Posted May 27, 2002

Immigration Hits Home

You guys are in danger of losing a loyal reader to your website. Bear in mind, I'm not arrogant enough to think that you care one whit about my feelings. But I just thought I'd warn you, in case there are others like me, that Montgomery's piece on immigration will drive readers away in droves.

Simply put, foreign policy is important and you guys handle it extremely well. But immigration hits home in all productive, western nations. If Montgomery thinks race is just "skin deep", he's absolutely delusional. Whites, Blacks, Asians, Arabs, etc. have different cultural mores and religious views dating thousands of years back. To think that moving hordes of third-worlders into the U.S.A. or Britain is beneficial to the host nation is mind-boggling.

As for the idea that crime is only a matter of social class, why could poor, rural folks in the 40s and 50s keep their doors open at night? Also, I respect the level of intelligence that is usually put forth, but Christopher, PLEASE don't equate racism with bigotry. The two terms are NOT synonyms.

If this website begins to lose its libertarian ideals and instead posts more leftist "can't we all just get along" nonsense in the future, I'm gone.

~ Kevin G.

Editorial director Justin Raimondo replies:

Immigration is an open question, and debatable, as far as we are concerned -- and by "we," I mean the staff and others affiliated with Antiwar.com. I have a different view from Chris Montgomery on this issue, but I enjoyed reading his piece and thought he made the case well. There is no "party line" on this question among noninterventionists, of course. We post a wide variety of material, ranging from my own brand of rightwing populism to articles from The Nation and even farther left. Variety is not only the spice of life, it is the essential ingredient for any successful single-issue website such as Antiwar.com.

Christopher Montgomery replies:

I'm sure Antiwar.com does care what its readers think, hence, as one small example, this answer. Before I try to deal with your specific point, a general one as to my own take on the site: I think that one of the very best things about it is the catholic range of opinion, as well as the comprehensive range of news, on offer.

If 'race', as Kevin puts it, is anything other than skin-deep, or the accidental and haphazard arrangement of DNA amongst historically located groups of individuals, what race is he? I ask this only because, I can't for the life of me see what usefully it would tell the rest of us about him, his opinions, his lifestyle, his desirability, or his right to a place in whatever country he happens currently to live.

Although I'm not a libertarian, some, to coin a phrase, of my best friends are: they generally don't see how a libertarian can believe in restricting immigration (nor 'groups' or 'races' surmounting individuals). This is one of those 'Who? Whom?' situations, with 'who should restrict immigration, and on what basis?' and 'whom will those restrictions be aimed at?' Now, Britain obviously is a bit better off than America (where your noxious regime won't even let you freely travel to a certain country in your hemisphere), but we're hardly perfect. That was part of the point of my article. Another, which I hope comes over clearly enough is, was that I don't think that those opposed to racism are axiomatically racist.

However I do -- and this isn't exactly brave or exciting -- think that racism is less than desirable. In this I'm with popular opinion in both the UK and the US; those of you opposed to further immigration can only help your cause by guarding against infiltration of your cause by massively off-putting racist entryists.

Debate Immigration

While the EU touts freedom and human rights with a vengeance, there is a freedom and right that they will never allow their own populations.

Immigration will affect Europeans for generations to come. It is too important an issue to be decided by a few elite in Brussels. European countries need to openly debate immigration, and citizens should have the right to vote whether they want or do not want further immigration.

The general population must have a voice, or there will be a growing resentment because no one asked them.

The powers that be will never allow such a vote, but true democracy is based on the people's will. The EU's only weapon against those who do not want immigration is to name call (racist, isolationist, xenophobic, and worse), lying (we need immigrants to support our big economies when they know economies adjust themselves to population size), threatening punishment (sanctions, boycotts, and worse). So much for freedom and human rights.

An average anti-immigrationist does not hate others. He advocates travel, exchange of medical and scientific knowledge, aid to those suddenly stricken by disaster, student exchanges, joint business ventures, etc., but he doesn't want the third world camped in his living room.

~ Richard O., Michigan

Christopher Montgomery replies:

It's not my place to defend the EU (I think it should be abolished), but it doesn't decide on immigration policy. The member states do so individually. They're all democracies. So, like it or lump it, voters get the policies they do, or don't, vote for.

Young, Angry Serbian Kid from Chicago

I don't just want to read about the state of the world, I want to do something about it!

My name is Slobodan Samardzic. I live in Munster, Indiana, a suburb of Chicago. I came here from Podgorica, Montenegro, Yugoslavia when I was 5 months old. I appear to be, to the uninformed, a regular, white-bread, oblivious, suburban twenty-something American. However, suburban twenty-something is the only part of that description that applies. I am intelligent, educated, and very aware of the state of the world around me. For that reason, for the past several years, I've been searching for what some people call a purpose, or a calling. I've done this, that, and the other thing in search of that calling.

Nothing satisfies. What does come close is trying to inform people, no matter how uninterested they seem to be, of the direction our country and our world is heading. I write to you, Antiwar.com, for help in finding my way. In other words, I'm looking for a way to earn a living doing the only thing I seem to be good at. Ideally, I would love to work for you. As that is unlikely, considering your site's excellence in journalism and my having zero experience in the field, my hope is that you post my letter on Backtalk so that anyone who is in need of a young, angry Serbian kid from Chicago might see it and think of a way to use me in doing something for good of humanity.

My mother, who is always harpin' on me to "Get a job!", always asks me, "What do you want to do with your life?!" My constant answer is simply, "Save the world." Hey, I know its overly dramatic to the point of being cheesy, but it's truly the way I feel. I see the world around me rotting. I see the talking heads on TV mumble the same crap day in and day out. I see the mindless people, who get fatter and greedier by the day, taking what they hear at face value and not questioning it because they love having the "freedom" to drive their 12mpg, fully-loaded GMC "MonstrositySUV" on paved roads with nothing in them because "It's my right as an American!" All of this is making me sick and I want to do something about it!

~ Slobodan Samardzic

Other Viewpoints

I want to commend you on excellent site for the most part. The only negative comment I have is regarding Nebojsa Malic's Balkan Express column. While I understand that Mr. Malic is of Serbian decent and is affiliated with the Serbian Unity Congress (a very nationalistic organization), I can see how his opinions would be shaped by these facts. What I can not understand is why you would give him a forum to present his pro-Serbian views to the public without another columnist to provide a balance of fact and opinion. I read his column on a regular basis and as a person of Croatian descent I find his column factually inaccurate in many cases as well as highly anti-Croatian, anti-Bosnian, anti-Albanian , anti-Muslim, anti-Kosovar, anti everyone in the Balkans except the nationalist Serb. While I don't deny some of his grievances against the Serbian people, I take offense to the fact he does that at the expense presenting nonfactual information or in presenting factual information skewed to represent his nationalist views.

Given the fact that there is so little information on the Balkans and even less accurate information it is important that editors be a little bit more responsible in verifying facts and making sure the reporting of these facts is balanced. The rest of the world is looking to you for their knowledge. It seems to me, wasn't the reason this column was created in the first place was because Mr. Malic felt the Serbs were being unfairly demonized in the press? For him to turn around and do the same to other groups is highly unethical journalism. I don't have a problem with you publishing his views as long as you act in a responsible manner and allow other columns to be published on the Balkans that might contain other viewpoints and possibly be a little more factual in doing this.

~ Mary S., Illinois

Nebojsa Malic replies:

I am very sorry you are displeased with Balkan Express. I am also puzzled by your unsupported characterization of SUC as 'nationalist,' as well as your assumption that since I had written for them previously, I write for their benefit at Antiwar.com. You have not cited any specific instance in which I was allegedly factually inaccurate, except that you could tell by the virtue of your "Croatian descent." Similarly, you made no effort to prove my alleged extremist bias. So I am also quite at a loss to understand what exactly you might want of me, or of Antiwar.com.

Force of Arms

I certainly would share Justin Raimondo's sentiments about supporting Chairman Arafat in "The Palestinian Pimpernel." I root for the guy to survive and carry on. And it is hard to lobby for Arafat's choosing martyrdom in the face of a couple dozen tanks pointed at your head, as in the siege of Ramala. But I am not sure that I would call Arafat "cunning". It would seem that the master schemers would be the Zionist leadership which is playing out its plans for a "final solution" to the Palestinian question. Arafat was clearly out of his league when doubled-teamed at Camp David and he was badly snookered at Oslo. When Arafat addressed the UN last year it was very heart-wrenching to see him continue to plead mercy from a body which cannot and will not help his cause.

I do fear that this time the master schemers have delegitimized Arafat among his own people. The deal which was cut to free him from captivity establishes a dangerous assault on Palestinian sovereignty and the deal to end the church occupation in Bethlehem sets the precedent of deportation. Many Palestinians will neither forget nor forgive this despite Arafat's "iconic" status. In many ways, Arafat is a simple man out of his league when playing chess with those possessing real cunning.

The Palestinian question poses the most difficult challenge in the world today for those who profess "anti-war." I am a peace advocate in the mold of St. Augustine and the monk Thomas Merton. However, in this particular case I cannot see any conceivable way to mitigate the Zionist endgame of ethnic cleansing which does not involve force of arms. Nobody want to face this terrible realization, but Sharon and Bibi and their supporters will simply never be deterred from their path of destruction by any other means. I wish it were otherwise.

~ Michael J. Hamrin, California

Switch

Have you noticed that for months ... [Justin Raimondo has] been rehashing the exact same quotes and reports in a quixotic effort to show that the "Israeli Art Students" spy ring must have been behind 9/11? It's getting thin, especially since these same reports show how incompetent this Israeli spy ring must have been. I bother to point this out because otherwise, I hold your work and site in high regard. Change the record. Switch for a month to the theory that elements of the domestic establishment were complicit in the attacks, and must have had the commanding role, regardless of who else was involved. You will suddenly have material enough to cover several dozen columns, without repeating yourself. As for the research, I'm sure you don't need my pointers. You are well aware of the credible 9/11 skeptics, some of whom have written for you in the past.

~ Nicholas X.

Clinton

The media appears very silent on the lack of focus and initiative of the Clinton administration which had many indications of a terrorist threat from bin Laden and cohorts. Those eight years of Clinton may well have been full either incompetence or neglect at the top of America's government. Leadership is everything for government. Bush is not the savior of mankind, but the man was in office nine months compared to eight years and all kinds of intelligence information warning the government something was impending. Even in 1996 the Philippine authorities unearthed a plot to blow up buildings in the U.S. using planes. Where was the strategy to prevent this. If you believe competence is demonstrated by the Clinton administration Antiwar.com may be a sideshow. Your site does express many views that have validity, but Clinton ought to face the full measure of his mistakes as president just as Lyndon Johnson did.

~ Henry P.

Managing editor Eric Garris replies:

We have run a number of articles about Clinton's failures on the subject, but if you see any stories or editorials we have missed, please send them along.