of new ones.

The action, however token, and the clearly expressed position of the government (at least the Sarko admin) to defend the value of their citizenship, are at least more than what many US citizens (including myself) have recently realized they don't have.

US and European elites have decided they don't need nation-states anymore. But they don't openly state this position, or its consequences.

Q: If One Worldism is really so wonderful, why are they afraid to put it as such to well-informed voters?

A: Because the revolution is already over. Democracy is a lie. And liberty is on its way to being snuffed out.

There may yet be a counter-revolution but I don't think Sarko's election rises to that level. It's more like a last gasp. He might even be France's Bush - in the sense that he'll betray those who elected him.

Only a relative few see and are trying to come to grips with this. Most are still casually going about our business as if nothing has happened.

Thanks for being one of the few.

Anonymous said...

It's funny what white guilt does, isn't it? Basically the French elected Sarcozy because electing Le Pen was 'racist', even if he had a speech with similar elements to what Le Pen is about. So they elected a fraud because they didn't feel comfortable to elect Le Pen, but Sarcozy proved to be a traitor - I can't imagine a leader of my country saying that there's no such thing as a Romanian and that we are a product of mestisaje and that we should do it with the Hungarians and gypsies like Sarcozy or his other appartachicks say that the French should do. That would be political suicide here.

Also, on the side note, it's funny how Le Pen was basically created by the left squelching any debate over immigration. It's like Jean Francois Revel says - most extremist right movement is created by the leftists killing rational debate.