I never claimed to "accept" it. I claimed it courageous of Bush to come forward with what I feel is a sweeping start toward coming to grips with a sweeping problem.
In disagreement with the central premises of the arguments in you link, it's difficult for me to see how that philosophical outlook is applicable to a systematic approach to a solution involving at least logarithmically increasing millions (which, incidentally I did not see therein either).
(We should thank God we're dealing with predominantly Judeo-Christians here, and not Muslims as in Europe, so that at least our basic morals and values have a common conrnerstone, and that these might ultimately be incorporated into our long term reigning in of this problem.)
I'd yet like W's formula hashed out in Congress a little, in the spirit of what even I might impress upon some members, if my approach here holds up...which I feel so far it's doing fairly well.
Best to You and Your, always.
I am not quite sure what you mean by this paragraph. I understand that you disagree with some of my premises, but you do not argue that difference. Instead you throw out a mathematic concept, which has nothing to do with the ethnic realities, only the dynamic of the problem.
The fact that there is a veritable flood across the Southern border, only makes it more imperative that that flood be stopped. The idea that this is merely a peaceful invasion, does not make it less an invasion. And the fact that the invaders seek jobs, not conscious conquest, does not change either the immediate impact upon our society and its social institutions and customs, nor the long term influence that must surely follow.
Just in the mere tide, there is a clear and immediate problem. Gandhi basically discouraged the British very effectively, without firing a shot, by marshalling great mobs of people. It was a test of the will. And the British basically yielded because to have crushed the vast horde of Hindu followers of Gandhi in their own country, was seen as an act of cruelty, beyond what their (British culture) made acceptable.
But that was in the land, where the swarm were the natives. The swarm over our Southern border is in the land where we are the natives. And it is unconscionable not to stop this swarm. It is not courage to try to negotiate with it, it is a failure to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the peoples involved. Anyone familiar with Mexican culture, understands that it is not American culture, and Mexicans are not Americans. That is not a put down. The need to pretend that we are all alike is the put down for both Mexicans and Americans.
Both nations reflect their lines of descent; their inherited characteristics, reinforced by growing up in the cultures created by people with the same characteristics--the one area where there is a certain amount of environmental determination of cultural traits.
(We should thank God we're dealing with predominantly Judeo-Christians here, and not Muslims as in Europe, so that at least our basic morals and values have a common conrnerstone, and that these might ultimately be incorporated into our long term reigning in of this problem.)
That statement combines a naivete that is staggering. In many ways the Christian Mexican peasant, is probably as far different culturally from our traditional society as is the Algerian Muslim in Paris--in some perhaps further, because the Algerian is predominantly Caucasian, whereas the Mexican mestizo is probably over half descended from the Aztecs or one of their conquered peoples. (And I do not want to sound cruel in pointing it out, but the Aztec leadership were basically slaughtered by the Spanish. These are their peasant class.)
The characteristics of a people are determined by their inherited traits--again admittedly reinforced by the society created by others with those traits. While religious affiliation can influence how people apply those traits, certainly, it is not a determinant of those traits. And the endless tales of corruption in local, State and Federal Governments in Mexico, surely provide some clue as to how significant is the Christian influence on the Mexican mestizo class. They are not steeped in the Christian ethic of George Washington, that "honesty is always the best policy."
Again, I wish the Mexican people well. I do not covet anything that is Mexican. The War in 1846 was over largely empty territory, and I believe that the rights and inheritance of the Mexican landowners, who were there, have been respected. If not, they should be compensated, but I believe they were and are respected; and that there is still consderable property held by families, which are now very much part of the America States, in which their families have dwelt for many generations.
Many of those families did indeed have values congenial to that of the "Anglo" settlers in the East. But that is not what is involved in this invasion by a lower class of persons, whose values are surely reflected in part in the corruption that almost every serious commentary on Mexico has acknowledged.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site