Pomona Debate on Immigration Lacks Substance, Facts

In a Pomona Student Union-sponsored debate between The Minuteman Project's Marvin Stewart and the Future of Freedom Foundation's Jacob Hornberger, substance and reason lost. In what can only be described as a debate chock a block with rhetoric and emotional appeals, I felt cheated.

Even before the debate, Pomona activists were distributing leaflets saying that Marvin Stewart of The Minuteman Project's group was a racist organization with trumped up and unverified sources. They hand out a flier damning the Minuteman Project without providing any evidence for people to verify their claims.

If that weren't bad enough before the debate even began various student agitators stood up with cheap slogans that they chanted at the end during the question and answer period. Those slogans were "immigration: it's who, not what" and "hate is not debate." Unfortunately, these protesters obscured everyone's view of the debate and undeniably made the speakers feel unwelcome. Had I been running security, I would have encouraged them to protest in the lobby and not in front of a debate that many wanted to hear.

I found both speakers reprehensible, but Mr. Hornberger was beyond the pale. By comparing America's desire to control its immigration policy as "equivalent to North Korea or Communist Cuba" in the opening remarks he cannot be said to have a serious understanding of the issue. Post-9-11 and during the fully fledged drug war, our immigration complaints cannot be solved by allowing anyone into this country. There is, like any immigration policy, a sustainable rate of immigration. Granted, Hornberger had a point about injustice laws and how they ought not to be enforced but he never convinced me that the entirely natural concept of protecting a nation's borders somehow was akin to Nazi Germany. His lack of balance was unnerving. The part where he said that Americans don't need to learn English is laughable. He began trotting out his Spanish to much applause. Why does Hornberger think that so many immigrants have fought for English only bills in government and the schools? The answers it that everyone recognizes knowing English is the most important way of getting ahead as an immigrant. He tries to answer that argument by saying that the estimated one million Americans that live in Mexico don't want or can't learn the language of Mexico, but he never discusses that those Americans in Mexico are not economic refugees. Indeed, most are members of very wealthy expatriate communities. Further, he ignores that even if the Americans in Mexico wanted to become Mexican, the Mexican government has excluded them by law. Americans in Mexico cannot own property, cannot petition government for a redress of grievances, and have many fewer rights than Mexicans do in the U.S. Any one who purports to be a fan of the free market cannot allow these injustices to go unnoticed. Shame on Stewart for not pointing them out.

Hornberger was also dead wrong on the history of the immigration debate. He tried to say that America was founded on free and open borders and began citing the language of the 14th amendment. He advocated that we should return to our "first principles." The problem, of course, is that the 14th amendment applied only to slaves. You would have to wait for the activist court of the 1890s for the 14th amendment to apply to the children of immigrants born in the U.S.

What neither side pointed to is that contemporary immigration is fundamentally dissimilar to the immigration of the 19th century. Whereas immigrants from Western Europe burned the bridges behind themselves and readily learned English, Hispanic immigrants cross the border repeatedly oftentimes multiple times a year. Whereas immigrants established night schools to teach their fellow immigrants English, immigrants today are told that they should retain their 'own cultures.' Is this not an argument that says that their cultural heritage is fundamentally dissimilar with that of America?

Now, lest someone say that I am not balanced, let me first say that I have never seen someone like Marvin Stewart who had so many opportunities to turn and capture his debate opponent's arguments and yet did not touch them. He tried to go on and on about the Declaration of Independence without providing the internal link as to why we should follow the Declaration of Independence in the immigration debate. If all men are created equal, why not allow all Mexicans into the U.S? Further, the comment that religion and politics are intertwined seems a bit dangerous. Though I'm weary of dismissing it on a First Amendment grounds -- the First Amendment also allows for the free exercise of religion-- I would prefer he didn't preach to the unconverted.

Tragically, most people came to the debate without any intention of listening to the other side. Much like the debaters themselves, they showed up with pre-conceived notions. They came expecting a fight and during the question and answer period when questions ad hominemly attacked the speakers, they got exactly what they wanted. What a shame, indeed.

VIDEO UPDATE: Courtesy of Ben Casnocha, I have a copy of the video of the debate. The coverage is pretty useless. They don't really go into any of the substance either. I suppose like the debate, they just don't have anything really important to say.