The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
Americans tend to be skeptical of any criticism of their country coming from Europeans, which understandable given the amount of anti-Americanism spewing out of the European press these days. However, there is some truth in the old maxim that “clarity is gained from a distance.” Just as Americans may sometimes see more clearly than Europeans how Muslim immigration is destroying their continent, perhaps it is possible for a European to notice some developments in the USA, too.
The following account is written by a European who wishes your country well, partly because I like it and partly because I, unlike too many of my countrymen, understand that the USA is still the best insurance we have for a civilized world order. It worries me all the more to see that many of the same negative trends that are threatening to destroy Europe are also present in the US.
In 2006, the total immigrant population of the United States stood at 33 million, or 11% of the entire population, which, according to The Center for Immigration Studies, was significantly higher than at any time in history. With 10.3 million illegals there now, with at least 800,000 more entering every year, in twenty years there will be 26.3 million illegals, plus any children they may have. The National Research Council has estimated that the net fiscal cost of immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year. California has estimated that the net cost to the state of providing government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion during a single fiscal year. This massive migration has become so ingrained in Mexico that people name their babies Johnny and Leslie, certain that their kids’ future lies in the United States. “Mexico’s economy, society and political system are built around the assumption that migration and amnesties for undocumented migrants will continue – and that the $20 billion they send home every year will keep coming, and almost certainly grow.”
Even mainstream media outlets such as Newsweek magazine have started admitting that this is not without problems:
Being brutally candid means recognizing that the huge and largely uncontrolled inflow of unskilled Latino workers into the United States is increasingly sabotaging the assimilation process.
No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many are poor and unskilled. A study of Mexican immigrants by Harvard economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz shows that Mexicans are now the single largest group of U.S. immigrants, 30 percent of the total in 2000. Indeed, the present Mexican immigration “is historically unprecedented, being both numerically and proportionately larger than any other immigrant influx in the past century,” note Borjas and Katz. In 1920, for example, the two largest immigrant groups – Germans and Italians – totalled only 24 percent of the immigrant population.
Some Americans take comfort in the fact that “at least Mexicans aren’t Muslims, and don’t want to blow up the entire country.” This is true, of course. Islamic immigrants are a special case, with their inherent hostility towards all others. Americans are correct in pointing out the mess Europeans have made for themselves with Muslim immigration. However, they should also remember that this difference in immigration patterns is also partly an accident of geography: When Europe gets immigrants from the third world countries at its southern flank, these immigrants frequently happen to be Muslims. If Mexico had been a Muslim county, the United States would have been in heaps of trouble now.
Still, even though non-Muslim immigrants are always preferable to Muslim ones, that does not necessarily mean that non-Muslim immigration in whatever numbers or form is always beneficial. Indeed, there are more parallels between the behavior of Mexican illegal immigrants in the USA and of Muslims in Europe than many observers appreciate. First of all, you have the aggression towards and disregard for the very country the immigrants want to live in. I have read Mexicans bragging about how little they care about US laws. Soon they will be the majority in the American Southwest and will simply change the laws to suit them, so why should they care what the laws say now? These laws are only temporary, anyway. This view of immigration as a means of demographic conquest of territory is similar to what Muslims are doing in Europe, only without the terrorism.
Second, you have the extreme amounts of hypocrisy, where Mexicans, just like Muslims, make harsh laws in their own countries, but scream “murder” and complain about racism if even a fraction of their laws are applied to themselves. In a paper published by the Center for Security Policy, J. Michael Waller points out that under its constitution Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal but even with legal immigrants “in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about US immigration policy, have to be called “racist” and “xenophobic.” The Mexican constitution includes restrictions on foreigners in any way participating in the political affairs of the country. Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. It denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. Foreigners are denied fundamental property rights. Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. The Mexican constitution states that foreigners – not just illegal immigrants – may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
Third, many Mexican immigrants have the same total lack of understanding of the fact that maybe, just maybe, there are some flaws in their own culture that create the problems they are trying to move away from. As long as they won’t admit this, it is quite likely that the same problems will follow them and be recreated in their new home country. Muslims believe that they can “conquer the riches of Europe.” But will they, or will the influx of Islamic culture ensure that Europe will cease being a wealthy continent, and become more like any other Islamic failure? Latin America’s love affair with Socialism, as exemplified by the three Cs – Chavez, Castro and Che Guevara – is even more pathological than Europe’s. Many of these countries, including Mexico, have serious problems with corruption. Will all of this be imported into the USA, too? When California has become majority Mexican, will it still be the economic powerhouse it has been for generations?
Lawrence Auster, in an article in FrontPage Magazine entitled “The Second Mexican War,” describes how the Mexican conquest of the American Southwest is a war by non-violent means:
The Mexican invasion of the United States began decades ago as a spontaneous migration of ordinary Mexicans into the U.S. seeking economic opportunities. It has morphed into a campaign to occupy and gain power over our country – a project encouraged, abetted, and organized by the Mexican state and supported by the leading elements of Mexican society. It is, in other words, war. War does not have to consist of armed conflict. War can consist of any hostile course of action undertaken by one country to weaken, harm, and dominate another country. Mexico is waging war on the U.S. through mass immigration illegal and legal, through the assertion of Mexican national claims over the U.S., and through the subversion of its laws and sovereignty, all having the common end of bringing the southwestern part of the U.S. under the control of the expanding Mexican nation, and of increasing Mexico’s political and cultural influence over the U.S. as a whole.
According to a Zogby poll in 2002, 58 percent of the Mexican people believed the U.S. Southwest belongs to Mexico, and 57 percent believed that Mexicans have the right to enter the United States without U.S. permission. Only small minorities disagreed with these propositions. Similarly, the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska told the Venezuelan journal El Imparcial on July 3rd, 2001:
The people of the poor, the lice-ridden and the cucarachas are advancing in the United States, a country that wants to speak Spanish because 33.4 million Hispanics impose their culture...Mexico is recovering the territories ceded to the United States with migratory tactics...[This phenomenon] fills me with jubilation, because the Hispanics can have a growing force between Patagonia and Alaska.
Auster states that
the Mexican war on America is supported by all segments of the Mexican society, even, apparently, the criminals. The situation is thus analogous to Muslim razzias or raids – irregular attacks short of outright invasion – used to soften a target country in anticipation of full scale military conquest.
Many ordinary Americans lament the fact that US authorities are “asleep at the wheel” on the issue of border controls. This view could find support in some idiotic comments by US political leaders quoted by Diana West of the Washington Times. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, leader of a city that was hit by the worst terror attacks in US history only a few years ago, does not want the USA to protect its borders to make sure unwanted persons do not enter the country. According to him, deporting illegal aliens would wreak havoc on golf courses across America. “You and I both play golf,” Mr. Bloomberg said on the air. “Who takes care of the greens and fairways in your golf course?” Senator Hillary Clinton addressed pro-amnesty marchers as the people who care for our children, our elderly, our hotels, our restaurants, and our lawns. “You are the faces of those who give us a good day’s work and often not for a fair day’s pay,” she said – which has to make you wonder what she pays her gardener. The New York Daily News recently celebrated the illegal-alien economy. “They clean your office while you sleep and comfort your kids while you’re away at work. They prepare your morning coffee, deliver your lunch and clean your plates when you dine out.”
Are the American elites really as clueless as they seem? There is another, and more disturbing possibility: The US political establishment are in no hurry to stop illegal immigration because they have already de facto decided that the United States as a nation state should be dismantled in favor of a union of North America, perhaps later of all of the Americas. They just forgot to inform their own citizens about this. Does this sound like a crazy conspiracy theory?
Well, this is in fact what happened in Europe. Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author of the book “The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive?”, describes how Jean Monnet for years he had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.”
The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. As critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.” The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.”
There is a very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), or NAFTA in North America. Is this the beginning of the dismantling of the nation states in this region, cloaked and presented to the public as “just a free trade zone?”
Just as in Europe, national symbols are increasingly dismissed as symbols of racism and bigotry. Echoing instances of similar bans of national flags in several European countries because “this could offend immigrants,” schools in California, Colorado, and Arizona will ban the display of American flags and patriotic clothing. School administrators claim that the bans were put into effect to ease tensions between Hispanic and non-Hispanic students during recent immigration protests.
As Victor Davis Hanson writes in his book, Mexifornia: A State of Becoming, “the goal of assimilation that was once the standard, if unspoken orthodoxy in our schools and government is now ridiculed as racist and untrue.” At the same time, illegal immigrants were displaying Mexican flags in Los Angeles, and there were proposals of making a Spanish-language version of the U.S. national anthem. According to Multicultural logic, tolerance is always a one-way street where Western countries have to give in.
It is striking to notice how the political establishment on both sides of the spectrum are unwilling to do anything to uphold the territorial integrity of the USA. President Bush “has not pushed for greater enforcement of immigration law (he is the chief law enforcement officer), has mocked the Minutemen as dangerous vigilantes and has done little to discourage the tide of illegal aliens, in spite of the dangers of a porous border in the post-911 world.” While Minuteman civilian patrols are keeping an eye out for illegal border crossers, the U.S. Border Patrol is keeping an eye out for Minutemen – and telling the Mexican government where they are. Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. “It’s unbelievable that our own government agency is sending intelligence to another country. TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing more than 10,000 Border Patrol agents, said agents have complained for years about the Mexican consulate’s influence over the agency. “It worries me (that the Mexican government) seems to be unduly influencing our enforcement policies. That’s not a legitimate role for any foreign nation.”
As some observers have pointed out: If illegals from Mexico can get across the border, what is to stop al Qaeda terrorists from doing the same thing? US President George W. Bush has agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it “our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war, World War III”.
Mr. Bush said: “I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.” Well, Mr. Bush, if this is a world war, and it likely is, is it acceptable for you country to have borders like a Swiss cheese at a time of proliferation of nuclear weapons to states that call for your destruction? Would WW2 have ended the way it did if Churchill had declared war, and then looked the other way while millions of foreigners, including potential enemies, were entering and leaving Britain more or less at will, draining their economic resources and dividing the nation at the same time? People who enter the country illegally and display a blatant disregard for and hostility towards the laws and the culture of that country should not be called “immigrants,” they should be called something else. What about insurgents? When will American authorities start dealing with the insurgents in California and Texas?
I have earlier criticized Samuel P. Huntington for underestimating, in his “clash of civilizations” thesis, the extent to which Islam is different from all other major cultures and religions on earth. However, he has many valuable insights into the importance of culture and cultural differences. In “Who Are We: The Challenges to America’s National Identity,” he points out that the ongoing Mexican and Hispanic immigration is in many ways radically different from earlier waves of immigration to the USA. “Never before in American history has close to a majority of immigrants spoken a single non-English language. The impact of the predominance of Spanish-speaking immigrants is reinforced by many other factors: the proximity of their countries of origin; their absolute numbers; the improbability of this flow ending or being significantly reduced; their geographical concentration; their home government policies promoting their migration and influence in American society and politics.” Huntington worries that this could create a mental, perhaps even physical fragmentation and disintegration of the USA:
Before September 11, among some educated and elite Americans, national identity seemed at times to have faded from sight. Globalization, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, immigration, subnationalism, and anti-nationalism had battered American consciousness. Ethnic, racial, and gender identities came to the fore. In contrast to their predecessors, many immigrants were ampersands, maintaining dual loyalties and dual citizenships. A massive Hispanic influx raised questions concerning America’s linguistic and cultural unity. Corporate executives, professionals, and Information Age technocrats espoused cosmopolitan over national identities. The teaching of national history gave way to the teaching of ethnic and racial histories. The celebration of diversity replaced emphasis on what Americans had in common. The national unity and sense of national identity created by work and war in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and consolidated in the world wars of the twentieth century seemed to be eroding. By 2000, America was, in many respects, less a nation than it had been for a century.
Huntington points out that “as the Soviet experience illustrates, ideology is a weak glue to hold together people otherwise lacking racial, ethnic, and cultural sources of community.” Few people anticipated the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Few Americans now anticipate the dissolution of or even fundamental changes in the United States. However, “the greatest surprise might be if the United States in 2025 were still much the same country it was in 2000 rather than a very different country (or countries) with very different conceptions of itself and its identity than it had a quarter century earlier. No society is immortal. As Rousseau said, “If Sparta and Rome perished, what state can hope to endure forever?” Even the most successful societies are at some point threatened by internal disintegration and decay and by more vigorous and ruthless external “barbarian” forces. In the end, the United States of America will suffer the fate of Sparta, Rome, and other human communities.” According to him, America “could soon evolve into a loose confederation of ethnic, racial, cultural, and political groups, with little or nothing in common apart from their location in the territory of what had been the United States of America. This could resemble the collections of diverse groups that once constituted the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires. These conglomerations were held together by the emperor and his bureaucracy.” What holds the USA together today, not to mention a generation or two from now?
This echoes claims put forward by Robert D. Kaplan, who has stated that the United States may be the first country in history that was “born to die.” “Indeed, it is not clear that the United States will survive the next century in exactly its present form. Because America is a multi-ethnic society, the nation-state has always been more fragile here than it is in more homogeneous societies like Germany and Japan.” Kaplan happened to be in Kosovo, covering a riot between Serbs and Albanians, when the Berlin Wall was falling, in November of 1989. “The future was in Kosovo,” he told himself that night, “not in Berlin.”
Samuel P. Huntington thinks that Americans should “recommit themselves to the Anglo-Protestant culture, traditions, and values that for three and a half centuries have been embraced by Americans of all races, ethnicities, and religions and that have been the source of their liberty, unity, power, prosperity, and moral leadership as a force for good in the world.” Kaplan’s assertion that “the future is Kosovo” mirrors my own statement that we may be entering a war that will be remembered as the Multicultural World War, with a Balkanization of the West caused by Multicultural insecurity about our own values and runaway immigration without assimilation. This may not be unavoidable yet, but it seems to be the direction in which we are now heading.
If the current Mexican immigration invasion of the USA is allowed to continue, there are several possible futures, all of them which will imply a significant weakening of the US as a nation state, and thus jeopardize its superpower status. French separatism and demands in Canada has for generations weakened that country as a nation. An increasingly bilingual and bicultural America would be faced with the same internal tensions as other bicultural countries such as Canada or Belgium.
Maybe in the future, the border of Latin America will be moved northwards to Vancouver and Montreal, where it will merge with the Islamic Republic of al-Canadistan. A worse scenario is that the USA will physically fall apart. As the Southwest de facto becomes a part of Greater Mexico, as the white majority diminishes and maybe disappears and Americans are told to “celebrate diversity,” they may wake up some day and discover that the country has become so “diverse” that they hardly have anything in common anymore. Such a situation could lead to peaceful separation, but also to civil war.There is a reason why some of the largest Islamic organizations in the USA came out in support of the rallies in major cities in support of illegal immigrants. Muslims see this as a way of weakening the Great Satan. And they are right. Americans need to understand just how much is at stake here. We are probably, as President Bush himself has hinted at, in the early stages of a world war with Islam. Muslims are working to get nuclear weapons and are openly calling for the physical destruction of the West. Your enemies are watching the way you are handling the illegal situation, and they are not impressed. Do you think the North Koreans or the Iranians are scared of a country that allows itself to be intimidated and held hostage by a bunch of Mexicans who shouldn’t even be in the country in the first place? When you’re a superpower, the line of separation between domestic and foreign policy hardly exists. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was impressed by the way Ronald Reagan handled an attempt of blackmail by the civil air traffic controllers. He simply fired them. This signalled to your enemies abroad that you were not going to give into blackmail anywhere.
What is at stake here is your credibility as a superpower. In the longer run, it could be your physical security from nuclear attacks, perhaps even your very survival as a coherent nation state. DO NOT give in to Mexican intimidation. Build the border fence, and deport the illegals. Yes, ALL of them. No amnesty. We are facing decades of what could potentially become the deadliest war in human history, where the very survival of Western civilization and perhaps human civilization in general hangs in the balance. We cannot win this without you.
You are the indispensable nation, and if you break down, the rest of the planet is in serious trouble. Europe will have to concentrate on just surviving, India has Islamic problems or her own, Russia is neither willing nor able to lead a fight against Islam, and China doesn’t care. It may even prefer a conflict that will eliminate its Western rivals. The major obstacle to the agenda of Islamic world domination is the USA. The issue of illegal immigration is not about your golf courses, your lawns or your nannies, it’s about whether your children and grandchildren will grow up facing another American Century or another American civil war. And by extension, whether large parts of the world will be following sharia law.
Can Americans take back their country from the illegals and their own, appeasing elites? Have they still got the spirit of the Boston Tea Party in them, or have they become too softened by Mom and apple pie? Much depends upon the answer.
58 comments:
That has got to be one of the most depressing things I have ever read.
But it rings true. I can't dispute a word of it. Fjordman, you've done it again. You're a frickin' genius.
This is not an original thought, but this article further shows, to me, that America is not just fighting against Muslim or Mexican invaders. The real civil war, if and when it comes, will be between American patriots and the homegrown leftists.
The left has taken control of so many of our institutions, but none so important as our educational system. At least two or three generations now have been exposed to their brainwashing, and their demonization of American history and American culture. This has simply got to stop.
I would support reinstituting the House Un-American Activities Committee, with a mandate to root out the leftists in American education.
I'm not holding my breath, though. How deeply has the left penetrated Congress? Just look at their insane frenzy over oil companies having the temerity to make a profit.
Shhhhshh. You know nothing.
The big difference is that Mexicans and other immigrants, legal and illegal, intermarry after a generation.
Bill Richardsons, anyone? Martin Sheen? Miguel O'Connor (my son)?
Two: Azlan is a myth of leftists. How many Mexicans want the Mexican elite to ruin New Mexico?
Three:
There are quite a few "Hispanic" groups in the USA("Mexicans" from Sonora, from Chihuahua, American born from Texas, from California) not to mention Salvadorians, Colombians, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans...they are NOT the same.
Five: many with "hispanic" names are Filippino, Apache, or other Native Americans.
Six:Finally, the "link" to assimilating these "illegals" is the church. The Catholic church is active in having outreaches, but many evangelical and Pentecostal churches convert immigrants.
Seven: Mexican Americans have the highest Medal of Honor rate of any ethnic group. Check out the New Mexican National Guard's connection with Bataan. Some of these were Anglo, some Mexican American, and some Native American. Even sixty years ago, Mexican Americans fought for their country, next to Apache americans, Irish American, Texan Americans etc.
Excellent, Fjordman, and most americans would agree with almost everything you say.
And that is the big difference between Europe and the US right now. Most mericans know the open borders situation is killing their country and are working at doing something about it. Most Europeans, on the other hand, seem asleep to the problem of muslim immigration and high birthrates--demographic conquest and culturicide.
Boinky's point about the courage of hispanic fighting men is apt, and the US military has always been a strong integrating force for minorities, starting in the 20th century. Unfortunately for the leftist social architect overlords, many of these warrior minorities are politically conservative and patriotic. Leftists hate when that happens.
I found this to be an interesting statement: which paints American Muslims as some kind of subversive underground denizens, akin to the communists of yesteryear: "There is a reason why some of the largest Islamic organizations in the USA came out in support of the rallies in major cities in support of illegal immigrants."
I'm curious: are you familiar at all with the agenda of Muslim organization? Most of them came out in support of the illegals in order to build bridges with the Hispanic community, not to undermine America.
Muslims don't want to undermine America because America has made them rich. The average income of an immigrant Muslim household is $55,000. A large bracket of Muslims make more than $85,000. Almost 91% of them are college educated. Almost all of them have insurance. These are ridiculous numbers. Only Indian-Americans boast comparable numbers in the American economic system. Undermine America? Hardly. I have nine aunts and uncles here. Eight of them drive SUV's. The one with the Nissan is considered poor. America has done to Muslims what it has done to most other groups that came here to work hard: made them filthy rich. I don't know much, but I know this: rich people don't want to give up their money. No matter what their creed. In the end, Muslim organizations 'band' with Hispanics the same reasons that Democrats do: class guilt. "Let's help those poor people who clean our toilets."
Might I add: Europeans are in no position to criticize or 'warn' America. Have you guys looked at the bureacratic mess your continent is? French people protest *against* more jobs. Sweden turns anti-semitic (as reported by Gates of Vienna). How much in taxes do you pay to your government? Denmark has no balls. The EU fails. Italy's premier corporation, Parmalat, reveals itself to have invented $15 billion dollars in revenue (and then elects a socialist leader). Spain pulls out of the war on Iraq. Until ten years ago, Germany didn't know that there was such a thing as a naturalized citizen. I'll start listening to a European about what to do with America when I start listening to an Iranian. Which is never. First figure out the name of your currency and then maybe we can start talking. Finally, what makes America succeed is what makes Europe fail. We excel in making all immigrants have one dream: money. What do you do with your immigrants? Oh, right, give them satellite dishes and let them hang out in unemployed ghettos call Dish-Land. Europe became irrelevant a long time ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901841.html
Of U.S. Children Under 5, Nearly Half Are Minorities
D’Vera Cohn and Tara Bahrampour, Washington Post, May 10, 2006
Nearly half of the nation’s children under 5 are racial or ethnic minorities, and the percentage is increasing mainly because the Hispanic population is growing so rapidly, according to a census report released today....
But how true is the article published above? If so, thats worse shape than any country in Europe ..... including the maligned France.
Hey Fellow Peacekeeper,
Do you realize how racist you sound, getting alarmist over the fact that minorities are having a ton of babies? What's your solution? Eugenics?
Here's an idea: studies reveal that there is an economic parity point ($40,000) per year, at which families begin to regulate the amount of children then have. Presumably because they can afford healthcare and get on the pill.
Stop being such a racist and bemoaning that the coloreds are breeding. Jim Crow is over, son. I should take you to West Philly some time and leave you there for the night.
This speaks of something that has been stewing inside of me for sometime now. As unthinkable as it seems to us at this point in time, I see a civil war coming.
What is the difference between the illegals, the muslims, the appeasing elites, the assorted rif raf that in one way or another supports them and us? By us, I mean those of us on the other side of that group.
They are loud, they gather together in very large groups, they are constantly in the news because of their "in your face" way of getting their messages out.
I have made mention a couple of times to different people on different topics about "us" doing something about a "problem". I generally get the same type of response. What can we do? It won't matter, it won't change anything.
This is my opinion. But, I use to me "one of them". So, maybe my thinking on this comes from my past experiences. Our side is too damn nice! We are too quiet. And unless our side starts to literally get louder and make more of a ruckus then the other side, we will lose. Then, when we find ourselves facing an inevitable demise, we will suddenly let it all out, stop being "nice". I know that we have it in us, that fight. I just wish we could somehow use it to our advantage before we end up just exploding.
Jaguar paw --
I had to delete the comment with the long URL. Please use links; the long URLs mess up the post width.
Christine-- Oh, I completely agree. I've been feeling much the same myself.
Those with a problem that this is coming from a Norweigian-- Um, he addressed that up front. Moreover, this particular Norweigian is a genius, and has some very good observations. So stop being so damn defensive and listen for a moment to someone who is truly our friend.
Jaguar-person-- Remember the Alamo.
Fjordman--Thank you, thank you. This American knows that you know what you're talking about. And though the people of Gondor wane and weaken, there are still enough sons and daughters of Numenor, still enough of the Horse Lords, that there may yet be a great rally to defend the West. And God knows, the Shirefolk might actually get their acts together, too. . . As I talk to people at work, or when out doing errands, I get the sense that a lot of people (In Leftist-Heaven Maryland, no less!) are starting to stir from their sleep, are starting to realize that all is not well, that people are crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed. Granted, the waking is damn slow, but it does seem to be happening. Your fine words can only help this process. You do seem to have a wyrd with words. . .
Man, its getting sad when you can't even go to GoV w/o being accused of being a racist. Site pests are such an utter bore! First sign of a site pest: They ALWAYS play the race card. Shame.
BTW, jaguar paw made Fjordman's point BRUTALLY clear. Jaguar paw's attitude is precisely what Fjordman is talking about. Read him and weep.
a. Eteraz said... Do you realize how racist you sound, getting alarmist over the fact that minorities are having a ton of babies? What's your solution? Eugenics?
Alarmist? Racist? Eugenics? o_O
Where did you get all that from (i.e. are you entirely normal) ?
Ah well, I guess being called a alarmist racist eugencist is damn near a compliment coming from some people.
Is that Jaguar Paw for real, or someone playing agent provocateur?
The point that everyone keeps recognizing is that "America" doesn't really belong to "one" people. What has set it apart is its ability to integrate everyone through the pursuit of money. That's how Dubai works today. You can be Israeli, Arab and Hindu and in Dubai you can do business. But before there was a Dubai, there was New York. Business comes first, folks. And by business, I meam money.
Ain't no civil war coming man. You sound to me like someone who wants to destroy America.
great_fiery_jaguar_paw: Thank you for illustrating so many of my points, not the least that there is an amount of hatred and aggression among some Mexican groups that almost mirrors that of Muslims. Notice also that as soon as somebody hints that the USA should uphold its own laws and borders, Mexicans start ranting about "whitey." This happens every time a white majority nation talks about limiting immigration: Non-white people play the race card. White people are taught to think that race is "irrelevant," but at the same time, race is used as a club to hit us in the head with. Isn't it silly to pretend that clubs are irrelevant when you are being hit in the head with one?
Oh, and jaguar, let me ask you a question: Since you're so concerned for the welfare of indigenous people, do you think white people in Europe, where we are the indigenous people, have the right to limit or even stop non-white immigration? If not, perhaps your views are based less upon love for indigenous people than on hatred for whitey?
fjordman,
you can ban all the immigrants you want in europe if you can get that legislation passed in your country.
there is nothing wrong in a country banning immigration.
however, the matter of illegal people who are already in, is quite a different matter. in the us, there are 12 million of them. most of them contribute to our economy. they work hard and do it all without access to healthcare.
in my opinion, all those illegal alilens who do not have criminal records, should be given amnesty.
you see: that's what makes america unlike europe. we like people based on how they serve our country, not where they are from or how they got in. if you're in, and you have demonstrated that you are a good person, who is going to contribute to our economy, stay, give birth, let your children be american, and in the future they can dream about becoming president or rappers. europe doesn't work like that. it never will. we were built on heterogeneity; you guys are still mired in homoegeneity.
Fjordman, let me first acknowledge that your criticism of the U.S. is that of a friend rather than that of, say, a Guardian writer. And so I take it very seriously.
Having said that, I'd differ a little bit. "Hispanics" are an astonishingly diverse group. Indeed, whether they are even a cohesive ethnicity is open to question, in that the very notion is an artificial creation of the Nixon Census Bureau. Cubans in Florida (and the Venezuelans who may soon follow them) have next to nothing in common with Mexican peasants. References to "33.4 million Hispanics," particularly from a Mexican writer, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Note also that we are in the midst of a second or third great wave of immigration, with the most recent one being the famous period from maybe 1850-1924 which gave us the Irish, Jews, Italians, and our first taste of Chinese and Japanese. On balance that wave made the country considerably stronger, and so in principle the current wave could do the same. Indeed the fears expressed then were the same as those expressed now. (Although, in fairness, in 1924 the immigration laws were sharply changed, amounting to a 40-year immigration time-out.)
But in my view the problem is not immigration per se, but aspects of our society now that are profoundly different:
1. Multiculturalism. The people who run our schools are more inclined to encourage people to keep their native culture rather than assimilating, and "representatives" of some minority groups, especially "Hispanic," wish to have the state subsidize their cultural retention through such things as bilingual education and balloting, even though that is the function of their families and not the government. So I agree that the state should never subsidize separatism.
2. Lower transport costs. When you left Italy for America in 1880 you were leaving forever; to go back and forth was simply not feasible. "Hispanic" immigration from nearby areas means people can go back and forth at will, and never lose ties to their native land. The ability to use modern media to stay in touch with the home culture also works against assimilation.
The fact that because of geography and technology so many foreigners can come here and still feel a primary loyalty to Mexico in particular is a problem. But, paradoxically, I think that the only way to solve this problem is to let Mexicans come and go at will. That way, they needn't stay here forever when they arrive in order to avoid the very stringent border enforcement. Like most people, they prefer their native culture, so let them come and earn their pay and then go back and exercise their political influence in Mexico. Insist only that one cannot become an American and participate in the American political culture without learning English, becoming a citizen and renouncing foreign loyalties and citizenship.
3. The welfare state. This may surprise you coming from Norway, but this is in my view one of the most pernicious developments in general in our society, and in particular with respect to achieving healthy immigration patterns. It makes the poor immigrant much more of a public charge, and allows people to slough off on the state the function of assimilation, whereupon ethnic pressure groups hijack the state and turn it from assimilation to separatism. Before the 1930s there was little restraint on Mexicans who wanted to work here; they came and went at will. It is no coincidence, I think, that the rise in anti-Mexican sentiment coincided with the establishment of the U.S. welfare state in the 1930s.
Alas, the welfare state is probably a permanent feature of our society (Charles Murray, ever the optimist, thinks otherwise). But multiculturalism and subsidy of separatism can and should be fought tooth and claw. So I agree with Mr. Huntington in this sense.
If it is, it will all work out alright. I think you should ignore the yahoos and hydrophobic intellectuals fantasizing about a reconquista. "Hispanics" are a broad group, and many of them are thoroughly integrated at every level of American society. Even those who have just arrived probably know in their heart of hearts that they don't want this country to become like the one they fled. If the Southwest becomes Mexico, where do all the Mexicans go?
In addition, what immigrants on the whole do for this society is far greater than is generally appreciated. People credit Mr. Giuliani for reviving New York, but many neighborhoods that were disasters in 1980 have been revived by the daring and drive of these newcomers, who deserve much of the credit for restoring our urban vitality. That we are able to skim off so many productive people who are fleeing their own ambition-destroying societies is an immense benefit on balance, even as I concede that importation of the Latin peasant and political culture would be a disaster.
There is also no way we can deport 11 million people without becoming a police state. The federal government would have to become far more thoroughly inserted into business than it already is, and to Americans that is ultimately unacceptabe. That, I think, is why there is no serious political willingness to crack down on employers. Some way has to be found to have truly meaningful immigration laws, while conceding that the economic gravitational forces that occur when a First World country abuts a Third World one are impossible to overcome; they must simply be managed in ways that encourage cooperation and assimilation rather than conflict and separatism.
Finally, there is also no way we can avoid being an "ideological country"; we have never been anything else. The day we submerge our identity into explicit and amoral racial terms is the day it ceases to be a country worth fighting for.
eteraz--
Many people came here seeking a better life in the form of freedom of speech, movement, and class mobility. Money wasn't the driving force, though certainly the security to work hard and support one's family was a motivating factor. So was education.
The envy over who has the best car in a family speaks volumes about the motivation of a sub-culture. For others, it is who is the best-educated. For others, it is the desire to live apart and to practice their own beliefs undisturbed.
Tell the Amish about your cars and they'd look at you with pity. In my shabby-genteel subculture, people who buy expensive cars are exhibitionist show-offs.
It's books, man, books. My mother loved living in a country where they didn't censor James Joyce and no one cared what part of town you lived in. I could get away with being lazy if I was reading. Needless to say, I became a voracious reader.
America is the elephant and we are all the blind men feeling part of it.
The feeling that *has* changed is that immigrants came here and were proud to become Americans; Americans were not considered contemptible and they were glad to assimilate.
But assimilation of overwhelming numbers is not possible. And permitting balkanization on a mass scale is debilitating to the culture -- any culture. We are Mexico's escape valve. If those ambitious Mexicans (and other Central Americans) had to stay home, there would be vicious civil wars, governments would fall, and blood would run in the streets. So instead they are *encouraged* to come here illegally so as to avert that.
Your comment that what sets America apart is that we are integrated through our pursuit of money is mistaken. Ask the President of Lithuania if that's why he came here, if that's why he became an American citizen.
That may be your family's experience, but it was not my family's reasoning. Ireland was rigid, tribal, and didn't allow for freedom of thought or class mobility. That's class *mobililty* not class *envy.* Every one of them was glad to be here, and very loyal to this country. They were Americans first, Catholics second, and Irish only be genetics.
One more thing: the health care for illegal Americans is breaking the economy of some states. Ask the governor of Colorado for statistics on health care for immigrants. California is going under. People are leaving the states where illegal immigration is overtaking the ability to fund the existence of the illegals. It leaves no fiscal parity for the inhabitants, so they leave. Not out of racism, but out of practical consideration for their own lives.
You're too intelligent to be saying things like this. It sounds like you dislike Americans and America. Is that the case? Do you find us less than you? Are we somehow more ignorant, less wise than you are?
These are not rhetorical questions. I ask them based on your tone, and the subjects you choose to discuss. I'd really like to know if America -- warts and all -- is the place you'd rather be because anywhere else doesn't feel as liveable.
A. Eteraz: we were built on heterogeneity; you guys are still mired in homoegeneity.
You cannot "build" anything solely on differences, that's the whole point of my article. We're living in an age of fragmentation, and it is wrong to "celebrate diversity" in an age of fragmentation. The problem for the USA is not your lack of diversity, it is that you are increasingly becoming so "diverse" that you may eventually fall apart as a nation state. You also confirm my view that Muslims cannot and will not admit that there are major flaws in their own culture that you are moving away from. The USA isn't all about money, its dynamic capitalism is based in a Protestant, European and Jewish culture. Take away that, and the dynamism will slowly disappear. It is naive to think that the USA can become more of a third world country demographically without also becoming more of a third world country economically and culturally.
Evan: There is also no way we can deport 11 million people without becoming a police state.
If upholding your own borders equals being a police state then maybe the US is finished already. Yes, you can. I'm not saying that you should deport all 11 million of them right now. You should merely enforce the laws you already have and deport them slowly, over the period of, say, ten years. You should do this at the same time as you build a border wall, to keep new ones from entering the country. If Mexico doesn't like this, then declare war on Mexico. They have already de facto declared war on you, as Lawrence Auster had demonstrated and as our friend Jaguar here keeps illustrating.
foreign devil, et al.
Please note: this essay was written by FJORDMAN, not me; I just posted it for him. It is an honor to have him here, but you must argue with (or praise) him, and not me.
FWIW, Canada does make me optimistic right now...
Foreign devil: Canada is improving and is not beyond hope. It's certainly better than my own country right now, although that doesn't take much of an effort.
Note re comments:
I have begun deleting comments which use vulgar language to make their points.
For the moment, I am leaving in those written in screaming CAPS to make their point. However, if the screaming continues past this point, those will be eliminated also.
The force of an argument is never strengthened by screaming swear words at one's opponent. Such vitriol shows either the weakness of one's side of the debate, or the unhinged character of the debater.
Never did care for screaming and now I am simply tired of it. It's a chore to read.
Oh, btw, excessive use of exclamation points in a comment induces m.e.g.o. in the reader. If you would make your point, eliminate the crash bangs, please.
Fjordman,
The USA isn't all about money, its dynamic capitalism is based in a Protestant, European and Jewish culture.
Actually, everyone can play the money game. Look at Dubai, Singapore, Japan.
Orthodox Jews and Conservative Muslims and Chinese guys who don't even speak English are outside driving around in Range Rovers.
Have you ever been to America? Go to new York, 5th and 59th, and see who goes in and out of those stores, and in and out of the big investment banks: a bunch of asians, indian kids, muslim girls in hijab, jews, and white guys.
Everyone plays money here.
We wont fragment, because we agree on that.
In fact, the only reason that the Mexicans come here is to get money.
By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the biggest steel producer in Europe is now an Indian (Mittal Steel), and he just bought out his biggest competition.
Nor only that, but two Muslims sit in the Lord's Chambers in England.
When money is involved, everyone's happy.
It's when there is poverty that systems break down.
All immigrants to the US are thankful to the immigrants that came before. We are simply doing what they did: pursuing and creating wealth. Now sit back, stare at your American made computer, lean back on your American financed seat, and puff on an American made cigarette.
Europeans make me ill. Especially when they start talking about America. It must be horrible to live in an irrelevant country. Do what the rest of the people in the irrelevant countries do: come here.
Europeans make me ill. Especially when they start talking about America. It must be horrible to live in an irrelevant country. Do what the rest of the people in the irrelevant countries do: come here.
Well, good thing you're not prejudiced. Otherwise one may understand you're just a white european hating rascist.
Dubai, Singapore, Japan
They are all relatively rich. So?
The UAE is a set of hereditary dictatorships based solely on mined resources (no development of human resources actually necessary), without oil they will be Yemen again in a generation.
Japan is the most homogenous (~99% ethnic Japanese!) and insular of all industrialized countries, and essentially it does not permit permanent immigration at all. They have made their own way, and are entirely uninfected by political correctness.
Singapore is more interesting - a non-liberal repressive quasi-democracy city state making its money by virtue of lying at a major crossroads of trade routes. It also has a 84% majority chinese population, making it actually less multicultural than the US or most of Europe.
Ali Eteraz: "Europeans are in no position to criticize or 'warn' America."
Uh, er, how about evaluating criticism on its own merit, and not dismissing it because of the origin of the messenger?
Fjordman, you nailed it right on the head. To all those whistling past a graveyard, if 30 million mexicans are such a plus, why wasn't it done the AMERICAN way, you know introduce a bill in congress proposing to bring in 30 million mexican landscapers and bringing it to a vote instead of the democrats colluding with republicans to present us with a fait accompli. Other then Muslim immigrants, it seems to me immigrants from any foreign country that believes it has a legitimate territorial claim to a part of your country are the next worst immigrants to bring in.
Karen, I was with you right up to this: "astlan is not a myth."
Hell yes it's a myth. There was never a country or nation called aztlan, nor an area, nor a people. The borders of this aztlan curiously follow the borders of the old spanish territories, borders that were re-defined following the war between mexico and the united states. Aztlan is just mexican nationalism disguised with a bit of "native" flavour to try and legitimise it.
Archonix-
Myths are what drive a people. If Mexicans believe this land is theirs based on the story of Aztlan, do you really think that logic is going to come into play?
That the Mexicans who do believe in it (and who were recently marching in our streets holding signs saying so) are going to say, oh so sorry, we were mistaken? Here, we're going back to Mexico now?
I think not.
Anonymous infidel said...
Ali Eteraz: "Europeans are in no position to criticize or 'warn' America."
Uh, er, how about evaluating criticism on its own merit, and not dismissing it because of the origin of the messenger?
5/12/2006 4:57 PM
Hey Anonymous Infidel,
You mean, not do what everyone does to me???
"Hey Ali, you're a Muslim, damn you must practice taqiya."
Anyway, I read the criticism: that multiculturalism is getting out of hand. This would be a good criticism coming from people whose multi-culturalism went bad. Unfortunately that was never the case with the Europeans. They never embraced multiculturalism. America is and has been the only multicultural state in the world. It doesn't need lessons for Iranians or Norwegians on multiculturalism. For what it's worth, both of those states can suck my big left toe. I might be critical of a lot of things, but when people criticize the essence of America, I turn into a fundo-patriot and want to start spanking them with a paddle made in the stars and stripes.
Ali Eteraz:
You mean, not do what everyone does to me???
"Hey Ali, you're a Muslim, damn you must practice taqiya."
Hardly a perfect analogy. Accusations of taqiya have got more to do with questioning the motives of a Muslim whose message has already been evaluated on its own merit and found to be rubbish (for example a message that puts Islam into a favorable light it doesn't deserve).
Fjordman,
First time poster, but I’ve read some of your previous stuff and liked it. I discovered GoV about a month ago and have checked in daily ever since. I truly appreciate your concern, but I feel it’s misplaced.
A little about by background—I’m an American, a conservative Republican who lives in a small town in the South. I speak Spanish and work closely with latino immigrants—most of the illegal—daily. (I do not employ them.) I’ve lived in Mexico City and England.
What is called the “illegal immigrant problem” is actually a series of many separate issues. Some are problems and some are not.
Securing the borders is obviously something that should have been done long ago. 2 points on that:
1. The only jihadist caught trying to sneak into the US with explosives that I am aware of was driving from Vancouver to Seattle. In the current round of latino-bashing, no one is pointing this out. Also, no attention is being paid to the fact that Canada regularly grants political asylum to jihadists, thus giving them easy access to the U.S.
2. Shortly after 9-11, a group of muslims was caught sneaking in from Mexico. They were caught when the Mexicans crossing illegally with them approached US Border Patrol agents to point them out, saying “They don’t speak Spanish.” How inclined do you think such people would be to do the same in the current climate of xenophobia?
Here are a few things I have observed personally that don’t fit in well with the current anti-latino sentiments:
1. The latinos I meet are more likely to wear patriotic American trucker hats, etc. than the Americans I meet. Considering that I live in a small town in the South where patriotism has never gone out of style, this is noteworthy. I know one illegal immigrant who doesn’t speak English and spends all day installing carpet. He has an American eagle tattooed on his arm with “USA” under it. The Colombian who runs the tienda next door to my office lost a brother who was murdered on 9-11 while giving a tour of the towers to latino tourists. My neighbor regularly wears baseball hats that say “FDNY” and “NYPD”. He has lately started receiving threatening phone calls from people who identify themselves as klansmen.
2. At the annual Christmas parade, all of the local high school JROTC cadets march. (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps is a high school program that introduces high school students to military service and allows them to enlist at a higher rank than raw recruits.) Lots of those in uniform drilling with decommissioned rifles and serving on the color guard had names like “Gutierrez” and “Ramirez.” Most of their parents are probably illegal immigrants. How many children of illegal immigrants in Europe are serving in the military, much less fighting jihadists in Iraq or Afghanistan?
“Conservative” commentators and politicians aren’t acting conservative. Please consider:
1. I’ve heard Sean Hannity say that illegals should be deported “no matter what the cost.” I’m not used to “conservatives” ending sentences this way.
2. local and state “conservative” politicians are campaigning promising to various things related to immigration. This is completely contrary to the American conservative principle of federalism; my state government has no more business regulating immigration than it has issuing a stamp or declaring war. I don’t want federal officials passing laws regulating my neighborhood’s elementary school, either.
3. “conservatives” like Laura Ingraham are demanding that the federal government “crack down on employers who hire illegals.” None of the contractors, landscapers, or other such entrepreneurs that I know have expressed any enthusiasm for having yet another large federal bureaucracy nosing around in their business.
4. “Cultural conservatives” are simply full of it. Their argument, as near as I can tell, is that we have to make American culture safe for MTV and Fear Factor.
5. National Review (and my homepage is nationreview.com) recently ran a story by a guy comparing latino immigrants here to muslim immigrants in Europe and concluded that latino immigrants here are “aggressive outsiders” to Western civilization. This is absurd. We’re talking about people who speak a romance language and attend church at least as much as Americans.
Frontpagemag is way off base here. Using words like “invasion” is grossly irresponsible, and is indeed as laughable as the loony leftists promoting “Aztlan”. If such territory was actually given back to Mexico—which will never happen—the people there would simply flee farther north. These people want to be in America, not Mexico. Jose is here to get away with the horrible crime of frying chicken down at BoJangles, not to rape and pillage. His kids speak English as well as any American public school students (that is, not very well). They will sell insurance and so forth when they grow up, and their kids will be doctors if they want to be. That’s how America works. Ask the Irish and the Italians.
Latinos are natural allies in the struggle against militant islam. Targeting them as potential jihadists is as absurd as making grandma take off her shoes before getting on the airplane. I expect such zero-tolerance (I call them “zero intelligence”) policies to come from the Left, not the Right.
There, I’ve said my piece. Keep up your important work.
Regards,
charro99
The Adventuress,
I respond in parts:
>>>The issue is not the patriotism (or lack thereof) of Latinos but the sovereignty of our nation.
. . . as I said, the bordersSSSSsss should have been secured long ago. That should happen now. My problem is with other proposals.
>>>That said, I live in a border state, and the massive illegal immigration marches we saw this spring have really opened my eyes. You laugh at the Aztlanistas, but did you know that the Lt. Gov. of California AND the Mayor of Los Angeles are both former Mecha members? (both of whom refuse to disavow their association with this organization, btw. One Mecha chapter leader has openly advocated ethnically cleansing white people from California.)The Mayor of LA also meets regularly with Mexican government officials and seems to think he is the representative of "my people" (La Raza) and NOT the representative of the people of Los Angeles.
. . . with all due respect, I lived briefly in Los Angeles, and because of what I learned about life in CA, that doesn’t surprise me. (The mayor of ‘Frisco recently called for the abolition of the US military, just for example.) I, however, live on the other side of the continent, and have not seen such foolishness anywhere near here. “La Raza” is as absurd as any other race-based group, with the additional absurdity of falsely claiming that latinos are a distinct race. (Go ask Ricky Martin and Sammy Sosa if they have an opinion on that matter.)
>>>Moreover anyone can "prove" their American "patriotism" by wrapping themselves in our flag -- so what? CAIR flies Old Glory at every opportunity possible, but we all know they'd prefer to replace the Stars-and-Stripes with the Shahada.
. . . True enough, but I’d like to see CAIR members’ tattoos. What about the military service I mentioned? The people I’m talking about—the people I know—are not phonies. They believe so strongly in this country that they risked their lives to get here. I know a man who paid $10k to get smuggled in from Colombia. His dad did, too. His dad died during the crossing. My point is that people who risk their lives to get here--whether taking to the seas from Haiti on a raft made of oil drums or paying shady coyotes to lead them through the desert or crossing the Pacific from China locked in a suffocating shipping container—deserve to be taken seriously and treated with dignity and respect. We’re in for a rough century. The world needs more Americans.
>>>Many of the illegal immigrant marchers openly disrespected our flag by flying it upside down, and we all saw WHICH flag they really preferred to fly before they figured out it was bad PR; hint: it wasn't Old Glory.
. . . high school students—and others—often do stupid things. Happens every day. What struck me about the first big march in LA was that zillions of people marched and, as far as I know, no one got arrested and there was no property damage. In an era where the local sports franchise can’t win the championship without looting and arson, I find this impressive.
>>>And what's with rewriting the lyrics of our national anthem to brag "Latinos rule, baby?" and whine about "my people in chains"? Hello? Rewriting our national anthem to turn it into a triumphalist boast about a single ethnic group? How is that "American" behavior?
. . . Obviously, that’s offensive speech. Offensive speech happens every day, too. I’ve also seen Madonna wearing an American flag and nothing else, and what do you think of Green Day, the original Anti-American Idiots? And will you and I be responsible for Eminem’s next album?
>>>Here's what illegal immigration has done to the city where I was born:
http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickabi...fight.back.affl
It was beautiful, once. Now it's a crime and gang-ridden cesspool with the worst public schools in the nation. We Californios have had enough.
. . . I tried to go to the link, but CNN says it’s off the air. If it shows what you say, that doesn’t surprise me.
Let’s secure the bordersssssssSSSSSSSSSSSSssss and then keep our eye on the ball—fighting jihad.
Charro99
Fjordman pointed me to GoV from another blog and I am ecstatic to see his views have matured significantly since his days on his blog, Fjordman. His article is dead on. My stance on this topic is that the US has already reached and blown past the point of no return. We will never get the US back that we knew as children. I'm in my 40s. For the US, in my view, we have two options and both are unpleasant. The first is a Yugoslavia scenario and the second is a Brazil scenario. Or for the movie fans in the crowd, a Blade Runner scenario. For me, Yugoslavia is much more preferable, though probably much more violent than a Brazil. I think people are fooling themselves in thinking that we can oust over 30 million people. We have been led astray by the relentless march leftward in thinking over the last 50 years. This compounded with the greed and self-serving interest of the "neo-right" has us with no voice nor any avenues for legitimate recourse.
This Jaguar person may simply be a caricature, though his words are very much in line with the thinking of nearly all Mexicans. Not Hispanics nor Latinos. They are Mexicans. For commenters still espousing "tolerance" and "anti-racist" burblings, print off his comments and re-read them whenever the urge to spout nonsense like that is becoming to overtake you.
Nice site, Baron and Dymphna
Adventuress, I again respond in parts:
>>>You talk about Hispanics as if they were all one block. I have no "issues" with Colombians or El Salvadorans or Puerto Ricans or Cubans, and most of them appear to have no "issues" with us.
. . . you mean you don’t mind the Colombian I mentioned entering illegally?
>>>It's the Mexicans who are the problem, it's the Mexicans who think they have "unfinished business" with Uncle Sam and more specifically, the Mexican government which is meddling in and threatening our identity as a sovereign democracy. It's the Mexicans who are unbelievably racist and hypocritical, marching around carrying signs reading "Long Live Our Race" while accusing anyone who opposes their political goals of belonging to the Ku Klux Klan.
. . . which Mexicans? Again, not the ones I work with every single business day. You are mistaken to lump the Mexican people in with their government. They hate their government, and rightly so. From Fox down to the cop on the beat in Mexico City, they’re horribly corrupt. The reason the Mexican government is so eager to export their people is because if they didn’t, the corrupt bureaucrats would end up hanging from lamp posts down there. (Whether or not that should happen is a matter best left to Mexicans—as a gringo, I don’t see how a bloody revolution on our southern border is in our national interest, but that’s a topic for another string.) Again, whatever Mexican racial identity you see in CA, I haven’t seen it here. I don’t deny it’s happening in the Golden State, I’m just saying it ain’t happening here.
>>>>You admitted you lived on the East Coast.
. . . I live in the South. Big difference. I would never admit to living on the East Coast, even if it were true. Please, let’s keep this civil. (grin)
>>>You're not at ground zero like we are. You have no clue what I'm talking about.
. . . Oh, there are no illegal Mexican immigrants in the South? Been here lately? As I previously posted, I KNOW lots of illegal Mexican illegal immigrants, as well as plenty of Colombians and Central Americans (not many Puerto Ricans, except for one rock-solid GOP friend of mine, who I met in Mexico City). I work with them every single day. How do I know you have any clue what you’re talking about? Do you have any personal experience to draw on?
>>>>But I agree that the border needs to be secured. Build the fence NOW.
. . . . And provide a viable way for goods and people to move through the fence in a stable, orderly, and efficient manner. Responding to your subsequent post, I am simply stunned that you lump Mexicans in with jihadists and use words like “invasion”. The only appropriate reaction to an invasion is violence. Is that what you are advocating re: the Mexicans?
I have been amazed to see more anti-latino sentiment today than there was anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiment after 9-11. People like you are going after the wrong people. This is a huge distraction, as evidenced by the time it is taking away to real, important work of blogs like this one.
Regards,
Charro99
Ethnocentrist: The West as a whole is now in the deepest crisis it has ever been for centuries. It really is our very survival, certainly as a civilization but perhaps also physically, that is at stake. There is little doubt that we will be facing a world war of some sorts in the very near future. I still believe, or at least hope, that we have enough strength left to save ourselves, but it's getting urgent.
I will repeat what I wrote on another blog to Fjordman...
Fjordman, I remember one of the last things you wrote to me on your blog and that was, there will be casualities with respect to European nations when this is all said and done. I waver back and forth on this issue. Somedays I think so and others I think not. The goal is to save the continent, first and foremost. The countries in greatest jeopardy are France, Sweden, and England in my view. Holland has enough people and is small enough to survive though Snouck is a better judge here. We'll see in 2007 about France and England has enough old English spirit, especially outside the main cities to survive. I honestly do not know about the Swedes. You know better than I about Norway, though from over here, Norway does not seem to be as bad.
Remember, it took half a century to lull people into this self-destructive funk. It takes time to get out of it. Most people are still too complacent in their thinking. When the numbers, our numbers, start to reach critical mass then the events will start occuring quite rapidly. Remember also, the umpteen million of Muslims in Europe are not all young male adult rebels. Most are women and children as well as elderly.
I still think an all out war is avoidable because if we implement "hostile" or anti-immigrant legislation, that will drive many, many away. The remainder can be handled more easily. Where will these immigrants go? Probably the US, Canada, or back home. As I said on GoV, the US is already an apparition of its old self.
I forgot to mention Germany in the list of countries as well, though German resolve is quite strong despite 60 years of guilt induction thanks to long dead Nazis.
Needless to say, the problem is immense, though at the present time, not insurmountable.
Adventuress,
So if it's an invasion, surely we should engage in violence against the invader, right? Or do you favor collaboration? Either your choice of language is overheated, or you don't favor aggressively responding to real invasion. Which is it?
I'm happy to respond head-on. After securing the borders (and it appears you only want to secure one of them, since you still use the singular), those who were ALLOWED in illegally--nudge nudge wink wink--by at least the past four administrations should be required to pay a fine (I like $5k, but we can haggle) and then be allowed to move forward with the same one- to two-decade process other immigrants go through. In the meantime, voting illegally should be a deportable offense.
That's what I think. What do you propose be done with all of the illegal immigrants? What about their kids who entered the country illegally when they were four years old? Eight? Twelve? Specifics, please.
As for the flag, when I lived in England, I had an American flag. Does that mean I hate England? The national pride that the Mexicans I know feel is all about Mexican culture--tequila, music, food, etc. Our patriotism, by way of contrast, is about abstact--but hugely important and treasured--liberties, plus the sturdy institutions we've built to protect them.
Again, I'm sure that there are some Mexican racists (a bizarre concept for a multi-ethnic nation, but racism doesn't have to make sense). What I'm telling you is that that sentiment is not evident in the many people I know. Nor is it evident in the local Spanish-language newspapers I read, nor is it evident on Univision. You're jumping at shadows.
Charro99
Adventuress,
here you can see what my local Spanish-language paper is saying. Scroll down for English.
http://www.lanoticia.com/Edicion%20421/editorial.htm#arriba
Adventuress,
So now I'm "lame" "Dude"? That's really the best you can do?
As for slick and evasive, I notice you ignored my initial points about conservatives not acting conservative.
As for the editorial, it basically says "Please, please don't deport me", then it tells its readers to work hard, be polite, take an interest in their kids, and hope for the best. Doesn't sound like Ted Kennedy stuff to me. Frankly, I don't see how on earth that editorial can scare you.
I went to a double funeral after 9-11 for the parents of my wife's friend. I really don't need to be called an "apologist for Islam" by a California conservative (whatever that is).
I'll conclude for today with this: I notice you have not yet made ANY specific proposals for what to do with the illegal immigrants who have made a home here. All you do is hurl insults.
You know all about how to burn down the outhouse, but you don't seem to have many ideas about how to install modern plumbing.
What do you propose, or are you all bluster and pomp?
Charro99
What do you propose be done with all of the illegal immigrants? What about their kids who entered the country illegally when they were four years old? Eight? Twelve? Specifics, please.
ALL to be sent back. ALL, as in every single one.
Specifics?
-Close the border.
-Change immigration legislation, in the meantime a moratorium is in drastic need.
-Build a wall.
-Severely fine businesses who hire illegals. A fine that is substantial, such as two years of gross revenue for a first offender.
-Consider criminal actions against business owners for hiring practices. I didn't know is not a valid excuse.
-Recind all benefits allotted them, such as health care, schools, driving.
-March the laggards to the border.
You can cry about my harshness and inhumanity later.
And last but certainly not least, vote the traitors out, both Democrats and Republicans
I was thinking more in line with a jail term followed by a public hanging. Or maybe just a hanging. Cheaper that way. We did hang treasonists in the past, didn't we?
I can assure you that if Dubya was dangling from a rope in front of the White House, McCain and everyone else would be singing a different tune.
I know, but I can dream, can't I?
Ethnocentrist,
I was admiring you for at least having the guts to take a position, right up until you fantasized about killing the prez. Sick, treacherous stuff. (Ironically, by calling for violent revolution, you sound like Che Guevarra.)
I'll fight the windmill, I guess: criminally prosecuting someone for crossing a border illegally at the age of four is not just "harsh", it's insane. Four-year-olds lack the mental capacity to understand that such an act is against the law, and even if they did, because they're four, they have to go where their parents go. Your idea of rounding up 35-year-old dentists who were brought across the border when they were four or eight and sending them off to some foreign country they don't know is ludicrous.
Adventuress:
You can call me "slick" if you want to, but anyone reading this string can see that it is you, not I, who have been evasive. You leave many of the questions I posed to you in good faith completely unanswered.
No, I don't see what's so offensive about the editorial. I don't endorse it, and it doesn't reflect all of my opinions on these issues, but it's the kind of thing I've been reading, and it certainly doesn't merit your Henny Penny response. And to clarify things, I AM an apologist for illegal immigration. I think it's an offense that should carry a significant fine, and one that our government should actually try to prevent (which it hasn't done much of during the past couple of decades). But I've seen where these people come from, and if you came from the same place and DIDN'T head north to provide a better life for your family, I'd think less of you. By sneaking across the border, they haven't done anything morally wrong. (Obviously, those who bring in drugs or commit other crimes have and should be prosecuted, but by raising such issues, you're just muddying the waters.)
Blaming me for views I have not expressed ("Apologist for Islam") instead of addressing the ones I have is silly.
About the article you sent: it's from Carrboro. Carrboro is the more left-wing suburb of Chapel Hill, which is saying something. It's the most loony-tune part of North Carolina. In the wake of the French betrayal at the UN prior to the invasion of Iraq, I saw an article in the French press saying "Rural NC Town Calls For Withdrawal From Iraq." I was originally concerned, until I saw that it was just Carrboro. Think Berkely only, well . . . less so.
Am I to conclude that this is typical of life in California?
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
To both Ethno and Adventuress:
Any jihadists reading your stuff will no doubt take great comfort in the fact that you're more interested in going after the people who work out at the chicken farm and aspire to mow the golf course than you are about going after the jihadists who want to kill us all.
The "baby loophole." Great. Now you want to radically re-write the law as to who is and who isn't an American. And since the feds have failed at one of their few real responsibilities (securing the border), you now want the full power of the federal government to come crashing down on employers, regardless of whether they know their employee is illegal or not. Do you favor a national ID card? (By the way, you may notice that "cracking down on employers" who hire illegals hasn't done much for Europe. Idle hands do the devil's work. It's amazing that you want to adopt France's failed policies on these issues.)
I've read this site regularly for the past month. I haven't posted because I haven't had much to say. Along comes this topic which, due to some unique life experiences, I happen to know something about. If you want to ignore my contributions, fine. If you want to disagree, that's fine, too. I've made my points, and hopefully Fjordman will consider them. That's all I can do.
I'll continue to worry about the jihadists while you worry about Speedy Gonzalez, I guess.
Have a nice day.
Charro99
Charro99,
You could have saved yourself a lot of words, because a fraction of one sentence you wrote says it all: " I AM an apologist for illegal immigration."
We've heard everything that goes with that line before, ad infinitum. Yes, it's illegal, but it's not so bad, they have a rough time of it where they are, so why shouldn't they just sneak across the border and help themselves to America's largesse?
Funny thing, I have some trouble making ends meet now and then. Guess I'll move into the big house down the street; the family that owns it is well off, their house has plenty of room, and I could use some.
Aside from ethical issues, you obviously couldn't care less about the United States's laws, traditions, and culture. Because they can't stand up to tens of millions of Mexicans flooding the country each year. As far as you're concerned, the United States should become an extension of Mexico, and abolish itself, for the convenience of the illegals your heart bleeds for.
Has it occurred to you that even if your darling illegals could claim some dubious moral right to turn the United States into Mexico to accommodate their culture, they'd be right back where they started? Mexican culture has created the mess Mexico is today. When I see a bunch of goofballs hanging out all day long in parking lots, smoking and horseplaying, I see the same sight I've seen in plazas of Mexican towns. They've brought Mexico with them.
Charro,
Your bleeding heart leftism wears thin. "Oh the poor children, the children". Well, the children will have to go where their criminal parents go, I'm afraid. That being, back to Mexico.
As for the "dentist who came here when he was four", this simply is an apologia towards criminal behaviour. A criminal act is just that and some do not any statutes of limitation. It is a shame that this lone Mexican dentist in a sea of lawn workers is forced to go back, however why did he not try to correct the wrong after he became a consenting adult in your hypothetical world?
As for jihadists, please. Of course they are a problem, though any jihadist can slip through a porous border. Not to mention, any group of people who brazenly march in foreign flags and colors on the streets of the US after coming here illegally, demanding special rights OR ELSE, then they are jihadists too. They are an invasion force.
Rick Darby,
You could have saved yourself a lot of words, because a fraction of one sentence you wrote says it all: " I AM an apologist for illegal immigration."
I guess I could have saved myself some words as well. Excellent comment.
Ethnocentrist,
You've taken the principled position that all laws should be obeyed, followed, and enforced no matter how stupid. One size fits all. I admit to being less draconian.
0n 9-11, a British businessman waited to get his people evacuated from the WTC. Because of that, he died. A week later, his widow received a letter telling her that now that her situation had changed she needed to leave the country immediately. Score one for Ethnocentrist.
And if we're going to start deporting the children of people who commit crimes, I'd think we'd start with the children of armed robbers before moving down to children of illegal border-crossers. Why don't we arrange an exchange program? Say, five born-in-the-USA crack- or meth-heads for 3 reliable landscapers?
Also, even using your characterization of the Mexicans (". . . demanding special rights . . .", etc.), to equate such people with snuff-flick producing jihadists, people who fly planes into buildings . . . you're definding jihad down. It's a moral-equivalence argument more typical of the Left than the Right.
Rick Darby,
Crossing a border illegally is not the same thing as breaking into someone's home and stealing their stuff. Private property rights are not at issue. There is nothing morally wrong with crossing a border illegally. That doesn't mean it's OK, it just mean it's a regulatory offense. It's the difference between owning an illegal firearm and pointing it at someone.
By the way, when you asked "has it occurred to me . . .", yes, it has. I laughed off the whole silly idea of "Aztlan" way up this string by pointing out that even if this loopy idea were to become a reality, the new immigrants would simply cross over further north. They want to be here, not there.
One last thing--Reagan signed an amnesty bill. Was a he a "bleeding heart leftist?" Just curious for your take on my favorite post-war president.
Charro99
Adventuress,
You are excellent at venting emotions and denouncing disgusting and offensive views that I do not share and have not expressed. You remain silent about many of the points I have raised.
I would point out that it is not I who have staked out a position of complete law-and-order and then daydreamed about hanging lawfully elected officials. It is also not I who have engaged in "facile moral equivalence" such as equating illegal immigrants who march, carry flags, and make demands with jihadists who make the most hideous war crimes their standard operating procedure.
I've tried to lighten the mood, which you have interpreted as being flip. As it has become apparent that you really and truly believe the country is falling apart, I now appreciate why you can't understand how I could possibly make bad jokes. I'll leave you in your "UNIVERSE," as you call it. I'll stay in this one.
On a serious note, I cannot account for your expressed hatred of Mexicans. Just for your 10-14, one of the people who recorded that stupid mistranslation of the national anthem is one of the Puerto Ricans you previously said you had no problem with--as American as you and I.
"On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. When asked if he had any requests, he made two a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side." - W, last night.
These are the kind of Americans we're going to need in the long struggle against militant Islam. I don't know about you, but personally, when it comes to defending freedom, I've got nothing on the likes of Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean. And I could bootstrap myself with the service of my ancestors if I wanted to, too, but I don't want to credit myself with others' service.
None of you have yet addressed my points about how many of the pro-deportation positions being taken are not at all conservative. In a democracy, you are free to take whatever position you want to take on such issues. I simply explained why I don't. You do what you want to do.
Charro99
Karen,
Your comments are reasonable and measured, and I thank you for them. I've been in something of a bar-fight, here. Please allow me to set the record straight.
I don't like MECHa and I don't like La Raza. To the extent that they have joined the "group rights" movement all too prominent in academia, that's bad news. One of my original points was simply that I know lots and lots and lots of illegal Mexican immigrants, and they know little or nothing about such groups, and they certainly don't advocate any of their positions. I can assure you that none of the huge number of illegal Mexican immigrants who attend my church every Sunday are part of any reconquista or Mexican-nationalist or -supremacist organization. Your experiences growing up in Phoenix have led you to different conclusions. The miracle of the internet allows people like us, with very different experiences, to share them.
I also agree that illegal immigrants do not have a right to be here. They do have a right to demonstrate and even demand that they be allowed to stay, just as anyone else has a right to condemn them for it. (The First Amendment covers everyone in the U.S., regardless of whether they are here legally or not. Of course, by drawing attention to themselves, INS is free to round up everyone at the demonstrations and process them for deportation. These are matters of law.)
I do disagree with one of your assertions in particular: the Mexicans I know would certainly regard the murder of an American as a crime, whether it happened here or in Mexico.
My original point--waaaaaaay on up there--was simply that many positions on these issues taken by conservatives are not very conservative. Examples:
1. "Please create another large, cumbersome federal bureaucracy that employers will have to mollify."
2. "Please get the federal government to usurp yet more power from the states by dictating to them who, and under what circumstances, can get a driver license." (This happened last year.)
3. "Deport all illegals no matter what the cost." (We could get marijuana off the streets, too, if we decided we wanted to do it "no matter what the costs".)
4. "The federal government should 'empower local law enforcement.'" (What this means is that, having failed in one of the few things the federal government is actually supposed to do--unlike provide midnight basketball or free false teeth or whatever--the federal government now dumps its failure on local government. There is a local v. federal conflict here: if local cops are tasked with enforcing immigration laws, entire neighborhoods in almost every town will stop cooperating with local police, and criminals will benefit. To put it another way, if Jose is scared that local police will deport him, don't expect him to stick his neck out by calling the police if he thinks somebody down the street may have been involved in an armed robbery or something.
These are all legitimate political opinions, I just disagree with them, and my reasoning is rooted firmly in principles of conservatism and federalism. That was my initial point, before getting sidetracked. (I admit to taking the bait.)
Hillary trims her sails to the prevailing political winds, and Hollywood is made up of bozos who aren't satisfied with vast riches and also seek a reputation for moral puurity (on the cheap). IMHO.
I hope I've clarified my original, narrow point, at least somewhat.
Regards,
Charro99
Adventuress,
Clearly you are a prophet and a seer, a veritable Cassandra who saw things coming that lesser mortals never predicted, a soothsayer who can now see opinions and views others did not even know they had and certainly never expressed. Next you'll tell me that you know all of these things through analysis of the Bible codes or your magic eight ball or whatever.
You're not even arguing with me. You're condemning some guy who "has no love for his country", who is an "enemy" and who "laughed" ar your prophetic vision and thinks our great nation is a "whore."
Since you won't address my arguments, am I to try to satisfy you as to my patriotism? Should I explain how I came to have a WWII Japanese infantry rifle from Okinawa leaning in the corner of my living room? Perhaps I should tell you of my experiences at Normandy on the 50th anniversary of the invasion? How living in other countries has given me an even deeper love for what we have here? You and I both now that such efforts would be pointless.
Everyone willing to fight jihad, in ways big and small, is a valuable resource in the struggle. Fortunately, no one has to pass the Adventuress Test of Ideological Purity. The gay rugby player who helped bash in the cockpit door on Flight 93 with the beverage cart did more than you or I ever will.
But there I go again trying to reason with you. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing: it's not going to work, and it's just going to annoy the pig.
I follow Fjordman´s posts. I have also translated some of his essays into Spanish (¿Cuál es el futuro de Europa?) I will make soon a reference to this one.
I am Spanish and I have mixed feelings on the results of the Mexican migration to the USAm. First, I think that our priority is to stop Islam. But, second, I would like Hispanitas (as from Latinitas) to gain some of the influence it had (but I see many mexicans reject being considered hispanos, the Black Legend). The influence that the anglosaxon empire tried to crush for centuries, not always fairly, Black Legend again (but that is history, and I think moving frontiers is very dangerous).
At this point I want to make a coment on the referece to "Protestan culture" pointing to some similarities of Protestan culture to Islam.
- Insistence on Faith (sola Fide), to the point of fanatism and against Charitas.
- Unitarianism. This is relative. Protestants kept Trinity, but got rid of Saints.
- Fanatical iconoclasm: Hate of images and art.
- Insistence on "The book" (Sola sriptura), to the point of fanaticism and bybliolatry. King James Bible... copy of Koran in heaven.
- Association with political power (Not all reformers, right), national churches. England, a theocracy, with a head of state and national church.
- Predestination.
- Rejection of ascetism
- Des-intermediation, rejection of hierarchy for interpretation.
I can only smile to the annecdote of Renan answering to someone who asked him whether he had become Protestant "I have lost Faith, not Reason".
And, by the way, if Muslims are a dangerous threat today, it is because Protestans (and catholic France, as usual) prevented Spain from crushing the Otomans. Did Potestant countries help the Habsburg to stop the Turks at the Gates of Vienna?
Adventuress,
Having gone away for a couple of days and then come back, I would like to apologize to you for bashing you personally.
Onward.
I oppose amnesty. I support a fine of approx. $10k for illegal aliens who entered the country illegally as adults. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not this is sufficient punishment, but anyone who confuses this with President Carter's blanket get-out-of-jail-free amnesty for draft dodgers shouldn't mind sending me a check for ten thousand dollars.
I oppose unassimilable masses. All of the elementary school kids at the Sunday school class I helped my wife teach last week spoke English just fine, and they were about 50-50 gringo kids and kids of latino illegals. One of the latino kids was wearing a football jersey. I've previously pointed to plenty of examples of how well they are integrating in my hometown.
I need to think long and hard about your proposed 100 million number. I would note that as recently as WWII, the American population was less than 135 million, and now we're up to about 300 million.
I oppose automatic citizenship, but I support an increased intake of naturalized citizens (except from Arab and muslim countries). Those who make it through the one-to-two decade process can vote however they want to, which will, no doubt, annoy me on many occasions.
I also support an influx of skilled people from abroad. I'm not a big petition-signer, but I just signed one calling for the State Dept. to grant refugee status to French Jews, for example. As I have previously posted, the world needs more Americans.
I am curious as to your thoughts regarding the four points I made to Karen a few posts up from this one.
Regards,
Charro99
i'm wondering when the disspointment in the catholic church in latin america, combined with islamic missionary work in those same countries (as well as in our impoverished u.s. locations), is going to be discussed?
if this were just an otm (other than mexican) conversion to the more radical forms of islam the impoverished have access to, we would only be concerned about our national identity.
but there's more to it than that. there is also the promises islam makes to latinos throughout the americas that they already believe catholicism cannot do for them.
so now we have an immigration problem coupled with a religion whose many leaders don't like the west and whose moderates don't speak up.
and just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...it could, if those are the individuals already crossing our borders or in our prison systems.
talk all you want about the value of the immigrant...when people are further and further alienated, by whatever means, and not required to assimilate to any degree, then we have a HUGE problem on our hands.
and that means those who love what the u.s. stands for (freedom, LEGAL and economic mobility, etc.)will have no choice but to fight for it, by whatever means necessary.
This post is racist claptrap. Nothing more than that.
Go back to Anglo-Protestant beliefs? The US has been doing that repeatedly for almost a decade now! Have you been paying attention to what the Bush administration has been doing and the theocracy the US is turning into?
I as a morally soft European don't feel able to comment about the rights and wrongs of Hispanic ladn ownership of the US, however just an observation after reading these posts.
1) From a few thousand miles away, most 2nd generation Mexican Americans appear to share the values all US citizens. Sure they are Bi-Lingual, but they share the values.
2) Evan makes avalid point about the ease of transport meaning that the "Old Country" is no longer more than a few hours flight away. It does hinder assimilation, and is the reason why Islam (or I guess from these posts, Hispanics) is posing a threat, new comers keep reinforcing the "old culture" instead of assimilation or adaptation. Thats the essential difference between other waves of immigration into the US or Europe.
and
3)Not all Hispanics or Muslims want anything more than to live peaceful and prosperous life in the new country. They are asilent majority but you never hear from them.
I've never seen so much ignorant, racist, and uninformed nonsense in all my life!
It is interesting that Dan M describes Noam Chomsky as a degenerate--an elite MIT professor is put into the same ranks as a Michael Moore! Give me a break!
Noam Chomsky be a leftist, may be a socialist, may be a communist bed wetter for all I care, but the evil villains bringing down the US economy and society is not the likes of Noam Chomsky or Edward Said. The statement that "a creature like Edward Said has wreaked more havoc on this country than the illegals" is pretty lame, to be kind. Ask 1,000 people on the street anywhere in the US who Edward Said is and I bet you get no more than 2 who have ever heard of him.
Bill Clinton suckered America into NAFTA. And NAFTA is the reason for the massive influx of illegal Mexican immigrants over the past ten years.
The threat to this country is from its policy makers and the ignorance and disinterest of the general American population. Our policy makers today are a bunch of highly organized, well funded thugs and thieves, stealing and selling off the wealth of this great nation--small businesses and good people with good jobs that pay a living wage--and selling it off to totalitarian slave labor nations like China. I get a bit alarmed when I read the statistics of what is happening to the manufacturing base in this country. Do I like it? No I don't.
The illegal Mexican laborers are here at the pleasure of the US corporate executives who run this country. If they didn't want people illegally crossing our border, they would just as soon kill every last man, woman, and child who tried to cross. Our National Gaurd could torch the whole length of the border every hour of every night if we wanted them too, no problem. But we don't.
Why?
In case you didn't know, the people who run this country are the people who own it.
Of course, you have to be a left-wing wacko to even think such a thing in The New American Century.
The clarity of mind and word in this piece was properly disturbing. Thank you.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.