≡ Menu

Conservative columnist Victor Davis Hanson never quite comes out and says it but his message is clear anyway. His beloved California has been ruined by Mexicans. So his latest column isn’t a surprise. Although he is offended by Donald Trump’s style, he is in favor of the president’s ham-handed and heavy-handed approach to immigration, and he suggests that most people who feel otherwise have some sort of profit motive.

All of that is bad enough, but he takes it farther and puts words into the mouths of “most Americans,” words that I don’t think they have spoken.

“Most Americans want the border enforced. And, depending on how the question is worded, most voters likewise favor the completion of a wall on the southern border and an end to all illegal immigration.”

Most Americans think it is financially feasible and logical to build a wall?

He goes on.

“There is little public support for sanctuary cities. They are seen as a form of neo-Confederate nullification – insurrectionary and unsustainable in a republic of laws.”

I guess my question for Victor on this one is how do you define public? My second question: Do you know what a sanctuary city is?

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Jane Haines February 24, 2017, 9:45 am

    Hanson has impressive credentials in Classical Studies and Military History, but I don’t see how that qualifies him to speak for others on the topic of contemporary immigration issues.

  • maureen February 24, 2017, 9:55 am

    ” Most Americans, huh! Like the “most Americans” that didn’t vote for the jerks to be anywhere near Washington D.C. ???
    Just like he was going to defeat ISIS within 30 days of taking office…
    How about are diplomats going to Mexico to smooth things over and while they are in Mexico, the idiot in the big chair screams, “…..it is a military operation to deport all illegal immigrants”.
    We need to help the idiot have a breakdown within the first 100 days…..Resist.

  • Glenn E Robinson February 24, 2017, 10:55 am

    Hanson was also a big cheerleader for the Iraq war and, to my knowledge, has never published a mea culpa for that serious error in judgment. Not sure I’d take anything he says about policy at face value.

  • bill leone February 24, 2017, 1:14 pm

    …and, as with most Conservative columnists, apologists, & excuse-generators for the Pimp President,
    Mr Hanson doesn’t have the slightest notion of what he is writing about, & just makes Stuff up as if he were in a delusional, hallucinatory state….clearly imitating his Heavy-Handed-Hero.

  • Karl Pallastrini February 24, 2017, 6:50 pm

    What I see is an interesting confrontation between the Federal Government and State Government. The Feds do not have the legal right to commandeer local (state) Law enforcement agencies to assist in their efforts to enforce immigration law. They can request assistance, but the local agencies are not legally bound to assist as I understand it. The Feds are not legally (by Constitution) able to withhold specific funding to Sanctuary Cities, based on their declaration of Sanctuary status. Hopefully a legal will respond to this post and clarify. This is not the first instance of States rights vs. the Federal government. Without a definitive explanation…I think many readers do not understand the legality of the immigration issue. Facts are better than emotion.

  • Joanna Greenshields February 24, 2017, 6:59 pm

    It must make people “feel” better to think that a wall will somehow protect us. I am still uncertain what I need to be protected from, but that’s another story. As most illegal immigrants these days fly in to the United States, just how tall will the wall need to be to keep them out?

  • barbara simpson February 24, 2017, 8:57 pm

    It appears you didn’t see the newest Harvard-Harris Poll that shows 80% of
    Americans ARE OPPOSED to sanctuary cities. They polled 39% democrats, 30 per cent republicans, 27% independents and 5% other.

    So much for supporting and enabling illegal aliens.

    • Royal Calkins February 24, 2017, 10:40 pm

      The question asked by the specious Harvard-Harris poll was “Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to turn them over to immigration authorities?” I suspect that if the poll had asked folks if they understand what a sanctuary city is, 80 percent would have said, “Uh, not really.”

    • PT Caffey February 25, 2017, 3:15 pm

      Firstly, Victor David Hanson (or as I like to call him, “Vic Hanson, Classics Guy”) has held a hard line against illegal immigration for years. His latest column is weak sauce compared to the screeds one finds inside his “archive” of classical wisdom online. He opposed George W. Bush’s immigration reforms and favors prioritizing the deportation of “criminal” aliens. To Vic, this means ALL of them. Undocumented workers who do not rape or rob banks are nonetheless guilty of using fake identity cards, a crime apparently equal in its depravity in Hanson’s eyes.

      When he was not writing about chariot races, Vic was a small-time fruit farmer in Selma, and here suffered the effects of a rising crime rate (stolen fruit, littering, vandalism, armed robbery–more fruit) he attributed to undocumented workers. Also, fewer and fewer customers at the corner store in Selma spoke English, and this shook him up. (His Latin was no help, I guess.) Vic’s next trauma was encountering politically vocal Mexican-American students at CSUF, where Vic taught. Most academicians know to take the sometimes boisterous politics of young adults with a grain of salt, but conservatives often find themselves zapped squarely in the head by these encounters (remember Allan Bloom?). Thus, the campus militancy of movements such as La Raza led Hanson to lament the coming of “Mexifornia.” He wrote a book about it. He could have subtitled it, “Make California Great Again.”

      College students, as political-active fledglings, see the campus as the World, and often strike at its injustices (e.g., hiring practices, sexual violence policies, controversial speakers) with the (sometimes comical) zeal of revolutionaries at the barricades. But then these students grow up and realize the world is more vast and the injustices more complicated and insidious. But, for a handful of arch-conservative professors, the campus remains a Fallen World, a proxy for every ill, and only a restful stint of spiritual rehabilitation at the Hoover Institution can save them from it.

      Semper vic!

  • Joanna Greenshields February 24, 2017, 10:15 pm

    Anatomy of a statistic: Do 80 percent of Americans oppose sanctuary cities? – http:///truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/24/anatomy-statistic-do-80-percent-americans-oppose-s/

  • Jane Haines February 24, 2017, 10:33 pm

    Politifact notes the Harvard-Harris Poll did NOT use the term “sanctuary cities.” The 80% figure is correct, but the question was NOT whether the interviewee opposed sanctuary cities, according to Politifact. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/24/anatomy-statistic-do-80-percent-americans-oppose-s/

    • PT Caffey February 25, 2017, 3:57 pm

      “There is little public support for sanctuary cities. They are seen as a form of neo-Confederate nullification – insurrectionary and unsustainable in a republic of laws.”

      This is the trouble with neo-Confederate nullification. It’s always tremendously popular among the neo-Confederates until non-white persons avail themselves of the principle! I am reminded of 1967’s Mulford Act, a ban on the open carrying of loaded firearms in California. It was supported by both Gov. Ronald Reagan and the NRA in response to the Black Panthers’ evident enthusiasm for the Second Amendment.

  • Jim guy February 25, 2017, 7:56 am

    You seem like his most loyal reader, Royal. -;)

    If he isn’t discussing the advantages of Roman battle formations, who cares?

    • Royal Calkins February 27, 2017, 3:30 am

      I guess I care, Jim, because he has a fairly large audience courtesy of newspapers that carry his column so they can point to it when they are accused of not being mean enough.

  • Marc Del Piero February 25, 2017, 8:37 am

    It is well established law that the federal government (specifically the Congress) can incorporate mandatory pre-conditions into federal legislation, that presumably would be signed by the President, which can mandate that local governments take certain actions, or refrain from certain actions, as a requirement to receive all types of federal monies/grant funds. Saying that “the federal government/President is prohibited by the Constitution from withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities/counties” is an overly simplistic and (given the political position and make-up of the Congress and the incumbent President) probably naive statement that is an incomplete legal conclusion. Bottom line, if they have enough time, they can withhold federal funds from ANY local governmental entity by specifically controlling the terms and conditions of eligibility to qualify for the funds.

  • bill leone February 25, 2017, 9:57 am

    The fact is, we need a Reform of our Immigration Laws & system; it has been true for decades. Unfortunately, this has become a Third Rail of American politics ever since the Yahoos took over the Republican Party. After swallowing the GOP, the Yahoos are now implementing draconian measures, based on “Alternative Facts,” causing untold fear, suffering, & pain to millions of immigrant families, who have lived here for decades, with children who are American Citizens.

  • bill leone February 25, 2017, 10:12 am

    I was unable to access Joanna’s link (“Server not found”), but I Was able to access Jane’s link.
    If you follow up on this, you’ll see why most of the commenters who use this resource as an “Alternative Fact,” probably voted for the Pimp President….And how Right Wing Crazies, White Supremacists, & Russian Intelligence influenced the 2016 Presidential Election.

    I suggest those who cite these Garbage Statics do some research on Alex Jones & his “Info Wars,”
    White Nationalist Propaganda (The Pimp President has appeared on Alex Jones’ radio show).

  • Brian Tomasini February 26, 2017, 9:06 pm

    Over the years, I have enjoyed reading both Victor Davis Hanson and Royal Calkins. I view VDH as a farmer and historian who focuses on cause and effect, while RC as an editor and active journalist motivated to affect a cause. Both offer food for thought, worthy of thought. This is the second queue of “Angry Readers” about VDH opinion I’ve noticed on this forum. I apologize if I’ve missed someone, but I don’t recognize any as having taken advantage of his appropriately titled website feature inviting such observations.
    Too many group nouns and adjectives overpowering the vernacular of ideas for my taste. Opinions and arguments are both unjustly hindered, and unduly benefited, by the mantle of “Group”. Within every “Identity” qualifier group imaginable, there are people with whom you can entrust your life savings, and there are individuals who can’t be trusted with your unread newspaper. There are both jewels and turds claiming justification behind every group shield, and more of the same swinging every group cudgel. We should always extend the benefit of the doubt, but when, without doubt, no benefit remains, we need to be objective and practical. Plastic bags as group are not alive, active, or evil. Many find them quite wonderful. The environmentally enlightened regulatory kibosh ensued because large numbers of people will never be concerned, aware, or responsible enough to be trusted with them. People are people. Individuals are the difference.
    A while back, I was thoroughly delighted to discover the Monterey Bay Partisan. I talked it up and donated to keep it up. The topics, dialogue, and especially the contributing commentators, impressed me as insightful, imaginative, courteously contentious, positive, spicy, and productive. Not to mention more experienced, better connected, and better informed than I ever will or even want to be. There are some fine spirits on display via the Partisan. Then again, changes noticed of late in demeanor and a comradery of contempt for disparate perspective or opinion invariably charged to the quality of the person rather than the idea, has limited my page views. Might be my own silly senses, but edging toward the Monterey Bay Ad Hominem is not a good argument for evolution, productivity, or regular visits. I do try to check out news and views across the spectrum. On the national sites, regardless of the political side, flag, affiliation, or message; when you get past the article into the comment sections, it’s practically a quest to weed though the rock throwing, broken mirrors, and barricaded minds, to savor the pearls of point and counterpoint. Often a shameful and fruitless journey. If I need to assume qualities I don’t respect or appreciate in others to illustrate or validate my point, am I proving the point I actually want to make?

  • bill leone February 27, 2017, 11:09 am

    Here is a closer look at Hanson’s political views:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson

    It is not surprising that he supports the Pimp President.

  • bill leone February 27, 2017, 4:31 pm

    Here is more information for those, like Mr Higgins, who are interested in the effect our current immigration policy is having on elementary school children (many of whom are American Citizens):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elementary-school-kids-terrified-by-immigration-arrests_us_58a76321e4b07602ad548e14?peeg6vbsq4u0udi&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

  • Eric Petersen February 28, 2017, 1:36 pm

    Over the weekend, I ran into a long-time friend I hadn’t seen for a few years. Nice guy, smart guy — and he was in the United States illegally for many years. He did the student-visa-and-stayed routine, and after a couple decades got his status fixed so he is now here legally. Oh, he is Jamaican. Looks like you can get into this country illegally from other countries!