Posted on 11/25/2007 5:58:15 PM PST by Travis McGee
Nope - 3rd place. I got my stats from the US export office... you get yours from The Economist LOL. Exports to China grew 5 times faster than to any other country in recent years.
The illegality is a very obvious and very sufficient basis on which to object to the current invasion.It must be our first order of business.
However, I urge everyone not to be fearful about expressing a concern with an excessively high level of immigration whether it is legal or illegal.
The open borders crowd wants America to have no cultural, religious, ethnic, or linguistic identity. They want it to be like NYC, a muliticultural swirl totally detached from the Norman Rockwell America of our red state childhoods.
Immigration is a matter of national policy (as in every country), and it is regulated in the political process. That policy determines how many newcomers we will accept in a given period and how they will be selected. It is an absolutely fair topic of conversation at all times. The open borders/RINO/neocon crowd has us real conservatives so cowed that some of us feel that it is automatically racist to have any concern over immigration other than illegal immigration. (Actually, they tried to identity even illegal immigration as a racist concern, but, happily, that blew up in their faces.)
We have -- right now -- far too many newly arrived immigrants in the country, most of whom seem likely to stay, regardless of whether they got here legally or illegally (although we must keep up the pressure for the illegal ones to leave).
Right now, I agree with Pat that we need a moratorium on all immigration, although I would make some exceptions for hardships and critical skills. While we are taking a breather to let the country try to assimilate those new arrivals who are to remain, we need to consider our policy toward future legal immigration: How many/from where/selected by what criteria. For example, I would strongly urge that "chain migration" be ended and that economic skills rather than family connections become the major criteria. And, I would want to act strongly to insure that our immigrants comprise a diverse group, not an invasion from a single culture that intends to setup a competing culture within our borders, if not actually break apart our country.
Opposition to illegal immigration is a no-brainer. But an interest and concern with how we regulate our legal immigration is just as legitimate. I urge everyone not to be cowed by the old canards: racist, xenophobe, nativist, bigot, etc. They are slanders from the anti-American left intended to induce such shame in the American people that we are embarrassed to regulate our immigration according to our national interests as almost every other country on earth does.
That comment is really unneccessary! Godforbid anyone voice a dissenting comment against the current administration!
I’ve always loved Pat’s sunny optimism....
You miss the point. Anyone who puts the USA before Israel is called anti-semitic automatically.
America is indeed changing. The question is what kind of change do we want?
Each issue he addresed is very complex. For instance, social security and medicare are time bombs, they will hurt the economy by forcing higher taxes on workers. Add higher energy costs, higher shcoll taxes, higher cost of living expenses and we will need significant income rises to meet this challenge. I suspect the poor will get poorer.
As far as foreign wars and nationalism. Should we intervene or should we wait for a catastrophic incident, say Saddam taking over Suadia Arabia?
At least he is bringing up issues that need to be discussed.
Whether he has all the answers is not clear, but let the debate begin.
Do we want immigrants to assimilate or can we accept a new more hispanic society in America?
Exports to China grew 5 times faster than to any other country in recent years.
Five times faster using what as a base year and on what basis? There is no doubt that trade is increasing, but our trade balance is way out of whack.
that pretty much sums your perspective on history...
Both of you, along with many others have hit the nail on the head! Too many don’t like the message that Pat brings. but by God he has identified the problems our nation faces and unless we come to terms with it...........!
Thank you, Sergei for your interesting take on immigration. I must confess that I am concerned about a friend who married a Chinese woman he met on the Internet. She taught English at the upper level in China. Now that she is here, she is teaching Chinese to American Chinese children.
I take exception only with your “to let the country try to assimilate those new arrivals who are to remain”. Whether they are Korean, Mexican, or Russian, the people must assimilate into our society, adopt our customs to become Americans. The people who do not cannot be assimilated by outside forces, thus we become multi-cultural, which is so destructive.
Assimilation must be made clearly a compulsory condition of becoming a citizen, or of a prolonged stay in the U.S. with rights of any benefit.
Your point is well taken.
>You miss the point. Anyone who put the USA before Israel is called anti-semitic automatically.<
What a ridiculous statement!
I’m sorry, did you have a specific point to refute or are you posting just to post?
That is so true, and yet I feel that we have many "dual citizens" among us -- either as a matter of law or a matter of the heart -- who find it merely convenient and economically advantageous to reside in America, while their hearts belongs to Israel.
It is easy to choose Israel's side against her barbarian enemies. But, otherwise, we are far too sentimental about Israel, IMO. After all, Israel is a substantially socialist country which oriented itself toward the Soviet Union in the early years of its life when America was still struggling to oppose the post-WWII surge of Stalin's expansionism. Later, Israel found it expedient to align itself with America...and why not? The benefits were huge.
Israel is not America's 51st state, however passionately the neocons are attached to it.
And then the boomers didn't have enough kids and the cheap labor had to come from somewhere.
How many little white kids has she squeezed out anyhow? None?--that makes her part of the problem
Well said! Can’t add much to that!
Then the boomers didn't have enough kids and we had to import labor ending the Norman Rockwell America....
"Republicans' defense of President Bush's immigration bill is more enraging than their defense of Harriet Miers. Back then, Bush's conservative base was accused of being sexist for opposing an unqualified woman's nomination to the highest court in the land. Now we're racists for not wanting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens."
"I don't know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like liberals by smearing their opponents as racists. Oh wait, now I remember! Their arguments are as strong as liberals' arguments usually are."
"Apart from abortion, no subject produces so much disingenuousness as America's immigration policy, both legal and illegal. For nearly 50 years, Americans have been intentionally lied to about our immigration laws."
"In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation's demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days."
"With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an "Irish Need Not Apply" sign!)"
"Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries."
"But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback's a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!"
"Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week."
"Most immigrants still come from a handful of countries; Kennedy simply changed which countries those would be. In 2005, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from only 10 countries, none of which had sent a lot of immigrants to America for the country's first 200 years: Mexico (161,445), India (84,681), China (69,967), the Philippines (60,748), Cuba (36,261), Vietnam (32,784), the Dominican Republic (27,504), Korea (26,562), Colombia (25,571) and Ukraine (22,761)."
Yup, but mostly Chicom goods. Why is it bad that most were illegally in the US? Are you joking?
The truth is the boomers didn't have enough kids and cheap labor has to come from somewhere to maintain their standard of living.
Sorry! Should have clarified. 75% were Spanish speakers and 20% were Asians. 5% were blacks, but American cits, for sure.
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.