Tatayana,

You're right--Michael is pandering to those liberals who can't stomach the charge that shutting down the border means that they are "racist". Therefore, they must use their pet group, the blacks, and try to sell shutting down the border as a way to help blacks. Helping blacks is VERY non-racist, get it? You can't help yourself or other white people with a good clean liberal conscience, just blacks. How my heart bleeds for that group! I only wish that all the money we give them for failing and not working were truly "shut-up" money--God, what blessing that would be! Unfortunately, rewarding all their badmouthing just means they badmouth more, because they get paid to do it.

Yes, yes, the border needs shutting down now. But they won't do it. Even if they were to shut down the border, all the illegal immigration would just come from Canada, or people would just step off of airlines and boats and disappear into the general population. Build a fence! Who's kidding who? Building a 2000 mile fence would take decades, the way the government works, even if they were serious about it.

I have mixed feelings about it all. On the one hand, we all know this unfettered immigration will totally destroy America, because we all know that there are differences between the races. I hardly think illegal immigration would be such a hot topic if the people immigrating here were white. But on the other, being very conservative and race-conscious, I also know that once America is destroyed, all the multi-cultural crap, affirmative action, and liberalism will die with it. I also think that this invasion will be the only way liberalism, affirmative action, and multi-culturalism will die--when we actually have it in spades! So, I say, keep the border open. I'm not happy to say that, but it will be the only way to change things--so I don't worry about it as much as I used to.

See, the smarter liberals are now trying to save multi-culturalism by only having, say, 30% of the population as non-white minorities. But if they are really just like us, why not 70%? Because the smart liberals know its all a lie! They know! So now they are trying to limit multi-culturlalsm in order to save it! Ingenious! The panic is starting to sink in--who will pander to the pet negro, if whites are gone? Who will pay all the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid? The great Welfare State will collapse without the whites! Who will protect the white liberals from the minorites if not the whites? Where will the all white comfortable middle and upper middle class neighborhoods be that white liberals like to live in if there are no whites? How will the liberals get comfy government jobs when blacks, asians, hispanics, and indians and Chinese only hire their own and openly discriminate against whites? Gasp! Shut down the border!

Multi-culturalism is great in small doses. Spice of life. But a whole meal of spices will make you sick. No population of non-whites of any size will ever assimilate because they don't have to. The pet black has never assimilated into white society. Right now, we have the slight illusion of such, bought with massive, unsustainable wealth trannsfers and a tidal wave of media propaganda. But that won't last. Global competition will end AA as good jobs for whites dry up. And now hispanics are not assimilating, our only other ethnic group of any real size. The muslims aren't assimilating in Europe either, and in Africa, the whites are being attacked and driven out. So much for "assimilation". What a joke!

Yep. The real violence is coming. We can already see it between the blacks and hispanics in cities all over America. At some point in time, the whites will join in instead of moving farther away--there won't be anywhere to go. And globalization will dry up the high paying jobs that funded the move to the suburbs, toney neighborhoods, and now, the exurbs. And it will all be the fault of the liberals. Yep. That's how life really works.

By the way, if segregation isn't the answer, then please tell me why people mostly live (and by far, PREFER to live) amongst their own? Why do people freely and naturally segregate themselves by race? And now for the biggie, liberal dreamers--if you really disagree with segregation, isn't a border the ultimate type of segregation? Hahaha--I got you on that one! The games are only just beginning!

Posted by: Taeshawn Mohammed Garza on January 3, 2007 10:28 PM

Someone on TV was saying 25 people are killed a day by illegal immigrants in crimes and accidents. That seems incredibly high. Is that possible?

One grows weary of listing the damage done by illegals. It is time for the other side to start listing concrete reasons why we have to let these invaders into our country.
And let us get the usual out of the way. Yes, im willing to pay more for lettuce. No, I dont care if fast food places sit abandoned. No, I don't think "diversity" is our strength. Let's be honest -- if it were, the govt. would not have to put out public service announcements constantly trying to make us believe it. And if diversity is, how come we don't shop for immigrants from around the world instead taking millions of Mexicans?

If you're going to call me a racist, please discuss the racial views of the illegals. If they are not sufficiently acceptable, would that not disqualify them from entry?

If their kids cost 10 grand a year to "educate" and close to half eventually drop out of school, are not these kids the ones who will need these so-called low end jobs?

sN

Posted by: sN on January 4, 2007 4:30 AM

Ricpic -- I know, I know ... Sigh. If only I were a member of the elite, American or Mexican. I'd be happy then.

Tatyana -- I don't think dumping *more* problems on a sector of the population that's already disaffected is wise, do you?

Taeshawn -- FWIW, I like to think that I'm challenging (not pandering to) liberals when I raise the point about black people. Historically, liberals have made a big deal of standing up for black people. (Debatable whether this has all been to the good, I know.) Since they're so proud of this ... then why are they now standing up for policies that are proving to be really hard on poor black people? It's fun to try to catch them in this particular mousetrap. I agree that an interesting thing about the immigration madness is that it highlights some intrinsic dilemmas in the multicultural program. LIke you, I guess, I like soft multiculturalism (appreciating differences, wishing everyone well, etc). But multiculti, turned into dogma, is a way of committing suicide. Unless, I guess, everyone else in the world is doing the same thing. Which of course they never will ...

sN -- 25 a day does seem like a lot, but who knows? Time to start Googling -- it'd sure make a good posting if true. Speaking of Googling, I've run into articles explaining that lettuce and strawberries and such wouldn't be much more expensive (25 cents, I seem to remember) if normal American wages were paid to the pickers, because labor costs are apparently only a small part of the cost of food these days. Transportation, markups, raw ingredients, fertilizer (ie., oil) etc -- much more important than labor costs these days. Bizarre -- we're ruining, er, transforming the country all for the sake of saving pennies. I like your idea of giving immigrants tests to ensure that they're sufficiently liberal! That'd be more effective than a wall!

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on January 4, 2007 8:33 AM

sN: You wrote, "Someone on TV was saying 25 people are killed a day by illegal immigrants in crimes and accidents. That seems incredibly high. Is that possible?"

The Houston Chronicle recently reported the number as 12 per day, but I can't find the citation online at the moment.

Posted by: beloml on January 4, 2007 9:12 AM

MB, that segment of population disaffected itself.
Poor Amrican blacks should have nobody to blame for their low position but themselves. Not "racism of whites", not "racism of Hispanics", no. Themselves. They are citizens of this country, they have legal equal rights with other citizens - it means they have equal opportunities. In fact, they have more opportunities than an average immigrant: they speak the language as natives. Nobody sets a fair handicap race for immigrants, and they still succeed. Look at Korean delis and Chinese dry cleaning; have you ever seen an Asian begging in the subway?

You're sawing the seeds of a bigger social unrest by blaming one part of the population for ills of another.

That's how the Jewish pogroms started in Russia: "educated classes" explaining to the uneducated masses that Jews are robbing them off their riches.

And that's a classic sign of a leftie I didn't take you for, previously.

Posted by: Tat on January 4, 2007 11:31 AM

Or, and about a wall and a "liberal test" you propose to give to the immigrants.
Can I bring to your attention that wall is intended against illegal immigrants, who never get questioned upon entering the country in the first place?

Are you intentionally mixing up leagal and illegal immigrants?

Posted by: Tat on January 4, 2007 11:34 AM

Tat -- Where do I blame the probs of poor black people on anyone at all? I'm simply 1) acknowledging that life for poor people is rough (deservedly or undeservedly), and 2) suggesting that it's awful for our elites to be dumping yet more problems on them. Illegals aren't moving into and disrupting ritzy neighborhoods, after all. They're moving into and disrupting poor (and often black) neighborhoods. And that's thanks to policy decisions made by arrogant self-interested assholes, er, ruling-class people living in ritzy nabes. As for the other: Since I was responding to sN, who was talking about illegal immigrants, I didn't feel the need to repeat the word illegal. But sure, absolutely, it's important generally to distinguish between legal and illegal.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on January 4, 2007 11:55 AM

"You're sawing the seeds of a bigger social unrest by blaming one part of the population for ills of another."

Do we really need to read the litany of absurdities we would have to believe if we took this maxim seriously?

Look, the point is that we don't live in a vacuum, as much as some silly Randian up-by-your-bootstraps personalities like to think we do. You can blame blacks for as many things as you want, but that won't change the fact that this policy IS and will continue to negatively affect the black community.
Now, it MAY be the case that we OUGHT to pursue some policy that has a disproportionately negative effect on an already disadvantaged minority IF there is some greater good that can be accomplished. Nevertheless, for the purposes of national cohesion and basic moral imperative, the effect must be looked on as a VERY BAD THING, and a tremendous sacrifice for whatever 'greater good' has been cooked up.

Posted by: Peter on January 4, 2007 12:21 PM

The only litany of absurdities I can see, Peter, is coming out of your mouth, with all the clicheed populist phrases like "negative effect on already disadvantaged minority", "greater good", "national cohesion" and especially "moral imperative".

Let me repeat. Nobody owns anything to "disadvantged minorities". They disadvantage themselves by relying on govmint shakedowns.
If one parasite get's pushed from a public trough, it's generally not a good policy (unless you're macciavellean Segnor trying to make one segment of your vassals' body to kill off the other, for the purpose of reducing your enemies)
to blame the other parasite.

In my view, which I prefer to call common sense, although "Randian" sounds rather like a compliment to me, the welfare should be reduced across the board, no matter what's the racial composition of the recipient.

MB, so let me get this straight: you were answering to SN's comment about illegal immigrants, and you proposed a "liberal test", to question their views on racism? How do you see the execution of this proposition? Namely, who's going to administer this test, contrabandists on the border who deal in human cargo?

Posted by: Tat on January 4, 2007 1:30 PM

Peter,

The point was that the liberals were only noting the negative effect of this illegal alien invasion on another MINORITY group--blacks, to be specific--without any reference to its negative effects on the other (white) 70% of the population. The reason they do this is because to stand up for white people's interests open them up the the leftist charge of being "racist". And my, how they cower and hide from that increasingly nebulous label.

The other point was that blacks not only are "disadvantaged" (whatever that means--you're either advantaged or not), but that they disadvantage the rest of us too. Little regard for the sacrifices all of the rest of us make dragging that millstone around, eh? Its hard to take such whining seriously. Most of us out here are sick of it already. They'll never close all of the many "gaps" that exist between themselves and whites, asians, etc, and we all know it. Now they are being used to make liberals finally come to their senses and enforce the borders. But it won't happen anyway. So its just so much hot air. How about arguing for your own self-interests, even if your skin is (gasp!) pale.

Posted by: Areillio Gonzales on January 4, 2007 2:13 PM

Tat -- It was a joke, a whimsy, a jeu d'esprit ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on January 4, 2007 3:55 PM

Can't you hear me laughing real hard?

Posted by: Tat on January 4, 2007 4:29 PM

"How about arguing for your own self-interests, even if your skin is (gasp!) pale."

With regard to immigration, there are many arguments that can be brought against it. The one that is most persuasive to me is that of national interest and cohesion (Populist cliche alert!). As such, I find any policy that further alienates an already dispossessed (whether by themselves or others is really of no interest to me) minority. They are citizens, and they deserve that their government look after their interests before those of foreigners.

That said, I have no problem arguing my own self interest. But fortunately, as an educated white male, I'll probably be one of the last ones affected by the crime ridden barrios, plummeting wages, and racial strife.

Whether blacks ever 'close the gaps' or not is immaterial. This isn't about government handouts - it is about the government protecting the basic rights of citizenship.

"If one parasite get's pushed from a public trough, it's generally not a good policy... to blame the other parasite."

'Nuff said

Posted by: Peter on January 4, 2007 9:47 PM

Peter,

You nicely sidestepped the point of the post. It might come as a surprise to you that having a job is not a "right" here in this country. And as an "educated white male" (why not describe yourself as a man?), the H1-b visa workers are already lowering your wages. As far as crime goes, you might be surprised to learn that blacks and hispanics target whites for crimes, or are you really that naive? Good to hear you aren't concerned about your fellow white citizens, since they, like you, will be "last". You've got time!

As far as thesse people being "foreigners", just give your liberal buddies a few months to make them citizens. Problem solved. Then your heart strings can play for them too, while they pick your pocket and call you white boy.

Does anyone on this board really think it matters if these people came here legally or not? I mean, outside of breaking the law, which, as we are finding out, can always be changed by the harlots in office. Doesn't anyone think that letting millions and millions and millions of people of other races, religions, values, etc. into this country is a bad idea? Do you really think we wouldn't have all these problems with crime, drunk driving, gangs, sexual assaults, lowering of wages, etc. if all these people came here legally? Because they soon will be legal. We all know this, right? That's the real discussion.

As far as the large gaps between the races being immaterial in this debate, I don't think it is. We are all conditioned by the media to feel sorry for blacks even though almost all of the problems they experience are self-inflicted. They wouldn't be so dependent on whites and vulnerable to "white racism" (an all-encompassing scapegoat for black failure) if they actually could do for themselves and make their so-called "communities" work. But they can't. Whites seem to be able to make their comunities work in spite of black racism, which exists in great abundance. But here's the point--liberals have a parental attitude toward blacks which they use to argue for their policies. I find it astounding that liberals have been so conditioned to only think of minorites' self interest and not their own that they can't even argue against shutting down immigration because it hurts them and other whites. That is so pathetic and ridiculous. Look at Peter doing it again, even while he says he will stand up for his own white self interest. He ahas to put himself at the back of the bus. Let the kids ride up front! Its like a reflex.

And both of these groups are de-facto parasites. The figure is 80 billion per year more of costs than contrubutions of illegals. And since the illegals actually work, as opposed to most government and corporate handouts for blacks, I can guarantee you that blacks put us in the red far more than the illegals every year. That's a parasite in my book.

Posted by: Rondae "Fabulous" Rodriguez on January 4, 2007 10:40 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?