One of my favorite blog writers, Velociman, looks at the Immigration Reform Bill and sees…well, not much to get worked up about:
I don’t understand the rage, the incredible grassroots frothing at the mouth over this impending immigration “reform” bill. Firstly, no one has read it. Secondly, once they do they won’t understand it. Thirdly, of course, it’s just going to legitimize 12 million illegal aliens, with the merest of bitchslaps at border enforcement.
But isn’t that what we’ve endured for decades? What’s changed? They’re already here. Been here. Framed your house. The fact these scofflaws will get a Z Visa? Maybe that will actually put them into the maw of the fucking system. So maybe we can extract a dime of tax per dollar of welfare we spend. They’re already draining medical, educational, law enforcement, and social services. No one did anything then, and they won’t do it now.
As far as I’m concerned it’s just the status quo ante, with the same criminal politicians pulling the same smoke and mirrors. […] Only now maybe you can refuse to hire someone without a holographic ID card. The Mark of Zee Beest, hombre!
And on a personal note, I’ve never known any of these people bitching about wetbacks to ever club a few, load them in the back of the Silverado, and return them to the land of Feliz Navidad. I know I haven’t. Why I don’t bitch too much. Except when they piss on my car tires at the Hess Mart. Putas!
So, you know, we’ve all turned the blind eye, and if you’re not part of the solution, amigos, you’re part of the underground economy.
I don’t have much to add here (agree, disagree, take a sip of Anejo and nod sagely, my brow furrowed into showy pensiveness)—except to note that I giggled madly at “framed your house.”
Which probably makes me racist—though I think it might just be worth embracing the title, if only for a coupla days, so that I can repeat the line with the requisite abandon usually reserved for those sipping gin gimlets at a Tom Tancredo garden party. You know, just before they all gather under the beautiful Colorado Blue Spruce and savage the Vincente Fox piñata with a tire iron until it spits yummy golden-fried taquitos.
Framed my house, completed my hardscape and landscape and clean my house. What would have I done without them….MMMMM fried taquitos…
Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to buy Mexico? We used to do that, once upon a time. Florida, Louisiana, Gadsden Purchase. Buy it, add the Mexican states to the Union, and kick all the effete racially pure Spaniards out of the Mex government and put in US government efficiency; full employment for all the poor Mex peasants building new roads, condos at the beaches, and vacation homes in the Mex mountains.
Is there a provision in there where the recipients of amnesty are entitled to taxpayer funded legal representation through this new maze?
So, Hewitt’s just being a bed-wetting pantywaist over nothing at all, then?
Whew!
I hope all those legal, naturalized citizens can get a refund from their Immigration Attorneys.
Legal immigration is for suckers.
I thought that was patently obvious since 1986, eLarson… at least the Latin American peasants knew it.
I am not a blue collar worker. However, several members in my extended family are, they are in construction, service, etc. etc. They feel they are getting screwed by business, contractors, and builders who hire illegals off the books to maximize profits.
Of course the Mexicans, as well as Central and even South Americans, will continue to come here because it’s better here than there. Also, they have a higher birth rate so they are bound to come here. The Browning of America is a foregone conclusion.
I am concerned however, and I think this is a legitimate concern, about the RATE of such immigration, especially as translated into terms of illegal aliens. 20 years ago there were 4 million illegals, now there are 12 million, does that mean in 2027 there will be 48 million? To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, pretty soon you’re talking about real people.
That level of immigration, legal or otherwise, retards assimilation, promotes bilingualism, and ultimately will promote minority nationalism, ethnic chauvinism, nativism, and separatism. Diversity and tolerance are fine but there are limits, especially if one actually wants to hold this nation together. A United States of the Balkans would be a disaster.
So, yeah, we have to gain control of our border and we have to limit the levels of immigration into this country so that they can be managed and absorbed. I think that’s obvious. I’d be interested in hearing the counter-argument.
Can you please tell me that this doesn’t demonstrate that you wouldn’t want legal immigration from these places? This rings all Pat Buchanany in my ears…
It’s about time we saw some reasoned debate on the conservative blogs about this issue.
Here’s why illegal immigration is to be encouraged in the United States:
1) The more illegals who cross, the lower inflation will be.
Illegals drive down the costs of employment by depressing wages … and not MY wages, but the wages of other lower-income workers. So, naturally, I don’t care about those wages. After all, it isn’t me getting screwed … it’s the legal immigrants and the immigration lawyers. Who doesn’t want to see friggin lawyers get one up the poopchute?
And let’s get something straight … as soon as this amnesty goes through, there won’t be any more illegals to hire … so there’s gonna be strong demand to import more of them. Once Ted Kennedy and his clan get these newly-legal workers enrolled in their unionx, they’ll price themselves into the middle class – creating yet more incentive for new illegals. The Coyote’s are ecstatic. They realize business is about to FKIN BOOOOOOOM.
I figure by 2010, I’ll be able to refinance my house for 1.5% and thus, be able to employ some of these folks to mow my lawn, clean my house and wash my ass for me.
2) Most of todays’ illegals are … how to put this … not of the suicide-vest variety.
I get exactly what George W. Bush is doing. He’s prepping the country with some good ‘ole Catholic cannon fodder.
Gotta prep, dudes, for the coming Iranian nuke. And do you think Iran is gonna nuke El Paso? No, I don’t think so either. It’s gonna be Seattle, or Boston or New York … home of … you guessed it … all the gay liberals. Once they’re out of the way … well I think we can safely square away the “permanent Democratic minority.”
So, rather than bitch, start looking at the upside. It’s an end to East Coast liberalism and cheap well-cared for lawnage.
What’s not to love?
Major John: What’s your problem? Most immigrants from Central and South America are brown skinned. People in Central and South America who are light skinned are usually heavily European, and have no need to emigrate, because Latin societies are extremely racist. Therefore, the immigrants coming here are usually heavily Amerind in ethnicity. I have no problem with that.
Steve – What’s your problem? Is that any way to address somebody? Good God.
I will not speak for Major John, but for myself. I read the same phrase, and had the same reaction. I doubt that we were the only ones. Surely you can see how that phrase could be used to (inaccurately and inartfully) describe Republican opposition to ILLEGAL immigration.
Just sayin’ …
Steve,
Recently, I pointed out to someone, as I had perceived that he was not actually anti-semitic, that he should probably stop saying “Jew” when he meant “Jewish” if he wished to avoid giving people the wrong impression. I think “Browning of America” falls into the same realm. If you don’t mean it the way it sounds, don’t use it. I had the same reaction to the phrase that Major John did. Similarly, challenging the honorable Major with a “What’s you problem” front may come off a touch more bellicose than intended.
JD: I felt that MJ was playing the PC race card, which pissed me off.
Look up the term. It’s been around for decades. I myself first heard it in the ‘70’s. It simply references the self-evident fact that the Northern European heritage of America is declining, and will continue to decline, in the face of immigration from Latin America, (as well as) Asia, etc.
I have always thought of the term in terms of skin color, but others use the term simply to describe the strongly heterogeneous nature of the future USA. But it’s been around a long time.
Of course, white nationalists and racists and nativists and many people of European ancestry might appropriate the term because they want to keep America “white” (i.e., dominant European). However, that’s not going to happen, as I stated. If I was concerned about the ethnic/racial composition of the US in the future, I would have stated that we should do something about it. But that’s not what I said, now is it? I said it was inevitable, I am only concerned about the negative effects of uncontrolled immmigration.
Of course, one of the negative effects of uncontrolled immigration is that this issue will become a race issue, from “La Raza” all the way to the KKK. Anyone who doesn’t see that coming is fooling themselves.
Patrick: your injunction to not use this particular phrase is really no different than counseling people not to use the words “niggardly”, “tar baby” or “spade” in the presence of African Americans.
That doesn’t mean that I won’t take your advice, just that the point covers ground we’ve been over here.
Davy Crockett awoke and clambered up the north wall of the Alamo, where he joined Col. Travis and Jim Bowie already there. Looking out across the scrub brush he noted several thousand Mexican soldiers. He turned to his companions and uttered the words. ARE WE POURING CONCRETE THIS MORNING.
Construction Joke. I know its predjudical but then so am I.
I’m inclined to agree with Steve. If the phrase, which is certainly evocative, is being used historically and descriptively, I haven’t a problem with it.
Though on the flip side, it is up to Steve to adequately signal his intent. For his part, his first use relied upon what he thought was a shared knowledge of the descriptor’s vintage. And so he was called on it.
Subsequently, he has cleared up his intent, leaving us to believe him or not.
I have no reason not to, so I will not take offense.
Plus, I do like me some good Brown Jokes.
just that the point covers ground we’ve been over here
Since this place is run by an intentionalist and all.
I would quibble with the equivalences you posit, but I sense we don’t actually disagree much and there’s no sense in engaging the that level of navel gazing.
Personally, I don’t really get all worked up over the immigration issue. Anybody that is willing to work as hard as some of these folks are are welcome in my country anytime. That having been said, I do think we have to shut off the spigot and digest for awhile, as Steve suggests. For this reason, I think border enforcement and some kind of fence should probably be our initial focus. If members of foreign cultures receive no reinforcement from the outside, they’ll be assimilated in short order (native language usage would be totally gone by the second generation born here, for example).
Thanks, Jeff. And my apologies for being rude to Major John.
I am not going to be able to escape accusations of racism, or whatever, here or elsewhere, so be it.
I suppose I stress the inevitability of the future because I have in fact often got into discussions with people who are—to my mind—overly concerned about issues of race and ethnicity, and I stress the inevitability of the change to them, further pointing out that attempts to control or roll back the clock on ethnic composition—whether in Europe or in the US—also inevitably leads to genocidal or quasi-genocidal actions that no one can really condone.
On the other hand I do not think that issues of race or ethnicity are INVISIBLE, some people don’t see them, I see them, what can I say.
Patrick: Your second paragraph is exactly where I am at.
I am not sure it will happen like that, however. As I see it, illegal immigration at this point is a major engine of our economy, and has been for decades. Many of the consumer arguments we hear—who will cut my lawn, do you want to pay $3 for an orange, etc.—were old news back in California in the ‘60’s when I first heard them.
I am not interested in deporting anyone who’s already here. I am also not interested in seeing a permanent underclass of illegals doing off the books work and affecting the lower end of our economy just so that upper middle class types can live in high style. I think that is fundamentally unjust, cynical, and a heavy debt that we will be leaving to our children and children’s children to repay.
I doubt it. Anyone who framed my house is long dead. Now the roof…
But regarding Velociman’s point that amnesty isn’t really all that much different from the current policy of turning a blind eye, well, ok, but perhaps that’s not the solution people were hoping to see. And it’s rewarding illegal behavior, which is pretty much guaranteed to elicit more of it.
We should either quit pretending to have any type of immigration policy at all and throw open the borders entirely, or come up with something useful and enforceable.
We’ve absorbed truly huge numbers of (what were considered) non-Europeans before and we’ll do it this time too. But we really do need to stop the flow for now.
We’ve absorbed truly huge numbers of (what were considered) non-Europeans before and we’ll do it this time too.
As with anything, people have to want to change.
I don’t see a lot of eagerness to become–as previous generations have put it–“Americanized”.
I don’t recall the exact magazine or date, but do recall, quite specifically, that one of the news weeklies, (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News) had a cover story entitled “The Browning of America” within the last 10 years.
It is a term that has been used by the most liberal in america. Thus, I don’t think this is a term that is considered “wrong” by even the most PC of the PC Police.
As to the merits, I have to say I agree with the proposition that if all we are really concerned about is the status of the illegals already here, then we should simply do nothing. They knew full well what their status would be when they came. Rewarding their illegal entry simply creates an even greater incentive for more illegals to come here.
The reason people are upset is b/c we know we are being sold a bill of goods. We are going to give legal status to those already here, give lip service to border security/enforcement, and watch as even more illegals come into the country.
I have no problem with increasing legal immigration if congress believes it is needed, nor with simply doing nothing with the current illegals here. What I, and I believe most americans, want is border security / enforcement so that we dramatically slow the flow of illegals.
this whole “living in the shadows” thing is a red herring and straw man. Who cares? What about responsibility for their own actions? What about consequences for what they did? They came here knowing they would “live in the shadows” and more than willing to “live in the shadows.” So, it is not a problem that needs a solution.
The only problem that actually needs a solution is the poor border security that allows millions of illegals to get into the country.
Velociman said:
That would be fine if we didn’t have to keep going through the same or similar processes for the non-stop, continuous flow of special-service-needing illegal immigrants from the Third World country to the south of us that does not want its browner citizens and is only too happy to have them out of the “white man’s country” that Mexico’s gentry percieves it to be.
You and Velociman ought to read VDH’s Mexifornia.
About the enforcement provisions of the bill: let’s just say that I’ll believe it when I see it.
Please take notice that “Browning of America” has been replaced by the phrase “Aztlan of America”.
This has been a political correctness public service announcement.
Or a “PC PSA” as we call it this week.
Oxymoron alert!
Man has the right to leave his native land for various motives-and also the right to return-in order to seek better conditions of life in another country.
Nevertheless, even if emigration is in some aspects an evil, in certain circumstances it is, as the phrase goes, a necessary evil. Everything should be done-and certainly much is being done to this end-to prevent this material evil from causing greater moral harm; indeed every possible effort should be made to ensure that it may bring benefit to the emigrant’s personal, family and social life, both for the country to which he goes and the country which he leaves. In this area much depends on just legislation, in particular with regard to the rights of workers. It is obvious that the question of just legislation enters into the context of the present considerations, especially from the point of view of these rights.
The most important thing is that the person working away from his native land, whether as a permanent emigrant or as a seasonal worker, should not be placed at a disadvantage in comparison with the other workers in that society in the matter of working rights. Emigration in search of work must in no way become an opportunity for financial or social exploitation. As regards the work relationship, the same criteria should be applied to immigrant workers as to all other workers in the society concerned. The value of work should be measured by the same standard and not according to the difference in nationality, religion or race. For even greater reason the situation of constraint in which the emigrant may find himself should not be exploited. All these circumstances should categorically give way, after special qualifications have of course been taken into consideration, to the fundamental value of work, which is bound up with the dignity of the human person. Once more the fundamental principle must be repeated: the hierarchy of values and the profound meaning of work itself require that capital should be at the service of labour and not labour at the service of capital.
Guess my linking abilities aren’t infallible.
In the Eighties, we normalized illgals thru amnesty, less than 10 million of them. Now we’re proposing amnesty for around 12 million. Normalization leads to a replacement underground labor pool. The normalized will mostly live off the dole, and be replaced over the next 10 years by yet another 12-plus million illegals, thereby continuing this miserable process ad infinitum.
George Santayana, please call your office.
There are probably well more than 12 million here now, and due to the downsides pointed out by Hewitt and almost everyone else, this will encourage massive fraud, with new illegal aliens falsely claiming to have been here since last year.
And, it will spur a new wave of illegal immigration which won’t be checked for the same reasons that the past waves haven’t been checked: massive corruption.
And, any “economic” arguments for the current situation are actually simple financial arguments which fail to take into account all of the costs, including those that aren’t directly quantifiable.
jpll,
When did that become a “right” ? Because I missed it in constitutional law class.
At no time in the history of humanity has any one recognized a ‘right’ to invade another nation.
So Steve , where in Canada do you live ?
It has always been that way, my child. But you can just look to when I said it did, if you would like a date. Peace be with you.
Funny how it wasn’t that long ago that Popes put armies in the field to fight against others’ “migrating” into Italy for opportunity.
More interesting is to learn just what it takes to “immigrate” into Vatican City.
So I guess we can safely assume that the Vatican has little or no illegal immigration.
Well, the Swiss Guards weren’t picked because they looked Oh! So cute! in medieval striped pants. There’s a good reson why most people (outside of Napoleon Bonaparte) have left the Swiss alone. They’ll, like16, get all William Tell on you.
I’m just afraid that the southwestern corner of the US will become our very own Quebec.
And aren’t the Canadians having fun with that?
NTTAWWT. I mean, I espeak espanish and all that. I just don’t like the separatism aspect of it, as well as the shadow population and the fact that people who are equally poor (or worse) are waiting in Asia and Africa and can’t get in because so many hispanics cut in line ahead of them.
Oxymoron alert!
Hey, compared to latino governments, our govt is a highly efficient, well-oiled machine. Here we might have to pay fees and stand in line, but there you have to find out by word of mouth whom to bribe and how much, and even then you can’t be sure you will be taken care of.
More businesses would invest in Latin America, but they can’t estimate the “mordida tax” ahead of time. The economic infrastructure is clogged by corruption and Old Money and Old Property owners. Imagine if the whole US consisted of huge plantations owned by an elite few.
The Homestead Act and similar measures is one of the biggest reasons the US prospered and they didn’t: we distributed the land among many, and they gave it to only a few.
Perhaps. But what about the duty to obey the law?
If someone is willing to violate a law as basic as who we allow in, then follows that with forging documents or identity theft, works off the books and in violation of our employment laws, doesn’t it open questions about that person’s basic honesty and willingness to conform to the norms of the society they’ve moved into?
I think Bill Whittle’s latest essay, touching on the game theory aspects of rewarding lawbreakers, is a must-read.
What does it say about a nation that continues to make laws turning more and more people into criminals for things that harm no one, while forgiving the crimes of people who have, frankly, barged in without our permission and committed more crimes to “get by”?
It’s illegal to smoke in public places in this state. If I stepped outside and fired up my grill to cook a couple burgers, I could be slapped with a $100 fine. The governor just announced he’ll simply assent (not sign, but allow to become law) to a new law:
So a fire-grilled burger, a cigarette, and a stripper brushing up against me could net me a couple hundred in fines and six months in jail. But people who break the law every fricking day by ignoring our borders, who either have faked IDs or have stolen someone else’s identity, some of whom run and frequent slave brothels—well, they deserve a special pass and a smile.
Hell, read that story from Minneapolis again. The local police refused to take part in the arrests, because they “don’t enforce immigration policy, period.” For fuck’s sake, there was a slavery ring running in their city, and they declared a hands-off!
This amnesty bill is the death of the rule of law. It’s already sickly; this’ll just put a bullet in its head.
If Iran can systematically deport Afghans, why exactly can we not do the same with our alien population? Is because we can’t, or because we won’t? A deportation process takes time, and nothing more. Imagine if we could deport 70,000 illegals in one month. Multuply that out over several years, and you see that it can be done. What we lack is the will.
All these circumstances should categorically give way, after special qualifications have of course been taken into consideration, to the fundamental value of work, which is bound up with the dignity of the human person. Once more the fundamental principle must be repeated: the hierarchy of values and the profound meaning of work itself require that capital should be at the service of labour and not labour at the service of capital.>
As a Catholic, I can categorically say that while I respect JPII, he had absolutely no idea when it came to things like economics, international law, and the like. I think history shows that marxism is an absolute failure, and that is straight from the communist manifesto.
He is basically stating that nations have no rights, other than to protect emmigrants. How else can you parse this if a nation has no right to enforce its own border?
So there, my child.
Maybe the marxists could worry about how socialism has destroyed Mexico, a country with even more natural resources than america, but still a third world country. the leftists never take responsiblity for all of the atrocious failures their favored policies have wreaked upon the world, such as in Mexico. Maybe if they could get Mexico to drop the socialism and become more capitalistic like america, their people would not need to escape that country.
Steve, I asked for an explanation – and you gave it. All is well then. Thanks.
I despair at us remaining the saftey valve for a corrupt Mexico. The people there deserve better than the nod and wink and nudge toward the border with the US. But I don’t see any real enforcement of the border coming about – Reagan failed, Bush will fail – just what will a Democratic CinC do?
Bah.
that’s probably the only aspect of this I could get riled up about. They’ve spent how long on it? and came up with this? and a lot of congresscritters seem really happy about accomplishing nothing. which I guess isn’t that unusual, but it gets annoying. how’s that troop funding coming along?
I got this in an email today. It’s supposed to be a true interview.
I want some taquitos.
lee: Rings true.
If, say, California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas are ceded to Mexico (never mind the civil war which would ensue), one could expect that the new Mexican territories would take on the characteristics of the Mother Country: totally corrupt police force, color/race discrimination in education, economics, politics, etc.
And just where would the oppressed run to in order to escape such a sad nation-state of affairs? Why, the same place to which the present-day oppressed are running to now.
This is my supposition: if the USA cracks down hard on illegals (on the employers, especially), the putative illegals will have no legitimate place to run. They’d have to stay home and put up with the situation that *is* or attempt to make changes (see the southern US from the mid-fifties to the mid-seventies.)
Change is difficult, and the US government is making things too easy on the racist Mexican government by not allowing change to occur in the country to the south of us.
TW: nuclear69
“When you are stronger than me, I ask for my rights, etc…”
Odd that this logic never seems to do anything to the western psyche beyond a chilling horror.
I advocate annexing Mexico by military force. The resulting insurgency would be far easier to contain than the one in Iraq, and the rewards in wealth and population would be well worth it.
I’ve offered up some thoughts in that vein, but not with the goal of annexing the country. In fact, I observed,
It’s what I said before and after that puts that pull quote in proper perspective. Heh.