Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: presidio9
Nativist, eh? White hegemony? Funny how the pejoratives change over the years. Time was that people, the Czechs and Poles for instance, who struggled to preserve their national sovereignty and culture were considered to be heroes, while those who wanted to erase them, Hitler for example, were villains. But now people who want merely to exist are evil and those advocating genocide and the erasure of borders (Jason Riley, for example) are now considered to be respectable. I suppose everything comes back in fashion given enough time.

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.

28 posted on 03/15/2004 11:55:13 AM PST by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jordan8
So many lies in so little space.

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?

29 posted on 03/15/2004 12:06:56 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson