Posted on 05/21/2006 8:52:53 AM PDT by lucysmom
When nations in decline are assaulted from without, even if gently or only rhetorically, they often lose not only the will to defend but the capacity to do so sensibly. They turn upon themselves in fits of self-destruction marked by truncated, simplistic and merely assertive disputation. Illegal immigration, an external pressure, brings forth arguments of this type.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Now, see, they start off calling it "immigration". If someone wants to convince or persuade me on the issue, they should call 'em what they are - illegal intruders, and in some cases, invaders.
Two columns on immigration in two days that make sense from the Washington Post. The end of the world may be near.
The The Washington Post has to reach outside to get a reasonable opinion.
Response: A debate! A discussion! The expression of different points of view! The symptom of an underlying sickness. A healthy People would not be debating or discussing the alien inundation of their nation.
I wish for neither of these outcomes, but I'm almost convinced that it will take a major terrorist event in the United States before the country will be prepared to control its borders. Meantime, it's just political theater.
Presumably he is talking about Mexico.
"...but I'm almost convinced that it will take a major terrorist event in the United States before the country will be prepared to control its borders. Meantime, it's just political theater."'
Once upon a time, in a place called 'America', the knocking down of the tallest building in New York along with the deaths of thousands would have been seen as a "major terrorist event".
Once.
Their position is indemnified not only by stupidity and greed but by the fact that it is impossible to make a simple case for sovereign control of the borders without attracting nativists and xenophobes who pollute the argument with racism, protectionism and statist economics.
Immigration is about race and sheer numbers, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Terrorism, language, legal vs. illegal are all minor points played up to keep from talking about the real issues out of a politically correct fear. The author touches on this reality before contradicting himself: The latter [the left], who have embraced multiculturalism and bilingualism, and who, though they may be little blast furnaces of ostentatious compassion, are in their disdain for America as ruthless as commissars, would be delighted to see it changed any which way as long as it becomes unrecognizable. If you worry about the potential for California and the Southwest to calve like melting glaciers and cleave to Mexico, or vice versa, the left will mock your distress as it once mocked and reviled anticommunism. He acknowledges that from the leftist point of view it's a policy of racial colonialism aimed at cultural destruction but then goes on to call opposition to this cultural genocide "racism" and "xenophobia."
Why allow any immigrants?
Why not allow any who wants to come?
How do we decide how many and which ones?
It should be all about us, the United States- we should allow as many as are a positive for the country. And we should let in those with skills we need.
But it should be those with a "frontier" mentality that make it. No social services or coddling-- you come in and provide for yourself or you are out.
All you had to do is read this far and give up. When you see an author start with such an absurd nonsensical rhetorical framework as this one, you know the rest of the article is going to be just as absurd. Fraudulent assumtpions based on nonsense and hysteria result in nonsensical analysis. This article is a classic example of Garbage in, Garbage out
from the May 19, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0519/p09s02-cods.html
Bush may be losing his base
Conservatives are openly dissenting from policies of Republican leadership.
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - The term "base" is not in William Safire's political dictionary, but he tells me it will be included in the next edition. "Base" refers to that solid core of political supporters who will stick with you through electoral thick and thin as long as you are perceived as advancing their principles. Most often, the term is applied to religious conservatives.
Something seems to have gone off the rails between President Bush and his base, judging by a recent Gallup poll that shows his support among conservatives down from a long-standing 80 percent to a current 50 percent.
Religious conservatives have found the administration and Congress falling short on issues such as same-sex marriage, obscenity, and abortion. They have expressed disappointment that the president has not been more active in seeking a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The issue of the week is immigration. In what he called a compromise proposal in his television speech on Monday night, the president sought to allay the criticism of conservatives by proposing to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops along the Mexican border.
There may be less there than meets the eye. The Guard troops will be mainly in support roles. The arrangement may not last more than a year. And the president, who also has a business base, felt compelled to propose a "guest-worker" (not amnesty, repeat, not amnesty) program.
At the same time, the administration was trying to shift attention to consensus Republican issues such as tax cuts and judicial nominations. But, the dissension within Republican ranks was evident. The $105 billion war-spending bill, passed by the Senate, was called "dead on arrival" by House speaker Dennis Hastert. When Senate majority leader Bill Frist called Gen. Michael Hayden the "ideal man" for CIA Director, Speaker Hastert announced his opposition to having a military man in the job.
Influential conservatives have begun speaking openly of their reservations about the Republican leadership. Dr. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, has said that he might turn critic of the administration unless it does more to deliver on conservative goals.
At this point, the thunder from the right may be in the nature of admonition. But I can recall a time when evangelicals shunned the ballot box. If that were to happen again, it would change the face of American politics.
I just checked out the CIA's website about Mexico's economy, and it reveals that Mexico's per capita income in 2005 was $10,100 compared to Russia-$9,800 or Bulgaria's at $8,100 or Bosnia-$6,500 --- (all quasi European countries).
Brazil's per capita was $8,100 and I don't see Brazilians flooding the US with claims they are starving and have no other choice.
Let's stop making Mexico out like there is mass starvation or no jobs whatsoever.
Mexico's economy did ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in business in 2005, not bad for a country that Bush claims is in such dire straights people must invade the US just to stay alive.
As I told someone else in another thread, my dad had a chemical company and did mucho business with Mexicans in Mexico, and he always marveled how people had the wrong impression of Mexico as this backward country with donkeys and siesta's all day and night.
I urge everyone here to do some investigations on your own about the economy and jobs available in Mexico.
One caveat. There are statistics claiming that 40-percent of Mexico is under the poverty line, but as we all know, in America people under the poverty line have two cars, two TV's, and are fat and happy, so take THAT statistic with a grain of salt.
Happy researching.
I don't think the author is contradicting himself, he is voicing positions of both the extreme right and left.
Mexico's economy did ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in business in 2005, not bad for a country that Bush claims is in such dire straights people must invade the US just to stay alive.
What the numbers cited don't tell you is that the bulk of Mexicans live in rural areas and depend on farming either directly or indirectly. While 4% of GDP is generated from agriculture, 18% of working Mexicans are engaged in farming. The factbook lists "rural to urban migration" as a current issue.
Before NAFTA, Mexico only imported corn when its domestic production fell below domestic needs. Now, thanks to US farm subsidies, US corn is sold in Mexico for up to 30% less than it costs to grow it. Mexican farmers can't compete, are losing their livelihood, migrating to cities where enough new jobs have not been created to pick up the slack. The fackbook also says that in addition to low unemployment, Mexico has an underemployment rate or 25%.
On the other hand, some Mexicans are doing very well. In 2005, 10 of Latin America's 26 billionaires were Mexican.
BTTT
to this should also be added the following: mexico, although poor perhaps by american standards, is not compared to the rest of the world. in fact, mexico has the fifth largest economy in the world. they are a relatively rich nation, sitting atop a mountain of natural resources. too, 80% of the illegal foriegn invaders from that country ... had jobs before they broke into our country to steal our jobs.
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.