Skip to comments.GOP Nativists Tarnish Reagan's 'Shining City'
Posted on 03/15/2004 8:41:52 AM PST by presidio9Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Just what is it about immigration that makes so many conservatives lose their bearings?
Broach the subject, as President Bush did in January with his guest-worker initiative for illegal aliens, and free-market advocates start forgetting principles. (Flexible labor markets? What use are those?) Self-styled realists start fantasizing. (Let's just deport all 10 million of 'em, Elian-style!) And colorblind sensibilities are suspended. (White hegemony, where have you gone?) Suggest that immigration, legal or otherwise, not only is in the American tradition but a net benefit to our economy besides, and watch the editors at National Review and the pseudo-populists at Fox News come unhinged.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
This law is NOT "unenforceable"...we've simply refused to enforce it!! Every employer who hires an employee must either withhold taxes and make payments directly to a Social Security Number or else it must issue 1099's that include a S.S.#...if these are fraudulent, somebody in the IRS knows and can tell the employer, who should fire the employee on the spot (and report him to the immigration authorities).
The self-serving bottom line uber alles types crack me up. This guy is trying to redefine Reagan's "Shining City on a Hill" imagery in the same manner the Statue of Liberty as a symbol has been misappropriated.
Immigration is driven by only two things: race and power. The sole goal of post '65 immigration policies is to physically eliminate the former majority in this country. The main motivations for supporting this policy come down to basically four. The minorities and certain hard-core leftists in this coalition are simply genocidal racists. They seethe with hatred for the majority and a desire to degrade and destroy it that simply cannot be propitiated. They don't care what happens afterwards, the genocidal elimination of "whiteness" is the end goal in itself. They are Nazis and immigration is their Zyklon B. The second are the air-headed idealists who believe that making America into the colony of the world, bringing about "one-worldism in one country" will somehow cause the world to follow suit and usher in some sort of utopia. This, of course, will never happen and countries like China that maintain thier nationalism will simply take over from the decandent and decayed nations that adopt this foolish belief. Thirdly, and this is where most Repulican politicians and public conservatives come in, you have the political collaborators. Most don't really believe that massive third-world immigration is a good thing, but they are afraid to say what they really believe for fear of being called racist and losing their job, position, or status (negative economic motives). Support for immigration is a shield from the charge of racism. Finally there are the (positive) economic collaborators, the Tysons who, like the slave owners of the past, don't care what immigration does to the country as long as their pockets get lined.
Its hard to argue with editorials like this because they are so out of touch with reality and history. In Riley's world there are no humans, only interchangeable work units. Non-white immigrants must alway be spoken of in positive ways (hard-working! strong family values! enrihing! minty breath!) It's not really an argument, it is an exercise in totalitarian political correctness. The only purpose of articles like this is to label anyone who favors any sort of immigration control a Nazi. The author understands that the the victims (whites) are so beaten down (rewarding illegality their ONLY legitimate point) by decades of psychological warfare and propaganda that they dare not argue strenuously out of fear of the leftist bully-boy. I just finished reading A P.O.W.s Story by Larry Guarino, about prisoners in North Vietnam. It mentions episodes where the prisoners were trotted out in front of "visitors" like Wilfred Burchette and Tom Hayden to answer questions knowing full well that wrong answers and attitudes would earn them a beating back in prison. Political correctness is basically the same program. Brainwashing combined with punishment until the victim spits out the correct rote answers.
As I said, this article isn't really an argument, just ritual vituperation and cant. To deal with just a few points in the article:
And California Republicans learned the hard way in the mid-1990s, courtesy of the anti-immigrant Proposition 187
No, it wasn't 187 it was the immigration itself. But we can't say anything negative about the impact of immigrants, can we? So let's turm on the Party and its voters. Bashing them is always safe.
President Reagan -- who used to receive a third of the Latino vote
Ooh, a third! Since landslide starts at 45% this isn't very good. And it brings up the question of why people like Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians favor massive immigration when that immigration, beyond any argument, lessens the chance that their beliefs will be put into action. Why do the country-club business pimps at the WSJ support it when they know that in the long run it will throw the government into the hands of socialists (unless it's just pure short term greed)? When you see grownups advocating positions that are suicidal to their beliefs you are no longer dealing with the world of rational thought but of Pavlovian conditioning.
Seventy-seven million Baby Boomers will start dipping into our pay-as-you-go Social Security system . . .
The greed appeal. Aging populations are an inevitable effect of modern science. Immigrants will also get old and die. The most that could be accomplished by trying to counter this fact with immigration is to push back the inevitable a couple of deacades, thereby generously tossing the now worse problem onto the laps of your children. Not a very noble picture, is it?
Foreigners have always served to enrich our culture, replenish our work force, keep us competitive globally and save us from heading where stagnant, immigrant-averse Europeans and Asians
So many lies in so little space. Foreigners haven't always enriched out culture, that is racial correctness, sometimes they hurt. America grew to economic greatness during the period of immigration restrictions that this individual would label "nativist". Europe isn't immigrant-averse, most European countries have (too) generous immigration policies. I read a Euro piece the other day that mentioned a country which had "only" 6% of its population as foreign born. 6% in a period of a couple of decades isn't "only" it's incredibly high, from a historical perspective (but advocates of mass third-world immigration know or care little about history). It's "only" only in the divorced-from-reality world of totalitarian ideology, in the real world it's incredibly generous. Most Asian countries have had a population explosion over the last few decades, they don't need immigrants, far from it.
This one sentence, right here, is by far the best description of the WSJ's position on immigration.
I read a Euro piece the other day that mentioned a country which had "only" 6% of its population as foreign born. 6% in a period of a couple of decades isn't "only" it's incredibly high, from a historical perspective (but advocates of mass third-world immigration know or care little about history).
Another thing our elites ought to keep in mind is that the allowance of ridiculous levels of immigration is causing a political backlash in Europe. Do you think it's a coincidence that far-right political parties have been making headway as of late?
Don't be modest. Post a link to this when discussing immigration. It certainly advances the debate.
Board members of FAIR actively promote the sterilization of Third World women for the purposes of reducing U.S. immigration prospects. And if anything disturbs the good doctor more than those Latin American hordes crossing the Rio Grande, it's the likelihood that most of them are Catholic, or so he once told a Reuters reporter.
CIS, an equally repugnant FAIR offshoot, is a big fan of China's one-child policy and publishes books advocating looser limits on abortion and wider use of RU-486. CIS considers the Sierra Club, which cites "stabilizing world population" fourth on its 21st century to-do list, as too moderate. And like FAIR, CIS has called for a target U.S. population of 150 million, about half of what it is today.
Well, John Tarton's background is quite interesting. Opened a Planned Parenthood abortion mill, of all things. And how exactly do these groups propose we GET to a population of 150 million?
I also note that there is an attempt by some of these folks to take over the Sierra Club. These folks are bad news, and I, for one, feel quite comfortable with the Wall Street Journal's position on this matter, particularly with this information about Tarton. Particularly the $1.5 million from the Pioneer Fund.
I don't like white supremacists, and eugenics (which was also advocated by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) is just as reprehensible. Quite frankly, if they were involved in starting up these groups, then I want no part of those groups.
Why don't you ask Black Elk?
However, ILLEGAL Immigration is a danger to this Country and must be brought to a halt!! Dubyuh's "Non-Amnesty" Amnesty program doesn't properly address this problem, imho.
I believe it is patently unfair to imply that Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration folks want anything to do with white supremacists, either, my FRiend. We simply need to get our borders under control, and to make it unprofitable to break the immigration laws of this Country. It can be accomplished, if only we demonstrate the Will to do it.
That's my biggest problem with the whole thing...that and what I see as being insufficient attention being given to actually defending our borders against future ILLEGAL entry. I have a major issue with rewarding these "claim-jumpers" while law-abiding foreigners have been trying fer years to gain citizenship the legal and proper way, and they're still out in the cold.
"Look at who folks at FAIR, VDARE, and CIS are making common cause with: radical environmentalists and zero-population growth types."
I disagree with both groups on almost all the issues I can think of, but they are correct if they believe in defending our borders. It sucks their background can be used to discredit the perfectly-defensible position of being Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration, but that doesn't discount the validity of my position.
"Those who oppose the President's plan to deal with this issue and who do not support such things as white supremacy and eugenics need to speak out pretty firmly about this. But that does not seem to be happening. What else can I conclude but that at a minimum, people who appear with these folks don't see a problem with those links?"
Well I, for one, hereby reject White Supremicism and Zero Growth Advocacy...I think America's got plenty of room fer more folks, but they need to access the bounty of this Country in a way that respects the Laws and Customs of this Nation!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.