2blowhards.com: Hijacked

In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links

Our Last 50 Referrers

« "The Man Who Was Thursday" | Main | Money-Grubbing Surveys »

May 20, 2007

Hijacked

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Our absurd, irresponsible, and answerable-only-to-themselves elites are once again doing their best to defy the popular will and transform our country in ways that promise, at the least, vastly increased population figures and fresh new forms of racial tension. This time they might very well succeed. Steve Sailer explains how this new outrage is being put over on us. Nice Steve passage:

What we are witnessing is perhaps the most irresponsible and shameless attempt to hustle a pig in a poke past the public in recent memory. Of course, that's the whole point of the exercise -- to not let us simple citizens in on the process of deciding who our fellow citizens will be.
It's only a modest exaggeration to call this an attempted coup against the American people.

The New York Times thinks that the Kennedy / Bush immigration proposal doesn't go far enough. How has it come to pass that we're being led by people who are eager to kiss the nation they're ruling goodbye?

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at May 20, 2007

Comments

How has it come to pass that we're being led by people who are eager to kiss the nation they're ruling goodbye?

If one thinks rationally about this, the people who are leading us (okay, I'm Canadian, but the concept is the same), probably *don't* want to "kiss the nation goodbye".

Which means that they don't believe that the proposal will be catastrophic.

If you start the argument with "those who disagree with my opinion are evil", then you are not going to get very far. This legislation is being proposed for many reasons. Do you understand what those reasons are?

My cursory understanding is that the justification for the legislation is that:

(1) there are lots of illegal immigrants in the US

(2) the political will to actually enforce all the immigration laws does not exist because of the fallout (people may support it now, but once taxes go up to pay for enforcement, prices go up to pay for higher labor costs, and the barrage of humanitarian crises stories appear daily, politicians believe that support will rapidly drop for enforcement)

(3) therefor, it's better to have legal citizens than illegal immigrants for both social and security reasons. You can keep track of one's citizens a lot more easily than keeping track of illegal aliens.

Given (1) and (2), how does (3) not make sense?

Posted by: Tom West on May 20, 2007 7:24 AM

MvB: Though I am uncommitted and undecided on the immigration issue, I share your appalled disbelief that the senatorial leadership is trying to ramrod a long, complex bill through the senate without proper review of the legislation in the face of severe opposition by the citizenry. Absolutely unbelievable.

Posted by: jult52 on May 20, 2007 10:28 AM

I keep telling myself that this can't be happening. But it is happening. It's like waking up with that taste of doom in your mouth when your life has gone terribly wrong. But this time it's your country. Your whole country. The beginning of the end of America.

Posted by: ricpic on May 20, 2007 12:36 PM

Maybe it is the lawyer in me talking, but has anyone actually read the bill yet? The news stories don't make a whole lot of sense.

I am sure it is bad. But, how bad? No mater how bad it may be, we should look at what it actually says to make an assessment.

There is no substitute for the precise language.

Michael, if you find a link with the full text of the bill, please link it here as an update.

Posted by: Lexington Green on May 20, 2007 1:11 PM

Tom West, this bill will not end illegal immigration. By rewarding illegal aliens with what they came here for, that is, the right to stay here and work, they will encourage even more to sneak in and wait for the next amnesty. This bill is the 1986 amnesty on steroids, or as Mickey Kaus (Kausfiles on Slate) says, GWB's domestic equivalent of Iraq.

I supported the 1986 amnesty with logic a bit like yours. We were told by Ted Kennedy, no less, that in exchange for granting amesty to about 1.2 million illegal aliens, we'd get enforcement that would insure that we never had to face this problem again. Bottom line: 2.7 million illegals got amnesty AND the right to bring in many, many more family members; we got rampant fraud, no enforcement to speak of, AND now have 12-20 million new illegals to deal with. BTW, a consolation prize for us was that one of those whom we "brought out of the shadows" in the 1986 amnesty helped bomb the WTC in 1993. Lucky us! Will one of our current "shadow dwellers" whom we legalize next help nuke NYC?

I will be stunned if there are fewer than 25 million illegal aliens who will come forth for this most recent amnesty if it passes and I will be even more stunned if there aren't at least that many more here in 10 years or less, when we will be given "the last amnesty, ever, we promise". Naturally they will - quite legally - bring in their families to further sap our hospitals, degrade our schools, and turn our neighborhoods into third-world slums. They and their descendants and our new legal immigrants and their descendants will insure that the US tops 500,000,000 (now at 310,000,000 and 200,000,000 in 1968) in less than 50 years.

I am probably to the left of 90% of congress but I will vote on this issue alone. We are looking at the complete and total destruction of the US as a largely middle class society.

Posted by: D Flinchum on May 20, 2007 2:10 PM

This attack on illegal immigration is fueled by the misguided belief of blue collar Americans that immigrants are taking their jobs. This position is not supported by big corporations or the republican regime in Washington. Republicans, always diligently representing their real constituents (big business), understand that the agricultural and building construction industry would collapse if immigrants suddenly disapeared from the labor force.

Posted by: mr. closet organizers on May 20, 2007 2:35 PM

"None dare call it treason." Hmm. Where have I heard that before?

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on May 20, 2007 3:23 PM

Tom West: Your "(3)" does not make sense because anyone who has followed this issue for any length of time is aware that the proposed bill will accomplish nothing in the way of "keeping track of illegal aliens". See under "swamp, Florida", "Brooklyn Bridge", "1986 Amnesty", etc. If you believe that the political will to enforce immigration law does not exist, how does passing yet more immigration law help? (Wow, even more regulations that "stakeholders" are free to ignore!) The point of this pointless bill is hopefully to get hoi polloi to STFU up and maintain the status quo (i.e., virtually no control over massive Mexican immigration).

You are correct, however, that the political will to enforce immigration law does not exist, but not for the reasons stated. The political will doesn't exist because the whores are pandering to groups that benefit greatly from illegal immigration. People who are negatively effected - in the form of over-crowding, lowered wages, collapsing educational, medical, and physical infrastructure, and rising crime and housing costs are not going to go into backlash mode because they have to pay more for their groceries. Taxpayer subsidized "cheap" illegal alien labor isn't really cheap.

And no, I'm not going to get all worked up because someone called these pandering clowns "evil". I don't care whether they're motivated by malice, greed, complete lack of balls, or just being too stupid to think beyond the nose on their faces - if people elected to represent the interests and welfare of this nation instead seem hell-bent on promoting conditions that will turn her into another corrupt Third World shithole...hey, "evil" works for me.

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 20, 2007 3:31 PM

Tom, way to pull a fast one.

(1) there are lots of illegal immigrants in the US

(2) the political will to actually enforce all the immigration laws does exist because of the taxes needed to pay for illegal immigrants health care and their children's education, and the increase police and security costs. Plus there are the other costs, like a higher crime rate.

(3) therefore, it's better to deport illegal immigrants for both social and security reasons. You don't have to worry about keeping track of people who are not in your country!

Given (1) and (2), how does (3) not make sense?

Posted by: Dareano on May 20, 2007 3:32 PM

"How has it come to pass that we're being led by people who are eager to kiss the nation they're ruling goodbye?"

No proportional representation. Eg in Europe there is a direct correlation between a proportional representational election system and barriers to migration (Denmark, Austria), as small anti-immigration parties get to form coalitions with moderate conservatives, while countries with 'first-past-the-post' election systems (Britain, France) don't have to listen to anti-immigration sentiment as they are not forced to form alliances with them. If France had proportional representation then the FN would have formed a government with the UMP by now.

The nature of the American political system crushes niche parties.

Posted by: omar on May 20, 2007 3:59 PM

I agree with Moira Green. Bush is the evil doer. He couldn't do worse if he wanted to.

Posted by: Luke Lea on May 20, 2007 5:09 PM

I anyone can deliver us it is probably this guy: http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_5643

Posted by: Luke Lea on May 20, 2007 5:37 PM

The Solution

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

- Bertolt Brecht

Posted by: Will S. on May 20, 2007 6:37 PM

They don't love us and they never did.

But they think they do. And they always have. This is how you rule.

The overwhelming impression received by every sane human who has ever come close enough to touch the Polygon (see my URL), without of course being absorbed by it, is of immense, nauseating and artificial sentimentality. The Western world is drowning in a river of synthetic love. This bill is the triumph, probably lasting as it effectively "elects a new people" (every post-illegal immigrant can bring in an unlimited number of family members), of political saccharine on a historic scale.

This corn syrup is the medium in which sincere, well-intentioned and intelligent people can effectively accomplish acts which amount to a criminal conspiracy, without suspecting for a moment that they are engaged in anything nefarious at all. Au contraire. It is not nefarious - it is bold and forward-looking.

Remember, no human being is illegal. Welcome to Brazil.

Posted by: Mencius on May 20, 2007 6:56 PM

Driving to work, I turned to bill o'reilly's radio show (disclaimer: I don't like him). A black caller from LA told bill that in 10 to 15 years we would be driven out of our region by the Mexican invasion and the changes it would bring.

The caller wanted to know how we (white people) could be willing to lose our own country just so that we would not be called "racists"? The puzzlement in his voice was priceless.

I think o'reilly answered the guy -- accidentally -- by ignoring his point and giving a speech on how wonderful and hardworking the immigrants are -- if only they would come legally.

Pathetic.

Posted by: sN on May 20, 2007 9:51 PM

This is a horrible piece of legislation that simply attempts to put a cosmetic bandage on the satus quo of immigration. It is also a painful learning experience, proving that politicans don't care what we want.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on May 20, 2007 10:38 PM

You'd think the NY Times would have learned something from their lack of critical thinking during the run-up to the Iraq War. The weirdest thing about editorials in favor of "comprehensive immigration reform" is their studied refusal to engage in any way with the arguments of the other side, even to attempt the refutation of those arguments. No, the Times merely intones:

It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate.

And if immigrants choose not to assimilate, then what? Oh, I keep forgetting, immigrants (legal or otherwise) have rights, while I simply have duties. How foolish of me to forget!

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on May 20, 2007 11:33 PM

That first paragraph of your post is a tad....inflammatory?

Whatever your views on immigration, I think people on all sides are agreed about the need for a comprehensive solution (not just an incremental solution--or as my father would put it--"a half-assed solution"). Love it or hate it, the Senate proposal is at least an attempt at a comprehensive solution.

Posted by: Robert Nagle on May 21, 2007 12:06 AM

Anyone who doubts that this deal is being pushed through against the strong and clear preferences of the U.S. public might want to check out this very recent poll ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 21, 2007 1:15 AM

Mr Nagle,

You are wrong on the need for a "comprehensive solution." The fact is we already have laws which the illegals, businesses and politicians are breaking. These laws were passed by representatives of voters. I missed the part in my civics class where foreigners (if in sufficient numbers), chicken slaughterhouses and corrupt politicians get to decide these laws don't matter.

As for inflammatory, I find changing the language of my country inflammatory. I find an alien culture (which is proven failure) growing in my state to be inflammatory. I find the closing hospitals, the crowding of my schools and every bit of b.s. la raza pride that we have to hear about to be inflammatory.

I may sound a bit harsh for the tone of this blog, but betting my future on Mexican Peasant to win, place or even show is suicidal. I heard Michael Barone today saying how we have a shortage of low-skill workers. I want to know how not having a KFC or a Wendy's on every block is gonna kill me. Considering we have to pay 10 grand a year for every kid the illegals have, taxpayers have to pick up all their medical and various other services, what do I get? I also wonder since some schools in Calif. have 30 percent to 50 percent drop-out rates, are not these folks going to need some low-skill employment?

I'm tired of a people who want to bring in people who have their skin color, their language and their culture telling me I am the racist. This invasion is a serious threat which will change the U.S. forever. I want to know what the good parts of that change are going to be. And please feel free to use statistics.

Posted by: sN on May 21, 2007 1:56 AM

Hm, I guess I suffer from the misconception that politicians are human beings as well that aren't all that anxious to have their children live in a destroyed United States. Do people *really* think that politicians want their grandchildren growing up in a Brazil-like environment, even if they're top of the heap?

The first thing that I ask when I see a large group of people doing something that makes no sense to me and isn't even in their own self-interest (for example destroying the United States) is to assume that *I* am missing some part of the picture.

So I ask myself: What part of the picture am I missing to be able to understand their decision?

My guess (and it is a guess): Illegal immigration is believed to constitute such an important economic factor in American general prosperity that enforcement would have catastrophic economic followed by political consequences. It's the only reason I can come up as a reason why enforcement is basically not done *anywhere*. There's no one place deciding not to enforce. As far as I can tell, *no-one* is choosing to enforce immigration laws (aside from a few locales here and there).

[In my mind, it's probably not unlike Chinese imports. People can complain all one likes about unfair trading practices, but politicians seem to acknowledge the reality that the economic tsunami that would follow banning Chinese imports would not be beneficial for America as a whole.]

Anyway, if they're not going to enforce the laws, is it better to have a whack of non-citizens in one's midsts, or acknowledge the "truth on the ground", and try to get them documented and subject to the rest the laws (now that they have more incentive to follow those laws)?

(As for terrorists among their number, I suspect that it's *easier* to track a documented citizen than an undocumented illegal and that citizenship isn't going to make them more or less a terrorist.)

Posted by: Tom West on May 21, 2007 6:24 AM

Count me among those who recognize that illegal immigration is a major problem and hope some sort of "comprehensive plan" can help. Given the huge length of the Senate bill now on the table, I suspect it will be weeks, if not months, before any clear idea of what it seeks to accomplish, and how, and what its flaws or strengths may be, will be understood. Here, however, the mere announcement of the bill alone has been enough to elicit plenty of derision and anger. It makes me wonder if something like this would be more in line with what the posters here have in mind for immigration reform?

July 4, 2009 News release

On this Independence Day the first armada of buses, ships and planes filled with undocumented immigrants left for various refugee relocation centers being hastily constructed around the world, most notably in Mexico and South and Central American nations. The dismantling of the Statue of Liberty also nears completion. The monument is being returned to France. The newly elected President said in a White House press conference, "Let the damned cheese eating surrender monkeys take her ... and them ... if they love Liberty so much." World leaders continue to decry the actions but the President, an independent who ran on a platform of America for Americans, has threatened preemptive attack on any nation thwarting efforts to rid the Homeland of non-Americans.

The bronze plaque with the quotation by Emma Lazarus, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to be free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" was melted down and used to cast a giant padlock, which will be placed on a wrought iron and razor wire fence to be erected around Liberty Island as a symbol of the New American Dream.

It is anticipated that it will take nearly two years to transport the seven million illegals currently being held in interment camps. The largest of these camps is located in Death Valley due to fears that if the camps were located close to population centers the detainees might escape back into the general populace. Most other camps have been located on Indian reservations following tough negotiations with tribal leaders. Unconfirmed reports suggest that many in the camps are suffering from malnutrition, dysentery and other problems, but the press and all other non-military individuals have been barred from the camps. The only exceptions are for a group of camps located in the Salinas Valley where National Guard troops oversee the use of detainees by major growers in the area to care for and harvest crops and a camp in Kansas open to the world press and visiting U.N. inspectors.

The amended Patriot Act is credited with enabling the roundup of those now in custody by virtue of overturning the Posse Comitatus Act. Despite protests by various churches and other radical groups the new administration is confident order will be maintained as elite troops continue door-to-door searches throughout the country. Separate detention centers for those with American citizenship found to be harboring or aiding illegals already contain 5.3 million individuals. Debate continues in Congress on whether these individuals should be exiled or allowed to undergo reeducation before returning to their communities. It is feared they might be lynched if this happens; current plans call for these detainees to be held for indeterminate sentences.

Talk about an attempted coup against the American people.

Does this satire overstate the case? Do you want me to use gumballs?

Posted by: Chris White on May 21, 2007 7:48 AM

How about this middle-of-the-road position: while most Latin American immigrants are hardworking decent people seeking to better themselves, we need to be realistic that they come from deeply troubled societies which have failed various tests of social comity and economic progress in recent years. Government can't and never will be able to completely eliminate illegal immigration (and probably shouldn't). But the flow of immigration needs to be controlled somewhat so that immigrants can assimilate and integrate into the norms of the US' generally very successful economic and social structure. A reasonable position?

Robert Nagle: there's widespread consensus on a "comprehensive solution" (as if government ever provides such a solution?)? I don't think so.

Posted by: jult52 on May 21, 2007 8:31 AM

Barone's statement: "I heard Michael Barone today saying how we have a shortage of low-skill workers. I want to know how not having a KFC or a Wendy's on every block is gonna kill me."

Why are low-rung wages and workplace participation not increasing quickly then? Barone is wrong. We have no such shortage - he's making things up.

Posted by: jult52 on May 21, 2007 8:33 AM

I might be wrong on this, but it was my understanding that this new bill will put restrictions not currently in place regarding bringing in family members. It also brings the 12 million illegals already here into the system and gives them a time limit in this country, with fines and a long wait afterwards if they attempt to become a citizen.

Now, whether those provisions will be effectively enforced is another question. But I would like to hear alternatives on dealing with the illegals we already have. As for tightening up borders, I'm all for that.

Posted by: the patriarch on May 21, 2007 11:00 AM

Chris White -- it looks like to you the notion of a country asserting its right to maintain its cultural and ethnic identity is inherently Nazi-like.

Tom West -- I wouldn't underestimate the elites' sense of invulnerability. Also, Mark Steyn, who until now has avoided the subject if immigration, just wrote: "Yet, whatever the virtuousness of immigration for the host society, a dependence on it is a sign of profound structural weakness, and, when all the self-congratulation about celebrating diversity has died down, that weakness ought to be understood as such... the inability of any society to resist immigration, the inability to find other solutions to the problem of employment at the lower, more physical, and menial levels of the economic process, is a serious weakness, and possibly even a fatal one, in any national society."

Patriarch -- you're falling into a false dichotomy. A few highly publicized CEO arrests, a'la Milken, would do wonders in shutting down the employing of ilegals. If we as a nation can effectively shut down the sale of cigaterres to minors, then we can also take care of this problem, if we wanted to.

By the way, even pro-immigrationists acknowledge that immigration is bad for working-class Americans. So when exactly did the Left eschew the Proletariat and embrace the Third World?

Posted by: PA on May 21, 2007 11:17 AM

Ted Kennedy on Immigration:

1965: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

1986: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

2007: "Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken system."

Posted by: PA on May 21, 2007 11:25 AM

Tom West: "My guess (and it is a guess): Illegal immigration is believed to constitute such an important economic factor in American general prosperity that enforcement would have catastrophic economic followed by political consequences. It's the only reason I can come up as a reason why enforcement is basically not done *anywhere*. There's no one place deciding not to enforce."

Wow, Tom, really? I've been pondering this issue for a number of years and it never occurred to me that economic factors might have something to do with this problem. Truly, the scales have fallen from my eyes.

But seriously, I'm pleased you've made a first step into thinking about the issue. It's a vast improvement on Chris White and his ilk, who're still at the stage of shrieking "Nazi!" and "racist!" at anyone who thinks our immigration mess requires serious, not cosmetic, attention. (Chris represents the attitude that has interfered with mature debate and helped get us into the mess we've got now.) Those of us who've moved on to Step 2 are now thinking about what's happening as the entrenched dependence on illegal immigrant labor collides with its very deleterious effects on larger and larger chunks of American society. Some of us would like to see it dealt with honestly and seriously before there's blood in the streets. (And I'm not being entirely hyperbolic here.)

Yes, it's gonna hurt. But as a matter of fact, I do expect representatives deciding policy issues to be able to think about the long term and make the hard choices (preferbly without kissing up to anti-Americans like the numbskulls in La Raza). I grant you that I may be as naive in these expectations as you are naive in your belief that a plethora of newly-enacted "documentation" requirements will have any effect at all on solving the problems associated with uncontrolled immigration.

Hm, I guess I suffer from the misconception that politicians are human beings as well that aren't all that anxious to have their children live in a destroyed United States.

That's sweet, Tom.

I have come across influential elites of the more patriotic persuasion worrying about what kind of nation they're leaving their grandchildren - their worries couched in criticism of current politicians and policy and similar to the sort of things we apocalyptic cranks are posting here, mind you.

Do people *really* think that politicians want their grandchildren growing up in a Brazil-like environment, even if they're top of the heap?

The elites in Brazil (or, more topically, Mexico) don't seem to be complaining about it.

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 21, 2007 1:11 PM

What is it about immigration that makes people so boilingly (don't you like it when I make up words?) angry? I suppose it's the feeling that "this" keeps happening and keeps happening and keeps happening. 'This' being uncontrolled immigration).

I think the objections are multifold (I'm a naturalized US citizen and I'm always kind of shy to jump in, because I'm not sure if people don't like immigrants on some level, or if they are just upset at having too many of the 'wrong' kinds of immigrants, or if they are upset at an unfair system). I'm just being honest; no point in not being honest when it's such an important issue.

Problems are, and I summarize here and don't necessarily endorse the following:

1. Too many people coming in too quickly to assimilate.
2. Assimilation out of fashion and multiculturalism all the vogue (although, I think, the pull of American culture is very, very strong. Think parents and trying to raise children in a conservative fashion).
3. Too many people coming in too quickly, so that wages are stagnating relative to economic growth.
4. Too many people coming in so that we have an increasing class divide.
5. Too many people coming in, period, full stop (the Michael Blowhard, what are we going to do with them all and why won't they live in the new urbanist homes and neighborhoods which are lovely? argument)
5. Too many of people coming in without 'cutting edge' skills (the opposite of the Australian immigration plan, I guess, where they want lots of highly educated, 'braniac' sorts).
5. Too many people coming in too quickly who are not of the 'correct' ethnic mix (those that argue that we should focus on European immigration, or whatever, are afraid what we've built up in the US will be brought down by a different cultural attitude toward, well, everything. Like having the country over-run by Latin Marxists, or something. I'm paraphrasing this argument because it's not one I'd be comfortable making on an emotional level, being brown and all. I'm sympathetic to the different types of people who want to come here). Note, sympathy is not the same as endorsing a particular immigration plan.
6. A general feeling of - it's *our* country, and we don't want it over-run by the wrong sorts of people (for reasons that are varied, see above for some).
7. Too many people coming in who break the rules and drive up costs for government services, and just generally, have an easier ride of it than those that are following the rules.
8. A non-secure border while fighting a war on terror.
9. Law and order types: the sheer magnitude of our bureacracy and the ineptness of parts of it.
10. Just don't like foreigners (sorry, it may be a miniscule part of the argument, but it has to go on a list like this).
11. A feeling that the elected officials are not listening to practical concerns.

These seem to be the major ones; again, I don't necessarily agree with all of the above arguments. These are just the ones I'm seeing in many a blog posting. I love this country, I love theimmigrant character and the immigrant history. Mind you, I've told you nothing about what I think should be done. I'm just summing up. What have I missed? And what do others think are advantages to the kinds of immigration we've had?

Posted by: MD on May 21, 2007 4:57 PM

Moira - Re-read my posting. I did not use the terms "racist" or "Nazi" ... although I notice that YOU talk about "blood in the streets." I was exaggerating to make a point, but you paranthetically note that your blood in the streets is not entirely hyperbolic. Whose blood is it going to be?

In previous threads on this topic I believe that I've floated the idea that the first thing we can do to help alleviate the problem is to crack down on businesses that hire illegal workers. By that I think there should be jail time for the higher level managers, CEOs and Board of Directors. This would do far more than the current (and rare) "slap on the wrist" fines that hardly exceed the amount the company has already benefitted by using illegals. In other words, if immigrants had to come in legally in order to find work because employers were more afraid of jail than meeting their quarterly projections, it could help stem the tide of those entering illegally.

Nevertheless, I do find that many posting here seem to focus more on the language, fertility, I.Q. etc. of those seeking a better life here than on the way business interests have used immigrants to bust unions and keep their labor costs down. As a nation of immigrants (any Pawnee or Passamaquoddy posters out there, please accept my apologies) I find it odd that so many seem to forget or ignore their own immigrant past. Now, perhaps everyone's ancestors were completely above board and came to this land absolutely legally, but somehow, I doubt that.

At various points in time it has been the Chinese, the Irish, the Jews, the Hungarians, the Poles, and so on who arrived here with their funny languages, proclivity for large families and strange foods. I just want that to be kept in mind as the topic is discussed.

Finally, we agree there is a problem that needs solving, the question is how to solve it. I am asking those who are taking pot shots at the newest Senatorial attempt to do so to spell out what they see as a solution. I just do not see how we could round up millions and send them home without doing more harm than good to the entire fabric of our democracy.

Posted by: Chris White on May 21, 2007 5:59 PM

What a good question MD asks! And she provides a good semi-comprehensive list off reasons why many dislike the current immigration regime. But which reasons gripe me (me-me-me) the most? Hmm...

1. Shh, don't tell anyone, but I harp on immigration partly because it's a good wedge into the more general question, "Why do our elites seem to have turned on us?" As far as I know, there's no issue on which popular and elite opinion differ more widely. There's also no issue about which popular opinion cares more passionately that the elite wish more vehemently would go away. So the whole topic is like a firecracker sitting there waiting to go off. Fun to put a light to it. And not without its repercussions in other domains (architecture, lit fiction...), of course ...

2. Raw population figures. I liked the country better back when it had 150 million people than I like it now that it has 300 mill. I'll probably like it even less when it hits 400 mill, as it may during my lifetime. What's with the love of packing 'em in? And why shouldn't I express a strong preference for one population-level rather than another?

3. The harm caused to low-income, working-class, and poor Americans, who are the ones who take it on the nose. So we're now sticking it to our less-well-off?

4. The disrespect shown to African-Americans, who understandably aren't thrilled to find themselves outnumbered by other nonwhite ethnic groups.

5. The fact that all these changes aren't just unwanted but completely unncessary. Even those most in favor of current immigration patterns don't argue that they'll make much difference economically. So all these wrenching changes are being imposed on us for no reason whatsoever. Grrr.

6. The fact that it's all happening in defiance of common preference.

Plus I'm amazed that it has apparently become verboten to say out loud that you think that one of the more important jobs of government is to defend its country's borders. When did the people running the country stop thinking it was their job to look out for the country, and to serve its popluation?

Anyone else wanna volunteer what gripes them the most personally about what's been happening where immigration is concerned?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 21, 2007 6:05 PM

Chris White: Moira - Re-read my posting. I did not use the terms "racist" or "Nazi" ... although I notice that YOU talk about "blood in the streets." I was exaggerating to make a point, but you paranthetically note that your blood in the streets is not entirely hyperbolic. Whose blood is it going to be?

No, you did not use specifically the terms "Nazi" or "racist". You perhaps meant your little "satire" (don't quit your day job) as a witty poke at the risibly humanitarian and too-elastically tolerant views of the critics of the McCain-Kennedy bill?

I think my reference to "blood in the streets" is pretty transparently a reference to (perfectly reasonable) fears about the end result of rising ethnic tension, balkanization, and perceptions of dispossession that are likely to accompany uncontrolled immigration anywhere, and that are already being observed here. (Ergo, "not entirely hyperbolic".) That you interpret this as some sort of Veiled Threat Against the Other associated with me personally (or some group I identify with) persuades me that my original categorization of your piece is not inaccurate.

I quite agree with that serious employer sanctions are the way to go. In answer to your final question, I think "secure the borders, attrition through enforcement of sanctions" is a good approach. You know, just what previous immigration legislation said it would do. Pretty straightforward. Now, considering the last 40 years history of immigration legislation in this country, do you really not understand the anger and cynicism expressed about the current bill?

I find it odd that so many seem to forget or ignore their own immigrant past.

This is the sort of thing that makes these discussions so tedious sometimes. Trust me, Chris, there is no such thing as an American who is unaware of, or willfully ignoring - in this debate or otherwise - his immigrant past. It is not a rarely known but stunningly relevant fact whose introduction into the debate is going to knock us all to our knees and completely re-arrange our current views about immigration policy. (And by the way, the Pawnee and Passamaquoddy are not magic autochthonic nations, either.)

I assume they talk about such things because they consider them both interesting and pertinent. If you think them complelely irrelevant you could advance arguments as to why. Otherwise, I don't see why we can't discuss all these things.

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 21, 2007 8:16 PM

What chaps my hide is that that those against the current tsunami of immigration resort to creepy themes instead of sticking to where it really counts, namely the fact that this screws over the poor working class already in America.

As someone with a brown complexion and Latin last name, nativist rhetoric, well, it disgusts me. I find it as distasteful as La Raza or Black Panther type screeching on college campuses. It seems that there is some sort of golden ideal America that's being harkened towards, when America has always been about a plethora of places, rather than a place. Coming from Hawaii, my American experience wasn't your average one, but it was one nonetheless.

As long as people keep harping on the brown hordes of criminal drug pushers and baby factories, no one is going to take them seriously, after all the majority of people's first hand experience of immigrants is of the double-shifting custodian at work, or the landscaper who made it to their middle class neighborhood. Stay off the creepy images and stick to the message of the common man not being screwed over the the illegals, but by those who use them as pawns.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on May 21, 2007 8:28 PM

Anyone else wanna volunteer what gripes them the most personally about what's been happening where immigration is concerned?

Okay, I'll bite!

It irks me to no end that politicians use my tax money to buy the votes they need to keep them in power.

I'd love to see what would happen to Congressional support for this bill if neither the amnesty recipients nor their employers were allowed to vote for the next 20 years.

Let those of us who truly bear the cost decide who gets re-elected over the next few election cycles.

Hah.

Posted by: Kirsten on May 21, 2007 10:24 PM

"As long as people keep harping on the brown hordes of criminal drug pushers and baby factories, no one is going to take them seriously, after all the majority of people's first hand experience of immigrants is of the double-shifting custodian at work, or the landscaper who made it to their middle class neighborhood. Stay off the creepy images and stick to the message of the common man not being screwed over the the illegals, but by those who use them as pawns."

"Too many people coming in too quickly who are not of the 'correct' ethnic mix (those that argue that we should focus on European immigration, or whatever, are afraid what we've built up in the US will be brought down by a different cultural attitude toward, well, everything. Like having the country over-run by Latin Marxists, or something. I'm paraphrasing this argument because it's not one I'd be comfortable making on an emotional level, being brown and all. I'm sympathetic to the different types of people who want to come here). Note, sympathy is not the same as endorsing a particular immigration plan."

First of all Spike, if you think that this isn't about race, and that everybody wouldn't think the same about massive brown legal immigration (which is what this will be), you are ridiculously naive. Same with MD. Stop it with your baloney rhteoric about how whites are "creepy" for noticing racial differences. Don't ever tell me what my experiences are with illegal non-americans. You're all the same. Its either "creepy" or "racist", isn't it? What bullshit!

Hey, I've got a question for all the browns! Oh, we just want to assimilate, we all want to be americans! Sure you do. Just like the whites, huh? That must be why every single brown race group forms racist organizations to sue employers and the government for race-based affirmative action preferences and set asides, and all kinds of multi-cultural pandering, right? NAACP, La Raza, CAIR, asians and indians too. I see the indians and chinese lobbying for increased H1-b visas and outsourcing. It must be because they love white America, right? I see how they lobby the universities for more minority enrollment, and how they demand race curricula and intimidate the faculties with more charges of "creepy" and "racist" whites. What a bunch of liars!

Here's a clue for all the deluded out there: THESE PEOPLE WILL NEVER ASSIMILATE AND BECOME AMERICANS LIKE YOU, EVER! They are all a bunch of economic vagabonds who have run here for the money. They haven't come here as refugees, or people who have rejected their culture for America, the white, democratic, and christian nation. They are here for the money and freebies. They have absolutely no reason to assimilate. None. Name any brown race group in America, in any large numbers, that has assimilated---blacks or hispanics? How about the muslims in Europe? I hear Hawaii is a racial paradise where hawaiians want to secede from the (soon to be formerly) "white" United States. THERE IS NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY ASSIMILATION WILL TAKE PLACE. NONE. ZERO. THEY WILL USE THE COURTS TO TEAR YOU DOWN AND MAKE YOU ASSIMILATE TO THEM, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Look at how they lobby the courts now! Look at how they attack white american culture now, look at how they try to censor our christian religion, and rewrite our history! It will only get worse! What evidence does anyone have to the contrary? None!

I'm sick of hearing about hard-working illegals and brown immigrants, I'm sick of it! I want to hear about hard-working whites, who have their property stolen and redistributed, who are discriminated against in jobs, whose kids are attacked in school, whose family members have been attacked and killed by non-whites! I want to hear about the whites who have had their cities decay, who have been driven out ot their neighborhoods by crime and violence. I don't care about your story, I care about mine! Of course if there are 200 million browns here, they will be working--200 million people need housing, food, clothes, entertainment--so what? When we had 50, 100, or 150 million white americans, we took care of ourselvs so well that everybody in the world wanted to come here, and they still do, as shitty as our minority populations have made this country. We don't need you! We never have! We don't need your second rate, cheap-ass scientists, your engineers, your doctors! We have the best in the world! We created almost EVERYTHING that is modern civilization, you didn't! We put a man on the moon! We invented the transistor, the computer, modern chemistry, and on and on and on! What have your brown engineers ever done? You're flocking to come here to live and study, we aren't moving to your third world hellholes to live and study! We have gotten nothing from you except cheap labor, nothing! Hordes and hordes of cheap labor, nothing more! We gave you modern agriculture and technology, and you turned your countries into Malthusian nightmares, while we stabilized our population, and now we are even declining, putting less stress on the world! Now you run here to make a Malthusian, overpopulated, cheap labor nightmare here! We don't need you! We never needed you! You never fixed your own countries! You'll drag ours into a sewer! We all know it!

Oh yes, the indians are "model minorites", aren't they? That must be why the indian engineer I work with is so proud that his kids are fluent in Hindi! Or why the mexican maintenance guy and his wife, who speak english very well, and have been here since they were kids, are raising their kids to speak spanish! My grandfather is from Germany. Guess how much german my dad knows? ZERO! NONE! I'm sick of your lies about assimilation! I'm sick of the indian engineer whose parents are sitting on their ass at his home collecting Social Security, when they didn't contribute one dime to the system! My parents are 70, and they still work! I'm sick of this crap! You come here to work--you come here to work the system! Affirmative Action, race set-asides, multiculturalism. Bullshit! Why are all the browns driving cabs, working at convenience stores, gas stations, working day labor for cash, opening all-cash businesses? To cheat on their taxes, and get free healthcare, education for their huge families, food stamps, handouts of any and all kinds, free of charge, paid for by the white middle class who are finding it harder and harder to have and pay for their own kids. Nonsense!

When America dies, democracy dies, because it exists in fewer and fewer places in some kind of effective and recognizable form. When the whites dwindle, who will the browns steal all the technology from? Who will teach them? Who will invent?

You're only being let in to save our ridiculous and bankrupt welfare state and the politicians and their patrons who are stealing us blind with a 3 trillion-a-year freakshow. We need an economic collapse to save our country from tyranny. Get out and let us save our country!

Get out! Leave us alone! We have given you everything we have, we have shared everything with you. If your countries fail, its because of YOU, not us. That's why we dont' want you here--you will just destroy here like you destroyed there. We know it. If you're all so goddamed hard-working and smart, then why not go home and fix your own countries? We know the truth. We whites are smart, we are hardworking. That's how we created America. We don't need you. You are a Malthusian millstone, you will sink us all!

Posted by: BIOH on May 21, 2007 10:50 PM

BIOH:
I'll put money down that my ancestors have been here longer than yours despite my last name and skin color, so if you're demanding I leave, you may embark on the boat first.

It's beside the point, however, as you are rude, insulting and devoid of class. Insulting someone who agrees with you in general detail due to his origin and ethnicity is what determines that. I owe nothing to *you* or *your ancestors*. I owe my education and my tastes to the fruits of the culture born in the West, not someone who's playing victim and martyr louder than CAIR and those ilk.

I agree that "multiculturalism" and rampant immigration are bad things. Both for a cohesive identity and stable economy. It's folks like you that make it a subject so outre amongst the chattering classes. As long as such mouth frothing goes on, you're going to lose, and really, if it was for the sake of people like you, rather than all the citizens of nation, I'd think I'd be on the other side.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on May 22, 2007 1:37 AM

Mr. Gomes:

The reason we are bringing up these things that you find distasteful is because we feel we are in a fight for our country, our way of life. Let us all admit that having 10 million Mexicans or 10 million Russians moving into our country is going to have effects. While lowering wages is one effect, there are others.

I'm just not in the mood to have you limit the debate to wages of the underclass. Guess what: It could be the case that many of these women are "baby factories." I think recent population growth in Mexico would pretty much support the "baby factory theory." The fact that now every where I go in my city I see Mexican women with three or four kids is my story. It is being reported right here. And let us be honest the MSM cannot report anything like that, even if it were/is true. One would think that the MSM would now be doing stories on Mexican fertility rates, Mexican crime rates, Mexican education rates and yes even hardworking Mexican workers. Don't we want to make an educated choice on immigration? So, tell me where are any of these stories? Besides Lou Dobbs, where are the stories even on falling wages for those competing with illegals? Where is the story on how California water supplies will be affected by increasing the population by millions? These stories don't seem to exist, except when they leak out on talk radio and blogs.

I will admit I find a certain distaste with the debate myself. There is part of me that feels bad that you, sir, have been offended. However, the magnitude of the stakes of this issue means I must dismiss your sensitivites. If the legalization goes through, I think you, yourself, will dismiss those sensitivites in a few years --when it is too late.

Posted by: sN on May 22, 2007 1:41 AM

What's behind this?

1) Pressure from businesses that exploit illegal or cheap immigrant labor.

2) Ellis Island nostalgia.

3) Jewish attitudes. The 1924 restrictions were in significant part directed at east European Jews. Today, from what I can see, any talk of immigration restriction or enforcement is heard by 80-90% of American Jews as "We're sending your grandmother back to die at Auschwitz." Which is understandable, if seriously misguided. And Jews are immensely influential.

4) Democrat calculation. I don't think the Democrats are so stupid that they haven't noticed recent immigrants nearly all vote Democrat. (I do think Republicans are stupid enough not to notice.)

BIOH: there is a difference between assimilating to American "ethnicity" and becoming American in spirit. In a previous era, there was pressure on immigrants to become pseudo-Anglos. That's gone. Recent immigrants retain explicit pride in their ethnic background; that doesn't mean they don't identify with the U.S. Exempli gratia: Lieutenant Neil Prakash (look him up). INS has held many mass citizenship ceremonies for soldiers serving in Iraq.

Which is not to say that a lot of recent immigrants don't assimilate to the U.S in any sense. But then a large segment of the "elite" feels no allegiance to the U.S., so why should the immigrant?

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on May 22, 2007 3:15 AM

So Moira, what do you have to say about the comments of BIOH? Are they temperate, well reasoned and in no way racist or Nazi like? Am I then out of touch when I suggest that much of the debate on this issue focuses more on the "Other" in ways that are neither helpful nor in line with "American Values" as I understand and try to live them?

[As I've already had disapreements with BIOH and found it impossible to engage him (her?) in anything approaching a rational debate, I'll try to simply accept whatever rants s/he offers up here for what they are and move on.]

Posted by: Chris White on May 22, 2007 7:40 AM

BIOH: How funny that you should bring up that point when I made so many others? If I was such a 'cry' racist type, why would I include the other reasons in the list? Also, I said what I felt emotionally, not rationally, so I suppose I can't get upset if you respond emotionally. I never called anyone a racist - I simply stated a point of view and said why I had trouble with it and also stated that my thinking processes on that issue were clouded by emotionalism. Please don't put words in my mouth.

*Lots of people spoke German, as a 'model minority' raised in the great Midwest I'm pretty familiar with the history of that part of the country and in fact, a fair number of people went to German schools, spoke German at home and read German papers. World War I put a stop to that fad.

**You might be surprised to find that, as a 'model minority', I can perfectly well understand why you are upset that someone is collecting social security that didn't pay in. My own immigrant mother has made that point. So, at least, some of us feel your pain.

***In my town, the majority of people doing construction are white, and, many Irish. I don't know of their legal status; never thought to ask.

****I'm actually glad that you got angry and said it; it was my point to have that response and I purposely included it in the list to get exactly that response. I think we are not being honest with each other as a nation, and it's hurting us.

******Good for that engineer for teaching his kid Hindi. I don't know how to speak it and wish I did. I am extremely patriotic, proud of being an American and an "America" first type of person. I know a lot of Indian immigrants who are starting joint business ventures and pushing India, or the people they know in India, to open up it's markets. I'd like the US to get a bulk of that business.

Thank you for responding BIOH, I'm sorry you are angry and thank you and Michael for your honesty. We need more of this.

Posted by: MD on May 22, 2007 9:58 AM

By the way, I've read Neil Prakash's blog in the past; perhaps a way to have some natural attrition is to stipulate a little time in the army as a requirement if you've come in illegally? Okay, I don't know the realities behind that tongue in cheek suggestion.....

Watching a show called the Heartland this weekend, on PVS, and they mentioned a tea farm in
South Carolina that had developed farm machinery which could do the work of massive amounts of people; which in places like India are usually done by, er, massive amounts of people. How does this relate to our current discussion :)

MD (who called no one a racist on this thread) signs off. MD has some 'model minority' work to do.....

*The one kid in school who used to complain about my family taking away business from him was the son of a rich construction business owner. He was by far the richest kid on the whole block....I never got it? We didn't own a rival business.

Posted by: MD on May 22, 2007 10:05 AM

And Jews are immensely influential.

Yeah, you found the culprit, Mr. Rostrom.
One thing never changes - belief in penetrating Jewish conspiracy.

Posted by: Tatyana on May 22, 2007 10:15 AM

sN:
I do agree there are other effects. It's just I don't put much weight on them, outside of the economic, assimilative and direct quality of life factors. I really don't care about how many taquerias there are in LA or businesses offering Spanish services out of their own free will. One could go on and on about cultural traditions seen as definitively American that were actually brought by immigrants after the foundation of the nation. For example most of the trappings of secular Christmas and Halloween.

I'm not particularly offended by the debate, more than folks like BIOH in the debate, who judge me by my origin rather than my character (and by the same token, others on the other end of the ideological spectrum who would call me a coconut or race traitor). I'm also more disturbed by the lack of hard data on both sides. Frex towards your statement, the TFR of Mexico has been dropping dramatically since 1970. It's still higher than the USA, but not exponentially so. Of course the inertiative effects are still in play.

I also must note that I too never called anyone racist, but merely expressed distaste in certain forms of nativism.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on May 22, 2007 1:26 PM

Chris: So Moira, what do you have to say about the comments of BIOH? Are they temperate, well reasoned and in no way racist or Nazi like?

Chris, you were last seen bitching at me for suggesting that you were calling people racists and Nazis, which you denied having done. Unless you are positing some subtle distinction in meaning between being racist and a Nazi, and being "racist and Nazi like", you appear here to be calling BIOH a racist and a Nazi. Thus I am confused as to why you are asking me about the state of BIOH's Nazi-tude, as if I were the one who had made statements denying that I had labeled people Nazis. Now, if you want to label BIOH a Nazi and a racist, you're free to do so. I'm just a bit puzzled why you'd then get all offended because you said so and I said that you said so.

Am I then out of touch when I suggest that much of the debate on this issue focuses more on the "Other" in ways that are neither helpful nor in line with "American Values" as I understand and try to live them?

Chris, if I may jog your memory, you weren't restricting yourself to talk about "much of the debate". You were accusing *me*, specifically, of slavering after the blood of illegal immigrants for no other reason than that I made an objective statement about empirically observed consequences of uncontrolled immigration, in this country and elsewhere. And you're complaining about other people's intemperance?

And to repeat myself, things like language, fertility, or IQ matter, and have serious social consequences, or they don't. Make an argument. Stating that you find them "unhelpful" is just vaporing. Reality doesn't care if it's in line with "American Values" as you understand and try to live them. I'd say ignoring reality is a pretty good method for losing the values that I cherish.

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 22, 2007 3:18 PM

Mexican culture update:

8o% Hispanic Santa Ana,Ca (pop. 353,000) led the nation in mail carrier dog bites in 2006 with 96. All of NYC (pop. 8,000,000+) had zero. Santa Ana is the most heavily Hispanic of the nation's fifty largest cities.

The National Animal of Atzlan must be an untrained Pit Bull of poor pedigree.

Posted by: expat on May 22, 2007 10:48 PM

Forgot the link: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070517/biting_mail_carriers.html?.v=1

Posted by: expat on May 22, 2007 10:53 PM

Did you notice how the indian and latino responded to my post? Did you see how they avoided the real topic of my post and inserted their own?

If anyone is delusional enough to think that these people will "assimilate", and that they want to be real and equal americans, think again. In response to white americans' concerns about being overwhelmed by brown, third-world hordes who demand affirmative action and the right to suck on a gigantic welfare-state tit, they BOTH ran away by calling their opposition "racist", claimed some kind of moral superiority, and tried to end the discussion.

Do you think I'm a racist, both of you, do you think so? Do you know where I learned to be a racist? I didn't learn it from my religion, or my school, or my parents or friends. Up until a few years ago, I was the farthest thing from a racist you could imagine-a friendly, smart, curious left-winger. Did you know that? What changed me into a white nationalist, into a dirty, horrid racist? Where did I learn it? Why, learned it from you! My racism is a response to your anti-white racism, that benefits you and others like you, to white americans detriment, that you both fully support and will do absolutely nothing to oppose.

I just love how the brown racists lecture us whites on fairness and tolerance. Why, who better to teach us love and understanding than the creators of the indian caste system, one of the most rigid race and class structures in the world, in place for thousands of years! How about those latinos, who treat blacks like dirt in Mexico, and are busy ethnically cleansing them from (formerly) american neighborhoods all over (the former) America? Look, look at how the brown racists have never, ever marched to end anti-white racist affirmative action, anti-white race-based set asides, anti-white multiculturalism, not one damn thing! Then they have the balls to try to lecture me about racism! You wouldn't know what the hell fairness and tolerance is if the white man didn't teach you! Prove me wrong! Show me your traditions of fairness, of tolerance. They don't exist! All we should do is sympathize with them, while they overwhelm us here with their lust for our money, our technology, our way of life, our standard of living, our anti-white racist set asides and welfare handouts! More open borders, more multiculturalism, more welfare, more affirmative action and racist handouts, more, more, more! Patriotic my ass!

These people are stone cold racists. All populations of the world are. How in the hell do you think nations were even created? Every single one of them is here for our money. Does anyone seriously think that if America were free, safe, and dirt poor that ANY of these people would be here? Would they be here with no welfare state and set-asides. Hell no! Does anyone think that if whites become the minority here, they won't attack, subjugate, and discriminate further? Are you stupid? They take away our rights to free speech, displays of religion, freedom of association, our property rights, our equal treatment under the law, our right to a fair trial if they are the majority of the jury, and on and on and on! How much of this does it take to convince you that this is a farce, a fake freindship, a Trojan Horse?

They aren't here to build anything, certainly not America. If they were builders, they would have the patience to build their own countries, and change their own fate But they don't want to because they know they can't. They want it, and they want it here and now. They are here because we already built it. They want it. And they will use every racist, anti-white tactic to do so. Look at NAACP, at La Raza, look at CAIR. Where are the latinos marching to shut down La Raza, the muslims against CAIR? Where are the browns marching and rioting to eliminate brown racists? NOWHERE! Just like I told you, stone-cold racists. Wake up for chrissakes!

Every time we try to assert our rights, they utter their magic word "racist" against whites, and just like magic, it works. They are afraid of us. They can't compete with us. They know that if we could freely associate, keep our property, hire our own, and they could do the same, we would compete and win. We would wipe the floor with them. So they use our fastidious sense of morality against us, to chain us. The word racist means nothing in Mexico, nothing in India. But it works magic here. It keeps the white man in chains.

These people are paralyzed with fear at the idea of the white man unchained.

We gave them everything. We gave them our technology, our culture, our charity, now our factories, our universities, our language, our arts. And never, ever, not one word of gratitude, respect, or even recognition. The fate of Prometheus! To be hated for giving fire to brown man! Hated!

I'm sick of cheap-ass third wold-labor. If its so good, then why is it cheap? If you're so competent, then why do you steal our intellectual property, our jobs, invade our countries, instead of creating and building your own? Why does this labor need handouts and racist set-asides if its so good? I don't care how much cheap-ass labor you have, we whites will find some way to supercede it, to invent our way around it. We can create anything! We can do anything we set our minds to! We can split the atom, we can build satellites, explore the universe, build ANYTHING, Anything! We invented modern medicine, the computer and software, concrete an steel. We helped you and all you created was a Malthusian nightmare! Don't bring it here! We don't need you!

All you will do is tear us down, destroy us by demanding our money for high school droputs, handouts, and multicultural nonsense, when we should spend it on our scientists and researchers to invent the future. Get out! You will destroy the hope of mankind, freedom, democracy, and progress by hating the white man, all for another malinvested brown hellhole! You don't belong here. You aren't our equals, you don't want to be equals, and all your actions show it! When we invent the future, we'll share it with you gladly, and you can screw it up in your own countries. I don't care if your ancestors were here a million years. America is (was) a success because of us. Leave us alone!

Posted by: BIOH on May 23, 2007 12:24 AM

BIOH:
I do have a name, if you had manners you'd refer to me by it rather than "the Latino", as I post under my own real life name, like a mature person should.

Suffice to say I've not called anyone racist. Anyone who's literate can scroll upward and see that.

If you were literate, you'd also note that "Gomes" is of Portugese derivation rather than Hispanic. My paternal fathers side having arrived in the 1870s, and his mother being native Hawaiian, you'd have to stretch far to say I don't belong here. I don't identify with Latino culture, though I'll admit a liking to Mexican and Cuban food and drink. I am fluent in Spanish but that's only because I wanted to read Marquez and Vargas in the original, not because I think some silly notion like Spanish should be the language of the USA or that we should all ride El Caminos and dress like Cholos. I also tend to believe that having knowledge of a second and third language is only of benefit to a person. Why? Not some multicultural BS. No, it's simply the mark of an intelligent person who values education and communication.

As for myself stealing jobs from nice white Americans like you, why don't you go and get your Master's degree? It'll raise your employability, as I have discovered. I didn't get ethnic scholarships or affirmative action, mainly because it goes against my personal beliefs that one should get by on pure ability and merit alone. Note that I'm quite aware of biological differences in cognitive ability between various groups and the fact that people with my descent and look will never have complete parity with Ashkenazi Jews or Chinese in the academic arena. However, biology has no bearing on patriotism and good sense and of course it must also be remembered that intelligence and ability varies greater between individuals than groups statistically speaking.

No amount of harping on my descent, Mr. BIOH, will change that you're obviously of the far lower end of your group Bell Curve when it comes to basic human decency, and it is a pity, as the fight against the regularization of illegal immigrants is a right one.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on May 23, 2007 1:39 AM

Spike - I appreciate the equanimity you display in your answer to BIOH's rage-on.

BIOH - Mr. Gomes has explained his views clearly, and in them I see nothing but contempt for the anti-white racism and identity-group politics and behavior of which you accuse him. Judging from the convictions he has expressed here, he is a member and defender of the culture I cherish. (As are plenty of Latinos I know, who are as worked up by immigration issues and identity politics as I am.)

And do you honestly believe that even the blacks in this country, whose ancestors were here as long as or longer than many whites, aren't Americans?

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 23, 2007 11:42 AM

BIOH -- You're an interesting guy who makes a lot of worthwhile points, however extreme. But please keep the tone a little more genial. No one in power is listening to our conversations, so if we aren't enjoying the process of comparing notes there's no real point to them. Vehemence and exasperation are good, but let's avoid rudeness and insults. Thanks.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 23, 2007 4:18 PM

"What chaps my hide is that that those against the current tsunami of immigration resort to creepy themes instead of sticking to where it really counts, namely the fact that this screws over the poor working class already in America."

You mean standing up for ourselves as whites. As if race in all this were irrelevant. I disagree completely. Of course its "creepy" (scary) when people organize around race. Its especially scary when you aren't one of them and they outnumber you. Now you know why we oppose this amnesty. In everybody's guts, we know what the issue is.

"As someone with a brown complexion and Latin last name, nativist rhetoric, well, it disgusts me. I find it as distasteful as La Raza or Black Panther type screeching on college campuses."

How did I get the idea you were a latino! My mistake--I actually read what you wrote! They're not just on college campuses. I saw a half a million of them in my city of Chicago last year, La Raza leading the charge. The issue of race may be distasteful, but its real.

"It seems that there is some sort of golden ideal America that's being harkened towards, when America has always been about a plethora of places, rather than a place."

Oh, you mispelled "race" in your quote. It starts with an r, not pl. Of course, the founding and success of America has little to do with whites from Europe. Sure. Thanks again for giving us no credit or recognition for making the place everybody is coming to.

"after all the majority of people's first hand experience of immigrants is of the double-shifting custodian at work, or the landscaper who made it to their middle class neighborhood. Stay off the creepy images and stick to the message of the common man not being screwed over by the illegals, but by those who use them as pawns."

You must mean the white corporate CEO's. So we demonize whites now and only feel sympathy for the illegals, who are also breaking the law? Whose side are you on? I thought we were focusing on the poor "working class" in America? Wow, that was a quick switch!

My first dealings with latinos when I moved to Chicago was at a manufacturing company that I worked at as an engineer. The company hired low wage (illegals? I don't know--I didn't think about it at all then, but probably) to assemble their products. In the engineering department, all I know was that we had to constantly fix and redo black and latino drafting work for our designs. That wasn't a very endearing experience. I also got to see the "hard-working" immigrants kids on the 40 minute bus ride there, aping black gangsters and going in HORDES to summer school. Also, the area of the company being heavily latino, I got to see the gangs out selling drugs. And when I used to live near Wrigley Field, I was walking home one night and saw a black guy running like hell down the street, and a few seconds later, a latino chasing him with a gun! Seems I happened on a gang fight for drug territory! Sweet! I never experienced anything like that growing up in my town at all. Nothing!

"I owe my education and my tastes to the fruits of the culture born in the West, not someone who's playing victim and martyr louder than CAIR and those ilk."

Again, can't quite give the white folks any credit, can you? But latinos, they are hard-working! I'm not a victim--I just want equal treatment under the law, and I will never get it with large and increasing numbers of minorities here. I wonder why?

As for the later points of insulting me by saying I'm stupid, you know what I say? Yaaaawwwn! I'm the one who has to correct the H1-b's work. I also get paid a lot more than them because of it. I won't lose anything. I am standing up for those of MY people who are getting the shaft by cheap labor. But its nice to know how quickly you forgot about those darn "working class" folk again! From all of the above posts, how did I ever get the idea that you were on the illegals' side? Could it be because you share a little ancestry? Of course not, that would be "creepy"! You know, if you really work on it, you might be able to sweep together a little respect and recogition for what white people have created here. Maybe, just a little. I know being fair and accurate is racist and all, but as you are so much smarter and employable than me,why not just throw us a white people a bone for pity's sake?

All I have to say to Moira is that, at best, I find MD and Spike's positions ambivalent. C'mon, you know what they really think! They have it good here, they want more of their own kind here, but they don't want to mess up the ride they're on. They'll play the little-by-little card, rather than the all-at-once card, but the hand they're playing is still the same. I'll believe their "we're all the same, we're all in it together" rhetoric when they stand up to La Raza in numbers, when they end affirmative action. But that day will never come, ever. Open borders, a massive and expanding welfare state squeezed from whites to non-whites, and anti-white affirmative action. What does that spell for you, Moira? I know what it spells for me--the death of my country and open attacks and hostility on my people later on. Don't think so? The I have a challenge for you. Name me ONE country where a class of citizens is a minority and second class that isn't a target of open hostility and violence? Especially one where the minority in question is doing better than the majority. That should be cerebral and dry enough for ya! Show me, then I'll believe that this isn't about race, and that you are right. Until then, I'll stand by my position. The longer you deny the obvious, the worse it will get. All they have to do is say the magic word, and you are back on your heels, trying to regroup--they have the high ground. This place is no different than any other. We are not immune or above human nature. Mark these words--tribalism is survival. When the next 100 million are here, the words won't sound so distasteful, I guarantee it.

You bet I'm mad! What am I supposed to do when my country is being overrun by hordes of third worlders who undercut the citizenry, liberally take their income and jobs through taxation and affirmative action, whose populations commit more crimes, rapes, and murders (you know they are targeting whites for plenty of this!)--eat a light lunch and take a nap?

I'll say it again, tribalism is survival. We won't survive or keep what we have if we don't get tribal, and get tribal real quick, both here and in Europe. You watch, they'll smile and shake hands, go out to dinner with you, but when they are the majority, they will dispossess you little by little until you have nothing left! Its the way of the world. I might not have a masters degree, but I'm no dummy. I've got eyes. I see how they operate around the world. Its not the gentle middle that rules the roost, but the extremes, got it? When they get here in numbers, you'll have to face the extremes, while the gentle middle softly putters on, smiling and going out to dinner. Don't be surprised when the extremes take control, that those same smiling faces continue to smile, while you are dispossessed, and keep puttering onward in gentle consent, especially as the tables have turned and the power favors them, with no word of protest. You will stand on this continent that your forefathers conquered, as hated refugees, shuttling about and looking for safety, with no destination and homeland to go to, or call your own. Get extreme, get tribal! Figure it out and come to your senses before its too late.

Posted by: BIOH on May 23, 2007 11:41 PM

BIOH, your a plain ol' fucking racist. Wow. Like of the classic, hardcore variety. If this were my blog, well, actually I'd keep letting you post. You're digging your own holes here.

Posted by: the patriarch on May 24, 2007 10:32 AM

BIOH: Show me, then I'll believe that this isn't about race, and that you are right. Until then, I'll stand by my position. The longer you deny the obvious, the worse it will get.

Oh, but BIOH, I don't believe that this issue has nothing to do with race. In case you didn't notice, earlier in this thread I was castigating Chris White for deluding himself that the natural concomitants of rapid, large-scale immigration - pretty well-delineated, as a matter of fact, in your enraged missives - will just go away if we flap our wrists and label them "unhelpful".

(Aside: there's a fascinating point here about the way some people approach this debate, if I may use you as an example. What you display here are predictable reactions to the pressures of our brain-dead immigration (non)policy. Deploring your reactions seems to take up most of some people's focus for the whole issue. At the same time, they insist that your reactions are extraneous to the debate. You are very important in the debate, as a person whose negative reactions need to be condemned. You don't exist, as a person whose negative reactions need to be weighed in the debate about the effects of said policy. Tsk, tsk, whitey is evincing some tasteless tribalism, but good thing we needn't concern ourselves with whitey going tribal. Interesting, no?)

Now, where were we? BIOH, I have nothing against you going off on anti-white racism, nor do I deny the existence of the things you're complaining about. Lord knows, I've woken up on more than one morning recently thinking "Dude, when did I turn into Enoch Powell?" What I don't get is why you chose to go off on Spike, a man who has explicitly stated that he has made himself an heir of the Western tradition, and who agrees with you about immigration, affirmative action, etc. No, I don't know what he "really thinks", but it doesn't take a huge friggin' leap of the imagination to understand that the truest bluest holder of traditional American values, if he happens to be non-white, might be just a tad put off by certain nativist rhetoric. (And why some descendant of long-since assimilated 19th century Portuguese immigrants is any more responsible for La Raza than I am, I do not know.)

BTW, what I really don't get is your bizarre argument that monolingualism = patriotism. I am a strong supporter of "English only" as the unifying national language, and believe that we should insist that immigrants learn English. That has nothing to do with remaining monolingual oneself or forcing one's children to be monolingual in English.

Posted by: Moira Breen on May 24, 2007 3:43 PM

Curiouser and Curiouser... Part of me wants to leave well enough alone as I've made my point already, as patriarch has pointed out to some extent.

I still wonder why you're harping on me being Latino. I said I have a "Latin" last name. No lie, Gomes is a Latin last name and it's no lie my complexion is brown. However I am not Latino, as I wasn't raised in a Latino culture, nor do I identify as Latino. I'm proud of where I am from, but I don't consider being Hawaiian or "island local" as is better described here as a seperate nationality or identity anymore than a Midwesterner or Southerner considers their regional identity as superceding other elements of nationality.

Being that as it may, I hold that white nationalism is as silly as La Raza, Black Pantherhood and other ethnic nationalisms. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all ethnic nationalisms have the most distasteful element of not judging an individual by their talents and actions. Looking at history, we can see what ethnic nationalism has wrought on the world, and it isn't very pretty.

Consider me a free rider, despite the fact that I've worked out of own my will and ability to get where I am in life.

Consider me an outsider, despite the fact that my ancestors have been American as long as Hawaii has been American.

Consider me some sort of lesser race, despite the fact that my maternal side contains Scottish and German blood.

I don't care, and to whit, it has no bearing on the current debate on the illegal amnesty other than the fact that attitudes like yours allow a potent strawman that the opposition uses to stifle the debate.

I'll have no further truck with you anymore than anyone else who harps on racial identity politics, be they Latino, Hawaiian, Black or White. My judgement of you comes not from your ancestors, but on your character. In other words, stick a fork in it, I'm done.

Apologies to all other posters on this thread, I was really hoping for a more fruitful debate on the tenor of the argument at hand.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on May 24, 2007 4:19 PM

White nationalism is as silly as Finland. La Raza is as silly as Mexico. Black nationalism is as silly as Nigeria. What is really silly is thinking a multi-ethnic country is, over the long term, workable. Any examples of true equality and harmony elsewhere? How about in the past? That's why white nationalism, La Raza, and black nationalism exist in America. You deny them as distasteful. But they exist for a reason, and its a real one, central to the debate, tacit or not.

And as far as anybody receiving affirmative action or not, if you are a non-white in America today, how would you know? Its not as if you get a quota certificate or something when you get a job or promotion. Every single outfiit I've ever worked for (I'm a gen-xer) has it as a policy. If you are non-white, and you are hired, qualified or not, you are part of that policy. If you don't like it, get rid of AA. No AA, no stigma or confusion. I'm still waiting for the non-whites to march in the streets like the illegal aliens did last summer to end AA and bring fairness and justice to their fellow white americans. Never going to happen. You see, race matters. Tribalism got the brown races AA. Tribalism is survival.

My opposition to Spike and MD is that they are explicitly trying to keep race off the table because they are non-white. What defines a country--borders, language, race (or common genetic bond), and culture. Race is a big deal. Look at how hsipanics are ethnically cleansing blacks, blacks ethnically cleansed whites, increasing segregation of schools, affirmative action, race set-asides, etc. I don't really think they oppose making America, over time, non-white. I do, because I see race as a reality. America is what it is because it is a white, christian country. As it becomes less and less of those two things, it disappears as America. Its like saying to an indian that they wouldn't mind if, over time, India were taken over by the Chinese as long as they spoke Hindi (and, of course, maintained the thousands of years old caste system!). But somehow here its okey-dokey. Sorry, but I'm not going to limit the conversation and take one of the biggest issues off the table. It distorts the discussion into just money. America is not a business. I refuse to consider white American citizens simply employees fighting for a bigger paycheck.

I can take small numbers of non-whites as a bit of "spice" to the mix. But now there are 100 million of them and they are increasing fast. I know enough about history to know where this will lead. Conflict, tension, and maybe schizm. The end of America. If it were simply eastern white europeans, and the issue were simply language, and not race and religion, this debate would not be happening with this type of urgency and fervor, and we all know it.

If you want to just talk about economics and not race, then open borders drives down wages. That's all the argument any native citizen needs. But anyone who deludes themselves or wants to censor the fact of race in this discussion is just simply denying reality. I'm sorry, but that is exactly what a lot of white americans think. Again, the white middle class is censored and dismissed. I'm not going to let them censor me if I can help it. I'm not going to let them lecture me on racism, and ban my concerns, when so many non-white americans are quite racially aware themselves, and benefit by being so. It should stay on the table, it should be brought up as a major issue, and maybe the central one.

Posted by: BIOH on May 25, 2007 11:18 PM