Even though both sides of the political party are not representative of the whole, you can deny the fact that the extreme right were the ones in charge. I am not denying that fact that there are members of the Democratic Party who are who also take an anti-immigration view, which is I started my attack on them in the beginning of this post.

There is a very good reason why I am not on the top ten list among fellow A-list leftie bloggers, even though I get on the recommended list on those community blogs. I know they fear my tone appears too radical compared to their whole “lets all get along and sing kum bi ya” mentality. Although my political views are left-wing, I am a left-brained linear thinker. I hold more to the left-wing free thought line.

You and my uncle throw the would “liberal” around like it is candy. Yet, you quibble when someone compares the right with the extremist. My view is, the clock will stop as soon as you, my uncle and all the righties stop lumping anybody who disagrees with your party as a “liberal,” that will be the day I will do the same. This is the same view I have con los gringo tambien. When they stop lumping, I will do the same.

Not all righties are the same – there are ‘economic righties’, ‘religious righties’, ‘foreign policy righties’, ‘nationalist righties’ and even ‘traditionalist righties’, and most of those would not be considered anti-immigration. Take economic righties as one example, they not only tend to argue in favor of immigration, but most go so far as to argue for open immigration. Religious righties, while in less agreement, also tend to be in favor of immigration, as are ‘traditionalists’, after all, the USA has historically been the most pro-immigration country in the world. When you say righties you typically mean what I call ‘nationalist righties’, or paleoconservatives, of which Buchanan is one of the most prominent members.

However, while paleoconservatives are against immigration and other nationalist issues, they also differ greatly from generally held conservative views. For example, they are against free trade and would stand right next to extreme liberals in condemning the Iraq war. So on fundamental issues, especially in modern day politics, they would be considered modern day liberals, not conservatives.

Second quibble is that many prominent conservatives are strongly pro-immigration, certainly more so than modern day Democrats. Take GWB as one example – while we can argue over the merits of a workers program, it is undeniable that Bush took the country in a step towards more immigration not less, especially when you compare him to Clinton. This is also what Bush campaigned on, and was strongly supported by ‘conservatives’ everywhere.

Crazy hacks like Tancredo are typical ostracized from the party and in no way represent the ‘party spirit’. For example, Wiki writes of Tancredo:

His outspoken advocacy for what he terms immigration reform, particularly since his criticizing of George W. Bush’s border security controls, has made him persona non grata in the White House. Tancredo and Bush’s political advisor, Karl Rove, got into a “screaming match” after Tancredo claimed that “if the nation suffered another attack at the hands of terrorists able to skirt immigration laws, the blood of the people killed” would be on the president’s and Congress’s hands. Rove responded by calling the congressman “a traitor to the party”, “a traitor to the president”, and warned him to never “darken the doorstep of the White House.”

In addition, let’s not forget that the ‘anti-immigration’ bills that passed in congress were strongly supported by liberals, and many traditionally left organizations, like unions and environmental groups, are natural opponents of immigration. So while some conservatives tend to be anti-immigration, and some liberals tend to be pro, to label anti-immigration strictly a rightie issue is to go too far – the topic is much more intertwined and complicated to be reduced to such caricatures.