March 30, 2013
Virtual President Bill Whittle takes a question on immigration
at a Virtual Town Hall meeting located not far from the Mexican border.
Posted on 04/04/2013 10:46:16 AM PDT by RonDog
From www.MrVirtualPresident.com:
(Excerpt) Read more at mrvirtualpresident.com ...
IMMIGRATION (Virtual Town Hall meeting - Redlands, CA).
VOTER FRAUD (Virtual State of the Union 2013)
51,406 views
Published on Mar 5, 2013
GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)
604,090 views
Published on Feb 21, 2013
THE VIRTUAL INAUGURAL 2013
60,304 views
Published on Feb 6, 2013
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:rondog/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/mrvirtualpresident/index
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/virtualpresident/index
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/billwhittle/index
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/whittle/index
immigration is fine thank you
You need to be discussing the deportation of the anti-immigration illegal aliens...
Immigration is not fine. We are taking in far too many people and the wrong kinds of people to boot. Ten years of legal immigration has the same net effect as an amnesty.
Bill Whittle knows very little about immigration. He is a useful idiot.
ping
Bill Whittle knows very little about immigration.So, WHO in the media, in your opinion, knows more about immigration?He is a useful idiot.
In the media, Pat Buchanan and Mark Levin know far more about the subject. And I know far more than they do when it comes to immigration.
But you **can** read the transcript of one of Bill's PREVIOUS immigration talks here:
11.7.10 - What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration
I also **love** Mark Levin, and to some extent, like Pat Buchanan......but what specific part(s) of Bill Whittle's current (or previous) videos on immigration do you disagree with?
85% of the people living in America were born here. They are not immigrants but native born citizens. The recently departed Larry Auster put it this way on "We are a nation of immigrants" cliche:
This—the veritable “king” of open-borders clichés—seems at first glance to be an indisputable statement, in the sense that all Americans, even including the American Indians, are either immigrants themselves or descendants of people who came here from other places. Given the above, it would be more accurate to say that we are “a nation of people descended from immigrants.” But such a mundane statement would fail to convey the thrilling idea conjured up by the phrase “nation of immigrants”—the idea that all of us, whether or not we are literally immigrants, are somehow “spiritually” immigrants, in the sense that the immigrant experience defines our character as Americans.
This friendly-sounding, inclusive sentiment—like so many others of its kind—turns out to be profoundly exclusive. For one thing, it implies that anyone who is not an immigrant, or who does not identify with immigration as a key aspect of his own being, is not a “real” American. It also suggests that newly arrived immigrants are more American than people whose ancestors have been here for generations. The public television essayist Richard Rodriguez spelled out these assumptions when he declared, in his enervated, ominous tone: “Those of us who live in this country are not the point of America. The newcomers are the point of America.”
In reality, we are not—even in a figurative sense—a nation of immigrants or even a nation of descendants of immigrants. As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America “a nation of immigrants” is to suggest that America, prior to the late nineteenth century wave of European immigration, was not America. It is to imply that George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant (descended from the original colonists) were not “real” Americans, but that Richard Rodriguez and Julian Simon (descended from 19th and 20th century immigrants) are.
Apart from its politically correct function of diminishing the Americans of the pre-Ellis Island period and their descendants, the “nation of immigrants” motto is meaningless in practical terms. Except for open-borders ideologues, everyone knows we must have some limits on immigration. The statement, “we are a nation of immigrants,” gives us no guidance on what those limits should be. Two hundred thousand immigrants per year? Two million? Why not twenty million—since we’re a nation of immigrants? The slogan also doesn’t tell us, once we have decided on overall numbers, what the criterion of selection shall be among the people who want to come here. Do we choose on the basis of family ties to recent immigrants? Language? Income? Nationality? Race? Victim status? First come first served? The “nation of immigrants” slogan cannot help us choose among these criteria because it doesn’t state any good that is to be achieved by immigration. It simply produces a blind emotional bias in favor of more immigration rather than less, making rational discussion of the issue impossible.
To see the uselessness of the “national of immigrants” formula as a source of political guidance, imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. “Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!”
Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.
It is also blatantly unfair to make the factoid that “we are all descended from immigrants” our sole guide to national policy, when there are so many other important and true facts about America that could also serve as guides. For example, throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian, in race (until the post-1965 immigration) overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn’t those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact that we’re all “descended from immigrants?” But immigrant advocates are incapable of debating such questions, because there is no rational benefit for America that they seek through open immigration. Their aim is not to strengthen and preserve America, but to transform it into something else.
I will respond in another post on some of the other Whittle fallacies. To be continued...
Bill makes things so simple.. and they are really..
I want to stand and clap for him after his screeds..
BUT.. and the big “but” is that would have worked maybe 5(10) years ago..
The COUP D’Tat is complete.. leftist radicals have taken over the federal givernment.. and many States..
AND they will NEVER leave barring Civil War.. upon pain of death...
I have not heard many voices saying this.. almost NONE..
And I can understand...too...
FREEDOM always costs BLOOD... always..
Few are willing to give up their lifestyle to actually commit insurrection..
WORSE........... and the democrats KNOW IT!..
Proof; Boehner FINANCING Barry Obama’s agenda.. ON PURPOSE.. for 5 years so far..
Without the House of Reps MONEY.. Barry would be NAKED... merely a LAZY Chicago thugg..
“First, he starts off by claiming that we are a nation of immigrants. Besides being false, what does that really mean since almost every nation on earth is a nation of immigrants using his logic.....
85% of the people living in America were born here. They are not immigrants but native born citizens. The recently departed Larry Auster put it this way First,
85% of the people living in America were born here. They are not immigrants but native born citizens. The recently departed Larry Auster put it this way.... “
I get SO tired of that lie..’we are a nation of immigrants’ or the bigger lie, “immigrants built this country”. That’s when Sarah Palin lost me, when she started the exact nonsense, “The immigrants, of course, built this country......I think we need to recognize that again, immigrants built this great country. “
Austers article is a great one, I have it on my blog. Plus only 9 of the founding fathers were ‘immigrants’ All the rest were born here!
ONE more time! We are NOT a Nation of Immigrants
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=Auster
Thomas Jefferson saw the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. He was concerned that unrestricted immigration of peoples from lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government might undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers. “Yet,” he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants..... He added, “In proportion to their numbers, they will share legislation with us. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent mass.” “
Legal immigrants the best Americans there are: I provided you some tables in a previous post showing the percentage of legal and illegal immigrants on welfare compared to the native born, their voting preferences, and the fact that we are bringing in over a million legal immigrants a year during a period when 23 million Americans and other legal residents of this country are looking for full-time employment. And to make matters worse, 25% of adult legal immigrants lack even a high school degree. We are importing hundreds of thousands of high school dropouts annually.
Immigrants come here to escape repression in their own countries: The reality is that many immigrants come here and want to create a culture that mirrors the one they left. Many believe in big government, which is why immigrants vote two to one Democrat. It is also why immigrants use welfare disproportionately than native born Americans. Milton Friedman said that, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.
Guest worker programs: Whittle is all in favor of guest worker programs, which don't work and result in depressing US wages. If this country has such a shortage of labor, why aren't wages rising instead of declining? In fact, they have been in a state of decline for over 40 years. I can provide the data.
The latest data show 22.1 million immigrants holding jobs in the U.S. with an estimated 7 million being illegal aliens. By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.
Supports Dreamer Amnesty: Whittle uses an extreme example, which could be handled on a case by case basis. But why should the children of illegal aliens who benefited from an American education and social environment be considered a victim. They are really winners of a lottery. What about the 4 million intending legal immigrants, many of them children, waiting to enter the US for years living in many cases in hellholes, not be given similar consideration? What kind of message does this send to intending immigrants, legal and illegal? Bring your children and they will be able to stay regardless?
We want all the immigrants we can get Really? We already take in more immigrants annually than the rest of the world combined.
The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.
Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in a net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by an additional 130 million to 440 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.9% (2012 estimate,) principally due to immigration.
Bring all those French businesses to the US Yes, we have a kinship based immigration system rather than a merit based one. However, we do have various visas that allow businessmen and investors to come to this country and become part of the social fabric. There are at any one time about 2 million people in this country on temporary work or student visas. There are 900,000 here on student visas.
Immigration is rapidly changing this country demographically. Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2042, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provides a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.
87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.
So Whittle can spout all the politically correct stuff he wants about legal immigrants, but the fact is that it is our legal immigration policy that has done the most harm. Every ten years of legal immigration is the equivalent of an amnesty in terms of its negative impact on this country.
Ping for later
I live in Howard County Maryland which is ~ South West of Baltimore and when I moved here it was solid Republican red but I was noticing in the 1980s and 1990s how NYC was changing dramatically.
Well by the time GWB became POTUS the Housing Boom was started here development after development and by mid Bush the color of the county had changed, it was becoming Balkanized with the legal family based immigration creating lots of self bonding cliques of different nationalities taking over neighborhoods(they are sheep).
2004 was the first national race a Dem Kerry won here,
It is now solid liberal and it doesnt resemble America here anymore (more like parts NYC 15 years earlier) and they go along with never-ending waves of tax increases on themselves and us.
We pay for public buses so the welfare crowd who get section 8 for rent can get around. Back 20 years ago the libs whined how the poor couldnt move here because of lack of services THEY NEED.(it was great then)
And you know those ‘job creating’ businesses who we heard endlessly last year need tax breaks for our good even if it means us getting higher taxes? (didnt sell)
They are the first to sell us out on immigration.
And thanks to Uncle Sam lots more are getting hired and lots more endless housing neighborhoods are being created from open wooded land, in spite of furloughing at the same time.
My advise?
Fight rapid housing expansion in community associations while you still can because eventually you will be outnumbered as we are here,
Thanks again for the ping RD!
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.
