Immigration reform is a serious issue in need of genuine policy discussion. But that’s usually used as an excuse for a bunch of jackasses to dress up like the douches they are and spout off about the master race under the veneer of political discourse. The Edmund Burke Society at the University of Chicago Law School, apparently a gaggle of students unsatisfied with the Federalist Society’s level of bloodlust, is planning a “debate” on immigration next Tuesday.
I’m sure they set a satisfactorily civil and serious tone in their promotional materials:
The RAISE Act solves our immigration woes: cut quotas, break immigration chains, and court only the best. Instead of being a porcelain receptacle for other nations’ wretched refuse, the United States should again put America first.
Pretty sure that is the opposite of what Emma Lazarus meant. This is, in fact, the first sentence of their promo — you can and should read the whole thing here — so they decided not to hide the ball on the race-baiting.
If the essence of a nation is its people, allowing foreign bodies to enter is inviting disease into the body politic.
Paging Dr. Hitler. At the risk of condoning these people, at least they’re being honest. Most right-leaning immigration discussions boil down to racial purity nonsense, but wrapped up in enough window dressing to sound halfway reasonable. Sometimes it’s worth it to bear witness to the unfiltered worldview driving policy.
Because “policy wonks” these guys are not:
Meanwhile, chain migration is only as strong as the weakest link; no engineer is worth the drag of a freeloading cousin.
That’s… not even how immigration works. As a general rule, immigrants can’t sponsor relations that extended for permanent residency to the country. But, again, that detail only matters if one is interested in a serious discussion about the law and not a white pride rally.
In defense of the event planners, they do intend this to be a debate, so someone will be standing up to the blood and soil rhetoric, right?
From Irish farmers fleeing potato blight, to Mexican workers seeking refuge from violent cartels, to Chinese entrepreneurs pursuing Fortune’s cookie…
Stereotypes and racist jokes are actually the closest they can get to defending immigrants.
For those seeking confirmation that there’s still good left in humanity, there’s been a pronounced outcry from the Chicago Law community, with students flooding the boards to lodge their concerns over the racist rhetoric and a forum to discuss the matter is planned for Monday. One commenter raised some very important questions about the Burke Society’s funding:
Dear LSA: Why did Burke receive $300 when they were on probationary status?
Why are student fees being used to subsidize an event for law students to drink while mocking immigrants, people of color, their fellow students and anyone who is marginalized?
Why are is Burke a registered student organization? Why are they still provided access to reserve Ida Noyes for their gatherings? Are they in compliance with the student handbook? Has anyone at LSA enforced these regulations?
Unfortunately, while the school should take action to stop indulging these racial-slur playdates, the present leadership of the Department of Justice will be right there to protect the Burke Society if Chicago takes any action. The DOJ has made abundantly clear that “free speech” isn’t about avoiding censorship as much as it requires campuses to nurture racist vitriol. The only threats to free speech, we’ve been told by Washington, are those who voice serious objections to such trollish behavior.
After today’s events and many conversations, a group of concerned students have decided to attend the Burke event on Tuesday, February 6th, to demonstrate solidarity with all those derided or affected by this message. We do not intend to disrupt this event. We will be bringing poster boards and markers to the law school tomorrow, Friday, and Monday for students to make posters to express their feelings. You can find these materials in the clinic (The Federal Criminal Justice Clinic). The intention is that these posters can be used to stand silently in the back of the Burke event. We hope that you join us.
I suppose pledging not to be disruptive is intended to avoid accusations of the dreaded “hecklers’ veto.” As if the DOJ would make that distinction. The Attorney General is afraid of talking to an unvetted audience, so critical placards would feel like the height of violent suppression to him.
Perhaps the most poignant comment on the board is this one:
When I was a 1L, I tried pretty hard to do the UChicago thing. I assumed that disagreement was in good faith and enjoyed talking to people thought differently. It’s not so hard when you think that people see you as a human being.
I suppose I was being naive. I don’t have those talks anymore.
But it’s not good faith. It’s children seeking self-worth through bullying minorities and playing dress up (because of course there’s a formal dress code for “gentlemen” and “ladies”). There’s no depth beyond shoring up their own fragility by reveling in privilege.
And, sadly, that puts them on a fast track to government office these days.
Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Be Sociable, Share!