11/29/2007
I wrote about this in tonight’s appeal, but that will go away, especially if you nice people donate enough money. National Review has just run an editorial in favor of sanctuary cities, [Sanctuary Sanctimony, November 28, 2007] calling the pro-illegal policy that Giuliani defended all the way to the Supreme Court "sensible ""humane" and "realistic." This is why VDARE.com is important–we can count on The New York Times to be for Giuliani when he’s supporting illegal immigration, just as we can count on them to be against him when he puts actual criminals in jail.But National Review was supposed to be different–on the issue of sanctuary for illegals, they should be standing athwart Giuliani yelling stop. They aren’t.
Here’s a hot flash for the Editors of National Review–Giuliani wasn’t for sanctuary because he’s "sensible ""humane" and "realistic." He’s actually none of those things. He was for sanctuary because he likes illegal aliens. If Giuliani gets elected, the push for amnesty will be back on, and he'll roll over for it. His famous tough-on-crimeness won’t be in evidence at the border, let alone in interior enforcement, because he doesn’t really think of illegal immigration as a crime. So if, thanks to NR, he gets elected it will be too late to do anything about it.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.