Michelle Malkin’s Sloppy Logic and Xenophobia
Michelle Malkin seems to be all a twitter over the notion of Reconquista, that is that the U.S. or at least a big chunk of it (i.e., the Southwest) will be re-absorbed by Mexico. Apparently this Grand Master Plan is going to be executed by having illegals sneak into this country, then they will agitate for amnesty, get it, then vote for politicians that will return parts (or even all of) the U.S. to Mexico. That is, these wily illegal immigrants, who at other times Michelle Malkin bemoans as illiterate and uneducated but nevermind that, want to take the land of opportunity and turn it into Mexico Del Norte or something. Say, maybe these wily immigrants aren’t that smart…I don’t know I have a hard time following Michelle Malkin’s torturous logic.
First of, as I’ve already noted, Malkin wants to have her cake and eat it too when it comes to immigrants and their Grand Master Plan. On the one hand she hosts an article about how uneducated the illegal immigrants are, but at the same time there is this cunning plan in place to steal elections. And yes, it is true that illegal immigrants are less educated than the average American, the idea that there is this cunning plan is well…unhinged.
As for Malkin’s article about the Reconquista she starts out great. Great in the sense that she effectively silences any and all criticism.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. While the mainstream media heaped praise on the “peaceful” May Day protesters and newspapers plastered sympathetic photos of the pro-illegal alien “sea of humanity” all over their front pages, freelance photographers, bloggers, and radio interviewers captured a sea of open-borders militancy nationwide.
Uninformed political observers delude themselves into thinking that these sentiments are relegated to the fringe. But the core concepts of reconquista (the “re-conquest” of the Southwest by Mexico) have spread wide and deep-from San Francisco to Los Angeles to Milwaukee to Arkansas and beyond.
It is a brilliant rhetorical strategy if one can get away with it: cast all critics as blind and uninformed. Disagree with the notion of reconquista and you are blind and uninformed. Now you have to spend time demonstrating that one is informed and not blind.
Further, Malkin argues her point, that the reconquista is strong and broadly supported based on virtually no evidence. Her only evidence is biased pictures from bloggers and such who support her position. Is it any stretch that these people would seek out the most striking examples of banners and signs that support their viewpoints? Seems that is probably a good default assumption vs. the idea that Malkin’s confederates are in reality out there taking a random sample of all the signs and banners at various marches and demonstrations.
In Seattle, photojournalist Byron Dazey of CreativeFlashes.com snapped hundreds of pictures of extremist left-wing claptrap. “Open the Borders” screamed a giant banner. “No more blood! No more borders!” echoed another placard. “Stop the War! Stop the Borders!” preaches a sign carried by a “Freedom Socialist Worker.” Other protesters displayed a rambling, illiterate message scrawled on a giant blue tarp:
“To the diplomats in Arizona talking of illegal deal, why R U so hipocratics (sic) when we know that almost ½ of what it was Mexico, was bought illegally by the US . Santa Ana was a conquestee from France, he was not the president of Mexico or Mexican. 1845-1847 we were fighting our own independence with their own people and also fighting the French. The US took advantage N offered Santa Ana money for the Mexicans land. Do U call this legal?”
Okay, so there are hundreds of photos…exactly how many supported reconquista and how many didn’t. And how many banners and signs were there at the march? I don’t know, but is this an example of reconquista claptrap? Or how about this? Now, you may not agree with the sentiment of that picture, but it doesn’t strike me as expressing some sort of reconquista viewpoint. Similarly for this picture? And this one, this one, this one, and this one? To be sure there are the kooky element, but the kooky element comes out for just about any march or parade (don’t those people who carry the signs about Palestine have real jobs?).
The bottomline is that Malkin has completely failed to demonstrate her point. Many of the pictures either say nothing about the reconquista or they indicate support for becoming Americans. It must be great being a pundit in that you don’t have to actually deal with things like facts and evidence.
Update: Many commenters are having a problem with this post (or maybe I just didn’t get the point across well). I am not denying that there are whacky fringe elements in the open borders/immigrant crowd. Heck one of the pictures at the Creative Flashes website was about justice for Palestine. Huh? My point is that Michelle Malkin’s thesis: That la Reconquista is a widespread belief of many of these immigrants is just not supported by the “facts” that Michelle Malkin has brought forth? What does she have?
Some pictures. Pictures that are selected to show the point she wants to make. Notice she didn’t point to any of the pictures that I linked to above.
Other evidence? Some whacky speakers at the rallies. There are whacky speakers are every rally. The Million Man March had Louis Farakhan as a speaker (to name one) and I have to say…that guy is whacky. So are we to conclude that every single black man at the Million Man March is now a member of the Nation of Islam? That is what the MalkinLogicTM would suggest.
When we get right down to it, Malkin has failed to show that the idea of la Reconquista is actually a widely held belief that she claims. Most commenters engage in speculation, conjecture and outright conspiracy theorizing. The idea that the immigrants are “useful idiots” and that once inside the voting booths (assuming they become citizens) they will vote in lock-step to return California, New Mexico, Arizona and perhaps Nevada to Mexico. Nevermind that many of these illegal immigrants aren’t even Mexican! Nope, they will all vote in lockstep.
I find this kind of thing complete nonsense. At least with the “evidence” that Malkin claims to have. Malkin is very good at manufacturing outrage out of things that are not outrageous such as the Ports deal. When all was settled in that fiasco all that the U.S. accomplished was to piss off a long time ally in the Middle East.